PD 10 - New Perspectives on Pandemic Preparedness

 

@ Timestamp 1:31:30 mins. listen to Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala state: 

"My call to action would be a better global governance – it is too fragmented." 

Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Director-General, World Trade Organization - WTO.

G7 Summit in Brussels, 4 – 5 June 2014: Background note and facts about the EU's role and actions

European Commission

MEMO

Brussels, 3 June 2014



The Brussels G7 Summit will take place on 4-5 June. At their meeting in The Hague on 24 March, the G7 at leaders' level (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission decided not to participate in the planned G8 Summit in Sochi (Russia) as a reaction to the Russian Federation's violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Instead, they decided to meet in Brussels in the G7 format on the same days.

The Brussels G7 Summit will be hosted by the European Union. The European Union is represented by European Council President Herman Van Rompuy and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso.

At the Brussels Summit, Leaders will discuss the situation in Ukraine and the relations with Russia as well as other foreign policy issues, the global economy, energy, climate change and development.

1. Foreign policy

As the first topic, the G7 leaders are expected to discuss foreign policy challenges at their working dinner on the evening of 4 June. The leaders will focus their discussions on Ukraine and Russia but they may also address the latest developments on other foreign policy issues.

In the last months and following the outbreak of the Ukraine crisis, the G7 leaders have issued several declarations condemning the Russian Federation's clear violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine (see statement of 3 March), condemning the illegal referendum and the illegal attempt by Russia to annex Crimea in contravention of international law and specific international obligations (see The Hague Declaration following the G7 meeting on 24 March) and expressing their deep concern at the continued efforts by separatists backed by Russia to destabilise eastern Ukraine (see statement of 26 April).

At the Brussels G7 Summit leaders are expected to discuss the latest developments following the presidential elections held in Ukraine on 25 May. They will discuss the continued work to support Ukraine's economic and political reforms as well as their continued readiness to intensify targeted sanctions and to impose further costs on Russia should events so require.

Role of the EU: In response to Russian actions so far, the EU has cancelled the next EU-Russia summit and member states' regular bilateral summits with Russia have also been annulled. Negotiations on visa matters and a new agreement with Russia have been suspended. The EU has also targeted 61 persons responsible for actions that threaten or undermine the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine with asset freezes and bans from entering the EU. Two confiscated entities in Crimea and Sevastopol are also subject to an asset freeze.

At the same time the EU continues to roll out a €11 billion support package to Ukraine including a €1.6 billion of Macro-financial assistance to contribute to covering Ukraine's urgent balance-of-payments needs (of which the first €100 million were paid out on 20 May) and a €365m state-building contract to help the country's transition and boost the role of civil society, promoting democratic reforms and inclusive socio-economic development.

On 21 March the political chapters of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement were signed. The EU remains committed to signing the full agreement including the deep and comprehensive free trade area. Even ahead of the signature of the provisions on free trade, temporary EU trade preferences for Ukraine apply since 23 April. More information on the EU support for Ukraine:

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-279_en.htm

2. Global economy

The first working session of the second day, Thursday 5 June, is on the global economic outlook. The discussions are expected to focus on the improved prospect of global growth and how to tackle the remaining serious challenges such as high unemployment. Leaders will also address trade issues including the active and ambitious trade agenda of the G7 members with a number of bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral negotiations ongoing.

Supporting growth and jobs remains the key priority for the G7 members and the recovery is strengthening/continuing. Leaders are expected to call for continued and sustained growth in order to bring down unemployment, particularly among young people and the long term unemployed. Structural reforms, as well as completing key aspects of core financial reforms, such as building resilient financial institutions and ending too-big-to-fail, remain important in order to achieve this common objective.

Role of the EU: The economic and financial situation in the euro area has stabilised since last summer thanks to the determined and comprehensive crisis response by the EU. There are genuine signs that a more lasting recovery is now taking place in the EU and the euro area. GDP is expected to grow by 1.6% in the EU this year, before speeding up to 2% in 2015. Unemployment rates have stopped increasing since mid-2013 in most of the EU while remaining, however, at unacceptably high levels.

Leaders are expected to also address and reaffirm their commitment to tackling tax avoidance, including through the G20/OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Action Plan, and tax evasion, where the aim is to focus on the rapid implementation of the new single global standard for automatic exchange of tax information.

Role of the EU: thanks to its experience and pioneering role on tax transparency and tax good governance the EU and its member states play a central role in fora like the G7/G8, the G20 and the OECD to ensure fairness and transparency in taxation at global level. More on the EU's policy to fight tax fraud and tax avoidance: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/tax_fraud_evasion/index_en.htm

Under the trade and investment umbrella, leaders are expected to reconfirm their commitment to fight protectionism. The leaders will also take stock of the WTO negotiations and prioritise the swift implementation of the Bali package and continue the current Aid for Trade commitments.

Role of the EU: Together, the European Union's 28 members account for 19% of world imports and exports. Trade remains an important driver for growth and jobs. That is why it is a key priority for the EU to open up more market opportunities for European business by negotiating new Free Trade Agreements with key partners, in particular the G7 members Canada, Japan and the United States). If the EU was to complete all its current free trade talks tomorrow, it could add 2.2% to the EU's GDP or €275 billion. In terms of employment, these agreements could generate 2.2 million new jobs or additional 1% of the EU total workforce.

EU trade policy aims to working to:


create a global system for fair and open trade, through active support to the agreements and obligations overseen by the WTO; the focus is on implementing the Bali Trade Facilitation Agreement and on developing a future WTO work programme.


further open up markets with key partner countries – cf. the ongoing trade negotiations with the USA (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), , Canada (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement), Japan (Free Trade Agreement) and China (EU-China Investment Agreement). Free Trade Agreements were recently concluded with Singapore and are under negotiation with Malaysia and Vietnam. Various Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements are concluded or are under negotiation with several countries in the EU's Southern and Eastern Neighbourhood, including Ukraine;


lift barriers, open markets and ensure that trade is fair;


ensure that trade is a force for sustainable development, opening EU markets to all imports from the world's poorest countries and supporting developing countries to build the capacity to take advantage of trade.

More info and key figures on EU trade policy on http://ec.europa.eu/trade/

3. Energy and climate change

The discussions on energy and climate change at the second working session on Thursday 5 June will be two-fold.

First, leaders will discuss energy security in light of the Ukraine crisis and building on the Rome G7 energy initiative for energy security agreed by the G7 energy ministers on 6 May (see statement of 6 May). Leaders will be looking at identifying and implementing concrete domestic policies separately and together to build a more competitive, diversified, resilient and low-carbon energy system. Focus will be put on diversification of routes and sources, upgrading of energy infrastructure, development of indigenous resources and energy efficiency, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Clean technology is another important element to this.

Role of the EU: The EU has continuously sought to improve the energy security of its Member States through a variety of policies and actions. Most recently, in response to the crisis in Ukraine and the request by the European Council, the European Commission has tabled a European Energy Security Strategy (see the press release and the MEMO) as a basis for further discussion with Heads of States and Governments at the June European Council. The G7 Energy summit (Rome 5-6 May 2014) has built upon the Commission’s efforts to develop energy emergency plans for winter 2014-2015 at regional level, to exchange best practices for assessing energy security vulnerabilities, for IEA to prepare options for individual and collective actions of G7 in the field of gas security, and to supply technical assistance and facilitate exchanges with Ukraine and other European countries seeking to develop indigenous hydrocarbons, renewables and improve energy efficiency.

On climate change, leaders are expected to reaffirm their commitment to limit effectively the increase in global temperature below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and express their strong determination to adopt in 2015 a global agreement, ahead of the Climate Summit of the United Nations General Assembly in September and the upcoming COP2015 in Paris.

Role of the EU: the EU continues to pioneer global climate action thanks to its ambitious and legally binding framework. It remains fully committed to a multilateral legally binding approach to tackling climate change and to reshape the global climate agenda, working towards the UN climate conferences in Lima in 2014 and in Paris in 2015. The EU is on track with its domestic preparations on an ambitious 2030 climate and energy framework. The European Heads of State and Government agreed to take final decision on this as quickly as possible, and no later than October 2014, which means that the EU would be ready for the first quarter of 2015 at the latest.

Significant financial resources are mobilised to help developing countries deal adequately with climate change, with substantial co-benefits in terms of energy security. For example, the EU has allocated 400 million EUR to promote access to sustainable energy for all (SE4ALL) in Africa, building on the ACP-EU Energy Facility and the EU-Africa Infrastructure Trust Fund.

The European Union is the largest contributor of climate finance to developing countries and the world's biggest aid donor, collectively providing more than half of global official development assistance (ODA). The EU and its Member States pledged €7.2 billion in "fast start" climate finance over 2010-2012, almost one-third of the total pledged by developed countries. Despite difficult economic circumstances, the EU met and even surpassed its commitment by providing €7.34 bn in fast start finance. This money is being spent on concrete climate actions in developing countries.

Climate change is being increasingly integrated into the EU's broader development strategy. 20% of the resources dedicated to international development aid from the new multiannual financial framework of the EU as well as 20% of the 11th European Development Fund for the period 2014-2020 are to be allocated to climate-relevant actions.

More info on 2030 climate and energy goals for a competitive, secure and low-carbon EU economy.

4. Development

Finally, the Thursday 5 June working lunch will be devoted to development issues with a view to taking stock of progress and reconfirming previous G7 commitments, such as the Muskoka initiative on maternal, new-born and child health, the GAVI alliance (global alliance for vaccines and immunization), the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, the Deauville Partnership, tax evasion and illicit flows of finance.

Role of the EU: Despite the economic and financial context in Europe, the EU remains the biggest donor in the world – more than half of global development aid is provided by Europeans: Over the last ten years, the EU and its Member States have committed around 45 billion euro per year to development aid. This support has paid off: since 2004, the EU has contributed to the enrolment of more than 13 million boys and girls at school, to the vaccination of around 18 million children and to providing more than 70 million people with access to water around the world.

Food security remains in the centre of the EU's development policy. Since 2013, the EU has stepped up its efforts to fight against world hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition, with a new policy framework that delivers on the EU's commitment to help partner countries reduce stunting amongst children under five years of age by at least 10% (7 million) by 2025. Under-nutrition will also be contained through investment in rural development, sustainable agriculture, public health, water and sanitation, social protection and education.

On 20 May, the EU announced that it will provide €25 million per year in the period 2014-2020 to fund vaccines and immunisation programmes worldwide through the GAVI alliance – more than double than previously committed. Since 2003, the European Commission has committed over €83 million to the GAVI Alliance, coming in part from the Development Co-operation Instrument (DCI) and in part from the European Development Fund (EDF). Thanks to donors like the EU, close to half a billion children have been immunised since 2000, resulting in 6 million lives saved.

The leaders will also discuss the post-2015 agenda aiming at completing unfinished business of the Millennium Development Goals. This would include a focus on eradications of extreme poverty, promoting development and on balancing environmental, economic and social dimensions of sustainable development, including climate change.

Role of the EU: the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) remain at the core of EU development policy and actions. The EU has implemented the 1 billion euro MDG initiative, launched at the 2010 MDG summit, targeting the most off-track MDGs: hunger, maternal health, child mortality and access to water and sanitation. The EU supports nearly 70 actions in 46 countries, with a focus on Least Developed Countries.

On 2 June 2014, the European Commission adopted a Communication to contribute to the EU position in international negotiations on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as the follow-up to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The proposal calls for tackling issues of global concern such as poverty, inequality, health, food security, education, gender equality, water and sanitation, sustainable energy, decent work, inclusive and sustainable growth, sustainable consumption and production, biodiversity, land degradation and sea and oceans. It will now be discussed by Council of Ministers and the European Parliament and the outcome will guide the EU's position in the negotiations at UN level.

5. The EU as G7/G8 member

The European Union is a full member in G7/G8 Summits and is represented by the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission.

In 1977, representatives of the then European Community began participating in the London Summit. The first G7 summit was held two years earlier, in 1975 in Rambouillet (France). Originally, the EU had a limited role to those areas in which it had exclusive competences, but the EU’s role has grown with time. The European Commission was gradually included in all political discussions on the summit agenda and took part in all summit working sessions, as of the Ottawa Summit (1981). Commission President Barroso, who attended the G8 for the first time in Gleneagles in 2005, is participating for the 10th time, while Council President Van Rompuy has been attending the G8/G7 since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty (2009).

The Commission and the European Council have all the responsibilities of membership. The Summit Communiqué is politically binding for all G7 members.

The Presidency will continue in its rotation to Germany in 2015 (Summit 4-5 May 2015), Japan in 2016, Italy in 2017, Canada in 2018, France in 2019, and the USA in 2020.

Useful links

G7 2014 section on President Van Rompuy's website:

http://www.european-council.europa.eu/g7brussels

G7/G8/G20 section on President Barroso's website:

http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/president/g20/index_en.htm

President Van Rompuy on Twitter and on Facebook

President Barroso on Twitter

Full video coverage of the G7 will be available for download in broadcast quality from the Council TV newsroom www.eucouncil.tv, and live events will be broadcast on Europe by Satellite (http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/ebs/schedule.cfm ) Photos covering the event will be available for download in high resolution from the Council Photo Library http://www.consilium.europa.eu/photo and the European Commission's audiovisual services (http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/photo/index.cfm

Source
.

The Forced Depopulation of America’s Rural Areas

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Dave Hodges
Activist Post

Agenda 21 policy calls for dramatically increasing urbanization and forcing indigenous populations out of rural areas and into densely populated stack-and pack micro apartments controlled by technocrats with the ability to control every aspect of one’s life. When completed, this lifestyle will be a hell on earth.

In Part One, I detailed how the Chinese government, under the direction of global corporations like Goldman Sachs, is instituting a mass relocation of its population from rural to urban. At the point of a gun, the Chinese military is forcibly removing one million Chinese farmers per month from their rural homes and forcing them into the massive ghost cities from which China has spent nearly $3 trillion to construct.

The Chinese government, Hank Paulson and other globalists falsely claim that the mass relocation of Chinese farmers is necessary to fuel the Chinese economy. Yet, there are no jobs available to these Chinese farmers when they arrive in the ghost cities. Strong industry and the need to fill positions is what drew Americans into the cities during our industrial revolution, not the other way around as the globalists are claiming is the case in China. What we are witnessing in China is the beginning of the implementation of the Agenda 21 creation of massive megacities complete with stack-and-pack micro apartments.

As in China, there is a decided plot to move American farmers off their land and into urban areas; this plot commenced nearly two decades ago and is currently picking up momentum. The American and Chinese methods for depopulating rural areas are different, but the net effect is exactly the same.

Can you imagine if the US military, as is happening in China, were to forcibly relocate American farmers to urban areas under the threat of violence from the military? The US would witness the outbreak of widespread violence. Unlike the Chinese farmers who are being forced by gunpoint off their land. American farmers are being nudged off their land by market forces created by covert government policy.

When both countries achieve virtual depopulation of the rural areas of their respective countries, only the government subsidized corporate farms will remain. Local communities and their individual citizens will lose total control over all food, which is a prescription for disaster.

I will determine what and how much you may drink - Mayor BloombergIf you wonder why New York City Mayor Bloomberg and Michelle Obama have been trying to control the size of sodas, the amount of salt one can use and are dictating what school children will eat for lunch, the answer is that they are conditioning the American public that the government controls all food intake. The reasons for these new controls over diet will become painfully clear after reading the following paragraphs.

Rural Flight In the United States

I know that this will come as a shock to many reading this article because they did not learn of these events from FOX or CNN. However, in actuality, the process of moving the United States towards a complete Agenda 21-style of total urbanization has already commenced, and it began nearly 20 years ago.

In 1994, the US became official participants in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was a ‘liberalized’ trade agreement between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. Under NAFTA, farmers’ income in all three countries has plummeted and millions of small farmers have lost their land, while agribusiness corporations (i.e. large government subsidized corporate farms) have reaped huge profits.

NAFTA has had three dramatic effects on farmers in North America and all three effects further cause dense urbanization as outlined in Agenda 21 documents.

The Roots of Illegal Immigration

The first notable effect of NAFTA is that it immediately bankrupted over three million farmers in northern Mexico and this group became the vanguard of millions of Mexicans illegally entering the US in search for subsistence work of any type.

Depopulating Rural Areas By Bankrupting US Farmers

The second dramatic impact of NAFTA lies in the fact that it has had catastrophic consequences for US farmers, as a record number of small farmers have lost their farms and have gone through foreclosure while the government subsidized corporate farms have thrived. Since NAFTA, the average annual growth of the US trade deficit has been 45% higher. Since NAFTA took effect, about 170,000 small family farms have gone bankrupt which represents a decline of 21% of family farms in the US. The 21% of America small farmers who have been bankrupted since the advent of NAFTA, represents a higher percentage of displaced American farmers than what is happening with forced relocation of Chinese farmers to the ghost cities. And what happens to American small farmers who have lost their livelihood? They either work on their former competitors' corporate farms as hired hands, or they relocate to urban areas in search of employment.

American Farmers: Death By a Thousand Cuts

If it is not the EPA enforcing its Agenda 21 wetlands regulations with devastating consequences on farmers, it is the FDA harassing farmers for pursuing time-honored farm-related industries such as the raw milk industry. Congress is plotting new attacks on the US farmer as I write these words. Even Amish farmers have felt the wrath of the federal government. Average, everyday Americans are being arrested for merely growing their own food.

Whether it is China or the US, Agenda 21 urbanization policies are designed for the purpose of herding people into dense urban areas for reasons of control; and the primary method of control has to do with controlling food production.

The US Government Is Gaining Control Over All Food

The Chinese government is working to control all food in order to control the people. On an ever-increasing basis, NAFTA is providing the US government with the exact same ability. Therefore, the third draconian impact of NAFTA is that it has led to even more nefarious free trade agreements which has led to the loss of control for local communities over their own food supply.

Underlying the World Trade Organization, the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), and the Central American Free Trade Agreement, is the philosophy that all food (i.e. from basic grains, meat, fruits and vegetables) should be exclusively produced for international export. This is a drastic departure from the time-honored practice where each country produced the majority of food its citizens needed on local, small farms and only traded in certain products that could not be successfully grown locally. If anyone wonders where this is headed, we only have to look to Africa for the answer.

The very first great wave of a NAFTA style of globalization in agriculture took place in Africa, Asia, and Latin America as global corporations forced local farmers to give up local food production, and shifted production to plantations using enslaved Indigenous and African labor to grow the luxury crops of coffee, sugar, bananas, and cocoa for export to the colonizing countries.

The lesson here is, if the government controls the food, the government controls the people.

Starvation Will Be Used to Enforce the Agenda 21 Depopulation of Rural Areas

The use of food by the U.S. government has been a matter of official U.S. governmental covert policy since 1974-1975.

In December, 1974, National Security Council directed by Henry Kissinger completed a classified study entitled, “National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.” The study was based upon the unproven claims that population growth in Lesser Developed Countries (LDC) constituted a serious risk to America’s national security.

In November 1975 President Ford, based upon the tenets of NSSM 200 outlined a classified plan to forcibly reduce population growth in LDC countries through birth control, war and famine. Ford’s new national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, in conjunction with CIA Director, George H. W. Bush, were tasked with implementing the plan and the secretaries of state, treasury, defense, and agriculture assisted in the implementation of these insane genocidal plans.

NSSM 200 formally raised the question, "Would food be considered an instrument of national power? … Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can’t/won’t control their population growth?” Kissinger has answered these questions when he stated that he was predicting a series of contrived famines, created by mandatory programs and this would make exclusive reliance on birth control programs unnecessary in this modern day application of eugenics in a scheme that would allow Henry to have his cake and eat it too in that the world would finally be rid of the “useless eaters!”

Third world population control, using food as one of the primary weapons, has long been a matter of official covert national policy and a portion of President Obama’s Executive Order (EO 13603), National Defense Resources Preparedness is a continuation of that policy. Only now, the intended target are not the LDC’s but, instead, the American people.

With the stroke of his pen, Obama has total and absolute control over all food where his EO states:

e) “Food resources” means all commodities and products, (simple, mixed, or compound), or complements to such commodities or products, that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals, irrespective of other uses to which such commodities or products may be put, at all stages of processing from the raw commodity to the products thereof in vendible form for human or animal consumption. “Food resources” also means potable water packaged in commercially marketable containers, all starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, seed, cotton, hemp, and flax fiber, but does not mean any such material after it loses its identity as an agricultural commodity or agricultural product.
(f) “Food resource facilities” means plants, machinery, vehicles (including on farm), and other facilities required for the production, processing, distribution, and storage (including cold storage) of food resources, and for the domestic distribution of farm equipment and fertilizer…NAFTA was merely the opening artillery bombardment against the American farmer and the ultimate depopulation of rural areas. The death of the American farmer will ultimately come at the hands of EO 13603 and I believe this will be fully implemented when Obama declares martial law.

Put this map into your GPS, it will tell where you soon cannot go.
Do you think that you and your family are actually safe from the ravages of depopulating the rural areas through economic blackmail and ultimate starvation? Think again! Unless you presently live in the core inner city and occupy less than 500 square feet of living space, your government, as I write these words, is actively plotting to get you out of the suburbs and into densely populated urban areas. This will be fully exposed in Part three of this series.

Part One

Source
.

Obama, Hollande help tilt G8’s balance to stimulus

U.S. President Barack Obama and French President Francois Hollande take time for a photo opportunity at Saturday's G8 summit at Camp David, Md.

Charles Dharapak/Associated Press

KEVIN CARMICHAEL

Globe and Mail Update

Published Saturday, May. 19, 2012 9:02PM EDT

Last updated Sunday, May. 20, 2012 5:04AM EDT

Economic stimulus is making a comeback.

The most notable thing about the Group of Eight Summit in Maryland on Friday and Saturday was the recognition that austerity isn’t a universal cure for what ails the global economy, especially Europe.

President Barack Obama and France’s newly elected Socialist President, François Hollande, were the rhetorical winners on the weekend.

They successfully watered down the German-led position that the best way to deal with a debt crisis is to quickly pay down debt by shifting the consensus to an acceptance that austerity is a means, not an end. Fiscal consolidation remains a priority, but not at the expense of economic growth, a new emphasis that could reshape governments’ approach to maintaining the recovery from the financial crisis.

“The global economic recovery shows signs of promise, but significant headwinds persist,” the G8 said in a statement. “We commit to take all necessary steps to strengthen and reinvigorate our economies and combat financial stresses, recognizing that the right measures are not the same for each of us.”

The shift reflects the acute state of the European debt crisis, which Mr. Obama characterized on Saturday as a “serious” situation that could upend the global economic recovery. The G8 also said it stood ready to release strategic oil reserves if crude prices surge this summer, but it was the prospect of Europe sinking into a deeper downturn that most worried leaders.

British Prime Minister David Cameron told reporters that he detected a “growing sense of urgency that action needed to be taken” on the euro-zone crisis, Reuters reported. “Contingency plans need to be put in place and the strengthening of banks, governance, firewalls – all of those things need to take place very fast,” Mr. Cameron said.

Europe’s economy is stagnant, struggling to avoid recession amidst double-digit unemployment rates in most countries. Britain, which sits outside the euro zone, nevertheless counts the 17 members of the euro region as some of its main trading partners. Mr. Cameron, too, is fighting off recession. His cause hasn’t been helped by his decision to implement draconian spending cuts.

Germany is a notable exception, and its economic strength has given Chancellor Angela Merkel considerable clout in discussions on dealing with the troubles in the euro zone.

The German formula is simple: sacrifice. Using her country’s own history of fiscal discipline as reinforcement, Ms. Merkel insisted the international rescues of Greece, Ireland and Portugal came with tough budgetary conditions.

Other euro-zone countries, including Italy and Spain, have implemented austerity programs to keep nervous bond traders from driving up their borrowing costs. But these programs were implemented in part because Germany made clear it has little appetite for bankrolling more bailouts.

The apotheosis of austerity came at the Group of 20 Summit in Toronto in 2010, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper orchestrated a group pledge to halve budget deficits by next year.

Mr. Harper insisted Saturday that the Toronto austerity pledge remains valid.

“Fiscal discipline and economic growth go hand in hand,” Mr. Harper said when asked about the G8’s shift to a better balance between cost-cutting and more direct growth measures. “All of our discussions recognized that. Fiscal discipline is not sufficient for economic growth, but it is absolutely necessary. We will not emerge from what is now a debt-driven crisis unless that issue is addressed.”

The cost-cutting measures implemented in Europe since the Toronto summit caused considerable economic pain, and voters are rejecting the medicine.

Mr. Hollande was attending his first international summit after French voters earlier this month rejected Nicolas Sarkozy, who championed austerity. Greece will hold its second election in a month in June after pro- and anti-austerity parties split the vote earlier this month, leaving none with enough support to form a government. The June vote is being characterized as a referendum on Greece’s future as a euro country.

Facing an election of his own in November, the last thing Mr. Obama wants to contend with is a rupture of the euro zone, which at a minimum would shake global financial markets. Under Mr. Obama’s guidance at the Camp David presidential retreat, the G8 took the rare step of referencing an outside country by name, saying the group – the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Canada and Russia – desired Greece to stay in the euro zone.

With a debt well in excess of the size of its economy, and German voters resentful of their taxes being used to bailout nations they see as profligate, it’s unlikely the conditions of Greece’s rescue package will change significantly, if at all.

There is nothing binding about a G8 commitment, but countries do use them as political cover back home. European leaders are scheduled to meet in a few days, and it now seems likely that growth initiatives, such as a rumoured infrastructure program, stand a better chance of becoming reality.

“Today we discussed ways [Europe] can promote growth and job creation right now, while still carrying out reforms necessary to stabilize and strengthen their economies for the future,” Mr. Obama said at the end of the summit Saturday.

Ms. Merkel made the point that governments can enhance growth by other means than pumping taxpayers’ money into the economy. She said measures under consideration in Europe include investments in research and development, Internet networks, and infrastructure. “This doesn’t mean stimulus in the traditional sense,” Ms. Merkel said, according to the Associated Press.

There were other hints in the G8 statement about how European leaders will approach debt going forward.

The document said the G8 welcomed Europe’s commitment to fiscal consolidation, assessed on a “structural basis.” A “structural” assessment of budgets subtracts interest payments. The decision to write that into the final statement could reflect recognition that much of the pressure on budgets in Europe is the result of record-high borrowing costs.

G8 leaders also emphasized their pursuit of “bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral” free-trade agreements, suggesting they will seek to lower trade barriers in any way possible, rather than getting hung up on a big global agreement under the World Trade Organization.

The final statement also said efforts to overhaul financial regulations should result in “stronger systems over time while not choking off near-term credit growth,” language bank lobbyists will see as a willingness of by world major financial centres to slow the pace of regulatory reforms.

Source

Global banking body may be needed-FSA

Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:37pm BST

By Huw Jones

LONDON (Reuters) - A global body with legal powers may be needed over time to enforce the world's new financial rules, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) said on Wednesday.

The FSA's newly appointed and first director of international affairs, Verena Ross, said the Financial Stability Board (FSB) was key to ensuring all gaps in regulation between securities, insurance and banking sectors were plugged.

Formerly known as the Financial Stability Forum, the FSB was expanded in April to include central bankers and finance ministry and regulatory officials from all Group of 20 (G20) countries.

The G20 has asked the body, chaired by Bank of Italy Governor Mario Draghi, to coordinate global efforts to introduce new financial rules in light of the sector's worst crisis in 70 years.

"I would advocate to make sure the FSB have a strong secretariat to support their work," Ross told a City and Financial Conference.

"The role of the FSB is crucial. We will need to make sure it is able to play its role forcefully... Success depends on real progress over the next six to 12 months," she said.

But the board has no legal teeth and there are "real questions" about whether the world can continue with such informal arrangements in the longer term, Ross said.

There may be a case for exploring the need for a more formal global regulatory framework, such as a body with legal powers of enforcement like the World Trade Organisation, Ross added.

"Any move in that long-term direction would have the FSB very firmly at the centre of that global regulatory architecture," Ross said.

Regulators need to be better at checking on the enforcement of the new rules and banks have a role in this, she said.

COST OF EXTRA CAPITAL

Banks have urged a coordinated global approach to regulation to stop some countries having an unfair advantage, especially in tougher bank and liquidity rules due to take effect by the end of 2012.

Angela Knight, chief executive of the British Bankers' Association, said it was clear the minimum 8 percent of capital banks must hold under the global Basel II accord would rise.

"The crisis has demonstrated that the Basel international capital rules were wrong. They neither judged correctly the amount of capital that was needed to be in the system nor the amount that banks needed to hold," Knight said.

Basel is being toughened up to include a leverage ratio or cap, minimum liquidity levels, capital charges on trading books and improvements in the quality of capital that must be held.

"Capital, that is the big cost. That will have the greatest consequence on how the industry will be able to perform its business," Knight said.

Banks in Britain have already doubled their capital requirements from the 8 percent Basel minimum, she added.

A proper impact assessment is therefore needed on the effect of tougher capital rules on lending and economy as well as timing of the new rules, Knight said.

FSA Chairman Adair Turner has called some banking services "socially useless," but Knight warned against using "buzzwords and catchphrases" as activities such as securitisation were being maligned even though they provided finance raising.

The securitisation market has just started to reopen after freezing during the credit crunch and must be allowed to continue reviving, she said.

Banks are also concerned about global plans for a cap on leverage, saying it should only be a backstop and not interfere with capital requirement rules for "normal business as usual."

Katharine Seal, a director at the London Investment Banking Association, said: "It's an area where an ability to be flexible is absolutely paramount."

Knight expects the European Union to beef up consumer protection, such as direct product regulation, which UK lawmakers may support.

"There is a case for looking at that issue," said John McFall, chairman of Britain's parliamentary treasury committee.

(Reporting by Huw Jones; Editing by Victoria Main)

Source: http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE59D1NJ20091014?sp=true

Bolds and Highlights added.

.

UN Says New Currency Is Needed to Fix Broken 'Confidence Game'

UN Says New Currency Is Needed to Fix Broken ‘Confidence Game’

By Jonathan Tirone

Sept. 7 (Bloomberg) -- The dollar’s role in international trade should be reduced by establishing a new currency to protect emerging markets from the “confidence game” of financial speculation, the United Nations said.

UN countries should agree on the creation of a global reserve bank to issue the currency and to monitor the national exchange rates of its members, the Geneva-based UN Conference on Trade and Development said today in a report.

China, India, Brazil and Russia this year called for a replacement to the dollar as the main reserve currency after the financial crisis sparked by the collapse of the U.S. mortgage market led to the worst global recession since World War II. China, the world’s largest holder of dollar reserves, said a supranational currency such as the International Monetary Fund’s special drawing rights, or SDRs, may add stability.

“There’s a much better chance of achieving a stable pattern of exchange rates in a multilaterally-agreed framework for exchange-rate management,” Heiner Flassbeck, co-author of the report and a UNCTAD director, said in an interview from Geneva. “An initiative equivalent to Bretton Woods or the European Monetary System is needed.”

The 1944 Bretton Woods agreement created the modern global economic system and institutions including the IMF and World Bank.

Enhanced SDRs

While it would be desirable to strengthen SDRs, a unit of account based on a basket of currencies, it wouldn’t be enough to aid emerging markets most in need of liquidity, said Flassbeck, a former German deputy finance minister who worked in 1997-1998 with then U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers to contain the Asian financial crisis.

Emerging-market countries are underrepresented at the IMF, hindering the effectiveness of enhanced SDR allocations, the UN said. An organization should be created to manage real exchange rates between countries measured by purchasing power and adjusted to inflation differentials and development levels, it said.

“The most important lesson of the global crisis is that financial markets don’t get prices right,” Flassbeck said. “Governments are being tempted by the resulting confidence game catering to financial-market participants who have shown they’re inept at assessing risk.”

The 45-year-old UN group, run by former World Trade Organization chief Supachai Panitchpakdi, “promotes integration of developing countries in the world economy,” according to its Web site. Emerging-market nations should consider restricting capital mobility until a new system is in place, the group said.

The world body began issuing warnings in 2006 about financial imbalances leading to a global recession.

The UN Trade and Development report is being held for release via print media until 6 p.m. London time.

To contact the reporters on this story: Jonathan Tirone in Vienna at jtirone@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: September 7, 2009 09:52 EDT

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&sid=aSp9VoPeHquI

.

THE SECOND AMERICAN REVOLUTION HAS ARRIVED

THE SECOND AMERICAN REVOLUTION HAS ARRIVED

By Betty Freauf

August 12, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

You’ve heard President Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel’s statement about never passing up a crisis? The disgruntled grass roots are rising up against any government health care plan. House speaker Pelosi and others are calling the uprising “Astroturfing” suggesting that it really isn’t true grassroots but some organization behind the scenes are doing what Barack Obama did as a “community organizer” and now that the tables are turned on them by individuals and not collective actions by some community organizer, they are perplexed.

My own neophyte Congressman Kurt Schrader in office for the first time since January is in our area but his staff advises me he is having no open town hall meetings and this was confirmed on a recent radio station. He is simply meeting one on one with people. These traitors to our Constitutional Republic are traveling with bodyguards and police protection in some areas. In our representative government the power flows from God to the citizen to representatives. People elect legislators, Congress people, senators, presidents, governors and judges and the officials are accountable to the electorate, not the other way around. Constitutional rights and due process are upheld and limited government is the result. However, in direct government also known as mobocracy, which we are experiencing now is the result of the people ruling by emotions causing lawmakers to legislate on impulse. There are no absolutes and righteousness. The staff at my Congressman’s office didn’t know these entitlements that are breaking our country are unconstitutional. He didn’t seem to have a clue!

Recognizing Obama’s diminishing popularity with those who are suffering voter remorse, I find it to be an act of desperation by the Democrats as they are going on an attack of people who are opposing the Obama socialist agenda calling them among other things, “angry mobs.” The Democrats have complete control so why are they so paranoid? Maybe they fear disgruntled Americans may start throwing shoes toward elected officials showing disgust and disrespect as they do in Muslin countries.

The Obama administration seems completely ignorant and tone deaf if they can’t realize these are people of all different stripes from all parties so I have come to the conclusion that Obama is trying to goad what he sees as “evil-right wingers” into doing something more serious and my great fear is that some idiot is going to take the bait. My first inclination was the Obama administration would arrange to have deliberate agitators sent into these meetings. FOX listeners saw on their television news the appropriately dressed and armed Black Panthers and by their very presence intimidating voters in an incident in Philadelphia last November. Attorney General Eric Holder decided not to pursue a civil criminal indictment against them. Please remember this same A.G. Holder classifies pro-lifers and pro-gun Americans as terrorists. And now I hear Obama has sent e-mails to his ACORN and SEIU union thugs to infiltrate these town hall meetings and Pelosi is referring to the protestors as Nazis. This could get ugly! Is it President Barack Obama’s hidden intent to then sign an Executive Order declaring Martial Law? Martial Law is rule by the military and comes into existence when civil government can no longer maintain law and order. The Posse Comitatus Act doesn’t allow government to use our military against citizens but it didn’t stop President Clinton and Attorney General Reno at Waco, Texas when they attacked the Branch Davidian killing innocent people. If this is the case, the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Writ of Habeas Corpus (right to trial by jury) can be suspended. In any late fascist shift, the final stage is the establishment of government by emergency decree or actual Martial law and the leader is above the law and he becomes the decider – not the uniter as Obama claimed in the presidential campaign.

The Feds already have a plan in place to train clergy to “quell dissent” during Martial Law. In 1962 the Supreme Court redefined the separation of church and state. The court wrote its own commandments and expelled prayer and Bible reading from public schools leaving a vacuum for drugs, sex, occult religions and guns to fill. These double minded sycophants want “separation of church and state” but now they suddenly would want pastors to “quell dissent” when they should be busy winning people to the Lord. They decry Christian involvement in public policy while at the same time they want to use pastors to facilitate tyranny? Unbelievable! Constitutionalist and Congressman Ron Paul says the stock market will eventually collapse but Martial Law provisions are in place to deal with economic discord. So it is apparent they have long been aware that the possibility of continued, unrestrained unconstitutional centralized government with Caesar as arbiter of morals and “truth” was going to cause a problem.


It is common knowledge to those who are informed and not brainwashed that enemies attack when their target is most weakened and divided and an Executive Order by the “uniter”, President Barack Obama for Martial Law, would serve the purpose of further weakening and dividing our nation creating an atmosphere for our enemies to invade. It’s called Politics of Distraction Eternal encirclement, plus internal demoralization plus thermonuclear blackmail leads to progressive surrender. That long as been the goal of the communists and China has devoted much of its newly found economic strength to building one of the most modern armies in the world. Their one-child policy aborts baby girls but favors boys for a strong military. America’s capitalists and government leaders at the highest level and even our consumers are willing to ignore China’s egregious human rights abuses as long as the entrepreneurs make profits, the government officials get campaign contributions and the consumers are able to buy cheap goods. We may have bought the rope that will hang us!

Whether or not the Chicago rioters of ’68 intended, an article in the 9/1/2008 New American said the effect of their actions was to further empower the government they claim to oppose, and to further erode the personal freedoms of all Americans. One of the most important results along those lines was the creation of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, the main federal agency that has been involved in nationalizing our local police departments over the past four decades.

At the World Trade Organization conference in Seattle in 1999, riots occurred and troops had to be called in for mass arrests. Was it a psychological game plan to prepare American for a coming state of emergency? Other miscellaneous military actions in cities across the U.S. have occurred scaring the daylights out of people who were not informed about what was going on and only reported in the areas in which they occurred.

The April 1999 McAlvany newsletter reported that as part of the new Clinton anti-terrorism initiative, the U.S. Army conducted a series of exercises near Corpus Christi, Texas. Without notice to local residents, black helicopters with elite troops from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, descended upon the towns of Kingsville and Port Aransas bombs bursting and guns blazing, with real explosive and live ammunition, simulating a raid against real terrorists. Additional military exercises were held in Anniston, Alabama and Monterey, California.

When the Rajneesh invaded Central Oregon in the early 1980s and followers from the world came to Oregon to worship the Baghwan, our Governor Vic Atiyeh carried a Martial Law order with him at all times fearing violence by the Rajneeshee. When Martin Luther King was shot, rioting in Washington, D.C. caused Martial Law to be declared throughout the city and troops were marching up and down.

Our law enforcement systems have gradually been transformed into Soviet-type management of the American people. Law enforcement that once was a shield of the innocent is now a weapon in the hands of government. With the passage of the USA Patriot Act and all legislation following has effectively militarized law enforcement in the U.S. In 2004 Democrat presidential candidate Senator John Kerry spoke of a comprehensive commitment to national service by Americans of all ages, telling college students “change starts with you” and giving aid for college tuition for national service and now we hear President Barack Obama suggesting the same program. Volunteerism is already a requirement for high school seniors to graduate. Could this easily develop into something reminiscent of Hitler’s Brown Shirts? You say it couldn’t happen here? Read by a retired sheriff far more knowledgeable than I am.

Remember the border patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean who were sent to prison for doing their jobs? Well, recently I read in Jerome Corsi’s 2007 book The Late Great USA that presidential administrations since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have pursued strategies consistent with precipitating a merger of the U.S., Mexico and Canada (North American Union). Mexico demanded the prosecution of these Border patrol agents and President George W. Bush and his Attorney General Alberto Gonzales complied. And then Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, the illegal Mexican smuggling drugs across the border who got shot in the butt turned around and sued the Border Patrol for $5 million for violating his civil rights. Corsi writes the Bush administration’s lack of protection of our Southern border and his close ties with U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton in El Paso who decided to protect “the civil rights” of illegal immigrants, even when they were involved in smuggling large quantities of marijuana into the United States further frustrated many Americans.

Readers will recall it was under President Bill Clinton and the Republican controlled Congress that we were given NAFTA. House Speaker at that time was Newt Gingrich, frequent guest on FOX. Talk show host, Rush Limbaugh also promoted NAFTA. Mexico’s intervention into American border law enforcement is another indication of our gradual ceding of our sovereignty. Corsi writes our government has lost the resolve to secure our borders and to enforce our laws. The message from the White House to the Border Patrol and all other law enforcement officers couldn’t be clearer: When it comes to illegal aliens, “hands off!” After the Ramos-Compean imprisonment, all law enforcement officers encountering illegal aliens now must consider the political ramifications of their actions…they could end up in prison! A 5/5/1969 article by Susan L.M. Huch in the American Opinion wrote that the whole pattern of drug abuse meshes nicely with the Communist campaign to generate hostility toward law-enforcement personnel and to foment conflict between the generations. It is therefore not at all surprising that at the base of the promotion of marijuana are hundreds of “underground” Marxist tabloids, pushing drugs at American youth as instant Nirvana.

In addition to calling the disgruntled “right wingers” an “angry mob” and “Nazis,” to add insult to further injury now the Obama administration has established a “squeal” website for people to report about alleged falsehoods by their friends, relatives and neighbors about the House health plan that even Barack doesn’t know what is in it. They are looking for snitches. This only inflames people, which leads me to believe this is all planned. Barack wants trouble!!!

The Obama administration hates the free enterprise system and now insurance companies in general, who often must abide by silly state regulations such as in vitro, birth control pills and abortions that drives up the cost. I’ve been told insurance companies pay a percentage to states for every premium they collect. Think of the additional revenue the states will lose if all the insurance company employees are put out of work but think of the jobs in Washington, D.C. that will be required to administer yet another bogus governmental agency and all of them will be on the premium health care plan that the elected officials enjoy. Think Job Patronage.

The breakdown of social values has created moral, spiritual and political chaos opening the door for the political tyranny. Forgetting that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, materialistic and hedonistic Americans who weren’t paying attention to national problems and ignoring the few voices crying out in the wilderness as our freedoms were unraveling stitch by stitch are trying to play catch up; however, they are finding great opposition because the enemy is well organized while new comers haven’t even been to boot camp not alone ready to fight the battle. Glenn Beck’s 9/12 project is a step in the right direction so it is Onward Christian Soldiers.




Source: http://www.newswithviews.com/Betty/Freauf145.htm

The Coming Capitalist Consensus

Walden Bello December 24, 2008

Editor: John Feffer


Foreign Policy In Focus http://www.fpif.org/

Not surprisingly, the swift unraveling of the global economy combined with the ascent to the U.S. presidency of an African-American liberal has left millions anticipating that the world is on the threshold of a new era. Some of President-elect Barack Obama’s new appointees – in particular ex-Treasury Secretary Larry Summers to lead the National Economic Council, New York Federal Reserve Board chief Tim Geithner to head Treasury, and former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk to serve as trade representative – have certainly elicited some skepticism. But the sense that the old neoliberal formulas are thoroughly discredited have convinced many that the new Democratic leadership in the world’s biggest economy will break with the market fundamentalist policies that have reigned since the early 1980s.

Among the key propositions advanced by partisans of GSD are the following:

• Globalization is essentially beneficial for the world; the neoliberals have simply botched the job of managing it and selling it to the public;



• It is urgent to save globalization from the neoliberals because globalization is reversible and may, in fact, already be in the process of being reversed;



• Growth and equity may come into conflict, in which case one must prioritize equity;
  



• Free trade may not, in fact, be beneficial in the long run and may leave the majority poor, so it is important for trade arrangements to be subject to social and environmental conditions;



• Unilateralism must be avoided while fundamental reform of the multilateral institutions and agreements must be undertaken – a process that might involve dumping or neutralizing some of them, like the WTO’s Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPs);
  



• Global social integration, or reducing inequalities both within and across countries, must accompany global market integration;



• The global debt of developing countries must be cancelled or radically reduced, so the resulting savings can be used to stimulate the local economy, thus contributing to global reflation;



• Poverty and environmental degradation are so severe that a massive aid program or “Marshall Plan” from the North to the South must be mounted within the framework of the “Millennium Development Goals”;
  



• A “Second Green Revolution” must be put into motion, especially in Africa, through the widespread adoption of genetically engineered seeds.
  



• Huge investments must be devoted to push the global economy along more environmentally sustainable paths, with government taking a leading role (“Green Keynesianism” or “Green Capitalism”);



• Military action to solve problems must be deemphasized in favor of diplomacy and “soft power,” although humanitarian military intervention in situations involving genocide must be undertaken.

The Limits of Global Social Democracy

Global Social Democracy has not received much critical attention, perhaps because many progressives are still fighting the last war, that is, against neoliberalism. A critique is urgent, and not only because GSD is neoliberalism’s most likely successor. More important, although GSD has some positive elements, it has, like the old Social Democratic Keynesian paradigm, a number of problematic features.

A critique might begin by highlighting problems with four central elements in the GSD perspective.

First, GSD shares neoliberalism’s bias for globalization, differentiating itself mainly by promising to promote globalization better than the neoliberals. This amounts to saying, however, that simply by adding the dimension of “global social integration,” an inherently socially and ecologically destructive and disruptive process can be made palatable and acceptable. GSD assumes that people really want to be part of a functionally integrated global economy where the barriers between the national and the international have disappeared. But would they not in fact prefer to be part of economies that are subject to local control and are buffered from the vagaries of the international economy? Indeed, today’s swift downward trajectory of interconnected economies underscores the validity of one of anti-globalization movement’s key criticisms of the globalization process..

Second, GSD shares neoliberalism’s preference for the market as the principal mechanism for production, distribution, and consumption, differentiating itself mainly by advocating state action to address market failures. The kind of globalization the world needs, according to Jeffrey Sachs in The End of Poverty, would entail “harnessing…the remarkable power of trade and investment while acknowledging and addressing limitations through compensatory collective action.” This is very different from saying that the citizenry and civil society must make the key economic decisions and the market, like the state bureaucracy, is only one mechanism of implementation of democratic decision-making.

Third, GSD is a technocratic project, with experts hatching and pushing reforms on society from above, instead of being a participatory project where initiatives percolate from the ground up.



READ THE REST AT: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5765 . .


Source: http://carmeloruiz.blogspot.com/2008_12_01_archive.html
.

Trade Wars: The Rise of Protectionism?

Trade Wars: The Rise of Protectionism?

By Dana Gabriel

U.S. trading partners have expressed concern that any move towards protectionism could spread and spark trade wars that could further worsen the economic crisis. Around the world, many are looking to President Barack Obama for leadership and feel that he is the one who can save the current global trading system. Does this system really work? Is it worth saving? International bodies such as the WTO and free trade deals like NAFTA, have fostered a climate of corporate dominance trapping nations in a web of treaties that in some cases, trump their own laws. The U.S. is being used as an engine for world government. The global elite seek to capitalize on the economic chaos which in many ways they engineered, in order to further restructure the world.

The Buy-American provision was added to Obamaʼs stimulus package, before it passed the House of Representatives. It blocks foreign iron and steel from being used on any projects that are part of the package. A Senate version of the bill could further expand to include other goods and materials. Although it does sound good, some feel the measure could backfire and cost more American jobs than it saves. Obama insists that he does not wish to set off a trade war and that the U.S. will honor its WTO obligations. He also warned of the dangers of protectionism, in a climate where global trade is already slumping. If he doesnʼt approve the Buy-American plan, he risks angering some of his core support, but if he doesnʼt make changes, he could alienate U.S. trading partners. It is obvious that Obama is going to have to strike a balance. He is calling for the stimulus package to be passed and signed by mid-February. Canada, the U.S.ʼs largest trading partner could be greatly affected by any Buy-American move.

For the most part, Canadaʼs response has been measured and it has refrained from further escalating the situation, believing that they will probably be exempt from the provision. Under NAFTA, Canada sends 40% of its steel across the border and the Buy-American provision could cost Canadian jobs as well as deal a significant blow to its steel industry. From 2002-2003, the Bush Administration imposed trade sanctions on foreign steel in order to protect its own industries, but Canada and Mexico were exempt because of fears that such a move would violate NAFTA. Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated that the Buy-American provision not only threatens Canada, but all industrialized countries. There is a definite possibility that the situation could further escalate. The EU, Canada and other U.S. trading partners could in turn retaliate with similar measures. If some sort of resolution is not reached, there could be a rise in protectionism around the world, with the potential for international trade wars.

During the presidential campaign, Obama pledged to protect U.S. workers and industries and supported Buy-American initiatives, but at the same time cautioned against protectionist policies. He was also very critical of NAFTA during the Democratic presidential nomination race, calling the agreement a mistake and its effects devastating. He even threatened to use the opt-out clause, in order to put pressure on Canada and Mexico to agree to changes. This concerned Canadian officials, but they were reassured that NAFTA was quite safe. Later when Obama had all but wrapped up the nomination, he took a more moderate approach towards NAFTA and free trade in general. He even admitted that in regards to all the NAFTA bashing, he got caught up in all the rhetoric. Since then, he has been strangely silent on the issue, but it was recently reported by a White House spokesman that Obama is still committed to upgrading the agreement.

NAFTA essentially laid the foundation for a North American energy market. Canada is the largest U.S. supplier of crude oil and natural gas. Under NAFTA, Canada is prohibited from cutting off oil exports to the U.S., unless domestic supplies are rationed by the same amount. Canadian officials have previously hinted that oil, and a list of other conditions could be on the table, if NAFTA is reopened. Harper recently said that he doesnʼt expect Obama to push for any major reworking of the agreement. There is little doubt that Canada is in a better position of strength than when NAFTA was first negotiated. Obama is set to visit Canada on February 19 and it is expected that trade issues will be at the top of the agenda.

Even Obama supporters have to be disappointed with his cabinet appointments, which do not constitute change. His administration is full of Clinton retreads, political hacks, hawks, and those who have upheld failed economic policies. Many of his appointees are also past or present members of the Council On Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. The new boss is beginning to look a lot like the old boss, except that I doubt if Obama will openly show the arrogance and disregard that Bush did. The best thing that Obama has going for him is that he isnʼt Bush, and although his words might have signaled a change in direction, his actions indicate that itʼs business as usual in the White House.

Source: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Trade-Wars-The-Rise-of-Pr-by-Dana-Gabriel-090204-269.html

MORE ON THE NEW WORLD ORDER

MORE ON THE NEW WORLD ORDER

By Chuck Baldwin
January 30, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

In my last column, I attempted to wake up my fellow Americans, who are either currently slumbering through the collapse of our constitutional republic or in a protracted state of denial regarding a very real--and very dangerous--burgeoning New World Order. The information that I need to disseminate on this matter is so plentiful that it is extremely difficult to condense into one column. Therefore, I must at least attempt to provide a little more information on this subject. I will use this column to do just that.

I already quoted former President George Herbert Walker Bush in my previous column. Here are more of his quotes. In 1991, Bush, Sr. said, "My vision of a New World Order foresees a United Nations with a revitalized peacekeeping function." In 1992, he said, "It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance."

Wow! I thought U.S. Presidents, as well as all civil magistrates and military personnel, swore an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Not in Bush's mind, obviously.

On January 25, 1993, Warren Christopher, the new Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, told CNN: "We must get the New World Order on track and bring the U.N. into its correct role in regards to the United States."

In 1958, Cleon Skousen, a former FBI agent (a man I was fortunate enough to get to know before his death), wrote a book entitled "The Naked Communist." In it, he outlined the long-term communist agenda. Since then, the movers and shakers of the New World Order have successfully achieved many of these goals within the U.S. Here are some samples of those goals:

* Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
* Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
* Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind.
* Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
* Get control of the schools.
* Infiltrate the press.
* Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
* Break down cultural standards of morality.
* Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with social religion.
* Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

Is there anyone who cannot see that the purveyors of the New World Order have largely achieved most of their goals? All they need to do now is tie it all together under one governmental umbrella.

One of the organizations that is at the forefront of promoting the New World Order is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). In my last column, I showed how the CFR dominates the Presidencies of both Republican and Democratic administrations (including the current one), as well as the Federal Reserve. I would even go so far as to say that the CFR is a very "clear and present danger" to the sovereignty and independence of the United States.

For example, CFR member and UN spokesman, Walt Rostow, said, "It is, therefore, an American interest to see an end to nationhood."

The American people need to wake up to the fact that the international banking interests that dominate our political and financial entities are working tirelessly to "see an end to nationhood." I am talking about the Rothschilds and Warburgs of Europe, and the houses of J.P. Morgan, Kuhn, Loeb, Schiff, Lehman, and Rockefeller.

Rear Admiral Chester Ward, who was the Judge Advocate General of the Navy from 1956-1960 and a former member of the CFR who pulled out after realizing what they were all about, warned the American people about the dangers of this and similar organizations (such as the Trilateral Commission). He said, "The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common--they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR . . . comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government."

Admiral Ward also said, "The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government."

Remember, the CFR was incorporated in 1921 and is currently comprised of only about 4,000 members. The CFR was co-founded by Edward Mandell House and John D. Rockefeller. Colonel (an honorary title--he was not a military colonel) House had been the chief advisor of President Woodrow Wilson. Historians often call House "Wilson's alter ego" due to the powerful influence he held over the President. House was a rabid Marxist, whose goal was to socialize the United States. In his book, "Philip Dru: Administrator," House said he was working for "socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx."

House's stated goals were to incorporate a gradual income tax upon the backs of the American people for the purpose of establishing a state-controlled central bank. Both of these goals were accomplished in 1913, the very first year of the House-dominated Wilson administration.

House's blueprint became the foundation for the CFR. What was not accomplished by the proposed League of Nations at the end of World War I was realized with the formation of the United Nations at the end of World War II. Not by accident, much of the original funding for the CFR came from Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan. President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave CFR members much authority in his administration, and they have pretty much dominated the foreign and financial policies of the United States ever since.


In the April, 1974 edition of the CFR publication, "Foreign Affairs," Columbia University Professor and CFR member Richard Gardner wrote a column entitled, "The Hard Road to World Order." In it, he called for "an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece." He named the following organizations that would help fulfill that objective: the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the Law of the Sea Conference, the World Food Conference, the World Population Conference, and of course, the United Nations. I would also include NAFTA, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), CAFTA, etc.

The CFR has a sister organization called the Trilateral Commission (TC). This group was co-founded by the Marxist, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and David Rockefeller. Like Gardner, Brzezinski calls for a piecemeal "movement toward a larger community of the developed nations . . . through a variety of indirect ties and already developing limitations on national sovereignty." (Source: Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, p. 296)

Brzezinski is also a major proponent (along with CFR member Robert Pastor) of the North American Community (or Union), whose construction began during the second term of President George W. Bush and continues today under President Barack Obama.

Here is a sample list of the notable dignitaries in and out of government who hold (or held) membership in the CFR or TC (and sometimes both):

George Herbert Walker Bush. Bill Clinton. Sandra Day O'Connor. Dick Cheney. Les Aspin. Colin Powell. Robert Gates. Brent Scowcroft. Jesse Jackson, Sr. Mario Cuomo. Dan Rather. Tom Brokaw. David Brinkley. John Chancellor. Marvin Kalb. Diane Sawyer. Barbara Walters. Cyrus Vance. Paul Volcker. Henry Kissinger. George Schultz. Alan Greenspan. Madeleine Albright. Roger Altman. Bruce Babbitt. Howard Baker. Samuel Berger. Elaine Chao. Dianne Feinstein. Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Chuck Hagel. Gary Hart. John McCain. George Mitchell. Bill Moyers. Jay Rockefeller. Donna Shalala. Strobe Talbott. Fred Thompson. Robert Zoellick. Richard Nixon. Hubert H. Humphrey. George McGovern. Gerald Ford. Jimmy Carter. John Anderson. Walter Mondale. Michael Dukakis. Al Gore. John Kerry.

It is absolutely essential that we stop looking at potential leaders as either Democrats or Republicans, or as conservatives or liberals. Those monikers mean very little today. We must start identifying people as either Americans or globalists. Either they believe in an independent, sovereign, self-governing United States of America, or they believe in supranational government and internationalism. Either they believe in devotion to the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence, or they believe in the goals and objectives of the United Nations. We must rid ourselves of the propensity to support those who classify themselves as "conservatives," and we must stop blindly supporting the GOP "because it is a 'conservative' party." If they do not understand AND OPPOSE the New World Order, they do not deserve our support or our vote!

George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H.W. Bush laid the foundation for everything that Barack Obama is doing to facilite the New World Order. That two of these Presidents are Democrats and two are Republicans only proves my point: both the Democratic and Republican parties have succumbed to New World Order ideology.

There is more that we can do, of course, but I will save the bulk of that discussion for another day. In the meantime, we need to realize that the New World Order exists, to understand that both major parties are collaborating to facilitate its creation, to start looking at leaders as either Americans or globalists, and to refuse to support the latter in any shape, manner, or form.

Pastors need to start warning their people about the New World Order (and the Biblical principles relating to it) from their pulpits--loud and often! People need to start warning their family members and friends. We need to start searching out like-minded patriots--who understand what's going on--for information and encouragement. And remember this: WE CAN DEFEAT THE NEW WORLD ORDER. Yes, we can!

The fatalistic view that we are helpless is a bunch of baloney! Our forefathers defeated the New World Order in their day. The globalists have been stymied many times through the years. The fact that they have not yet totally achieved their globalistic objectives shows us that it is possible to stop them, or at the very least, set their agenda backward.

I also urge my Christian brothers and sisters to rid themselves of the propensity to say, "This is God's will; there is nothing we can do about it." That, too, is hooey!

Christians are to be the "salt of the earth." Salt is a preservative, a retardant against decay. We are instructed to be faithful "unto death." In Romans chapter 3, the Apostle Paul made it clear that we must never support evil that good may come. I would remind my brethren that refusing to resist evil is the same as supporting it. Sitting back complacently and saying, "This must happen so Jesus can come," borders on blasphemy. It runs counter to everything the Bible teaches. We Christians have a duty, an obligation to do right with no regard to outcome or consequences.

When asked when He would establish His Kingdom on the earth, the first thing out of Jesus' mouth was, "It is not for you to know." Yet, many Christians presume to know the times and seasons of Christ's return. But let's be honest with ourselves and admit that we do NOT know. To sit back and say that we have full understanding of Bible prophecy and can say for certain what God does or does not want to accomplish in and through our country is the height of arrogance and pride. Only God knows those things. It's time we let God be God and start doing what is ours to do.

What we do know is any attempt at establishing global government is as wicked now as it was at the Tower of Babel. As Christians, we are instructed to resist the wicked one. We must oppose him and his work. We are told to "occupy" until Christ returns, whenever that is. To "occupy" means to "take care of business." God expects us to follow His teaching and do what is ours to do. To use Christ's coming as an excuse to not "take care of business" is itself inexcusable!

As John Quincy Adams said, "Duty is ours; results are God's." If we would truly do our duty, who knows what God would do to help us defeat (for the sake of our children and grandchildren) this devilish New World Order?

As for me and my house, we will fight for a free, independent and sovereign United States--so that we might walk, work, and worship in freedom--as long as we have breath in our being. How about you?


P.S. Several readers informed me that Michael Savage began acknowledging the New World Order on his radio show last year. Some said he has even spoken against it. This is good news. If only the rest of the so-called "conservative" talking heads would do the same thing--but in a more aggressive fashion: you know, like America's freedom depended on it, because it does.

P.P.S. Dennis Cuddy wrote a good chronological history of the New World Order, which covers its progression through the twentieth century. It can be viewed here.

© 2009 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

Source: http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin488.htm