Global currency around the corner? ~ By Henry Lamb

Before you read Henry's column about a coming global currency, it's educational movie time. Please be sure to watch both videos:

John Maynard Keynes and Economic Fascism (by MDJarv )

From the description for this video:

To quote something Keynes said back in 1920:

"There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."

What is stated above is both an incredibly alarming and important statement from a very dangerous psychopath, as it highlights the elite agenda almost perfectly. This agenda entails the destruction of national currencies to usher in a totalitarian police state and a completely managed global economy, with a one world currency and central bank (something Keynes was advocating back in the 1920s and 30s).

Video provided by rozovo

The World Bank (WB) & The International Monetary Fund (IMF)

Video provided by Darganot

Some of the readers that come to this space on occasion have probably noticed that I have posted many of Henry Lamb's columns here. Many of his columns discuss global governance, and the loss of the sovereignty of the United States. This column explains something very important about the desire to have a one world government. The goal is something that people have been working toward for nearly a hundred years, if not longer. It has been an incremental process, orchestrated by small groups of elites in positions of power, many that have been involved in banking and government. And I am sure that many people still take this lightly, as if they don't believe it will or can ever happen.

It is my feeling that what is taking place since Obama became President is a signal to us that their goal is closer than ever. It is like they are now down to the one yard line, and another financial crisis could punch the ball over the goal line. New World Order, here we come (kicking and screaming). Just sayin'...

Those who advocate global governance have changed their tactics, but not their goal. They have made great strides through a variety of treaties, and particularly through the implementation of Agenda 21 and the concept of sustainable development. The erosion of freedom that is inevitable under any system of global governance has been painted green, packaged in a bundle labeled "social justice" and sold to a generation of Americans eager to make the world a better place.

The global currency proposed by the IMF is just the latest step toward that ultimate utopian vision pursued for so long by so many. The freedom that powered America's rise to greatness cannot exist in a system of global governance. Individual freedom, granted by the Creator and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution is at best diminished by global governance, and at worst completely denied.

Global governance in any form must be rejected.

By Henry Lamb

Posted: August 21, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

If the International Monetary Fund gets its way, the U.S. dollar will be replaced by the "bancor" as the world's reserve currency. According to a report published April 13, the IMF would like to adopt a plan of action that would expand the use of SDRs (Special Drawing Rights) to replace the U.S. dollar as the storehouse of value and eventually create a global currency called the "bancor."

"Bancor" is the name suggested by John Maynard Keynes, the British economist who headed the World Banking Commission that created the IMF during the Breton Woods negotiations, which preceded the United Nations.

The new global currency would be issued by a new global central bank that would have the authority to levy taxes for various infractions. The bank would have to be, according to the report writers, "accountable to member nations, but remain independent." This statement sounds much like the defenders of the Federal Reserve, which was created by Congress and is supposed to be accountable to Congress, but refuses to allow Congress to audit its activities or even to answer congressional questions about to whom it lends U.S. dollars.

A global central bank has long been a goal of those who advocate global governance. America's school system has failed to teach students about the century-long conflict between those who want a global governing authority and those who do not. Schools barely teach that Woodrow Wilson and his colleagues created the League of Nations, or why this institution failed. Schools never explain that many of the same people who promoted the League of Nations continued their efforts through non-government organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations until Franklin Roosevelt was elected president.

Schools do credit Roosevelt with helping to create the United Nations, but they never explain that Roosevelt brought into his administration dozens of people from the Council on Foreign Relations to draft his "New Deal," as well as plans for the United Nations.

Schools do not teach that President Kennedy planned to turn over U.S. military power to the United Nations to give the emerging global government the power to enforce its policies. People who refuse to accept this statement are encouraged to read "Freedom from War: the United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World," Department of State Publication 7277, released September 1961.

The people who believe the world should be governed by a global authority have been working toward this goal for more than a century. They are relentless; they are driven; they are convinced that they know best how people should live. They believe that all nations and all societies should be controlled by an elite, benevolent intelligentsia that can ensure social justice by enforcing what has now become known as sustainable development. These people are closer to achieving their goal than at any previous time in history.

Woodrow Wilson assumed his political power would be sufficient to impose the League of Nations. He underestimated the determination of freedom-lovers such as Henry Cabot Lodge and other senators who refused to ratify the treaty that created the League. Roosevelt assumed that the devastation of World War II would be sufficient to usher in the era of world government under the authority of the United Nations – and he was right, until political reality crushed his utopian socialist dream of a global community.

Listen to this column online.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

The end of the Democratic Party ~ By Joseph Farah

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Joseph Farah Posted: December 29, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Next year could well mark the beginning of the end of the Democratic Party as we have known it since 1972. That was the year the George McGovernites took over the party. It has never been the same since. McGovern was the presidential nominee that year – a man who called for an immediate end to the Vietnam War and a federally guaranteed minimum annual salary of $10,000. It was a radical departure from what had previously been the party of Hubert Humphrey and John Kennedy, liberals in the traditional sense but hardly radicals. In 1976, the party faithful attempted to return to the center with the nomination of Jimmy Carter, but they unwittingly elected an impostor in the mold of McGovern. Democrats have not had an opportunity to vote for a true moderate for president since. In electing Barack Obama as president last year, Democrats got the radical party activists they have been seeking ever since 1972 – a man completely out of step with American ideals of free enterprise, strong defense and personal freedom. With Democrats in control of the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Supreme Court, it might appear that the party is in the political driver's seat. But it is actually on the precipice of a historic setback that could force Democrats to re-evaluate their most basic ideals or face a realignment that could shatter the party's shaky coalition for years to come. The polls tell the story. Obama's approval rating has fallen significantly below 50 percent in his first year and much lower among critical independent voters. After one year in office, Obama is charging ahead with an agenda that scarcely even has the support of most Democrats. While he has three more years in office, his party is set to lose much if not all of its control in Congress in 2010, with even party leaders like Harry Reid facing certain judgment day at the polls. Even Democratic leaders who supported Obama early on are sending out public smoke signals warning of the disaster the party faces because of the radical agenda of those in power. READ FULL STORY >

Why Obama can't go to Berlin ~ By Ellis Washington

From WorldNetDaily

By Ellis Washington Posted: November 07, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! ~ Ronald Reagan

Three American statesmen made trips to deliver historical speeches in Berlin: 1) JFK's "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech in 1963, 2) Ronald Reagan's "Tear down this wall!" speech in 1987, and 3) Barack Obama's 2009 non-speech speech which in a revelatory article by National Review's Rich Lowry could be titled, "Ich bin beschäftigt" – i.e., I'm busy. Although Barack Obama, after only one year in office, has visited more countries than any other U.S. president in history, he does not have time to accept German Chancellor Angela Merkel's invitation to speak in Berlin next week in commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, which Stalin built in 1961 to keep East German citizens separate from the West and mired in the hopeless abyss of communism. What was Obama doing the night the election returns were coming in? According to his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, Obama was enjoying a sycophantic HBO documentary about himself and his presidential campaign rather than watching the election returns. If the Roman despot Nero fiddled while Rome burned, then surely it can be said that Obama watched TV while the Democrat Party crashed and burned in the special elections Nov. 3. Most political experts think that the devastating losses in Virginia and New Jersey are omens of even more galling losses to come for the Democratic Party in the 2010 and 2012 elections. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Ted Kennedy: 'A coward beside heroes' ~ By Ellis Washington

From WorldNetDaily

By Ellis Washington Posted: August 29, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009

Such desecration of hallowed ground. A weed beside the rose. Assured, not he with them would die, Yet, worthy, thought he, with them to lie, A coward beside heroes. ~ Anonymous

At the time of this writing, the cortege of limousines is traveling from the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport to the JFK library in Boston behind the hearse bearing the remains of Sen. Ted Kennedy who died of brain cancer Aug. 25. Nevertheless, during this solemn occasion I do not join the legions of sycophantic TV hosts of the government-controlled media and their guests to laud this man, for I find absolutely nothing praiseworthy in him. Ted Kennedy began his political career 47 years ago. I was just 14 months old. I understand that Kennedy actually began his career on the same day that liberal doyen Eleanor Roosevelt died. How fitting is it that the two patron saints of liberalism had their careers begin and end on that same fateful day of Nov. 7, 1962. JFK had a similar coincidence occur at his death on Nov. 22, 1963. Two thousand years ago, at the trial of Jesus, Roman Procurator Pontius Pilate asked the Socratic question: "What is truth?" I echo Pilate's query in the context of Kennedy: Was Sen. Ted Kennedy a man of truth? For 47 years, Sen. Kennedy made his bones on one singular premise – Take money from people who earned it and give it to those who didn't earn it. That has been the modus operandi not only of Kennedy, but the entire Liberal-Progressive Axis of the Democratic/Republican Party going back over 100 years. For example, the first progressive national leader was President Theodore Roosevelt (1901-09) who in a speech titled "The New Nationalism," used the curious phrase "human welfare" and further said, "Personal property is subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it." Later President Woodrow Wilson (1913-21), another unabashed progressive, said that "a true leader" uses the masses like "tools" and that "men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader." These overtly fascist conceptions of power demonstrated 100 years ago were the seeds of the modern-day liberalism of FDR, LBJ, Ted Kennedy, Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Furthermore, these Machiavellian ideas are a gross perversion of the U.S. Constitution and the original intent of the Founding Fathers to any person who has learned to think logically and understand history and law from an intellectual as opposed to a socialist point of view. In the comments section of a Washington Times article, "Senate's liberal lion falls to cancer at 77," by Stephen Dinan, there were these interesting lines that summed up the true legacy of Ted Kennedy and the behind-the-scenes machinations of the old patriarch, Joseph Kennedy ("Mr. Fix"):

A memorial to Edward "Ted" M. Kennedy, who enlisted for a two-year term in the army in 1950. To Ted Kennedy, whose father used personal influence to get Ted an assignment as a guard to Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers, Europe (SHAPE) in Paris; which kept him out of the Korean War, in which thousands of brave American young men were dying.

[READ ENTIRE COLUMN]

Has Obama's luck run out? ~ By Patrick J. Buchanan

By Patrick J. Buchanan Posted: July 23, 2009 10:30 pm Eastern © 2009 "The sound alone was worth the $24 billion!" So said fellow Nixon speechwriter Ray Price as the mighty Saturn V rocket lifted Apollo 11 and Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins off the launch pad, three miles away, on the start of their voyage to the moon. It was a splendid moment in that first year of the Nixon presidency, a year that had gone remarkably well for a minority president who had come to office with both houses held by the opposition. Within weeks of taking office, Nixon had taken a grand tour of the European capitals. He had proposed a Family Assistance Plan, cooked up in Pat Moynihan's shop, to wide applause. He had announced a withdrawal of 100,000 troops from Vietnam. He would greet the astronauts on the aircraft carrier in the Pacific on their return, travel to Guam to announce the Nixon Doctrine, journey on to Vietnam and visit the troops, thence to Romania – the first U.S. president to travel behind the Iron Curtain. Returning in triumph, Nixon departed for his August vacation. When he returned to D.C., the storm clouds had gathered. In mid-October, hundreds of thousands of protesters surrounded the White House demanding an immediate withdrawal from Vietnam, egged on by a media establishment that had cheered JFK and LBJ all the way into liberalism's war. With David Broder writing of the "breaking of the president," Nixon went on national television to implore the "great silent majority" to stand with him for peace with honor in Vietnam. The networks trashed the speech. But Vice President Spiro Agnew launched a counter-attack on media power and prejudice. By December, after another 500,000 had marched on Washington, Nixon was at 68 percent approval and Agnew, after Nixon and Billy Graham, was the third most admired man in America. Though elected in November 1968, it was November 1969 that made the Nixon presidency and produced the New Majority Republicans would rely on for decades. Obama is approaching such a moment of truth. The universal health insurance plans being advanced all appear too complex, costly and non-credible to pass both houses. The cap-and-trade carbon emissions bill, with its huge costs to be passed on to U.S. producers and consumers, as China opts out, seems an act of national masochism. The $787 billion stimulus bill has done zip to stimulate the economy. Less than 10 percent of the money has gone out the door, which makes one wonder why it was called a stimulus package. Unemployment is at 9.5 percent, well above what the Obamaites predicted, and rising. As worrisome is the situation in Afghanistan. The United States has 66,000 troops in country or on the way, as our NATO allies look for the exit ramp. We are seven and a half years in and the Afghan army is not remotely capable of defending the nation or regime. Afghanistan is now Obama's war. He made the decision to deepen U.S. involvement as we headed out of Iraq. Yet, it is unclear how many U.S. troops will be needed, for how long, to create a stable government and army that can secure the national territory and prevent a return of al-Qaida. Moreover, Kabul continues to protest U.S. air strikes that continue to kill civilians, as Pakistan protests the Marine offensive in Helmand that is driving the Taliban into Baluchistan, where a secessionist movement is developing. [CONTINUE READING]

The end of Mark Sanford? ~ By Star Parker

By Star Parker Posted: June 27, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 When I've been asked who I thought could be the individual to lead the Republican Party out of the wilderness, my answer has always been Mark Sanford. His vision for his party and his country – traditional values and limited government – has always been clear, consistent and, in my view, correct. And he has always pursued that vision, as a congressman and as a governor, with a boldness and courage rare among politicians. The Cato Institute publishes a biannual report card of the nation's governors, ranking them according to fiscal responsibility. In the most recent report, three governors out of 50 received an "A." Sanford was one of the three. So, like many others, I watched with disappointment his confession about his clandestine adulterous affair. Now what? No surprises that most predict the end of Sanford's political career. And, of course, we've got the usual, and gleeful, accusations of hypocrisy that another conservative Republican has been caught with his pants down. But if there is a crisis in America today – and I think there is – is it that leaders fall short of standards, or is it that our answers to human frailty increasingly tend to deny that any standards exist? The most strident accusations of hypocrisy come not from those saddened that Sanford fell short of the traditional values to which he subscribes. They're from those who want to de-legitimize and marginalize those traditional values. John F. Kennedy gave a famous speech during his 1960 presidential campaign to address the question of his Catholicism. Rather than argue that Catholic values are consistent with American values, he argued that religion and public policy have nothing to do with each other. Kennedy turned out to be one of the great sleazes to occupy the White House (not unlike his brother Sen. Ted who, in his last hurrah, is now trying to socialize American health care). During the almost half century since Kennedy gave that speech, the moral, social and legal fabric of our country has steadily unraveled. In 1960, around 5 percent of our babies were born to unwed mothers. Today it is 40 percent. The pillars upon which our free country stands – sanctity of life, liberty and property – have been eroded to the point where they are barely recognizable. Since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, 50 million unborn children have been destroyed. The United States now has among the most liberal abortion regimes in the world. In some of our states, a 12-year-old girl can get an abortion without informing her parents, be assisted by her school administrators and have it paid for with taxpayer funds. [CONTINUE READING]

Why we don't celebrate 'Historians Day' - by Ann Coulter

Being gracious winners, this week, liberals howled with delight at George Bush for coming in seventh-to-last in a historians' ranking of the presidents from best to worst. This was pretty shocking. Most liberals can't even name seven U.S. presidents. Whenever history professors rank you as one of the "worst", you were probably one of the best.

read more | digg story

Shades of JFK? - By Barbara Simpson

Barabara writes, "Originality is not one of Obama's gifts; he's drowning in confusion as to whether he's Lincoln, FDR or JFK. But that's part of political theatre. If this imitation of fame persists and the public continues to buy the fantasy, Barack Obama will be in the catbird seat." And his minions are easily manipulated by the media like sheep.

read more | digg story

Biden's fearful warning - by Joseph Farah

Kennedy was tested by Nikita Khrushchev precisely because, as a young, U.S. senator, he had little experience – especially executive experience. Biden seems to be acknowledging the mere election of his running mate will prompt the same kind of test. Biden went on to say, "Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right." Scary! read more | digg story