SLIDE FROM THE CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL (CIC) 2010 VIDEO ENTITLED "OPEN CANADA".
Nota Bene: The links on this Blog post are being archived here, on calameo.
I want to illustrate briefly the dangers of the 10th-Amendment movement, no matter how well intentioned most of its followers.
The State of Massachusets filed a 10th-Amendment Resolution:
http://en.calameo.com/books/000747447f4600155f026
They even have a page for it in Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Massachusetts-Tenth-Amendment-Center/112152852184862
It was filed on Tuesday, May 26, 2009 by Massachusetts State Representative Jeffrey Davis Perry before the House of Representatives to protect the Founding Fathers' intent and the Constitutional protections of the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Now, let's back up a bit. William F. Weld is a Former Governor of the State of Massachusetts and a former Assistant U.S. Attorney General.
More importantly, Weld is a CHAIR of the CFR-CCCE's Building A North American Union task force, and he SIGNED the Report planning the continental merger:
http://en.calameo.com/books/000747447ceb5c06ff35f
Just as important, WELD is the co-author of a related, CFR-sponsored article entitled: "NORTH America The Beautiful":
You see the little OATH problem there? For America, and for Canada -- our former Deputy Prime Minister John Manley also signed that article.
So, while Massachusetts is busily pumping up lawsuits against the FED under the 10th Amendment, and invoking the constitution and originalism, with apparent patriotic fervor -- do you notice the same people behind that fervor opposing with equal enthusiasm the actions of former Governor Weld, who signed the death warrant of all the States?
Do they oppose any of his gubernatorial successors, who, arguably, are in the same NWO boat?
Why are they aiming ONLY at nasty old Obama and his "Council of Governors" to apparently replace the Republic:
... but are not, I suspect, taking EQUAL aim at people of the type of William F. WELD and CELLUCCI -- who have used their public careers in Massachusetts as a springboard to advance North American Soviet Union, and thus globalism? Have there been any Tea Parties against Weld and Cellucci and their pro-NAU actions?"(UPI.com, Jan. 11, 2010 at 11:54 p.m.). "Obama signed an executive order establishing a panel to be known as the Council of Governors, which will be made up of 10 state governors, to be selected by the president to serve two-year terms. Members will review matters involving the National Guard; homeland defense; civil support; and synchronization and integration of state and federal military activities in the United States, the White House said in a statement."
Surely there must be others in Massachusetts who are on board with NAU -- who have chaired and co-authored the END of America, whose REPLACEMENT actually requires Obama's likely Soviet-style council?
Now, recently Wikileaks released part of a 2005 cable to Canada from U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci, in which he discusses how best to advance the NAU integration agenda for North America:
"Leaked U.S. cable lays out North American ‘integration’ strategy (National Post, 2 June 2011)"
http://en.calameo.com/books/000747447169ac10d29df
Here's that cable:
Who's Paul Cellucci?
He ran for Governor of Massachusetts against William F. Weld (the latter who, by the way, resigned in an effort to become Ambassador to Mexico -- the narco-state to the south they are merging into the USA and Canada under Weld's little plan with Big Business and the CFR.)
Cellucci won for Governor; he then resigned to become Ambassador to Canada, that lovely little semi-socialist state to the North with whom the USA is being merged:
"GOVERNORS OF MASSACHUSETTS - COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS (1950-present) (mass.gov)":
http://en.calameo.com/books/00074744744a4d1935d35
Here are a few words from Cellucci's cable to Ottawa, while he was Ambassador to Canada:
“An incremental and pragmatic package of tasks for a new North American Initiative (NAI) will likely gain the most support among Canadian policymakers.
Our research leads us to conclude that such a package should tackle both "security" and "prosperity" goals. This fits the recommendations of Canadian economists who have assessed the OPTIONS for continental integration. While in principle many of them support more ambitious goals, like a customs union/single market and/or single currency, most believe the incremental approach is most appropriate at this time, and all agree that it helps pave the way to these goals if and when North Americans choose to pursue them."
You don't "pave the way" to something that you have no intention of doing; even less do you pretend that you are "paving" the way on the off-chance that "North Americans" might one day "choose to pursue them".
This goes to prove that CFR men who are up to their ears in continental union -- and this is very different from the Monroe Doctrine, this is not the same thing -- are easily elected to highest office in Massachusetts where they are called "Excellency" by electors unaware of their true leanings.
"If states break off, that will certainly wake the entire population of a given state up. The governor can take charge of his national guard and bring them home. The ENTIRE state will wake up and arm itself and be ready for federal encroachment.I wonder if that stands for "1776". In any event, we see that this proud and defiant American (i) expects the State GOVERNOR to take charge of the troops; (ii) he equates full-scale militarization as "standing up" for the constitution; (iii) he imagines there will be plenty of casualties, the thought of murdering fellow Americans en masse doesn't seem to bother him; any day now, his neighbor employed in the FED could start to look like King George III, and if so, woe to him.
I feel very positive about these 10th amendment bills because in my opinion it is being asserted in the manner in which it should be, "We will not allow you to do anything that is not listed in the constitution."
...The states are standing up for the constitution and ready to ignore so called "federal law" and secede if necessary.
Imagine if states did that and the people woke up and armed themselves? They may have tanks but in order to retake the land they have to put boots on the ground like in Katrina.... imagine if in the aftermath of Katrina, every cop who entered a house illegally was shot at by the resident? Imagine how many casualties there would have been. If NH secedes and decides to arrest all federal officers and kick them out or charge them with treason... imagine how galvanized the people will be... how armed they will be, how awake to the threat they will be...
Individual states standing up and saying NO is how this country was founded. This nation was born out of defiance. It's time our founding fathers had something to say on current affairs." (SimpleDan76)
However, by the time the people "awake" to the "threat" under SimpleDan's system, their own national guard may well have been turned on them by their own Governor, working for the CFR. Imagine if mass-secessions were coordinated with another 9/11 attack, but this time, a direct hit on the White House and on Washington?
After all, what is the White House, according to the Canadian International Council (CIC), our branch of your CFR, but an "old power" "declining"; one that has to be gotten rid of -- just like our Canadian Parliament -- to "pave the way" for the new "North American" parliament.
Now, add into the mix the precedent being set today in Libya: full-scale military attack on a head of state for his use of military to resist revolution by his own citizens. Apply this to a full-blown 10th-Amendment scenario.
If CFR-controlled State Governors declare secession, and call home their national guards, could an American CFR-controlled President even attempt to resist secession of the States without incurring UN bombing raids on the White House and assassination attempts on the President?
Knowing that both the White House and States like Massachusetts are under full CFR control, how might the game unfold?
Hypothetical 10th-Amendment Scenario:
Here's one scenario: the States, having been turned against their own federal government would refuse to re-unite. The CFR-controlled Governors would propose A NEW FORM OF SUPRANATIONAL UNION to "stabilize the continent". This would involve a "deepening" of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America signed with Bush, Fox & Martin in 2005 in Waco.
There would be an early agreement (pre-arranged between some CFR-controlled States, of course), and there would also be pre-arranged dissent by others, who had always believed that secession would bring the White House to its knees, begging the seceded States to re-convene.
But instead, the CFR-controlled White House pulls a Yeltsin and declares the USA officially terminated on the grounds of multiple secessions and goodbye, Constitution. With the States all gone, there is no one to defend the Constitution. On the international scene, the mostly communist UN members rush to declare the "sovereignty" of the seceded States, and the United States of America -- which no longer has a UN seat -- is dissolved.
The States having seceded under CFR command would now be in apparent control of the situation in all of North America. A skirmish might break out, or full-blown civil war. Those States under the CFR insist upon a full-blown North American Union, while those who believed they were only "seceding" as a "wake-up" call to the federal government, now want to reunite the Republic.
As civil war rages, other events are deployed which were also planned long ago and are under CFR control: a convenient foreign power, perhaps with a long-range missile based in South America, takes it upon itself to decide the outcome. Putting an end to all discussion: they bomb the White House off the map. The States now have nowhere to go except the direction carefully prepared for them over the course of decades: for the sake of "security and prosperity", they agree to the North American Union.Now, with the White House gone, although the Pentagon is still left standing, a new location must be found for the parliament of North America, which, in fact, will be merely a branch of the United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, under communist world government.
Quite conveniently, Canada's Parliament Hill has been under major renovations since 1992, and in particular since the year of the SPP signed in Waco, Texas -- 2005. But it has 308 seats -- far more than required for North American Union, but just the ticket for an assembly of representatives from all the western hemispheric nations.OBJECT LESSON:
You do not know what CFR members, who are or have been State Governors and other officials, have done internally to Massachusetts or any other State to facilitate UN takeover under Agenda 21 and the North American merger. All this has been planned for decades, never mind the 2005 date on the CFR's "official" merger plan called "Building A North American Community". However, what is quite clear is the nature of the power and the kinds of resources they wield, thanks to electorates who repeatedly and ignorantly put them into power: including the power to declare secession and to issue commands to your own State troops.
And when they do issue those commands under the guise of "defending the constitution", will they will bring America to its Waterloo by turning its own national patriotism upon it to destroy it for North American communist union?
Now, what about Massachusetts Governor Jane Swift? She's a guest speaker for Global Conferences at the Milkin Institute:
http://www.milkeninstitute.org/events/gcprogram.taf?function=bio&EventID=GC08&SPID=3219
What is on the agenda of the Milken Institute: CLIMATE CHANGE:
Now, that's a dead-ringer.
The Center for Global Studies quotes the Mission Statement of the Milken Institute:
"Mission Statement
"[T]o improve the lives and economic conditions of diverse populations in the United States and around the world by helping business and public policy leaders identify and implement innovative ideas for creating broad-based prosperity."
http://cgs.illinois.edu/content/milken-institute
Who are the sponsors of the Milken Institute?
That list includes Canada, Bloomberg and BNP Paribas.
On the subject of BNP Paribas, fellow sponsor Bloomberg has this say:
"Mr. Paul Guy Desmarais, Jr. is the Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer of Power Corporation of Canada. He also serves as a Managing Director of Pargesa Holding S.A. Prior to joining Power Corporation of Canada in 1981, Mr. Desmarais was at S.G. Warburg & Co. and Standard Brands Incorporated. He serves as the Chairman of the Board of Power Financial Corporation. He is also a Vice Chairman of the Board and Director of Pargesa Holding S.A.
That's WARBURG and Standard Brands, two famous names in the setup of world wars and revolutions to get world government. And, BNP owns a large stake in a Power Corporation subsidiary, namely Pargesa Holdings.
Desmarais for Power Corporporation sits on the Board and on the Senate of the Canadian International Council (CIC) which is the Canadian branch of the CFR. The CIC web site features a video and report, both entitled OPEN CANADA, and both declaring that the WHITE HOUSE is an "old power declining". Here's the Report:
http://www.opencanada.org/features/reports/opencanada/
Here's the video:
URL of that video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOiw9s9Fkgc
Here's the slide from the video showing the WHITE HOUSE on its way out:
http://en.calameo.com/books/00074744753a3a1c01ee1
Like his father before him, Desmarais for Power Corporation sits on the CCCE which authored the Building a North American Community task force plan to merge North America post-9/11.
In addition, late last year, the RHODES Scholarship committee which doles out the prizes for Quebec convened at the Montreal offices of Power Corporation:
"The Quebec Committee for Rhodes Scholarships convenes at Power Corporation (Peggy Curran, Montreal Gazette, November 26, 2010)":
http://en.calameo.com/books/000747447ae3bf6bae5eeIt is now well known that Rhodes Scholarships are conferred on students seen not only as able to advocate for a world government, but to actually help implement it by returning to their communities in various capacities so as to give effect to their free indoctrination at Oxford.
On the committee that year, we find at least one (Peggy Curran) -- but most likely two connections to The Montreal Gazette. By this, I mean Michael Goldbloom. I wrote to Ms. Curran in regard to her Rhodes article, but she ignored my request to know whether Michael Goldbloom, former publisher of the Montreal Gazette, our only major English newspaper, was still a member of the Rhodes selection committee, as he was said to be in 2006:
"MICHAEL GOLDBLOOM TAKES ON CRITICAL ROLE AT McGILL (31 October 2006)"
http://en.calameo.com/books/0007474474449ecfa0cb7
"Goldbloom has a distinguished record of community leadership...He also served... as a member of the Quebec selection committee for the Rhodes Scholarship."We all have our opinions of what constitutes "community" leadership. In Goldbloom's case, that would have to be defined specifically as the same "North American Community" under construction by the CFR.
World government requires the dismantling of Canada, being done by fake secession, which in turn requires fake news, not to mention sedition. Michael Goldbloom has been ideally positioned to generate fake news, and sedition, both of which feature prominently in the January 9th, 1995 Montreal Gazette Editorial of which he is one of the signatories:
Scroll down here for the Editorial entitled "Legalities of separation important but more crucial questions are being glossed over... ":
http://en.calameo.com/books/00074744725535c0d781c
Notice from the title of that Editorial that there is something more crucial than the LAW for lawyer-publisher Michael Goldbloom.
At the Grounds page of my web site, HabeasCorpusCanada.com, I prove that the Montreal Gazette, its former publisher Michael Goldbloom, and his former Editor-in-Chief Joan Fraser (now, a Senator) are up to the neck in sedition and fraud to bring down Canada for NAU through the phony secession of Quebec.
Future senator Fraser will chair the Senate Clarity Committee whose job it is to rubber-stamp the Supreme Court of Canada's treasonous, non-binding Secession opinion, which purports to legalize the illegal secession of Quebec.
But, back to Massachusetts. There is NO way that Power Corporation, its ties and allies, would SPONSOR the Milken Institute, and no way that Jane Swift would lecture there, unless all was in proper order in terms of the NAU agenda.
More importantly, in a secret committee of Power Corporation in Quebec in 1967, a committee of which Pierre Elliott Trudeau and numerous other "federal" Members of Parliament from Quebec were a part, it was decided to create a "separatist party":
THE SECRET COMMITTEE:
"IN THE EYE OF THE EAGLE - THE "SECRET COMMITTEE" AT POWER CORP. (1967), by Jean-François Lisée (Toronto: Harper-Collins Publishers Ltd., 1990)"
http://en.calameo.com/books/000747447d8d4b4a9f7f2
The "separatist party" that was created is a FAKE, a fake known as the PARTI QUEBECOIS, whose agenda was (and still is) to impose the European Economic Community system on Canada in 1980 disguised as a "referendum to secede". But, it was really a referendum to get a mandate to NEGOTIATE the new system, disguised as "keeping Canada together", while using a threat of UDI by Quebec as blackmail to impose it.
The same fake political party tried again in 1995 and failed. At that time, as the materials indicate, which I won't go into, there were plans for a military coup in the event of a YES to the fake "secession". The two attempts to impose the EEC-EU system (the basis of North American Union to have commenced with Canada) having failed twice, 9/11 was done, and NOW they are imposing it disguised as the SPP.
And, as I have said in another post, the purpose of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) is to forge ahead with North American INTEGRATION, while leaving the political dismantling till the end, i.e., we are now up against BOTH:
[a] the phony secession of Quebec into North American Union, to trigger the unraveling of Canada and North America; and
[b] the phony secession of the States of the Union under the 10th Amendment, perfectly timed to achieve the same thing, but hidden behind the mask of American patriotism, and operated out of states like Massachusetts, which is clearly fully enrolled in the globalist agenda.
Now, what about former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney? Here's a page with a few words:
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-102076-.html
"The people that believe Mitt Romney is a Washington outsider are falling for a campaign ploy that has been used for a hundred years. Mitt Romney, as well as all the major candidates, have surrounded themselves with the same campaign handlers that have been involved in all the Presidential elections in recent memory.
They all have ties to George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. The other thing they all have in common is the Council on Foreign Relations.
All past Presidents and no doubt our next President, with the exception of Ron Paul, will pick their cabinet from the membership of this elitist group. The stated purpose of the CFR is “to bring about a New World Order through the manipulation of U.S. foreign policy and relations and through international economic interdependence.” These are people that believe in developing a world government in incremental steps. They believe in diluting national sovereignty by merging countries together into economic regions (the European Union, the North American Union)."
Jimmy Carter Says US More Polarized Than During Civil War (1861-64 Secession)
The web site, LAW.COM, run by lawyers, picked up my YouTube re-publication of the Carter statement above, complete with my video description, literally within seconds after I posted it early morning on September 22, 2010:
URL (PDF) OF LAW.COM RE-POST: http://en.calameo.com/books/00074744734a213a271ff
LAW.COM, quoting me writing about President Jimmy Carter and the two secession movements in Canada and USA:
"Former President of the United States of America, Jimmy Carter (CFR member and Bilderberg attendee), speaking on Tuesday, 21 September 2010:For more on the Carter announcement of 21 September 2010, see my blog post here:
"This country has become so polarized that it's almost astonishing.... Not only with the red and blue states... President Obama suffers from the most polarized situation in Washington that we have ever seen -- even maybe than the time of Abraham Lincoln and the initiation of the war between the states."
Mr. Carter was the 39th President of the United States (1977-1981), inaugurated on January 20th, 1977.
This clip of Mr. Carter should be viewed in the awareness that Leader of the so-called 'separatist' Bloc Quebecois party in the federal Parliament of Canada, Gilles Duceppe, has been touring Canada in 2010, urging ALL the provinces to "secede". 2010 is the target year in the Council on Foreign Relation's "Building A North American Union" plan which elaborates the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America, by laying out the groundwork for the North American Union. Meanwhile, the Model Parliament for North America, launched in the Canadian Senate Chamber in 2005, and with offices out of the University of Montreal under Christine Frechette, with Robert Pastor of American University as co-chair, anticipates NOT a meeting of Canada, the USA and Mexico under a continental parliament -- but the DISMANTLED states and provinces of the USA, Mexico and Canada.
And in this same year, we have north of the 49th parallel and south of the 49th parallel, two secession movements -- the 10th Amendment Movement in the USA, and the "Quebec secession" movement in Canada, preparing to rip the continent apart -- quite conveniently for re-federation into North American Union, almost on schedule. To cinch it, Duceppe sent a letter on 9th June 2010 to 1,600 world leaders and influential figures advising them that a third and final referendum for Quebec to 'secede' is coming. Duceppe's itinerary also indicates he is touring the western hemisphere this Fall to follow up on his letter... clearly, he is arranging the international state recognition of Quebec, which in the international arena will have the effect of DISSOLVING Canada. Here's the letter in English (it went out in English, French, and Spanish):
http://en.calameo.com/books/0001117908d1832596065"
And: http://en.calameo.com/books/000747447e893abfb02bb
http://canadian-state-of-the-union.blogspot.com/2011/06/september-21-2010-jimmy-carter-says-us.html
But, what about Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick?
"Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick to push in-state tuition for illegal immigrants"
http://en.calameo.com/books/000747447448f745798ee
Now, that ought to help the North American merger.
Given these facts, is the filing of a 10th-Amendment State-sovereignty resolution under the Constitution of the United States of America really consistent with the Governors of the State of Massachusetts embracing North American Union? Unless the purpose of the Resolution is to lay the basis of a real "secession", controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations through State and Federal officials they thoroughly own and operate.
Ultimately, to complete the North American Union, both must do it.
There may be other States equally qualified to pull the ripcord.
I think you can see my point. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong.
Kathleen Moore
HABEAS CORPUS CANADAThe Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union
www.habeascorpuscanada.com
Facebook . Calameo . Blogspot . CrazyforCanada on YouTube.
