globalism

Economic Woes, a Consequence of Free Trade

Posted on

 By one of my favorite writers and a very nice lady …..

Deanna Spingola

The abolition of nationalism and borders under the guise of the free trade has been the ultimate Illuminati objective since the late 1700s, notably illustrated by Aaron H. Palmer who had a law office on Wall Street in the first half of the 19th century. He catered to individuals interested in transnational business and managed their commerce and paperwork with the European bankers who advocated trade. By February 1837 when the bankers and politicians shrunk the U.S. credit market, Palmer already had a working relationship with N M Rothschild & Sons, located in the City of London. Palmer supplied the Rothschilds with an account of all the financial failures, as many as 280, in the months just before the final crash. {1}

The products of the labor of its citizens determine a nation’s prosperity. A brisk manufacturing base is essential, augmented by the service industry. Nationalists believe in reasonable tariffs that protect the nation’s industry. Free trade is detrimental to a nation’s wealth. So-called “conservatives,” those Republican “nationalists” who claim to put the U.S. first have promoted and participated, along with the Democrats, in the legislation of all of the nation’s free trade agreements. One cannot claim to cherish both sovereignty and accept free trade, through “multinational trade organizations and global financial conglomerates.” Marx, a mouthpiece minion for the elite, advocated both the income tax and free trade. He said of free trade, “it breaks up old nationalities” and eliminates the “bourgeoisie” (small businessmen). {2} Free trade functions to equalize the masses while elevating the elite and their acquiescent political devotees.

President Woodrow Wilson, advocating the elite’s agenda, promoted the League of Nations as a global forum for the settlement of territorial disputes by arbitration, along with the power of aggressive military enforcement or through less aggressive sanctions and free global trade, as elucidated in his Fourteen Points, “equality of trade” and “removal … of all economic barriers.” {3} On December 23, 1913, certain members of Congress instituted the Federal Reserve, a vital step to the ultimate globalization of currency. The elite established tax-free foundations to escape the income tax trap they set for the rest of American society. In October 1913, B’nai B’rith established the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) possibly to counter criticism of many of the individuals responsible for the Federal Reserve.

Proponents of the New World Order, the banker’s ultimate political monopoly, want the world’s citizens to abandon political and cultural nationalism in favor of internationalism. U.S. politicians, through their machinations, have rejected (in our behalf) the nationalism once espoused by Thomas Jefferson and others. Nations lose their self-sufficiency and independence through external military action and/or through the actions of corrupt political leaders. In the U.S. these are often the prominent leaders of each political party who dictate partisan policy which includes the decision to wage war. Banker-funded warfare opens a nation to free trade. After warfare, war-torn, devastated nations, no longer able to meet their own needs, must depend on other nations to supply essential needs – food, clothing and supplies to reconstruct the bombed-out infrastructure.

Swiss business journalist and author Gian Trepp said “War, a place where moneymen can gather, because money is stronger than nationalism. Even during the war the moneymen of different nations needed to keep in touch because when the war stops, you have to rebuild and you need free trade.” {4} Globalists have vilified the word “nationalist” in their battle to subtly convince us to accept world governance, a goal they hope to impose by 2025, according to their most recent 2010 publication, Global Governance 2025: At a Critical Juncture.

Our current economic woes began long before the elites installed Obama, their current presidential puppet to further implement global governance. By 1980, Dr. Mordechai E. Kreinin, Professor of Economics, along with Michael G. Plummer, an economics professor at Johns Hopkins University, evaluated the idea of North American economic integration. Kreinin, still pushing internationalism through free trade, compiled Building a Partnership, the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, a series of papers presented by like-minded academics during the September 1998 conference at Michigan State University. He is the past president of the International Trade and Finance Association and has advised the UN, the State Department and the Commerce Department regarding trade relations.

In accordance with the exponents of internationalism, officials began negotiating the NAFTA in 1986 when Reagan was president. NAFTA was formally signed on December 17, 1992 under President George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas. Bush had lost the November 1992 election and left the job of getting congressional approval of the agreement to his successor, Bill Clinton and his vice president, longtime elite internationalist, Albert Gore.

On July 18, 1993 Henry Kissinger (CFR, TC) allegedly wrote in The Los Angeles Times about NAFTA, “What Congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system…a first step toward a new world order.”

Gore approached Republican House Minority Whip (1989–1995), Newt Gingrich, just another internationalist still masquerading as a constitutionalist. He promised he could extract 132 votes for NAFTA, a treaty that author Ian Fletcher refers to as “a veritable case study in failure.” {5} Congressional bribery just for NAFTA, known as “pork barrel promises” totaled $50 billion, paid by the U.S. taxpayers. NAFTA cost the Democrats control of the House and Senate in 1994. Gingrich then became Speaker of the House in 1995. Voters automatically punish the party in power for the treasonous acts committed under their jurisdiction when in fact, congressional members of both parties act in concert. By 1997, due to NAFTA, U.S. job losses amounted to about 394,835, mostly women, Blacks and Hispanics. The figure increased to 600,000 by January 1, 1999. Wages in Mexico sank by 29%. Clinton and Gore, like typical politicians, engaged in orchestrated opposition. At the 1997 AFL-CIO Pittsburgh Convention, Clinton was pro-NAFTA, while Gore feigned an anti-NAFTA stance. This charade won the AFL-CIO’s endorsement of Gore in the 2000 elections. {6}

Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gotari had endorsed the NAFTA concept in 1990, making it a political possibility. The Mexican public was the treaty’s most formidable obstacle as it had a history of distancing itself from its northern neighbor. U.S. labor unions were very vocal about their opposition and their intent to retaliate against all legislators who voted for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. Those who supported the treaty included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. It passed the Senate by a vote of 61-38. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994. {7} NAFTA added Mexico to the prior treaty, the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, signed in 1988. NAFTA eliminated tariffs and the majority of non-tariff prohibitions between the three countries. Additionally, investors in the three countries were to enjoy the same treatment as domestic investors. {8}

NAFTA, promoted as a strategy to reduce US trade deficits, actually increased those deficits. In 1993, we had a $1.6 billion surplus in our trade with Mexico but by 2007, we had a $74.8 billion deficit. In 1994 we had an $8.1 billion yearly deficit with Canada, probably due to our oil importation despite our own adequate oil supply. NAFTA cost 525,000 US jobs between 1994 and 2002. Some figures state the total of jobs lost at 766,000, primarily among the non-college-educated population – the producers in the manufacturing segment. Mexico, as a US trading partner, is too poor, to be an export market for American goods. {9}

Pat Buchanan, referring to NAFTA, wrote, “Two years after NAFTA, the predictions of its opponents had all come true. The U.S. trade surplus with Mexico had vanished; a trade deficit of $15 billion had opened up. Trucks heading north out of Mexico were hauling more and more manufactured goods, while those going south carried machinery and equipment for the new factories going up, pointing to endless and deepening U.S. trade deficits. By 1997, 3,300 maquiladora factories were operating, employing 800,000 Mexican workers in jobs that not long ago would have gone to Americans.” {10}

Over 80% of the American population opposed NAFTA. Despite massive objections against Trade Agreements, both Democrats and Republicans habitually cater to the banks and corporations. George H. W. Bush (CFR, TC) and George W. Bush personally promoted NAFTA. It weakened U.S. and Canadian environmental laws and increased the misery in Mexico and ultimately, in addition to faulty currency policies and manipulations, contributed to the crash of the peso, further impoverishing the regular citizens. {11}

Promoters sold NAFTA, trade with Mexico, by promising new job creation in the U.S. Yet, research studies and historical examples in other countries provided adequate information and experience to discourage any kind of free trade with two inequitable countries. Labor-intensive manufacturers, encouraged by NAFTA, relocated to Mexico where Mexican nationals were willing to work for less. To get it passed, the Mexican government spent millions on lobbyists and public relations. U.S. capital, about $70 billion, went south with American jobs. New companies emerged in Mexico, along with debt in the form of interest for loans. There are about 90,000,000 people in Mexico, out of which 200,000 people control the entire wealth of the nation – thirty-two families.

Unfortunately, Mexico, along with many other third world countries, became victims of the economic hit men. John Perkins recently revealed their tactics in his Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Mexico was generating about $30 billion a year towards paying the debt service or interest on its international banking cabal loans. Yet the actual cost amounted to $40-45 billion per year. Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the privately owned Federal Reserve increased the interest rates in late 1994 which deliberately “devastated the Mexican Economy.” {12} In December 1994, Mexico devalued the peso by about 40%. {13} Congress immediately approved a $40 taxpayer funded billion-dollar loan despite debt-burdened Mexico’s inability to repay it. That loan was merely a transfer from our pockets into the international bankers’ coffers. The recent bailouts and Obama’s stimulus package, disguised as assistance to the populace, is a huge transference of wealth – again from the taxpayer’s pockets into the banker’s pockets.

After NAFTA, the Clinton administration hammered through 200 additional trade agreements. The World Trade Organization (WTO) replaced the GATT. {14} The WTO opened the world to corporate predators and further diluted environmental, labor and human rights. The Bretton Woods Agreement (1945), an amendment to the Federal Reserve Act, ultimately led to the establishment of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the GATT, a global economic system that managed free trade with the dollar as the world’s basic currency. The elite designed the system to ensure British and U.S. hegemony over monetary and trade issues. The Federal Reserve, a private enterprise, became master of the economic system.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) is located in Geneva, Switzerland. Congress created the WTO as “a policeman, a global free trade enforcer, and a battering ram for the trillion dollar annual world agribusiness trade.” The WTO was devised “to advance the interests of private agribusiness companies.” It is not accountable to any nation’s laws. The WTO may impose disciplinary penalties or other measure on member countries that violate their regulations. The WTO may also force countries to accept genetically modified crops. The WTO is a product of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Seventy-five GATT members and the European Communities founded the WTO on January 1, 1995 as a result of Uruguay Round of trade liberalization talks, held in del Este, Uruguay, in September 1986, and concluded in Marrakech, Morocco, in April 1994. {15}

According to Ian Fletcher, “The U.S. should seek strategic, not unconditional integration with the rest of the world economy. Economic openness, like most things in life, is valuable up to a point – but not beyond it. Fairly open trade, most of the time, is justified. Absolutely free trade, 100 percent of the time, is an extremist position and is not.” Free trade is certainly not inevitable. A former British colony, the U.S., for decades, protected their manufacturing base through protectionist tariffs. The regulation of commerce was included in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8 authorizes Congress “to regulate commerce with foreign nations,” a mandate that is in the best interests of the nation and its people. {16} Nation states are economically essential and relevant as most people, according to Fletcher, live in the country in which they were born. Consequently, their “economic fortunes depend upon the wage and consumption levels within that one society.” When trade laws, to benefit large firms, alter the economic nationalism of a nation, it impacts every resident. {17}

Free trade, as currently practiced with chronic US deficits and a plethora of cheap imports, can actually “seduce” a population into “decadent consumption.” People have abandoned the tradition of saving and frugal living. Business owners often fail to reinvest profits and instead depend on bank loans. Seemingly, individuals in their personal or business circumstances prefer to mortgage their futures in order to obtain immediate gratification. Fletcher claims that Americans are addicted to debt as evidenced by the incidence of consumer credit. America’s combined household and government debt totals 243% of GDP as opposed to China where the government discourages personal debt. At least 500 million Chinese people have a cell phone but only one million Chinese residents have a credit card. {18} China is the world’s largest mobile telephone market. {19} I visited China in 2007 and was amazed at its thriving economy, the huge building projects throughout the country, and the presence of large US-based corporations, like Motorola, in Beijing.

Robert B. Zoellick (CFR, TC, Bilderberg, PNAC), current President of the World Bank, as Under Secretary of State for Economic and Agricultural Affairs (1991-1992) helped seal the NAFTA accord with Mexico. He was also instrumental in launching the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. He was a U.S. Trade Representative (2001-2005) who attempted to fast track the Free Trade of Americas Agreement (FTAA) and negotiated the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in May 2004. He advised George W. Bush on foreign policy during the 2000 campaign as part of a group led by Condoleezza Rice called The Vulcans. Bush nominated Zoellick to replace Paul Wolfowitz (PNAC) as the new World Bank president. {20}

Residents flee when their nation’s economy fails, or when it is devastated by war. Illegals in the U.S. increased from three million in the 1990s to eleven million with about 55% or six million individuals from Mexico. This resulted from Mexico’s economic crisis in conjunction with George W. Bush’s so-called “guest-worker” program, possibly associated with his secretive meeting in Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005 with then Mexican President Vicente Fox and then Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin. They met to discuss the formation of the North American Community which is, by default, a done deal. The U.S. government has been deliberately ineffective in protecting the southern border in order to create a destabilizing cultural and economic crisis in the U.S.

NAFTA Vote by Party and City, Suburb and Rural Location:
Anti NAFTA Pro NAFTA {21}

Democrats
City 67.4% 32.6%
Suburb 59.6% 40.4%
Rural 52.2% 47.8%

Republicans
City 22.2% 77.8%
Suburb 26.4% 73.6%
Rural 21.4% 78.6% 

Some of the same treasonous scoundrels that voted for NAFTA are currently appearing on the privately owned media busily blaming the current administration for not fixing the economy, a direct result of NAFTA. Some of those neo-cons include Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, Tom DeLay, Dick Durbin, Jeffrey Flake, Thomas Foley, John Kasich, Dick Armey, Dennis Hastert, and on the left, Nancy Pelosi. She, as Speaker of the House, pushed through the disastrous healthcare bill in the same manner. These politicians count on the fact that the US public has forgotten who voted on NAFTA and what it did. They are now blaming the bulk of the country’s economic woes on others, such as people who shouldn’t have borrowed money to buy homes (now in foreclosure) and a number of other issues – never on the fact that they imposed a treaty on the US that was deliberately designed to de-industrialize the country and cause an economic catastrophe. Neo-con Republicans continue to maintain that NAFTA was a good policy, but for who? Mexico, now a slave-wage corporate slum-burb from which desperate citizens attempt to escape is a direct result of NAFTA. Meanwhile, jobless, middle-class Americans struggle to stave-off foreclosure.   

In March 2010 Rep. Gene Taylor, a Mississippi Democrat, lead a small group of twenty-eight lawmakers who introduced legislation that would require President Obama to relinquish our participation in NAFTA, the 16-year trade agreement that began the de-industrialization of America, a process that has created the current joblessness (10 to 12%) and the economic fallout. The National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, organizations that represent the elite, have always supported NAFTA. If Taylor’s legislation passes, Obama would have to give Canada and Mexico six months’ notice of the U.S. intentions to vacate the pact. {22}

In his campaign speeches Obama opposed NAFTA but now is in the process of negotiating with officials in South Korea, Panama and Colombia to implement trade pacts with those countries. In March 2010, U.S. officials also began trade negotiations with Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Chile, Peru, Vietnam and Brunei in what would be the Asia-Pacific regional free-trade agreement. Members of the House of Representatives are supposed to vote before the end of the year whether the U.S. is to retain their membership in the World Trade Organization. {23}

Ian Fletcher says, “Free trade is inexorably bleeding our economy and preventing it from returning to true health. Nobody in the Obama administration wants to talk about the economics of free trade, because as soon as one seriously scrutinizes this doctrine, one begins to discover that free trade may be the biggest myth in American economics.” {24}

1 There is no Need for Anyone to go to America: Commercial Correspondence and Nineteenth Century Globalization from Papers found by Jessica Lepler, Assistant Professor of American History at the University of New Hampshire, during research into the 1837 financial crisis in the US.
2 The Judas Goats, the Enemy Within by Michael Collins Piper, American Free Press, Washington, DC, 2006, p. 30
3 Rockefeller Internationalism by Will Banyan, Part 1, Nexus Magazine Volume 10 – Number 3, (April-May 2003)
4 Hitler’s Secret Bankers, the Myth of Swiss Neutrality During the Holocaust by Adam LeBor, Birch Lane Press, New York, 1997, p. 73
5 Free Trade Doesn’t Work, What Should Replace It and Why by Ian Fletcher, U.S. Business & Industry Council, Washington, DC, 2010, pp. 158-159
6 Al Gore: A User’s Manual by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, Verso 2000, pp. 160-171
7 Organized Labor’s Campaign Contributions after the NAFTA Vote: Rhetoric or Retribution? by Gretchen Anne Phillips and Edward Tower, p. 3
8 NAFTA, GATT Uruguay Round, and Fast Track 1998: a Brief Legislative History, Institute for International Economics, www.iie.com, p. 1
9 Free Trade Doesn’t Work, What Should Replace It and Why by Ian Fletcher, U.S. Business & Industry Council, Washington, DC, 2010, pp. 158-159
10 The Great Betrayal: How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy by Patrick J. Buchanan, Little, Brown, New York, p. 269
11 Al Gore: A User’s Manual by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, Verso 2000, pp. 160-171
12 Texas and Mexico, Immediate Impact of the Mexican Crisis
13 NAFTA and the Peso Collapse, Not Just a Coincidence by Robert A. Blecker, Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper, http://www.epinet.org/briefingpapers/1997_bp_nafta.pdf
14 Seeds of Destruction, the Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation by F. William Engdahl, Global Research, Center for Research on Globalization, Montreal, Quebec, 2007, pp. 216-247
15 Ibid, p. 217
16 Free Trade Doesn’t Work, What Should Replace It and Why by Ian Fletcher, U.S. Business & Industry Council, Washington, DC, 2010, pp. 20-21. This is a book that everyone interested in so-called free trade should read.
17 Ibid, pp. 23-24, 25
18 Ibid, pp. 48-49
19 Motorola’s Cell-Phone Stumble in China, Telecom August 28, 2008, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_36/b4098056926227.htm
20 Robert Zoellick, http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1397
21 Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper, Washington, DC, Political Arithmetic of the NAFTA Vote by Lawrence Mishel and Ruy A. Teixeira, p. 12, http://epi.3cdn.net/3d995382f3252362c7_ydm6bxl4u.pdf
22 Reuters, A small group of U.S. lawmakers unveiled legislation on Thursday to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement in the latest sign of congressional disillusionment with free-trade deals, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6233MS20100304
23 Ibid
24 Free Trade Doesn’t Work, What Should Replace It and Why by Ian Fletcher, http://www.freetradedoesntwork.com/

  

Archive of Deanna Spingola’s articles 

Deanna’s new book When the Power Elite Rules: A Study in Imperialism, Genocide and Emancipation

  

This post via The Peoples Voice 

Justice Stephen Breyer – Globalization Challenging the Constitution

Posted on Updated on

“Get it through your head, the constitution and your ‘rights’ are only what we say they are.”

For years Breyer has been talking about globalization and how the supreme court is and will be influenced  by world laws and views not necessarily in sync with traditional U.S. constitution rulings. It’s not Sharia law as zionist shill Pamela Geller says. He is talking about more of a hybrid of the Talmud and globalist Orwellian control.


 Breyer on Sept. 14, 2010 …

Breyer in 2007

It’s happening across the world. It’s popularly called “globalization”. But what it involves are people in business, people in law, learning what each other are doing. And they adjust their laws accordingly.

So what I see as happening – and it’s not a political matter – what I see as happening is people who are lawyers and judges in America today have to be aware. And they have to have a system of being aware about what’s going on elsewhere. Because the cases in front of them will more and more depend on what’s happening elsewhere. 

Breyer in 2003 …

“We see all the time, Justice O’Connor and I, and the others, how the world really – it’s trite but it’s true – is growing together,” Breyer said. “Through commerce, through globalization, through the spread of democratic institutions, through immigration to America, it’s becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people. And how they’re going to live together across the world will be the challenge, and whether our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations, I think will be a challenge for the next generations.”

Asked to explain what he meant when he said judges who favor a very strict literal interpretation of the Constitution can’t justify their practices by claiming that’s what the framers wanted, Breyer responded: “I meant that the extent to which the Constitution is flexible is a function of what provisions you’re talking about. When you look at the word ‘two’ for two representatives from every state in the United States Senate, two means two. But when you look like a word – look at a word like ‘interstate commerce,’ which they didn’t have automobiles in mind, or they didn’t have airplanes in mind, or telephones, or the Internet, or you look at a word like ‘liberty,’ and they didn’t have in mind at that time the problems of privacy brought about, for example, by the Internet and computers. You realize that the framers intended those words to maintain constant values, but values that would change in their application as society changed.” 

In Breyer’s 2004 book Judges in Contemporary Democracy: An International Conversation, the unifying theme is the globalization of constitutional law.

Breyer is no friend of the 2nd amendment. In the D.C. vs. Heller ruling he wrote a dissenting opinion that  hints of a globalist view of disarming the masses. History tells us the results of gun control.

Breyer’s words …

The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.

The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests are—whether they do or do not include an independent interest in self-defense—the majority’s view cannot be correct unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms. This the majority cannot do.{more}

Breyer is really not much of a historical constitutional scholar. He thinks John Adams was one of its authors.  I suppose he was too busy studying early zionist history.

After meeting with Jacob de Haas, a former secretary to [Zionist leader] Theodore Herzl in 1912,” notes current Jewish Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, “[Brandeis] joined the American Federation of Zionists and started making public remarks in support of Zionism … In 1917 … his intervention with President Wilson helped secure American support for the Balfour Declaration [in support of a Jewish state in Palestine], thereby assuring its issuance. In 1938, not long before his death, he called upon President Roosevelt, seeking FDR’s public diplomatic support for allowing more Jewish refugees to travel to Palestine.” [BREYER, p. 18]

Breyer is a member of The International Advisory Council of The Israel Democracy Institute.

In 2008, Breyer was the keynote speaker at the ADL Leadership Meeting.



The globalization and zionization of America continues …. right up to the highest court of the land.

Intensifying "Service Nation"

Posted on

There seems to be a convergence of several aspects in the agenda of ‘service nation.’

There’s the Haiti message of “just send your cash” or adopt kids or entertain the idea of allowing illegals to stay in the US and maybe bring refugees in.

The MLK Day of Service

The Rockefeller Foundation announcement of grants to cities for some beginnings of a bureaucracy of ‘service.’

There’s Service Nation and their endorsers, Serve.gov, Cities of Service and their like. Government and ‘NGO’ agencies ready to teach you the best way to volunteer and give.

A ‘service law,’ The Serve America Act has been passed and is in the early stages of implementation. Mandatory volunteerism is one of the long term goals. Kids make good workers and spies if they’re not needed as soldiers.

Volunteering and helping your neighbors is a basic human virtue. There are local networks and individuals who do tremendous work in service of their fellow man. If it wasn’t for the theft of our labor and wages by government extortion called taxes we could do much more.

As with everything else in the agenda of globalized slavery, service must be centralized. The problems are too great for the locals to handle. We have to create a federal bureaucracy to coordinate ‘service’ and make it more efficient. It will be a for profit effort for a few. The rest of us get brownshirts.

The policy of service through funding as defined in general terms by the Rockefeller initiatives …

Through grantmaking, the Rockefeller Foundation works to spread the benefits of globalization to more people in more places around the world. The Foundation is a proactive grantmaker. We seek out opportunities to fund work that addresses the Foundation’s areas of focus and contributes to one or more of our initiatives, rather than simply reacting to unsolicited proposals. Only proposals that fall within the Foundation’s initiatives are considered. {source}

Yemen: Another Step in the Balkanization of the Middle East

Posted on

The map below should be seen as a work in progress. How to accomplish the breakup of the middle east is in constant change but the policy remains the same. It may not work.


Note: The following map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006). Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO’s Defense College for senior military officers. This map, as well as other similar maps, has most probably been used at the National War Academy as well as in military planning circles.


Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East” – 2006

The “New Middle East” project was introduced publicly by Washington and Tel Aviv with the expectation that Lebanon would be the pressure point for realigning the whole Middle East and thereby unleashing the forces of “constructive chaos.” This “constructive chaos” –which generates conditions of violence and warfare throughout the region– would in turn be used so that the United States, Britain, and Israel could redraw the map of the Middle East in accordance with their geo-strategic needs and objectives. {more}

US warns Yemen to be focus in “worldwide” war

Underwear Man in Bed With Indians

The Prestige – Part 1: The Pledge

Dancing With Snakes

Clinton: Yemen threatens region, world

Caspian Sea Geopolitics: Nabucco will be the most expensive pipeline ever built

I Am Not Optimistic About 2010: A New Year Same Agenda

Wars “R” Us: Making the World Safe for American Domination

US drone missiles slaughtered 700 Pakistani civilians in 2009

Obama’s War on Yemen

The United States’ Global Agenda, vis-à-vis South Asia

It is a well-known fact among international security experts that one of the longstanding foreign policy doctrines of the United States is to destabilize countries and regions that are considered hostile to US economic and strategic interests. This policy has been the bedrock of American military and covert operations across the globe throughout the cold war period. When the US fails to win support from countries for its self-interested economic and defense policies, the US undertakes covert operations to overthrow democratically elected leaders in those countries by supporting military juntas and insurgent movements, cut off economic aid, and isolate them internationally until they give in to US pressure.

What is Israel’s Role in the Destabilization of Pakistan?

When waging war “by way of deception,” the motto of the Israeli Mossad, well-timed crises play a critical agenda-setting role by displacing facts with what a target population can be deceived to believe. Thus the force-multiplier effect when staged crises are reinforced with pre-staged intelligence. In combination, the two often prove persuasive

Neutered Sovereignty?

Posted on

art from Pirate News

Obama gave a lackluster speech to the climate change crowd at Copenhagen. The BS may be catching up with him and his intensity may be fading.

“I have to be honest, as the world watches us today, I think our ability to take collective action is in doubt right now, and it hangs in the balance.

America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion by 2012. And yesterday, Secretary Hillary Clinton, my Secretary of State, made it clear that we will engage in a global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020, if — and only if — it is part of a broader accord.

Mitigation. Transparency. Financing. It’s a clear formula.”

In Obamawellian speak mitigation is big government control of all the aspects of ‘pollution,’ transparency is opaque and financing is theft.

Sovereignty is not yet dead. The fat lady is warming up her pipes but hasn’t sung.

The ever present Lord Christopher Monckton has stated that the only goal of the conference was to implement the framework and the funding for a world government – which he asserts has been achieved but there is ‘hope’ that the scam can be overcome.

If reports are correct, a climate draft accord has been reached and taxpayer costs for the extortion racket in the US will be …

$US10 billion a year from 2010 to 2012, climbing to $US50 billion annually by 2015 and $US100 billion by 2020.

Since the American public hasn’t gone down kicking and screaming over the billions/trillions in banker giveaways, endless wars and political corruptions, I’m not so sure that that this scheme won’t succeed. It’s what the globalists are betting on … that we actually are sheep and the slaughter is not far away.

But perhaps they have underestimated us and overestimated how much they can suck from the host … “it’s hard to run when your belly is full of blood.”

Meanwhile, Hugo Chavez spoke right after Obama at the conference and what did he say?

“By the way, it smells of sulfur in here.”

Proof the Copenhagen Climate Conference is a Fraud … Hemp is ‘off the table’

Posted on

No matter where you stand on the issue of ‘climate change,’ a sure sign that the Copenhagen conference is not really interested in solutions but only in the extortion of money and global control is that hemp is not ‘on the table.’

Ever hear Al Gore say a word on the benefit of planting massive amounts of hemp as a carbon capture plant and its many uses that could replace thousands of polluting products and create hundreds of thousands of ‘green’ jobs.

Nope, you haven’t and you never will. It would make too much sense. The frauds want a centralized mechanism where only a few benefit and the rest of the world would be under their thumb.

We should say no to false science, CO2 demonetization, cap and trade, carbon credits, the UN, bankers, big oil and corporate thieves and yes to hemp, small farmers and the new entrepreneurs who actually have some answers for a better world. Easier said than done but we can get there.

Silence at Copenhagen …

Hemp Global Solutions

Our basic premise is that hemp is far more productive than typical agro-forestry projects, producing annual, versatile biomass alongside more rapid CO2 uptake. It can produce a vast range of sustainable raw materials with an overall low environmental impact, as well as improving soil structure, using low fertiliser and no other chemical inputs (i.e. reduced agrochemical residues).

Hemp can be grown on existing agricultural land (unlike most forestry projects), and can be included as part of a farm’s crop rotation with positive effects on overall yields of follow on crops. This, along with super versatility in diverse soil conditions and climates, makes hemp cultivation a viable and genuine potential.

The vast quantities of hemp derived products and raw materials created by large scale cultivation could replace many oil-based unsustainable products and materials, particularly in construction, locking in captured CO2 and creating secondary benefits to the global environment. In particular, hemp could be used to replace significant quantities of tree-derived products, allowing reduced use of existing tree populations, thus maintaining their CO2 uptake.

Hemp also produces much higher quantities of stronger and more versatile fibre than cotton, and many other fibre crops, which often have very high chemical residue and water footprints. Extra processing required by hemp is also at least partially offset by its recycling potential. {more}

Jack Herer has a $100,000 Challenge to Prove Us Wrong!

If all fossil fuels and their derivatives, as well as trees for paper and construction, were banned in order to save the planet, reverse the Greenhouse Effect and stop deforestation;

then there is only one known annually renewable natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world’s paper and textiles; meet all of the world’s transportation, industrial and home energy needs, while simultaneously reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil and cleaning the atmosphere all at the same time…

and that substance is the same one that has done it before . . .

CANNABIS HEMP!

Houses made of hemp coud help combat climate change!

Hemp and Lots of It, Could Be One Climate Solution

Hemp Is Not Pot: It’s the Economic Stimulus and Green Jobs Solution We Need

Hemp: A New Crop with New Uses for North America

While on the subject, let’s just legalize marijuana in every form. It’s time for the ‘war on drugs’ scam to end.

Climate Refugees – coming to a town near you?

Posted on

Leading up to the Copenhagen scam …

Western nations should open up borders to millions of ‘climate refugees’ says Bangladeshi minister

Migration is the only escape from rising tides of climate change in Bangladesh

The new migrants

Climaterefugees.com says …

There is a new phenomenon in the global arena called “Climate Refugees”. A climate refugee is a person displaced by climatically induced environmental disasters. Such disasters result from incremental and rapid ecological change, resulting in increased droughts, desertification, sea level rise, and the more frequent occurrence of extreme weather events such as hurricanes, cyclones, fires, mass flooding and tornadoes. All this is causing mass global migration and border conflicts. For the first time, the Pentagon now considers climate change a national security risk and the term climate wars is being talked about in war-room like environments in Washington D.C. {more}

If you look at the ‘friends’ of climatrefugees, you find many of the same groups funded by the Rothschild/Rockefeller/oligarch overseers that have been getting some media play lately and sucking in converts.

People have become displaced because of weather events throughout history. Katrina was our last major example. It happens. Most of us want to help.

But if the globalist agenda of the bankers and UN control and loss of US sovereignty through forced environmental ‘agreements’ actually gets pulled off, we are set up to being forced to take on millions of the ‘climate migrants.’

Another part of the plan is amnesty for illegal immigrants and an invitation for all of their family and friends to join them. Combine this with the ‘climate refugees’ and and we get to diversify our country more than ever.

Who’s going to benefit?