globalists

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 

Advertisements

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.

Al Gore opens new ‘Cap & Trade Scheme’ office in Nashville

Posted on

https://i1.wp.com/green-blog.org/media/images/2008/06/al-gore.jpg
Send me your money and I’ll change the way the Earth has been for the past BILLIONS of YEARS and the next billion years.”

Volunteers to lobby for cap-and-trade

The activist arm of former Vice President Al Gore‘s nonprofit Alliance for Climate Protection has opened a Nashville office as part of a growing ripple of volunteers nationwide advocating a limit on greenhouse gases.

Called Repower America-Tennessee, the local branch says it’s out to show the public that a clean energy economy will help solve the problem of climate change, among other things.

The Alliance for Climate Protection just started a television advertising campaign with a spot called “Family Values,” talking about benefits of clean energy.The Tennessee group, which says it has 25,000 volunteers, is part of a grass-roots lobbying effort to try to pass the American Clean Energy and Security Act. It includes a cap-and-trade system for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that come from coal-fired power plants, vehicles and other sources. {more – The Tennessean}

‘Clean energy.’ That’s a buzzword phrase that’s hard to argue with. It’s what we all want.
But why should a handful of people make tens of millions, potentially billions, of dollars off of ‘cap and trade’ schemes. Altruism is not what it used to be. Save the world but make Gore a billionaire. His message is worth it ‘eh.

Al Gore’s personal worth when he left office was approximately $2 million. Today, with his cap and trade investments {along with other perks from rolling over in the 2000 election} he’s worth $100 million. Wait till this rape of the American consumer is in full swing, Gore will make billions to further his ideals. {that is if the American people can afford it}

What!! Now there’s a potential for tons of money to be made from controlling the .eco domain?

Al Gore and Mikhail Gorbachev battle for control of .eco domain

Al Gore, the former American vice-president, is at loggerheads with Mikhail Gorbachev, the Russian ex-president, over the rights to control a new “green” internet domain that could be worth billions.

The right to operate .eco — the green equivalent to .co.uk or .com — could become available as early as next year after efforts to extend the web’s reach by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann), the body that oversees the internet’s structure.

The potential awarding of the coveted domain — a right that comes with a $100,000-plus (£60,700) price tag — has sparked a landgrab that has the two former statesmen pitted against each other.

Mr Gore has lent his support to an alliance called Dot Eco LLC, while Mr Gorbachev is indirectly linked to Big Room, a Canadian alliance, through the support of Green Cross International, the Swiss-based ethical and social causes charity that he founded.

In an attempt to secure the moral high ground, Big Room promises that, if it wins the contest, it will donate a quarter of the sales that it generates selling domain names to environmental and social causes.

Big Room is also pledging to ensure that it will award a domain name only to groups that provide proof of their green credentials, thus making .eco into a cyber environmental kitemark.

Trevor Bowden, a co-founder of Big Room, said: “Domain names are uniquely able to fight for our planet because they are global, accessible from any web browers, anytime, anywhere and already used by millions.

“.eco will open up a whole new suite of domains that will make it easier for ecofriendly businesses, organisations, and people to find each other and brand themselves online.”

He declined to say how much he would charge companies to use a .eco domain name if Big Room was successful, but added that the price would be “competitive with other internet names that are on the market”.

Last month Mr Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection released a green paper containing its pitch for ownership of the domain. The group said that it was “committed to operating .eco as a tight, customer-focused, well-run business in order to use our revenues to help the environment”.{more – Times Online}

The UN’s Ban Ki-moon is riding the Gore train with statements of ‘do it or die.’

“As we move toward Copenhagen in December, we must “Seal a Deal” on climate change that secures our common future.

We have just four months. Four months to secure the future of our planet.” {more}

Four months to save the world…just in time for winter and those high utility bills. We’ll be cutting back…how about you Al?

Harold Koh’s Transnationalism

Posted on

Meet Harold Koh, another Obama nominee who is well versed in the globalist/banker world ‘vision’ of control of the slaves.

https://i0.wp.com/www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0409/HaroldKohImage8.jpg “International law should be “brought down” into domestic law around the world.”

Legal Advisor Nominee Advocates Global Gun Control

Last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Harold Koh, a former Dean of the Yale Law School, to be Legal Advisor to the State Department. One of the many concerns with Koh is his belief that international organizations should be empowered to regulate the Second Amendment right to own a firearm.

On April 2, 2002, Koh gave a speech to the Fordham University School of Law titled “A World Drowning in Guns” where he mapped out his vision of global gun control. Koh advocated an international “marking and tracing regime.” He complained that “the United States is now the major supplier of small arms in the world, yet the United States and its allies do not trace their newly manufactured weapons in any consistent way.” Koh advocated a U.N.-governed regime to force the U.S. “to submit information about their small arms production.”

Koh supports the idea that the U.N. should be granted the power “to standardize national laws and procedures with member states of regional organizations.” Koh feels that U.S. should “establish a national firearms control system and a register of manufacturers, traders, importers and exporters” of guns to comply with international obligations. This regulatory regime would allow U.N. members such as Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and Iran to have a say in what type of gun regulations are imposed on American citizens. {source}

___________________________________

A World Drowning in Laws

from the New Ledger

by Ted Bromund

The Administration’s nominee for Legal Adviser to the State Department, Harold Koh, the Dean of Yale Law School, has come under widespread criticism for his advocacy of legal transnationalism. This is the belief that international law should, in Koh’s words, be “brought down” into domestic law around the world.

The problem today, Koh argues, is that a few states – pre-eminently the U.S. – are obstructing this process. Koh’s favorite way to criticize the U.S. for this is by pointing to the Declaration of Independence’s assertion that the U.S. should pay “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.” Koh claims that “decent respect” requires supporting anything concerned with human rights that a majority of the world’s states have endorsed, and even requires U.S. courts to draw on the decisions of foreign courts and on treaties the U.S. has not signed.

As Koh put it in late 2008:

The next President should recall the words of our founders in the Declaration of Independence to pay ‘decent respect to the opinions of mankind’ by supporting, not attacking, the institutions and treaties of international human rights law.

Or, in 2002:

[In] an interdependent world, United States courts should not decide cases without paying ‘a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.’

But here, in words that should be familiar to all Americans, is what the Declaration says:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The Declaration’s purpose was to tell the world the U.S. had a right to independence. The Founders believed it was necessary to pay “decent respect” by explaining why this was so. To transform this reasoned assertion of self-government and sovereignty into an argument that judgments in foreign courts should guide American judges, or that the U.S. should sign treaties simply because other states have done so is, at best, specious and distorted.

Koh has not been shy about expressing his transnationalist convictions. Indeed, one of the most troubling things about him is his willingness to lump “responsible lawyers, scholars, and human rights activists” together, as though they should be regarded as inseparable and equally authoritative. In his 2002 Robert L. Levine Distinguished Lecture at Fordham University, on “A World Drowning in Guns,” he argued that one of the most pressing issues facing the world is the need for, in his words, “the global regulation of small arms.” Koh is not alone in this belief: it is embodied in the long-running campaign for a U.N. treaty on the subject.

This campaign has recently born fruit. On October 31, 2008, the UN General Assembly voted by 145 to 2 against, with 18 abstentions, in favor of a resolution supporting the negotiation of an arms trade treaty. The U.S. cast one of the negative votes. The passage of the resolution resulted in the creation of a working group charged with the eventual drafting of a treaty to create common standards for the international import, export, and transfer of small arms. Koh’s views on global arms regulation therefore bear directly on a question he will be called to advise the State Department upon if he is confirmed by the Senate.

Koh is strongly in favor of building what he describes as a “global gun control regime.” His starting point is that small arms and light weapons – essentially, any weapon that can be carried – are responsible for most of the deaths in the world’s wars. This is entirely correct. Unfortunately, that is where his realism ends.

Koh believes that small arms are responsible for “dramatically fuel[ing] and inflam[ing] armed conflicts.” This theory has been popular among liberals since the 1920s and the campaign against the ‘Merchants of Death’ who supposedly caused the First World War. But the argument has little to recommend it: wars, and the accumulation of arms, are the product of underlying political rivalries, not their cause. As Koh acknowledges, the Rwandan genocide was carried out with machetes: if the hatreds are there, weapons will be found.

But for Koh, the only relevant question is how to bring global gun control into existence. As throughout his work, he called for aid in 2002 from a “transnational legal process.” This process begins with liberal NGOs who create networks around a problem as they define it, and develop so-called norms of behavior. Governments then create a “law-declaring forum” that embodies these norms and operates at a global level, and a “broader interpretive community” crystallizes to interpret and promote the norms in “a variety of settings.” This “community,” which includes U.S. judges, then draws on the interpretations it has fashioned to remake law and practice in the American setting.

The crucial step in this process is the interpretation of the norms, because it is those interpretations – provided by that supportive “community” – that decide what domestic law means. In this view, international law is not bottom up: it does not reflect what democratic political processes within nations decide to accept. Rather, it is top down: it is born of transnational advocacy, and then “internalized” by “responsible lawyers, scholars, and human rights activists” to refashion domestic society. From this point of view, international law is a set of norms that exists to be interpreted by liberal law school professors in the U.S. This turns international law into an expression of aspirations, not of democratically-sanctioned practice: build it, Koh implies, and the world will be forced to come along.

This is not a vision that pays “due respect” to the right of self-government. On the contrary, it has no patience with the idea that law should be created solely by the duly-elected representatives of the people and interpreted according to the Constitution. As a result, for example, Koh’s claim that the U.S. could support global gun control “without committing itself to a regime that would affront legitimate Second Amendment concerns” is meaningless. Like the rest of the Constitution, the “legitimate” concerns inherent in the Second Amendment are up for transnational redefinition. But Koh is right about one thing: the process he describes has driven the campaign behind the arms trade treaty.

Yet that campaign, for reasons that reveal the practical fallacies of the transnationalist vision, is a dangerous one. The General Assembly’s resolution calls for the treaty to create “common international standards” for the sale, purchase, and transfer of arms. more

Awww….Al Gore fails

Posted on

https://i1.wp.com/imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2009/04/10/bu-techblog11_ph_0499986651_part1.jpg “I’ll steal your money one way or another.”

Gore TV is having a hard time these days. The IPO plan has hit a snag. There’s not enough useful idiots with money to invest in his child propaganda channel.

Don’t feel too sorry for Al. He has plenty of other schemes up his sleeve. The one where he will really make his money is the carbon tax, cap and trade, carbon credit scam and pretty soon it will have the legitimacy of law behind it.

Gore’s Current Media scraps plan for IPO in face of weak economy

Current Media, the San Francisco cable television company co-founded by former Vice President Al Gore, canceled plans for an initial public offering on Friday, citing the bad economy.

The withdrawal comes 14 months after Current, the parent of Current TV, filed for a $100 million IPO that would have funded the company’s expansion and opened the door to a potential windfall for Gore and his partner, CEO Joel Hyatt {born Joel Hyatt Zylberberg}.

Ending the IPO quest wasn’t a surprise given the lack of investor appetite for new public companies amid the economic downturn.

Current TV, a channel programmed with short clips and aimed at a younger audience, reaches 58 million homes globally. The company is trying to bridge cable and Internet by broadcasting professional video alongside user-generated clips as a sort of YouTube on cable. {source}

I took a look at Gore’s Current TV web site. Just as I thought, there were the headlines you would expect from a social engineering tool for children, Vermont Considers Legalizing Teen “Sexting” and Why We Love Twitter.

But the big surprise was the the link to Danish Scientist on TV: Nano-thermite Behind Collapse of WTC Buildings on 9/11, Not Planes.

I have a hard time believing that Gore is a ‘truther.’ Either he has no control over his site or certain information is being put out there as preparation for things to come. Are the kiddies soon to learn that the official story is a lie? And what will be the new ‘official’ story?

Call me a cynic, but anything associated with Gore is a psyop. There’s someone behind the curtain.

A Noble prize winner wouldn’t lie to us, would he?

New Developments – New World Order

Posted on

Photobucket

CNN and Lou Dobbs put the message right up front in a segment on Gordon Brown’s visit with Obama, March 3, 2009.