If choosing Supreme Court Justices is not reason enough for you to vote Trump maybe

after you read this you will understand why I will vote for Trump and why I believe you should too.

It’s Americanism Vs globalism

Bill Wink




FROM: truthfeed .com




There is much anger, hostility, and protests against Trump. But Trump’s problems are much larger than a group of protesters on the left. He is facing a HUGE upward battle against the elites in power, who will keep him out of office at all costs.


Donald Trump’s views on trade, a border wall with Mexico, America-first policies, and protectionist positions place him in direct opposition with the plan for a North American Union and ultimately the New World Order. Trump is a vocal proponent of “the Wall” and threatening to change trade relations with Mexico, which Trump has alleged have been unfair.


The Neocons are fully supportive of the NAU, and this is why they hate Trump. Trump’s presidency would create a huge obstacle to their ambitions. As we heard on the Glenn Beck radio show, author Brad Thor mentions that “a patriot” should step up to take Trump down and suggests that it’s because of Trump’s protectionist policies. Did Brad Thor just reveal why the elites hate him so much? I think so.


It is known that protests against Trump are being organized by groups like the Open Society Foundation and the Daily Kos, which are both funded by George Soros. These groups have created large protests against Trump, but they are merely being used to accomplish the agenda of Soros, Rockefeller, George Will, William Crystal, Ross Douthat, and Glenn Beck. They will stop the Republican nominee at all costs, even if that means taking him out.













“specializes in crisis creation”  “condition us to the idea of global solutions to local problems”


Published by Club of Rome as per Wikipedia: "The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor. Some states have striven to overcome domestic failure and internal contradictions by blaming external enemies. The ploy of finding a scapegoat is as old as mankind itself - when things become too difficult at home, divert attention to adventure abroad. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one, or else one invented for the purpose. With the disappearance of the traditional enemy, the temptation is to use religious or ethnic minorities as scapegoats, especially those whose differences from the majority are disturbing. Every state has been so used to classifying its neighbours as friend or foe, that the sudden absence of traditional adversaries has left governments and public opinion with a great void to fill. New enemies have to be identified, new strategies imagined, and new weapons devised. In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."






Honorable Ann Bressington – Member of Parliament – Australia: “The origins of the environmental movement, as we see it, began back in 1968 when the Club of Rome was formed. The Club of Rome has been described as a crisis think tank, which specializes in crisis creation. The main purpose of this think tank was to formulate a crisis that would unite the world and condition us to the idea of global solutions to local problems. In a document called “The First Global Revolution”, authored by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, on pgs. 104 & 105 it is stated: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. … All these dangers, of course, will be caused by human intervention that will require a global response.” That’s the origin of global warming, ladies and gentlemen.”








“This is a new and different world.


I see a world of open borders, open trade and, most importantly, open minds… It is in our hands to leave these dark machines behind and to press forward to cap a historic movement towards a new world order… And as we look to the future, the calendar offers up a convenient milestone, a signpost, by which to measure our progress as a community of nations. The year 2000 marks a turning point, beginning not only the turn of the decade, not only the turn of the century, but also the turn of the millennium.


And my administration is fully committed to supporting the United Nations and to paying what we are obliged to pay by our commitment to the Charter.”




In 1992 former President George H. W. Bush said: “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require profound reorientation of human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced – a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals, and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action will be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”





“profound reorientation of all human society and unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources”

President G. H. W. BUSH





“in every area in which human impacts on the environment”





“Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.”



·        “Agenda 21 seeks to establish a mechanism for transferring the wealth from citizens to the Third World. Fear of environmental crisis would be used to create a world government and UN central direction.”


·        “Land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth -therefore contributes to social injustice.”


·        “It is clear that current life styles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class, involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, ownership of motor vehicles, small electrical appliances, home and workplace air conditioning and suburban housing are not sustainable.”


·        “Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.”



Honorable Ann Bressington – Member of Parliament – Australia: “In 1992 Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN Earth Summit and member of the Club of Rome, said: “It is clear that current life styles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class, involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, ownership of motor vehicles, small electrical appliances, home and workplace air conditioning and suburban housing are not sustainable.” Put those statements together with the previous ones and it must become clear that Agenda 21 is about controlling every aspect of our lives: How we eat, what we eat, how much we eat, how we move around, food production, the amount of food and where we even live.


Dixy Ray, former Washington State Governor and Asst. Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental & Scientific Affairs stated: “Agenda 21 seeks to establish a mechanism for transferring the wealth from citizens to the Third World. Fear of environmental crisis would be used to create a world government and UN central direction.”


From a report in the 1976 UN’s Habitat One Conference: “Land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth -therefore contributes to social injustice.” In other words, ladies and gentlemen, if you work hard and you exercise good financial management and invest in property, you are contributing to social injustice.


In a report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development: “We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions, more rapid change, and more sensible use of human, natural, and financial resources in achieving our goals.” And at the same time, Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chair of the Wildlands Project says: “Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.” J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development: “Participating in a UN-advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society.” And here we are. “This segment of our society, who fear One World Government and UN invasion, through which our individual freedoms will be stripped away, would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined the conspiracy by undertaking Agenda 21. So we will call our process something else. We will call it comprehensive planning, or growth management, or Smart Growth. We ended up with Sustainable Development.”







Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 353, expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should assume a strong leadership role in implementing the decisions made at the Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro by developing a national strategy to implement Agenda 21 and other Earth summit agreements through domestic policy and foreign policy, by cooperating with all countries to identify and initiate further agreements to protect the global environment, and by supporting and participating in a high-level U.N. Sustainable Development Commission, as amended.


The Brazil meeting of the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development [UNCED], in June, marked global concurrence on the need to better integrate environmental and developmental activities, and presented a plan to achieve it. Some 175 countries gave their approval to the comprehensive program of action known as Agenda 21. The task now before nations is to implement the precepts of that document, which will be a demanding, yet necessary, endeavor if the world's development is to be viable and endure. Each nation must do its part. The resolution now before the House, House Concurrent Resolution 353, as amended, is an effort to get the U.S. process in gear.


The text of House Concurrent Resolution 353, as amended, highlights congressional sentiments on behalf of achieving the UNCED objective of environmentally sustainable development. It recognizes that the ultimate success of UNCED is dependent on actions taken at all levels: international, national, state, local, public, private, and individual. Specifically, it calls for the following:


A national strategy, based on countrywide consultations with a broad diversity of interests, and with efforts to engage all sectors, and levels in the process.


A Presidential plan for coordinating U.S. policy to implement agenda 21;


Formulation of domestic and foreign policies, including foreign aid, to implement agenda 21;


Research on sustainable consumption and production patterns, creation of an appropriate policy framework, and a strategy to cut subsidies which promote degradation of the resource base;


A Congressional plan to reallocate defense savings to environmentally sustainable   development;


Active U.S. support at the U.N. General Assembly for the Sustainable Development Commission, including provisions for meaningful participation by other U.N. entities, international financial institutions, and NGO's;


Presidential affirmation of a strong U.S. commitment to the Commission by appointing a high-level American to that body, and by encouraging the U.N. Secretary General to appoint an Under Secretary General for Sustainable Development to coordinate and implement Agenda 21;


Submission of a national report, by the President, on U.S. domestic and international activities, to implement agenda 21 , fulfill other UNCED initiatives, and encourage other nations to also submit national reports; and


An annual report to Congress on measures to implement agenda 21, and the recommendations of this resolution.


Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 353, as amended.







Executive Order No. 12852
June 29, 1993

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:


Section 1. Establishment

There is established the "President's Council on Sustainable Development"("Council"). The Council shall consist of not more than 25 members to be appointed by the President from the public and private sectors and who represent industrial, environmental, governmental, and not-for-profit organizations with experience relating to matters of sustainable development. The President shall designate from among the Council members such official or officials to be chairperson, chairpersons, vice-chairperson, or vice-chairpersons of the council as he shall deem appropriate. The Council shall coordinate with and report to such officials of the executive branch as the President or Director of the White House Office on Environmental Policy shall from time to time determine.


Section 2. Functions

(a) The Council shall advise the President on matters involving sustainable development. "Sustainable development" is broadly defined as economic growth that will benefit present and future generations without detrimentally affecting the resources or biological systems of the planet.

(b) The council shall develop and recommend to the President a national sustainable development action strategy that will foster economic vitality.

(c) The chairperson or chairpersons may, from time to time, invite experts to submit information to the Council and may form subcommittees of the Council to review and report to the Council on the development of national and local sustainable development plans.


William J. Clinton






Vision Statement

Our vision is of a life-sustaining Earth. We are committed to the achievement of a dignified, peaceful, and equitable existence. A sustainable United States will have a growing economy that provides equitable opportunities for satisfying livelihoods and a safe, healthy, high quality of life for current and future generations. Our nation will protect its environment, its natural resource base, and the functions and viability of natural systems on which all life depends.


This is known as the 3 Es of Sustainable Development

·        ECONOMY

·        EQUITABLE







The President of the United States, as resolved by the 102nd Congress, by Executive Order formed the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) in 1993. Its job was to devise a plan to incorporate the tenets of Agenda 21 throughout our society.


As well as the President and Vice President the PCSD consisted of 25-members from industry, government, labor groups and non-governmental organizations and were as follows:


·         US Department of Energy

·         US Department of Agriculture

·         US Department of Commerce

·         US Department of the Interior

·         US Environmental Protection Agency

·         US Department of State

·         US Department of Education, Council on Environmental Quality

·         National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

·         Ciba-Geigy Corporation

·         Pacific Gas & Electric Company

·         Georgia-Pacific Corporation

·         Chevron Corporation

·         Citizens Network on Sustainable Development

·         General Motors Corporation

·         S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.

·         Enron Corp.

·         Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.

·         National Resources Defense Council

·         Sierra Club

·         The Nature Conservancy

·         AFL-CIO

·         National Wildlife Federation

·         Environmental Defense Fund

·         Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission


We Believe Statement

Change is inevitable and necessary for the sake of future generations and for ourselves. We can choose a course for change that will lead to the mutually reinforcing goals of economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity.


Steady progress in reducing disparities in education, opportunity, and environmental risk within society is essential to economic growth, environmental health, and social justice.


Economic growth based on technological innovation, improved efficiency, and expanding global markets is essential for progress toward greater prosperity, equity, and environmental quality.


The nation must strengthen its communities and enhance their role in decisions about environment, equity, natural resources, and economic progress so that the individuals and institutions most immediately affected can join with others in the decision process.


Economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity are linked. We need to develop integrated policies to achieve these national goals.


Citizens must have access to high-quality and lifelong formal and nonformal education that enables them to understand the interdependence of economic prosperity, environmental quality, and social equity--and prepares them to take actions that support all three.






At this point we have the Presidents of the United States, both past and present, the United States Congress, eight Departments of the Federal Government, Labor Unions, Corporate America and several Environmental Groups responding to the clarion demanding the environment be saved from the actions of humanity. Don’t forget; “the real enemy then is humanity itself”




So the globalist’s goal is to control all humanity as the Honorable Ann Bressington said: “it must become clear that Agenda 21 is about controlling every aspect of our lives.”



Economic growth based on technological innovation, improved efficiency, and expanding global markets is essential for progress toward greater prosperity, equity, and environmental quality. (PCSD We believe statement)


2002, ten years after the World acceptance of Agenda 21, came the European Union









In 2005, President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper created the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, (SPP), which aimed to expand previous economic and political integration of the three countries beyond the already disastrous North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).


“In 2006, CNN anchor Lou Dobbs argued that the SPP was part of a plan to merge the United States, Canada, and Mexico into a North American Union similar to the European Union. At the time, Dobbs claimed that U.S. President Bush, who left office on January 20, 2009, was to have bypassed Congress and ultimately create a Union based on a Texas highway corridor. One variation of this theory was that President Bush would declare a state of emergency to avoid leaving office, which, in fact, never came about; on January 20, 2009, his successor, Barack Obama, who had openly voiced misgivings about NAFTA, the predecessor to SPP, let alone SPP itself, took office as U.S. President, but his anti-NAFTA views soon disappeared from his public persona.


The Council of Canadians claimed that the SPP extended the controversial "no fly list" of the United States, made Canadian water a communal resource, and forced Canada and Mexico to adopt the United States' security policies—one of which would allow foreign military forces to neglect sovereignty in the case of a "civil emergency".


"What differentiates the SPP from other security and trade agreements is that it is not subject to Congressional oversight or approval.”


On January 22, 2007, then-Congressman Virgil Goode of Virginia sponsored H.Con.Res. 40 (110th), which responded to President George W. Bush’s SPP and the more radical ideas in CFR’s BNAC to express the sense that “the United States should not allow the [SPP] to implement further regulations that would create a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.”


In August 2009, the SPP website was updated to say: "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) is no longer an active initiative. There will not be any updates to this site".  Subsequent to this the website link does not connect and the cache website links do not work.


On February 4, 2011, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama announced a new security and prosperity initiative with plans to "pursue a perimeter approach to security in ways that support economic competitiveness, job creation, and prosperity".


On March 13, 2011, the Canadian government announced it was beginning a five-week consultation process "with all levels of government and with communities, non-governmental organizations and the private sector, as well as with our citizens on the implementation of the shared vision for perimeter security and economic competitiveness"








Building a North American Community

Task Force Report

Press Releases


Chairs: John P. Manley, Pedro Aspe, and William F. Weld

Vice Chairs: Thomas P. D'Aquino, Andres Rozental, President, Mexican Council on Foreign Relations, and Robert A. Pastor, Professor and Founding Director of the Center for North American Studies, American University


Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in association with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales.


Task Force Members

HEIDI S. CRUZ is an energy investment banker with Merrill Lynch in Houston, Texas. She served in the Bush White House under Dr. Condoleezza Rice as the Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council, as the Director of the Latin America Office at the U.S. Treasury Department, and as Special Assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. Trade Representative. Prior to government service, Ms. Cruz was an investment banker with J.P. Morgan in New York City.






SELOUS FOUNDATION  By RJ Galliano | February 27, 2016


When Ted Cruz first ran for Senate in 2011, he described the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) as “a pernicious nest of snakes” that is working to “undermine our sovereignty.”


The CFR has long dismissed criticisms of its agenda as conspiracy theories.  Yet, Mrs. Cruz’s role in undermining American sovereignty and independence was conducted out in the open as a member of the CFR task force for “Building a North American Community” (BNAC), better known at the grassroots as the North American Union (NAU). Other task force members included former La Raza president Raul H. Yzaguirre.


BNAC’s recommendations were radical.   It called for the creation of a “North American Community” whose “boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe.”


GLOBAL-540.jpgOn immigration, BNAC sought virtual open borders with Mexico and Canada.  It proposed a “North American preference,” which would streamline “immigration and labor mobility rules that enable citizens of all three countries to work elsewhere in North America with far fewer restrictions than immigrants from other countries.”  It even suggested that the United States and Canada “should consider eliminating all remaining barriers to the ability of their citizens to live and work in the other country” and proposed that the two countries should “work to extend this policy to Mexico as well.”


BNAC called for a giant bureaucratic “North American Investment Fund” to give foreign AID, primarily to Mexico.  It called for massively expanding economic integration beyond NAFTA by creating an EU-like “common economic zone through the elimination of remaining tariff and nontariff barriers to trade within North America.”   It would have created “a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution” to hear cases, rather than the U.S. Courts, and granted Mexican trucks unlimited access to United States roads and highways.


The taskforce hoped to achieve this integration by 2010.  Fortunately, grassroots conservative activists sounded the alarm.  Phyllis Schlafly said the report had “let the cat out of the bag” behind the agenda of “free trade” deals.  She demanded the Congress announce which side they stood on: “the CFR’s integrated North American Community or U.S. sovereignty guarded by our own borders.”


Yet, as Donald Trump has brought issues involving open borders, immigration and trade to the forefront of national debate, national sovereignty has become a key issue in the 2016 race. Trump’s advisor Stephen Miller said that the race ultimately boiled down to “nation-state versus globalism.”


The BNAC blueprint remains. It raises the question, “Would a President Clinton embrace the Council on Foreign Relations’ North American Community?”







Additional Information


·         The 3 Es of Sustainable Development

·         Rewilding of North America


August 17, 2016




Free counters provided by Andale