Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Foreign Energy Dependence, WWI and Other Myths...

For the heck of it, I was reading the News Channel on my Nintendo Wii (yes, it gives you the news). Top headline: Canada to Talk Oil Sands With Obama.

Obama's officially in-office next Tuesday. One of the first things he will do is come to Canada to talk Alberta Oil Sands. Obama's dedicated to "ending USA's dependence on Middle East Oil." This is hilarious when you know what's really going on and how 'Middle East oil' and our supposed 'dependence' on it were actually created.

By now, you'd think more people would know that Saudi Arabia is called the United States of Arabia by everyone living in the Middle East - and that this 'dependence' has been worked out to be this way! But no, they keep using it as a kicking-horse. Insane.

For those of you that require some history to see through this farce:

In the years leading to WWI, the massive oil reserves across the Middle East were being discovered and coveted by the emerging trans-national oil megalopolies. Contrary to popular thought, it was never just the vast quantities of oil that drew foreign investment, but rather the attraction of not having to pay living wages to workers combined with the existence - or the ease of setting up - Islamic dictatorships to 'stabilise' and control said workers and oil fields.
WWI was conducted mostly as an operation to redraw the Middle East in an image that maximised internal conflict and foreign control of the land. That objective was clearly achieved. Did you know that Britain started the Great War by invading... Iraq! Did you even know that? I sure as Hell didn't. I thought it was all about Archduke Ferdinand - just like you did. So why invade Iraq first?

The sheer scope and insanity of WWI brought all the nations to the table to prevent such conflicts in the future.

But it was not all smooth sailing for the globalist elites right away - the League of Nations - an essential piece of the plan - failed. Back then, nations were used to something called sovereignty and could easily see through the rich, white man's plans for world dominance. The League never really got off the ground.
But there were plenty of successes - plans for the creation of Israel bring fruit - the Balfour Declaration was procured from England (then-controllers of Palestine). And note this is 25 years before the 'Holocaust!'

A One-Two punch ensued next - and these would cement forever the elitist stranglehold on all of our lives: The so-called Great Depression. That's the One-Punch. The Two-Punch was WWII. After WWII, they got their League of Nations back under the name United Nations - owned and run, lock-stock-and-barrel by the Rockefellers (and whomever they actually answer to).

During all this, in the background, the Middle East was being cut up and parceled out to the highest bidders. This was conveniently invisible to the average citizen, because we didn't know of the Middle East's energy deposits yet!

The Saudi kingship in Arabia is a puppet government. Set up from day one as US stooges. This is why they are so hated by their own citizenry. They're considered foreigners! Read Confessions of an Economic Hitman (or watch hi lecture here) to get the dirt on this.
Once the Transnational oil companies did the math (pay union wages and US land-rights rates to US workers and State governments - or pay crap wages to Saudis with totalitarian regimes to keep control) they abandoned major US operations and moved to the Middle East.
So any 'stranglehold' that Saudi Arabia has on oil is an engineered one. Don't believe the hype. If cheap oil was really wanted, it's waiting for us here - in the US and Canadian mainlands! We have more oil here than the rest of the world combined! Don't believe me? Watch this video.

We're really going to have to watch this Presidency for passage of the elitist, globalist UN initiatives that have been festering behind the scenes for the last few years. When you look at the last five Presidencies, you see an emerging pattern of oscillation back and forth between 'right' and 'left.' Reagan and the Bushes can be seen to 'turn down' UN initiatives - giving conservative voters the idea that they give a hoot about US sovereignty. Then in come the Democrats - Carter, Clinton, Obama - to shove through the worst of the initiatives in the name of 'change' and 'peace.'
I predict openly that all the craziest theories about the UN (CODEX Alimentarius, de-population, internment camps, international military police) will go through with Obama. Just like Clinton.


Is it just me or is it becoming impossible to hear one single word of truth in any mainstream press article? They're just comedic pieces now! After all this BS about foreign oil dependence, they then go on to say that digging up the oil sands will "increase [Alberta's] greenhouse gas emissions." How?!?

I guess this is "Change." Say, I had forgotten... but what was Clinton's catch phrase when he was running after George HW? "It's time for Change." Har!!!

And after looking into it for a few days, it seems that Obama is most likely:

A) The illegitimate son of a targeted Black Panther leader and his mother (who seems to have been a hired spy for the US govt who "penetrated," literally, the Black Panthers under COINTELPRO)

B) A foreign-born illegal alien. Raised in secret and groomed since birth to be President of the US.

C) Working for the Chicago Mob. If you can't beat them, join them! What better way to conduct criminal operations but to hold control of the law?

Either way, we do know he appears out of nowhere, fully developed, like Ancient Egypt rising out of the Nile, to claim a state senate seat by getting all of his opponents disqualified from the ballot (sound familiar? Like a Mob operation?) then wins the US Senate seat, then raises a half-billion dollars instantly to grab the Presidency. Hmmmm. And, oh yeah, he cannot / will not provide Birth Certificates or any other identity papers to Congress. And they're just going to sign him in next week as Prez - they don't even know if he's American!!!

Original Oil Sands Article: AP

No comments: