Hillary Clinton: Population Control Will Now Become The Centerpiece Of U.S. Foreign Policy

During remarks that she made for the 15th Anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the launch of a new program that according to Clinton will now become the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy.  This new program is known as the Global Health Initiative, and it is being incredibly well-funded at a time when the U.S. government is drowning in debt.  According to Clinton, 63 billion dollars will be spent by the U.S. to prevent pregnancies and to improve "family planning" services around the globe over the next six years.  In other words, the new centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy is all about eugenics and population control.

The following is an excerpt from Clinton's remarks....

In addition to new funding, we’ve launched a new program that will be the centerpiece of our foreign policy, the Global Health Initiative, which commits us to spending $63 billion over six years to improve global health by investing in efforts to reduce maternal and child mortality, prevent millions of unintended pregnancies, and avert millions of new HIV infections, among other goals. This initiative will employ a new approach to fighting disease and promoting health.

You see, whenever the global elite want to launch another new eugenics operation, they announce it as a great "humanitarian program" that will save millions of lives.  But their real goal is to control the population and prevent millions of lives from being born.

This was also reflected in Clinton's remarks about the United Nations Population Fund.  The United Nations Population Fund has been promoting abortion, forced sterilization and radical population control measures around the globe for decades, and Hillary Clinton was super excited to talk about how the U.S. government recently renewed funding for that organization....

This year, the United States renewed funding of reproductive healthcare through the United Nations Population Fund, and more funding is on the way. (Applause.) The U.S. Congress recently appropriated more than $648 million in foreign assistance to family planning and reproductive health programs worldwide. That’s the largest allocation in more than a decade – since we last had a Democratic president, I might add. (Applause.)

So what exactly is so bad about the United Nations Population Fund?

Not only does the United Nations Population Fund support and fund the forced abortion and infanticide of China's "one child" program, they also promote abortion, forced sterilization and brutal eugenics programs throughout the developing world.

To learn much more about the United Nations Population Fund, please watch the four short videos below.  They will leave you absolutely stunned....

Part 1: 

Part 2: 

Part 3: 

Part 4: 

The truth is that the United Nations Population Fund always has been and always will be about eugenics.

And thanks to Barack Obama, it is being funded with millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.

But that wasn't enough for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, so they have launched this new Global Health Initiative which will now be the "centerpiece" of U.S. foreign policy.

63 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars will be spent over the next six years to promote abortion, sterilization and "family planning" around the globe. 

Sadly enough, there are people who are actually convinced that they will save the environment by reducing the population.  They think that while promoting abortion and sterilization may not be the most pleasant thing to do, it must be done for the good of the planet.

Of course they are dead wrong, but the "true believers" do not understand this.  All they know is that they have to keep all of the brown and black women in other countries from having babies so that we can save the planet.

We live in a world that is becoming more evil all the time.  Every person on this planet has a fundamental right to have as many children as they want, but the truth is that this right is being stripped away from an increasing number of people. 

We live at a time when even our most fundamental liberties as human beings are under attack.  Let us hope that America wakes up and starts saying "no" to these kinds of policies.

http://howtohelpsavetheenvironment.com/archives/hillary-clinton-population-control-will-now-become-the-centerpiece-of-u-s-foreign-policy

Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura FEMA CAMP, POLICE STATE...

Former Gov. Jesse Ventura and his crew at Conspiracy Theory have blown the FEMA camp issue wide open in a truly groundbreaking episode from the program's second season on TruTV. The "Police State" episode proves once and for all that the feds have trained to take on American citizens, planned for riots and disasters and made preparations to maintain order at any cost. Tune in this Friday, Nov. 12 at 10 PM Eastern/ 9 PM Central and leave the denial at the door.
This powerful episode is the largest and most in-depth investigation into FEMA camps to date-- and it is scheduled to air on television. Radio host and filmmaker Alex Jones returns to the series yet again, as the team takes you to confirmed on-the-ground facilities, confronts the legislators who authorized FEMA camps and breaks down the full-scale technologically-integrated police state that includes Fusion Centers, FEMA, the Department of Homeland Security and more.
At one of many real and verified FEMA locations, Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones approach a "Residential Center" run by Homeland Security in central Texas where they find locked doors, double-fences and escape warnings around the entire perimeter. Further inside the facility, they witness a playground complex, swings and slides for children. The crew walks up to the front door and attempts to get some answers. But the officials refuse to either confirm or deny the facility's purpose, including whether or not American citizens are being held inside. However, our past investigations into this facility reveal that it has confined both children and adults, including immigrants, refugee seekers and American citizens.

Many Say Government Now Operating Outside the Constitution

Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Rasmussen Reports, LLC 

Voters are clearly dubious about the size and scope of today’s federal government.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 39% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the federal government currently operates within the limits established by the Constitution of the United States.

Forty-four percent (44%) disagree and say it is not functioning within those limits, while another 17% aren’t sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Earlier surveys have shown that just one-in-five voters believe that the government today has the consent of the governed. Forty-eight percent (48%) see the government as a threat to individual rights. According to the Declaration of Independence, governments are formed to protect certain inalienable rights.

Most Americans think the Constitution is just fine the way it is and should be left alone. But 39% say the governing document doesn’t put enough restrictions on what the government can do.

As is often the case, there’s a wide gap between the perceptions of the Political Class and those of Mainstream voters when it comes to the federal government. Eighty-three percent (83%) of Political Class voters say the government now operates within constitutional limits, but 62% of those in the Mainstream don’t share that view.

One aspect of the Constitution that is frequently challenged is its protection for freedom of speech. But 85% of voters say, generally speaking, that the constitutional protection of speech is a good thing for the United States. Only six percent (6%) disagree.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on November 21-22, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Nearly two-out-of-three voters (65%) are at least somewhat angry at the current policies of the federal government, including 40% who are Very Angry.

Sixty-one percent (61%) of Democrats say the federal government currently is operating within the limits established by the Constitution. Holding the opposite view, 65% of Republicans and 52% of voters not affiliated with either of the major parties do not believe the government is functioning within constitutional bounds.

But all three groups agree overwhelmingly that the constitutional protection of freedom of speech is a good thing.

Sixty-six percent (66%) of political conservatives say today’s federal government is out-of-bounds constitutionally, but 66% of liberals disagree. By a narrow 43% to 37% margin, moderates think the government is within constitutional guidelines.

In surveys for several years, voters have defended the Constitution and questioned how it is being applied.

Sixty percent (60%) of voters, for example, say the U.S. Supreme Court should make its decisions based on the Constitution and legal precedents rather than being guided by a sense of fairness and justice. But only 38% think the high court is actually guided by the Constitution when it makes its rulings.

Despite continuing gun control efforts by federal, state and local governments, Americans overwhelmingly believe the Constitution guarantees the right of the average citizen to own a gun.

At the same time, most voters (65%) say they prefer a smaller government with lower taxes rather than one with more services and higher taxes.

Most Americans say the government already has too much influence over the economy and is involved in too many things that would be better left to the private sector.

Seventy percent (70%) of voters think big government and big business generally work together against the interests of investors and consumers.

While protective of their freedom of speech rights, most Americans have agreed over the years that they are willing to sacrifice some of that freedom to protect children from indecency.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2010/many_say_government_now_operating_outside_the_constitution

Homeland Security shuts down dozens of Web sites without court order

.By Daniel Tencer
Friday, November 26th, 2010 -- 2:25 pm

The Homeland Security Department's customs enforcement division has gone on a Web site shutdown spree, closing down at least 76 domains this week, according to online reports.

While many of the web domains were sites that trafficked in counterfeit brand name goods, and some others linked to copyright-infringing file-sharing materials, at least one site was a Google-like search engine, causing alarm among web freedom advocates who worry the move steps over the line into censorship.

All the shut sites are now displaying a Homeland Security warning that copyright infringers can face up to five years in prison.

According to a report at TorrentFreak, the search engine that was shut down -- Torrent-Finder.com -- neither hosted copyrighted material nor directly linked to places where it could be found. Instead, the site opened new windows to sites that did link to file-sharing materials.

"When a site has no tracker, carries no torrents, lists no copyright works unless someone searches for them and responds just like Google, accusing it of infringement becomes somewhat of a minefield," writes Torrentfreak, "Unless you’re ICE Homeland Security Investigations that is."

As of its last update, Torrentfreak counted 76 domains shut down this week.

Homeland Security's ability to shut down sites without a court order evidently comes from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a Clinton-era law that allows Web sites to be closed on the basis of a copyright complaint. Critics have long assailedthe DMCA for being too broad, as complainants don't need to prove copyright infringement before a site can be taken down.

News of the shutdowns has some observers wondering whether the US really needs COICA, the anti-counterfeiting bill that passed through a Senate committee with unanimous approval last week. That bill would allow the federal government to block access to Web sites that attorneys general deem to have infringed on copyright.

"Domain seizures coming under the much debated ‘censorship bill’ COICA? Who needs it?" quips Torrentfreak.

However, COICA would allow the government to block access to Web sites located anywhere in the world, while Homeland Security's take-downs are limited to servers inside the United States. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon said he would place a hold on COICA, effectively killing the bill at least until the new congressional session next year.

The owner of Torrent-Finder.net complained that his search engine was shut down without so much as a court order or prior complaint.

“My domain has been seized without any previous complaint or notice from any court!” the owner said, without being identified in the Torrentfreak article.

Earlier this week, Homeland Security shut down a popular hip-hop music site, RapGodfathers.com, which had nearly 150,000 members. The site claims it is compliant with copyright laws, as it doesn't host copyrighted materials. However, its users posted links to file-hosting services such as Rapidshare and Megaupload, where copyrighted material may have been shared.

These domains are now "the property of Homeland Security," writes Gareth Halfacree at Thinq.co.uk, "And there's no indication that their original owners will ever be able to get them back."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/homeland-security-shuts-dozens-sites/

riorico

Too late. The experiment with democracy in USA has failed. It was never a serious experiment, not with the Senate, the Electoral College, and the early Supreme Court's usurpation of veto power over legislation. Recognition of corporate 'personhood' nailed the coffin shut. And it's not just federal. This current lawless rampage by DHS is just an extension of what states have been doing for decades re: abridging our inalienable rights.

Anyone who thinks the Constitution offers protection, lives in cloud-cuckoo-land. Anyone who thinks the current political infrastructure can be overthrown without megadeaths, is floating on the next cloud. Anyone who thinks anarchism offers an answer is also lost in a dream world. Power abhors a vacuum. As soon as one power structure is dismantled, another will brutally take its place. That's just the fucking reality of us hominids.

TSA Administrative Directive: Opt-Outters To Be Considered “Domestic Extremists”

Posted: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 07:29:06 

If the information recently acquired by Doug Hagmann of Northeast Intelligence Network is accurate, then something really big is happening in America right now - and it’s most certainly not a step towards individual liberty.

According to Mr. Hagmann, he was contacted by a source within the DHS who provided an alarming memo detailing a new administrative directive agreed upon by DHS chief Janet Napolitano and the head of TSA John Pistole. The memo, according to Doug Hagmann, “officially addresses those who are opposed to, or engaged in the disruption of the implementation of the enhanced airport screening procedures as ‘domestic extremists’.”

The memo leaves no doubt as to who, exactly, is leading the charge to label Americans who refuse current security measures due to health and privacy concerns as extremists. “The measures to be taken in response to the negative public backlash as detailed [in this directive], have the full support of the President,” it says.

Under the new labeling procedures, those who choose to opt-out or are perceived as being troublemakers will be detained, questioned and processed for further investigation:

The terminology contained within the reported memo is indeed troubling. It labels any person who “interferes” with TSA airport security screening procedure protocol and operations by actively objecting to the established screening process, “including but not limited to the anticipated national opt-out day”  as a “domestic extremist.” The label is then broadened to include “any person, group or alternative media source” that actively objects to, causes others to object to, supports  and/or elicits support for anyone who engages in such travel disruptions at U.S. airports in response to the enhanced security procedures.

For individuals who engaged in such activity at screening points, it instructs TSA operations to obtain the identities of those individuals and other applicable information and submit the same electronically to the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division, the Extremism and Radicalization branch of theOffice of Intelligence & Analysis (IA) division of the Department of Homeland Security.

The United States government, under complete control and direction of our elected President, is now actively labeling anyone who exercises their 4th amendment Constitutional right which protects against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures as, essentially, engaging in terrorism as defined by Section 802 of the USA Patriot Act:

Section 802 [USA Patriot Act]

(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended–

‘(5) the term `domestic terrorism’ means activities that–

‘(B) appear to be intended–

‘(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

‘(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

Though it may seem a broad interpretation, the definitions for domestic terrorism are very vague, allowing for a variety of views depending on who happens to be making the decisions. The very fact that TSA is allegedly going to label opt-out travelers as ‘domestic extremists’ suggest that they are, by today’s standards, considered no different than terrorists - and thus - may have their Constitutional rights stripped and be held without trial. In a previous article we discussed Matt Kernan, who may have found a Constitutional argument that works to avoid enhanced security in the airport. But, what if the-powers-that-be determined, by whatever vague definition, that the Constitution doesn’t apply?

With the outrage from American travelers and the pressure being put on corporate profits, the President and TSA may eventually change their tune. But if they don’t, then we can expect more intrusive checkpoints from our government in the very near future. Ms. Napolitano has already publicly stated that DHS is looking at other mass transit systems like buses and trains as the next target.

Something big is happening. And either the American people are going to force the change - starting with each individual making a personal decision to stand up against policies that can be described as nothing less than tyrannical - or the expansion of surveillance and control systems will continue to spread.

If the American people fail this time as we did with bailouts and healthcare, the end result will be backscatter machines in schools, malls, stadiums, and any other public venue which is deemed a security threat by our government.

Sources: Northeast Intelligence Network, Electronic Privacy Information Center

http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

U.S. Supreme Court Confers on Obama Eligibility

WASHINGTON – Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?

The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.

"This case is unprecedented," said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. "I believe we presented an ironclad case. We've shown standing, and we've shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There's nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari."

If the Supreme Court decides to grant the "writ of certiorari," it may direct a federal trial court in New Jersey to hear the merits of the case, or it may choose to hear the merits itself. The court's decision on the writ could be announced as early as Wednesday.


If any court hears the merits of the case, Apuzzo says it will mark the "death knell" for Obama's legitimacy.

"Given my research of what a natural-born citizen is, he cannot be a natural-born citizen so it's a death knell to his legitimacy. What happens on a practical level, how our political institutions would work that out, is something else," Apuzzo told WND.


http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=232073

China, Russia quit dollar on bilateral trade

08:22, November 24, 2010

China and Russia have decided to renounce the US dollar and resort to using their own currencies for bilateral trade, Premier Wen Jiabao and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin announced late on Tuesday in St. Petersburg.

Chinese experts said the move reflected closer relations between Beijing and Moscow and is not aimed at challenging the dollar, but to protect their domestic economies.

"About trade settlement, we have decided to use our own currencies," Putin said at a joint news conference with Wen in St. Petersburg.

The two countries were accustomed to using other currencies, especially the dollar, for bilateral trade. Since the financial crisis, however, high-ranking officials on both sides began to explore other possibilities.

The yuan has now started trading against the Russian rouble in the Chinese interbank market, while the renminbi will soon be allowed to trade against the rouble in Russia, Putin said.

"That has forged an important step in bilateral trade and it is a result of the consolidated financial systems of world countries," he said.

Putin made his remarks after a meeting with Wen. They also officiated at a signing ceremony for 12 documents, including energy cooperation.

The documents covered cooperation on aviation, railroad construction, customs, protecting intellectual property, culture and a joint communiqu. Details of the documents have yet to be released.

Putin said one of the pacts between the two countries is about the purchase of two nuclear reactors from Russia by China's Tianwan nuclear power plant, the most advanced nuclear power complex in China.

Putin has called for boosting sales of natural resources - Russia's main export - to China, but price has proven to be a sticking point.

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin, who holds sway over Russia's energy sector, said following a meeting with Chinese representatives that Moscow and Beijing are unlikely to agree on the price of Russian gas supplies to China before the middle of next year.

Russia is looking for China to pay prices similar to those Russian gas giant Gazprom charges its European customers, but Beijing wants a discount. The two sides were about $100 per 1,000 cubic meters apart, according to Chinese officials last week.

Wen's trip follows Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's three-day visit to China in September, during which he and President Hu Jintao launched a cross-border pipeline linking the world's biggest energy producer with the largest energy consumer.

Wen said at the press conference that the partnership between Beijing and Moscow has "reached an unprecedented level" and pledged the two countries will "never become each other's enemy".

Over the past year, "our strategic cooperative partnership endured strenuous tests and reached an unprecedented level," Wen said, adding the two nations are now more confident and determined to defend their mutual interests.

"China will firmly follow the path of peaceful development and support the renaissance of Russia as a great power," he said.

"The modernization of China will not affect other countries' interests, while a solid and strong Sino-Russian relationship is in line with the fundamental interests of both countries."

Wen said Beijing is willing to boost cooperation with Moscow in Northeast Asia, Central Asia and the Asia-Pacific region, as well as in major international organizations and on mechanisms in pursuit of a "fair and reasonable new order" in international politics and the economy.

Sun Zhuangzhi, a senior researcher in Central Asian studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said the new mode of trade settlement between China and Russia follows a global trend after the financial crisis exposed the faults of a dollar-dominated world financial system.

Pang Zhongying, who specializes in international politics at Renmin University of China, said the proposal is not challenging the dollar, but aimed at avoiding the risks the dollar represents.

Wen arrived in the northern Russian city on Monday evening for a regular meeting between Chinese and Russian heads of government.

He left St. Petersburg for Moscow late on Tuesday and is set to meet with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Wednesday.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90778/90859/7208907.html

http://business.asiaone.com/Business/News/Story/A1Story20101124-248833.htmlSource: China Daily/Agencies

Overturning the U.S. Constitution stated goal of U.N. founders

Jim Campbell Conservative Examiner

• 
  

November 22nd, 2010 5:21 pm ET 

As scholars have recently begun to revisit the history of the United Nations, it has been noted the organization started largely by communist’s members of the Council of Foreign Relations, (CRF) and socialists had as their ultimate goal to overturn the U.S. Constitution and subjugate the U.S. to the whims of their group.

Why should the taxpayer support this corrupt organization when member states vote against United States interests 70-80% of the time?  Why when their common goal was a socialist world government.

Sixteen key U.S. officials who shaped the policies leading to the creation of the UN were later exposed in sworn testimony as secret Communists.

These included communist spy, Alger Hiss, chief planner of the 1945 founding conference, and the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Harry Dexter White. The Soviet Union under Stalin and the entire Communist Party USA apparatus worked tirelessly to launch the U.N. Since it’s beginning in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has always worked for world government.

The key CFR founder, Edward Mandell House, in his book, Philip Dru: Administrator, called for “Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx,” The CFR was an early promoter of the U.N., and 43 members of the U.S. delegation at the U. N. founding conference were or would become CFR members.

The U.N. has always chosen socialist one-world-order for leaders since it’s inception.

The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945 after the Second World War by 51 countries, many communist and socialist countries committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights.

Has it been successful in maintaining peace?  The answer is an emphatic no.  What did they accomplish in the Korean War, Vietnam, and the U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan?  That would be an absolute zero unless we count member nations selling their votes for oil to veto the United State’s attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from Iraq.

Developing friendly relationships among nations?  What did they accomplish in Bosnia-Herzegovina,Rwanda, “The killing fields of Cambodia” and Darfur?

Perhaps a new Mission Statement for the U.N. would better clarify their actual purpose.

“When we get past infighting among member nations we will react but then as usual it will be too late.”

The U.N. is an outrageously expensive operation that does three things well, deliver “meals on wheels” when they aren’t stolen by the tin-pot dictators and tyrants before getting to the people and their inoculation and contraception programs. 

The U.N Charter reads well, and sounds just great if it were true, however, the U.N. has never lived up to it’s stated objectives and represents an organization that subverts the interests of the United States, sadly with U.S. taxpayer money.

Thus Americans are becoming aware of this sham organization the, U.S. must withdraw from the group and move as quickly as possible to get them off of U.S. soil.  Voters must demand that their representatives reprepresent them.

Removing the U.N. from U.S. soil, the strategy:

1.     The site of UN Headquarters is owned by the United Nations. It is an international territory. No federal, state or local officer or official of the United States, whether administrative, judicial, military or police may enter UN Headquarters except with the consent of and under conditions agreed to by the Secretary-General of the Organization.

However, the United Nations is bound by an agreement with its host country to prevent its Headquarters from being used as a refuge for persons who are avoiding arrest under the federal, state or local laws of the United States or who are required by the Government of the United States for extradition to another country or who are trying to avoid the servicing of a legal process.

2.      The reader may wonder how this story fits with the U.N.’s bound agreement: DIPLOMANIAC: Ex-Sri Lanka commander Shavendra Silva is suspected of war atrocities, but a current UN position gives him full U.N. immunity.

  3.     Does this means that the U.N. cannot be removed from the United States?  If so where is such treaty or deed?

4.     "Currently, the U.N. pays rent to the city of New York for office space in two nearby buildings on 1st Avenue for $25 dollars a square foot. The United Nations is in the midst of a $1.87 billion renovation project.  Guess who is scheduled to pick up a major portion of the tab? 

5.     In fact, The United States is assessed at 22% of the U.N. regular budget and more than 27% for U.N. peacekeeping budget. Obama requested $516.3 million for the U.N. regular budget and more than $2.182 billion for the peacekeeping budget for 2011.

6.     The SMART thing to do is what we need to do with illegal aliens, stop enabling them.

7.     As the United States resigns it’s membership from the U.N. that cuts the funding to keep it on our soil.  Where will they get the money to pay New York City for the rent?

8.     End diplomatic immunity to all member nations who support terrorism, are currently terrorist countries. Stop them at U.S. Customs, turn them around and send them back to their sponsoring countries. 

9.     The U.S. may then to develop an organization that would be involved with countries wanting to establish representative democracies, and forgoing the likes of the vast majority of human rights violating, terror supporting and out right terrorists countries currently among it's membership.

10. Not to sound conspiritorial, but on a somber note, since this organization has existed since 1945, where have our representatives from either party been, calling for it to be disbanded and certainly defunded by the U.S. 

Has the United States been played by their leadership who may be a large part of the problem?  This  article was written, please take it viral, fax it to your members of congress. It's time for American leaders to lead if their goal is to restore the United States to it's  once  prominent position in the world.

Like what you see?  Subsribe by clicking the box at the top of the page.  An email of Conservative Examiner will be sent to your inbox each time a new article is published.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C.  

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/overturning-the-u-s-constitution-stated-goal-of-u-n-founders?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4ceb2e7a55fd56d6,0