Sender, Berl & Sons Inc.

Satellite Page -- National Consumption Tax

Important Comment from Joseph Ehrlich. I find I have to shout. This is not encouraging. When I laid out the case against President Bush's complicity in 9-11 the logic of the argument was flawless showing that he was absolutely complicit in 9-11. However, here I am at the end of near a decade of public service seeing that the country is ready to elect this man back to office. The dissapointment is beyond words because in turning away from the truth the general public is allowing themselves to be enslaved in a way not seen before in this country. When the Hebrews were freed from their bondage in Egypt, many of them wanted to go back, because they feared freedom and yearned for the comfort of an everyday routine no matter the element of their victimization. I sense the same thing taking place right here when the American people take the easy road instead of the one fighting to protect the rights others sacrificed their lives to afford them.

What is more important to the elitist centrix other than their own lives? Wealth. Thus, the explained need to contain nuclear weapons as we have expounded upon on this site. Thereafter, the ideal situation for the elite is to have the masses, their serfs, provide them low cost labor and even better than that pay for everything while they de facto retain all their own wealth. Even better for the elitist centrix is to be able to steal back all the wages paid to the serfs no matter how little. How do you do this in front of their noses? Well let me explain it this way. Say the cost of government for educational purposes is $1,000,000,000 and there are ten million people people with an average annual wage of $100. The elitist earns $100,000 a year. Gas costs 10 cents a gallon or $20 yearly. The serf pays 15% in taxes or $15 a year, the elitist pays (generously said) 35% or $35,000. The serf has $65 for purposes of expenses including educating his children in college, already with little hope of saving anything. The very rich have a lot more their annual wealth each year representing 1000 times the money available each year to the serf ( in today's terms say the average gross wage is $40,000 while the super rich gross $40 million). Now, back to our example, the elitist is out to put the entire tax burden on the masses rather than any at all on himself. Thus in this educational example, the elitist pushes for the following result: remove the "equitable" national tax and impose a 30 cents a gallon on all gasoline consumed. Wow the masses say. No more national tax. No more IRS. However, when all is said and done they have given the elitist who control the government more tax revenue than ever before and the elitist has reduced their tax rate to essentially zip since they consume about the same gasoline as the serf but the serf has undertaken to reduce their remaining income from $100 less $15 tax and $20 annual gasoline cost ($65) to $100 less $40 or$60. The elitist now has $100,000 less $120 (let's be generous) annual gasoline expenditure or essentially no tax at all. Government needs a little more money so that it can give the people what they deserve? Raise the gasoline tax to 40 cents a gallon.

The point of course is that the masses pay the cost while the elitist laughs because no matter how high the cost of gasoline, he keeps the lion share at the expense of his serfs. The best part of it for the elitist is that his companies provide the services given by the government to the people. Since he is an elitist his companies are best positioned to get the work and of course the profits for providing this work to the government are enormous so that not only does he have the serfs pay for everything, but through the work his companies do for the government he can reap back some of the little the serfs have for themselves.

Now, wasn't this type of injustice put to bed with the French and American revolutions? Yes. Now you see our point. Now, let's look at your future with another Bush term. Forget about everything else and just focus on the fact that stooge Jim Demint has paved the way for a 23% national tax. This is coming as sure as I am writing this albeit criticism emanated quickly from several sources. Here's what one newspaper wrote: http://greenvilleonline.com/news/opinion/2004/09/29/2004092950046.htm

In any case, we need to see Rep. DeMint's proposal as part of the process by which ultraconservatives, step by step, are shifting the burden of taxation onto the backs of working- and middle-class Americans as well as small businessmen and retirees of modest means. As Daniel Altman, a former economics reporter for The Economist, points out in his new book, "Neoconomy: George Bush's Revolutionary Gamble with America's Future," the long-range goal is to destroy the progressive income tax, abolish the estate taxes on the super-rich, reduce or abolish all taxes on dividends and capital gains and replace these sources of revenue with "consumption" or sales taxes. The end result will be to shift the tax burden completely away from the wealthy few who receive their income from stocks, bonds and securities, to middle-class workers and small businesspeople. The process is already under way.

A Congressional Budget Office report recently authored by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former chief of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, showed that the administration's tax policies instituted over the last four years have led to a 12 percent reduction in the share of federal taxes paid by those Americans earning more than $1.1 million a year. (A third of the tax reduction went to the top 1 percent.) At the same time, the middle class has seen its share of the tax burden increase more than 5 percent.

These revolutionary changes in our tax system have been promoted and justified by wealthy interests as a sure-fire way to guarantee economic prosperity that will somehow trickle down to the average South Carolinian. As they might have said on "Saturday Night Live" of such self-serving arguments: "How convenient."

There have been two significant sales-tax increases in the state of South Carolina: in 1951 under Gov. James Byrnes and in the 1980s under Gov. Dick Riley. Both of these increases placed a heavier burden upon lower-income taxpayers, but their impact was far less significant than the DeMint plan. And they had the virtue of offering improvements in education in a state badly lagging behind the nation.

Unfortunately, this latest attack on South Carolina's working and middle class is consistent with Rep. DeMint's other political positions. He has refused to support changes in the tax code that would end tax incentives for American corporations that export jobs abroad. And his proposal for an alternative to Social Security (outlined on his Web site) would require far higher contributions by working- and middle-class workers than for wealthy taxpayers.

Whenever critics point out these DeMint positions, they are met with a charge that they are engaged in "class warfare." My response is that Rep. DeMint and his allies are the ones who have been engaged in a nonstop class war against working- and middle-class South Carolinians. And they've been winning.

Much has been made of Rep. DeMint's "bold" ideas. But boldness does not always equal good judgment. In November, the voters will have a chance to decide if they want to elect an individual like Rep. DeMint whose policies seem designed to benefit a small minority of his wealthy supporters while damaging the basic pocketbook interests of working- and middle-class South Carolinians.

To my valued readers of this site: I detest the wrongdoing and injustice I see in this administration and in their designs. They represent all that history rejects. They represent those very people that willingly and knowingly enslave their fellow man. I beg of you to do all you can do to go the other way. The only choice is Kerry. You have to understand that a vote for Kerry is the best we can do to reject the above. America represented the Judeo-Christian ethic, G-d, justice, opportunity. Don't signal these people that you are voluntarily choosing to go back to Egypt. They will surely laugh at you for doing so and I will sit in pain knowing how much they will enjoy what they have accomplished. Again, the video:

www.senderberl.com/video/dickens.wmv
Windows media file for broadband

Source: http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/rev-prel.htm A little time with history may prove timely for you (all emphasis are ours).

Prelude to Revolution
1763 to 1775

SENDERBERL'S NOTES ARE INTERSPERSED -- PLEASE READ THEM CAREFULLY

1763 - The Proclamation of 1763, signed by King George III of England, prohibits any English settlement west of the Appalachian mountains and requires those already settled in those regions to return east in an attempt to ease tensions with Native Americans.

1764 - The Sugar Act is passed by the English Parliament to offset the war debt brought on by the French and Indian War and to help pay for the expenses of running the colonies and newly acquired territories. This act increases the duties on imported sugar and other items such as textiles, coffee, wines and indigo (dye). It doubles the duties on foreign goods reshipped from England to the colonies and also forbids the import of foreign rum and French wines.

1764 - The English Parliament passes a measure to reorganize the American customs system to better enforce British trade laws, which have often been ignored in the past. A court is established in Halifax, Nova Scotia, that will have jurisdiction over all of the American colonies in trade matters.

1764 - The Currency Act prohibits the colonists from issuing any legal tender paper money. This act threatens to destabilize the entire colonial economy of both the industrial North and agricultural South, thus uniting the colonists against it.

1764 - In May, at a town meeting in Boston, James Otis raises the issue of taxation without representation and urges a united response to the recent acts imposed by England. In July, Otis publishes "The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved." In August, Boston merchants begin a boycott of British luxury goods.

1765 - In March, the Stamp Act is passed by the English Parliament imposing the first direct tax on the American colonies, to offset the high costs of the British military organization in America. Thus for the first time in the 150 year old history of the British colonies in America, the Americans will pay tax not to their own local legislatures in America, but directly to England.

Under the Stamp Act, all printed materials are taxed, including; newspapers, pamphlets, bills, legal documents, licenses, almanacs, dice and playing cards. The American colonists quickly unite in opposition, led by the most influential segments of colonial society - lawyers, publishers, land owners, ship builders and merchants - who are most affected by the Act, which is scheduled to go into effect on November 1.

1765 - Also in March, the Quartering Act requires colonists to house British troops and supply them with food.

1765 - In May, in Virginia, Patrick Henry presents seven Virginia Resolutions to the House of Burgesses claiming that only the Virginia assembly can legally tax Virginia residents, saying, "If this be treason, make the most of it." Also in May, the first medical school in America is founded, in Philadelphia.

1765 - In July, the Sons of Liberty, an underground organization opposed to the Stamp Act, is formed in a number of colonial towns. Its members use violence and intimidation to eventually force all of the British stamp agents to resign and also stop many American merchants from ordering British trade goods.

1765 - August 26, a mob in Boston attacks the home of Thomas Hutchinson, Chief Justice of Massachusetts, as Hutchinson and his family narrowly escape.

1765 - In October, the Stamp Act Congress convenes in New York City, with representatives from nine of the colonies. The Congress prepares a resolution to be sent to King George III and the English Parliament. The petition requests the repeal of the Stamp Act and the Acts of 1764. The petition asserts that only colonial legislatures can tax colonial residents and that taxation without representation violates the colonists' basic civil rights.

SenderBerl: Right in here SenderBerl tells you that now molding public opinion via public poll results which will be false and self serving they seek to impose the national consumption tax which will put the Stamp Act to shame. They have learned. Moreover, just think that if France, German and Belgium had supported the war especially with helping financing it, the war would be over already. Now, the NWO milks the money here via the new version of the Stamp Tax and Bush spends it in Iraq for political pork rebuilding projects where France and Germany in particular are main beneficiaries. Get the point?

1765 - On November 1, most daily business and legal transactions in the colonies cease as the Stamp Act goes into effect with nearly all of the colonists refusing to use the stamps. In New York City, violence breaks out as a mob burns the royal governor in effigy, harasses British troops, then loots houses.

1765 - In December, British General Thomas Gage, commander of all English military forces in America, asks the New York assembly to make colonists comply with the Quartering Act and house and supply his troops. Also in December, the American boycott of English imports spreads, as over 200 Boston merchants join the movement.

1766 - In January, the New York assembly refuses to completely comply with Gen. Gage's request to enforce the Quartering Act.

1766 - In March, King George III signs a bill repealing the Stamp Act after much debate in the English Parliament, which included an appearance by Ben Franklin arguing for repeal and warning of a possible revolution in the American colonies if the Stamp Act was enforced by the British military.

1766 - On the same day it repealed the Stamp Act, the English Parliament passes the Declaratory Act stating that the British government has total power to legislate any laws governing the American colonies in all cases whatsoever.

SenderBerl: This is an earlier version of the Patriot Act.

1766 - In April, news of the repeal of the Stamp Act results in celebrations in the colonies and a relaxation of the boycott of imported English trade goods.

1766 - In August, violence breaks out in New York between British soldiers and armed colonists, including Sons of Liberty members. The violence erupts as a result of the continuing refusal of New York colonists to comply with the Quartering Act. In December, the New York legislature is suspended by the English Crown after once again voting to refuse to comply with the Act.

1767 - In June, The English Parliament passes the Townshend Revenue Acts, imposing a new series of taxes on the colonists to offset the costs of administering and protecting the American colonies. Items taxed include imports such as paper, tea, glass, lead and paints. The Act also establishes a colonial board of customs commissioners in Boston. In October, Bostonians decide to reinstate a boycott of English luxury items.

SenderBerl: This is why the elitist centrix has come back. Here we were the American people denying them at every turn their ability to extract their taxes from you to pay their expenses so that they didn't have to put their own hands into their pockets. Now, this is so important, their M.O. is to convince you that your fellow Americans want the national consumption tax. The carrot is no more IRS. If you buy this you will make all generations of prior Americans roll in their graves.

1768 - In February, Samuel Adams of Massachusetts writes a Circular Letter opposing taxation without representation and calling for the colonists to unite in their actions against the British government. The letter is sent to assemblies throughout the colonies and also instructs them on the methods the Massachusetts general court is using to oppose the Townshend Acts.

1768 - In April, England's Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Hillsborough, orders colonial governors to stop their own assemblies from endorsing Adams' circular letter. Hillsborough also orders the governor of Massachusetts to dissolve the general court if the Massachusetts assembly does not revoke the letter. By month's end, the assemblies of New Hampshire, Connecticut and New Jersey have endorsed the letter.

1768 - In May, a British warship armed with 50 cannons sails into Boston harbor after a call for help from custom commissioners who are constantly being harassed by Boston agitators. In June, a customs official is locked up in the cabin of the Liberty, a sloop owned by John Hancock. Imported wine is then unloaded illegally into Boston without payment of duties. Following this incident, customs officials seize Hancock's sloop. After threats of violence from Bostonians, the customs officials escape to an island off Boston, then request the intervention of British troops.

1768 - In July, the governor of Massachusetts dissolves the general court after the legislature defies his order to revoke Adams' circular letter. In August, in Boston and New York, merchants agree to boycott most British goods until the Townshend Acts are repealed. In September, at a town meeting in Boston, residents are urged to arm themselves. Later in September, English warships sail into Boston Harbor, then two regiments of English infantry land in Boston and set up permanent residence to keep order.

1769 - In March, merchants in Philadelphia join the boycott of British trade goods. In May, a set of resolutions written by George Mason is presented by George Washington to the Virginia House of Burgesses. The Virginia Resolves oppose taxation without representation, the British opposition to the circular letters, and British plans to possibly send American agitators to England for trial. Ten days later, the Royal governor of Virginia dissolves the House of Burgesses. However, its members meet the next day in a Williamsburg tavern and agree to a boycott of British trade goods, luxury items and slaves.

1769 - In July, in the territory of California, San Diego is founded by Franciscan Friar Juniper Serra. In October, the boycott of English goods spreads to New Jersey, Rhode Island, and then North Carolina.

1770 - The population of the American colonies reaches 2,210,000 persons.

1770 - Violence erupts in January between members of the Sons of Liberty in New York and 40 British soldiers over the posting of broadsheets by the British. Several men are seriously wounded.

March 5, 1770 - The Boston Massacre occurs as a mob harasses British soldiers who then fire their muskets pointblank into the crowd, killing three instantly, mortally wounding two others and injuring six. After the incident, the new Royal Governor of Massachusetts, Thomas Hutchinson, at the insistence of Sam Adams, withdraws British troops out of Boston to nearby harbor islands. The captain of the British soldiers, Thomas Preston, is then arrested along with eight of his men and charged with murder.

1770 - In April, the Townshend Acts are repealed by the British. All duties on imports into the colonies are eliminated except for tea. Also, the Quartering Act is not renewed.

1770 - In October, trial begins for the British soldiers arrested after the Boston Massacre. Colonial lawyers John Adams and Josiah Quincy successfully defend Captain Preston and six of his men, who are acquitted. Two other soldiers are found guilty of manslaughter, branded, then released.

1772 - In June, a British customs schooner, the Gaspee, runs aground off Rhode Island in Narragansett Bay. Colonists from Providence row out to the schooner and attack it, set the British crew ashore, then burn the ship. In September, a 500 pound reward is offered by the English Crown for the capture of those colonists, who would then be sent to England for trial. The announcement that they would be sent to England further upsets many American colonists.

1772 - In November, a Boston town meeting assembles, called by Sam Adams. During the meeting, a 21 member committee of correspondence is appointed to communicate with other towns and colonies. A few weeks later, the town meeting endorses three radical proclamations asserting the rights of the colonies to self-rule.

1773 - In March, the Virginia House of Burgesses appoints an eleven member committee of correspondence to communicate with the other colonies regarding common complaints against the British. Members of that committee include, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee. Virginia is followed a few months later by New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut and South Carolina.

1773 - May 10, the Tea Act takes effect. It maintains a threepenny per pound import tax on tea arriving in the colonies, which had already been in effect for six years. It also gives the near bankrupt British East India Company a virtual tea monopoly by allowing it to sell directly to colonial agents, bypassing any middlemen, thus underselling American merchants. The East India Company had successfully lobbied Parliament for such a measure. In September, Parliament authorizes the company to ship half a million pounds of tea to a group of chosen tea agents.

1773 - In October, colonists hold a mass meeting in Philadelphia in opposition to the tea tax and the monopoly of the East India Company. A committee then forces British tea agents to resign their positions. In November, a town meeting is held in Boston endorsing the actions taken by Philadelphia colonists. Bostonians then try, but fail, to get their British tea agents to resign. A few weeks later, three ships bearing tea sail into Boston harbor.

1773 - November 29/30, two mass meetings occur in Boston over what to do about the tea aboard the three ships now docked in Boston harbor. Colonists decide to send the tea on the ship, Dartmouth, back to England without paying any import duties. The Royal Governor of Massachusetts, Hutchinson, is opposed to this and orders harbor officials not to let the ship sail out of the harbor unless the tea taxes have been paid.

December 16, 1773 - About 8000 Bostonians gather to hear Sam Adams tell them Royal Governor Hutchinson has repeated his command not to allow the ships out of the harbor until the tea taxes are paid. That night, the Boston Tea Party occurs as colonial activists disguise themselves as Mohawk Indians then board the ships and dump all 342 containers of tea into the harbor.

1774 - In March, an angry English Parliament passes the first of a series of Coercive Acts (called Intolerable Acts by Americans) in response to the rebellion in Massachusetts. The Boston Port Bill effectively shuts down all commercial shipping in Boston harbor until Massachusetts pays the taxes owed on the tea dumped in the harbor and also reimburses the East India Company for the loss of the tea.

1774 - May 12, Bostonians at a town meeting call for a boycott of British imports in response to the Boston Port Bill. May 13, General Thomas Gage, commander of all British military forces in the colonies, arrives in Boston and replaces Hutchinson as Royal governor, putting Massachusetts under military rule. He is followed by the arrival of four regiments of British troops.

1774 - May 17-23, colonists in Providence, New York and Philadelphia begin calling for an intercolonial congress to overcome the Coercive Acts and discuss a common course of action against the British.

1774 - May 20, The English Parliament enacts the next series of Coercive Acts, which include the Massachusetts Regulating Act and the Government Act virtually ending any self-rule by the colonists there. Instead, the English Crown and the Royal governor assume political power formerly exercised by colonists. Also enacted; the Administration of Justice Act which protects royal officials in Massachusetts from being sued in colonial courts, and the Quebec Act establishing a centralized government in Canada controlled by the Crown and English Parliament. The Quebec Act greatly upsets American colonists by extending the southern boundary of Canada into territories claimed by Massachusetts, Connecticut and Virginia.

1774 - In June, a new version of the 1765 Quartering Act is enacted by the English Parliament requiring all of the American colonies to provide housing for British troops in occupied houses and taverns and in unoccupied buildings. In September, Massachusetts Governor Gage seizes that colony's arsenal of weapons at Charlestown.

1774 - September 5 to October 26, the First Continental Congress meets in Philadelphia with 56 delegates, representing every colony, except Georgia. Attendants include Patrick Henry, George Washington, Sam Adams and John Hancock.

On September 17, the Congress declares its opposition to the Coercive Acts, saying they are "not to be obeyed," and also promotes the formation of local militia units. On October 14, a Declaration and Resolves is adopted that opposes the Coercive Acts, the Quebec Act, and other measure taken by the British that undermine self-rule. The rights of the colonists are asserted, including the rights to "life, liberty and property." On October 20, the Congress adopts the Continental Association in which delegates agree to a boycott of English imports, effect an embargo of exports to Britain, and discontinue the slave trade.

1775 - February 1, in Cambridge, Mass., a provincial congress is held during which John Hancock and Joseph Warren begin defensive preparations for a state of war. February 9, the English Parliament declares Massachusetts to be in a state of rebellion. March 23, in Virginia, Patrick Henry delivers a speech against British rule, stating, "Give me liberty or give me death!" March 30, the New England Restraining Act is endorsed by King George III, requiring New England colonies to trade exclusively with England and also bans fishing in the North Atlantic.

1775 - In April, Massachusetts Governor Gage is ordered to enforce the Coercive Acts and suppress "open rebellion" among the colonists by all necessary force.

Link here to continue the history that should invoke all Americans to remember how to identify the enemy. Simply put anyone proposing the national consumption tax represents the return of elitist centrix. The thought that we went to the polls to ratify this President's policies is heartwrentching. Thus, again, better Kerry than Bush then suggest that the nation get Kerry to allow us to pick a President from a hat to replace him. He conceded and those wanting a recount had to raise $10-50 donations from the public. Kerry could offer it. How about the DNC? The Constitution specifically warns and is sensitive to the greatest enemy of all: the enemy within. The enemy among us.

Question from Joseph Ehrlich (to examine whether we have truly made our points): Why didn't President George W. Bush want a coalition similiar to what his father put together, under any circumstances, in the invasion of Iraq? In other words, Bush 43 wanted to go it alone in Iraq. Do you know the real reasons why?

Answer

First, SenderBerl's position has been the France and Germany are main elements within the NWO and that in securing control over the oil vital and essential to their future interests that there was no reason to implicate and involve them (France and Germany) into a planned long term war and conflict.

Second, France and Germany's opposition to Bush's war permitted them to further the NWO agenda by creating the beginnings of a new alternative to NATO which brazenly welcomed all current members of NATO less one country: the USA, serving the NWO design for the USA perfectly as described by SenderBerl publicly since 1997.

Third, France and Germany publicly opposing the invasion freed them from any financial commitment for the declared ten to twenty year war against terrorism.

Fourth, Bush furthers yet again the NWO agenda to sap the USA of its wealth by having Congress authorize massive increases to the public debt to win the war against terrorism thereby condoning manipulating the public to support a "national consumption tax," via manipulation of public poll numbers that will purport to confirm that the public wants such a tax taking the bait of having nothing more to do with IRS.

Fifth, France and Germany (NWO interests therein) obtained major contracting work not as main contractors precluded by law to misdirect the American public but by being the major subcontractors to what they envisioned was the rebuilding of not only Iraq but Syria and Iran as well once under NWO control (via thanks to the services of the US military). They showed themselves again when troops first hospitalized in Germany with injuries were given bills for the food consumed at the hospital. They even thought that they could get away with that showing their utter contempt for the American people.

Sixth: Since NWO nations had no financial commitment (only siphoning off the US Treasury) they could move on their schedule to blow up the US dollar to ultimately remove it as the international reserve currency replacing it with the Euro.

Keep in mind in assessing these real deep dynamics, originally unraveled for you and presented in Recapturing America, that the NWO elitist centrix don't have any special or particular love for their own serfs and slaves in their own countries. What the American and French Revolutions did was take them out of power and cut into their domination, control and massive wealth (properties and natural resources). The injustices done now to the US will flow again to their own peoples in their respective nations. Thus, when SenderBerl points to Paris, France, we are not pointing to the French people, but to the location of the assets held most dear to the elitist centrix. Moreover forget about how many lives the terrorists could target: the true terrorists are the NWO leadership and their deeply secret agenda for global depopulation. It behooves all good people of all nations and lands to recognize an enemy to all men of good will, those who were targeted by the American and French Revolutions, and whom have returned to recapture the domination, control and wealth they deem they were unjustly deprived as they return the planet to their version of the natural order: their rule.

From http://www.senderberl.com/ehrlich3.htm:

These NWO propagandists are the enemy. They want you to buy the elimination of the IRS as reward for approving the most onerous regressive tax in USA history far worse than the taxes that invoked the American Revolution as SenderBerl detailed in a recent update. That the USA bears the entire cost of what is publicly declared to be a war without a foreseeable end was part of the very design described by me in 1997 in Recapturing America: a brilliant charade in how to sap the wealth out from the American people, past and future, to return them to servitude to the elitist centrix while undermining the country and any hope of a future as a dominant global player. Bush expands the national debt with the glee of knowing that the money is going into the pockets of his cohorts, billing at will for work "done" in Iraq and in their dreams in Syria and Iran next. That the American people bow to Bush's words that we need to win the war against terrorism and that this is all a matter of national security is a great shame for me to highlight, because even Osama bin Laden stands amazed that both he and Bush have the same agenda for the USA but for different reasons. The American people accept OBL as the enemy, but they are totally blind that the cruelest enemy is the man occupying the Oval Office. That is why confronting 9-11 was so important. It is so difficult for so many to believe the truth while it is so easy for the NWO to manipulate people to a false sense of reality. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution both were cognizant that the enemies of that day would try to infiltrate our country. That we are now infiltrated and occupied centuries later should not diminish their warnings.

SenderBerl Thinks it Important to Remind Readers why President Bush is 100% Committed to the War against Terrorism

What President Bush is doing is setting the platform via the war against terrorism and the Patriot Act laws to protect the NWO against YOU, the American people. Remember, but for China's refusal to play ball, the NWO would have no major power opponents and thereby surely move for control of global oil. Thereafter it needs to dismantle the USA from superpower supreme status. Those reasons we have thoroughly covered at our site including the premise that the Patriot Act laws liberally and easily cover Americans protesting the government where they can be ensnared and imprisoned as enemy combatants. Bush detests anyone protesting him and without question in a second term would make sure as he has (see photo below) that protest is discouraged. The NWO has built many unfilled longer term detention centers and nothing upsets us more than the ability of a government to imprison a citizen, deny having him, deny him counsel or contact, for as long as they want or please, and having it all made legal. We have covered these issues during our XMRADIO appearances and we keep hearing the Bush people tell the American people that Bush will get every terrorist. However, it behooves us to point out that the definition of a terrorist to Bush and his ilk is anyone who wants to oppose wrongful, unjust and/or illegal actions on their part. We mean, Bush approves of a nation going to war defending itself, but he deems it objectionable that when a nation cannot go to war that the citizens oppose an occupation government. His intent to bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people is a sick joke when the world knows that he wants the oil, a staging platform for more pre-emeptive wars, and a government that bows low to Bush and his oil cabal. Unfortunately for Americans, after the NWO takes care of all the loose ends, it then focuses on the wind up agenda for the USA where it blows up completely the US dollar and diminishes the nation to a third world power that has no choice but to accede to global government. Part and parcel of it is that it extirpates the US military and thus you have the reason why it treats the troops as it does, because it wants no one interested in the US military in the planned future for the USA (it intends that the US has no military other than the NWO global military). The most important proof is that the EU has formed a new alternative to NATO and all former NATO nations are invited but for one: THE USA. We have heralded this as evidence that the controlling leadership of the NWO has its current and/or future roots only in the EU. Did you think the elitist centrix would ever allow the most powerful military in the world to fall into the hands of the likes of President Al Sharpton, when they fail to sleep at night thinking that the fast growing African-American population could vote him or someone like him into office one day. Moreover, they don't want any blacks or Jews or any seeds of serfs in their inner club. They have tolerated the consequences of the French and American revolutions long enough. So when we hear that Bush is out to get the terrorists we hear it that he is out to get us the American people as he adeptly has and how he would further it with a second term. The war against terrorism is the war against just dissent. It may not be clear to you today, but it has been very clear to us for a very long time. Think about it.

BUSH AND THE NWO HAVE SOME MORE SURPRISES FOR BUSH'S SECOND TERM OF THE NWO OCCUPATION...

Bush has a Special Surprise for the American people
If you don't think he hates America read this...incredible!

September 23, 2004

Search "Totalization, Mexico": I hate to paraphrase the measure, but it would basically give Social Security benefits to people who are not legal workers here in the United States, wouldn't it? REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R), CALIFORNIA: That's precisely correct. What we've done -- it's even worse actually. What it does is a totalization agreement with Mexico, which says that a Mexican who comes here and works -- let me check my figures here -- only has to work six quarters in order to be eligible for a Social Security benefit while an American citizen at the same time has to work 40 quarters in order to be eligible for Social Security. Again, we are actually treating our own people worse than we're treating someone who's come here illegally. And I think it's quite apropos. We have this story right after you started talking about endemics that may be coming here from other countries. People who come here illegally also carry diseases. This is a catastrophe. Hopefully, the fact that they're now attacking Social Security should wake the American people up to -- that we got to do something about it. And the elite in this country are taking us down exactly the wrong road. We're talking about the American people, this could destroy the Social Security system. Once people all over the world realize that we're going to provide a Social Security retirement for anybody who comes from anywhere in the world who manages to work -- what was it, six quarters in the United States, will then be eligible for some kind of a Social Security benefit. They're not even calculating now what the stimulant effect this will have, meaning how many more millions of people will want to come here when they realize we're providing for their retirement.***What's happening is we have countries with -- those economies are so different that an agreement with that country ends up being a drain on the resources available for our own people. It's going to dramatically hurt the American people. And if this then becomes the model for Third World countries, we're in big trouble. The American people have to realize the elite -- the people who are supposed to be watching out for their interests, their elected officials, both Democrat and Republican, are not watching out for them. And they're even attacking Social Security now. ***Now they're going to -- they're attacking the Social Security system. And if the leadership of either party wants to handle this issue I'm sure there will be a tide -- there will be a huge wave that crosses the country in support of what they're trying to do. Instead, for whatever reason, the Democrats want to have illegals here to use as political pawns. On the Republican side, big business wants to have lower wages. And unfortunately, who's watching out for the American people?

Lou Dobbs September 22, 2004:

DOBBS: The Center for Immigration Studies today released a scathing report on a controversial agreement between the United States and Mexico. That agreement could allow millions of illegal aliens in this country to receive Social Security benefits. The State Department is working on the final draft of this deal, which has been kept in secret. Critics of the agreement say that it heavily favors Mexican workers and could cost American taxpayers billions of dollars. Bill Tucker reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The United States says Social Security totalization (ph) agreements with 20 countries. They're designed to make sure workers who come here and work get credit for that work back home, so that when they return home, they'll be eligible for their country's pension system. It works for American workers in foreign countries, as well. The pending agreement with Mexico is the exception to those other agreements.

MARTI DINERSTEIN, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: This agreement is a perversion of the existing total of the 20 existing totalization agreements. Few, if any, conditions present in the other agreements exist.

TUCKER: The most obvious is that it would cover more people than any of the other agreements. But a less obvious and potentially more devastating difference centers on the issue of immigration status.

REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R), CALIFORNIA: While it is true that one cannot be illegal at the time that one would be applying for Social Security, prior work done while an illegal is in the country does count for Social Security under the agreement.

TUCKER: How could that happen? If there's any amnesty program or guest worker program which changes illegal status to legal, some estimated six million workers and their dependents would be eligible for Social Security payments.

(on camera): But the agreement with Mexico to become final, it needs to be presented to Congress. But Congress doesn't need to approve it. It can only veto it. And Congress has never vetoed a totalization agreement. Bill Tucker, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DOBBS: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California is one member of Congress fighting to block that agreement. It's called a totalization agreement. The congressman has introduced a bill that would forbid anyone working in this country illegally from receiving Social Security benefits, and he joins us tonight from Capitol Hill. Congressman, good to have you with us.

ROHRABACHER: Thank you very much.

DOBBS: Correct my interpretation if it is wrong -- not only are the American people denied representation on immigration policy in this country, but the effect of a totalization agreement is to deny participation by the U.S. Congress, other than through veto.

ROHRABACHER: I will have to say that this is an undemocratic way of approaching this problem. The threat of illegal immigration, not only just the threat, the effect of illegal immigration today on the American people is devastating, yet we do not have a national debate on this issue. Just a few shows like your own program and others are trying to stimulate that debate. But where are the national parties on this?

We're talking about a health care system that's going to pot. We're talking about education that's -- that's second -- you know, we are -- we -- our education system in California is falling apart because of illegal immigration, and yet now we have a threat to Social Security. This deserves a national debate.

DOBBS: It deserves a national debate. You are one of those, one of the few, speaking out. But the issue is -- isn't reported by "Time" magazine last week, as I said, on its cover story, reporting three million illegal aliens entering this country. You and Congress, your party and the Republican and the Democratic Party, has -- have been absolutely silent. Why...

ROHRABACHER: Both parties.

DOBBS: Why in the world can't the American people, the middle class, working men and women in this country, find representation in the United States Congress? What can be done?

ROHRABACHER: Well, both parties have got very special interests and very big interests that play here. In the Democratic party, the left of liberal wing of the Democratic party, which controls that party, sees the -- this influx of millions, out of control influx, of millions of illegals as potential constituents. It's going to give them political power.

On the other hand, big business, which has an undue influence on the Republican Party, sees this as a way of keeping down wages. And unless the political parties step up and address this issue, I predict that within a year or two, they'll be a third party that will emerge and it will sweep out the existing parties.

DOBBS: I imagine there are a few people asking why in the world do we have to wait when people look at important issues like immigration, they look at border security, national security, in some instances, spending on infrastructure on this country, state of education, we wonder why we need either party because both seem to be about the same? ROHRABACHER: Let me give them this recommendation. There have been four or five votes we've had on illegal immigration over this last year. Several of them were bills I have proposed. The American people are upset with the fact that we have this massive influx that is threatening our way of life and the well being of our people, should look at those votes and see who in Congress voted what way and then kick the scoundrels out who are not doing a good job.

DOBBS: How many scoundrels do you think it is, Congressman?

What would be the sum total?

ROHRABACHER: I would say there are large number of people who are portraying themselves concerned about illegal immigration, who are doing nothing. On the Republican side, and on the Democrat side, frankly, virtually every member of the Democratic Party in Congress votes to protect illegal immigration into our country.

DOBBS: Beyond that, and we will put that voting record up here shortly on our Web site, that will be loudobbs.com, but what else can people do?

Because the frustration -- I know reading the e-mails, the letters from our viewers, there is huge frustration on this issue?

ROHRABACHER: People are not -- people are dying. I mean American citizens are dying because they go into the emergency room and you got an emergency roomful of illegal aliens who shouldn't be there and their loved one does not get the care that they need. Our criminal justice system are letting these criminals who shouldn't be in this country, letting them loose among our population. Now, when we have American citizens who are dying and we have wages that are being kept down that keep our standard of living down, something's terribly wrong if the political system isn't addressing the problem. We need to ask questions of those people who are running for office and ask the tough questions, why didn't you vote this way, this way, or this way on these particular pieces of legislation.

DOBBS: Should we start with President Bush?

ROHRABACHER: I think we should start with every person who holds elected office in this country. And I think it should be a major question in the debates between the two presidential candidates.

DOBBS: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, we thank you for being here. Thank you, Dana Rohrabacher.

ROHRABACHER: Right