The Harvard Crimson ran an article on February 18th of 1970, which featured an interview in which Kerry called for U.N. control of U.S. troops.
Quoting from the 1970 article about then Congressional candidate John Kerry:
"He supports a volunteer Army, 'if and only if we can create the controls for it. You're going to have to prepare for the possibility of a national emergency, however.' Kerry said that the United Nations should have control over most of our foreign military operations. 'I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.'
"On other issues, Kerry wants 'to almost eliminate CIA activity. The CIA is fighting its own war in Laos and nobody seems to care.' He also favors a negative income tax and keeping unemployment at a very low level, 'even if it means selective economic controls.'"
How could anyone believe there is a difference in candidates for President?
On the one hand, we have an incumbent who is commanding a war that is designed to crush any government in opposition to the U.N. globalists' agenda.
On the other hand, we have the Democratic "opposition", who in 1970 openly called for U.S. troops to be placed under the command of the United Nations.
The Crimson followed up recently, with a February 11, 2004 article about the 1970 interview in which it compares President Bush with Senator John Kerry.
"The increasingly likely matchup between Kerry and Bush has already prompted comparisons of the senator’s record in Vietnam and the president’s domestic service in the National Guard. And the two Yale graduates, both members of the secret society Skull and Bones, appeared set to square off in future months under the specter of the ongoing war in Iraq."
It sounds to me like the Illuminati have their men in place. Now, does it really matter which one of the two they choose?
No comments:
Post a Comment