It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama Protesters = Patriots with Guns, Bush Protesters = Criminals with T-Shirts

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 12:37 PM
If this has all been said already, I apologize. I quit reading after like the 4th page of comments.

As far as I can tell, there have only been 2 instances of groups of people being arrested at Obama rallys since he became President, at least that I found. 1: Notre Dame 2: AIDS activist in Washington D.C., combined total somewhere around 50 people.

The reason that the Secret Service did nothing to stop the men from carrying assault rifles around is because they were within their rights to carry them in public. If they had tried to go into the building, they would have been stopped, because theres a law that says that when the secret service assume control of a facility, any structure is considered as a federal building. And firearms aren't allowed in federal buildings.

I had one other thing I wanted to mention, but can't remember now.

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 01:12 PM
reply to post by grover

besides their mishandling of the health care debate...they should have started the drumbeat loud and early and not given the opposition a chance to get their bearings

Don't you understand that what you suggest is EXACTLY what many Americans are extremely upset about, namely ramrodding bills through Congress without time to thoroughly examine the bills, and have a nationwide debate about them.
I do applaud BH for trying to keep this about the topic, and non-partisan.
remarks like yours really defeat that purpose, and indicate a truly partisan approach.
Why are you afraid of allowing people that are opposed to a specific bill? Don't they have the same rights to examine the bill, as your proponents do?
Do you really think it is American to shove a bill through, without debate and examination of the bill?
Your remark certainly indicates that.
People WANT health care reform, but it needs to be so well-accepted and thoroughly thought out, that almost everyone can buy into it. Otherwise, no matter how many votes it gets in a ramrod, it will ultimately fail.

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 03:29 PM

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by grover
Why are you afraid of allowing people that are opposed to a specific bill? Don't they have the same rights to examine the bill, as your proponents do?
Do you really think it is American to shove a bill through, without debate and examination of the bill?
Your remark certainly indicates that.

I think (my opinion) what Grover was suggesting is that the Democrats naively followed the Presidents direction to try for bi-partisan debate and discussion.

They offered a seat at the table for the republicans and the GOP struck back with "death panels" BS yada yada..Socialism..yada...OBAMA MUST FAIL!!

They held town-hall their own initiative discuss the bill and instead of the "debate" and "discussion" you speak of they got people screaming about Nazi's and parroting talking points from the talking one listening.

So from that perspective it can be claimed that the Administration was Naive in wanting genuine discourse with the ever more fringe GOP.

It could also be seen as valiant that the Administration approached the topic as if the Republicans were interested in genuine reform and discussion of that reform.

In the end it is sad how easily the GOP manipulates what is left of its following...all for money.

Don't take my word for it...take the word of someone who used to compose this propaganda and spin it out there.

Commentary: How insurance firms drive debate

Editor's note: Wendell Potter has served since May 2009 as senior fellow on health care at the Center for Media and Democracy, a nonprofit organization that says it seeks to expose "corporate spin and government propaganda." After a 20-year career as a corporate public relations executive, Potter left his job last year as head of communications for one of the nation's largest health insurers, CIGNA Corporation.

how the health insurance and its army of PR people are influencing ...[public] opinions and actions without ..[the public]..even knowing it.

Until I quit my job last year, I was one of the leaders of that army. I had a very successful career and was my company's voice to the media and the public for several years.

It was my job to "promote and defend" the company's reputation and to try to persuade reporters to write positive stories about the industry's ideas on reform. During the last couple of years of my career, however, I became increasingly worried that the high-deductible plans insurers were beginning to push Americans into would force more and more of us into bankruptcy.

I could not in good conscience continue serving as an industry mouthpiece. And I did not want to be part of yet another industry effort to kill meaningful reform.

What I'm trying to do as I write and speak out against the insurance industry I was a part of for nearly two decades is to inform Americans that when they hear isolated stories of long waiting times to see doctors in Canada and allegations that care in other systems is rationed by "government bureaucrats," someone associated with the insurance industry wrote the original script.

The industry has been engaging in these kinds of tactics for many years, going back to its successful behind-the-scenes campaign to kill the Clinton reform plan.

story in Friday's New York Times about the origin of the absurdly false rumor that President Obama's health care proposal would create government-sponsored "death panels" bears out what I have been saying.

The story notes that the rumor emanated "from many of the same pundits and conservative media outlets that were central in defeating Bill Clinton's health care proposal 16 years ago, including the editorial board of The Washington Times, the American Spectator magazine and Betsy McCaughey, whose 1994 health care critique made her a star of the conservative movement (and ultimately, the lieutenant governor of New York)."

The big PR firms that work for the industry have close connections with those media outlets and stars in the conservative movement.

The industry goes to great lengths to keep its involvement in these campaigns hidden from public view. I know from having served on numerous trade group committees and industry-funded front groups, however, that industry leaders are always full partners in developing strategies to derail any reform that might interfere with insurers' ability to increase profits.

Here is CIGNA...the company this man worked for for 20 years..

[edit on 21-8-2009 by maybereal11]

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 03:45 PM
reply to post by maybereal11


It's amazing how few people realize that insurance industry will fight nail and tooth against any change that may take away some commercial fertile ground from them. Follow the money...

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 04:19 PM
reply to post by maybereal11

In the end it is sad how easily the GOP manipulates what is left of its following...all for money

You know, no matter how hard I try to elevate this debate to a non-partisan level, it just seems like posters like you just CAN'T Resist making partisan comments. You know, I'm out of here. If we can't have a discussion without the constant blame game, there is no further sense in discussing it.

Maybe, it's time for me to take a hiatus from ATS.

Have a nice year.

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 04:59 PM
reply to post by ProfEmeritus

There are always going to be opinions from both sides and the center and every point in between. Just because someone makes a point for or against a certain position or party that DOESN'T necessarily mean it's made in a partisan manner. For example, I can say something against the GOP, but that doesn't mean I said it just because I'm a Democrat (which I'm not).

A statement made in a partisan manner is a statement that I don't even necessarily believe or agree with, but it's what the party wants me to say. It's how the party feels and that's the reason a person says it. Because it's the party line.

If we all had opinions right down the middle, and never talked about one party or the other as "good" or "bad", it would be a terribly boring place to be.

I agree with maybereal in that the GOP manipulates it's people (registered Republicans and conservatives) with illogical fear. They shower them with talking points and get them "fired up" with things that aren't true.

That doesn't mean that the Democrats are any better. But this is a statement about the GOP. And I've got to say that I can't stand the GOP these days. I hate what they've done and what they're doing. I don't say that out of party loyalty or anything like that. I say that because it's what I observe. It's not a partisan statement, it's an observation. I have other not-so-nice observations about Democrats.

Take a deep breath, Prof.

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 10:15 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Sorry if I missed your answer. But I asked the question very, very early and didn't see an answer through page 1.
Sorry, but I didn't see this thread worth while. However it appears that it grew legs.
So I ask again.

How about the people that protest both parties? Where do they fit into the devisive premise of your thread?

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 10:17 PM

Originally posted by grover

NO ONE is going to take away your precious second amendment rights...they aren't even trying.

Really? i wonder for what reason the Obama administration would claim the following.

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
Previous Ban Expired in 2004 During the Bush Administration

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

"[siz=4]I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.

Holder, and the rest of the Obama administration should know that there is a big difference between FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS, and SEMI AUTOMATIC WEAPONS. The definition "ASSAULT WEAPONS" includes most weapons that most Americans have which are SEMI AUTOMATIC, and which means the weapon fires ONE round every time you pull the trigger, and these weapons just shoot once, no matter how long you keep the trigger pulled. Those are the ASSAULT WEAPONS which MOST Americans have, and the weapons which the Mexican drug cartels have ARE ALL FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS, which are bought in the BLACK MARKET, but the Obama administration has claimed the MExican drug cartels are buying these guns at American shops, which is nothing more than a lie.

That's without acknowledging the fact that several gun bills have been proposed by the gun grabbers during the Obama administration.

WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST (voice-over): Binghamton, Pittsburgh, Oakland, Samson, Alabama, Carthage (ph), North Carolina, sensational incidents of gun violence all over the country. Are we seeing an impact on public opinion? Since 2001, a majority of Americans has favored stricter gun laws though support has been trending slightly down and now a sharp, sudden drop.

Only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll. It may have to do with President Obama and the new administration.

SEAN HEALY, ATTORNEY: If he and the people in control of Congress right now could have what they want, they would heavily restrict or eliminate guns from this country.

SCHNEIDER: They may have heard what the new attorney general said.

ERIC HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: There are just a few gun related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons.

SCHNEIDER: And what the new secretary of state said about the ban.

HILLARY CLINTON, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: I, as a senator, supported measures to try to reinstate it. Politically, that is a very big hurdle in our Congress. But there may be some approaches that could be acceptable, and we are exploring those.

SCHNEIDER: The country is seeing a surge in gun sales.

STEVE PRATER, LOCK 'N' LOAD MANAGER: Everybody kind of got scared. The market got depleted.

SCHNEIDER: Support for tougher gun laws has held fairly steady among Democrats. The sharp drop has been among Independents and Republicans where there are fewer Obama supporters.

(on camera): The Gallup poll reveals a gradual long-term decline in support for gun control from the early 1990's to 2008. In fact support for handgun ban was down to 29 percent, the lowest figure in 50 years. That coincides with the decline in the nation's murder rate. But this year's sudden drop seems to have been influenced by politics.

According to CNN's own polls MST Americans do not want stricter gun laws and that might be part of the reason why Obama has claimed that for now they won't try to pass such laws, but the thing is even despite president's Obama's claim the contrary has occured.

Obama Administration Begins Opposition To States Claiming Sovereignty And Gun Rights

Published on 07-26-2009

The several states are lining up to reclaim their sovereignty and telling the federal government to butt out. This is being done in myriad ways but all are related in that most claim that the Tenth Amendment protects the states from federal tyranny. States are passing resolutions, memorials and two states have passed laws and they intend to apply those laws for their citizens. The two states are Montana and Tennessee.

It was expected that at some point these laws would be challenged and it appears actions to do such has begun. The Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has published open letters to federal firearms license holders in Montana and Tennessee explaining that federal law trumps state law when it comes to gun laws.

“As you may know, federal law requires a license to engage in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition, or to deal in firearms, even if the firearms or ammunition remain with the same state. All firearms manufactured by a licensee must be properly marked. Additionally, each licensee must record the type, model, caliber or gauge, and serial number of each firearm manufactured or otherwise acquired, and the date such manufacture or other acquisition was made. Firearms transaction records and NICS background checks must be conducted prior to disposition of firearms to unlicensed persons. These, as well as other Federal requirements and prohibitions, apply whether or not the firearms or ammunition have crossed state lines.

In a report filed by CBS News, it seems to indicate that even though these states are claiming sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment, the Federal Government may have power over such gun laws as the Firearms Freedom Act, via the Commerce Clause.

Read literally, the Tenth Amendment seems to suggest that the federal governments powers are limited only to what it has beendelegated,” and the U.S. Supreme Court in 1918 confirmed that the amendment “carefully reserved” some authority “to the states.” That view is echoed by statements made at the time the Constitution was adopted; New Hampshire explicitly said that states kept “all powers not expressly and particularly delegated” to the federal government.

More recently, federal courts have interpreted the Tenth Amendment narrowly, in a way that justifies almost any law on grounds that it intends to regulate interstate commerce.

Originally posted by grover
The only ones who claim that they are are gullible people who actually believe the misinformation that the NRA and the GOP send out to drum up support and contributions.

Riiight, so says Grover... First of all, Grover, the NRA is one of the oldest organizations fromed in 1871 by Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate, and it is one of the few organization which has been fighting for American's rights to own and bear arms.

Originally posted by grover
Get it through your head it ain't gonna happen. The 2nd amendment isn't called an amendment for nothing...

Get it through your thick head, EVERY country which has banned weapons started with only SOME restrictions, but the goal of the gun-grabbers has ALWAYS been the same, and we all know, maybe except Grover and others like him, that MOST DEmocrats are gun grabbers, and their goal is to BAN ALL FIREARMS...

Originally posted by grover
In case you were sound asleep during civics class:

In case you were asleep during the past 9 months or so...

January 14, 2009

Virginia Takes Constitutional Convention Stage
By Chuck Baldwin

As I noted in this column a few weeks ago, proponents of assembling a new Constitutional Convention are a scant two states away from achieving that monstrous reality. (Please review my column on this subject here.)

At that time, the state of Ohio was in the crosshairs. Fortunately, enough people from that good state inundated their state representatives with objections, and the matter was tabled (for how long, no one knows). Now it appears that the Commonwealth of Virginia is going to be the next battleground state.

In all likelihood, the Virginia legislature will be the next state government to take up the Con Con issue. It is imperative, therefore, that the citizens of Virginia begin contacting their various representatives, demanding that they not authorize the call for a new Constitutional Convention.

As I noted in my previous column on this subject, "If called, a modern Constitutional Convention could declare the U.S. Constitution to be null and void, and could completely rewrite the document. For example, former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger once declared, 'There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda.'"

We were only two states away from having a Constitutional Convention, which would have rewritten our Constitution.

This was being done behind the public's back, until someone leaked what was going on.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 10:20 PM
Should i also post again the DHS document which clearly labels most Americans as "possible terrorists", and Emmanuel Rahms claims that anyone who is a "possible terrorist" should not have guns?.

It seems clear that it has been you Grover, alongside some others who have been asleep for the past 8-9 months.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 10:59 PM
reply to post by ProfEmeritus

Didn't you notice the OP tried to make it look like things are better under the Obama administration, and she is even dismissing FACTS which have been posted several times in these boards and still thinks the "CHANGE" which was brought by the Obama administration is good?...

Some people don't seem to understand that in some states it is still completely legal to open carry, that is to have your weapons on you when you go out, and if you go to certain events. Even the police officers said this was LEGAL, and the man carrying the AR-15 as well as others were using their legal right to own and bear arms.

They weren't violent, they weren't calling for violence, they were just using their right to own and bear arms, and showing that noone should be trying to take this right away because it is important for ALL Americans, even those who have flawed ideologies about weapons, which wouldn't be able to express their flawed ideologies without weapons in the first place.

These people seem to forget that they have rights ONLY BECAUSE OF FIREARMS....and because the forefathers, which includes all Americans who fought for this nation, were willing to take up arms against tyranny and injustice..

Without FIREARMS the United States would have never been founded, and would still be a colony of England under the tyrannical rule of England.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 09:18 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

All that is still moot.

You cannot take away 2nd amendment rights without appealing the 2nd amendment and whether it is via the congress and states voting or a constituational ain't gonna happen...

There is simply too much opposition to the idea both in the public and in office to pull it off and that is good.

Surprised I said that?

I am not opposed to guns rights I just think that most of the people doing the howling about guns rights are crack jobs.

posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 09:22 AM
reply to post by ProfEmeritus

I am not opposed to debate about it and never said that. I said and in case I wasn't clear was that the Obama administration dropped the ball and allowed the opposition frame the debate...its a bad habit the Democrats have...assuming the opposition will be civil and sane.

Consequently the White House now has to scramble to get the whole debate back on actual issues as opposed to straw dogs like death panels.

posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 09:33 AM

Originally posted by JayinAR
How about the people that protest both parties? Where do they fit into the devisive premise of your thread?

I didn't answer because I'm not sure of the meaning of the question. What about the people? If they're protesting at a Bush Rally, they might get arrested for wearing a Kerry sticker or a "No Bush" t-shirt. If they're protesting at an Arizona Obama Rally, they can carry a semi-automatic rifle and not be hassled. They might even get treated respectfully and get a spot on a news program.

It's not about what the people support, it's about the difference in treatment at the 2 administrations' rallies.

How's that?

Originally posted by grover
Consequently the White House now has to scramble to get the whole debate back on actual issues as opposed to straw dogs like death panels.

And "gun rights".

posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 09:38 AM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Oh, I see.
You are saying that there is some sort of right wing conspiracy at work here.
Meaning that if you protest the right you are a villain but if you protest the left nothing?

Doesn't make sense to me considering the left is currently on a steam-train course of destroying this country.

I think that the protestors with guns shown are plants. Especially that dude with the assault rifle.
They are using this crap as an excuse to declare war on the people.

posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 10:34 AM

Originally posted by JayinAR
You are saying that there is some sort of right wing conspiracy at work here.

If I was saying that, then surely, you'd be able to quote where I said it...

Meaning that if you protest the right you are a villain but if you protest the left nothing?

I am not addressing the protesters at all. I SUPPORT ALL OF THE PROTESTERS. If you read the OP and my other posts in this thread, you'd see that I am addressing the two administrations, their Secret Service and their handling of their protesters and the discrepancy between the two, NOT the protesters.

Doesn't make sense to me considering the left is currently on a steam-train course of destroying this country.

So, are YOU saying that there is some sort of left-wing conspiracy at work here?

I think that the protestors with guns shown are plants. Especially that dude with the assault rifle.

If you had read my posts in this thread, you'd see that I suggested the same thing. Minus the term "assault rifle".

They are using this crap as an excuse to declare war on the people.

The planted protesters are going to declare war on the people? Sorry, the more I read of your post, the more confused I get.

posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 10:37 AM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Hell yes I'm saying there is a conspiracy here!
It is a conspiracy to subject the will of the people to authoritarian control.
And they are almost there.

posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 01:27 PM
I'm not reading 9 pages of arguing, so I am sorry if this has been posted.

posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 11:16 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

lmaoo tff.... and you are sooooo right!!!

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:03 PM
The Right-Left Paradigm is a MYTH. If you perpetuate this hoax, you are not working in behalf of your Country or your fellow Americans.

Don't worry, you can watch them at your leisure and dismiss whatever you wish, overall, it paints a very clear picture.
- Hide quoted text -

- Hide quoted text -


Note: Exchange the J word for Zionists. It is historically accurate.

Most who follow the Torah haven't a clue about who their masters really are today.

Sometimes all the History in the World, straight from the Library of Congress and the Vatican Library just isn't enough.

People would rather buy the security of Sweet Lies from the TV.

Don't touch my comfort zone, or I'll shoot the messenger!

This is how we got here.

Advanced course 501. In case you wanted some authentic voices you never heard.

Reading between the lines is helpful, but not always necessary.


PS: This is about abuse of power and deception to gain power over ALL peoples of all faiths, by setting THEM AGAINST EACH OTHER.

as Viktor Ostrovsky's example (by his book title) exposing his former employer, the Mossad.

"By Way of Deception, Thou Shalt Do War".

Make no mistake. We are fighting Pagan Zionists, formerly "GENTILES", who've disguised themselves as Israeli Jews and American Jews.

Look up Khazaria- 740-780 AD.

They have no such blood, or honorable, connection.

This deception must end.


This is an excerpt from the letter the 19th century Pope of Freemasonry, Albert Pike, sent to Italian Freemason, Giuseppe Mazzini (which literally translates to "Mason"). It is dated August 15, 1871. This letter, which was reportedly once on display at the British Museum, is an excellent example of how agendas are laid out many, many years before the public sees them unfold in what we call "current events." What we call history is nothing more than a script being played out, written many years in advance by a small few who have existed down through the ages, out of the public eye, working to carry out the goals of their Hidden Masters, which are many generations in the making....

"The First World War must be brought about in order to permit the Illuminati to overthrow the power of the Czars in Russia and of making that country a fortress of atheistic Communism. The divergences caused by the "agentur" (agents) of the Illuminati between the British and Germanic Empires will be used to foment this war. At the end of the war, Communism will be built and used in order to destroy the other governments and in order to weaken the religions."

"The Second World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences between the Fascists and the political Zionists. This war must be brought about so that Nazism is destroyed and that the political Zionism be strong enough to institute a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine. During the Second World War, International Communism must become strong enough in order to balance Christendom, which would be then restrained and held in check until the time when we would need it for the final social cataclysm."

"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile th e other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time."

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:04 PM
reply to post by mcguyvermanolo

Aldous Huxley was right....

"And it seems to me perfectly in the cards that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing … a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods."

-- Aldous Huxley (1961)

Huxley noted several key developments that he thought would be essential in setting up such a system, including:

*Permanent economic security which would remove the primary source of discontent.

*Improved techniques of suggestion and c onditioning, including the use of drugs and repetitive, hypnotic training. (Note that this was written before the advent of television and Prozac!)

*A method of psychological evaluation and assignment of individuals to their "proper" social and economic places in the hierarchy.

*Widespread use of recreational drugs to allow temporary escape from the pressures of existence.

*A system of eugenics to allow "human resources" with only the desired characteristics to be bred as needed.

*Huxley knew the agenda because he was part of it*


"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

--David Rockefeller speaking at the June 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden Baden, Germany


"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences ."

"The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank . . . sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

-- Carroll Quigley, "Tragedy and Hope", 1966, pg. 324


new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in