Daylife/AP Photo used by permission
$300 worth of haircuts in one photo |
Is Texas Gov. Rick Perry the Bilderberg group’s Republican candidate-in-waiting in the 2012 presidential race? The shadowy globalist group is scheduled to meet secretly behind locked doors over the weekend of June 9-12 in St. Moritz, Switzerland, and AFP will be on location to cover it.
It is not without precedent to tap state governors for broader vistas. Bill Clinton at one time was the obscure governor of Arkansas—a land with strong Rockefeller influence since the days of Gov. Winthrop Rockefeller. As governor, Clinton attended his first Bilderberg meeting in 1991 and was elected president about a year later.
Like Clinton, Perry has attended a Bilderberg meeting. In June 2007 Perry attended the Bilderberg confab in Istanbul, Turkey, making the mandatory promise of secrecy and to follow orders. At the time, Perry was chastised in the newly aroused independent press.
Speculation that Perry is the Bilderberg group’s ace card was prompted by the current political climate, which can largely be gleaned from the fact that Perry is a longtime, unwavering supporter of the NAFTA Superhighway and related infrastructure projects. These pave the way for the Bilderberg-supported North American Union (NAU) proposal that would merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico…
Ron Paul has called for a criminal investigation into Perry’s Bilderberg trip. “This information about him going over there and violating the Logan Act and getting involved . . . I’m just impressed that that’s in the ordinary media—I think that’s encouraging, too,” he said on a talk radio show, adding that Perry’s attendance was “a sign that he’s involved in the international conspiracy…”
The Bilderberg backed NAU that he supports would erase the boundaries between Mexico, the United States and Canada. The plan is to expand the “union” throughout the Western Hemisphere, resulting in an “American Union,” similar to the European Union that is draining Europe dry of its former prosperity, with Switzerland— the location of the 2011 Bilderberg meeting—faring better because it’s neither an EU nor a NATO member.
His support of the Trans Texas Corridor within the state’s boundaries has been unflinching, since that is Texas’s part of the greater NAFTA Superhighway network to connect the NAU nations physically.
Bilderberg, true to form, wants the U.S. recession to continue throughout 2012 and for oil prices to remain high and increase further. This could make Obama a one-term president. But at this point it appears Bilderberg’s “other horse” is headed for the stable, to be groomed as their ace in the hole.
Consider yourself warned.
Sure this story wasn’t on MSNBC? Looks like a White House lie to me.
#30
I would assume any “thinking” Republican would run this year only as a setup for 2016.
Why? Republicans have a better chance of beating Obama in 2012 than the Democrats had against Bush in 2004 or 2001. Obama will be lucky if his own party doesn’t force him to resign much less beat a Republican contender. IMO, just as 2008 was the Democrats to lose, 2012 will be the Republicans to lose. The only way they do lose is if they run a worse monkey like Palin.
Still waiting to see if Hillary runs against Obama. They kept it in play after the Osama raid, suggesting that she was the power behind the throne, while Obama compared dresses with his gay lover.
#39–Thomas==c’mon, stop pulling your pud to sound like Alfie light. READ the very post you are responding to. I gave why the PUKES who “should” win, will not: their vote against MediCare shows them to be the black shirts for the Super Rich that they are.
Mike==you do show a good sense of humor about 1/3 the time? Well done. Cracks me up.
I’d believe the liberal scare stories more if the war with Iran had happened, or the draft that they assured us George Bush was going to implement in his second term.
See Mike? That wasn’t funny at all. Down to 30%. Pukes are the party of fear. Get your shit together.
#41
The article is about Congress. You response was about the Presidency. Completely different situation. Obviously, you have given yourself entirely to one side of the debate. Evaluate the situation dispassionately. Obama is going to have to debate against 9%+ unemployment while doubling the national debt in 1/2 the time of Bush and continuing Bush’s policies when he said he would not. I’m shocked his own party hasn’t disowned him. If he pulls another stunt before the election, I fully expect to hear the “not running for re-election because of my family” speech or some equivalent.
#45
Sorry. Wrong article. Yes, I realize the article is about a Congressman running for the Presidency. Still, 2012 is the Republicans to lose.
# 2 SR9 said,
“Thank Allah SOMEBODY is in charge of things..”
That’s a bit premature.
But thanks.
#44–Animby==yes, I admit a little hyperbole there, but not even as much as you are using these days.
Obama was for Single Payer: Republicans Obstructed.
Obama was for Regulating Finanacial systems: Republicans Obstructed.
Obama is for keeping MediCare mostly the system we have now and not turning it into a voucher system: Republicans are pushing for the opposite.
Obama was for saving Detroit and the MILLIONS OF JOBS RELATED TO IT: Republicans Obstructed.
Obama is for investing in Green Energy: Republicans Obstructed.
Obama is for cutting tax subsidies to the most profitable corporations that have ever existed and pay no taxes at all: Republicans Obstructed.
I could go on and on and on because the list of how D’s and R’s are different and the PUKES WORSE and therefore obligated to LIE ABOUT IT if they want any votes at all tells the lie you like to post without support just before going to bed and being unavailable for comment.
I mean really Animby—I’m right, you are wrong. Its pretty easy to show if you can be honest rather than lazy in mustering your best thoughts.
Prove me wrong.
Ha, ha.
# 48 bobbo, “Prove me wrong.”
No. Sorry. It’s i,[possible to prove you wrong vecause you have already admitted prejudice and certitude. Baseless allegations are hard to disprove so I’ll respond with my own:
Obama was for Single Payer: – Then why did he propose thousands of pages of the most complicated legalese ever presented to the Congress? If he wanted Single Payer, and with his control of the House AND the Senate, he could have had it at a stroke.
Obama was for Regulating Finanacial systems – in your world, regulation is, apparently, allowing billionaires to pay themselves huge bonuses for failing to run their businesses and, of course, making sure the companies of friends and donors received bailouts – Now THAT’s regulation!!!
Obama is for keeping MediCare mostly the system we have now and not turning it into a voucher system:- Thus the reason for extracting half a billion dollars from the fund to pay for his complicated and unconstitutional gift tot he insurance companies. Seems to me that MediCare is unworkable. Some people on the Hill are trying to rescue it while your Irish leprechaun pretends all is well.
Obama was for saving Detroit and the MILLIONS OF JOBS RELATED TO IT: – O’Bama was for saving the butts of his union cronies – please don’t pretend otherwise. Chicago politics is Chicago politics even in Detroit.
Obama is for investing in Green Energy: Yes he is – even though he has been shown over and over that green energy jobs sap the economy and raise unemployment. Like rethinking MediCare, it may have to be done but it needs to be thought about and planned and tested. There is not enough green energy available to satisfy the demand and won’t be for decades if ever. Why? Because I’ve got all these electronic devices and I STILL insist on keeping the coffee pot boiling. I do use CF lamps…
Obama is for cutting tax subsidies – Simply nonsense. He is for rewriting the codes to be even more complicated so that only his pals at GE and Exxon will be able to hire teams of attorneys big enough to make even more money.
This man’s career, even his wife’s career, is full of favors being granted. Then you can look at his maneuvering and think he is full of altruism? You have allowed yourself to be blinded by the glitter and failed to see the tacky glue holding it to the columns.
I could go on and on – And you probably will. But, you’re becoming like Alfie and Dallas, now. You’ve stopped thinking and just spout the party line.
Ha, ha. – Indeed.
Complete BS. Everyone knows the Stonecutters run everything.
#44. Animby: a partial list of Bilderberg members.
Chairman of the Steering Committee
* Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld (1954–1975)[16]
* Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands (1997, 2000, 2006, 2008-2010)[1][2][3]
* Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, United Kingdom (1986)[6][7]
* Juan Carlos I of Spain, King of Spain (2004)[8]
* Prince Philippe, Prince of Belgium (2007-2009)[9]
* Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, United Kingdom (1965, 1967)[10][11]
* Queen Sofía of Spain (2008-2010)[3][12]
* King Harald V of Norway [13] (1984[14])
Now read the Logan act again.: “directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof,”
I don’t see how it could be any more cut and dried. I’m sure you can put some type of spin to it.
#51 McCullough – Spin? I don’ got to show you no spin. I don’ need no stinkin’ spin.
You are not that shallow a thinker.
You list some names of people who are ostensibly in disparate governments and choose to associate with each other.
You have not made an even cursory stab at trying to show they are ACTING as a government or that meeting with them is undermining US policy.
If this were a violation of the Logan Act, we’d need to be hauling O’Bama’s ass before Congress for his secret meetings with union officials. Or maybe you think they’re just sharing Cuban cigars and Mexican blow. Certainly they’re not trying to figure out how to influence US policy!
Oh, sorry. The Logan Act only works for foreign governments. Domestically we call it corruption.
“You have not made an even cursory stab at trying to show they are ACTING as a government or that meeting with them is undermining US policy.”
These meetings are kept from the PUBLIC. This is not some drinking club.
Yes I’m sure you are right, these are all good people who just want to make the world a better place. That’s why they are so open about it.
OK I’m done doc.
#49–animby==thanks. Glad you decided to step out of your kibbitzing role and actually give discussion a shot. Lets see what you’ve come up with:
# 48 bobbo, “Prove me wrong.”
No. Sorry. It’s i,[possible to prove you wrong vecause you have already admitted prejudice and certitude. /// Yes, any honest person admits to prejudice. If you review this blog, you will see my opinion about D’s and R’s change over time. I used to view the two parties as mostly the same hence “VOTE ALL ENCUMBENTS OUT OF OFFICE.” Very even handed given they were mostly the same. But Republican party has changed: captured by its farther right fringe elements. As facts change, one’s opinion must change. Yours hasn’t. You need to give up blood letting and pay attention at your next CME. THE PUKES ARE TRYING TO KILL AMERICA. And yes, I am certain about that: the evidence is presented every day in the news, most days on this blog. BTW–if I say “A” and you say “Not A” and that makes me biased and certain, what does that make you? I think it makes me right and you wrong. But, I have already demonstrated my position changing with the facts, have you provided any evidence or better/conflicting arguments ideas below? I hope so, because every time I change my mind, I think it makes me a better informed person. Yes, thats how I roll.
Baseless allegations are hard to disprove so /// No, just the opposite. Just have to honestly think that the Ryan Budget does not fundamentally change MediCare. Is that what you think Animby?
I’ll respond with my own: /// Hopefully. I am responding as I read for the firs time. I am hopeful, but you aren’t showing much so far.
Obama was for Single Payer: – Then why did he propose thousands of pages of the most complicated legalese ever presented to the Congress? //// Gee Whiz Animby: BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS OBSTRUCTED HIM. But indeed we will never know how Obama would have acted given a more free hand. History is like that, an infinity of potential resolving into a single path. ain’t that a bitch?
If he wanted Single Payer, and with his control of the House AND the Senate, he could have had it at a stroke. /// Except Obama had no such control. Republicans responded with more filibusters made than ever before in history==a SUPERMAJORITY was required to move any legislation. See how easy it is to counter faulty facts/assumptions/allegations WHEN THEY ARE WRONG? So far, you have countered NONE of mine, I have shown all of yours to be flat assed WRONG. I do hope that changes.
Obama was for Regulating Finanacial systems – in your world, regulation is, apparently, allowing billionaires to pay themselves huge bonuses for failing to run their businesses and, of course, making sure the companies of friends and donors received bailouts – Now THAT’s regulation!!! /// Gosh Animby–I want Financial Systems to be REREGULATED so that banks don’t do investing and vice versa, so that they are not too big to fail. Obama can’t even get this off the ground. The Consumer Financial Protection Agency (sic–whatever it is) that is so weak as to almost be meaningless is being BLOCKED BY THE REPUBLICANS–not letting Elizabeth Warren get appointed because she might let the institution provide “some” stability. I grant you I have only heard some Dumbo’s talk about reinstituting Glass-Steagle, Margin Requirements, Speculation Controls and Obama has been too general in just wanting “reform” but regardless of what Obama wants the REPUBLICANS ARE AGAINST IT.
Obama is for keeping MediCare mostly the system we have now and not turning it into a voucher system:- Thus the reason for extracting half a billion dollars from the fund to pay for his complicated and unconstitutional gift tot he insurance companies. Seems to me that MediCare is unworkable. Some people on the Hill are trying to rescue it while your Irish leprechaun pretends all is well. /// Extracting Billions from the program says nothing about keeping its structure in tact or changing it to a voucher system. HOW is MediCare “unworkable?”–I could fill this in for you, but I don’t think you are giving this thread your honest full hearted best thinking. Too weak. I haven’t heard Obama say anything close to “all is well.” On topic, what he said is we aren’t going to fund tax breaks for the rich by removing safety net services for the poor–like MediCare. He is opposing the Ryan Plan. Animby—it is INSANE to think its arguable to radically change/destroy MediCare because its going broke while at the same time given further tax breaks to the Rich when their rates are already at the lowest rates in history. Fair: put everything on the table for debate and negotiation. OBSTRUCTIONIST LYING: Saying you are saving MediCare and that tax increases of any kind including the closing of loopholes in the tax code “are off the table.” Lying assholes, and so are any and all who support this kind of approach to important legislative/social issues. Peoples lives are affected: their VERY LIVES. Yes, the PUKES WANT TO KILL THE MIDDLE CLASS. Wake up.
Obama was for saving Detroit and the MILLIONS OF JOBS RELATED TO IT: – O’Bama was for saving the butts of his union cronies – please don’t pretend otherwise. /// Jobs Animby. Unions took wage cuts up front, still not good enough for the PUKES. As the unions/jobs issues are intertwined, YOU imply you would have let the jobs go to Japan and China in order to “get at” the Unions? Are you that neanderthal Animby? Aren’t you Unionized when working in America? Are you so anti-union you would rather see a non-unionized job created in China, or keep a unionized job in America? Good hearted Jebus Animby–you are proving yourself the very scum that is ruining America. Say it ain’t so?
Chicago politics is Chicago politics even in Detroit. /// Are you for Jobs or not?
Obama is for investing in Green Energy: Yes he is – even though he has been shown over and over that green energy jobs sap the economy and raise unemployment. /// I’ve seen a few analyses saying that, the majority are the opposite. Lots of buggy whip makers were put out of business before cars really got going. Don’t you think there is a transition period Animby? But I again make your vague argument for you, and again you are wrong. Ha, ha.
Like rethinking MediCare, it may have to be done but it needs to be thought about and planned and tested. There is not enough green energy available to satisfy the demand and won’t be for decades if ever. Why? Because I’ve got all these electronic devices and I STILL insist on keeping the coffee pot boiling. I do use CF lamps… /// You are giving the nudge to green. Yes it takes time. We should lead the market, not follow China. Have you heard we are at, near, or past Peak Oil? Seems there is not enough energy of any kind to satisfy demand/future demand. What you gonna do==NOT invest in the future? Horrors!!!
Obama is for cutting tax subsidies – Simply nonsense. He is for rewriting the codes to be even more complicated so that only his pals at GE and Exxon will be able to hire teams of attorneys big enough to make even more money. /// Maybe so. It might be just the Dem’s in Congress moving to have Exxon, Shell, etc pay more than ZERO in Federal Taxes and have the subsidies end. But the Republicans are Against it. Obama does seem to hang back all too much until things like Osama is caught all because two years ago Obama made it a priority without announcement or fan fare. I don’t really “trust” him though==not for what Obama might actually want, want I can only hope he wants, but because he seems to be weak in the face of opposition==FROM THE REPUBLICANS. But he might be Kung Fooing us all?
This man’s career, even his wife’s career, is full of favors being granted. Then you can look at his maneuvering and think he is full of altruism? You have allowed yourself to be blinded by the glitter and failed to see the tacky glue holding it to the columns. /// Meaningless Rhetoric. Got facts?
I could go on and on – And you probably will. But, you’re becoming like Alfie and Dallas, now. You’ve stopped thinking and just spout the party line. /// And yet totally trounced you.
Ha, ha. – Indeed. /// Animby, I expected more. I invite you to think more deeply than you have. You do seem to be applying dogma rather than issue specific facts. YOU are the very reason I post as I do.
Think Animby===THINK!!!!
///// As to the Logan Act==rich people should NEVER be allowed to meet in secret. No good could ever come of it. Note the two prongs: meet and secret. Should help with any discussion of George Soros.
I invite anyone who disagrees with the PUKES ARE ALL LYING AND OUT TO KILL AMERICA screed at post #54 to take it apart. If the entirety is too long (hint, it is!) then take a single point.
Prove me wrong.
Make me stronger the next time.
If not, then recognize just how hollow your dogma is. Think, THINK long enough, you might start voting more intelligently FOR YOUR OWN SELF INTEREST and as always: that of your kiddies. What kind of dog eat dog society are you trying to leave them?
Jebus==where are you when we need you?
# 54 bobbo,”rich people should NEVER be allowed to meet in secret.”
There we can find a point of agreement.
# 53 McCullough, “I’m sure you are right, these are all good people who just want to make the world a better place.” Oh, Mac. So unkind of you to put words in my mouth. I never said, nor hinted, at such a thing. I merely make the case they are NOT a government and the Logan Act would be misapplied.
And now, I have to let Bobbo’s naysaying rest because, unlike him, I still have a life outside this board. I’m off to Burma…
Think Animby, Think!
But while time does permit such,
Animby……TRAVELS.
Three wars back we called Sauerkraut “liberty cabbage” and we called liberty cabbage “super slaw” and back then a suitcase was known as a “Swedish lunchbox.” Of course, nobody knew that but me. Anyway, long story short… is a phrase whose origins are complicated and rambling.
@reverse engineer…..that would be steve perry from journey…..how could u confuse….steve has much better hair than rick!!