Obama To Attend North American Union Meeting

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, July 20, 2009

Obama To Attend North American Union Meeting 200709Obama

President Obama will attend the controversial Security and Prosperity Partnership meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper next month, it has been revealed.

The White House had not responded to requests to verify Obama’s schedule during the second week of August, however, a statement from Press Secretary Robert Gibbs titled “Upcoming Travel by the President,” confirms that Obama will attend the recently re-branded
“North American Leader’s Summit” in Mexico.

“The president will travel to Guadalajara, Mexico, August 9-10 to attend the North American Leaders Summit with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper,” the announcement, reported by World Net Daily, states.

“The summit meeting will provide an opportunity for the United States, Mexico, and Canada to engage on a broad range of issues, including economic recovery and competitiveness in North America, our shared interest in energy and the environment, and cooperation among our governments to promote the safety and welfare of our citizens, including continued close cooperation to counter the A/H1N1 influenza pandemic.” the statement continues.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  • efoods

The Security and Prosperity Partnership has become much maligned owing to it’s quasi secretive advancement of a North American integration agenda.

Last year, one month prior to the meeting in April, documents were uncovered relating the fact that heads of state of the U.S., Mexico and Canada were beseeching business leaders to launch public relations campaigns in order to counter critics of the SPP.

The documents detailed how corporate representatives were urged to “humanize” North American integration, promote NAFTA success stories to employees and unions and evolve the harmonization agenda “without fueling protectionism”.

The move was seemingly a response to the continued exposition of the integration agenda, which led to representatives within Congress petitioning the government on the secretiveness of the SPP and multiple states introducing resolutions calling on their federal representatives to halt work on the so called “North American Union”.

During his nomination campaign, Obama pledged to end the secrecy surrounding the SPP meetings and to conduct them with full transparency.

His decision to remain silent on whether or not he will even attend the meeting until just a few weeks beforehand has guaranteed advance criticism.

Critics will also cast a keen eye over Obama’s attendance given his strong worded campaign pledge to “amend” NAFTA in favor of American workers by stemming the loss of manufacturing jobs.

Since he has entered office Obama has simply reiterated the SPP’s call to advance without stoking “protectionism”. In a joint press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, during his first official foreign visit, Obama responded to a question regarding the renegotiation of NAFTA by saying “Now is a time where we have to be very careful about any signs of protectionism.”

Eyebrows were also raised when Obama temporarily removed economist Austan Goolsbee from his staff when it was revealed that Goolsbee had told Canadian officials that Obama’s campaign promises to renegotiate NAFTA were purely campaign rhetoric.

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/obama-to-attend-north-american-union-meeting/

Senate panel OKs plan to revamp health care system

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR and BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writers Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar And Ben Feller, Associated Press Writers 39 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama achieved a milestone Wednesday when a Senate committee approved a plan to revamp the U.S. health care system.

The Senate panel’s action, which attracted no Republican votes, came as the president’s campaign organization rolled out television ads to build support for his top domestic priority.

Obama met with Republicans at the White House in search of an elusive bipartisan compromise on his call to expand coverage to the nearly 50 million uninsured Americans as well as restrain spending increases in health care.

But the 13-10 party-line vote in the Senate health committee signaled a deepening rift in Congress. While Democrats respond to Obama’s call for action with renewed determination, Republicans are using harsher words to voice their misgivings.

In the House, Democrats began pushing legislation through the first of three committees, although moderate and conservative members of the rank and file were demanding changes. In the Senate, lawmakers were considering fees on health insurance companies as a new source of potential financing for a $1 trillion package that’s short on funds.

“We have delivered on the promise of real change,” Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said as he presided over the Senate health committee vote, alluding not only to his bill but also to Obama’s campaign promise.

The president was in the Rose Garden for the latest in a daily series of public appeals to Congress to “step up and meet our responsibilities” and move legislation this summer. Obama also pushed his message in network television interviews, telling employers that his plan would require them to offer benefits or face a fine.

“If you can afford it, either give your employees health insurance or pay into the pot so that we’re not subsidizing you,” Obama told CBS News.

He also reversed a campaign stance against requiring everyone to buy health care coverage.

“I’m now in favor of some sort of individual mandate as long as there’s a hardship exemption,” he said. “If somebody truly just can’t afford health insurance even with the subsidies that the government is now providing, we don’t want to double penalize them.”

Wednesday’s Senate health committee vote “should make us hopeful — but it can’t make us complacent,” Obama said. “It should instead provide the urgency for both the House and the Senate to finish their critical work on health reform before the August recess.”

The health panel’s $615 billion measure would require individuals to get health insurance and employers to contribute to the cost. The bill calls for the government to provide financial assistance with premiums for individuals and families making up to four times the federal poverty level, or about $88,000 for a family of four, a broad cross-section of the middle class.

Obama wants the House and Senate to act on health care this summer so lawmakers can reconcile differences in their respective bills after Labor Day and put final legislation on his desk this fall.

Obama’s all-out effort since he returned from his overseas trip last week has “galvanized things,” Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said.

Obama met at the White House with Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Bob Corker of Tennessee and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

“I urged him not to rush consideration of the bill,” Collins told reporters later. “This bill is going to affect virtually every American. If the president tries to rush this through in the next two weeks … I fear the process will be very divisive.”

Another senior Republican, whom Obama courted only a few months ago to become his commerce secretary, also sounded alarm bells.

“This supposed health care fix is a health care failure and a disaster for the American people,” Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said. “We still have time to turn this process around instead of steamrolling our country into a sub-par government-run plan, but it will require serious action from Democrats and Republicans and a pledge to put politics aside.”

The debate is taking on a campaign-like edge. In the cross-hairs are moderate senators, Democrats and Republicans, whose votes could make the difference in a closely divided Senate.

Obama’s political organization launched a series of 30-second television ads on health care, which were to begin airing Wednesday in Washington and on cable TV nationally. A version will run for two weeks on local stations in Arkansas, Indiana, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, North Dakota, Nebraska and Ohio to prod senators to back the health care effort.

In the ads, private citizens describe problems they’ve had with the medical system and say it’s time for action. The sponsor is Organizing for America, Obama’s campaign organization, which has become part of the national Democratic Party. The group would not reveal the cost.

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., one of the lawmakers targeted, said the ads would not affect his decision. He has concerns that the evolving Democratic plans would give government too big a role.

Obama planned White House meetings Thursday with Nelson and Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, another potential swing vote.

Obama supports a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, but he says he doesn’t want to overturn the system of employer-sponsored health benefits that has served middle-class families for better than half a century. He wants the legislation to be fully paid for and the total cost kept around $1 trillion over 10 years.

The American people have to recognize that there’s no such thing as a free lunch, right?” Obama told NBC News. “So we can’t just provide care to everybody that has no costs whatsoever.”

Wednesday’s vote in the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee took the Senate only part of the way toward passage of an overhaul bill. Another panel, the Finance Committee, still has to unveil its approach. The plan is to combine the two bills for a floor vote.

Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., met Wednesday with committee Democrats to try to settle how to pay for the bill and other issues, and later met with moderate Democrats who don’t sit on his panel.

Obama has pushed Baucus to have a bill ready by week’s end, but Baucus declined to say whether he’d made a timetable commitment to the president or whether he’d be able to deliver by Friday. “We’re just not quite there,” Baucus said.

Baucus is aiming for a bipartisan bill. He praised the health committee’s work but said of their legislation: “That’s a partisan bill.”

“I think it’s virtually impossible to get 60 votes on a partisan bill,” Baucus said, referring to the number needed to advance legislation in the 100-member Senate.

Finance Committee members are considering a proposal from Schumer that would raise $100 billion over 10 years by imposing new fees on health insurance companies.

___

Associated Press writers Erica Werner and Alan Fram contributed to this report.

URL:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090716/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul

Obama Adviser Says U.S. Should Mull Second Stimulus

Shamim Adam
Bloomberg
July 7, 2009
  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  • efoods

The U.S. should consider drafting a second stimulus package focusing on infrastructure projects because the $787 billion approved in February was “a bit too small,” said Laura Tyson, an outside adviser to President Barack Obama.

The current plan “will have a positive effect, but the real economy is a sicker patient,” Tyson said in a speech in Singapore today. The package will have a more pronounced impact in the third and fourth quarters, she added, stressing that she was speaking for herself and not the administration.

Tyson’s comments contrast with remarks made two days ago by Vice President Joe Biden and fellow Obama adviser Austan Goolsbee, who said it was premature to discuss crafting another stimulus because the current measures have yet to fully take effect. The government is facing criticism that the first package was rolled out too slowly and failed to stop unemployment from soaring to the highest in almost 26 years.

Read entire article

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/obama-adviser-says-u-s-should-mull-second-stimulus/

Bill Amendment Gives AG Holder Authority to Decide Who is a Terrorist

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
July 6, 2009

Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, may soon have the power to classify millions of Americans as domestic terrorists. An amendment to H.R. 2647 (the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010), introduced by Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida, would grant Holder absolute authority to decide who is a terrorist.

featured stories   Bill Amendment Gives AG Holder Authority to Decide Who is a Terrorist
Scheuer featured stories   Bill Amendment Gives AG Holder Authority to Decide Who is a Terrorist
Holder would have the ability to determine what groups and organizations are “of a violent, extremist nature.”

Hastings’ amendment follows the template advanced by the Department of Homeland Security’s infamous “Rightwing Extremism” report. In the report, DHS argued that “white supremacists” and “antigovernment” activists are recruiting Iraq and Afghanistan veterans to engage in terrorist violence. Section 524, the amendment proposed by Hastings, prohibits the recruitment, enlistment, or retention of “persons associated or affiliated with groups associated with hate-related violence against groups or persons or the United States government” (see PDF of the amendment). The amendment would give Holder the authority to determine what persons are “associated or affiliated with hate groups.”

In addition to groups or organizations “that espouse or engage in acts of violence against other groups or minorities based on ideals of hate, ethnic supremacies, white supremacies, racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, or other bigotry ideologies,” the amendment specifies groups and individuals that “espouse an intention or expectation of armed revolutionary activity against the United States Government, or the violent overthrow of the United States Government.”

Holder would have the ability to determine what groups and organizations are “of a violent, extremist nature.”

After it was discovered the alleged cop killer Richard Poplawski posted comments on Infowars, the corporate media and a number of so-called progressive bloggers, led by the Anti-Defamation League, attempted to link radio talk show host Alex Jones and others associated with the patriot movement to the avowed white supremacist. James von Brunn, the accused Holocaust museum shooter said to be a virulent racist, also posted on Infowars.

Infowars has an open comment forum attached to articles. Only comments calling for murder and violence or linking to pornography are removed. Spam and obnoxious troll behavior are also moderated.

Mother Jones scribe David Corn wrote last month that Von Brunn “held numerous extremist views,” including a belief that “that 9/11 was the product of a Jewish conspiracy.”

The ADL and numerous corporate media commentators have conflated 9/11 truth with antisemitism.

Eric Boehlert, a writer for Rolling Stone and blogger at the Huffington Post and Media Matters, took the ADL accusation against Jones one step further. “More recently, Jones has been warning listeners like Poplawski about The Obama Deception (that’s the name of Jones’ new documentary DVD) and how President Obama is bound to destroy America,” Boehlert argued.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  • efoods

The DHS report specifically mentions “white supremacist” hatred directed at Barack Obama.

On June 9, Fox News host Glenn Beck attempted to link Von Brunn to the 9/11 truth movement. “Our country is now vulnerable,” Beck declared. “Those people who would like to destroy us — our enemies like Al Qaeda. They’d like to destroy us, and they will work with anyone. There are also people like white supremacists or 9/11 truthers that would also like to destroy the country. They’ll work with anybody they can.”

As deputy attorney general under Janet Reno, Eric Holder said he was pleased that the Justice Department had been cleared of any wrongdoing in the 1993 premeditated assault on Mount Carmel outside of Waco, Texas, resulting in the incineration of seventy-six people, including more than 20 children and two pregnant women. The government and corporate media claim the assault on the Branch Davidians served as a motivation for the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995.

Holder had earlier recused himself after an initial investigation uncovered evidence of a coverup and other potential crimes by federal agents following the incident at Ruby Ridge. In that incident, government snipers had been given military style rules of engagement that contradicted standard FBI deadly force policy, resulting in the murder of former Green Beret Randy Weaver’s son and wife. The government refers to Weaver as a “separatist” and “white supremacist.”

Last month Holder testified on proposed federal hate crimes legislation during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. “The attorney general invoked the shootings at the Holocaust Memorial Museum earlier this month and other recent acts of violence as reasons to pass the legislation,” the Washington Blade reported.

Holder also has a track record of opposition the Second Amendment.

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/bill-amendment-gives-ag-holder-authority-to-decide-who-is-a-terrorist/

Cyber-Scare: The exaggerated fears over digital warfare

Evgeny Morozov
Boston Review
July 1, 2009
  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  • efoods

The age of cyber-warfare has arrived. That, at any rate, is the message we are now hearing from a broad range of journalists, policy analysts, and government officials. Introducing a comprehensive White House report on cyber-security released at the end of May, President Obama called cyber-security “one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation.” His words echo a flurry of gloomy think-tank reports. The Defense Science Board, a federal advisory group, recently warned that “cyber-warfare is here to stay,” and that it will “encompass not only military attacks but also civilian commercial systems.” And “Securing Cyberspace for the 44th President,” prepared by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, suggests that cyber-security is as great a concern as “weapons of mass destruction or global jihad.”

Unfortunately, these reports are usually richer in vivid metaphor—with fears of “digital Pearl Harbors” and “cyber-Katrinas”—than in factual foundation.

Consider a frequently quoted CIA claim about using the Internet to cause widespread power outages. It derives from a public presentation by a senior CIA cyber-security analyst in early 2008. Here is what he said:

Read entire article

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/cyber-scare-the-exaggerated-fears-over-digital-warfare/

Rasmussen: Obama Disapproval Rating Matches Lowest Level Recorded

Rasmussen Reports
June 30, 2009
  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  • efoods

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 31% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-three percent (33%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -2. That matches the lowest level yet recorded (see trends).

Over the past two weeks, the Presidential Approval Index has stayed in a narrow range between +2 and -2. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Democrats Strongly Approve while 60% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove.

Fifty percent (50%) favor passage of the health care reform proposal being crafted by Obama and Congressional Democrats. Forty-five percent (45%) are opposed.

Read entire article

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/rasmussen-obama-disapproval-rating-matches-lowest-level-recorded/

The Emperor’s Seven Signing Statements

David Swanson
American Chronicle
June 29, 2009

Lawless detention is the least of it. State secrets and warrantless spying scrape the surface. Drone attacks and ongoing torture begin to touch it. But central to the power of an emperor, and the catastrophes that come from the existence of an emperor, is the elimination of any other force within the government. Signing statements eliminate congress. Not that congress objects. Asking congress to reclaim its power produces nervous giggles.

Look at how the latest war supplemental funding bill was passed. The Emperor’s people wrote most of the bill. The Emperor combined it with the IMF banker bailout. The Emperor threatened and bribed his way to deals with enough congress members to pass it. The Emperor preemptively told other nations the bill would pass and then badgered congress with the claim that this nation (He, the nation) would be damaged if he turned out to have lied. The Emperor lied to congress members and the public that this would be the last war supplemental bill. Congress members claimed to back it because it was the last one (not that this made the slightest sense), and others openly, proudly, and obliviously declared that they were switching their votes to yes in order to please the Emperor.

When the bill came to Emperor Barack he signed it and released his sixth and only legal signing statement announcing that he’d signed it. Two days later (Fridays being the favored day for signing statements) Obama released his seventh signing statement, claiming to have signed the same bill on that day as well, but perhaps beginning to establish the precedent that “signing statements,” like “executive orders,” can be issued at any time.

The seventh signing statement did what the first five had done: it illegally and unconstitutionally altered the law in favor of bestowing illegal powers on the Emperor. The seven statements are posted here. Here’s the heart of the seventh statement:

“[P]rovisions of this bill within sections 1110 to 1112 of title XI, and sections 1403 and 1404 of title XIV, would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the congress prior to such negotiations or discussions. I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to engage in foreign diplomacy or negotiations.”

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  • efoods

An executive would be someone who executed the laws of congress, suggesting that a different capitalized E word is actually intended, that “Executive” is now a stand-in for “Emperor.” Similarly, “constitutional” in this context refers to dictionary.com’s third definition of “constitution”, namely “the aggregate of a person’s physical and psychological characteristics.” In other words, “constitutional authority” is “imperial authority” derived from the character of the Emperor. We know this because the U.S. Constitution does not create any presidential authority to conduct foreign relations (only to “receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers”) but does require the advice and consent and two-thirds approval of the Senate in order to make treaties, and does give congress the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign nations” as well as complete power over the raising and spending of public funds, not to mention the power “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

The sections of this latest law tossed out by Obama were ploys to win the bill’s passage, including requirements that he work to strengthen labor and environmental standards at, and report to congress on the activities of, the IMF and the World Bank. Unlike an emperor, an executive would be required by the U.S. Constitution to “take Care that the Laws by faithfully executed,” stated by candidate Barack Obama thus:

“I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law.”

Obama’s first signing statement made part of the law his right to use the hundreds of billions of dollars appropriated in that bill in “new” and “far-reaching” ways that he would “initiate,” as well as the understanding that an “oversight board” created by the executive branch — rather than congress — would oversee the activities of the executive branch, or as Obama calls it “the Federal Government.”

Obama’s second signing statement declared his intention to violate dozens of sections of the law he was signing, including sections providing for the spending of funds, sections related to the creation of international treaties, and sections restricting retaliation against whistleblowers.

Obama’s third signing statement, on the “Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009,” announced his intention to violate requirements in the law related to the appointment of a government commission.

Obama’s fourth signing statement, on a bill creating a “Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission” threw out a requirement that the Emperor provide that commission with information.

Obama’s fifth signing statement was applied to a bill that created a commission and included on it six members of congress. The signing statement declared that those six commission members …

“will be able to participate only in ceremonial or advisory functions of [such a] Commission, and not in matters involving the administration of the act.”

Is it time to stop endlessly being “shocked” by these yet? Obama, like Bush, argues in his signing statements that the sections of law he intends to violate are unconstitutional. The problem is not that either one of these presidents is necessarily always wrong or that such questions can ever be decided to everyone’s satisfaction. The problem is that the Constitution requires the president to veto a bill or sign and faithfully execute it. The time to argue against the constitutionality of a provision is before a bill is passed or upon vetoing it. Such an argument can even be made upon signing a bill. It just can’t be accompanied by a declaration of the power to violate the law.

Presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton made innovations in the abuse of signing statements without which Bush Jr. could not have done what he did. Now Obama is further advancing the genre. At some point, of course — as Germans once learned (and learned before nukes or climate crises were on the table) — it can become too late to act.

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/the-emperors-seven-signing-statements/

Obama Breaks Promise, Embraces Healthcare Tax

Newsmax
June 29, 2009
  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  • efoods

WASHINGTON – The Obama White House left open the possibility Sunday that the president would break a campaign promise and raise taxes on people earning less than $250,000 to support his health care overhaul agenda.

White House adviser David Axelrod said the administration wouldn’t rule out taxing some employees’ benefits to fund a health care agenda that has yet to take final form. The move would be a compromise with fellow Democrats, who are pushing the proposal as a way to pay for the massive undertaking without ballooning the federal deficit.

“There are a number of formulations and we’ll wait and see. The important thing at this point is to keep the process moving, to keep people at the table, to the keep the discussions going,” Axelrod said. “We’ve gotten a long way down the road and we want to finish that journey.”

Read entire article

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/obama-breaks-promise-embraces-healthcare-tax/

Obama Depopulation Policy Exposed

You Tube
June 26, 2009

Panelists warn of the revival of eugenics under Obama’s modern healthcare through the denial of care to millions who would be judged ‘not fit to live’, just as in Nazi Germany.

Historian Anton Chaitkin also alleges that Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel, in working with Obama, has also called for the Hippocratic oath to be ‘junked.’

http://www.larouchepac.com/lpactv?nid=10735

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/obama-depopulation-policy-exposed/

Up ↑