David Rockefeller’s Birthday Present

[Flanders]

Matt Druge tells us:

RACES TO HILL; SHORT ON VOTES!​

It is probably wishful thinking, but wouldn’t it be a hoot if the president showed up at Rockefeller’s birthday party empty-handed. I would love to be a fly on the wall so I could watch him grovel at Rockefeller’s feet in the unlikely chance the TPA goes down in flames.

Rulers used to receive ‘presents’ consisting of chests full of gold and precious gems, in addition to slaves, animals, and every material object known to man. Now I know why the traitors in Congress are going full-bore to pass the TPP. The ass-kissers want to show their ruler their gratitude by giving him an expensive present that shames all of the presents given to all of the rulers in all of the empires that ever were. AMERICA’s SOVEREIGNTY is the gift that can never be topped because it is a chest full of America’s freedoms.

Let’s examine the ruler who is so deserving by beginning with a few words about a lackey.

On Friday, the House is considering Trade Promotion Authority, which would fast-track TPP and at least two other trade agreements, permitting no amendments and only a yes-or-no vote.

The legislation, forming a package known as Obamatrade, would be a fitting tribute to Rockefeller, the retired chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, as he reaches the rare century mark.
​

Now let’s turn to a definition of the birthday boy:

The oldest living member of the iconic Rockefeller family, David is the only surviving child of financier John D. Rockefeller Jr. and the only surviving grandchild of Standard Oil co-founder John D. Rockefeller.

Influenced by the globalist views of his father, Rockefeller was a major figure in some of the most prominent organizations characterized by critics as threats to U.S. sovereignty, including the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission.​

Notice that aside from tax dollar philanthropy, there is not a lot that can be said about a banker even when his name is Rockefeller.

Rockefeller himself found it necessary to brag about his self-defined contribution to the world —— not America but the world. One of his lackeys should have told him that proud internationalist is akin to bragging about being a traitor.

In his 2002 autobiography “Memoirs,” Rockefeller addressed his reputation, proclaiming himself to be a “proud internationalist.”​

The next excerpt goes to the heart of the man:

He wrote that “ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions.”

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will.”

He then declared: “If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”​

XXXXX​

In his book, Rockefeller said “populists” believe in conspiracies and that he had earned the distinction of being “conspirator in chief.”

He affirmed that designation is deserved as well.​

There never was a “. . . secret cabal. . . ” because everything the New World Order did was well-known from the Day the United Nations opened for business. To call it a secret cabal allows American traitors to label opponents conspiracy theory nut jobs.

The secret is treason which Rockefeller dare not address. If proud internationals are not ashamed of what they are doing they would publicly debate their agenda instead of implementing it incrementally with lies, misdirection, and government control —— most notably control of the US Senate.

The one thing Rockefeller always feared more than anything else is debating where the New World Oder got the authority to give away something they do not own —— America’s sovereignty. Once he is cornered on the crux of the NWO’s agenda he would have to justify why Americans surrendering their freedoms and individual liberties to a global government is better for the world. Senator Goldwater (1909 - 1988) saw the NWO’s true agenda for what it is. Rockefeller cannot justify why he and his cronies deserve all of the powers Goldwater listed:

The late Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater, however, once called the Trilateral Commission “a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power: political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical” in “the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved.”​

NOTE: More than anything else, Senator Goldwater nailed it with ecclesiastical. Goldwater could have been talking about the street hustling preacher in the White House. His personal moral code is the only thing that freak ever offered.

Ultimately, neither Rockefeller, nor any of the traitors in government pulling the levers of government power to ratify the TPP, dare debate why they deserve all of the power they seek. How would you like to hear the Clintons debate that one?

And for the umpteenth time I will remind readers that print press was up to their necks in the New World Oder’s own conspiracy more than sixty years ago. There was no need to silence electronic media because they always got their orders, and paychecks, from Rockefeller and his pals:

David Rockefeller's 1991 Bilderberg
Quote...Ten Years Later

"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."​

He went on to explain:

"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 supranational 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, Germany (a meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton and by Dan Quayle

David Rockefeller s 1991 Bilderberg Quote...Ten Years Later​

This mainstay in Rockefeller’s ideology is an excuse for treason:

Asked about his reputation as a globalist, Seitel told WND that Rockefeller “has always believed that working in concert with people – no matter who they are – is better than fighting them.”

“So, his career was built on trying to get along with all sorts of people, and that went as well to dealing commercially with people in other countries, who may believe in different things than we do,” . . .​

The New World Oder crowd will not hesitate a minute selling out this country to initiate their global government, but the minute an enemy attacks they fully expect the very Americans they betrayed to go out and “defend the country” —— meaning protect the political power and fortunes of the very people who betrayed them. The instant the men and women who have to do the fighting say “It is better to work with America’s enemies than it is to fight them” the people who will not fight for the ruling class will be executed en mass.

The charity con job is next.

Nobody knows better than Rockefeller that you have to give in order to get. All things considered, getting every American’s individual liberties in return for a thousand acres is not a bad trade.

Last month, Rockefeller, using a walker, made a rare public appearance, announcing the donation of 1,000 acres of land in Maine bordering Acadia National Park.​

Finally, there is so much more in Jerome R. Corsi's article, I barely scratched the surface. I only touched on the points that I wanted to cover. There is a lot of info that will surprise you:

Obamatrade a 100th-birthday gift for David Rockefeller?
Posted By Jerome R. Corsi On 06/11/2015 @ 8:05 pm

Obamatrade a 100th-birthday gift for David Rockefeller ​

 

[Flanders]

I’ll take this good news with more than a grain of salt:

PELOSI SAYS NO TO OBAMATRADE; TAKES BRAVE STAND FOR AMERICA​

I do not believe anything Pelosi says. Less so when she stands up for America. She sure as hell wasn’t standing up for America against illegal aliens, especially the ones that came with diseases. Notice that the diseases are still here, but the story is gone. I suspect that her reputation needed a good polishing; so she was given credit for the delay.

In any event the TPP is like a movie monster; you just cannot kill him. The sequel is already in production:

That is normally a Democratic priority, but in this case, rank and file party members saw its defeat as a way to scuttle the entire legislation. As a result, only 40 Democrats voted for it, and 144 were opposed. Republicans broke 158-86 against it.

A second roll call followed on the trade negotiating powers themselves, and the House approved that measure, 219-211. But under the rules in effect, the overall legislation, previously approved by the Senate, could not advance to the White House unless both halves were agreed to.

That made the day's events something less than a permanent rejection of the legislation.

Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and a supporter of the measure, told reporters, "This isn't over yet,"

The White House agreed. "Our work is not done yet," said presidential press secretary Josh Earnest. He compared the day's events to a temporary setback in the Senate that was followed by the trade bill's passage.

Pelosi said the bill was "stuck in the station," suggesting that changes could get it moving again.

A slap from fellow Democrats: Obama's trade bill derailed
Associated Press By ERICA WERNER and CHARLES BABINGTON

House rejects Obama s appeals and imperils his trade bill - Yahoo News​

 

[Flanders]

I do not believe anything Pelosi says.

The TPP will eventually be ratified by the nest of traitors in the Senator. They were onboard every step of the way. Before House Republicans send it back to a Republican Senate, Typhoid Nancy is jumping on an opportunity to brush up on her shakedown skills:

Pelosi demands highway funding bill in return for trade support
By Pete Kasperowicz | June 12, 2015 | 4:05 pm

Pelosi demands highway funding bill in return for trade support WashingtonExaminer.com​

Pelosi is against America more than she is for American jobs. A highway funding bill will create tax dollar jobs. That is what she stands for just as she bragged about millions of tax dollar jobs the ACA would create. Remember that every job Pelosi takes credit for originates with tax dollars.

​

Growing up, Pelosi was fed, housed, clothed, and educated by tax dollars. She lived and grew wealthy on tax dollars. She cannot think any other way. Pelosi fed on the private sector all of life, while she never created a private job in her entire career. She does not know how. I doubt if she understands that private sector jobs are created by those individual freedoms she would take away, —— not tax dollars.

 

[Flanders]

Before House Republicans send it back to a Republican Senate, Typhoid Nancy is jumping on an opportunity to brush up on her shakedown skills:

The Diseased One will come up smelling like a rose if she gets what she wants for the government unions:

Here’s a simple test any congressman can take to find out if they’ll be seeing an ad like this next year:​

1) Did they promise to stand up against Obama’s radical agenda but instead voted to give him more power?

2) Did they bow before the man who brought us Obamacare, executive amnesty and more regulations?

3) Did they vote to help Obama shred the Constitution, erase our borders, kill jobs and surrender our sovereignty and tax dollars to international authorities?​

I am more concerned with finding out what the hell the TPP is —— than seeing Pelosi get away with her shakedown. The shakedown is worthless if the Senate does not ratify the TPP TREATY. Here’s my problem:

I cannot find scholarly commentary about RATIFYING the TPP, yet if you do a little research you will find these three words mostly used in articles and on talk shows: treaty, agreement, and partnership —— as in Trans-Pacific PARTNERSHIP.

treaty (noun)
plural treaties

1. a. A formal agreement between two or more states, as in reference to terms of peace or trade. b. The document in which such an agreement is set down.

2. A contract or an agreement.

3. Obsolete. a. Negotiation for the purpose of reaching an agreement. b. An entreaty.

XXXXX​

agreement (noun)
Abbr. agt.

1. The act of agreeing.

2. Harmony of opinion; accord.

3. An arrangement between parties regarding a method of action; a covenant.

4. Law. a. A properly executed and legally binding compact. b. The writing or document embodying this compact.

5. Grammar. Correspondence in gender, number, case, or person between words.​

To me, a treaty must be ratified, while an agreement can be legislated by both Houses of Congress.

I’m not sure if a partnership can sneak in as legislation, or if a partnership requires advice and consent:

partnership (noun)

1. The state of being a partner.

2. a. A legal contract entered into by two or more persons in which each agrees to furnish a part of the capital and labor for a business enterprise, and by which each shares a fixed proportion of profits and losses. b. The persons bound by such a contract.

3. A relationship between individuals or groups that is characterized by mutual cooperation and responsibility, as for the achievement of a specified goal: Neighborhood groups formed a partnership to fight crime.​

NOTE: I smell a dead rat in PARTNERSHIP. The US Senate does not ratify partnerships so the partners can do anything they want to do to the American people. If the TPP sneaks in as legislation that is the end of advice and consent. Americans should be asking why our little nest of traitors in the Senate is helping the presidency swallow a big chunk of the one thing they are good for:

U.S. Constitution
Article II
Section 2​

2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.​

The Senate’s ratification record in recent decades is not all that great; still, it would be tragedy to lose advice and consent before the nest of traitors is exterminated.

Finally, Republicans intend to rush the TPP through as legislation. If legislation fails, they will ratify the TPP TREATY with the votes of a few Democrats, just as Democrats ratified the New START Treaty with the votes of more than enough Republicans:

There is no question that Obamatrade will be an issue in next year’s elections.

XXXXX​

“Why would any Republican vote to give President Obama more authority when we know what he’s done with executive actions and abuse of power?”

Poisonous politics of Obamatrade fuel uprising
Posted By Curtis Ellis On 06/12/2015 @ 7:21 pm

Poisonous politics of Obamatrade fuel uprising​

 

[jasonnfree]

I'm surprised so many republicans vote for the TPP since they are always quoting the constitution. How can anyone even comment too much on what the tpp really is since it's been worked on since before Obama took office and it's not allowed to be looked at in depth. My guess is that the owners of this country have something on Obama, which is why he's so frantic to get something passed that few democrats want.

 

[Flanders]

I'm surprised so many republicans vote for the TPP since they are always quoting the constitution.

To jasonnfree: It is not a surprise to conservatives who camp in the Republican tent for the time being.

How can anyone even comment too much on what the tpp really is since it's been worked on since before Obama took office and it's not allowed to be looked at in depth.

To jasonnfree: The coverage that FTA (Fast-Track Authority) the New World Order crowd wanted for the presidency demanded comment. That was defeated on Friday. The TPP (Tans-Pacific Partnership) is far from dead. The TPP is the one that the Senate should have to ratify with 67 votes.

My guess is that the owners of this country have something on Obama, which is why he's so frantic to get something passed that few democrats want.

To jasonnfree: They do not need anything on Taqiyya the Liar. He will betray this country faster than will the New World Order crowd. Had the ruling class doubted his loyalty to them for a minute, the Chicago sewer rat never would have been nominated let alone get elected twice.

Ultimately, a presidential election is a popularity contest. The media will make sure that no candidate who puts this country ahead of the New World Order stands a chance no matter how popular he might be. Ronald Reagan was the exception. They will not make that mistake again.

 

[Tehon]

Trade Promotion Authority , as it is written, is unconstitutional. The President does not have constitutional authority to sign treaties which will supersede our laws without Senate ratification by 2/3 margin. Calling a treaty by any other name, in this case a Congressional Executive Agreement, is little more than a parlor trick performed on an ignorant populace designed to get around that pesky constitutional requirement.

Flanders, I am new here and appreciate your diligence on this matter, I do however have to question your free pass to Reagan, he seems so undeserving considering his stance on free trade. He helped pave the way for the WTO and NAFTA, these agreements don't happen overnight you know.

 

[Flanders]

Flanders, I am new here and appreciate your diligence on this matter, I do however have to question your free pass to Reagan, he seems so undeserving considering his stance on free trade. He helped pave the way for the WTO and NAFTA, these agreements don't happen overnight you know.

To Tehon: No president is perfect. NAFTA and signing the first amnesty were two major failures. RR signed the latter because Democrats lied, and then went back on their word after he signed.

I can only speculate on how RR would have reacted to handing America’s sovereignty over to foreign governments. Considering how he felt about the United Nations I’ll wager that the TPP would not stand a chance if he was president today.

If this body feels that the United States no longer serves the purposes of the United Nations, then maybe it is time that the United Nations find a new home. I for one will be happy to stand on the pier and wave goodbye as you all sail off into the sunset. Jeanne Kirkpatrick —— RR’s US Ambassador to the United Nations ​

Compare Jeanne Kirkpatrick to that foul creature who is the Chicago sewer rat’s current U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. She replaced none other than Suzy Five Shows:

The ugly truth about Obama advisor Samantha Power
April 6, 2011 | Modified: March 16, 2012 at 7:26 am
Neil Hrab

The ugly truth about Obama advisor Samantha Power WashingtonExaminer.com

XXXXX​

Samantha Power’s Power
On the ideology of an Obama adviser
By STANLEY KURTZ
April 5, 2011

Samantha Power s Power - Ethics Public Policy Center​

I judge presidents by weighing the good things they accomplish against their blunders —— in addition to what they stand for. RR has a lot on the good side. Doing so much to win the Cold War without firing a shot heads RR’s win column.

Conversely, Democrats Carter, Clinton, and Taqiyya the Liar have no wins on their score card, and a long list of failures on the other side. Worse still, everything they stand for is anti-America. Carter is still at it.

 

[jasonnfree]

I'm surprised so many republicans vote for the TPP since they are always quoting the constitution.

To jasonnfree: It is not a surprise to conservatives who camp in the Republican tent for the time being.

How can anyone even comment too much on what the tpp really is since it's been worked on since before Obama took office and it's not allowed to be looked at in depth.

To jasonnfree: The coverage that FTA (Fast-Track Authority) the New World Order crowd wanted for the presidency demanded comment. That was defeated on Friday. The TPP (Tans-Pacific Partnership) is far from dead. The TPP is the one that the Senate should have to ratify with 67 votes.

My guess is that the owners of this country have something on Obama, which is why he's so frantic to get something passed that few democrats want.

To jasonnfree: They do not need anything on Taqiyya the Liar. He will betray this country faster than will the New World Order crowd. Had the ruling class doubted his loyalty to them for a minute, the Chicago sewer rat never would have been nominated let alone get elected twice.

Ultimately, a presidential election is a popularity contest. The media will make sure that no candidate who puts this country ahead of the New World Order stands a chance no matter how popular he might be. Ronald Reagan was the exception. They will not make that mistake again.

I'm certainly not for the tpp but it looks like a both sides are for it, but more so republicans all for it, quite a few dems against it. Obama is a sellout just like Clinton on Nafta, but republicans will sell us out even quicker. My original question still unanswered. Why don't republicans, who are always quoting the constitution like they have great reverence for it, oppose this traitorous trade deal, which is way more than just a trade deal. By the way, Taqiyya the liar may have been nominated, but did win the election by the American people voting him in. His republican predecessor was actually nominated to the presidency by the supreme court. Where was the republican outrage over that unconstitutional overreach?

 

[jasonnfree]

Flanders, I am new here and appreciate your diligence on this matter, I do however have to question your free pass to Reagan, he seems so undeserving considering his stance on free trade. He helped pave the way for the WTO and NAFTA, these agreements don't happen overnight you know.

To Tehon: No president is perfect. NAFTA and signing the first amnesty were two major failures. RR signed the latter because Democrats lied, and then went back on their word after he signed.

I can only speculate on how RR would have reacted to handing America’s sovereignty over to foreign governments. Considering how he felt about the United Nations I’ll wager that the TPP would not stand a chance if he was president today.

If this body feels that the United States no longer serves the purposes of the United Nations, then maybe it is time that the United Nations find a new home. I for one will be happy to stand on the pier and wave goodbye as you all sail off into the sunset. Jeanne Kirkpatrick —— RR’s US Ambassador to the United Nations ​

Compare Jeanne Kirkpatrick to that foul creature who is the Chicago sewer rat’s current U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. She replaced none other than Suzy Five Shows:

The ugly truth about Obama advisor Samantha Power
April 6, 2011 | Modified: March 16, 2012 at 7:26 am
Neil Hrab

The ugly truth about Obama advisor Samantha Power WashingtonExaminer.com

XXXXX​

Samantha Power’s Power
On the ideology of an Obama adviser
By STANLEY KURTZ
April 5, 2011

Samantha Power s Power - Ethics Public Policy Center​

I judge presidents by weighing the good things they accomplish against their blunders —— in addition to what they stand for. RR has a lot on the good side. Doing so much to win the Cold War without firing a shot heads RR’s win column.

Conversely, Democrats Carter, Clinton, and Taqiyya the Liar have no wins on their score card, and a long list of failures on the other side. Worse still, everything they stand for is anti-America. Carter is still at it.

Where's the outrage? (to quote bob dole). The outrage over raygun and the boys making sure an enemy state - Iran, getting weapons via Iran Contra? How can you say Taqiyya is worse than raygun? raygun winning the cold war being questionable, will be the source of argument for decades to come. Myself, I think it's total B.S.

 

[jasonnfree]

I'm surprised so many republicans vote for the TPP since they are always quoting the constitution.

To jasonnfree: It is not a surprise to conservatives who camp in the Republican tent for the time being.

How can anyone even comment too much on what the tpp really is since it's been worked on since before Obama took office and it's not allowed to be looked at in depth.

To jasonnfree: The coverage that FTA (Fast-Track Authority) the New World Order crowd wanted for the presidency demanded comment. That was defeated on Friday. The TPP (Tans-Pacific Partnership) is far from dead. The TPP is the one that the Senate should have to ratify with 67 votes.

My guess is that the owners of this country have something on Obama, which is why he's so frantic to get something passed that few democrats want.

To jasonnfree: They do not need anything on Taqiyya the Liar. He will betray this country faster than will the New World Order crowd. Had the ruling class doubted his loyalty to them for a minute, the Chicago sewer rat never would have been nominated let alone get elected twice.

Ultimately, a presidential election is a popularity contest. The media will make sure that no candidate who puts this country ahead of the New World Order stands a chance no matter how popular he might be. Ronald Reagan was the exception. They will not make that mistake again.

I'm certainly not for the tpp but it looks like a both sides are for it, but more so republicans all for it, quite a few dems against it. Obama is a sellout just like Clinton on Nafta, but republicans will sell us out even quicker. My original question still unanswered. Why don't republicans, who are always quoting the constitution like they have great reverence for it, oppose this traitorous trade deal, which is way more than just a trade deal. By the way, Taqiyya the liar may have been nominated, but did win the election by the American people voting him in. His republican predecessor was actually nominated to the presidency by the supreme court. Where was the republican outrage over that unconstitutional overreach?
I'm quite happy with the results of taqiyyas accomplishments on the economy, considering what a mccain presidency might have done, considering that economies are never pulled out of recessions and depression by tax cuts to the rich and austerity programs to the poor.

 

[Tehon]

Flanders, I am new here and appreciate your diligence on this matter, I do however have to question your free pass to Reagan, he seems so undeserving considering his stance on free trade. He helped pave the way for the WTO and NAFTA, these agreements don't happen overnight you know.

To Tehon: No president is perfect. NAFTA and signing the first amnesty were two major failures. RR signed the latter because Democrats lied, and then went back on their word after he signed.

I can only speculate on how RR would have reacted to handing America’s sovereignty over to foreign governments. Considering how he felt about the United Nations I’ll wager that the TPP would not stand a chance if he was president today.

If this body feels that the United States no longer serves the purposes of the United Nations, then maybe it is time that the United Nations find a new home. I for one will be happy to stand on the pier and wave goodbye as you all sail off into the sunset. Jeanne Kirkpatrick —— RR’s US Ambassador to the United Nations ​

Compare Jeanne Kirkpatrick to that foul creature who is the Chicago sewer rat’s current U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. She replaced none other than Suzy Five Shows:

The ugly truth about Obama advisor Samantha Power
April 6, 2011 | Modified: March 16, 2012 at 7:26 am
Neil Hrab

The ugly truth about Obama advisor Samantha Power WashingtonExaminer.com

XXXXX​

Samantha Power’s Power
On the ideology of an Obama adviser
By STANLEY KURTZ
April 5, 2011

Samantha Power s Power - Ethics Public Policy Center​

I judge presidents by weighing the good things they accomplish against their blunders —— in addition to what they stand for. RR has a lot on the good side. Doing so much to win the Cold War without firing a shot heads RR’s win column.

Conversely, Democrats Carter, Clinton, and Taqiyya the Liar have no wins on their score card, and a long list of failures on the other side. Worse still, everything they stand for is anti-America. Carter is still at it.

I wasn't asking you to defend all of RR presidency nor was I asking you to compare him to other presidents and I certainly wasn't asking for a comparison of U.N. Ambassadors. I simply wanted to know why you seemingly turn your back to his contributions to the NWO. Reagan initiated the Uruguay Round of GATT(General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade). Reagan's goal was to break down NTBs(Non-Tariff Barriers) and pull "services" into GATT for the first time. Basically what he was looking for was a common framework for global trade, a very ambitious undertaking at the time and those talks did eventually fail. Despite his failure you can't deny him his efforts on behalf of those who want a NWO. I think even David Rockefeller would acknowledge the incremental nature of the task. Reagan was no less a puppet of the corporate power structure than any other president, it is irrational to think otherwise.

 

[Flanders]

I wasn't asking you to defend all of RR presidency nor was I asking you to compare him to other presidents and I certainly wasn't asking for a comparison of U.N. Ambassadors. I simply wanted to know why you seemingly turn your back to his contributions to the NWO.

To Tehon: Since you are new on the USMB, I will tell you the same thing I told countless clever little fellows who asked questions on numerous boards. I only answers questions that give me an opportunity to elaborate on a topic, and I never engage in Socratic elenchus. Basically, I tell liberals not to reply to my messages because I do not give a rat’s ass about anything they have to say. Indeed, not a one of them can say anything that I have not heard a hundred times before.

If you have something to say —— say it —— preferably in a thread of your own. Bottom line: I write my messages for conservatives —— NOT FOR ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS —— who might get something out of my opinions, interpretations, and predictions.

Reagan initiated the Uruguay Round of GATT(General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade). Reagan's goal was to break down NTBs(Non-Tariff Barriers) and pull "services" into GATT for the first time. Basically what he was looking for was a common framework for global trade, a very ambitious undertaking at the time and those talks did eventually fail. Despite his failure you can't deny him his efforts on behalf of those who want a NWO. I think even David Rockefeller would acknowledge the incremental nature of the task. Reagan was no less a puppet of the corporate power structure than any other president, it is irrational to think otherwise.

To Tehon: By all of the reports that leaked out about the highly secret details in the TPP, it appears that a lot of United Nations garbage is included. None of that was in anything RR was involved with. See this thread:

Border-less Business US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum​

or simply read two articles for some details that RR would never agree to:

The Rising of the Beast: TPP is the planned Communist Utopian dream
By Doug Hagmann June 10, 2015 |

The Rising of the Beast TPP is the planned Communist Utopian dream

XXXXX​

Revealed: The Secret Immigration Chapter in Obama’s Trade Agreement
by Alex Swoyer
10 Jun 2015

Revealed The Secret Immigration Chapter in Obama s Trade Agreement - Breitbart​

Incidentally, Paul Ryan lies like a Democrat every time he talks about the TPP. I have to wonder what else he lies about. He went so far as to:

Paul Ryan Channels Pelosi on the TPP – You Have to Pass Obamatrade to See What’s in Obamatrade
Michael Krieger | Posted Thursday Jun 11, 2015 at 3:32 pm

Paul Ryan Channels Pelosi on the TPP You Have to Pass Obamatrade to See What s in Obamatrade Liberty Blitzkrieg​

 

[Tehon]

Oh brother.....leave it to me to find a discussion board and engage in a discussion with someone unwilling to discuss what was posted. Perhaps you would be better suited to a blog, you wouldn't have to suffer your ideology being challenged. I guess this also explains why I at first perceived you to be having a discussion with yourself. Lol.

 

[Flanders]

Oh brother.....leave it to me to find a discussion board and engage in a discussion with someone unwilling to discuss what was posted.

To Tehon: And I repeatedly said cunning libs always find me.

Perhaps you would be better suited to a blog, you wouldn't have to suffer your ideology being challenged. I guess this also explains why I at first perceived you to be having a discussion with yourself. Lol.

To Tehon: Reciprocal advice: Mind your own business as to where and how I post.

 

[Tehon]

There was nothing cunning about it, it was just misfortune on my part to enter into a discussion with someone who is unable and therefore unwilling to defend their statement. I find that it is not uncommon really though I don't recall anyone being as blunt as you about it. Thanks for your candor.

 

[Flanders]

There was nothing cunning about it, it was just misfortune on my part to enter into a discussion with someone who is unable and therefore unwilling to defend their statement.

To Tehon: There is nothing to discuss, I said what I had to say.

By discuss, liberals always mean they interrogate opponents in order to go around in circles until they finally wear out non-believers and readers.

Liberalism has not been the same since RR abolished the Fairness Doctrine—— message board libs have been trying to keep it alive by demanding discussion. It never occurred to any of the liberals who found me that I decide which topics I will debate. Happily, they fade away after they realize they cannot pick and choose for me.

Finally, the Fairness Doctrine meant that liberals had to be heard on television and radio whenever anyone spoke in opposition to the Democrat party's big government agenda. No conservative, especially RR, ever wanted to deny liberals the freedom to spout their junk. On the other hand, when RR eliminated the Fairness Doctrine he basically said that nobody is obligated to listen to liberal junk, and certainly not by their rules.