Bilderberg.org

[lauchenauermartin]

http://www.womensgroup.org/REINVENTING-GOVERNMENT%96BILL-CLINTON.htm

REINVENTING GOVERNMENT - by Joan Veon who visited this UN Conference a few days ago in Vienna/Austria



REINVENTING GOVERNMENT – BILL CLINTON
YOU ARE NO GEORGE WASHINGTON!
Joan M. Veon
The Women’s International Media Group, Inc.

The Seventh Global Forum on Reinventing Government recently concluded in Vienna. For the first time since this type of meeting was organized in 1999, the United Nations hosted a conference on changing the structure of government worldwide to be more democratic. What does it mean to have the United Nations in charge of changing the structure of national government worldwide? We must primarily consider the actions of President Clinton who began the reinventing government process in the United States. .

In 1989 Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton became chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council-DLC. The DLC is also affiliated with the Progressive Policy Institute and the Smith Institute of London and was created to develop the “third way” philosophy and governing agenda. When he ran for the presidency, Clinton promised change and was the first to campaign on the concept of reinventing government.

On March 3, 1994, Clinton announced, “We intend to redesign, to reinvent, to reinvigorate the entire national government” (Washington Times, 3/4/94). In his January, 1995 State of the Union address, Clinton announced a “New Covenant” which he said was

A new set of understandings for how we can equip our people to meet the challenges of the new economy, how we can change the way our government works. The old way was centralized here in Washington. The New Covenant must take hold in the communities all across America. We should rely on government as a partner.

The president kept his word and created the National Performance Review in 1993 which came up with several reports. They reported that over a five year period of time, the U.S. Government eliminated 250 outdated government programs, slashed more than 160,000 pages of regulations, cut more than 640,000 pages of internal rules, helped balance the federal budget for the first time in 30 years and cut more than 351,000 employees. However, reinventing government is more than just making government more efficient.

In 1999 when Vice President Al Gore hosted the first annual meeting on “Reinventing Government” at the State Department, he said overly centralized government was an impediment in the 21st high-speed, high-tech economy. He explained, “To promote prosperity in the new economy, nations will have to reinvent their economic and regulatory institutions to respond to citizens and markets in a more flexible and efficient manner.” Various countries testified as to what they were doing to reinvent government in their country.

Various books and reports started to pop up. Some of them included: Our Common Future by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987, Creating a New Civilization—The Politics of the Third Wave in 1994 by Alvin and Heidi Toffler, An Agenda for Peace by Boutros Boutros-Ghali in 1995, and Our Global Neighborhood by The Commission on Global Governance in 1995. For our purposes we will address the Toffler’s book and the report, Our Global Neighborhood.

In Toffler’s book, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich wrote a very glowing forward in which he explained that he began working with the Toffler’s in the early 1970s on a concept called “anticipatory democracy” when he was an assistant professor at West Georgia State College. Gingrich wrote that he has worked with them to develop a “future-conscious politics and popular understanding that would make it easier for America to make the transition from the Second Wave (industrial revolution) civilization—which is clearly dying—to the emerging, but in many ways undefined and not fully understood Third Wave civilization.” The Toffler’s state that a centralized form of bureaucratic government is outdated in the new Third Wave and that “more appropriate political structures” are needed because “In all likelihood it will require a protracted battle to radically overhaul the United States Congress, the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the French Chamber of Deputies, the Bundestag, the Diet, the giant ministries and entrenched civil services of many nations, their constitutions and court systems—in short, much of the unwieldy and increasingly unworkable apparatus of existing representative governments. Nor will this wave of political struggle stop at the national level. Over the months and decades ahead, the entire ‘global law machine’—from the United Nations at one end to the local city or town council at the other--will eventually face a mounting, ultimately irresistible demand for restructuring.” The Toffler’s say that the Third Wave society of the internet age must depend on “the principle of ‘semi-direct democracy’—a shift from depending on representatives to representing ourselves.”

Toffler’s book was followed by the release of Our Global Neighborhood which provided an independent report, we are told, in which the Commission wrote, “ [B]ecause of the changes of recent years, we are at a new time, that we need a new order in world affairs, a new style of managing our relations on this planet and a new way of relating to the planet.” The Commission provided a definition of “governance” which is “[T]he sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs.” They explain that “when the United Nations was created, nation-states, some of them [with] imperial powers were dominate.” They expanded the definition of governance to “global governance” which is “the governance of diversity, not uniformity; it is governance through democracy, not through dominion; it is governance that is multi-layered, not from the mountain-top. It is necessarily governance as an un-centralized system.” In short, their definition of global governance is exactly what those who want to reinvent government are talking about! It builds on the Toffler theory of “more inclusive and participatory democracy.” All of this is in the making—there is no pattern in all of history for what they are proposing! In short, the Commission writes, “The creation of adequate governance mechanisms will be complicated. There must be an agreed global framework for actions and policies to be carried out at appropriate levels.”

At the first meeting on reinventing government, then Secretary of State Madeline Albright testified that the State Department had been reinventing itself and World Bank President Jim Wolfenson described how the World Bank was reinventing itself to help countries with their public sectors. In the UK, the Blair government was also reinventing itself and was the vision of the Blair government. Their program, “Modernizing Government”, according to Minister for the Cabinet Office Jack Cunningham, was dividing the work of government so that tasks “were more clearly defined. Some tasks were privatized, others were contracted out, or devolved to new, clearly focused agencies, and performance-related pay was introduced.” Furthermore, the barriers between the different organizations of government were removed so they could work together. They created a new performance and innovation unit to determine how to better deliver government’s objectives at the local level. Britain put in place family leave and launched new partnerships across government to deliver their policy pledges. They also set a target that by 2002, at least 25% of all government services should be capable of being delivered by electronic means: banking, the Internet, digital TV and telephone. The UK passed their own Freedom of Information Act and a people’s panel of 5,000 to nationally represent their citizens to tell them what they think of government and their services.

Other countries testified of decentralizing government with the prime minister having the greatest power to coordinate the ministers of government and to rule them. Many former Comecon countries were adopting market based democracy rules, privatizing government services by changing the constitution to end state monopolies. Canada testified that they have been “downsizing, privatizing, deregulating, and so on.” Jocelyne Bourgon, Canada’s Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet testified on reinventing government, “It means re-modernizing the role of government. What are the new roles that government will be called upon to play to adapt to a global economy, knowledge-based society, information age, digital age and so on? New roles that did not exist before. Like all of you, we’ve been experimenting with partnerships, strategic alliances with the private sector, academy, community, NGO, single society.”

Common elements of reinventing government included public-private partnerships, de-regulating, privatizing and moving to electronic government. In an interview I did in Vienna with an official of Microsoft, he told me that at some point, there would be no need for a physical Congress for it would all be done electronically—within a country and between countries!

But let us consider globalization. Globalization is the process of tearing down barriers between the nation-states. When we consider that with the establishment of every international institution since 1944, the economic, political, trade, and legal barriers are gone. While I understood that Y2K wired the world, I did not carry it far enough to electronic government! Furthermore, 9/11 tore down the most sensitive barriers: the military and intelligence. Basically the barriers between countries, for the most part, are gone.

Therefore what is left? To harmonize, integrate and reinvent government! Back in 1989, reinventing government became the mantra of the Democratic Leadership Council and the Smith Institute of the U.K. Eighteen years later it has been shifted to the United Nations. The First Global Forum on Reinventing Government was sponsored by the World Bank, the Ford Foundation, the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development-OECD, and the Brookings Institute, all bastions of a progressive and democratic form of government, and not a republican form of government!

I find it fascinating that it was Margaret Thatcher who decided to adopt the economics of Frederic von Hayek who advocated smaller government through privatization of state assets. President Reagan agreed and during his term in office he adopted smaller government when he declared, “Get government off our backs.” Little did the American people know that he was putting the foundation in place for big business to come in and buy up government through privatization and public private partnership. Now we see that the next level in destroying the nation-state as we know it was for Bill Clinton and Tony Blair to make reinventing government the centerpiece of their government. Today, based on the joint legacy of Thatcher/Reagan and Clinton/Blair, we have the infrastructure assets of government being sold: roads, bridges, water, electricity, sewer systems, airports, etc. As these assets are sold off, the citizens are being robbed of investments in government their tax dollars made.

So just what are we witnessing in the 21st Century? Bottom line is that with the barriers between the nation-states gone and with the shift from the congresses and parliaments of the world to the local level along with the implementation of public-private partnerships which is the buy-out of government by business, the form that is really being put in place is global corporate fascism. With every new public-private partnership, representative government diminishes. While we are told civil society will have a voice, that voice is only limited to its financial power. Who has the power when the representatives of public-private partnership are sitting around the corporate table? Is it the bankrupt governments? Is it civil society? Or is it big business?

Furthermore, in a world without barriers and borders, we have the end of the nation-state as we have known it. As the world moves toward a global currency and a global tax, America will move away from the Constitution and Bill of Rights. As the Toffler’s wrote, “Over the months and decades ahead, the entire ‘global law machine’—from the United Nations at one end to the local city or town council at the other--will eventually face a mounting, ultimately irresistible demand for restructuring.” But no one can tell us what it really means when governments are stripped of assets, citizens become customers, and national government is no longer.

Bill Clinton is no George Washington and Hillary is no Betsy Ross. Unfortunately those who want a world governmental system or the reinventing of government are those who really want the world put back under British rule: the Royal Institute for International Affairs, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and others. The world which is being reinvented is not being reinvented for you and me. As one man stated at the World Economic Forum several years ago, “The world depends on the U.S. to get it right and when the U.S. does not have it right, the world does not have it right.” Where are the midnight riders who cried “The British are coming!” when danger was mounting during our fight for freedom? Freedom, when lost, is lost forever. We are no longer fighting the British, we have joined them!


Please refer to Joan Veon’s book, The United Nations’ Global Straitjacket in which she spends a whole chapter on reinventing government.



PRINCE CHARLES THE SUSTAINABLE PRINCE!
Book by Joan Veon
http://www.womensgroup.org/APPENDIX.html

www.bilderberg.org/royal

Book by Joan Veon
Global Straitjacket Chapter Summary
http://www.womensgroup.org/chaptsum.html

http://www.womensgroup.org/books_summaries.htm
_________________

http://www.whatabeginning.com

http://www.otherbiblecode.com

[lauchenauermartin]

Whatever got you here, please take some time to read this information or, bookmark it for later.


COMMENTARY 2/3/02:

THE BRITISH ARE COMING!

The World Economic Forum Partners with Bonnie Prince Charles

Joan M. Veon


Born Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor in 1948, crowned Prince of Wales in 1969, the future King George VII, as he will be known, has an abundance of titles reflecting his wealth and power.He is related to all of the royal houses of Europe and his lineage goes back to Charlemagne, the titular kings of Jerusalem and the ancient kingdoms of Persia and Babylon. Though the media has continued to paint Britain’s Prince Charles as a polo-playing two-timer, his long list of accomplishments include musician, recognized painter, horseman, man of war and businessman.


He holds the rank of Major General in the British Army, Rear Admiral in the Royal Navy and Air Vice Marshal in the Royal Air Force.Furthermore he flies a variety of jet fighter planes including the Chipmunk, Spitfire, Nimrod, Phantom, Jet Provost and Harrier T4.As king he will hold three important offices:king of a 1200 year old monarchy, head of the Anglican church, and true head of state since the army and navy report directly to the sovereign and not to the prime minister.


When not in uniform Prince Charles wears a business suit, using his clout as a major force behind the scenes, affecting the whole agenda of the United Nations.In 1991 he brought together major world leaders and multinational corporations to discuss how to obtain consensus on “Agenda 21”, a pagan-centered environmental philosophy.The outcome of the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 brought us sustainable development and the Biological Diversity Treaty.Currently 37 states have adopted “Smart Growth” policies that stem from the Biological Diversity Treaty.


In 1990 he formed The Prince of Wales International Business Leaders Forum in Charleston South Carolina.Over 100 CEO’s of U.S. met to discuss their role in a changing world. They concluded that (1) Chief Executive Officers have a critical role to play in setting company values and listening to concerns of community leaders, (2) ensuring that corporations adopt sustainable development practices, and (3) assist community leaders in inner cities and in rural areas to regenerate neighborhoods.


Up until the recent World Economic Forum meeting in New York, this organization has had no exposure on the local level.On the global level the Prince of Wales International Business Leaders Forum has become the key originator and broker of new innovative corporate policies and practices, supporting the structural change in government to partnerships with business.Many popular corporations are a part of this including3M, Cable and Wireless, TRW, Coca-Cola, BMW, Volkswagen, CIGNA, DHL Worldwide Express, Levi Strauss, U.S. West and the Ford Foundation.


As a result of public-private partnerships, the growing role of corporations is expanding. The balance sheet of many multinational corporations is fatter and healthier than most third world countries.Corporations have the ability to produce wealth and increase the power of any impoverished nation to lift its citizens out of the gutter.For all of these reasons, the CEO is now moving into the visible position of statesman.


To highlight the importance of this shift, the World Economic Forum and the Prince of Wales International Business Leaders Forum announced a Framework for Action that chief executives, chairmen, board directors and executive management teams can use to develop a strategy for managing their company’s impact on society and their relationship with employees, customers, suppliers, and members of the community.The Framework has three commitments.First, to commit to being “global corporation citizens” in the way businesses are run.Two, “to identify and work with key stakeholders in our main spheres of influence.”Third, “ultimate leadership for corporate citizenship rests with us as chief executives, chairmen and board directors.”The thirty-six corporations include business leaders from different countries and industry sectors.Some of those signing on from America are:Arthur D. Little, Inc., Coca-Cola, Fleetboston Global Bank, ING Group, McDonald’s Corporation, Phillips-Van Heusen and S. C. Johnson Wax.


Adrian Hodges, Director of the Miami office of the Prince of WalesInternational Business Leaders Forum, informed me that they have had a “tremendous amount of interest andwillingness from U.S. corporations on how to integrate corporate citizenship in their business.”Additionally they are working with both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Latin American Chamber of Commerce.In explaining their role, he said, “We are a wholesaler rather than a retailer of ideas to the corporate sector so we work through organizations so they can reach the masses of corporate America.”


If you lost your greatest possession to a group of terrorists, wouldn’t you look for a different way to bring them back?The developed world does not use guns and bullets to effect change, they use ideas, thoughts, concepts, and understanding.The British lost the War of 1812 to a bunch of illiterate sharpshooters from the mountains of Kentucky and Tennessee.It appears they have changed their tactics.America be on guard.THE BRITISH ARE COMING!!!


_________________

http://www.whatabeginning.com

http://www.otherbiblecode.com

[lauchenauermartin]

THE NORTH AMERICA UNION: DOES THE QUEEN OF CANADA BECOME
THE QUEEN OF THE UNITED STATES?

BY Joan M. Veon
The Women’s International Media Group, Inc.

In November, 2004, President Bush told Canada’s then Prime Minister Paul Martin, “It’s good to be home.” Exactly what did he mean? Was he inferring that America has been integrated into Canada’s system of government? Was this “code language” to reveal to a group of insiders that Canada’s queen is the Queen of the United States?

Let’s take a look at what we know about our relationship with Canada. They have become America’s largest trading partner—surpassing our trade with Japan. On a daily basis the volume is over $1B or about $400B a year. Twenty-three percent of American exports are sent to Canada and more than 80% of Canada’s exports come to us. They are the largest export market for 39 of the 50 states. We import 80% of Canada’s wood, paper, and pulp and 17% of their oil and 18% of their natural gas. Furthermore, we not only share energy grids all across the northern borders, but New England obtains most of their power from Quebec.

Financially, the Nasdaq Stock Exchange owns 30% of the London Stock Exchange and there are plans to erase the barriers between the Canadian and American stock exchanges. Recently the U.S. adopted the UK style of securities regulation. The currencies between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico are becoming one. This new currency, the Amero, will be the common currency for this hemisphere.

From a military standpoint, over the past 46 years, America has been inextricably linked to Canada through our joint military efforts through the North American Aerospace Defense Command-NORAD. On September 11, 2001, it was a Canadian general who was holding the chair at NORAD and who gave the order to initiate our defenses. As a result, more than 200 commercial planes were diverted to airports across the U.S. and from coast to coast. Since then both countries have implemented measures to strengthen military cooperation as well as law enforcement and intelligence agencies. In 2002, the two countries established the Bi-national Planning Group to develop joint plans for maritime and land defense and for military support to civil authorities in times of emergency. There are plans to move ahead with a common ballistic missile defense system.

Under the new partnership called “Common Security, Common Prosperity, A New Partnership in North America”, the U.S. and Canada, will cooperate to expand business opportunities, protect the environment, improve intelligence-sharing and cross-border law enforcement, counter-terrorism, increase critical infrastructure such as transportation, energy, and communications networks, and renew the NORAD agreement. In addition there are plans to cooperate on clean air and clean water initiatives, especially in the Great Lakes Region.

In June 2007, the Financial Times reported that Bush is going to back a treaty to “tackle one of the most contentious issues in relations between the two countries by allowing Britain to buy defense products from American companies without having to obtain export licenses. [T]he treaty would represent a victory for the UK prime minister who has lobbied George W. Bush over this long-standing disagreement between the two.” Currently only Canada has a waiver! Do we see the integration of our countries yet? Therefore in order to ask if the Queen of Canada will become the Queen of America, we need to take a look at Canada’s political structure. While it appears to be like ours, it is not. There is an executive level which we do not have which consists of the queen, the queen’s representative and her Privy Council.

According to Wikipedia, Canada is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state and queen of Canada with a federal system of parliamentary government. The Canadian Constitution, renamed the Constitution Act of 1867 in 1982, states that Canada’s constitution is “similar in principle to that of the UK” and divides the powers between the federal and provincial governments. The governmental structure is made up of the Executive Branch which is comprised of: the Executive (the Queen), the Governor General, the queen’s representative in Canada who formally appoints the prime minister and their cabinet; the Queen’s Privy Council, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet; the Legislature and the Judiciary. You can see that the Queen has her own Council which is over the rest of the government!

Wikipedia states that The Privy Council is the council of advisers to the Queen of Canada whose members are appointed by the Governor General of Canada for life on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet are all sworn into the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and become MINISTERS OF THE CROWN.

The Queen’s Privy Council for Canada was established by the British North America Act and is modeled after Britain’s Privy Council. The formal authority of the council is vested in the Canadian Monarch but is exercised by the Prime Minister and the Canadian Cabinet who make up a minority of the Council’s members. Every member of the Privy Council declares an oath to the queen which in part is,

I [name] do solemnly and sincerely swear that I shall be a true and faithful servant to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, as a member of Her Majesty’s Privy Council for Canada. Generally, in all things I shall do as a faithful and true servant ought to do for Her Majesty.

The Queen is represented in Canada by the Governor General which she appoints on the advice of the Prime Minister. Every Canadian Providence has a Lieutenant Governor who represents the queen there. Upon taking office, the Governor General takes an Oath of Allegiance:

I [name] do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and successors, according to law. So Help me God.

The Governor General’s functions are primarily ceremonial. As representative of the Sovereign, the Governor General performs some of the functions normally associated with heads of state. He or she makes state visits abroad, hosts foreign heads of state, receives ambassadors and high commissioners, meets ceremonial groups, and awards medals, decorations and prizes. He or she serves the symbolic role as the Commander-in-Chief of Canadian Forces and fills this position in the name of the queen. The Armed Forces of Canada swear allegiance to the Canadian Crown and not to the sitting and transient government.

The Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors are also representatives of “The Crown”. The concept of the Crown took form under the feudal system, evolving from various concepts of kingship. Under England’s feudal system, all rights and privileges were ultimately granted by the ruler. The rights of the Crown are exercised by the Queen’s representatives in her various realms and dominions. It is the queen who is the Commander in Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces. The queen through the Governor General also has the power to dissolve parliament.

The Queen’s official title is “Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.” When the queen ascended the throne, there was discussion as to her official title, then Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent said, “Her Majesty is now Queen of Canada but she is the Queen of Canada because she is the Queen of the United Kingdom…It is not a separate office.” Furthermore, the style, “Queen of Canada” is included in the Oath of Allegiance, as well as the Oath of Citizenship. While the prime minister is considered head of government, it is the queen who is head of state.

If the governmental structure of Canada is like that of the UK, we need to consider the ties Canada has with England. In November 2004 when Bush declared it was “good to be home”, he pledged the following:

My country is determined to work as far as possible within the framework of international organizations and we’re hoping that other nations will work with us to make those institutions more relevant and more effective in meeting the unique threats of our time.

Was Bush talking about the Commonwealth, the United Nations or both? If he was speaking about the Commonwealth, we need to understand that the Commonwealth is a brilliant plan devised back in the 1920s by the Royal Institute for International Affairs, which is financed by the estate of Cecil Rhodes, to make it appear that the various colonies, territories and dominions of the United Kingdom were given “independence” and were totally free of British rule. However, that is not the real case. Although they were given “independence,” the British never left. They just changed the structure of government to accommodate the sovereign as head of state and not head of government. This historical feat was accomplished through the Balfour Declaration in 1926 when Britain and its dominions agreed they were

equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

This was formalized by the Statute of Westminster in 1931. While colonies were given legislative independence, it automatically set the basis for continuing the relationship through the Commonwealth in which they share allegiance to the monarch! Pretty amazing.

The Queen is not only Queen of Canada, but Queen of the following Commonwealth countries in our hemisphere: Antigua and Barbuda; The Bahamas; Barbados; Belize; Grenada; Guyana, Jamaica; For St Kitts and Nevis: St. Christopher and Nevis; St. Lucia; and St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Trinidad and Tobago.

The Commonwealth today has 53 sovereign states with Queen Elizabeth II as head of the Commonwealth. The Queen’s position is recognized by each state and as such is the symbol of the free association of the organization’s members. The 16 members where the queen is head of state are called Commonwealth Realms. Decolonization started in 1931 with Canada, South Africa and Australia; in the 1940s: India, New Zealand, and Sir Lanka; in the 1950s: Ghana and Malaysia; In the 1960s: twenty more: Barbados, Botswana, Cyprus, Gambia, Guyana, Jamaica, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Malta, Mauritius, Nauru, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Swaziland, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda and Zambia. During the 1970s, nine more: the Bahamas, Bangladesh, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tonga and Tuvalu. During the 1980s, seven more: Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Brunei, Maldives, Pakistan, St. Kitts and Nevis, and Vanuatu and in the 1990s, three more: Cameroon, Mozambique and Namibia.

As each country obtained independence, they received a vote at the United Nations. Therefore, the Commonwealth has the potential of 54 votes at the United Nations. Throughout the entire international structure, the United States is OUTVOTED by the Commonwealth. In the Group of Eight, Canada and the United Kingdom outvote the U.S. While the U.S. has 50 states, we only receive one vote at the United Nations! Furthermore in this hemisphere there are 13 Commonwealth countries that swear allegiance to the queen.

While the Commonwealth bills itself as a free and voluntary association, several years ago, I separately interviewed three representatives from three different African countries. When I asked why they don’t go to Britain for help, they said there was no help from them. When I asked why they don’t withdraw from the Commonwealth, they each looked at me with terror and said they could not.

We Americans would be extremely naive if we thought that Britain was a good loser over the outcome of the American Revolution and the Battle of New Orleans in 1812. As explained in a previous article, “Treason in the Congress”, there is a very, very powerful group of men whose money runs the world both here in Britain and the U.S. These Pilgrims swear allegiance to the Crown and have been working since 1902 and 1903 respectively to bring America back under British rule. While it appears Senator Charles Schumer is a Pilgrim, maybe we need to ask if our president, who is distantly related to the queen, is also a Pilgrim. It appears he does not swear allegiance to the Constitution! Perhaps NAFTA was the beginning of a bloodless coup and the Common Security and Prosperity Partnership sealed the merger between the U.S., Canada, and Britain. Just maybe the Queen of Canada is indeed the Queen of the United States! It is time for TRUE AMERICANS TO WAKE UP!

Joan Veon is the author of Prince Charles the Sustainable Prince and The United Nations’ Global Straitjacket. Please visit her website: www.womensgroup.org.
_________________

http://www.whatabeginning.com

http://www.otherbiblecode.com