Series of events raises questions about constitutional authority -- Examiner

[bsteadman]

Series of events raises questions about constitutional authority

Examiner
Anthony Martin, Conservative Examiner
8/12/2012

Excerpt:

"On Friday this reporter interviewed a research analyst for retired Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely's Stand Up America organization which delves into behind the scenes stories that are hidden and overshadowed by the major news headlines.

In addition to serving his country as one of the top officers of the U.S. Army, Vallely is the former senior military analyst for Fox News. At present his organization employs the talents of various researchers who investigate the real truth that often lurks beneath misleading headlines and news stories.

One of those researchers, Denise Simon, spoke with this reporter about issues related to a recent series of unusual occurrences in the U.S. government that led to serious questions regarding constitutional authority, the rule of law, and the subversion of that law and authority by shadowy figures both inside and outside of government.

In order to understand the conversation with Simon within its context, a bit of background is necessary.

Recently this reporter wrote a blog entry at The Liberty Sphere which details a series of events that raised the eyebrows of those who are concerned about the uniquely American understanding of human liberty, the centrality of the Constitution, and the fact that the rule of law and not of men trumps the power of any one human being or group of human beings who would seize power.

The first indication that something in the highest levels of the federal government is amiss is the fact that U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a stunningly flimsy majority opinion affirming the constitutionality of the ObamaCare law. Not only has it become clear that Roberts was set to rule with the conservative majority but he changed his mind at the 11th hour, forcing other justices to rewrite their opinions. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, admitted last week that she had originally written in favor of ObamaCare as the minority opinion, meaning it was everyone's assumption that Roberts would join with Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito in striking down the law.

But at the last minute and to everyone's shock, Roberts changed his mind and ruled in favor of the law with the court's liberals.

Why?

Further, as soon as the Supreme Court ruled in favor of ObamaCare, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to repeal the law by an overwhelming majority. Although the Democrat controlled Senate would not go along, House Republicans made a clear statement about ObamaCare that was undeniable.

Yet the House leadership, specifically Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy stated last week that ObamaCare would be fully funded along with the rest of the federal government in the continuing budget resolution.

Why would the Republican leadership in the House decide to fund a program that its members had just voted overwhelmingly to repeal?

The next unusual occurrence that raised eyebrows was Justice Antonin Scalia's statements on gun control in an interview he granted with Chris Wallace on Fox News. Although Scalia is one of the five justices on the high court to affirm the Second Amendment, including striking down the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., he indicated to Wallace that new gun control laws and court decisions may be headed down the pike at a time in U.S. history when support for the Second Amendment is at an all-time high and when citizens are arming themselves as never before with various types of firearms.

Why?

At the very same time that these occurrences were taking place, an attempt was made by the Obama administration, under the leadership of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to shove an international gun control measure down the throats of American citizens in the form of a so-called "small arms treaty."

And then, as the last straw to many thinking people, Speaker Boehner called out a member of his own Party, U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., for suggesting that an investigation is needed into terrorist ties on the part of a top aide to Secretary Clinton. The aide in question is part of a family with known ties to Islamist terrorist organizations in the Middle East.

Why, then, would Boehner reprimand a member of his own Party for calling for an investigation when many believe that a more appropriate response would be to ask Secretary Clinton why she has employed a person on her staff whose family has such close ties to terrorists?

The circumstances delineated above led this reporter to conclude in a conversation with Simon, "It is as if someone, or some group, is holding the entire American government hostage in all three branches, executive, legislative, and judicial. But who? And for what purpose?"

Then came the point-blank question asked of Simon, who has significant sources and insight into the behind the scenes machinery of the federal government, "Do you believe that someone or something is holding the U.S. government hostage?"

Simon's reply was without hesitation. She indicated that if one is looking for a conspiracy, one need look no further than the infamous and powerful Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). "Without de facto proof," said Simon, "the only reasonable explanation for the series of events you have described is that CFR has a choke hold on government with some hidden domestic mission objective that runs contrary to laws and the Constitution."

What, then, is the CFR?

The Council on Foreign Relations was originally established as a private, nonprofit, and nonpartisan think tank and publisher on foreign policy issues. CFR was a brain child of the progressives of the early 20th century, particularly President Woodrow Wilson. The organization was established in 1921 as a global entity designed to promote a "new world order."

Today, most of those who are known to be the "ruling elites" of the "eastern liberal establishment" are members of the CFR, including mainstream media journalists, university professors, bankers from large, global banking institutions, and politicians and government bureaucrats who are known for advancing a progressive agenda such as former President Jimmy Carter, former President Bill Clinton, U.S. Sen. John Kerry, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, John Holdren, Larry Summers, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

While many non-progressives are members of CFR, Simon explained that the power lies in the various committees of the Council which are controlled primarily by the progressive movers and shakers in global finance, academia, the mainstream media, and government.

After an extensive period of research and consultation on the subject of conspiracy theories and the so-called "New World Order," this reporter has concluded that those who believe entities such as "the Rothschilds," the "Bilderbergs," and "large Israeli banks" are conspiring to destroy American liberty are exceedingly misguided. The clout and wealth of the Rothschilds of Europe, for example, has been in decline for decades. The Bilderbergs began as a means of addressing anti-Americanism in Europe, and to promote capitalism. And the Israeli banks are nowhere near the level of threat posed by American global financial corporations such as Goldman-Sachs, JPMorganChase, and Bank of America, all of whom have heavy representation on the CFR.

If there is a coordinated effort to dominate the American system of government and subvert the rule of law and the Constitution, that effort lies with some of the various committees of the CFR and the powerful elites with a hidden agenda who serve on those committees.

View the complete article at:

http://www.examiner.com/article/seri...onal-authority

[bsteadman]

Document shows Council on Foreign Relations plan to limit U.S. sovereignty

Examiner
Anthony Martin, Conservative Examiner
8/13/2012

Excerpt:

"On Sunday a news report published at the Examiner indicated that there are heightened suspicions that the U.S. government is essentially being held hostage by a powerful global consortium of politicians, government bureaucrats, large banking moguls, university professors, and members of the mainstream media.

That powerful global consortium was identified by a trusted source as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), although no de facto proof could be offered to support the claim other than a mountain of circumstantial evidence.

Today this reporter received information from 2008 that was not made available to the public indicating that the CFR has a written plan to advance "global governance," placing restrictions on the national sovereignty of the United States and other nations and implementing broad international laws that govern the internal affairs of the countries of the world in areas such as homeland security, climate change, terrorism, and economic policy.

The document in question is titled, "International Institutions and Global Governance Program, World Order in the 21st Century."

A key paragraph in the document is as follows:

Re-conceptualizing “sovereignty” in an age of globalization. The post-Cold War era has posed challenges to traditional concepts of state sovereignty, in at least four respects. First, some failing and post-conflict states have become wards of the international community, submitting to a form of UN “neo-trusteeship.” Second, some countries by their conduct have lost their immunity from intervention, as part of an emerging doctrine of “contingent sovereignty.” Third, nearly all states – including the United States – have voluntarily forfeited some historic freedom of action to 12 manage transnational threats and exploit international opportunities. Finally, some countries, particularly in the EU, have chosen to “pool” their sovereignty in return for economic, social, and political benefits. The program could provide a valuable intellectual contribution by tracing the scope and implications of these transformations.

The paragraph cited above contains some highly troubling realities that have developed within the last century which have led to the assumption on the part of the CFR that in today's world it is acceptable that politicians have voluntarily forfeited their nations' national sovereignty and in doing so have given up some of their historic freedom.

Such actions of forfeiting freedom and sovereignty have occurred more often than not by signing onto global treaties originating at the United Nations. And in the case of the United States, these actions have directly violated the historic principles that were long assumed to be central to U.S. Constitution.

CFR, however, proposes even more violations of sovereignty and forfeiture of freedom by mandating treaties under the auspices of the United Nations that would govern how nations respond to "global warming," internal and external threats of violence, and the stabilization of the economy, among other issues.

In terms of practicality, these broad principles would mandate, for example, that nations submit to international carbon emissions standards that would directly limit the types of automobiles citizens drive and the types of industries that are allowed. Coal, for example, would be disallowed.

With regard to the use of military force to defend the nation's security, actions would need to be made "multilaterally" rather than "unilaterally," meaning that before the United States could deploy its military it would need the consent of other member nations who would decide if such actions were necessary. And in the case of internal threats of violence, nations that hold sacred the right of its citizens to keep and bear arms, such as the United States, would have to rethink and reconfigure its laws so that more restrictions would be placed on personal freedoms in the name of national and global security.

Firearms rights activists say that this would mean strict gun control and gun bans.

Many political observers have noted that the U.N. "small arms treaty" is a direct outgrowth of the concept of multilateral cooperation in which a nation and its citizens must be willing to forfeit some of their sovereignty and freedom.

These concepts and initiatives did not originate with the United Nations, however. The United Nations is merely the vehicle by which these concepts and initiatives are implemented. The source for these concepts and and initiatives is CFR, a private nonprofit entity that is unelected by citizens anywhere but which wields enormous power and influence over politicians and the policies they implement in their respective governments.

The proof that CFR is pushing toward the roll back of national sovereignty is found all over the pages of the document provided above. And CFR is perhaps the only entity in the world with the power and clout to hold a nation and its politicians hostage, forcing treasonous violations of the rule of law and the centrality of constitutional authority.

View the complete article, including reference links, at:

http://www.examiner.com/article/docu...-s-sovereignty