[obama] let's cut to the chase

In comments on Tea Parties, Taking Back the Nation, the point that Obama is a barefaced liar was skipped over, in favour of a red herring - U.S./British relations.

So I'm coming back to this point about Obama and first stop will be dear Alex Goodall where I was taken to task for taking Obama to task. The feeling was that because I was conservative, ipso facto, I must be anti-Obama.

Actually, no. The reason I'm against Obama, aside from his policies, is that he lies and I'm going to address that now in detail. It's not just that he lies - all politicians lie, according to Andrew Scott. No, it's that the lie Obama tells is so immense because it involves the restructuring of the United States itself and therefore - it must be addressed and not be allowed to go by.

Nothing to do with conservatism or bias or whatever. It's to do with whether the truth is being told or not. It's that simple.

Obama said, in the vid:

"but I don't think there's some conspiracy [his words again] to create this ... you know ... one continental government."

Those were his words. Right, look at this document. It is the CFR's policy document on the North American Union and if you don't wish to wade through it in detail, the summary of the salient points is here. In that post, I let Obama off the hook by quoting one of his milder remarks but his actual words are later in this post.

OK, now go to this site. It states clearly, in order to undercut mounting criticism of a sell-out, that the SPPNA is a "White House driven initiative", supposedly meaning that if it is "White House driven", then the U.S. is in safe hands. That seemed to be the import.

What this says, of course, is that the White House was integrally involved in the SPPNA or NAU negotiations. This is confirmed by the meeting at Baylo University, Waco, on March 23rd, 2005, when American President George Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, and Mexican President Vincente Fox met and according to this Wikinews, "signed an accord".

Now already someone is incorrect because on the SPPNA site at that time, they claimed no accord was signed but that there was merely a verbal agreement. However, let's pass over that for now.

What is not made apparent in all of this is that the CFR produced a think tank document. There are many think tanks all over the world, of varying degrees of influence. What sets the CFR apart is that so many U.S. presidents and high level politicians and bureaucrats are and have been members. More than that, in the case of this particular document, it resulted in a meeting of three heads of state and an accord.

Now, in that document was the implementation of the NAAC - the North American Advisory Council, comprising the heads of state plus CFR members. Again, that document resulted in a meeting and in Wikinews's words - an accord.

What were the provisions of the document?

By 2010, a North American Union be created, NOT as a sovereign state but in charge of:

# single economic zone,
# single area of free movements of people,
# single education system,
# single defense and security system,
# single social benefits system

So, all other aspects of American life, other than those above, which would be under the control of the NAAC, would be in American hands only.

The Wiki whitewash says that of all those leaders and the current ones, only Fox is still in favour of the NAU. This is a sleight of hand. What it really means is that all but Fox have seen that this accord, when it got out to the general public via the internet, became a political hot potato and no leader can be seen to be subscribing to it, especially on NAFTA implications or on the Amero.

Now even in the Wiki whitewash, it was conceded that Obama knew full well, on taking up office, what this was all about. And yet, in the video below, he says something entirely different. Not only that but the SPPNA site itself says that Obama had been meeting with Harper. Why would the SPPNA report on that - leaders meet all the time, especially between Canada and the U.S.? Clearly, because something of significance to the SPPNA was on the agenda.

This is still not evidence of Obama lying until we come to the text of what he said in the video. In a response to the question about this whole NAU issue, he replied:

# First of all, on the Council of Foreign Relations - I don't know if I'm an official member ... er ...

# Basically it [CFR]... is basically just a forum where a bunch of people talk about foreign policy ... so theres's no official membership ... er ... card [laughter from the audience] ...

# In terms of this North America ... er ... what did you call it? [Someone from the audience calls out "Union"]... Union ...

# I have to say, with all due respect, that I see no evidence of this actually taking place ...

# This is something which has been dreamed up by certain blogs in the internet [the questioner had used the word "press", not "internet" so Obama introduced this himself into the answer] ...

# The video is unclear here but he says that he is for better economic cooperation between the NA nations [applause] and then he says: "but I don't think there's some conspiracy [his words again] to create this ... you know ... one continental government."

That's absolutely correct - the accord was never to create "this one continental government" and so he's created a situation where the clamour of internet detractors is against an NAU and he answers, truthfully - that there will not be an NAU. What he does not say though is that there is an SPPNA. The American people would never have bought the abrogation of their constitution in a formal NAU and the leaders knew it, especially after word of it got out.

That's why it was organized as stated above - that under an NAAC, certain aspects:

# single economic zone,
# single area of free movements of people,
# single education system,
# single defense and security system,
# single social benefits system

... only would be "advised on" by the new body. The U.S.A would still be the U.S.A. in the people's eyes, Congress would still sit, the Judiciary would still judish.

This is sleight of hand and Obama knows it. I've called this sleight of hand a lie, especially in his comment "just a forum where a bunch of people talk about foreign policy". Oh yeah? Hence the meeting in 2005 and the accord.

Obama, in this video, has pulled the wool over the eyes of the adoring audience and the people watching the speech on relay. He has pretended not even to know the name people use for the Union and asks the audience to help him out with the word. He doesn't know if he's a member or if he's not a member.

Gosh and with that level of poor memory, he is the non-Prez of the U.S.A.? Imagine him going for a high level job with a firm. With that level of recall, would you give him a job?