The New World Order has already stated, in a big way with George Bush, Barack Obama and now the Clinton's want to rule the world.. the entire planet... globalization new world order started with massive globalization meaning every counties output is available around the world. The New World Order means an international government, something like the United Nations but a lot bigger, with global military, global currency, with global justice, with global finance, with global communication, with open borders, with free flow from border to border, its's about the absolute control of the Human Race.
Who want's to be a Billionaire?
The deplorable's club founders, Bill and Hillary Clinton;
Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton want open borders, they do not want any borders, they want the world to be one, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Barack Obama and thousands of others inside the elite and rich establishment include people like George Bush, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan and more. It's the reason the GOP has done everything to stop Donald Trump - if they could put a bullet in his head.... Everything is up for grabs, nuclear weapons, crude oil distribution and refinement, food distribution and the global delivery of deadly power with a New World One World Military. http://www.clintontarium.com
As the Los Angeles Times reported at the time, Clinton “drew applause at a conference of 14,000
Indian Americans in Washington as he extolled the benefits of ‘open borders,
easy travel, easy immigration.’”
It went on to report, “The same day, he
headlined a fundraiser at the conference for his wife’s [failed 2008
presidential] campaign.”
As he hailed the virtues
of “open borders,” Clinton told the crowd that there is no stopping this
mobility and globalization:
The modern world is
obviously full of opportunity. … With open borders, easy travel, easy
immigration, you see these things happening all over the world. We are
increasingly bound together. And with more than a trillion dollars crossing
national borders every year, even if we repealed all the trade agreements in
the world, you couldn’t stop a lot of this globalization and mobility. This is where the Clinton's showed their evil cards.. it explains the massive amount of money moving through the Clinton Foundation, it's pay and play on a Global Scale.. you have been sold as a modern low paid labor slave.
Clinton’s
2007 speech seemed to build upon to earlier arguments he has
made, in which he’s argued that “the great mission of the 21st century is … to move from mere interdependence [of individual
nations] to integration” and “to create a genuine global community … that has
shared responsibilities, shared benefits and shared values.”
Any reasonable man or woman understands that the shared benefits part is where all your U.S. wealth is distributed around the world and the planet is carved up in sections.
Clinton previously explained that
under this worldview, “America has greater obligations to open our borders and
to invest more in the development of poor countries.” Ford just moved to Mexico, sounds like a New World Order move! G.M. General Motors builds your Buick in China, feels like a New World Order...
Clinton’s
previous forthright declarations of support for “open borders” seem to undercut
claims made by many in corporate media today, who insist that
the Clintons do not support open borders. The one thing we've learned from the national radical Barack Obama is that they will say and promise anything for everything. They will lie so they can get and hold your power, then all the promises are forgotten.
In his 2007 speech,
Clinton elaborated on his vision for developing a “global community”—suggesting
that the creation of these transnational “integrated communities” would be paid
for by wealthy nations, like the United States. For instance, Clinton even
seemed to go as far as to suggest that wealthy nations should cover the cost of
educating every child in the world:
This is an unsustainable
world. So in our relations with each other and within our own communities and
nations, we have to go beyond an interdependence that is unequal, unstable and
unsustainable.
We have to build integrated communities of shared opportunities,
a shared sense of responsibility for success, a genuine sense of belonging. …
This is the old Soviet Union program.
Communist China wants to control the world.
Communist Russian wants to control the world.
The United States of America has always stopped the one world order idea, and millions of men and women have died.. many more millions will die.
Hitler wanted to control the world.
Now the radical socialist progressive Hillary Clinton wants to control the world and don't make the mistake that it's a Hollywood Movie, it's very real and the threat is today.
The good news is, we actually know how to do a lot of this. We know what it
would cost to put every child in school who’s not in school, and we know what —
if the wealthy countries of the world chose to pay for it, we know that it
wouldn’t be aid; it would be an investment in the world’s future. Did you know we have sent North Korea hundreds of millions of dollars in goods, free of charge.. did you know? Did you know that we spend billions of dollars with Communist Russian, the Communist menace of the world?
We also know
what it would cost to build effective health systems to deal with AIDS, TB,
malaria, other tropical diseases, maternal and child health. And it should be
seen not as aid but as an investment in a common future.
Perhaps most radically,
Clinton seemed to suggest that the world ought to view its obligations to one
another in the same way as would “one nation”— and that America ought to care
for the global impoverished population in the same way that America would take
care of its own impoverished U.S. citizens:
When I was a young boy,
barely old enough to be aware, in the late 1940s, there were still places in my
home state, in Arkansas, which had a per-capita income of only half the
national average. There were places in my home state that had no electricity;
that had only well water, no running water; that had no sanitation; even that
had no telephones. There were a few rural places that had no telephones, in my
lifetime. Soon enough, all of those places were reached, those remote rural
villages that were quite poor. No one thought of it as aid, because we were all
in one nation. It was viewed as an investment. That’s the way the world has to
look at every place that needs income, education and health care. (Applause.)
It’s an investment, because we’re all tied together. We know how to do that.
Indeed, Clinton seemed to
call for the development of a global identity which brings with it a “genuine
sense of belonging” to the entire world. Clinton even seemed to suggest that if
people do not come to identify themselves as citizens of the world, then all of
his life’s work of launching global initiatives will be nothing more than “a
pathetic failure.”
“Identity. I want you to
think about it,” Clinton said. He added:
Gandhi understood this. …
Ghandi knew from the depths of his soul about our common humanity. So none of
us are that great, but we don’t have to be that great anywhere. We are on this
little bitty planet. There are — we now know there are hundreds of billions of
planets in the universe.
….
But the whole world’s
future comes down to this: How do we identify ourselves?
….
Our whole mind, our whole
being is wired toward making distinctions … knowing the difference between men
and women and tall and short, old and young. That’s how brains work. But if we
lose the sense that our common humanity matters more in a world where everything
is related, then all the things I have said today about climate change, health
care, education, everything else is totally irrelevant, and every little feeble
effort I have made in my life to bring together while others are trying to tear
them apart will be a pathetic failure. That is what I ask you to think about. …
What is keeping us from it is an inadequate sense of identity, a sense of
belonging, that we belong together.
“We certainly don’t want
to homogenize the world,” Clinton added. “But when we believe that our
distinctions are so important that they obliterate the significance of our
common humanity, in an interdependent world we are bound for constant trouble
because we cannot escape each other.”
“I think the most
important challenge of the world is how we think and feel and teach our
children to think and feel,” Clinton said. “America has been following a
foreign policy in the last few years that basically says we will act alone when
we can and cooperate when we have to. In an interdependent world, you have to
cooperate whenever you can and act alone only when you’re forced to.”
The Los Angeles Times noted that during his speech, Clinton also said that he was bothered
by the criticisms of outsourcing “because it failed to acknowledge the
contributions of Indians who settled in the U.S.”
Clinton said:
When I see all of you
here — and I read in the press all the time about — stories about outsourcing,
which bothers me, but what about all the insourcing? (Chuckles.) Look at what
you did for America. Look at how many of you are here — (applause) — how many
jobs you’ve created, how many people work for you. … The prosperity enjoyed by
the Indian community in the United States is evidence of what is good about the
global economy.
Clinton
also praised the immigration policies resulting from the 1965 Ted Kennedy immigration rewrite, which lifted the immigration curbs
enacted by President Calvin Coolidge and opened up American visas to the entire
world.
“America is so much more
interesting a place today than it was 30 years ago because we have people from
everywhere here,” Clinton said. “And we know that all these distinctions and
these differences add to the search for truth and help us to push back the
barriers of all the problems we have.
Clinton’s suggestion that
the large-scale insourcing of foreign nationals represents what is
good about the global economy is perhaps interesting.
As
Breitbart News has reported, the Clintons have extensive ties to India-based
corporations, such as Tata and HCL, that import foreign workers from India into
the United States on H-1B and L-1 visas to help corporations lay off and
replace American workers with foreign laborers who will work for a fraction of
the wage.
During
the heated 2008 Democratic presidential primary, Hillary Clinton came under
fire for her helping India-based firms that insource low-wage foreign nationals to displace
American workers.
In
fact, Bill Clinton’s 2007 remarks to the Indian American conference came just
one month after the campaign of then-Senator Barack Obama had challenged the
Clintons’ questionable “personal, financial, and political ties to India”—
going so far as to identify his Democratic primary opponent as “Hillary
Clinton (D-Punjab),” suggesting that she represents foreign nations and foreign
citizens rather than her own American constituents.
The
line was a reference to a joke Clinton had made in which she told a group
of Indian Americans that she saw herself as the elected representative of
foreign citizens in the Indian region of Punjab.
“I am delighted to be the
Senator from Punjab as well as from New York,” Clinton reportedly told attendees of the
2005 Sikh American Heritage dinner event held in the U.S. Senate.
A
2007 report from the Los Angeles Times highlighted
Clinton’s “bind” as she sought to “woo” wealthy Indian donors— to whom she’d
“telegraph” her longstanding support for outsourcing American jobs and
insourcing foreign workers— while at the same time launching her eventually
failed effort to win over Democratic primary voters, who were skeptical of such
practices.
“Clinton
is successfully wooing wealthy Indian Americans, many of them business leaders
with close ties to their native country and an interest in protecting
outsourcing laws and expanding access to worker visas,” the Los Angeles Times wrote, noting that “her
campaign continues to telegraph — sometimes in front of Indian American
audiences — that she sees benefits to a globalized world.”
The Los Angeles Times wrote
that such efforts “signaled that Clinton, who portrays herself as a
fighter for American workers, had aligned herself with Indian American business
leaders and Indian companies feared by the labor movement.”
“Some
U.S. worker organizations say Clinton cannot claim to support American workers
if she is also helping Indian outsourcing companies and proposing more worker
visas,” the Times reported.
.
