mhhoelj's newsroom

The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.
                                                       
                                                      ~ Albert Einstein

 

 

 

THIS IS ABOUT SAVING OUR COUNTRY!  MOST AMERICANS HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IS HAPPENING BUT IT IS IN THEIR DIRE INTEREST TO LEARN ABOUT IT AND HELP ORGANIZE TO STOP IT!

 

(The preceding read is somewhat long in length but PLEASE, read it in its entirety and go to all the links and watch and listen to the videos.)

 

 

Videos from CNN investigative reporter Lou Dobbs…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTVvC2k2HTM&NR=1<
/p>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6SUMpPdd0E&mode=relat
ed&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muj4drSM3ak&mode=relat
ed&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbRVZsBS7LM&mode=relat
ed&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMY16jH0MGw&mode=relat
ed&search=

 

These are just a few of many informative videos out there explaining exactly what is going on behind our backs and what will happen to our country if WE don’t stand up and STOP IT NOW!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdF_ojfRCig&mode=relat
ed&search=

 

      http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15875>

      http://illuminati-news.com/061506a.htm

      http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/TwoActsOfTy
ranny.html

      http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15233

 

Who gets a say in the SPP?

 

The Canadian government SPP website says that "consultations occur at many levels," although the only specific group it mentions having presented recommendations to it is the North American Competitiveness Council.

 

The NACC is a group of 30 CEOs from each of the three North American countries, representing some of the biggest corporations in the world. Most of the Canadian representatives are members of D'Aquino's group, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives.  This close consultation with corporate interests is the source of much of the opposition to the SPP in Canada.

 

Who is opposed to the SPP?

 

Opposition to the SPP exists in all three countries and on either end of the political spectrum.  Progressive groups, particularly in Canada, say the SPP amounts to Canada's deep integration with the United States.  The Council of Canadians says the SPP is anti-democratic, makes Canadians less secure and ties Canada to the U.S. "war on terror." The Council is also concerned about the SPP discussions about bulk water exports from Canada to the U.S.  The NDP has said it has concerns about the SPP's "lack of transparency and democratic oversight." NDP trade critic Peter Julian has tabled a motion calling for public consultations and full Parliamentary oversight of the SPP.  Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion has demanded that Harper reject trade deals involving bulk water exports and insist that the U.S. crack down on gun smuggling into Canada.  Conservative groups, particularly in the U.S., fear that the SPP is a step toward less sovereignty for each country, leading to a North American union in the style of the European Union.  High-profile opponents in the U.S. include CNN anchor and commentator Lou Dobbs, the conservative magazine Human Events and the John Birch Society.  Robert Pastor, director of the Center for North American Studies at American University in Washington, D.C., says American xenophobia is behind the fear of the SPP. Pastor, some of whose ideas form the basis of the SPP, says he receives dozens of e-mails weekly threatening him and calling him a traitor.  Opposition in the U.S. is not limited to right wing groups, though. Democrats and Republicans in Congress joined forces to pass an amendment to a bill on transportation appropriations "prohibiting the use of funds to participate in a working group pursuant to the Security and Prosperity Partnership."  Chris Sands of the Hudson Institute, a public policy think tank, says keeping Congress out of the loop was a mistake on Bush's part.  "That's only made them angrier," he said. "They're now talking about shutting everything down until they can find out what's really going on and decide whether they approve it."

 

 

 

Truckers must talk English

 

A commercial truck driver from Monterrey who has crossed Laredos international bridges countless times was stunned earlier this month when he received a ticket from U.S. inspectors because he cant speak English."We were worried," said Samuel Tamez Treviño, owner of the truck that was driven by Rafael Segovia. "We consulted with attorneys. We were somewhat relieved when they told us it would be treated as a warning. But now what are we supposed to do?"

Tamez Treviño, whose transportation company is in Montemorelos, is concerned that his drivers may be unable or unwilling to learn English, considering that even a short, intense course to learn the basics can take five months. More from LMTOnline

The article further states that Trevino "has never heard of any law requiring that his drivers know English." Apparently, he has not read FMCSA Regulation 391.11(b)(2). He better read it before he sends his drivers across the border. RTaylor

 

 

 

Sunday, August 26. 2007

 

SPP or NWO, That Is The Question

 

by JR Dieckmann
Why would a semi-conservative Republican president support and participate in a program created by left wing, global socialists? Did Papa take George W. out behind the woodshed for a whooping and tell him to get onboard with Skull & Bones after his reelection?

Last week, President Bush attended the 3rd annual meeting of the Security and Prosperity Partnership in Montebello, Canada. The SPP plan was created by the socialist/commies of the Council on Foreign Relations (a non government agency), for the stated supposed purpose of increasing security and prosperity in North America. I suspect there is more behind it than meets the eye.

 

This is the plan for the “North American Union”, although Bush denies it, which is laid out in it's entirety at http://www.spp.gov/. This was the 3rd such annual meeting for Bush, but the first for Harper and Calderon. It may explain a lot about why Bush is so determined to allow illegals from Mexico into our country and why he is giving so much aid and commerce to Mexico.

As Bush sees it, or so he claims, Mexico, being a 3rd world country, is the weak link in North America which creates a security threat to the entire continent. The concept of SPP is to bring Mexico up to 1st world status through trade with the U.S. and Canada and to form a secure border around the entire continent in the light of Islamic terrorism.

Now you can believe that, or you can believe that continental security and prosperity is not really the goal, but rather another step toward a "one world government." Either scenario, or both, may be true - I can't say. But it is a cause for concern.

I do believe that the elite, globalist cabal has intentions of ushering in such a government, if they can. Their greatest resistance comes from the American people and that is why details of these meetings and progress of the plan is kept behind closed doors and out of public view. We are also seeing resistance to the North American Union building in Canada as well as Mexico. Citizens and journalists of both countries are expressing concerns for their own national sovereignty, just as we are here in the U.S..

Bush insists there is no such plan for a North American Union but evidence of it is mounting all the time. Our increased trade with Mexico; open borders; the I-35 NAFTA Super-Highway; reduction of restrictions on Mexican trucking in the U.S.; foreign aid to Mexico and special aid for fighting the Mexican drug war; the recent immigration bill that would give Mexican citizens free access to, and amnesty in the U.S., etc., etc., etc.

We are supposed to believe that a stronger and more prosperous Mexico will make the U.S. safer. I differ with this approach and tend to believe that stronger U.S. borders will make the U.S. safer. Mexico must deal with their own problems starting with cleaning up the corruption in their own government. Unless Mexico wants to become our 51st state, then we have no business doing what we are doing for them with U.S. taxpayers' money. Pres. Bush, it’s not your money to give!

As I said before, global domination is the goal of the elite, globalist cabal. Who are these people other than the Rockefellers, John Kerry, and the Bush family? They start with the Skull & Bones Society at Yale University and advance from there. Sometimes called the "Illuminati", the Trilateral Commission, or "New World Order", they include the Bilderbergs, a covert elite group that controls the World Bank and global financial transactions. A partial list of Skull & Bones members can be seen here.

I have little doubt that their goal is total control of the entire planet, much of that has already been accomplished with the establishment of the European Union. They have their agenda and conspire on how to bring it about “for the good of the world” in their view, for their own power in the view of others. Their method is to advance their own people into as many governmental high offices as possible in all western countries. With control of those offices, they can control world politics and foreign policy. They can cause wars and they can end them by controlling the money that finances them.

A North American Union would play right into their hands. It would be easier to exercise power over a trilateral union, than to have to deal with separate and independent and sovereign countries. The greatest enemy of the New World Order is national sovereignty. A North American Union would solve that problem.

As for their influence in today's problem with terrorism and Islamic wars, it's pretty much anyone's guess at this point. I do not buy into the suggestion that 911 was planned by anyone other than Islamic extremists. Nor do I believe that the NWO is behind the trouble Islam is causing in the world today, but it‘s an interesting theory to explore.

Iraq was considered a very real threat to U.S. security in 2002-2003 and that was the motivation behind the invasion. We invaded Iraq simply for national security reasons based on a decade of solid intelligence. Some people now believe that the intelligence was not so reliable with the failure to find vast stockpiles of WMD. It’s still an open question as to whether intelligence gathered mostly by the Clinton Administration was flawed, or if the WMD were moved out of the country at the last minute. Could Saddam Hussein have been involved with the NWO? Somehow, I very much doubt it. Could international intelligence have been manipulated by members of the NWO? Possibly.

It's much the same with Iran which has now become the #1 threat to U.S. and Israeli security. Not only is Iran refining uranium for a bomb, they are also attempting to import weapons grade uranium and plutonium from North Korea along with nuclear bomb making equipment and rocketry that No. Korea no longer can use with the shutdown of their nuke program.

In July, a freighter from No. Korea containing all of the above was sunk 100 miles off the Iranian coast by the U.S. Navy in a covert action to keep that material out of Iranian hands. This was the second such incident involving the U.S. Navy. This is no phony intelligence created by the NWO to engage the U.S. in war with Iran. This is real. And unless the Ayatollah Khomeni and Osama bin Laden are members in the NWO, then I don't see how the organization could be involved in the problem of Islamic terrorism.

On the other side of the coin, giving Bush the benefit of the doubt, what would be the advantages to the United States of a North American Union under the SPP plan that Bush denies exists? What reason would President Bush have for supporting SPP other than the NWO agenda? Why is President Bush so reluctant to secure our country against the Mexican invasion?

One reason is the American economy on which President Bush has proven to be strong and competent. One reason our economy is doing so well is because of trade with, and cheap labor from Mexico, and of course China. They make products affordable to most Americans that otherwise might be too expensive. This allows us to buy more and that in turn stimulates the economy. Never mind that the labor of illegal aliens is illegal, Bush doesn’t care about that, nor does he care that they entered our country illegally. The thought of deporting them scares him to death for what effects it would have on the economy.

President Bush is a neighborly kind of guy. Issues with Mexico, for him are personal. He wants to show that the U.S. can be a good neighbor and help our neighboring countries in need. He forgets that the Constitution doesn’t allow for that. Can we really hold him accountable for a faulty memory or not understanding the Constitution? We better start before he gives away the whole country which is already being overrun by Mexican nationals demanding U.S. citizen’s rights and amnesty. Fences on property lines make for good neighbors. Bush can permit illegals into his home, he has no right to invite them into ours.

The American Constitution describes the government as representing the American people. That would all be destroyed under the provisions of SPP. Our laws would no longer represent the American people, but would represent the wishes of those with designs on controlling all three countries, many with roots in Skull & Bones. Their laws would be forced upon us rather than emanating from us.

A border around the entire continent secured by oceans with limited access through seaports would be easier to defend against terrorism than the land border between the U.S. and Mexico or Canada. Intelligence sharing between the three countries could enhance the security of all three. Mexico, as a prosperous country, could be an asset to the U.S. instead of a drain on it. Free trade, travel, and a shared monetary system could make a stronger North American economy.

These appear to be the reasons given for the promotion of SPP. In my view, it’s not worth the cost and would likely fail to achieve those objectives, especially in Mexico. The fact is, that it would be primarily the Mexican government that would benefit from this plan with Canada and primarily the U.S. paying the tab. This appears to be a one way street and does little or nothing for the citizens of the U.S.. Terrorists are not going to be stopped from entering the U.S. by a continental border, and we cannot trust Mexico to hold up their end of the security problem. That would be just like outsourcing toy making and dog food to China.

I see little benefit to the United States which is already prosperous and as secure as it’s likely to be under the SPP plan which also includes provisions for two of the biggest hoaxes in recent history: Avian Flu and man made global warming. This clearly associates SPP with the global socialists who favor a one world government under the Kyoto Treaty and equality for all nations.

Though it’s true that SPP, in some small way, might help keep terrorists out of Mexico, Mexico is not a target of terrorism. The problem we are faced with is keeping terrorists out of the U.S., not out of Mexico. Terrorists know that they can gain access to the U.S. through the Mexican border, that’s the only reason they come to Mexico. That can best be resolved with a secure southern U.S. border. Let Mexico deal with terrorists on their soil in the same way they deal with illegal aliens on their soil. Jail them, shoot them, or eject them back to where they came from.

The United States is practically supporting Mexico now. To increase this drain on the American economy would only weaken America. Mexico is not a territory of the United States and we are not responsible for what happens there. The responsibility of our government is to the security of the Untied States. If Bush wants to lend a helping hand to Mexico, let him do it out of his own pocket and the pockets of those who want to join with him, not with our taxpayers’ money.

In conclusion, I would try to keep an eye on these things and see what develops, just as our Congress is doing now, at least those in Congress who are not in on the SPP plan. 22 members of Congress are already urging President Bush to back off on the SPP agenda which has been progressing without Congressional approval or overt funding, although some funding has been covertly slipped through attached to other appropriations bills such as the Highway Bill, the Defense Bill, and the Agriculture Bill.

The SPP plan, created by global socialists, is not good for America or for American security. It will benefit only those who wish to create a one world government under global socialism. President Bush’s involvement in this issue is motivated either by his membership in Skull & Bones, or his close alliance with Mexico. Either way, he is not going to change. Our only hope in avoiding this evil plan lies in our next President. Let’s hope the voting public makes the right choice and elects a candidate who has his heart in America.

Recommended Reading:
For a realistic look at what SPP would mean for America see PRE-SPP SUMMIT CONFERENCE REVEALS TRUE ELITIST MINDSET by Patrick M. Wood.

JR Dieckmann is Editor, Publisher, Writer, and Webmaster of GreatAmericanJournal.com. He also works as an electrician in Los Angeles, Ca. His articles also appear on The Conservative Voice, Real Clear Politics, New Media Journal, Mich News, Daley Times-Post, Great Minds Think Right, and other conservative websites

 

 

 

Jailed border agents case tied to Mexican trucks

 

Posted by: "Mark R Taylor" markrtaylor@sbcglobal.net   uglypuppyoif

 

Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:20 pm (PST)

 

American Truckers at War Nerves of Steel - Pulling for America's Security http://www.american truckersatwar. com/ Jailed border agents case tied to Mexican trucks By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily. com

WND has discovered a previously unreported connection between the case of Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean and the Department of Transportation' s Mexican truck-demonstration project.

In the Ramos-Compean case, the two agents convicted for 11 and 12 year prison terms respectively for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler, an overlooked fact is that the fleeing smuggler held a valid Mexican commercial drivers license at the time of the incident. More from WorldNetDaily

Mark R. Taylor
www.americantrucker satwar.com
AmericanTruckersAtW ar Discussion Group

http://youtube. com/ironponyexpr ess

 

 

 

Go to YouTube and listen to the videos from CNN investigative reporter Lou Dobbs…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTVvC2k2HTM&NR=1<
/p>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6SUMpPdd0E&mode=relat
ed&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muj4drSM3ak&mode=relat
ed&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbRVZsBS7LM&mode=relat
ed&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMY16jH0MGw&mode=relat
ed&search=

 

These are just a few of many informative video out there explaining exactly what is going on behind our backs and what will happen to our country if WE don’t stand up and STOP IT NOW!