News for March 18, 2008
End of Nations - EU Takeover & the Lisbon Treaty:
J.P. Morgan Buys Bear in Fire Sale, As Fed Widens Credit to Avert Crisis The Wall Street Journal (March 17, 2008) - Pushed to the brink of collapse by the mortgage crisis, Bear Stearns Cos. agreed -- after prodding by the federal government -- to be sold to J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. for the fire-sale price of $2 a share in stock, or about $236 million. Bear Stearns had a stock-market value of about $3.5 billion as of Friday -- and was worth $20 billion in January 2007. But the crisis of confidence that swept the firm and fueled a customer exodus in recent days left Bear Stearns with a horrible choice: sell the firm -- at any price -- to a big bank willing to assume its trading obligations or file for bankruptcy. "At the end of the day, what Bear Stearns was looking at was either taking $2 a share or going bust," said one person involved in the negotiations. "Those were the only options." To help facilitate the deal, the Federal Reserve is taking the extraordinary step of providing as much as $30 billion in financing for Bear Stearns's less-liquid assets, such as mortgage securities that the firm has been unable to sell, in what is believed to be the largest Fed advance on record to a single company. Fed officials wouldn't describe the exact financing terms or assets involved. But if those assets decline in value, the Fed would bear any loss, not J.P. Morgan. The sale of Bear Stearns and Sunday night's move by the Fed to offer loans to other securities dealers mark the latest historic turns in what has become the most pervasive financial crisis in a generation. The issue is no longer whether it will yield a recession -- that seems almost certain -- but whether the concerted efforts of Wall Street and Washington can head off a recession much deeper and more prolonged than the past two, relatively mild ones.
Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin last week described the situation
as "uncharted waters," a view echoed privately by top government
officials. Those officials have been scrambling to come up with new tools
because the old ones aren't suited for this 21st-century crisis, in which
financial innovation has rendered many institutions not "too big too
fail," but "too interconnected to be allowed to fail suddenly."
Bear Stearns's sudden meltdown forced the federal government to come to
grips with the potential collapse of a major Wall Street institution for
the first time in a decade. In 1998, about a dozen firms, with encouragement
from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, provided a $3.6 billion bailout
of Long-Term Capital Management that kept the big hedge fund alive long
enough to liquidate its positions. Bear Stearns famously refused to participate
in that rescue. The scale of the financial system's troubles are even bigger
this time around. Since last summer, the Fed has lowered its target for
the federal-funds rate, charged on low-risk overnight loans between banks,
to 3% from 5.25%, and it is expected to cut the rate again this week. Last
week, the Fed said it would lend Wall Street as much as $200 billion in
exchange for a roughly equivalent amount of mortgage-backed securities.
'Israel threatened Syria with strike if Hizbullah attacks'
The Jerusalem Post
(March 15, 2008) - Israel has secretly warned
Syria that it may strike the country if Hizbullah attacks the Jewish state,
Reuters reported on Friday. In early February Hizbullah threatened Israel
with revenge following the assassination of the group's chief of operations,
Imad Mughniyeh. Israel has denied involvement in his death. According to
senior Israeli and European officials quoted by the news agency, later that
month Israel secretly conveyed a message to Damascus through a third
party that it would hold it accountable for any Hizbullah assault. "The
message was passed around late February, before the last round of fighting
in Gaza," an Israeli official said. "It has become clear to us
[that] Syria has to understand there is a price for its use of proxy terrorism,
especially as Damascus is itself a proxy - the long-arm of Iran." A
European source said the message made it clear that Syria could be targeted,
even if Hizbullah attacked from Lebanese soil. The sources said Israel was
mainly concerned that the terror organization would barrage the north with
rockets in the event of a large-scale operation in the Gaza Strip. Meanwhile
an unnamed British official told the news agency that any flare-up in the
north would be "a disaster." "The death of Mughniyeh [and]
the threatened Hizbullah retaliation does leave a specter of a wider regional
conflict," he said, adding that Israeli-Syrian peace talks under the
circumstances were unlikely. "There's an interest on both sides but
I think it's very difficult to move forward on it."
No One Can Separate Iran, Turkey - Ahmadinejad
Islamic Republic News Agency
(March 14, 2008) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
said here on Thursday that Iran and Turkey are two brotherly countries which
no one can separate them. He made the remarks in a meeting with his Turkish
counterpart President Abdullah Gul on the sidelines of the 11th Summit of
the Organization of the Islamic Conference which opened in the Senegalese
capital on Thursday. "We consider Development of Turkey as our own
development," the Iranian president noted. On danger of terrorism in
the region, he called for all-out cooperation among the regional states
to eradicate this menace. Referring to great potentials in both states,
he called for further expansion of economic ties between the two neighboring
states. President Ahmadinejad also urged removal of obstacles in the way
of joint investments by the two states. As to the latest developments in
the region, he said great developments have been taken place in the region
recently which necessitate regional cooperation to turn them to the benefit
of the regional nations. For his part, the Turkish president, said campaign
against terrorism would continue in his country. Referring to Iran-Turkey
good economic relations, he expressed his satisfaction with the recent visit
to Tehran of Turkish tradesmen and start of economic discussions between
the two sides. The Iranian president wound up his visit to Senegal and departed
for Tehran Friday morning to take part in the nationwide parliamentary election
which started a few hours ago in Iran.
Summit approves 'Union for the Mediterranean' Euractiv.com (March 14, 2008) - EU leaders have given the green light to a compromise, struck by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, to create a 'Union for the Mediterranean', an initiative aimed at upgrading the EU's relations with its neighbours from North Africa and the Middle East. The main focus of the new union will be on the following areas:
Sarkozy had originally envisioned the new Union as an exclusive club,
involving only the EU's Mediterranean countries and its neighbours but not
the EU as a whole. But this proposal attracted strong criticism, particularly
from Germany, which feared the plan could split the EU down the middle,
with the new union becoming a rival to the EU itself. In the end, Sarkozy
was forced to back down and agree to allow all 27 EU member states to participate
in this initiative (EurActiv 05/03/08). He also agreed to change the original
title of "Mediterranean Union" to "Union of the Mediterranean"
to counter fears that the new body would become a rival to the bloc. Germany
also prevailed by holding to its position that no new EU money beyond the
funds allocated for the Barcelona Process should be given to the new union,
countering Franco-Italian demands that the financing for the new body be
multiplied. Sarkozy announced his intention to seek additional funding from
the private sector, hoping for up to 14 billion euro. Another element of
the compromise relates to the Union's management structure, which will consist
of two directors coordinating cooperation between the EU and the partner
countries. One director is to come from the EU member states and the other
from a non-European Mediterranean country. Both will be appointed for two
years, supported by a 20-strong secretariat, to be located in a yet-to-be-determined
southern EU city. Barcelona and Marseille have been mentioned as potential
candidates, claimed Sarkozy, who denied having endorsed the French city.
The agreement also foresees bi-annual summit meetings between the EU and
its partner countries. Seen as a partial victory for Paris, the southern
EU nations will hold the first presidencies. more...
This appears to be a further strengthening of the Barcelona Process. Hans-Gert Pöttering, President of the European Parliament, said:
"It is important that a Mediterranean Union, whatever form it takes, should strengthen and further the Barcelona Process. There can be no question of establishing a Union which is in competition with the Barcelona Process or which even has its own institutional structure." He added that "all the member states and all the institutions of the European Union must be involved in this process, naturally this includes the European Parliament".
Here's a quote from another story:
"EU foreign policy Javier Solana told a press conference that the union was a "natural evolution of what was created in 1995." He was referring to the Barcelona Process which was launched in 1995 to promote economic, cultural and security cooperation and dialogue between EU member states and countries around the Mediterranean. ...The EU leaders in a statement said the Union will include the member states of the EU and the non-EU Mediterranean coastal states and be an upgrade of the Barcelona Process."
Over 20 Kassams pound western Negev, shattering calm
The Jerusalem Post
(March 13, 2008) - Approximately 25 Kassam
rockets hit the western Negev on Thursday, shattering a period of relative
calm during which the IDF refrained from conducting operations in the Gaza
Strip and Palestinian gunmen largely kept from launching attacks against
Israel. Three of the rockets landed in Sderot, one hitting a warehouse and
sending a woman into shock. The other rockets landed in open areas nearby.
After the start of the rocket barrage, the IAF launched pinpoint air strikes
against Kassam rocket launchers in northern Gaza. It was not immediately
known if anybody was wounded in the attacks. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility
for the latest round of attacks, saying that it was in retaliation for IDF
operations in the West Bank Wednesday which killed the senior-most Islamic
Jihad commander in Bethlehem, as well as four other Jihad operatives. Meanwhile,
following the operations, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades also declared that it
would no longer abide by an unofficial truce with Israel.
Israel to Hizbullah: Revenge Attack Could Mean War
Israel National News
(March 12, 2008) - Israel has recently warned
Hizbullah that it will not hesitate to retaliate with war for a large scale
attack on its citizens, Channel 10 – Nana news reported Wednesday. The Hizbullah
attack is expected in revenge for the killing of its operations officer
Imad Mughniyeh. Iranian TV vowed that Israel would face its "third
destruction" on the 40th day after Mughniyeh's death, which will occur
next Saturday. Israeli intelligence is picking up extensive "chatter"
between Hizbullah and Iran but still has not located specific intentions
to carry out a terror attack. Israeli military attachés worldwide have been
instructed to change their routine movements and retired military persons
were warned to exercise caution in their travels.
Could this threat of retaliation trigger an Israeli pre-emptive attack? I don't know, keep watching. There is also supposed to be a two-day Arab summit in Damascus starting March 29. There's currently some question as to whether Egypt or Saudi Arabia will be present there.
Keeping Europe safe Euro News
(March 12, 2008) - Video at link: As the EU
continues to expand, openness and greater security are the key subjects
for European ministers meeting in Slovenia. They are focusing on possible
new measures including fingerprinting, and collecting information on anyone
crossing Europe's borders, regardless of whether they are entering or leaving.
A vast and profitable single market fulfilling every investor's dreams:
that is the optimist's view of an enlarged Europe. But its critics say with
no internal borders, any terrorist can move around at will, from country
to country, and never be caught. EU Commissioner Franco Frattini says this
is about tighter internal security, offset against the problems of the visa
waiver agreements with the United States. This meeting builds on the
existing European Security Strategy which is a mirror image of a similar
arrangement in America. Both Europe and the US believe the world is
full of new dangers, and multilateral co-operation is the only way to keep
both continents as safe as possible.
International integration and cooperation is the key to bringing about global governance right under our noses without taking over nations through war in the traditional manner. In this way, for many once they realize what is going on it will be too late and the law will be, and already is, in the hands of the globalists who will give their power to the beast. For many in the world, this will be a logical progression of government and will make sense. To those who desire to obey the Bible or Torah, they will become enemies of the state in the future because of the Bible's claim as the sole Truth.
Syrian Defense Minister receives a Russian Military delegation
Syrian Arab News Agency
(March 11, 2008) - Defense Minister L.t. Gen.
Hassan Turkmani has received Gen.-Col. Aleksandr Nikolaevich Zelin, deputy
chief of the Russian Federation Air Forces and an accompanying delegation.
Talks during the meeting Monday dealt with the latest developments in the
region and means of enhancing cooperation between the two countries.
Allies of Syria and Iran Ready to Confront Israel
Naharet (March 10,
2008) - Political factions backed by Syria and Iran on Monday said
they are prepared to confront any Israeli attack on Lebanon and declared
support for the killing of eight students at a Jewish religious school in
Jerusalem. The self-labeled Lebanese Parties issued a statement after their
regular meeting at the offices in Sidon of Ousama Saad's Popular Nasserite
Organization claiming the United States has dispatched naval vessels to
the Mediterranean to "support the ruling majority." The statement
said the groups are "fully prepared and perfectly ready to confront
any Zionist aggression that leaders of the Zionist entity's criminal terror
could launch." It praised as "heroic" the killing of Jewish
religious students in Jerusalem, saying it was the "real and factual
response to Fascist-Zionist practices carried out by the enemy's army in
EU must boost
military capabilities in face of climate change
EU Observer (March
10, 2008) - The European Union should boost its civil and military
capacities to respond to "serious security risks" resulting from
catastrophic climate change expected this century, according to a joint
report from the EU's two top foreign policy officials. The EU and member
states should further build up their capabilities with regards to civil
protection, and civil and military crisis management and disaster response
instruments to react to the security risks posed by climate change, reads
a paper by EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and external relations
commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner. The seven-page paper, to be submitted
to EU leaders at a summit in Brussels later this week, warns of a range
of stark scenarios, in particular the threat of an intensified "scramble
for resources" – both energy and mineral – in the Arctic "as previously
inaccessible regions open up." The rapid melting of the polar ice caps
is seen as a great opportunity for far-northern economies, as the "increased
accessibility of the enormous hydrocarbon resources in the Arctic region"
mean new waterways and international trade routes open for business where
once there was only ice. But this does not come without certain hazards.
The report highlights the threat to Europe from Russia. "The resulting
new strategic interests are illustrated by the recent planting of the Russian
flag under the North Pole." Eco-migration: Additionally, the
report suggests that Europe will come under increasing pressure from so-called
eco-migration. "Europe must expect substantially increased migratory
pressure," says the report. "Populations that already suffer from
poor health conditions, unemployment or social exclusion are rendered more
vulnerable to the effects of climate change, which could amplify or trigger
migration within and between countries." The document notes that the
UN has predicted that there will be millions of environmental migrants by
2020, and warns that the pressure will not only come from beyond Europe's
borders, but that climate change "is also likely to exacerbate internal
migration with significant security consequences." Other worries include
water shortages and the consequent food price increases that result from
lower crop yields, all of which could lead to civil unrest, particularly
in the Middle East. This in turn puts pressure on energy security.
Keeping the peace International Herald Tribune
(March 10, 2008) - For months, for years,
we have been deeply distressed, yet powerless, with respect to the tragedy
in Darfur. Two weeks ago, despite the troubles in Chad, Europe gave itself
the means to protect the victims and to rebuild their villages in eastern
Chad. At the behest of France, and thanks to the efforts of our European
partners, the European Union - implementing a unanimous UN Security Council
resolution - launched its Eufor operation. There will finally be help and
comfort for women - who up to now were raped or killed as soon as they left
their camps - and for hungry children. This is no small achievement. I've
just returned from Goz Beida in eastern Chad, and I will never forget the
enthusiastic welcome the European soldiers received from displaced persons
and refugees. The launch of an autonomous EU operation in Africa, led by
an Irish general with a Polish deputy and bringing together troops from
some 15 countries, illustrates how far we have come in building a European
defense. It is now desired and supported by nations that until very recently
remained skeptical. We have been working to build a European defense since
the 1990s. The Europeans needed military
means commensurate with their political ambitions. How could we hope to
influence a crisis or negotiations without the means to back up our words? "The
Union must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible
military forces, the means to decide to use them, and a readiness to do
so, in order to respond to international crises," concluded
the Franco-British Saint-Malo Summit in 1998.
The European Security
and Defense Policy inscribed in the Lisbon Treaty is finally allowing us
to meet this need. In the future, if we wish to do so, the EU will
be able to fully assume its role on the international scene. No one can
deny that this is a major asset for peace in the world. The approximately
15 civilian and military operations that Europe has already conducted since
2003 in the Balkans, in Africa, in the Middle East, in Afghanistan and as
far away as Indonesia, largely attest to this. In each of them, the EU was
guided by a single ideal: to save lives, to avert war, and to work for reconstruction
and reconciliation when the international community had been unable to prevent
conflict. Each time we did so with a concern for effectiveness and pragmatism,
with or without direct support from the Americans.
Our vision of relations between
the EU and NATO is that they should be founded on this same pragmatism.
In some cases, the EU has used its own military means, as it did in Congo
in the past and is doing in Chad and the Central African Republic today.
In other situations - Bosnia, for example - the EU benefited from NATO support.
Now, in a growing number of crises, the
EU and NATO are deployed together on the ground. That is sufficient
to show that there is not competition but rather complementarity between
the two organizations. How could it be otherwise
when 21 of the 26 NATO allies are members of the EU, and 21 of the 27 EU
partners are members of NATO? Moreover, it is these individual nations
that decide on a case-by-case basis what is the most appropriate framework
for their actions. And it is they who supply
troops and equipment - there is no EU army, just as there is no NATO army.
And all the parties remain free. This very simple truth means that
European defense relies on the commitment of each state and that all may
do their share. It presumes that all European countries make the effort
to ensure that the security of all is no longer guaranteed or financed by
only a few. As France is one of the largest contributors to both EU and
NATO operations, it is in our interest, even more than in that of others,
for the two organizations to work more effectively together. The positions
expressed by President Nicolas Sarkozy last fall are clear: A tireless promoter
of European defense, France is at the same time a key member of NATO, whose
forces it has commanded on several occasions, particularly in Kosovo and
Afghanistan. Our new approach to NATO is not an alignment but rather a strengthened
European dynamic. Some claim that the United
States remains opposed to a European defense, as it would weaken NATO. This
claim no longer appears to be true. Recent statements by high-ranking U.S.
officials in Paris and London indicate that Washington - aware of the challenges
we must face together - acknowledges the necessary complementarity of the
two organizations. Trust is built over time and through reciprocity:
Our openness to the United States and American support for the EU autonomously
assuming its responsibilities shall advance hand in hand. European defense
and Europe's anchorage in the Atlantic alliance are two facets of the same
defense and security policy, pursued in the name of the values we share.
The EU presidency, which France will assume on July 1, must allow us to
open new perspectives in the field of security and defense, to fight against
terrorism and proliferation more effectively, to reinforce our energy security,
and to prepare the implementation of permanent structured cooperation open
to all 27 member states, as made possible by the new treaty. We will resolutely
strive toward that aim. We are already preparing ourselves under the presidency
of our Slovenian friends. This progress will give full meaning to the renewal
of our relationship with NATO.
The prophesied war on the saints is coming and I really feel we are watching the international cooperation now whose power will be given over the the man of sin and the head and voice of Europe. To those that don't understand the ultimate end of this, it may sound good because who doesn't want peace and security? But who will be in charge of this collection of cooperating armies and who will become the enemy of the state? As Richard Peterson pointed out in his posting on the Alliance of Civilizations,
The final report of the United Nations’ Alliance of Civilizations (AoC) initiative was released last month. In addition to its usual goal of combating exclusivist ideology, the report contains some interesting elements:
The "terrorists" and "destroyers of civilizations" will become Christians and Jews that do not give up their fundamental beliefs in one True God and instead worship the man of sin who works signs and lying wonders. Those who refuse to go along with the New World Order will become the enemy. More on the Treaty of Lisbon.
foreign minister - who should talk to Medvedev?
EU Observer (March
7, 2008) - Listening to an analysis of the Russian presidential election,
I heard the interviewer ask who would now be handling Russian foreign policy?
Would it be the President - the newly elected ex-Chairman of the Russian
state energy giant, Gazprom, whose name was lost to Hillary Clinton the
other day - Mr Dmitry Medvedev? Or would it be that prime ministerial power
behind, under, over, around, and beside the President's throne - Mr Vladimir
Putin? The government spokesman muttered something safe, as spokesmen are
wont to do. Under our constitution, he said, the President deals with foreign
policy while the Prime Minister (that is Mr Putin) deals with domestic matters.
We shall have to wait to see what happens in practice but only the bright
and naively optimistic can surely imagine that the Putin finger will, not
only be in every domestic pie, but on every foreign policy trigger as well.
...But before we Europeans shake our heads and tut-tut (and after all the
congratulations to Mr Mevedev and the hoping that his election will usher
in a new, warm period in EU-Russian relations, there is a very great deal
to tut-tut at in Russian politics and not only Mr Putin's flagrant warping
of the Constitution and suppression of all viable opposition) we could well
turn the question back on ourselves and ponder who, in practice, will
actually be responsible for foreign policy, on our side of the fence so
to speak, in the post-Lisbon Treaty World of 2009? Who will have the
job of dealing face to face with Mr Putin and Mr Mevedev over energy security,
border control, trade, missile sites, nuclear installations, climate change,
extradition matters, exploitation of the Arctic, the Caucasus, Serbia, the
United Nations, and so on? Who will handle the relations between democratic
Europe and despotic Russia; between two nuclear armed continents that share
a long border? Will it be Europe's Foreign Minister designate under the
Lisbon Treaty, Or will it be the President of the European Council?
...In the absence of a coherent European foreign policy (look how split
Europe is over Kosovo, over US missile defence bases, over gas pipelines)
Russia naturally finds it easy to play one country off against another.
Nothing unites us quite so well as our disunity. But a strong European
foreign policy will require leadership and diplomatic skills of the highest
order, both to secure the policy at home and then to put it across abroad.
As the Constitutional Convention of 2003 foresaw, Europe does need someone
to speak with both personal and constitutional authority on Foreign Affairs.
Should this person be the (so-not-called) Foreign Minister - or should it
be Europe's President, the man or woman whose task it will be to coral the
member states, pushing the agenda along in the manner of someone first among
equals? At present, of course, there is no EU President as such. The
Lisbon Treaty creates a new and, as yet, undefined post. Foreign Policy
is split between the High Representative (Mr Solana) who works for the member
states, and the External Relations Commissioner, Mrs Ferrero-Waldner.
These two posts will be combined into something which, in practice, will
be a quasi-Secretary of State role. Mr Solana (for he is the favourite)
will then have a foot in both camps. But a Secretary of State
is a Secretary of State. He or she acts on behalf of the head of state.
Now the European Union is not a state; it is a partnership of states that
wish, ostensibly, to align their foreign policies to achieve goals and influence
which they could not expect to achieve, in this global world, by acting
alone. But if the partnership is to find a voice and then speak with authority,
it needs a strong President. ...Vladimir Putin may have been prepared to
bend the constitution and engage in practices so anti-democratic that election
observers feel they cannot operate in Russia, so great are the restrictions
placed upon them. But Europeans beware! Our own democratic credentials at
the Continental level are wafer thin; some would say non-existent. Europe's
President will be appointed; not even indirectly elected. As will be the
Foreign Minister. Are their democratic credentials, therefore, any better
than those of Mr Medvedev and Mr Putin? If our enlarged Europe is to pursue
a united and successful foreign policy, she must not fall into the Russian
trap of becoming another ‘sovereign democracy.' Criticising Russia here
may be another case of pots and kettles. more...
AIM Says Media Cover-Up Obama’s Socialist-Oriented Global Tax Bill
Accuracy In Media
(February 13, 2008) - Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid disclosed
today that a hugely expensive bill called the "Global Poverty Act,"
sponsored by Democratic Senator Barack Obama, was quickly passed by the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday and could result in the
imposition of a global tax on the United States. Kincaid said that the
major media's cover-up of the bill, which makes levels of U.S. foreign
aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations, demonstrates
the media's desire to see Senator Obama elected to the presidency. In
a column posted on the AIM web site, Kincaid noted that Senator Joe Biden,
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was trying to rush Obama's "Global
Poverty Act" (S. 2433) through his committee without hearings. The
legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national
product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845
billion over and above what the U.S. already spends. It was scheduled
for a Thursday vote but was moved up a day, to Wednesday, and rushed through
by voice vote. Kincaid learned, however, that conservative Senators have
now put a "hold" on the legislation, in order to prevent it from
being rushed to the floor for a full Senate vote. The House version (H.R.
1302) was suddenly brought up on the House floor last September 25 and was
passed by voice vote. House Republicans were caught off-guard, unaware that
the pro-U.N. measure committed the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions
of dollars. Kincaid's column notes that the official in charge of making
nations comply with the U.N. Millennium Goals, which are prominently highlighted
in the Obama bill, says a global tax will be necessary to force American
taxpayers to provide the money.
Report launch for "Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World"
Center for Strategic & International Studies
(CSIS) (January 10, 2008) - The CSIS
Europe and International Security Programs, in partnership with the Noaber
Foundation, hosted the launch of "Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain
World: Renewing the Transatlantic Partnership," a new report authored
by Gen. Dr. Klaus Naumann (Germany), Gen. John Shalikashvili (United States),
Field Marshal The Lord Inge (United Kingdom), Adm. Jacques Lanxade (France),
and Gen. Henk van den Breemen (the Netherlands), with Benjamin Bilski and
Douglas Murray. The event also featured commentary by Robert E. Hunter,
former U.S. Ambassador to NATO. In the report, these five distinguished
military leaders consider the complexity of emerging global security challenges
and the capabilities of existing institutions to address them. They conclude
that dealing with these challenges requires a new transatlantic grand strategy
that ensures a better integration of military and non-military capabilities.
They argue that a transformed NATO, working closely with the European
Union, should serve as the core element of a future security architecture.
The group advances a number of near- and longer-term proposals to enhance
NATO and transatlantic unity of effort. They advocate replacing the two-pillar
concept of U.S.-European relations with an alliance of democracies ranging
from Finland to Alaska.
AUDIO (02:12:47 mp3) |
This integration of government in the name of peace and security is precisely what will lead to global governance that is the New World Order. There are "emergency powers" built into EU law given to implement control of government infrastructure for the purpose of keeping peace. With NATO and America's own emergency powers in the Patriot Act, how quickly could these integrated forces be combined and controlled by the center of the circles of power? Given what the Bible says about a global dictator given power by Lucifer for 3½ years and submitted to by all the world who are not written in the Lamb's book of life, these kinds of moves combined with the Biblical look at the timing of the end catch my attention.
“Be not overcome
of evil, but overcome evil with good.” Romans 12:21
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work herein is archived under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in reviewing the included information for personal use, non-profit research and educational purposes only. Ref.