Over the past week, time has been spent watching C-Span videos from the 1989-1992 timeframe in which William Barr, Trump’s nominee for Attorney General (AG) appeared. There is no more perfect candidate for AG at this time in history than William Barr. If someone had planned it, they could not have picked someone more perfect. He’s so perfect in fact, it makes the anomalies of Jeff Sessions seem like Sessions was simply a placeholder until William Barr could clear his calendar.
During that timeframe Bush declared a war on crime and announced a package of changes to the criminal justice system. William Barr would have been the AG to implement them but for the fact that Clinton was elected instead of Bush. The observation has been that when a new administration comes into office, the names of the programs are changed, the players are shuffled but the underlying programs are not. They are sold to the public on different points of emphasis but there is no real difference so the changing of the guard doesn’t matter. The programs are still implemented as planned.
William Barr got his masters in Chinese Studies and he went to work for the CIA. Barr joined the Office of Policy Development for the Reagan White House in 1982 reporting to Roger Porter. According to the record posted on the Reagan Library website:
Barr was the Deputy Assistant Director for Legal Policy. His responsibilities included civil rights (fair housing, women’s equality issues, affirmative action, desegregation in education, etc.), crime, and immigration.
There is a video on C-Span where Roger Porter is interviewed about Bush’s criminal justice policy demonstrated by the crime package of legislation. The legislation was very heavily focused on guns and gun violence. The first 5 minutes of the video are spent talking about the major points of the legislation. At 6 minutes, the interviewer gives a list of Porter’s professional work history. The following is a sound clip of the segment giving Porter’s background.
Notably:
• He worked for 3 presidents in economics and policy development
• IBM Professor of Government in Business at Harvard.
• Associate Director of the Utah Local Government Modernization Study.
• He studied Economics, Philosophy & Politics at Oxford
• At the time of the interview, he was working on crime policy
The significance of Roger Porter’s background is that it tells me that he was an executive level Systems Analyst and Systems Designer early in the history of the profession riding the wave of automation in government. One of the differences between government and business as it pertains to systems is the requirement for authorizing legislation that must occur between the vision of a system and the implementation of the system. That’s where the convergence of policy, law and economics occurs. Given William Barr’s background and the fact that he worked for Roger Porter, it seems likely that Barr’s function was to write law authorizing the functions of the system corresponding to the vision.
Where philosophy and economics become important is in the design of a system. If you think of communist central planners and the design of systems for administrative functions, they had no constraints in terms of the roles and procedures they designed. They were totalitarian in nature. “You will do what we tell you to do”. An American systems designer has (or used to have) the additional considerations for constitutional rights, culture and customs. During the George H.W. Bush Administration, they dropped the American constraints and began central planning and designing systems for a totalitarian communist state. The incentives for exchange of values between totalitarian systems and systems for an American capitalist system would be things like money or security (read terrorism).
The U.S.-USSR “Green” Agreement
When I first listened to the video of Roger Porter talking about the crime bill, what I heard was different than what was said. The Interviewer said Grain Agreement but I heard Green Agreement. That was a fortuitous error on my part because I set about trying to find the Agreement. And I did find it although it wasn’t called the green agreement. On the EPA’s website, there is a webpage for the U.S.-USSR Environmental Cooperation Treaty signed on May 23, 1972.
1972 was earlier than my other research would indicated for a treaty on environmental cooperation so I pursued the thread.
On the State Department history website for the 1969-1976 timeframe, these documents were found:
Memorandum from the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs (Kissinger) to President Nixon listing the following categories of cooperation in the bilateral agreement:
The following bilateral agreements should be ready for announcement during the Moscow Visit:
—Space Cooperation Agreement
—Environmental Agreement
—Health Agreement
—Science and Technology Agreement
—Maritime Agreement
—Incidents at Sea Agreement
—Joint Commercial Commission Agreement
- +Agreement Category Detail
Environmental Agreement. The US and USSR agree to establish closer and longer-term cooperation between interested organizations in the environmental field. A new US–USSR Joint Committee on Cooperation in the Field of Environmental Protection is established to approve bilateral measures and programs of cooperation and make recommendations to the two Governments. Each country will designate a principal coordinator—Russell E. Train, Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, will take the lead for the US. It is planned that Train will make a post-Summit trip to Moscow to work out the details of the agreement. (See Tab C)
Health Agreement. The US and USSR undertake to develop and deepen mutual cooperation in the field of medical science and public Health. They agree to do so through the Joint Committee for Health Cooperation which was established by the February 11 exchange of letters between HEW Secretary Elliot Richardson and Soviet Minister of Health Petrovsky. As agreed in that exchange of letters, initial research efforts will be focused on cancer, heart diseases and the environmental Health sciences.
Maritime Agreement. The US and USSR agree to understandings on maritime and related matters which should facilitate an expansion of commerce between the two countries. The understandings include provisions relating to port access, entry and treatment of ships of one country in the ports of the other and equal participation in cargo carriage.
Joint Commercial Commission. The US and USSR agree to establish a Joint Commercial Commission to translate bilateral commercial objectives agreed to during your visit into specific agreements and actions. The Commission would negotiate a bilateral trade agreement, work to resolve outstanding commercial and financial issues and monitor the US-Soviet trade relationship over time. The Secretary of Commerce will chair the US side. (See Tab H)
The Washington Post has an article that includes a copy of the Joint Communiqué from Nixon’s 1972 visit to Moscow. Under the heading of Bilateral Relations is written the following:
Guided by the desire to place U.S.-Soviet relations on a more stable and constructive foundation, and mindful of their responsibilities for maintaining world peace and for facilitating the relaxation of international tension, the two Sides adopted a document entitled: “Basic Principles of Mutual Relations between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,” signed on behalf of the U.S. by President Nixon and on behalf of the U.S.S.R. by General Secretary Brezhnev.
Text of the Basic Principles of Relations Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, May 29, 1972. (The Basic Principles are also posted on the State Department website). There are 12 points in the Principles. The following is an excerpt of the Principles that are exceptionally important:
Moscow, May 29, 1972.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Guided by their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and by a desire to strengthen peaceful relations with each other and to place these relations on the firmest possible basis,
Third. The USA and the USSR have a special responsibility, as do other countries which are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, to do everything in their power so that conflicts or situations will not arise which would serve to increase international tensions. Accordingly, they will seek to promote conditions in which all countries will live in peace and security and will not be subject to outside interference in their internal affairs.
Fourth. The USA and the USSR intend to widen the juridical basis of their mutual relations and to exert the necessary efforts so that bilateral agreements which they have concluded and multilateral treaties and agreements to which they are jointly parties are faithfully implemented.
Sixth. The Parties will continue their efforts to limit armaments on a bilateral as well as on a multilateral basis. They will continue to make special efforts to limit strategic armaments. Whenever possible, they will conclude concrete agreements aimed at achieving these purposes.
The USA and the USSR regard as the ultimate objective of their efforts the achievement of general and complete disarmament and the establishment of an effective system of international security in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Tenth. The USA and the USSR will seek to ensure that their ties and cooperation in all the above-mentioned fields and in any others in their mutual interest are built on a firm and long-term basis. To give a permanent character to these efforts, they will establish in all fields where this is feasible joint commissions or other joint bodies.
On the Nixon Foundation website, there is a transcript of the meeting between Nixon and Brezhnev. Use the zoom controls to go to full screen to read it.
A copy of the text of the toasts of President Nixon and Nikolai V. Podgorny, Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R is published on the UC Santa Barbara Presidency Project website presumably in celebration of their agreement.
There are always surprises when doing researching this kind of information. On my old research, I had a link to a webpage that included information on the origin of the Helsinki Accord and the “baskets” of cooperation. The following is an excerpt from this page:
On August 1, 1975, the leaders of the original 35 participating States gathered in Helsinki and signed the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Also known as the Helsinki Accords, the Final Act is not a treaty, but rather a politically binding agreement consisting of three main sections informally known as “baskets,” adopted on the basis of consensus. This comprehensive Act contains a broad range of measures designed to enhance security and cooperation in the region extending from Vancouver to Vladivostok.
Basket I contains a Declaration of Principles Guiding Relations between participating States, including the all-important Principle VII on human rights and fundamental freedoms. It also includes a section on confidence-building measures and other aspects of security and disarmament aimed at increasing military transparency.
Basket II covers economic, scientific, technological and environmental cooperation, as well as migrant labor, vocational training and the promotion of tourism.
Basket III is devoted to cooperation in humanitarian and other fields: freer movement of people; human contacts, including family reunification and visits; freedom of information, including working conditions for journalists; and cultural and educational exchanges. Principle VII and Basket III together have come to be known as “The Human Dimension.”
Since 1975, the number of countries signing the Helsinki Accords has expanded to 55, reflecting changes such as the breakup of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.
Institutionalization of the Conference in the early 1990s led to its transformation to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, effective January 1995.
The significance of the reference: the region from Vancouver to Vladivostok is that both Vancouver and Vladivostok are in the Pacific region so the Helsinki Accord was not just about Europe and the Atlantic region. Recently I wrote about Gorbachev and Vladivostok in an article titled, Gorbachev’s About Face. That report was part of a series on the establishment of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) organization.
Agreements between governments don’t cease to be operational just because the media and the public forgets about them. Within the bowels of government those agreements live in perpetuity unless changed. In 1994, Al Gore signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Russians concerning cooperation on the Environment. The 1994 agreement supercedes the 1972 agreement. Based on this, it can be assumed that subsequent cooperation agreements in all areas of the Helsinki Accord were also updated to change the reference from the Soviet Union to Russia or perhaps the Commonwealth of Independent States (new name for the Soviet Union). For example, on the University of Oregon website, there is a page showing an agreement titled, Agreement on cooperation in the field of environmental protection among the member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States.
For more background and to provide continuity, a paper was found on the Pace University, Pace Law Faculty Publications titled, Perestroika and Priroda: Environmental Protection in the USSR.
Roger Porter and the Grain Agreement
Getting back to Roger Porter and the Grain Agreement, that was the negotiation that began the trading of real economic assets in exchange for human rights concessions in other countries. Succinctly, they sold our economy out from under us to achieve concessions from the communist countries that they were theoretically obligated under the UN system to implement anyway. They used the international system for grand theft country.
Porter wrote two books:
Presidential Decision Making
U.S.-USSR Grain Agreement
The U.S-USSR Grain Agreement is used as a case study at the Harvard School of Government. The following is the learning objective:
Based in part on The US-USSR Grain Agreement (Roger Porter, Cambridge University Press, 1984), this case is a snapshot of the information-gathering and decision-making processes at the highest level of the United States government.
It’s easy to conclude that it was the beginning of computer systems modeling to determine the economic value of what would be extracted or added from the U.S. economy and to use the output of the model in policy decisions. In the case of the grain agreement, value was added because the farmers were able to sell excess wheat to Russia. Russia’s concession for that agreement was nothing so the Grain Agreement served as a loss leader demonstration of the concept that in the future would that concept would be used to extract real wealth from this country with nothing much for the people of this country.
As time has progressed, the models upon which decision were made, were not accurate which is the problem with models. They can be jerry-rigged to produce any result desired by selection of the variables and the weight given to the variable. That accounts for the disconnect between government information about economy that said it was booming and that we were benefiting from the trade agreements when in fact, we were hemorrhaging economic vitality.
What should be clear by now is the U.S. government has been engaged in Russian collusion since 1972 not by Donald Trump, but by our own government and their independent commissions and councils. The big picture is that the American government has been a puppet government for an international system since 1945 when the U.S. Senate ratified the Act to establish the United Nations: United Nations Participation Act, December 20, 1945.
RELATED READING:
U.S.-Russia Environmental Agreement – Wildlife Without Borders
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Digest of Federal Resource Law of Interest to F&W
Role of the UN in the Development of International Environmental Law
Global Environmental Protection in the 21st Century
NAFTA – Environmental Side Agreement now incorporated into the USMCA Agreement that replaced NAFTA.
National Law Review article on USMCA Trilateral Agreement on Environmental Cooperation
University of Colorado, International Law & Policy, Linda Allen, The North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation…
20 Comments
Peter
So the WWII was won in 1945, so they thought. Not knowing the next move they were conned into was checkmate for them as the gas was lit, and the pot slowly warmed as the frogs enjoyed the ever so gentle boiling.
The big things missing in the Constitution were ‘never to covenant with other nations’, and ‘never to throw in the public purse with other nations’ either; and ‘never to allow anyone as president/king/leader who is not one of the originating American race’ of colonial days.
America has copped a licking, because all these things that should have been in the Constitution have been infringed. They were all part of the biblical statutes and ordinances written to safeguard their otherwise foolish sheepish minds that these days they want none of. So they bear the consequences.
The right to bear arms was signed away by the words ‘general and complete disarmament’, by Nixon in 1972. Does general mean ‘total’? This semi decided by Nixon with Russia, and not neglectful of U.N covenants, treaties and conventions either.
The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child – as I remember, also called for total disarmament of signatory nations. If General does not mean ‘total’ who gets to keep the armaments? Government authorities and killer cops, That’s who. Guillotines include in the armaments. This is a set-up.
Never capitulate as in 1945.
One 80 year old Green Beret Colonel (retired obviously) agrees with me, and nobody else so far, that the wall Trump wants so desperately to build, may end up being used to keep patriotic white Americans in, instead of illegal immigrants out. Nancy Pelosi is Br’er Rabbit saying “Please don’t build it. It’s immoral.” Either that, or maybe she knows it’s true purpose. And the caravans are staged to get the wall moving? The Berlin Wall was built to keep people in. Remember? Not out! But then the Great Wall of China was a different story.
And if an American tries to escape he gets shot in the attempt. Guillotined if not.
A juicy bar-b-cued lamb chop can be laced with 1080 poison for the delighted unwary.
And it is said that a good cop has the mind of a criminal.
Look closely at anything designed to suck you in America.
Maybe it can spit you out too.
Vicky
I agree with you about the Wall and pretty much everything else you wrote.
Peter
Can two walk together unless they be agreed?
Kristin
Peter I disagree with you on the wall deal. I am not a person who holds blind trust for anyone- but I believe the President on this one- just on my own opinion. I am a born skeptic and I always look for the real as opposed to the ostensible goals, but I believe this wall is just that, I also think it’s a power play with Trump against the global/open border Democra- er, Leftists. They’re not Democrats- they’re communists. Call them what they are
The Lefties buy whatever the agenda is selling, no matter how illogical. They fall for buzzwords, hackneyed phrases. They did the same thing in the 50s when they bought idea that McCarthyism was a witch hunt. Now almost all the good people who warned us are dead and everyone else who sneered didn’t read or bother to look up the released files absolving McCarthy that were made available after the 50-year National Security/Secret hold expired. I still read pieces in leftie media mocking the McCarthy “Red Scare”. They know they’re lying, but they still push it in desperate hope we will swallow it. Liars don’t care if the truth is right in front of them, they keep pushing the lies. They bank on the public’s gullibility and our failing public school education and they benefit. California public schools employ illegal aliens as teachers. Do you imagine those teachers may have a bias?
Some things jumped out at me in this piece “disarmament aimed at increasing military transparency” and “… cooperation in humanitarian and other fields: freer movement of people” both UN goals and obviously Communist goals. UN wants open borders and some Americans think it’s dandy.
Peter: ” The big things missing in the Constitution were ‘never to covenant with other nations’ “There’s a passage in the Bible about that, it’s not a Commandment but it’s in there somewhere. I wish it were in our Constitution too, what wise observations you make: and ‘never to throw in the public purse with other nations’ I know Ive read of this by someone, and I thought it was in our Constitution in some manner? I sadly mistake. It sounds very familiar, someone must have written it in a famous bit. Sounds very Franklin-ish.
Vicky thank you for another yet brilliant piece. I anxiously await each of your writings. They’re like bad car accidents, except unlike in real life, where I turn away, with yours one must look. I will not comment on any part of it as there is nothing I can add and nothing to disagree upon.
Vicky
Thank you Kristin. I do think the Wall is to keep people in but I don’t think the President necessarily understands that. It’s taken me a long time to figure this out. Trump is not a political insider and the way the United Nations convergence was planning, it’s a slow rolling merger of systems. It’s being carried out by the foreign policy interests in our government – the State Department, the CIA, the National Security Council (staff), the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, etc.
Peter Holt
Yes you are right that these open border DeMOCKrats are communists. Maybe they think open borders can cool the globe like open windows.
Ireland I believe is entertaining an open border policy. But the big joke is that they are surrounded by sea. Or is it a ploy to swallow up Northern Ireland in to European Union sovereignty following Brexit?
Its (European Union’s) national anthem is Beethoven’s inspired music of ‘Ode To Joy’ written after inspiration from Friedrich Schiller’s poem in German called ‘An Die Freude’ which translated is about ‘a goddess in her shrine’ and the brotherhood of man (all nations). An Die Freude will be the words of the European National Anthem – betting London to a brick – odds on.
Vicky Davis
Ode to Joy… how perfect. Their joy is in destroying Europe.
Peter
Kristin. Nice to read your comments. And honestly I don’t know the truth about the wall. I hope Trump gets his way, and I hope it serves its purpose. I just like to turn things over to scrutinise the possibilities that may be overlooked, sometimes deliberately.
You know the Greeks could not practise ‘quantitative easing’ aka legally print more money to keep paying the bills, like the USA, because the Euro was centralized in Frankfurt German Headquarters, where Greek QE was strictly forbidden. The Greeks were in the unexpected pit that was not made known to them beforehand. They ignorantly embraced the Euro joyfully. The sting was in the grinning tail. And the excuse was not that they ran out of ink to print.
Told, “You should have thought about that before.” The Greeks replied, “Well, its no use you telling us that now.” They said it in Greek – which I can’t speak.
The US, when it runs out of currency, prints more. What will happen when the ink runs out? I suppose they’ll just make more ink, likewise. I hope the raw materials for ink making, hold up, therefore, for the American economy backed by ink. Maybe digital will defeat this, but that will by then be a world monetary system. Just being a bit light hearted here. A little rubbish now and then is relished by the wisest men.
It is said that printing money, steals from the citizens of a government by devaluing the dollar, there being more dollars, each worth less, called inflation. A percentage has been stolen. The worth less balance stays the same. As there are no savings collectively speaking, the practice hopefully, dissolves the debt instead, by adding liquidity to drown in. Work your brain around that one. Designed to befuddle.
Don’t covenant with other nations. Deut. 7:2. Don’t be part of the United Nations, nor globalism relinquishing nationhood.
One of your own race must lead you. Deut 17:15. Barack Obama. Alas, America is Cosmopolitan, too far gone, and aborting its votes way ahead of the ballot age.
Don’t throw in your purse with another. Proverbs 1:14-15. The United States used to pay the UN 50 billion dollars per year ages ago. How much now I don’t want to know. The Federal Reserve Bank 1913 was an outrageous breach of this safeguard. Not Federal at all, but in name only. The American economy on loan charged interest, the public purse no longer American. In Australia, huge sums are borrowed to give to Indonesia, who gets to keep it, while Australia pays back the debt with interest. That’s complete madness and economic suicide.
The Titanic said to be unsinkable, was built to be sunk on its first voyage to get rid of wealthy opponents of the 1913 Federal Reserve Bank treachery, tantamount to treason.
Nothing is what it seems. Therefore the alternative has to be considered.
Peter
Correction. One sentence above should read: —
What will happen when the ink runs out so they can’t print more money to buy more ink to print more money?
Vicky
The way international system has been built is with interconnected debt. I just saw a piece of legislation authorizing $60 billion for economic development in the Indo-Pacific. The target countries will be very happy to take that money. In an article I read on the same subject, it said “we” have (I think the number was) $7 trillion dollars of investment in that region. That’s debt for the region.
They’ve built a system that is a deadly embrace. If we go down, they go down just like dominoes.
I don’t believe the world can go back to a commodity based system of backed currency because of intellectual property and virtual value but if it does, the U.S. will do ok because this country has a lot of natural resources. It would be the countries that are not well endowed that would have problems.
Kristin
Peter- Before I go back to read your second comment/response, let me make one correction to an error you had in first comment- & a rather large error on MY part as well (I should know this…) You (Peter) wrote:
“The big things missing in the Constitution were ‘never to covenant with other nations’, and ‘never to throw in the public purse with other nations’ either” this is not correct.
US Constitution Art. 1: 10: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay…”
What a wondrous document. I should be studying it and memorizing it for bettering myself.
Peter, I am not sure if you’re American or not? if not, or even if you are – if you want to study the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and our duties as American citizens a dramatized version of Alexis De Toqueville’s “Democracy in America” is in an episodic series, beautifully done- I mean it- just fascinating, for children and adults alike- I in all seriousness learned more concerning our history and laws and Constitution from this dramatized radio show (it is an “old time radio” serial) than I ever learned in US public school education system. Vicky, do you mind if I post this link: https://archive.org/details/OTRR_Democracy_In_America_Singles They are single half hour episodes. Like the tv commercials go “Listen in your car! Or, in the privacy of your own home! Share it with your children!” and, instead of it being available for the low low price of $19.99 – it’s free. Archive.org is just a treasure trove of good stuff like this. It’s very well acted and boy oh boy was America SO DIFFERENT then.
I want to read your second comment but I will have to do that later- I am pressed for time. I wanted to post this correction before anything- shouldve done it sooner.
Vicky
Thank you for posting it Kristin. I’ll try to listen as I have time.
Kristin
Hi Vicky- don’t listen “when you have time”, just play it and listen as you drive, or do housework or even your research. I don’t have time to sit and watch TV, or be entertained, I make a playlist of audio files I wish to listen to on Windows Media Player – then when I lie down to sleep I put on my earbuds and hit play all. I often have to replay the same programs as I end up falling asleep and missing much of my content while I’m unconscious.
Peter
Kristin. All the Constitution has done there in Art.1:10 is, it has passed the baton of responsibility on to the Congress.
The Congress alone decides whether to enter into treaties, conventions, compacts, conventions or covenants with other nations.
The Congress does not have the will of the people at heart. The Constitution must have at some stage. But in this matter it trusted the Congress, because if elected by the people it must be eager to represent those people, and did probably start out to be.
But the Constitution did not foresee that the Congress would one day be at the mercy of a kind of silent government called the mafia. That being so the Constitution is left wanting from the start. It only could stand firm and not waver.
The mistress of LBJ – a Mrs Brown – of 21 years, before she broke the relationship after going to confession and meaning to put things right once and for all stated the following: –
“A lot of people don’t know this, but the mafia are a kind of silent government.”
That makes the US a good Marionette to the one Organization the mafia respect.
Peter
Previously posted wrong draft.
Kristin. All the Constitution has done there in Art.1:10 is, it has passed the baton of responsibility on to the consent of the Congress.
The Congress alone decides whether to enter into treaties, conventions, compacts, conventions or covenants with other nations. It no longer is restricted by the Constitution.
Article 1:10 might as well not be in the Constitution which self gelded in this regard.
The Congress does not have the will of the people at heart. The Constitution must have at some stage. But in this matter it trusted the Congress, because if elected by the people you would think the Congress must be eager to represent the will of those people. And it probably did start out to be. Bad slip up. Too trusting.
But the Constitution did not foresee that the Congress would one day be at the mercy of a kind of silent government running the mafia. That being so the Constitution is left wanting from the start. It only, could stand firm and not waver. You only vote for who gets to collect the remuneration.
The mistress of LBJ – a Mrs Brown – of 21 years, before she broke the relationship after going to confession and meaning to put things right once and for all, stated the following:
“A lot of people don’t know this, but the mafia are a kind of silent government.”
That makes the US a good Marionette to the one Organization the mafia respect that utilizes the mafia to rough things up. They are then forgiven of course for everything they were sent out to do – they were obedient. They may be harkened to, but never crossed.
Anne
This comment does not pertain to the article nor to the discussion above but I have some information that you, Vicky and even Kistin might be interested . What do you know about Ripple , which is a digital business . Ripple has a representative on the Federal Reserve Fast Track Payment Advisory Board named Ryan Zagone , he is also a member of Better Than Cash Alliance . Ripple also has a representative named Chris Lawsen on IMF Advisory Board … I am sure both of you have heard of Financial Technology – Obama supported and so does this present administration ..
Here is a video of GOP McHenry at the Lindet Conference – McHenry states ..”Look at the way technology is fundamentally changing lives and places like Kenya. Think of this. In Kenya, the phone, your smartphone, our smartphone is that way to financial inclusion in Kenya. The “movement of money cheaper” in Kenya than it is here because of this simple device. It’s more powerful in that jurisdiction than in ours because of regulation and forward-looking regulation. And instead of loading buses filled with luggage that’s filled with cash in moving money in Kenya, they’re now doing it through a fast transfer over their mobile device. They’ve moved generations ahead overnight. And in fact, in many ways, they’re leading the world in Fintech deployment. So, we’re living in a new and exciting era in financial services. It’s actually matched the best interest of consumer protection with the demands of global smartphone-led revolution that we, as consumers, are driving. Now, that’s what’s happening in the real world.”. https://youtu.be/fzcNBrgvbjA
With Fintech Leader On Trump’s Transition Team, Alternative Lenders Could Benefit
https://www.cardeqgroup.com/blog/2016/11/with-fintech-leader-on-trumps-transition-team-alternative-lenders-could-benefit/
Dec. 6th article was published concerning the United States – https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/06/bipartisan-lawmakers-seek-cryptocurrency-rules-to-keep-us-competitive-.html
Here are the links to two bills – H R 922: Bill to promote fair and transparent virtual currency markets – https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/922?s=1&fbclid=IwAR2p2I8OE5G5teajH5DMZzMHJnOFSj3PDXMlECr8fGswIRxYcZ2CG4vU7Qc
HR 923 – To promote United States competitiveness in the evolving global virtual currency marketplace. – https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/923?fbclid=IwAR24dsSXw4lIm-dMOlEevdp5wUuIQTFu-SpbUuZ98rmBLSAjkwnBC6–hQk
Lagarde/ IMF “More fundamentally, the case is about change—being open to change, embracing change, shaping change.
Technology will change, and so must we. Lest we remain the last leaf on a dead branch, the others having decided to fly with the wind.” – Christine Lagarde
https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2018/11/13/sp111418-winds-of-change-the-case-for-new-digital-currency
Here is a document from Chatham House – https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/field/field_document/0212gt_schenk1.pdf
More information – Friday articles were published on the subject of what the European Union has created – Skirting U.S. sanctions, Europeans open new trade channel to Iran https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-usa-sanctions-eu/skirting-u-s-sanctions-europeans-open-new-trade-channel-to-iran-idUSKCN1PP0K3?fbclid=IwAR1gYWkjeFmvlM4nkAItGOhx3WvB1VGsCQX5j80rA_USqOrAM_6_odXjHVA China , Russia , and UK ,besides the European Union . This will help move into digital currency …
Iran Launches Gold-backed Cryptocurrency as Anticipation for Crypto-Rial Grows to Evade US Sanctions -https://www.ccn.com/iran-launches-gold-backed-cryptocurrency-as-anticipation-for-crypto-rial-grows-to-evade-us-sanctions/?fbclid=IwAR1oI-vhjptPau47vEI7qIIv-pmwknASCcXe5_tLt23sI5Hf-E5jHYBXgqY
In closing – In order to create a world government what is one of the major steps ? Maybe a a one world currency ?
Peter
Was thant song at the end the American National Anthem?
Vicky
The idea of the United Nations was to put an end to war. The U.S. has been at war ever since – serving the interests of the United Nations and the permanent members. That’s the significance of the military component under the Security Council. The U.S. has been the puppet of the Security Council. The song is just association.
Peter
There is a get out clause in the Constitution Article 1:10 that was supplied by Kristin.
So my contention is that the United States should have had written in the Constitution, that the nation is forbidden to covenant, compact, treaty, convene (convention) with, or crusade against other nations full stop. That would have prevented (and protected) the U.S. from being a member of the United Nations in the first place, and from crusading for Vatican advancement into dictatorship of the NWO.
The pertinent words in the Constitution Article 1:10 are these: –
‘No state shall, . . . . . . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, . . . . ‘
The get out clause, taking it out of the hands of the Constitution, is this: –
‘ . . . . . . without the consent of Congress, . . . . . ‘
This means that the Constitution is limp in the hands of the Congress, instead of the other way round, because the Congress needs no recourse to the Constitution at all in the matter. The Constitution concedes to it. Those bits pertinently ‘cherry picked’ above were written delibly (removably) into the Constitution, not locked into it, to enable easy ‘gelding’ of the Constitution in this matter
Now, the elected Representative of an electoral region of electors, is supposed to covenant with, and represent those people. But instead he/she toes the Party line, and the Party toes the UN line. That leaves the Congress representing the UN, and not representing the shaMOCKracy it is supposed to represent. That makes the Congress a Marionette string controlled puppet of the UN with its International laws, compacts, covenants, treaties, conventions, shackles, wires, strings, chains, crusades and fundings, that laden the Congress leaving it representing sovereign foreigners instead of its own sovereign electorate.
The UN (the member nations combined) created a covenant, addressing ‘war etiquette’. The US did not have to sign this but presumably it did. It is doublespeak for ‘war crimes’, as ‘family planning’ doubles for State and parental, prenatal genocide of the vulnerable, finding themselves in the most dangerous place to be that should be the safest place to be. More doublespeak.
In fact, not ‘presumably’. By deduction, it did sign the notion of war etiquette. I know because the Rome International Criminal Court was created above the level of the UN to try disputes and decide on war crimes claimed to have infringed the UN Covenant that Bill Clinton did not hesitate to sign, thereby sucking other nations in. George Bush refused to ratify it, to protect US service personnel from being dragged into it for alleged war crimes in a court where they are guilty till proven innocent, the Euro and Roman Court way of justice. They had to be protected because the UN war etiquette covenant if having been ratified, left them exposed to war atrocities that might be deemed efficacious in the quest to the NWO. Otherwise even military personnel with an impeccable record must be handed over to the UN and Rome Court on demand, without hesitation and even if known to be innocent.
This in fact left US war service personnel exempt from war crimes they may or may not have committed, and without worry. The Rome court indicts war crimes involving UN covenants. It decides. It has the final say. It brings down the ruling. That makes it above the UN in the NWO hierarchy. The UN cannot over-rule it. There is no higher court of appeal. Rome rules. The ICC was conceived in Rome.
It makes sense really because Rome is the great city sitting on seven hills, identified as reigning over the kings and leaders of the earth. Revelation 17:9,18 KJV. The leaders and kings of the nations are called the weaker ‘shades’. Isaiah 14:9 RSV. These weaker shades are secondary powers in the shadow of Rome’s (Vatican) illumined light. Rome identified here, is therefore the ‘King of Babylon and wicked, sceptre of rulers’. Isaiah 14:4-5 RSV. Shadow governments are puppet governments, properly called Marionettes. And ‘Mary’ is peculiarly a devotion of the Vatican, making it the Marionettist stringpuller, and sceptre of rulers, king of kings. Columbia is the very convenient pseudonym masquerading for Mary, in Washington D. Columbia. Washington D.C and the Pentagon, were sliced out of the States of Maryland and Virginia, becoming appropriate as a cover for what is too obviously Virgin Mary Land, just another Marionette in the control of the Marionettist stringpuller, the Vatican, personified as Mary, and also the Virgin Daughter of Babylon Isaiah 47:1, aka Lucifer (cast down to the dust like a serpent without a throne when the time comes) into whose merciless hands a former God fearing nation – but no longer – will be delivered for chastisement. Isaiah 47:6.
This is where the US is headed and why it should not have covenanted with other nations.
Used first for its military might crusading till weakened, then betrayed.
This summit or apex authority, and sceptre of rulers over the ‘shades’ has no secret hidden from it, Ezekiel 28:3 RSV, so is above all secret societies including Skull and Bones and intelligence agencies, as well as secretive confidential confessions of kings and simple folk. They know the world chessboard and are pressing for Checkmate. Newly elected and inaugurated Presidents, since 1933, go to the Vatican personally, so as no phone tapping ensues, for the so called ‘Papal Blessing’ which is political cherub dung from a caribou, because he goes there to be schooled about who is really in charge, and special instructions. He is briefed about what is expected of him, and comes back a different and enlightened man about ‘real’ world objectives.
The President comes home a different man – with strings attached. Nobody can figure out why! So the so-called Papal Blessing sounds fine to the mesmerized masses. But in a protestant country? The one world religion goes with the NWO.
President Bush kept the US military exempt from UN war etiquette covenanted with the UN when ratified by the US, by refusing to ratify the Rome ICC.
The US is thereby exempt from facing trial as schemed for all other member nations that ratified the UN covenant along with the US they knew to have signed it. But the US pulled out late when others were ratifying, making it ‘yeller’ and Chicken!!! The other fools went over the cliff.
This left only the US exempt and protected from being tried for war crimes breaching war etiquette. This also. left the US free to commit war atrocities denounced by UN covenants, because they cannot be held to account, being the sword in the unseen hand of Rome. Crusaders for Lucifer, Latin for the Virgin Mary aka Star of the East (O Lucifer Oriens – The Many Titles of Mary) who is drag queen by ‘right of conquest’. But with whose superpower military might? The exempt one!
Karl Marx pointed out the Vatican has no armies. But it does wield them as a ‘sword in its hand’ as Commander-in-Chief. The Virgin Mary is dead, but brought to life as now ‘Assumed’ to be ascended to heaven above the clouds as Co-Redemptrix, making herself equal to the Most High, Isaiah 14:14, is the Vatican dogma or doctrine of ‘The Assumption’ celebrated in common with (Isaiah 14:12) Lucifer’s Feast Day on 15th August each year. She is Queen by ‘right of conquest’ (Crown of Twelve Stars – flag of European Union too) is the claim she spoke in vision to a Marian priest on December the 8th, 1998? which is the Feast Day of the Immaculate Conception which dogma or doctrine coincides with Ezekiel 28:15. Said to be alive and ruling from on high and speaking.
So Paul Warburg was right to say the NWO would come to be, whether ‘by consent’, or by ‘conquest’. Conquest it will be in the end. Political consent means will fail.
And political means is by UN Covenants. Don’t covenant with them. Too late, I know.
U.S. might should be for U.S. defence only.
All this is quite diabolical, because the US crusades for the plotting Vatican NWO goal. Only the world’s foremost superpower can ensure best chance of success to establish the NWO. So it does. But no ‘chance’ victory is guaranteed. Proverbs 21:31.
[Vietnam: Why Did We Go. Avro Manhattan – World’s most forbidden author.]
The fact that the US decided to call one of its missiles the Crusader Missile says everything, it is very in ya’ face, yet remains ‘hidden in plain sight’, because nobody dares to imagine that it’s for real.
Vicky
The Congress could vote us out of the United Nations in its entirety anytime they want. I think there is six months notice required or something like that. Our problem is that our congress sold out our country in 1945 when the United Nations was created and there hasn’t been the will or the courage to lead an effort to get out since. The fall back should have been the 10th amendment but I just looked at it and it appears that it’s been bastardized over time. But honestly, I think I states are gone too. I’ve been working on a new article while watching the National Governor’s Association winter meeting. As I listened to Jaime Dimond of Morgan Stanley, I wondered, what the hell good are the governors at this point? What do they do for us other than to take junkets to foreign countries to beg for foreign direct investment promising them land in the U.S. for a charter city for international commerce. With friends like that, we don’t need enemies. We have enough.