America In The News

Worker dies at Long Island Wal-Mart after being trampled in Black Friday stampede New York Daily News (November 28, 2008) - A Wal-Mart worker died early Friday after an "out-of-control" mob of frenzied shoppers smashed through the Long Island store's front doors and trampled him, police said. The Black Friday stampede plunged the Valley Stream outlet into chaos, knocking several employees to the ground and sending others scurrying atop vending machines to avoid the horde. When the madness ended, 34-year-old Jdimytai Damour was dead and four shoppers, including a woman eight months pregnant, were injured.

"He was bum-rushed by 200 people," said Wal-Mart worker Jimmy Overby, 43. "They took the doors off the hinges. He was trampled and killed in front of me. "They took me down, too ... I didn't know if I was going to live through it. I literally had to fight people off my back," Overby said.

Damour, a temporary maintenance worker from Jamaica, Queens, was gasping for air as shoppers continued to surge into the store after its 5 a.m. opening, witnesses said. Even officers who arrived to perform CPR on the trampled worker were stepped on by wild-eyed shoppers streaming inside, a cop at the scene said. "They pushed him down and walked all over him," Damour's sobbing sister, Danielle, 41, said. "How could these people do that? "He was such a young man with a good heart, full of life. He didn't deserve that."

Damour's sister said doctors told the family he died of a heart attack. His cousin, Ernst Damour, called the circumstances "completely unacceptable." "His body was a stepping bag with so much disregard for human life," Ernst Damour, 37, said. "There has to be some accountability."

Roughly 2,000 people gathered outside the Wal-Mart's doors in the predawn darkness. Chanting "push the doors in," the crowd pressed against the glass as the clock ticked down to the 5 a.m. opening. Sensing catastrophe, nervous employees formed a human chain inside the entrance to slow down the mass of shoppers. It didn't work. The mob barreled in and overwhelmed workers.

"They were jumping over the barricades and breaking down the door," said Pat Alexander, 53, of Crown Heights, Brooklyn. "Everyone was screaming. You just had to keep walking on your toes to keep from falling over." After the throng toppled Damour, his fellow employees had to fight through the crowd to help him, police said.

Witness Kimberly Cribbs said shoppers acted like "savages." "When they were saying they had to leave, that an employee got killed, people were yelling, 'I've been on line since Friday morning!'" Cribbs said. "They kept shopping."

When paramedics arrived, Damour's condition was grave. "They were pumping his chest, trying to bring him back, and there was nothing," said Dennis Smokes, 36, a Wal-Mart worker. Damour was taken to Franklin Hospital and pronounced dead at 6:03 a.m.

Hank Mullany, president of Wal-Mart's northeast division, said the company took extraordinary safety precautions. "We expected a large crowd this morning and added additional internal security, additional third-party security, additional store associates and we worked closely with the Nassau County police," he said in a statement. "We also erected barricades. Despite all of our precautions, this unfortunate event occurred." The 28-year-old pregnant woman and three other shoppers were taken to area hospitals with minor injuries, police said.

In a news conference after the incident, Nassau County police spokesman Lt. Michael Fleming described the crowd as "out of control" and the scene as "utter chaos." He said Wal-Mart did not have enough security onhand. Fleming said criminal charges were possible but that it would be difficult to identify individual shoppers in surveillance videos. Items on sale at the Wal-Mart store included a $798 Samsung 50-inch Plasma HDTV, a Bissel Compact Upright Vacuum for $28 and Men's Wrangler Tough Jeans for $8.

The Long Island store reopened at 1 p.m. and was packed within minutes. "I look at these people's faces and I keep thinking one of them could have stepped on him," said one employee. "How could you take a man's life to save $20 on a TV?"
| Signs of the Times | America | Economic Crisis |

The Bible said in the end times the love of many would grow cold and this along with other stories are prime examples of this. Now imagine if the financial situation gets worse and it isn't just good deals for Christmas, but survival with food and water? What about the mark of the beast? How many will gladly accept the new system if not doing so means not being able to buy or sell? True this is only one place and time, but there are much harder times coming according to scripture and the attitudes expressed above are even more frightening in these conditions. With a "look out for number one culture," how quickly will many turn? The attitude behind this and other less deadly stampedes is, "I want to get that great deal before it's taken by everyone else." At what cost?

Many care more about themselves than others. In contrast, Yeshua came to give His life for the whole world, John 15:9-21, and this self-centeredness shows a spirit of antichrist - or opposition to the spirit of Christ. We all battle against our human nature, let us continue to look more at the life of Christ and model ourselves after His example of selfless love for others. This is part of our testimony in a selfish world. It is how we are a light in a dark world and how we are set apart from the surroundings because much of the world is not about acting selflessly for others. Let us be a reflection of God's love for His glory.

Hurricane Season Blows Away Records Associated Press (November 27, 2008) - The 2008 Atlantic hurricane season, which ends Sunday, seemed to strike the United States and Cuba as if on redial, setting at least five weather records for persistence and repeatedly striking the same areas. "It was pretty relentless in a large number of big strikes," said Georgia Tech atmospheric sciences professor Judith Curry. "We just didn't have the huge monster where a lot of people lost their lives, but we had a lot of damage, a lot of damage."

Data on death and damage are still being calculated, but the insurance industry recorded at least $10.6 billion in losses this hurricane season. That includes $8.1 billion in insured damage from Hurricane Ike, which ranked as the seventh most expensive catastrophe in the United States history, according to Mike Barry of the Insurance Information Institute in New York.

Three records showed the hurricane season's relentlessness. Six consecutive named storms — Dolly, Edouard, Fay, Gustav, Hanna and Ike — struck the U.S. mainland, something that had not been seen in recorded history. It's also the first time a major hurricane, those with winds of at least 111 mph, formed in five consecutive months, July through November. And Bertha spun about for 17 days, making it the longest lived storm in July.

Two records involve storms hitting the same places repeatedly. Rain-heavy Fay was the only storm to hit the same state — Florida — four times, leaving heavy flood damage in its wake. A record three major hurricanes smacked Cuba: Gustav, Ike and Paloma.

Upper air currents helped storms get bigger and focused them into a few places — Cuba and the U.S. Gulf Coast — said Gerry Bell, the top hurricane forecaster at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Climate Prediction Center. Five of the six storms that hit the United States this season struck the Gulf Coast. And that repeat-tracking of storms to the same place — and with it increased likelihood of landfall — is typical of years when the hurricane season is on overdrive, like this year, Bell said.

This year wasn't the busiest ever. It merely tied for the fourth most named storms in history with 16. The 2005 season shattered all records with 28 tropical storms and hurricanes. The 2008 season was busy largely because of the natural cycles of high and low storm activity that last anywhere from 25 to 40 years. "This one started in 1995. Based on the historical record, we're right in the middle of an active era," Bell said. An average season has 11 named storms, six of which become hurricanes. This year there were eight hurricanes, of which five - Bertha, Gustav, Ike, Omar and Paloma — became major hurricanes. Three of those — Gustav, Ike and Paloma — made "extreme" Category 4, where winds have to be at least 131 mph. "That's a lot," Bell said. "But it's typical of a very active season such as what we saw."

Curry said this year's large number of Category 4 storms indicates a "signal" of global warming. But Bell said the science is not quite clear on that. At the National Hurricane Center one thing is clear. Meteorologist and spokesman Dennis Feltgen said: "We're glad it's over."
| America | Earth Changes |

The Famine of 2009 Daily Kos (November 27, 2008) - Last week I received a very concerned call from South Dakota farmer and agronomist Bryan Lutter. "Neal, we're out of propane!" I figured this was personal distress – he and his family farm over three square miles of land and I know this has been a tough year for many people. He promptly corrected my misconception when I tried to console him. "No, everybody is out, all three grain elevators, we can't get fuel for the bins, and we're coming in real wet this year."

There are equally dramatic issues due to the bankruptcy of Verasun and the apparent insolvency of the nation's largest private crop insurance program. Payments that would have come in June or July of a normal year are still not dispersed at the end of November and this has grim implications for next year's crop.

I started digging into the details and unless I'm badly mistaken people are going to be starving in 2009 over causes and conditions being set down right now. It's a complex, interlocking issue, and I hope I've done a good job explaining it below the fold ...

(I just submitted my personal story and a vision for the nation at change.gov - I sure hope someone is listening over there.)

The Dakotas have faced fuel restrictions for at least the last two years. They're at the far end of the pipeline network and after complete outages in 2007 everyone orders their diesel well in advance. Vehicle tanks are kept fuller and the on farm tanks are not allowed to run low. Gasoline supply dynamics have changed as well; British Petroleum shuttered three hundred stations in the area, citing the high cost of trucking fuel to the locations from the pipeline terminals.

This year propane is in short supply. Rural homes in that part of the world are heated with propane and the grain elevator and on farm drying require it to bring corn moisture down for storage. There is no sense that homes will go cold this year, at least not due to supply issues; the grain drying season is a short period of intense usage that will draw to an end within the next week. Pray to whatever higher power you recognize that the unheard of figure of 18% of the crop still in the field is brought in before the snow flies.

The Dakotas were very wet this year and the corn is coming in at 22% moisture. A more usual number would be 18% and for long term storage it must be dried to 14% to avoid spoilage. That doubling in the moisture reduction needed, an 8% drop instead of 4%, pretty much doubles the amount of propane used. Right now the harvest is at a dead stop. What can be dried has been and what is left can't even be combined without the fuel to make it ready for storage; it would all just spoil in the bin if put up wet.

I wondered if this was a spot problem in that particular part of South Dakota, but Bryan said it was widespread – he'd talked to farmers as far away as St. Louis and they were reporting similar issues.I made a few calls to try to figure out how broad the problem was. I ended up talking to Rollin Tiefenthaler at fuel dealer Al's Corner in Carroll, Iowa about the issue.

The Iowa crop comes matures earlier and is brought in earlier, so that is done, but he confirms that propane is being trucked long distances because local terminals have outages. They did have one farmer's cooperative run out of propane and they scrambled to get them enough, but in general it wasn't a problem. These are plains cooperatives, operations with thirty employees, dozens of vehicles, and tens of millions of dollars in inventory and commodities under management, so one running out of fuel is a problem that would affect a whole county.

Diesel has been a bigger concern for them – instead of the thirty mile drive to the Magellan pipeline terminal in Milford they're running as far as Des Moines or Omaha, each about two hours away, and the added time and cost for running more trucks is eating them alive.

The die has already been cast in the Dakotas, they'll either get the crop in or they won't. If they don't and it winters in the field they not only lose 40% of the yield on that ground they lose 20% of next year's yield in soy beans. The corn makes an excellent snow fence, trapping drifts six feet high, and they're slow to clear in the spring. The farmers have to wait until it's dry enough to plant before they can finish bringing in the corn crop, then they plant their soy, and that delay cuts into the growing degree days available for the soy beans and thusly we see the yield drop.

A few of you might not be from farm state and thusly won't know the normal work flow. The corn crop is still partially in the field, but the soy beans are already done. Soy matures and dries earlier, so it gets tended first. There would never been an instance of soy being left to overwinter just based on crop timing and I don't think the small, thin stocks with relatively fragile pods would prove to be terribly durable under snow banks.

I wrote earlier about the famine potential we face due to the underfertilization of the wheat crop. Wheat that gets enough ammonia is 14% protein, if it is unfertilized closer to 8%, and that 43% reduction in total plant protein is going to cause unimaginable suffering in places like Egypt, where half of the population gets subsidized bread. Global end of season per capita wheat stocks have been about seventy pounds my entire life, except the last three years where they've dropped to only forty pounds. One mistake in this area and one of the four horsemen gets loose, certainly dragging his brothers along behind. That mistake may already have been made in the lack of wheat fertilization this fall.

The fall nitrogen fertilizer application has been 10% of the norm. A typical year would see 50% put on in the fall and 50% in the spring. During fertilizer application season the 3,100 mile national ammonia pipeline network runs flat out and the far points on the network experience low flow both fall and spring. If they try to jam 90% of the fertilization into a period of time when the system can only flow a little more than half of the need much of our cropland will go without in the spring of 2009.

Finances as much as weather are the issue with regards to fertilization this fall. Crop prices have fallen to half of what they were, ammonia prices have dropped but ammonia suppliers here, receiving 75% of their supply from overseas, still have product in their storage tanks purchase at the historical highs last spring and summer.

When farmers plant they record the acreage and they purchase crop insurance - $20 to $40 an acre depending on the crop. If they have a failure they file a claim, an adjustor contacts them, and they get a check to cover the deficit. Some of this runs through the U.S. Department of Agriculture and some of it is through private insurers.

My conversations with farmers earlier this week lead me to believe that the largest private insurer, Des Moines Iowa's Rain and Hail Agricultural Insurance may be insolvent. Flooding claims from this spring were filed and payments would have typically been received by the end of June or beginning of July. It's now the end of November and payments are not being dispersed. Individual farmers are told there was something wrong with their paperwork, but this is nonsense – some of these guys have been farming thirty years and they all didn't forget how to fill out a simple form all at the same time. Iowa did have its second five hundred year flood in a decade and a half this spring which certainly has something to do with the situation, but I suspect Wall Street's sticky fingers got hold of Rain & Hail's assets, just as they've done to every pension fund and state run municipal investment pool.

So, we're already facing what Bryan Lutter calls "the mother of all fertilizer shortages" next spring and on top of that local banks won't lend to farmers.

The local bank was quite willing to lend to a farmer on a crop despite the weather related risks just like they'd lend on a car despite the driving risks. So long as the asset was insured the risk was deemed manageable. There were sure to be losses here and there, but they'd be administrative hassles associated with well known risks. If the auto insurance companies were viewed as untrustworthy no one would be getting a car without 100% down at the dealership and the same rule is now in effect for farmers.

Farmers without financing can't afford nitrogen fertilizer at $1,000 a ton, which translates to $100 an acre at current application rates. They won't be paying $300 for a bag of 80,000 hybrid corn kernels, again a $100 per acre expense. The average farm size in Iowa is four hundred acres and planting to harvesting would run about $120,000.

This looks incredibly bad. Bryan and I are both puzzled as to why the mainstream media isn't covering this. Perhaps the need to sell Christmas season advertising trumps the need for the public to know about the troubles that are brewing.

This is already 1,600 words and I haven't even touched Verasun. Executive summary? The nation's second largest ethanol maker took corn from farmers, went bankrupt without paying many of them, and a whole lot of family farms are going to be foreclosed upon in short order if something isn't done.
| America | Earth Changes | 3rd Seal |

HOLLY NOTE: Weather, as we have warned for the past year has taken a terrible toll on crops. Floods, hail and tornadoes hammered America's breadbasket. Drought is killing California's huge agriculture belt and hitting crops in the Southeast this year. Decimated bee populations added to crop decline. Grain reserves are non-existent. Compounding matters, fuel, seed and equipment have all risen sharply in recent years.

Daily news address rampant concerns over rice, wheat, corn and soybean shortages. And now food rationing and hoarding is creeping into reality... Riots and food protests have already hit many nations: South Africa, Pakistan, Lebanon, Gaza, Kenya, Nicaragua, Mexico, Bahrain, the Emirates, Italy, Russia, Indonesia, Egypt in addition to Haiti, Cameroon, Senegal, the Ivory Coast, Mauritania, Bolivia, Peru, Thailand, Somali, Ethiopia, Burkina Faso, Uzbekistan, Yemen, India, and the Philippines. After the Mexican tortillas riots last year, corn tortillas prices rose another 18%. Despite lower fuel prices at the pump, food prices are expected to rise in 2009.

With food shortages threatening to become the biggest crisis of the 21st century, you can bet food riots are coming to America. In fact, top trend forecaster, Gerald Celente, warns on coming US food riots.

Stock up now - buy in bulk - and pack for long-term storage grain products, flour, rice, beans, powdered milk and any other foods you regularly consume. The longer you delay, prices are only going to escalate, your options will dwindle, along with selection. Please do this before your options close. When reading news articles, it is our hope you'll read beyond the headlines and hear the unspoken message - a quiet urging to prepare.

The Truth behind the Citigroup Bank "Nationalization" 321 Gold (November 26, 2008) - On Friday November 21, the world came within a hair's breadth of the most colossal financial collapse in history according to bankers on the inside of events with whom we have contact. The trigger was the bank which only two years ago was America's largest, Citigroup. The size of the US Government de facto nationalization of the $2 trillion banking institution is an indication of shocks yet to come in other major US and perhaps European banks thought to be 'too big to fail.'

The clumsy way in which US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson - himself not a banker but a Wall Street 'investment banker', whose experience has been in the quite different world of buying and selling stocks or bonds or underwriting and selling same - has handled the unfolding crisis has been worse than incompetent. It has made a grave situation into a globally alarming one.

'Spitting into the wind'

A case in point is the secretive manner in which Paulson has used the $700 billion in taxpayer funds voted him by a labile Congress in September. Early on, Paulson put $125 billion in the nine largest banks, including $10 billion for his old firm, Goldman Sachs. However, if we compare the value of the equity share that $125 billion bought with the market price of those banks' stock, US taxpayers have paid $125 billion for bank stock that a private investor could have bought for $62.5 billion, according to a detailed analysis from Ron W. Bloom, economist with the US United Steelworkers union, whose members as well as pension fund face devastating losses were GM to fail.

That means half of the public's money was a gift to Paulson's Wall Street cronies. Now, only weeks later, the Treasury is forced to intervene to de facto nationalize Citigroup. It won't be the last.

Paulson demanded, and got from a labile US Congress, Democrat as well as Republican, sole discretion over how and where he can invest the $700 billion, to date with no effective oversight. It amounts to the Treasury Secretary in effect 'spitting into the wind' in terms of resolving the fundamental crisis.

It should be clear to any serious analyst by now that the September decision by Paulson to defer to rigid financial ideology and let the fourth largest US investment bank, Lehman Brothers fail, was the proximate trigger for the present global crisis. Lehman Bros.' surprise collapse triggered the current global crisis of confidence. It was simply not clear to the rest of the banking world which US financial institution bank might be saved and which not, after the Government had earlier saved the far smaller Bear Stearns, while letting the larger, far more strategic Lehman Bros. fail.

Some Citigroup details

The most alarming aspect of the crisis is the fact that we are in an inter-regnum period when the next President has been elected but cannot act on the situation until after January 20, 2009 when he is sworn in.

Consider the details of the latest Citigroup government de facto nationalization (for ideological reasons Paulson and the Bush Administration hysterically avoid admitting they are in the process of nationalizing key banks). Citigroup has more than $2 trillion of assets, dwarfing companies such as American International Group Inc. that got some $150 billion in US taxpayer funds in the past two months. Ironically, only eight weeks before, the Government had designated Citigroup to take over the failing Wachovia Bank. Normally authorities have an ailing bank absorbed by a stronger one. In this instance the opposite seems to have been the case. Now it is clear that the Citigroup was in deeper trouble than Wachovia. In a matter of hours in the week before the US Government nationalization was announced, the stock value of Citibank plunged to $3.77 in New York, giving the company a market value of about $21 billion. The market value of Citigroup stock in December 2006 had been $247 billion. Two days before the bank nationalization the CEO, Vikram Pandit had announced a huge 52,000 job slashing plan. It did nothing to stop the slide.

The scale of the hidden losses of perhaps the twenty largest US banks is so enormous that if not before, the first Presidential decree of President Barack Obama will likely have to be declaration of a US 'Bank Holiday' and the full nationalization of the major banks, taking on the toxic assets and losses until the economy can again function with credit flowing to industry once more.

Citigroup and the government have identified a pool of about $306 billion in troubled assets. Citigroup will absorb the first $29 billion in losses. After that, remaining losses will be split between Citigroup and the government, with the bank absorbing 10% and the government absorbing 90%. The US Treasury Department will use its $700 billion TARP or Troubled Asset Recovery Program bailout fund, to assume up to $5 billion of losses. If necessary, the Government's Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) will bear the next $10 billion of losses. Beyond that, the Federal Reserve will guarantee any additional losses. The measures are without precedent in US financial history. It's by no means certain they will salvage the dollar system.

The situation is so intertwined, with six US major banks holding the vast bulk of worldwide financial derivatives exposure, that the failure of a single major US financial institution could result in losses to the OTC derivatives market of $300-$400 billion, a new IMF working paper finds. What's more, since such a failure would likely cause cascading failures of other institutions. Total global financial system losses could exceed another $1,500 billion according to an IMF study by Singh and Segoviano. Read full story...

The madness over a Detroit GM rescue deal

The health of Citigroup is not the only gripping crisis that must be dealt with. At this point, political and ideological bickering in the US Congress has so far prevented a simple emergency $25 billion loan extension to General Motors and other of the US Big Three automakers-Ford and Chrysler. The absurd spectacle of US Congressmen attacking the chairmen of the Big Three for flying to the emergency Congressional hearings on a rescue loan in their private company jets while largely ignoring the issue of consequences to the economy of a GM failure underscores the utter lack of touch with reality that has overwhelmed Washington in recent years.

For GM to go into bankruptcy risks a disaster of colossal proportions. Although Lehman Bros., the biggest bankruptcy in US history, appears to have had an orderly settlement of its credit defaults swaps, the disruption occurred before-hand, as protection writers had to post additional collateral prior to settlement. That was a major factor in the dramatic global market selloff in October. GM is bigger by far, meaning bigger collateral damage, and this would take place when the financial system is even weaker than when Lehman failed.

In addition, a second, and potentially far more damaging issue, has been largely ignored. The advocates of letting GM go bankrupt argue that it can go into Chapter 11 just like other big companies that get themselves in trouble. That may not happen however, and a Chapter 7 or liquidation of GM that would then result would be a tectonic event.

The problem is that under Chapter 11 US law, it takes time for the company to get the protection of a bankruptcy court. Until that time, which may be weeks or months, the company would need urgently 'bridge financing' to continue operating. This is known as 'Debtor-in-Possession or DIP financing. DIP is essential for most Chapter 11 bankruptcies, as it takes time to get the plan of reorganization approved by creditors and the courts. Most companies, like GM today, go to bankruptcy court when they are at the end of their liquidity.

DIP is specifically for companies in, or on the verge of bankruptcy, and the debt is generally senior to other outstanding creditor claims. So it is actually very low risk, as the amount spent is usually not large, relatively speaking. But DIP lending is being severely curtailed right now, just when it is most needed, as healthier banks drastically cut loans in the severe credit crunch situation.

Without access to DIP bridge financing, GM would be forced into a partial, or even a full liquidation. The ramifications are horrendous. Aside from loss of 100,000 jobs at GM itself, GM is critical to keep many US auto suppliers in business. If GM failed soon most, possibly even all of the US and even foreign auto suppliers will go under. Those parts suppliers are important to other auto makers. Many foreign car factories would be forced to close due to loss of suppliers. Some analysts put 2009 job losses from a GM failure as high as 2.5 million jobs due to the follow-on effects. If the impact of that 2.5 million job loss is seen in terms of the overall losses to the economy of non-auto jobs such as services, home foreclosures caused and such, some estimate total impact would be more than 15 million jobs.

So far in the face of this staggering prospect, the members of the US Congress have chosen to focus on the fact the GM chief, Rick Wagoner, flew in his private company jet to Washington. The Congressional charade conjures up the image of Nero playing his fiddle as Rome goes up in flames. It should not be surprising that at the recent EU-Asian Summit in Beijing, Chinese officials mooted the idea of trading between the EU and Asian nations such as China in Euro, Renminbi, Yen or other national currencies other than the dollar. The Citigroup bailout and GM debacle has confirmed the death of the post-1944 Bretton Woods Dollar System.

The real truth behind Citigroup bailout

What neither Paulson nor anyone in Washington is willing to reveal is the real truth behind the Citigroup bailout. By his and the Republican Bush Administration's adamant earlier refusal to take an initial resolute action to immediately nationalize the nine or so largest troubled banks, he has created the present debacle. By refusing on ideological grounds to instead reorganize the banks' assets into some form of 'good bank' and 'bad bank,' similar to what the Government of Sweden did with what it called Securum, during its banking crisis in the early 1990's, Paulson and company have created a global financial structure on the brink.

A Securum or similar temporary nationalization would have allowed the healthy banks to continue lending to the real economy so the economy could continue operating, while the State merely sat on the undervalued real estate assets of the Swedish banks for some months until the recovering economy made the assets again marketable to the private sector. Instead, Paulson and his 'crony capitalists' in Washington have turned a bad situation into a globally catastrophic one.

His apparent realization of the error of his initial refusal to nationalize came too late. When Paulson reversed policy on September 19 and presented the nine largest banks with an ultimatum to accept partial Government equity ownership, abandoning his original bizarre plan to merely buy up the toxic waste asset-backed securities of the banks with his $700 billion TARP taxpayer money, he never revealed why.

Under the original Paulson Plan, as Dimitri B. Papadimitriou and L. Randall Wray of the Jerome Levy Institute at Bard College in New York point out, Paulson sought to create a situation in which the US 'Treasury would become an owner of troubled financial institutions in exchange for a capital injection-but without exercising any ownership rights, such as replacing the management that created the mess. The bailout would be used as an opportunity to consolidate control of the nation's financial system in the hands of a few large (Wall Street) banks, with government funds subsidizing purchases of troubled banks by "healthy" ones.'

Paulson soon realized the scale of crisis, largely triggered by his inept handling of the Lehman Brothers case, had created an impossible situation. Were Paulson to use the $700 billion to buy up toxic waste ABS assets from the select banks at today's market price, the $700 billion would be far too little to take an estimated $2 trillion ($2,000 billion) in Asset Backed Securities off the books of the banks.

The Levy Economics Institute economists state, 'It is probable that many and perhaps most financial institutions are insolvent today -- with a black hole of negative net worth that would swallow Paulson's entire $700 billion in one gulp.'

That reality is the real reason Paulson was forced to abandon his original 'crony bailout' TARP plan and opt to use some of his money to buy equity shares in the nine largest banks.

That scheme as well is 'dead on arrival' as the latest Citigroup nationalization scheme underscores. The dilemma Paulson has created with his inept handling of the crisis is simple: If the US Government paid the true value for these nearly worthless assets, the banks would have to write down huge losses, and, as Levy economists put it, 'announce to the world that they are insolvent.' On the other hand, if Paulson raised the toxic waste purchase price high enough to protect the banks from losses, $700 billion 'will buy only a tiny fraction of the 'troubled' assets.' That is what the latest nationalization of Citigroup is about.

It is only the beginning. The 2009 year will be one of titanic shocks and changes to the global order of a scale perhaps not experienced in the past five centuries. This is why we should speak of the end of the American Century and its Dollar System.

How destructive that process will be to the citizens of the United States who are the prime victims of Paulson's crony capitalists, as well as to the rest of the world depends now on the urgency and resoluteness with which heads of national Governments in Germany, the EU, China, Russia and the rest of the non-US world react. It is no time for ideological sentimentality and nostalgia of the postwar old order. That collapsed this past September along with Lehman Brothers and the Republican Presidency. Waiting for a 'miracle' from an Obama Presidency is no longer an option for the rest of the world.

| NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

PM: Peace deal with Palestinians soon The Jerusalem Post (November 26, 2008) - It will soon be possible to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Tuesday, the morning after a farewell visit with US President George W. Bush and other administration officials who conceded a deal was not likely to materialize in the short term. "In principle there is nothing to prevent us from reaching an agreement on the core issues in the near future," Olmert said during a briefing with Israeli reporters. "I believe it is possible. I believe it is timely. A declaration is needed. I am ready to make it. I hope the other side is."

He also stressed the US had not tied Israel's hands when it came to military operations in the waning days of the Bush administration, despite media reports to the contrary. "I don't remember that anyone in the administration, including the last couple of days, advised me or any of my official representatives not to take any action which we will deem necessary for the fundamental security of Israel, and that includes Iran," he said, in response to a question from The Jerusalem Post. He pointed to conversations with Bush and his deputies who are "so open, so candid, so personal, that they can say to me anything they feel, and they do... This was not one of the things they said."

Speaking generally about his meetings with Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and others, Olmert also said, "There is a deep, basic understanding between us about the Iranian threat and the need to act in order to remove that threat." There has been speculation that if Israel were going to attack Iran's nuclear sites it would do so before President-elect Barack Obama takes office on January 20. Time magazine also reported that the US had told Israel to refrain from a major invasion of Gaza, despite renewed rocket fire from the Strip, so as not to disrupt peace talks.

But when it came to the Palestinians, during the briefing and in remarks before his meeting with Bush, Olmert focused on the possibility of reaching an agreement rather than on the renewed violence. The prime minister said there wouldn't be any written declaration of principles or other document spelling out the intermediate steps taken and agreements reached to date to prepare for a new American administration, because he was looking for a comprehensive peace deal. "You don't need months to make a decision," he said, noting the two years of intensive meetings with the Palestinians that he's overseen. Read full story...

Ahead of their meeting and private dinner Monday night, Bush also focused on the peace process. "We strongly believe that Israel will benefit by having a Palestinian state, a democracy on her border that works for peace," the president said, sitting beside Olmert in the Oval Office. "That vision is alive because of you."

The two leaders exchanged expressions of friendship and appreciation, with Olmert praising Bush for removing the threat of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from Israel's eastern front. But Rice acknowledged earlier this month that the goal of a peace deal by the end of 2008, set at the Annapolis conference officially launching negotiations last year, was unachievable. Still, the subject was a major focus of Olmert's discussions with the secretary of state. "There are a number of issues that Prime Minister Olmert and the secretary discussed, obviously the Annapolis process being the key element," said Deputy State Department spokesman Robert Wood after their meeting Tuesday. It was a follow-up to talks Olmert held with Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley a day earlier.

Olmert also said the economic crisis was a key point of discussion, though he didn't expect it to affect the $30 billion in military aid Israel is slated to receive from the US over the next decade. "We have an agreement with the United States for 10 years and no one has any doubts that it will be fulfilled," Olmert said. "America is wealthy, powerful and has integrity. No one has hinted this is up for discussion."

He said the meetings also didn't touch on talk that the US might open a low-level interests section in Teheran to reenergize diplomatic efforts to limit its nuclear program. "This government has no interest in relations with Iran," Olmert said. Though Obama has indicated he favors engagement with the Islamic republic, Olmert said Israel would wait to see what he proposed before reacting. He said Obama shared the position that a nuclear-armed Iran was unacceptable.

Olmert didn't speak with Obama while in the US, noting that Obama has pointed out that there's only one president at a time and that meeting with foreign leaders wouldn't be appropriate at this point. But the prime minister did speak to Obama by phone soon after his victory to congratulate him, reporting that "there's a comprehensive and orderly transition [being prepared], and this includes on issues related to Israel." Obama has called for more intense efforts to promote the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and pledged not to wait until late in his term, as Bush did, to step up engagement on the issue.

In his conversation with reporters, Olmert also made the case for a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "The dispute is not between continuing the status quo or a two-state solution," he warned. "The dispute is between a two-state solution and the emergence of a new narrative - of one state."

| Israel | Islam | Dividing the Land | America |

U.S. Pledges Top $7.7 Trillion to Ease Frozen Credit Bloomberg (November 24, 2008) - The U.S. government is prepared to provide more than $7.76 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers after guaranteeing $306 billion of Citigroup Inc. debt yesterday. The pledges, amounting to half the value of everything produced in the nation last year, are intended to rescue the financial system after the credit markets seized up 15 months ago.

The unprecedented pledge of funds includes $3.18 trillion already tapped by financial institutions in the biggest response to an economic emergency since the New Deal of the 1930s, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The commitment dwarfs the plan approved by lawmakers, the Treasury Department’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. Federal Reserve lending last week was 1,900 times the weekly average for the three years before the crisis.

When Congress approved the TARP on Oct. 3, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson acknowledged the need for transparency and oversight. Now, as regulators commit far more money while refusing to disclose loan recipients or reveal the collateral they are taking in return, some Congress members are calling for the Fed to be reined in.

“Whether it’s lending or spending, it’s tax dollars that are going out the window and we end up holding collateral we don’t know anything about,” said Congressman Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican who serves on the House Financial Services Committee. “The time has come that we consider what sort of limitations we should be placing on the Fed so that authority returns to elected officials as opposed to appointed ones.”

Too Big to Fail

Bloomberg News tabulated data from the Fed, Treasury and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and interviewed regulatory officials, economists and academic researchers to gauge the full extent of the government’s rescue effort.

The bailout includes a Fed program to buy as much as $2.4 trillion in short-term notes, called commercial paper, that companies use to pay bills, begun Oct. 27, and $1.4 trillion from the FDIC to guarantee bank-to-bank loans, started Oct. 14.

William Poole, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, said the two programs are unlikely to lose money. The bigger risk comes from rescuing companies perceived as “too big to fail,” he said.

‘Credit Risk’

The government committed $29 billion to help engineer the takeover in March of Bear Stearns Cos. by New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. and $122.8 billion in addition to TARP allocations to bail out New York-based American International Group Inc., once the world’s largest insurer.

Citigroup received $306 billion of government guarantees for troubled mortgages and toxic assets. The Treasury Department also will inject $20 billion into the bank after its stock fell 60 percent last week.

“No question there is some credit risk there,” Poole said.

Congressman Darrell Issa, a California Republican on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said risk is lurking in the programs that Poole thinks are safe.

“The thing that people don’t understand is it’s not how likely that the exposure becomes a reality, but what if it does?” Issa said. “There’s no transparency to it so who’s to say they’re right?”

The worst financial crisis in two generations has erased $23 trillion, or 38 percent, of the value of the world’s companies and brought down three of the biggest Wall Street firms. Read full story...

| NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

Martin Hennecke - US May Lose Its 'AAA' Rating CNBC (November 10, 2008)

| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

A quick question... If the Dollar were to become obsolete and indeed currency collapsed all over the world and a new economic system were developed to eliminate the fraud, waste and abuse while ensuring security and a smooth transition from individual currencies, would you sign on? What if doing so required a "pledge of allegiance" of sorts to participate?

Revelation 13:11-18
And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. [Revelation 17] And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

What if signs and wonders were added to the mix and a world desperate for the spirituality drained from them through "modern science" calling into question God's Word, the mystery of iniquity, they came to worship another "savior" in a more physical and temporal sense that tickled their ears with self-satisfying words?

What if global economic collapse were to be a catalyst for a further globalization and acceptance of it, in addition to other catalysts, bringing the world further under the control of the man of sin?

What if I'm just crazy? What if I'm not. See if the world clamors for more government control while power consolidation continues... Watch!

Facts About Tax: Socialism, Christianity, and Taxation By Steven F. Hotze, M.D. www.AmericanVision.org Zola Levitt Newsletter (December 2008) - There are two competing worldviews in the United States: socialism and Christianity.

Socialism is a system where the State controls capital and production, plans the economy and redistributes wealth from producers to non-producers. It breeds a welfare environment where citizens become dependent upon the State for their daily bread. Individual liberties are replaced with the “common good,” decided by bureaucrats. In socialism, the State claims to be the sovereign authority, demanding people’s homage. Socialistic States are secular and have great disdain for Christianity which rejects this philosophy. Socialism is a de facto secular religious system which elevates the State to the position of God. Remember, the Romans proclaimed, “Vox populi, Vox Dei,” meaning “The voice of the people is the voice of God.”

Christianity acknowledges the sovereignty of God revealed in the Bible and through the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Christianity proclaims liberty under law. It encourages personal responsibility and initiative. Proverbs instructs that, “The hand of the diligent shall prosper.” The concept of private property is firmly established by the 8th Commandment, “Thou Shalt Not Steal.” Christianity teaches that all government authority is established by God and that civil rulers must govern according to a higher law. This was the perspective of our founding fathers. George Washington wrote, “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” Yet politicians increasingly choose socialism over our Christian heritage. Nowhere is this more evident than in taxation. The Bible teaches tithing ten percent of your income to the Church and Christian ministries as acknowledgment that all that we have comes from God’s providential hand.

The socialist State claims ownership over citizens and their possessions by taxing their income and property. Even after you have paid off your mortgage, if you stop paying property taxes, you will find out who really owns your home. The United States has adopted a socalled “progressive” income tax policy. As income increases, the percentage of income subject to taxes rises. Those who earn the most pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes. According to the Congressional Budget Office the top 1% of income earners pays nearly 40% of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. The top 10% of income earners pay nearly 70% of the total income taxes collected. The top 40% of income earners pay 99% of all income taxes.

This means 60% of the people pay no income tax. Yet the socialists reward them with government programs. What is progressive about a system which penalizes individuals who strive to be successful? If you tax productivity, you get less of it. If you subsidize laziness, you get more of it. The socialists promote organized theft of the producers—under the guise of good government—and redistribute their money to buy the votes of the nonproductive, disincentivizing both groups.

We have a critical choice to make: Follow socialism and lose our liberty and property, or return to our nation’s Christian heritage.
| America |

See also: Socialism, Capitalism and Christianity

Clinton would be well seen abroad as US top diplomat: Solana EU Business (November 22, 2008) - If US president-elect Barack Obama names Hillary Clinton as his secretary of state, it will be "very well taken" in Europe, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said Friday. "It would be very well taken, if it were the case," Solana told reporters during a visit to Washington where he met with Obama representative Madeleine Albright. "She is a strong personality. She is an appropriate person, capable, with experience, well known. I think it would be very well taken by the majority of people," Solana said.

An aide to Obama said the president-elect is "on track" to nominate his former bitter foe to the prize post of secretary of state after next week's Thanksgiving holiday. The nomination, the subject of intense speculation since Clinton flew to Chicago to meet Obama last week, moved forward after financial disclosure issues were worked out with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. There will be no formal announcement before the holiday break which starts on Thursday November 27, the Obama aide said on condition of anonymity, adding the president-elect was still firming up his national security line-up.

New York Senator Clinton and Obama, who slugged it out during an acrimonious six-month Democratic primary campaign, were having substantive discussions about her future role, the aide said.

Signs the Clinton nomination could be firming up followed conflicting reports, some suggesting the Obama team was frustrated with the Clinton camp, others saying Clinton was agonizing over whether to give up her Senate seat. But details of the nominating process have been tightly held by both sides and it was unclear if any or all of the unnamed sources were speaking with authority for the two protagonists.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | Solana | NewWorldOrder | America | Obama |

Hillary Clinton accepts post as Secretary of State Telegraph UK (November 22, 2008) - Senator Hillary Clinton has accepted Barack Obama's offer to become US Secretary of State, as the president-elect moved at rapid speed to assemble an all-star cabinet amid steep challenges at home and overseas.

Friends of the former First Lady told American news organisations that she had firmly decided to give up her seat as a senator for New York and become the international face of the man who thwarted her presidential ambitions in a long and sometimes bitter battle for the Democratic Party's nomination.

Other reports said Mr Obama will nominate Timothy Geithner, 47, as his Treasury Secretary. As head of the New York federal reserve bank he has been involved with the $700 billion bail-out of Wall Street, which he will take charge of if confirmed. As a former treasury official, Mr Geithner has invaluable Washington experience and will be considered a wise choice. Stocks soared as news of his appointment reached Wall Street. He will probably be joined around the cabinet table by Bill Richardson, the New Mexico governor, who has been reportedly selected as commerce secretary after losing out to Mrs Clinton as secretary of state, the most prestigious job beneath the presidency.

With Mr Obama likely to name his economic team in full within a few days, and Mrs Clinton's decision clearing the way for other foreign policy posts to be filled, he is set to complete many of the most important slots in his administration at uncommonly early stage. His choices for the positions of health secretary, attorney general and homeland security are Tom Daschle, Eric Holder, and Janet Napolitano, respectively, though they remain subject to approval by his vetting team.

Though news about some appointments has leaked out, to the frustration of the Obama camp, his transition from winning candidate to president is proceeding at a pace and with a smoothness that has impressed political observers. Mr Obama and his aides have understood that with the financial markets very jittery and economic confidence subsiding a calm and orderly changeover was paramount.

His administration will feature veterans of the Bill Clinton administration and politicians rewarded for their early support of during the primaries, such as Mr Richardson, Janet Napolitano, the Arizona governor tipped to become head the Homeland Security Department and Tom Daschle, who will run health.

His recruitment of Mrs Clinton in particular honours Mr Obama's pledge to appoint an all-star cabinet, or a "team of rivals", of strong personalities who will speak their minds and provide contrasting views. But some have criticised her management skills – her new department has 19,000 employees – and questioned her foreign policy experience at a time when the country is conducting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and facing growing pressure from Russia, Iran and China.

Obama supporters have also raised concerns that a politician with such a large power base would happily follow anyone else's orders. Some have been unable to forgive Mrs Clinton for her strong criticism of Mr Obama during the primaries, when she launched an advertisement questioning whether the nation would want such an inexperienced politician answering the White House hotline at 3am. Mrs Clinton, 61, evidently had her own doubts, and was uncertain if she should give up her Senate seat from heavily Democratic New York, which she could most likely have occupied for the rest of her career.

The only hesitation about her within the Obama camp was removed after Mr Clinton co-operated fully with the vetting team's investigation of his network of overseas donors to his global charity. The former president is understood to have promised not to conduct speaking engagements or seek funds from sources that might present a conflict of interest with the foreign policy his wife would be pursuing.

Obama’s team: Confirmed White House positions

• Chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel
• Counsel Greg Craig
• Senior adviser David Axelrod
• Senior adviser Valerie Jarrett
• White House press secretary Robert Gibbs
• Vice-President’s chief of staff Ron Klain All positions
• Confirmed pending vetting
• Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
• Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner
• Secretary of health Tom Daschle
• Attorney-general Eric Holder
• Secretary of homeland security Janet Napolitano

| America | Obama |

A Plan for Action: Managing Global Insecurity 42-page pdf at Brookings.edu (November 21, 2008) - The Managing Global Insecurity (MGI) Project seeks to build international support for global institutions and partnerships that can foster international peace and security—and the prosperity they enable—for the next 50 years. MGI is a joint initiative among the Brookings Institution, the Center on International Cooperation at New York University, and the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University.

Since its launch in the spring of 2007, MGI has sought to develop its recommendations and conduct its work in a manner best suited to address today’s most urgent global challenges—namely, by fostering a global dialogue. In a world where 21st century transnational threats—from climate change to nuclear proliferation and terrorism—require joint solutions, discussions on these solutions must take place both inside and outside American borders. As MGI launched this ambitious but urgent agenda, the Project convened two advisory groups—one American and bipartisan, and one international. MGI’s advisors are experienced leaders with diverse visions for how the international security system must be transformed. They are also skilled politicians who understand the political momentum that must power substantive recommendations.

MGI brought these groups together for meetings in Washington D.C., New York, Ditchley Park (UK), Singapore, and Berlin. With their assistance, MGI also conducted consultations with government officials, policymakers and non-governmental organizations across Europe and in Delhi, Beijing, Tokyo, Doha, and Mexico City. MGI held meetings at the United Nations, and with African and Latin American officials in Washington D.C. and New York. On the domestic front, MGI met with Congressional and Administration officials as well as foreign policy advisors to the U.S. Presidential campaigns. Ideas generated in international consultations were tested on U.S. constituencies; ideas generated among U.S. policymakers were sounded out for their resonance internationally. American and international leaders were brought together to consider draft proposals. Through this global dialogue, the Project sought a shared path forward.

MGI’s findings also derive from extensive research and analysis of current global security threats and the performance of international institutions. MGI solicited case studies from leading regional and subject experts that evaluated the successes and failures of international responses to the “hard cases”—from the North Korean nuclear threat to instability in Pakistan and state collapse in Iraq. Both in the United States and internationally, MGI convened experts to review the Project’s threat-specific analyses and proposals.

Financial support for the MGI project has also been robustly international. In addition to the Bertelsmann Stiftung, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Ditchley Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and UN Foundation, MGI has received funding and in-kind support from the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland and the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. A number of think tanks and other institutions in Japan, China and India hosted workshops to debate the Project’s findings. MGI is indebted to its diverse supporters.

MGI’s research and consultations provide the foundation for the following Plan for Action, a series of policy briefs, and MGI’s book, Power and Responsibility: International Order in an Era of Transnational Threats (forthcoming, Brookings Press 2009). The authors are solely responsible for the following analysis and recommendations. Based on MGI’s consultations, however, they are confident this is a historic opportunity for the United States to forge new partnerships to tackle the most pressing problems of this century. more detail at the link...
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | Solana | NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

“The aim of the MGI [Managing Global Insecurity] project is ambitious and urgent: to launch a new reform effort for the global security system in 2009 … for the global system is in serious trouble. It is simply not capable of solving the challenges of today. You all know the list: terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, pandemics, failing states … None can be solved by a single government alone.” | Javier Solana, High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, European Union; MGI Advisory Group Member

I think it is worthwhile to note that the snowball is already rolling down the hill and there are many things that can happen to advance or delay plans in the global arena. If there were a threat large enough to further the cause of the globalists, then much like the ready-fire-fire-fire-aim approach to the global financial crisis, fear could be used to get people to take immediate action not yet fully defined in the timelines already determined. Of course I believe there are some using the fear with a definite plan of action for a common goal whether they realize what they are doing or not. I believe the mystery of iniquity is well at work in the world today.

I'm brought back to the Lisbon Treaty, the new European Constitution, and the powers that will be given to the foreign minister even before it is enacted. And now polling is showing that Ireland, who previously rejected the Lisbon Treaty in their referendum, is now having second thoughts on the matter. Could these often discussed "global tests" of leadership help the birth pangs to the new global order along? Keep watching!

A Plan For Action: Renewed American Leadership And International Cooperation for the 21st Century Brookings Institute (November 20, 2008) - MR. PASCUAL: -- in his personal capacity has given us tremendous support, along with the support of the U.N. Foundation, the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of Finland and Norway, who have been great supporters throughout, the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and in kind support that we’ve been able to get from the Bertelsmann and Ditchley Foundations, the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, and think tanks and partners in the United States and around the world.

A big thanks to so many members of the diplomatic community who are here today and participating in this session and have provided constant feedback and advice on some of this work.

I need to give great thanks to both the domestic and international advisory group that we have had as part of this project. And you’ll see them on the left hand side of the column, as well as on the Action Plan, on the inside cover that you have of the Action Plan, a tremendously distinguished group of individuals who are some of the best practitioners in the world on foreign policy, international security policy, and global governance, and we are quite honored that they are willing to give their time to advise us on this project. And among those members of the advisory group are the panelists that we have today. And it’s a pleasure to be able to introduce them in the order that they’re going to speak today.

First is Former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, someone who has given tremendous advice directly herself in a book called The Memo to the President, How We Can Restore America’s Reputation and Leadership.

And then Javier Solana, the European Union’s High Representative for Common, Foreign, and Security Policy. Javier is I think a personal incarnation of the world’s most effective institution of global governance, namely himself.

And then Kemal Dervis, who is the Administrator of the U.N. Development Program. Many of you also know him from his role as Minister of Economy and Treasury in Turkey and his long career at the
World Bank. And Kemal is also an author of a tremendous book called Better Globalization, Legitimacy, Governance and Reform. I should say he had the wisdom of having that published by the Brookings Institution Press, as well.

And then Tom Pickering, Former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs. And Tom really is sort of the icon of the American Foreign Service, having been an Ambassador in more places than anyone can imagine and carrying that knowledge around with him on a constant basis.

And finally Strobe Talbott, the President of the Brookings Institution, my boss, former Deputy Secretary of State, and author of another tremendous book called The Great Experiment, the Story of Ancient Empire, Modern States, and the Quest for a Global Nation. And he also happens to be my friend and has given us tremendous advice throughout this process, and all of them have just been amazing colleagues.

We are going to have a short presentation of some of the key themes in the Action Plan to create that as a foundation for the discussion. We’ll then have the part that you really want, which is a discussion with our panelists, and have a session to interact among themselves, and then a Q and A session for the audience. It’ll be I think a fairly full two hour program, but one that will be I think extremely interesting for everybody.

This project was a joint venture among Stanford and Brookings and NYU, in part because of its complexity and the nature of the goal that we set. We begin by looking at what kinds of recommendations are necessary to create and international order in the institutions that are going to bring about prosperity and security for the world over the next 50 years...

...MS. ALBRIGHT: I’d kind of like to step back a little bit, because in listening, and also in some of my meetings over the weekend, it is clear to me that venue shopping is one of the problems here. And the question is, which of these various organizations really are the right ones?

And some of you know this, but I’ll repeat it; when I first became Secretary, I kept looking for various European Ministers and they were always in some meeting with some kind of alphabet that I didn’t know. So I asked the Intelligence and Research part of the State Department to create a chart for me of the European Organizations, and it looked like some kind of astrological or astronomical chart, and everything was on top of everything else, and I nicknamed it the Euro Mess.

The bottom line is that we can’t keep creating organizations on top of others in terms of who does what with whom. And I think this is the real challenge in terms of which of the ones that really will work, and where do you have the right players, and not so much, if I may be so bold as to say, I like this organization because I dominate it, and I don’t want to be in that one because there are too many people in it, and I do think that that is one of the challenges that we have.

The other part goes back to something, Carlos, that you were talking about. As a professor I say this, the fight between sovereignty and international action is not dead, and when you say responsible sovereignty, different people – countries will take it a different way.

I think that President Bashir thinks he’s practicing responsible sovereignty. And so the question is, how these two concepts deal with what are very real crises that are out there. So venue shopping and the struggle between sovereignty and international multi-lateral action, I think no matter how great the good will is towards President Obama, and it’s stunning, I think it’s going to continue to be an issue of how we prioritize and deal with it...

...[Regarding global governance] MR. SOLANA: I think we have discussed one of the most fascinating topics of the times. I think the European Union has something to say about this, because a group of countries that have already, in a voluntary manner, chose to live together and to share sovereignty. It’s probably the only example and going as far as taking to the connectivity – currency, which is a very, very fundamental decision.

But I think we cannot understand that without talking at the same time about legitimacy. Legitimacy is absolutely fundamental, you want to govern a complicated structure, and that remains, the legitimacy remains at the level where proximity – exist. I don’t want to enter more into that – but it’s very, very crucial, it comes from legitimacy. Now, we may agree on many, many things even within the European Union that have to do, but you may sometimes need the legitimacy – very clear, the national – to do it. And that is a reality will be very difficult to overcome.

Now, you can put into the global – into federal entity as much things as you want to transfer from the – will be always – to run into legitimacy, it will be very difficult. The problems are global, the solutions are global, the resources and the legitimacy still is global... Read Q&A excerpt...

MS. McNAMARA: I'm Sally McNamara from the Heritage Foundation. However, I'm also British and I used to work in the European Union, so I'm very interested in these comments that the E.U. is a perfect model of global governance, and I would like to tell you that the E.U. lacks any sort of legitimacy or credibility, and any time the publics are asked whether they want more Europe and whether they want a common foreign insecurity policy, they actually turn around and say no. We have had several public referenda on things like the Nice Treaty, the Maastricht Treaty, and, most recently, the Lisbon Treaty. Ireland has said no, and under the E.U.'s own rules of success, this whole thing should go away now. However, the E.U. doesn't let something like democracy get in the way of the European project. It seems to me that the Americans are far more enthusiastic for a common foreign policy than the Europeans actually are, because they want Henry Kissinger's one line to Europe. So, I encourage you to rethink your enthusiasm for the European project, considering the fact that most European peoples don't want it, that the E.U. isn't even particular popular at the moment. They have the lowest ratings that they've ever had.

MR. TALBOTT: Well, picking from the menu of the questions asked, the one -- they're all terrific questions. The one that most provokes me to answer was really directed more at Javier, but you asked me to speak first.

I disagree with our colleague from the Heritage Foundation. I didn't hear anybody of any nationality up here use the word "perfect" to describe the European Union. But I would use the following adjectives with great confidence. The European Union is the most impressive, accomplished, and promising experiment in transnational governance on the planet today, and that has been immensely good for the half billion or so people of Europe. It has taken a huge swatch of real estate, which is as bloodied as any on the planet historically, a region of the world where there was a major war every generation from the 17th century on up to the E-day, and turned it into a zone of peace. No mean accomplishment. And it has done that through what Madeleine and I jokingly called the Euro-mess. But we did not use that term contemptuously. We saw a certain beauty and wisdom in the Euro-mess, and Madeleine's predecessors once upon a time trying to call her colleagues or their colleagues and counterparts in Europe wouldn't have found them at those meetings; they would have found them on battlefields or either planning to be on battlefields.

And as for the famous Kissinger question of all those years ago when Madeleine and Tom Pickering and I were in government, we had Javier's home phone, office phone, and cell phone, and we knew who to call...

...MR. DERVIS: Well, the trouble with being on the same panel with Strobe is that I usually agree so strongly with him and he says everything I could say much better. But I do want to also touch on the Europe issue and again agree. I do believe for the main points that Strobe made in terms of the peace in Europe, the cooperation, it is a huge, human achievement which has few precedents -- I think has no precedent in fact in (inaudible), but also, more specifically, the fact that there is (inaudible) Euro, the common currency, not in all of the E.U. but in a large part of it, that you can actually -- you know, it's a tremendous achievement, countries having given up the kind of sovereignty symbol of their currency, Germany particularly, you know, which was so fond of the Deutsche Mark, and I see signs in today's financial crisis that some who are outside the Euro zone are now rethinking that maybe it's not such a bad idea to be in part of the Euro zone, given the tremendous instability of exchange rates and particularly the problem for small countries and small currencies. The issue, of course, travel -- the fact that now you can travel freely from Lisbon up to Stockholm and, you know, that there is now the beginnings of a labor market that functions on the European scale I think is a tremendous achievement. And of course coming from Turkey right across the border, being kind of in and kind of out, it makes it particularly interesting.

But I do believe nonetheless that there is a political dimension to this and that if one wants the full support of citizens, then these processes of cooperation -- and this is another example. I think the challenge -- Europe also presents this challenge, and there -- you know, there is the truth that citizens don't feel part of it enough and therefore one has to deepen and widen politics, because politics -- democratic politics is the source of legitimacy. Technocrats meeting in Brussels don't generate legitimacy, and there we -- a lot of work still remains to be done in Europe, but one thing that I want to add here -- and maybe that's part of the problem, that global mechanisms are becoming increasingly more important than regional mechanisms. To some degree -- I mean, regional cooperation is still very important, but many of the issues we are discussing, whether it's nuclear nonproliferation, clean energy, climate disease, financial crises, they're all global issues, and the fact that President-elect Obama, who was then still Senator Obama, went to Berlin and had hundreds of thousands of people in the street, that was a political event, and it was not a European, it was not a German, it was an American. And we need more of that. We need European politicians who could come to an American city and attract hundreds of thousands of citizens or Chinese, Indians. We need to create -- it will take time. It will probably take decades. But in order to make global governance and cooperation truly legitimate and effective, we will need to add the democratic politics that I mentioned to the technocratic and kind of government networks that we've built.

MR. SOLANA: I'm not going to be very long, because Strobe and Kemal have defended the case which to my mind doesn't need too much to be defended. But let me not look to the past. The success of the European Union, vis-à-vis the tragic history of our continent, is (inaudible). What has been said by Kemal, the success also (inaudible) question about (inaudible) to the economy, like the construction of the (inaudible), which is very important in this critical moment and will continue to be. But we have been talking today for two hours already about something which is very difficult to match -- how global problems require global solutions -- have a contradiction and the contradiction is there, the contradiction with the legitimacy, as Kemal has said many times and I repeat once again. It is not in the global system. It is still local. It is more local, more (inaudible), and also resources. Now, I think the European Union is the best example today of how you can begin to resolve that contradiction, that you can have global problems, to be global on the scale of the European Union and (inaudible) globally on the scale of the European Union and at the same time not being perfect, as has been said, with all the (inaudible) legitimacy, but it's still distance in years light or farther mechanisms of legitimacy in other constructions of the international community. Therefore, the model is a model which is good for us, and I think it will be good for others, and that's why other parts of the world are beginning to rescind the European Union as a model. I don't have to go very far, but I remember when the ASEAN was trying to run the first "constitution". I don't know how many hours, days, and months they stayed with us, trying to understand and trying to see how they could move on in that direction. The same can be said about the regions of the world. I think that this kind of molecular structure -- you allowed me to use that terminology for my (inaudible) -- is better than the structure which is genetomic and not molecular. A molecular world it will be better to handle than the opposite. And I think we are very bottom molecular, political molecular structure. Every atom of the molecule is distinguished -- U.K., Spain, Italy, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen -- we share elections that give the power. And that is what I think is a way in which the E.U. has to move on, and I'm very happy to belong to that molecule (inaudible). more...

| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | Solana | NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

There are many people who hold that the center of power for the kingdom of the man of sin as prophesied in scripture will various entities other than Europe. I believe Solana's statement above highlights one of the reasons I believe Europe is the revived Roman Empire and the fourth kingdom prophesied by Daniel and John. In a world that is going global, Europe is the example of how to cede sovereignty to a unified body, including the consolidation of currency into one.

Secret 'peace talks' exposed WorldNet Daily (November 20, 2008) - Despite media reports painting a dismal picture of negotiation prospects, Israel and the Palestinian Authority are still quietly working to conclude a major agreement before President Bush leaves office in January, informed Israeli and Palestinian sources told WND. The sources, including a senior Palestinian negotiator, said the aim is to reach a series of understandings to be guaranteed by the U.S. that would result in an eventual Israeli withdrawal from the vast majority of the West Bank. The understandings would also grant the PA permission to open official institutions in Jerusalem but would postpone talks on the future status of the capital city until new Israeli and U.S. governments are installed next year.

The original plan, initiated at last November's U.S.-sponsored Annapolis summit, was to create a Palestinian state, at least on paper, by January. The summit launched talks aimed at concluding a final status agreement on all core issues – borders, the status of Jerusalem and the future of so-called Palestinian refugees.

But a final agreement has been hampered by several recent events here, most notably Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's decision to resign amid corruption charges, leading to general elections scheduled for February that will see a new prime minister elected. The candidate for office from Olmert's Kadima party, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, is said to oppose reaching a deal on Jerusalem or refugees ahead of elections, fearing it will harm her prospects among center-right voters. Livni is Olmert's chief negotiator with the Palestinians.

In spite of the upcoming elections and the Israeli government's subsequent political instability, teams of Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have been quietly meeting regularly the past few weeks in hope of concluding a series of understandings on key issues. Informed sources said any understandings reached will be backed up by Bush in an official letter. It is unclear how much weight such a letter will carry under a new U.S. administration.

According to the sources, neither side expects to conclude any deal on the status of Jerusalem or Palestinian "refugees" before January, putting aside those issues for future talks. Instead, negotiations are focused on reaching an agreement emphasizing borders, particularly a pledged Israeli evacuation of the vast majority of the strategic West Bank, which borders central Israeli population centers. Read full story...

A Palestinian source told WND the U.S. is said to favor Israel withdrawing from nearly the entire West Bank. The source said the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem has been closely monitoring Israeli activities in the territory, which the source said has led to the Jewish state clamping down on what are termed "illegal outposts," or Jewish structures built in the West Bank without government permission. Israel has recently announced a series of small West Bank evacuations, including the threatened forced removal of Jews who legally purchased a house in the ancient city of Hebron.

Also being heavily negotiated is an agreement that would allow the PA to official open institutions in Jerusalem. WND previously reported the PA already has been quietly operating in Jerusalem, apparently with tacit approval from the Israeli government. But the expected agreement to be concluded before January would give the PA official operational status in the city, likely leading to the opening of scores of Palestinian institutions there.

According to Israeli law, the PA cannot officially hold court in Jerusalem. The PA previously maintained a de facto headquarters in Jerusalem, called Orient House, but the building was closed down by Israel in 2001 following a series of suicide bombings in Jerusalem. Israel said it had information indicating the House was used to plan and fund terrorism. Thousands of documents and copies of bank certificates and checks captured by Israel from Orient House – including many documents obtained by WND – showed the offices were used to finance terrorism, including direct payments to the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group.

In parallel with an understanding on the West Bank and Jerusalem institutions, the PA is pushing for a massive prisoner release to be pledged before January. A senior Palestinian negotiator told WND the PA requested that all Palestinian prisoners – meaning even convicted terrorists responsible for murdering Israelis as well as members of the rival Hamas terror group – be freed as part of the deal.

While the negotiator conceded such a massive release is unlikely, he said the PA's hope is that Israel will grant a large release, possibly including the freedom of convicted murderer Marwan Barghouti. Barghouti is a founder of Fatah's Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group, the most active Palestinian terror organization. He has boasted of planning the intifada, or Palestinian terror war, launched in September 2000, after then-PA President Yasser Arafat turned down an Israeli offer of a Palestinian state and instead attempted to "liberate" Palestine by force. Barghouti is serving five life sentences for his direct role in murdering Israelis.

Other understandings that Israel and the PA are attempting to reach before January surround water and natural resources. While it wasn't clear whether any understanding would actually be reached, the timing apparently favors all involved leaders.

With Bush set to depart office in January, sealing a deal between Israel and the Palestinians would bode well for his legacy, which some analysts say is hampered by what is described as an unpopular war in Iraq, an economic meltdown and a growing crisis with Russia.

Olmert is Israel's most unpopular prime minister. Tainted by corruption charges and a heavily mismanaged war in Lebanon in 2006, Olmert would also like to depart office with a deal in hand. Also there is some concern in Jerusalem that President-elect Barack Obama may push Israel into further concessions during future negotiations, so some argue a deal on key issues while Bush is in office may be in Israel's interests.

Abbas' term in office expires Jan. 10. His future leadership is sure to be contested by Hamas and by some in Fatah's young guard who want him to be replaced by Barghouti. Abbas' ability to tout an agreement in which Israel is compelled to retreat from the West Bank and release Palestinian prisoners could help his fading street popularity. Also, Abbas is said to be greatly concerned by the prospects of February's Israeli elections resulting in opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu coming to power. Netanyahu has announced repeatedly, including as recently as yesterday, he would suspend negotiations with the PA.

| Israel | Islam | Dividing the Land | America | Obama |

Anarchy Has Come News With Views (November 20, 2008) - President Bush reportedly said that the Constitution was “just a G—D—n piece of paper.” It is hard to believe that the report is true, but you would have to admit that recent happenings in this once-great Constitutional Republic reflect the opinions of many in power in the nation’s capital.

Despite what you might hear on the news, or out of the mouth of our elected officials, America is not a Democracy. In fact, according to our Founders, a democracy was the worst form of all governments. Listen to what some wise men have said.

Ben Franklin said “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Winston Churchill

“Democracy is the road to socialism.” Karl Marx

According to Webster’s unabridged Dictionary, a republic is “A form of government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law." I don’t have the time or the space to go over it for you. Please just read this commentary that I wrote two-years ago if you need it explained further.

Socialism is coming at us faster than a locomotive and we can’t even hear the train whistle. If we don’t rise up soon and DEMAND that government stay within the restrictions that the Founders put in place we will never pass to the next generation the “blessings of liberty” that our fathers passed to us.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Without it, America is a lawless nation and those in power are the boldest criminals. Please remember this; we have no Constitutional Rights, we have God-granted rights. The purpose of the Constitution was to restrain government. The Bill of Rights should actually be called the Bill of Government Limitations. Individual citizens cannot violate the Constitution. Only governments can. I am doing my best to write this commentary without my usual hyperbole. As Joe Friday would say, “Just the facts.”

Our ‘elected officials” swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. None of them do and we let them get away with it. The Courts are the worst. The “domestic enemies” use the courts to subvert this nation and hardly a peep is heard as judges arbitrarily rewrite the Constitution. Marbury v Madison was the source of the decree that “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury vs. Madison 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803). We must reclaim the Constitution if the Republic is to be saved. Look at how far we have fallen.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Most of these freedoms are under assault as courts determine when and where they can be exercised. The fairness doctrine, public prayer, freedom of assembly, and hate speech legislation are all eviscerating the restraints on government.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The new administration promises “change”. Those who are awake know that one of those changes will be government restriction on the God-given right to own guns. That’s why gun sales are through the roof with the election of Obama.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

American soldiers are never to be used against the citizenry. It is call Posse Comitatus which has been suspended by “Executive Order.” The 3rd Infantry is now active on American soil. Of course, they are here to help in “emergencies.”

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Can you say unwarranted wiretaps in the name of security, thanks to the Patriot Act? Under this “un-Constitutional law” a person can now be detained without cause. Habeaus Corpus is gone.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Ditto. See Patriot Act above

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

See Habeas corpus above.

Need I go on? So the voters in California determined that marriage shall remain a union between a man and a woman and the anarchists hit the streets. They invade churches, and appeal to the courts to overturn the will of the people.

Anarchy is defined as a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority. Lawless is abounding in America. Bankers openly steal from the people, government hands out money in violation of their oath, voter fraud runs rampant, and our new president may not even be eligible for the office.

America’s Constitution is a “living breathing document” because God’s Word is no longer the rock upon which all law stands. Remove God and you remove His laws. Remove His laws and you remove the pillars. The non-constitutional separation between the church and the state has removed the foundation of all moral law.

If God is gone, then government is god. “In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams.

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia] James Madison.

Anarchy has come to America.
| America |

Recession fears hit stock markets BBC News (November 20, 2008) - Wall Street shares have fallen steeply for the second day in a row, amid investors' growing fears of a protracted economic downturn. The Dow Jones average tumbled 5.5% after politicians said they could not agree on an immediate $25bn bail-out for the troubled US carmakers. Concerns over a sharp slowdown in US factory activity also added to worries about the strength of the economy. Earlier, European markets all closed sharply lower on recession worries.

US carmakers Ford, General Motors and Chrysler have now been told to come up with their own viable recovery plan by 2 December if they want a $25bn (£17bn) government rescue. Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that without such a plan there would be no bail-out. She said there was currently no plan in circulation that could pass both Houses of Congress and win President George W Bush's approval.

Unemployment claims

At the close the Dow was down 449.99 at 7,552.29. The Nasdaq was down 5%, or 70 points, at 1,316.12. Adding to the gloom, a business survey from the Philadelphia Federal Reserve showed that factory activity covering the key areas of eastern Pennsylvania, southern New Jersey and Delaware fell by more than forecast in November. The index, which is seen as a key gauge of the future state of US manufacturing, slipped to minus 39.3 from minus 37.5 in October.

And new claims for unemployment benefits leapt last week to their highest in 16 years, according to the US labour department. "The unemployment data was yet another ugly data point in a seemingly never-ending stream of poor economic numbers," said Michael Wittner, global head of oil research at Societe Generale.

The White House indicated on Thursday that Mr Bush would approve legislation to increase unemployment benefits.

Meanwhile, shares in Citigroup tumbled to their lowest level in more than 15 years, despite news that Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a long-time investor in the bank, was increasing his stake from less than 4% to 5%.

Mounting problems

The deepening global recession is being felt in a number of ways:

• Mining shares have been hit hard on fears that demand for steel and other raw materials will drop as the economy slows. Steel giant Arcelor-Mittal lost 8% and Vedanta Resources lost 8.5%
• Oil shares were among the main fallers with BP, Royal Dutch Shell and Total all at least 5% lower as sweet crude oil fell below $50 a barrel
• Japan's exports to Asia dropped in October for the first time in six years
• Job losses are mounting worldwide, with aerospace firm Rolls Royce, pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca and French carmaker Peugeot Citroen announcing a total of 6,100 cuts
• China has warned its employment outlook is "grim", amid worries that economic problems could lead to social unrest
• Switzerland has cut its key interest rate to 1% in a surprise move
• The IMF has approved a $2.1bn (£1.4bn) loan for Iceland. Turkey is set to agree to a precautionary stand-by deal with the IMF soon
• Retail sales fell and public sector borrowing rose in the UK.

In Europe, the London, Paris and Frankfurt markets were all down by more than 3%. In Asia on Thursday, Japan's Nikkei index ended 6.8% lower and Hong Kong's main index fell more than 4%.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

Bush Hands Over Reins of U.S. Economy to EU Newsmax (November 19, 2008) - The results of the G-20 economic summit amount to nothing less than the seamless integration of the United States into the European economy. In one month of legislation and one diplomatic meeting, the United States has unilaterally abdicated all the gains for the concept of free markets won by the Reagan administration and surrendered, in total, to the Western European model of socialism, stagnation, and excessive government regulation. Sovereignty is out the window. Without a vote, we are suddenly members of the European Union. Given the dismal record of those nations at creating jobs and sustaining growth, merging with the Europeans is like a partnership with death.

At the G-20 meeting, Bush agreed to subject the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and our other regulatory agencies to the supervision of a global entity that would critique its regulatory standards and demand changes if it felt they were necessary. Bush agreed to create a College of Supervisors. According to The Washington Post, it would "examine the books of major financial institutions that operate across national borders so regulators could begin to have a more complete picture of banks' operations." Their scrutiny would extend to hedge funds and to various "exotic" financial instruments. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), a European-dominated operation, would conduct "regular vigorous reviews" of American financial institutions and practices. The European-dominated College of Supervisors would also weigh in on issues like executive compensation and investment practices.

There is nothing wrong with the substance of this regulation. Experience is showing it is needed. But it is very wrong to delegate these powers to unelected, international institutions with no political accountability. We have a Securities and Exchange Commission appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, both of whom are elected by the American people. It is with the SEC, the Treasury, and the Federal Reserve that financial accountability must take place.

The European Union achieved this massive subrogation of American sovereignty the way it usually does, by negotiation, gradual bureaucratic encroachment, and without asking the voters if they approve. What's more, Bush appears to have gone down without a fight, saving his debating time for arguing against the protectionism that France's Nicolas Sarkozy was pushing. By giving Bush a seeming victory on a moratorium against protectionism for one year, Sarkozy was able to slip over his massive scheme for taking over the supervision of the U.S. economy.

All kinds of political agendas are advancing under the cover of responding to the global financial crisis. Where Franklin Roosevelt saved capitalism by regulating it, Bush, to say nothing of Obama, has given the government control over our major financial and insurance institutions. And it isn't even our government! The power has now been transferred to the international community, led by the socialists in the European Union.

Will Obama govern from the left? He doesn't have to. George W. Bush has done all the heavy lifting for him. It was under Bush that the government basically took over as the chief stockholder of our financial institutions and under Bush that we ceded our financial controls to the European Union. In doing so, he has done nothing to preserve what differentiates the vibrant American economy from those dying economies in Europe.

Why have 80 percent of the jobs that have been created since 1980 in the industrialized world been created in the United States? How has America managed to retain its leading 24 percent share of global manufacturing even in the face of the Chinese surge? How has the U.S. GDP risen so high that it essentially equals that of the European Union, whose population is 50 percent greater? It has done so by an absence of stifling regulation, a liberation of capital to flow to innovative businesses, low taxes, and by a low level of unionization that has given business the flexibility to grow and prosper.

Europe, stagnated by taxation and regulation, has grown by a pittance while we have roared ahead. But now Bush — not Obama — Bush has given that all up and caved in to European socialists. The Bush legacy? European socialism. Who needs enemies with friends like Bush?
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America | Obama | Economic Crisis |

Obama to fund forced abortions Spero News (November 15, 2008) -

0:01:51

Supporters of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) are confident that President-elect Barack Obama will reverse the Bush administration’s 2002 decision to stop the $40 million it received in U.S. funding. The policy was instated because of UNFPA’s support for China’s one-child policy, which includes coercive abortion practices.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D – N.Y.) said the funding will be approved by the Democratic majority Congress. Her comments came while speaking Wednesday at a press conference at the National Press Club where the 2008 U.N. report on world population was released. “You know the president will have to do nothing,” said Maloney. “He will just have to let the will of Congress go through. One of the changes is that UNFPA will be funded,” CNSNews.com reports.

The Bush administration in 2002 had stopped funding the organization, citing the Kemp-Kasten Amendment which prohibits funds from being available to organizations or programs determined to be supporting or participating in coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization programs. In July of 2008, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte announced that for the sixth year in a row, the government had determined that “UNFPA provides support for and participates in the management of the Chinese government’s program of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization.”

Rep. Maloney reported that she discusses UNFPA funding controversies in her book “Rumors of Our Progress are Greatly Exaggerated.” She said the UNFPA was founded “with American leadership” and “was supported strongly by George Bush’s father.”

The new UN report, “Reaching Common Ground: Culture, Gender and Human Rights,” calls for “cultural sensitivity” to “mitigate and overcome cultural resistance to couples and individuals using modern contraception.” It claims to prepare for the empowerment of women with control over their fertility. Nevertheless, Rep. Maloney claimed the U.S. will no longer “impose our own ideology” under the UNFPA funding changes. She said Obama “has already said his administration will change the way we do business in Washington and that improving the role of women around the world is going to be one of his prominent priorities. “I am thrilled with this report, and I am really thrilled at the new direction of our government,” Maloney said, according to CNSNews.com.
| America | Obama |

A little history on Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger quotes.

Obama transition tangled in ties to lobbying New York Times (November 14, 2008) - President-elect Barack Obama has imposed stricter conflict-of-interest restrictions on his White House transition team than any president before him. But a list of transition team members that his office made public on Friday includes a complicated tangle of ties to private influence-seekers.

Among the full roster of about 150 staff members being assigned to government agencies between now and Inauguration Day are dozens of former lobbyists and some who were registered as recently as this year. Many more are executives and partners at firms that pay lobbyists, and former government officials who work as consultants or advisers to those seeking influence.

After campaigning on promises to end the influence of lobbyists in the White House, Mr. Obama has imposed rules that bar officials on his transition team from handling any issues in areas of policy where they have lobbied over the last 12 months or from seeking to influence the same agencies for the next 12 months. The rules also bar officials from working on matters where family members or recent business associates may have a direct conflict of interest. In cases where there is even an “appearance of conflict,” officials must seek a waiver from the transition’s executive director, an Obama Senate aide and law school classmate, Christopher Lu.

At least one official initially involved in the transition appears to have been reassigned because of concern about his lobbying or legal work. Henry Rivera, a former Democratic commissioner on the Federal Communication Commission who was involved in planning for the agency’s transition, has dropped out of that role because he had represented clients on communications policy in the last year, the newsletter Communications Daily reported Friday. Instead, on the list that was made public on Friday, Mr. Rivera was listed on the team handling science, technology, space and the arts. The rules permit people who have lobbied in one area to join an Obama transition team in another. (With Mr. Rivera is Jim Kohlenberger, executive director of an advocacy group for Internet companies.) Representatives of the transition team declined to comment on the assignment, and Mr. Rivera did not return a phone call seeking comment.

Transition officials said that their policy went further than any previous White House to avoid self-dealing or influence-trading in the formation of the new administration, and that in the modern Washington it would be foolish to try to eliminate anyone who had worked in public policy for a private interest — or who had a family member in that business — from contributing to the transition. Stephanie Cutter, a transition spokeswoman, said in a written statement that the transition team reflected what she called Mr. Obama’s “commitment to change the way Washington does business and curb the influence of lobbyists on our government.” “While these rules disqualify many well-qualified professionals from participating in the transition as a result, they also put in place the right safeguards to prevent any potential conflicts of interest,” Ms. Cutter said.

Some appear to skirt the edges of the ban on working in areas of the transition where they have recently lobbied. Handling some Interior Department issues is Keith Harper, who lobbied earlier this year for Native American tribes. Overseeing the Consumer Products Safety Commission is Pamela Gilbert, a former executive director of the agency who as recently as two years ago lobbied for a consumer advocacy group. Within the last year she has lobbied for the company Barr Laboratories, for an investor group, and for an antitrust enforcement group.

Among the group handling the Justice Department and civil rights areas of the transition is Theodore Shaw, a litigator for an arm of the N.A.A.C.P. He has registered as a lobbyist for the group in the past, but N.A.A.C.P. officials say he has not lobbied in the past 12 months.

David J. Hayes, part of the 12-member group overseeing the transition and co-head of the team handling the areas of energy and natural resources, is the chairman of the environmental practice at the law and lobbying firm Latham & Watkins. He was personally registered as a lobbyist as recently as 2006, for clients including San Diego Gas and Electric.

Sally Katzen, another member of the supervisory group who is also on teams for the office of the president and government operations, was registered last year to lobby for the pharmaceutical company Amgen on Medicare reimbursements. Louisa Terrell, another member of the top working group, is on leave from the public policy office of the Internet company Yahoo! Tom Wheeler, another of the 12, is on leave from a firm that invests in technology companies and before 2004 lobbied for the cable television and wireless industries.

John L. White, a former Clinton official charged with overseeing the new Defense Department, is a partner in a firm that invests in defense contractors. Michael Warren, charged with overseeing Treasury, is chief operating officer of a firm that lobbies for clients including the U.S.-India Business Council.

Several of the officials have ties to the Fannie Mae, the government-backed mortgage firm whose implosion this fall contributed to the financial meltdown. Thomas Donilon, overseeing the State Department, is a partner in the law and lobbying firm O’Melveny and Myers who until three years ago lobbied for Fannie Mae. Wendy R. Sherman, the other official charged with reviewing the State Department, once headed Fannie Mae’s charitable foundation. And James Johnson, a former top officer of Fannie Mae, is on the economics and international trade team, charged with reviewing the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. Read full story...

Even Mr. Lu, the transition’s executive director charged with policing potential conflicts of interests, may have his own appearance problems. His wife, Kathryn Thomson, is a lawyer who represents corporate clients dealing with federal environmental regulations, while his older brother, Curtis Lu, is a top lawyer for Fannie Mae. (Such family connections may not be disqualifying conflicts depending on the nature of the transition job, ethics lawyers said.)

Mr. Lu has his work cut out for him in deciding which apparent conflicts may be of real concern, said Robert Walker, a Washington lawyer and former staff director of the Senate Ethics Committee. “I don’t think it is the brightest of bright lines, and there is going to be a lot of time spent thinking about just where that line is,” Mr. Walker said.

The people involved in the transition teams assigned to each federal department and agency have begun meeting with their current staff to collect information on budgets, pending issues and personnel matters. For now, the advisers assigned to each agency report back to the central 12-person working group, which coordinates the efforts.

The vast majority involved are second-tier officials of the Clinton administration, eager to help another Democrat take control of the White House. With the exception of a few academics, almost all of them spent the intervening years in the private sector, usually capitalizing on the connections and expertise they developed in the Clinton years.

For example, Sandy Berger, the Clinton national security adviser, founded Stonebridge International, a consulting and lobbying firm focused on helping clients resolve government issues here and overseas.

Mr. Berger took with him Mr. Warren, the former executive director of the president’s economic council who became chief operating officer of Stonebridge and has now become a major contributor to the transition in the pivotal areas of the Treasury Department and economic policy. Although not a registered lobbyist, Mr. Warren helped manage Stonebridge while it lobbied the government for clients including the U.S.-India Business Council within the last year as well as Dynergy International, Airbus and Conoco in earlier years. (More of Stonebridge’s business involves using government expertise and connections to help corporate clients abroad.)

Some transition officials now work at firms that do business with the agencies they are examining. John O. Brennan, a former Central Intelligence Agency official working on its transition, is president and chief executive of the Analysis Corporation, an intelligence contractor.

On the NASA review board, Lori Garver is now president of a strategic consulting company, Capital Space LLC, and previously worked for the aerospace company DFI International.

Among the transition officials charged with reviewing the Securities and Exchange Commission — likely to come under significant scrutiny amid the financial meltdown — is Mozelle Thompson, who runs a legal and policy consulting business for publicly traded companies including Facebook.com. One name on the transition list comes unencumbered by potential conflicts but instead by bad luck. Jami Miscik, leading a review of American intelligence agencies, was the head of intelligence analysis at the Central Intelligence Agency during its biggest embarrassment: the botched assessments about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Then she moved on to become a senior official managing risks in emerging markets for the investment bank Lehman Brothers, until its collapse this fall.

| America | Obama |

German economy falls into recession Associated Press (November 13, 2008) - The German economy, Europe's biggest, tipped into recession in the third quarter as weakening exports fueled a bigger-than-expected fall in national output, government figures showed Thursday. Gross domestic product contracted by 0.5 percent in the July-September period compared with the previous quarter, the Federal Statistical Office said — a much sharper fall than the roughly 0.2 percent decline economists had expected. That followed a 0.4 percent fall in GDP in the second quarter, which was the first decline since late 2004, and a 1.4 percent growth rate in the first quarter.

A technical recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth. The statistical office said a slight increase in consumer and government spending in the third quarter, during which the global financial crisis gathered pace, was offset by falling exports and a large increase in imports. Exports are a mainstay of the German economy and largely powered its stronger performance over recent years.

Holger Schmieding, chief European economist at Bank of America, said the third-quarter economic decline may be "just the beginning." "Late 2008 and early 2009 could well be worse," he said. "Germany — and the euro zone — have to get ready for a serious recession."

Economists said the bigger-than-expected fall was partly explained by upward revisions to the first- and second-quarter figures — previously reported as a 1.3 percent rise and 0.5 percent decline. In addition, the euro reached record levels against the U.S. dollar during the quarter and oil prices hit all-time highs. Both have since retreated. Still, Thursday's figures pointed to more trouble ahead. Schmieding forecast that the German economy would shrink by 0.6 percent in both the current quarter and next year's first quarter.

Timo Klein, an economist at IHS Global Insight in Frankfurt, said that "net exports will stay on a weakening trend for most of 2009, due to faltering euro zone and indeed global demand." The euro's decline against the dollar "will offset this only partially, as the pace of growth in foreign countries is a much more important variable for German exports than the exchange rate," he added.

Klein said declining oil prices and inflation could support private consumption, but fears over jobs could hold back consumer spending. The government is predicting growth of 1.7 percent for the whole of 2008, but forecasts the economy will slow to 0.2 percent next year. On Wednesday, its independent panel of economic advisers offered a gloomier outlook, forecasting zero growth in 2009.

In an effort to reduce the impact of the economic crisis, the government is pushing through a stimulus package ranging from tax breaks on new cars to credit assistance for companies. It is aimed at triggering investments of up to 50 billion euros ($63 billion).
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | America | Economic Crisis |

Ex-Hitler youth's warning to America WorldNet Daily (November 13, 2008) - Because it has abandoned moral absolutes and its historic Christian faith, the U.S. is moving closer to a Nazi-style totalitarianism, warns a former German member of the Hitler Youth in a new book. "Every day brings this nation closer to a Nazi-style totalitarian abyss," writes Hilmar von Campe, now a U.S. citizen, and author of "Defeating the Totalitarian Lie: A Former Hitler Youth Warns America."

Von Campe has founded the national Institute for Truth and Freedom to fight for a return to constitutional government in the U.S. – a key, he believes, to keeping America free. "I lived the Nazi nightmare, and, as the old saying goes, 'A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument,'" writes von Campe. "Everything I write is based on my personal experience in Nazi Germany. There is nothing theoretical about my description of what happens when a nation throws God out of government and society, and Christians become religious bystanders. I don't want to see a repetition. The role of God in human society is the decisive issue for this generation. My writing is part of my life of restitution for the crimes of a godless government, of the evil of which I was a part."

Von Campe grew up under the Nazis, served in the Hitler Youth and fought against the Red Army in the Yugoslavian theater as a tank gunner in the German army. He was captured at the end of the war and escaped five months later from a prisoner of war camp in Communist Yugoslavia. "It took me a long time to understand and define the nature of National Socialism," says von Campe. "And, unfortunately, their philosophy continues to flourish under different labels remaining a menace to America and free human society."

He writes: "The most painful part of defining National Socialism was to recognize my own moral responsibility for the Nazi disaster and their crimes against humanity. It boiled down to accepting the truth that 'as I am, so is my nation,' and realizing that if every German was like me, it was no wonder that the nation became a cesspool of gangsters. This realization is as valid today for any person in any nation as it was then, and it is true for America and every American now."

Von Campe's message is that political freedom and democratic rules alone are not sufficient to govern humanity justly. "Democratic procedures can be subverted and dishonest politicians are like sand in the gearbox, abundant, everywhere and destructive," he writes. "What I see in America today is people painting their cabins while the ship goes down. Today in America we are witnessing a repeat performance of the tragedy of 1933 when an entire nation let itself be led like a lamb to the Socialist slaughterhouse. This time, the end of freedom is inevitable unless America rises to her mission and destiny."

Von Campe says he sees spiritual parallels among Americans and his childhood Germany. "The silence from our pulpits regarding the moral collapse of American society from within is not very different from the silence that echoed from the pulpits in Germany toward Nazi policies," he explains. "Our family lived through the Nazi years in Germany, an experience typical of millions of Europeans regardless of what side they were on. We paid a high price for the moral perversions of a German government, which excluded God and His Commandments from their policies. America must not continue following the same path to destruction, but instead heed the lessons of history and the warning I am giving."

Specifically, von Campe warns Americans their political leaders are on the wrong footing, "denying our cultural and traditional roots based on our unique Constitution and Christian orientation as a nation. Christians don't understand their mission."
| NewWorldOrder | America |

'Gay fascists' storm church, attack members One News Now (November 13, 2008) - Homosexual activists recently attacked a Michigan church during its worship service. The attack occurred at Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan, by a group of self-described homosexual anarchists called "Bash Back!" Susan Fani of the Catholic League describes what happened.

"Outside they were chanting 'Jesus was a homo' on a megaphone. They were beating on buckets, presumably to drown out what the pastor was saying inside the church, and carrying an upside-down pink cross," she explains. "They set off the fire alarm. They unfurled this big banner because they apparently were hiding in an unused part of the church, like the balcony area." A Catholic League article also notes the "gay fascists" stormed the pulpit and shouted obscenities at church members. The protesters carried a banner that read, "It's okay to be gay! Bash Back!"

Fani contends the group's activities were illegal. "The police did show up and, as far as we can tell, no one was arrested, which we also don't understand because apparently most of the 30 or so people in this group fled before the police got there, but some were still there," she adds.

President of the Catholic League Bill Donahue laments the refusal of the biased, mainstream media to report on what he calls one of the most disturbing events this year. "If an organized group of gay bashers stormed a gay church, there is not a single sentient person in the United States who wouldn't know about it." The league is contacting Mike Cox, Michigan's attorney general, for an investigation.
| America |

Liberals clinically mad, concludes top psychiatrist WorldNet Daily (November 12, 2008) - Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder. "Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy." For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.

Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by both Barack Obama and his Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton can only be understood as a psychological disorder. "A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

• creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
• satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
• augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
• rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."
| America |

An Interview With Dr. Ron Paul McAlvany Weekly Commentary (November 12, 2008) - Congressman Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives: Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the “one exception to the Gang of 535″ on Capitol Hill.
| America | Obama | Economic Crisis |

Council on Foreign Relations president predicts coups, genocide and terrorism to test Obama Current (November 9, 2008) - Echoing Vice President-Elect Joe Biden's promise of a generated crisis and Colin Powell's revelation of a crisis that will happen on January 21 or 22, we now have the president of the Council on Foreign Relations and Biderberger Richard Haas' similar predictions of doom and gloom scheduled for President-Elect Obama.

"While foreign leaders may or may not choose to test Obama, "the one thing I'm sure of is, events will test him," Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haass said. "There will be coups. ... There will be genocide. ... There will be terrorism."

In 74 days, President-elect Barack Obama will assume responsibility for guiding the nation out of two wars and through a daunting array of real and potential global crises. Obama is likely to benefit from initial goodwill across much of the planet, where there's profound relief that the Bush years are ending. Still, the new president — untested in foreign affairs — faces what may be the most unsettled global scene since the 1930s and '40s."
| America | Obama |

Obama's Council on Foreign Relations Crew Global Research (November 9, 2008) - Meet some of president elect Obama’s leading foreign and domestic policy advisors and likely administration members, every one of them a prominent member of the Council On Foreign Relations. Will these people bring about "change" or will they continue to hold up the same entrenched system forged by the corporate elite for decades?

Susan E. Rice - Council on Foreign Relations, The Brookings Institution - Served as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs under Clinton from 1997 to 2001. Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright is a longtime mentor and family friend to Rice. Critics charge that she is is ill disposed towards Europe, has little understanding of the Middle East and would essentially follow the same policies of Condoleeza Rice if appointed the next Secretary of State or the National Security Adviser.

Anthony Lake - CFR, PNAC - Bill Clinton’s first national security adviser, who was criticized for the administration’s failure to confront the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and now acknowledges the inaction as a major mistake.

Zbigniew Brzezinski - CFR, Trilateral Commission - Brzezinski is widely seen as the man who created Al Qaeda, and was involved in the Carter Administration plan to give arms, funding and training to the mujahideen in Afghanistan.

Richard Clarke - CFR - Former chief counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council under Bush. Notoriously turned against the Bush administration after 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. Also advised Madeleine Albright during the Genocide in Rwanda.

Ivo Daalder - CFR, Brookings, PNAC - Co-authored a Washington Post op-ed with neocon Robert Kagan arguing that interventionism is a bipartisan affair that should be undertaken with the approval of our democratic allies.

Dennis Ross - CFR, Trilateral Commission, PNAC - Served as the director for policy planning in the State Department under President George H. W. Bush and special Middle East coordinator under President Bill Clinton. A noted supporter of the Iraq war, Ross is also a Foreign Affairs Analyst for the Fox News Channel.

Lawrence Korb - CFR, Brookings - Director of National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Has criticized manor of the invasion of Iraq but has detailed plans to increase the manpower of the United States Army to fight the war on terror and to "spread liberal democratic values throughout the Middle East".

Bruce Reidel - CFR, Brookings - Former CIA analyst who wishes to expand the war on terror to fight Al Qaeda across the globe. Considered to be the reason behind Barack Obama’s Hawkish views on Pakistan and his Pro India leanings on Kashmir.

Stephen Flynn - CFR - Has been attributed with the idea for Obama’s much vaunted "Civilian Security Force". Flynn has written: "The United States should roughly replicate the Federal Reserve model by creating a Federal Security Reserve System (FSRS) with a national board of governors, 10 regional Homeland Security Districts, and 92 local branches called Metropolitan Anti-Terrorism Committees. The objective of this system would be to develop self-funding mechanisms to more fully engage a broad cross-section of American society to protect the country’s critical foundations from the widespread disruption that would arise from a terrorist attack."

Madeline Albright - CFR, Brookings - Currently serves on the Council on Foreign Relations Board of directors. Secretary of State and US Ambassador to the United Nations under Clinton. Did not take action against the genocide in Rwanda. Defended the sanctions against Iraq under Saddam Hussein. When asked by CBS’s 60 Minutes about the effects of sanctions: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Albright replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it."

This is by no means an exhaustive list. Of course, had John McCain become president, being a member of the CFR himself, his administration would have been replete with CFR representatives also. Max Boot, Lawrence Eagleburger and Henry Kissinger, to name but a few, are all CFR members and were all advisors to the McCain campaign.

Please do your own research and add more names in the comments section of this report. It is important to document how these people are a part of the engine of global elitism and do not represent change. Only with this understanding will others wake up to the false left-right paradigm and be able to create the environment for real political change.
| NewWorldOrder | America | Obama |

Mexico deadlier than Iraq WorldNet Daily (November 11, 2008) - Drug-related bloodshed has killed more than 4,400 people across Mexico this year – a body count that has already exceeded the U.S. military death toll of 4,192 in the Iraq war since March 20, 2003. Violence involving soldiers, police and gangs has resulted in murders of 387 people in the first two weeks of October alone, and 58 killings were reported on Nov. 3, the day drug hitmen ambushed and killed two police officers with grenades and guns. The violence is not letting up in Mexico, where brutal murders are reported daily. This month is no exception.

On Election Day, a jet carrying Interior Secretary Juan Camilo Mouriño, the second highest official of the Mexican government, crashed in Mexico City. Fourteen people, including Mouriño, were killed, and 40 were injured. Many people believe the plane was a cartel target because top crime-fighting officials were aboard, including former Assistant Attorney-General José Luis Santiago Vasconcelos – an official whose name was found on a hit list. Mexican authorities claim there is no evidence that the plane was targeted. But according to a survey published by the Milenio newspaper, 56 percent of Mexicans are refusing to believe the plane crash was an accident, even if police determine so.

This week, two disabled police officers were shot to death in Juarez, across the border from El paso, Texas. They were part of a special unit to help disabled people, the Associated Press reported. One officer was nearly blind while the other was wheelchair-bound.

Twelve police officers were murdered in the first week of November. Mexican gunmen armed with automatic rifles and grenades also riddled police chief Juan Manuel Pavon Felix and three other men with bullets in Nogales just last week, while another police chief, Alejandro Parada, was shot to death Friday.

Another man was handcuffed, decapitated and put into a plastic bag hanging from a Juarez bridge. His head was found in another bag in a nearby plaza. Kidnappers also murdered a 5-year-old boy in Mexico City by injecting his heart with acid.

Gunfire erupted Friday after Mexican drug gangs clashed inside a Mazatlan prison, killing five people. According to a Reuters report, guns and drugs are common in most Mexican prisons filled with drug and organized-crime convicts. This weekend also marked bloody deaths of 10 people – including policemen – in Tijuana. Drug hitmen killed three of the men in drive-by shootings, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported.

Meanwhile, Mexican police captured the country's most feared death squad boss, Jaime "The Hummer" Gonzales this week, along with the largest arms collection in Mexico history – 540 rifles, 165 grenades, 500,000 rounds of ammunition and 14 sticks of TNT – all near the U.S. border. The FBI said Gonzales is suspected of ordering dozens of hitmen to Reynosa for a confrontation with U.S. police, London's Telegraph reported.

Security analyst Fred Burton at the Austin, Texas-based Stratfor firm, a private intelligence and analysis company, told Voice of America he is concerned that the violence is spilling into the U.S. "If you talk to the border sheriffs, which I do – if you talk to the police departments along the border, they will tell you they have a significant problem with cross-border abductions, murders, the homicide rate, and it impacts on us all in the United States," Burton said. Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada told Green Valley News, "When they go after cops, this is scary. It's the work of brazen, seemingly fearless executioners." He said the violence can easily spill over into the U.S.: "The border is an invisible line."

Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department issued a travel advisory in October for Americans who visit Mexico. Public shootouts, muggings, murders and bank robberies are rampant – even in broad daylight – and Mexican criminals harass U.S. travelers along border regions. "Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have taken on the characteristics of small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and, on occasion, grenades," the State Department warned.

Meanwhile, Mexican officials have launched a desperate campaign to draw American tourists back into Juarez after many decided to stay away from the region, the Associated Press reports. Billboards tout the city as the "land of encounters."
| Signs of the Times | America |

Interview: Single EU defence 'not for all' Euractiv (November 11, 2008) - It is impossible to conceive 'Defence Europe' as a project for all 27 member states because they do not all share "similar ambitions", French Defence Minister Hervé Morin told EurActiv France in an exclusive interview.

Nevertheless, there are grounds for increased cooperation between particular member states. "Our idea is to put a number of proposals on the table, in the knowledge that some will be well-received by a limited number of countries rather than all 26," noted Morin, underlining that this was how Europe was built in many other policy areas.

Morin is confident, nonetheless, that agreement can be reached among the 27 to raise military and public awareness of the need for a European defence capacity or "military Erasmus". The project is expected to focus on military training, fostering exchange between young European officers on coordinating evacuations of European nationals and on surveillance of European maritime areas. "We are confident that the proposals tabled will be adopted," said Morin, explaining that the French EU Presidency had received positive feedback regarding the planned measures.

Morin was also upbeat about information received from the Bush administration, which he said had changed its stance on European defence. Quoting Robert Gates, his US counterpart, the French minister noted that "there is no longer any American hostility to the creation of 'Defence Europe'. They have understood that it is a means of improving global military capabilities".

The defence minister explained that in designing a "system that nobody could block," the French Presidency had ensured that every member state could "decide upon its own participation". For example, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria will not participate in the multinational airlift fleet based on the A400M, Morin explained, but they will benefit in terms of balancing their transportation deficiencies.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America |

Gordon Brown calls for new world order to beat recession Telegraph UK (November 10, 2008) - Mr Brown will call on fellow world leaders to use the current worldwide economic downturn as an opportunity to thoroughly reform international financial institutions and create a new "truly global society" with Britain, the US and Europe providing leadership. His call comes ahead of an emergency summit of world leaders and finance ministers from 20 major countries, the G20, in Washington next weekend. Mr Brown will say that the Washington meeting must establish a consensus on a new Bretton Woods-style framework for the international financial system, featuring a reformed International Monetary Fund which will act as a global early-warning system for financial problems.

The original Bretton Woods agreements, signed in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire in 1944, established post-war international monetary protocols governing trade, banking and other financial relations among nations, including fixed exchange rates and the IMF.

Mr Brown's plan for strengthening the global economy 60 years later involves recapitalisation of banks to permit the resumption of normal lending to households and businesses, better international co-ordination of fiscal and monetary policy and a new IMF fund to help struggling economies and stop financial problems spreading between nations. He also wants agreement on a world trade deal and reform of the international financial system based on principles of "transparency, integrity, responsibility, sound banking practice and global governance with co-ordination across borders".

As Britain moves into a painful recession Mr Brown has staked his own leadership on helping to find a way out of the global crisis. In a speech to City financiers at the annual Lord Mayor's banquet in London he will say: "The British Government will begin to begin a new Bretton Woods with a new IMF that offers, by its surveillance of every economy, an early warning system and a crisis prevention mechanism for the whole world. "The alliance between Britain and the US, and more broadly between Europe and the US, can and must provide leadership, not in order to make the rules ourselves, but to lead the global effort to build a stronger and more just international order. "My message is that we must be internationalist not protectionist, interventionist not neutral, progressive not reactive and forward-looking not frozen by events. We can seize the moment and in doing so build a truly global society."

Mr Brown has already discussed IMF reforms with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel and has called on countries including China and the oil-rich Gulf states to fund the bulk of an increase in the IMF's bailout pot. The Prime Minister wants the markets to be subjected to morality and ordinary people's interests are put first. He believes that in electing Barack Obama, US voters have showed their belief in a "progressive" agenda of government intervention to help families and businesses through the current crisis. He will say: "Uniquely in this global age, it is now in our power to come together so that 2008 is remembered not just for the failure of a financial crash that engulfed the world but for the resilience and optimism with which we faced the storm, endured it and prevailed."

However, the head of the IMF played down expectations of a new Bretton Woods system ahead of the G20 summit. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the IMF's managing director, said: "Expectations should not be oversold. Things are not going to change overnight. Bretton Woods took two years to prepare. A lot of people are talking about Bretton Woods II. The words sound nice but we are not going to create a new international treaty."

The European Union has called for an overhaul of the IMF with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose country holds the EU's rotating presidency, saying: "We want to change the rules of the game". The US, however, has been more lukewarm on the possibility of radical change.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

Who are the Architects of Economic Collapse? Will an Obama Administration Reverse the Tide? Global Research (November 9, 2008) - Most Serious Economic Crisis in Modern History

The October 2008 financial meltdown is not the result of a cyclical economic phenomenon. It is the deliberate result of US government policy instrumented through the Treasury and the US Federal Reserve Board. This is the most serious economic crisis in World history. 

The "bailout" proposed by the US Treasury does not constitute a "solution" to the crisis. In fact quite the opposite: it is the cause of further collapse. It triggers an unprecedented concentration of wealth, which in turn contributes to widening economic and social inequalities both within and between nations. 

The levels of indebtedness have skyrocketed. Industrial corporations are driven into bankruptcy, taken over by the global financial institutions. Credit, namely the supply of loanable funds, which constitutes the lifeline of production and investment, is controlled by a handful of financial conglomerates. 

With the "bailout", the public debt has spiraled. America is the most indebted country on earth. Prior to the "bailout", the US public debt was of the order of 10 trillion dollars. This US dollar denominated debt is composed of outstanding treasury bills and government bonds held by individuals, foreign governments, corporations and financial institutions. 

"The Bailout": The US Administration is Financing its Own Indebtedness

Ironically, the Wall Street banks --which are the recipients of the bailout money-- are also the brokers and underwriters of the US public debt. Although the banks hold only a portion of the public debt, they transact and trade in US dollar denominated public debt instruments Worldwide. 

In a bitter twist, the banks are the recipients of  a 700+ billion dollar handout and at the same time they act as creditors of the US government. We are dealing with an absurd circular relationship: To finance the bailout, Washington must borrow from the banks, which are the recipients of the bailout.

The US administration is financing its own indebtedness. Federal, State and municipal governments are increasingly in a straightjacket, under the tight control of the global financial conglomerates. Increasingly, the creditors call the shots on government reform. The bailout is conducive to the consolidation and centralization of banking power, which in turn backlashes on real economic activity, leading to a string of bankruptcies and mass unemployment.

Will an Obama Administration Reverse the Tide?

The financial crisis is the outcome of a deregulated financial architecture. Obama has stated unequivocally his resolve to address the policy failures of the Bush administration and "democratize" the US financial system. President-Elect Barack Obama says that he is committed to reversing the tide: 

"Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it’s that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers. In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people." (President-elect Barack Obama, November 4, 2008, emphasis added)

The Democrats casually blame the Bush administration for the October financial meltdown. Obama says that he will be introducing an entirely different policy agenda which responds to the interests of Main Street:

"Tomorrow, you can turn the page on policies that put the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of men and women all across Main Street. Tomorrow you can choose policies that invest in our middle class and create new jobs and grow this economy so that everybody has a chance to succeed, from the CEO to the secretary and the janitor, from the factory owner to the men and women who work on the factory floor.( Barack Obama, election campaign, November 3, 2008, emphasis added)

Is Obama committed to "taming Wall Street" and "disarming financial markets"? Ironically, it was under the Clinton administration that these policies of "greed and irresponsibility" were adopted.

The 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act (FSMA) was conducive to the the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. A pillar of President Roosevelt’s "New Deal", the Glass-Steagall Act was put in place in response to the climate of corruption, financial manipulation and "insider trading" which resulted in more than 5,000 bank failures in the years following the 1929 Wall Street crash.

Bill Clinton signs into law the  Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, November 12, 1999. Under the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act, effective control over the entire US financial services industry (including insurance companies, pension funds, securities companies, etc.) had been transferred to a handful of financial conglomerates and their associated hedge funds. Read full story...

| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America | Obama | Economic Crisis |

Obama could reverse Bush orders on drilling, stem cells Breitbart (November 9, 2008) - Barack Obama is looking to reverse executive orders on oil drilling and stem cell research implemented by President George W. Bush, the president-elect's transition team said Sunday.
The move could signal a swift change of course after eight years under the Bush administration, even as top aides stressed Obama's bipartisan aims and predicted the new cabinet could contain familiar faces, particularly at the Pentagon.

Both the incoming Democrats and outgoing Republicans have largely struck a tone of civility, with economic woes and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan high on the list of priorities ahead of Obama's inauguration on January 20. But as Obama prepared for handover talks at the White House Monday, his transition chief John Podesta signaled that Obama could wipe away some hallmarks of the Bush years, including a ban on embyronic stem cell research and moves to open new lands to oil drilling. "I think across the board, on stem cell research, on a number of areas, you see the Bush administration, even today, moving aggressively to do things that I think are probably not in the interest of the country," Podesta told Fox. "We're looking at -- again, in virtually every agency to see where we can move forward, whether that's on energy transformation, on improving health care, on stem cell research," he said.

Podesta, who also served as White House chief of staff under president Bill Clinton, said he would not "preview decisions that he (Obama) has yet to make." However he pointed out that "as a candidate, Senator Obama said that he wanted all the Bush executive orders reviewed, and decide which ones should be kept, and which ones should be repealed, and which ones should be amended." Among the measures that Podesta raised were the Bush administration's move to authorize oil and gas drilling in the western state of Utah, and embryonic stem cell research which Bush has limited because he views it as destruction of human life. Obama is "a transformational figure, and I think he's going to transform the way government acts as we move forward," Podesta said.

Meanwhile the Democrat, who has already appointed a chief of staff and is mulling options for key posts in treasury and defense, is busily crafting a diverse cabinet, his transition team co-chair Valerie Jarrett said. "Throughout the campaign, president-elect Obama has talked about the importance of bipartisanship," she told NBC. "I'm confident his administration will include people from all perspectives," said Jarrett, a close aide to Obama who served as his Senate campaign finance director in 2004.

With the US military engaged on two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan, a key question has been whether Obama would keep on Defense Secretary Robert Gates. "I think everything is a possibility right now," Jarrett said when asked if the new administration would consider keeping Gates in his post.

Jarrett also defended Obama's pick of tough-talking Congressman Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, saying he brought political savvy to the incoming administration. "No one can hit the ground running faster than Rahm Emanuel. He embraces president-elect Obama's philosophy. He's going to do an outstanding job," she said. House minority leader John Boehner has assailed Emanuel as an "ironic choice for a president-elect who has promised to change Washington, make politics more civil, and govern from the center."

Bush's chief of staff Josh Bolten said the White House was also working hard to ensure a seamless transition. "Because if a crisis hits on January 21, they're the ones who are going to have to deal with it. We need to make sure that they're as well prepared as possible," Bolten said on C-Span.

On Saturday, Bush applauded Obama's election victory as a "triumph" and said "he can count on my complete cooperation as he makes his transition to the White House." But while the president and president-elect have taken the high road, partisanship has not entirely disappeared among lawmakers, as Democrats revel in the seats they snatched from Republicans in the House of Representatives and Senate in last week's election. Asked whether he agreed with the notion of keeping Gates as defense secretary, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid said on CNN: "Sure. I think we need a good transition there." "Why wouldn't we want to keep him? He's never been a registered Republican," he added.
| America | Obama |

Iran Challenges Obama by Hiking Tensions on Israel’s Borders DEBKAfile (November 8, 2008) - The strategy the Islamic regime has charted for the new US president hinges on fanning tensions on Israel’s northern and southern borders while putting a damper on the various Middle East peace initiatives. Syria was therefore discouraged from returning to its indirect peace track with Israel and Hamas ordered to boycott Egypt’s bid to patch up the quarrel between the Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah.

Tehran’s object is to show Barack Obama who holds the whip hand in the Middle East and force him to seek urgent talks to defuse rising tensions.

At his first news conference as president elect, Obama said Friday, Nov. 7, that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons was “unacceptable” and its support for terrorist organizations “must cease.” He ducked a reporter’s question about whether he had read the letter of congratulation sent him by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and when he would answer. But Iran had already laid out its strategy for the incoming president, jumping in the day before the US presidential election.

Foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki arrived in Damascus on Nov. 3 with a briefing for Syrian president Bashar Assad. According to our Middle East sources, Mottaki said Tehran would enter into dialogue with the new US president only from a position of political and military strength and did not propose to await Obama’s convenience until he took office in the White House on Jan. 20.

Iran’s rulers want to force the new US president to seek them out for a back-door channel of communications, in the same way as Ronald Reagan did while Jimmy Carter was still president to solve the 1980 hostage crisis in Tehran. They plan to make him come to them by raising tensions to crisis level.

While avoiding an explicit order to halt the Syrian-Israel talks, Mottaki gave Assad to understand that he must keep Tehran in the picture on their progress and goals. Better they should lead nowhere. This would fit in with Iran’s intention of putting on the table an impressive crisis package including Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians and so force the new US administration to accept the Islamic republic as the prime power in the region.

To drive this home, they are stirring the pot wherever they can.

DEBKAfile’s Exclusive military sources disclose that Iranian agents, aided by Hizballah, are enlisting Palestinian militias in the big Lebanese Ain Hilwa refugee camp near Sidon and other camps for terrorist missions on Israel’s northern border.

The Israeli government has watched what was going on but done nothing. But US military and intelligence were concerned enough to warn Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas that he had better act fast before his Fatah faction lost Ain Hilwa. This happened shortly before US Secretary of state Condoleezza Rice departed for the Middle East Quartet’s Sharm el-Sheikh meeting Sunday, Nov. 9.

Abbas reacted by sacking Sultan Abu Al Aynayn, the veteran Fatah chief for all the refugee camps in Lebanon, and appointing the Palestinian general Kemal Midhath in his stead. But our counter-terror sources strongly doubt that the new man can stem the defections of Palestinian militias from Fatah and halt Iran’s and Hizballah’s takeover of the Ain Hilwa camp – especially since, according to the latest US intelligence information, Col. Al Aynayn had already been bought.

In Gaza, Israeli forces last week pre-empted in the nick of time a Hamas cross-border kidnap operation by means of a tunnel leading under the border fence. Hizballah’s abduction of two Israeli soldiers, the late Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev in July 2006 triggered a full-scale war with Israel. The tunnel was destroyed but Hamas and Jihad Islami have maintained a four-day missile barrage against Israel.

In the diplomatic arena, Saturday, Nov. 8, Hamas suddenly announced a boycott of the oft-postponed Egyptian bid. It had been finally scheduled to take place in Cairo Monday, Nov. 9, to bring Hamas and Fatah together in Cairo for a power-sharing deal to bury the hatchet after three years.

This event was also intended to demonstrate to the Middle East Quartet that Egypt was back at center stage in the Middle East and had succeeded in drawing Hamas out of the radical Iranian orbit to embrace Palestinian unity and give the Quartet’s peace effort a major boost.

But Tehran was ahead of Cairo. Last Tuesday, Hamas leaders, including Khaled Meshaal, were given their orders from the Iranian foreign minister to boycott the Cairo talks. Following his script, a smiling Meshaal told a Sky interviewer: “If the new US president wants a role in the Middle East, he has no choice but to talk to us because we are the real force on the ground.”

By Saturday, Nov. 8, therefore, with missiles already flying from Gaza, Tehran had managed to spoil the last Middle East journey to be undertaken by Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, and tip over Egypt’s Palestinian mediation bid and the prospects of Syrian-Israel talks. Still to come is a Lebanese-Israeli border flare-up - for which Tehran has already enlisted Hizballah and Lebanese Palestinian militias.
| Iran | Israel | Islam | America | Obama |

World has 100 days to fix crisis: EU leaders Economic Times (November 8, 2008) - European Union leaders backed a 100-day deadline by which the world's leading economies should decide urgent global finance reforms, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Friday. Sarkozy, who chaired a special meeting of EU nations, said the financial crisis and economic downturn required a quick deal on an overhaul at a Nov 15 summit in Washington bringing together leaders of the world's 20 largest industrialized nations and emerging economies. "We are in an economic crisis. We have to take this into account," Sarkozy said. "We have to react and we have no time to lose." "I'm not going to take part in a summit where there is just talk for talk's sake," Sarkozy told reporters after talks between the heads of the EU's 27 nations.

The EU is calling for a second global summit next spring to flesh out changes to the way the world economy is governed. They want to see far more supervision of big financial companies and are urging governments to jointly monitor them. They want to prevent a repeat of the Wall Street excesses that caused havoc in markets worldwide, and are bringing emerging economies China, India and Brazil on board for talks on shaping a new world economic order.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the Washington talks should be a "decisive moment for the world economy." A text agreed by EU leaders says they want an early warning system that would watch for financial bubbles and prevent "world imbalances'', such as the swelling US trade deficit. They also suggest making the International Monetary Fund the world's financial watchdog, suggesting it be given more power to curb financial crises and give more money to aid countries in trouble.

The Europeans also want to close loopholes that allow some financial institutions to evade regulation, and ensure supervision for all major financial players, including ratings agencies or funds carrying high amounts of debt. The leaders in a declaration called for greater transparency in markets that would no longer omit "vast swathes of financial activity from auditable, certifiable accounts." It also said "excessive risk-taking must be overhauled," a reference to the sale of high-risk debt securities and executive pay that may reward risk-taking.

EU leaders will call on the Nov 15 summit to agree immediately on five principles: submit ratings agencies to more surveillance; align accounting standards; close loopholes; set banking codes of conduct to reduce excessive risk-taking; and ask the International Monetary Fund to suggest ways of calming the turmoil. To date, European governments alone have committed some 2 trillion euros ($2.6 trillion) in cash injections, bank deposit guarantees, interbank loan coverage and partial or full nationalization to prop up consumer and business confidence.

The damage done worldwide is fueling a search for a "new Bretton Woods", a reference to the post-World War II conference that shaped the international financial system. In Washington, there is little desire in the waning days of the Bush administration for a major overhaul of financial regulations. But the United States and European nations are no longer the only players. China and Brazil and India are jumping at the chance to join a major international effort.

G-20 finance officials nations will meet this weekend in Sao Paulo, Brazil, to prepare next week's summit. This may pave the way for emerging economies to play a larger role in global finance talks. France is suggesting bring them on board as members of the exclusive world club of G-8 industrialized nations which regularly meets to discuss the global economy.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

Just out of curiosity I decided to take a look at exactly when this timeframe would end as of the date Sarkozy stated it on Friday November 7, 2008. Adding 100 days brings us to February 15, 2009! Now if you haven't read the HIStory, Our Future Bible studies yet or seen the chart this may not be all that interesting so check out the details and see what you think. Coincidence?

Europe unveils its vision for global financial reform EU Observer (November 7, 2008) - EU leaders have agreed on a set of principles that should guide future talks on the reform of the global financial architecture, urging for more regulation and transparency in the sector that has delivered the world's biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. "No financial institution, no market segmentation and no jurisdiction must escape proportionate and adequate regulation or at least oversight," states the document adopted at an extraordinary summit on Friday (7 November).

The list of desired measures will be presented at the G20 summit of industrialised and emerging economies on 15 November in Washington. The measures includes a call for transparency of financial transactions through revised accounting standards, an early warning system to tackle risks and a central role for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) "in a more efficient financial architecture."

"We don't want to move from the total lack of regulation to too much regulation," said French President Nicolas Sarkozy whose country currently holds the six-month presidency of the 27-strong Union.

He admitted that the three-hour debate with his EU counterparts was "pretty intense" but it did amount to a "united message" that they will send to other world powers next week.

"We will be defending a common position, a vision for restructuring our financial system," said the French leader.

Both Sweden and Britain reportedly expressed some unease about too much pro-regulation activism on France's part. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that the EU agreed there would be no place for protectionism in the global talks next week.

The EU's scenario also included a chapter about the need to overhaul pay policy for company executives. UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that the issue of executive remuneration is "important and should be linked to long-term performance," although he did not endorse Belgian plans to limit executive pay-outs to a maximum of 12 months' salary.

"We are not for interventionism, we are for a good performance of the markets, we are for a social economy of the markets," commented European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso.

Great expectations

Mr Sarkozy said that he had spoken to both outgoing US President George W Bush and his successor, Barack Obama, about next week's meeting in Washington. The document endorsed by all EU leaders states that within 100 days of the top-level global talks, measures to implement the principles desired by Europe should be drawn up. "It has to be a real historic meeting," said Mr Barroso.

The French leader argued that additional countries, such as Spain and the Netherlands, should be invited to the G20 meeting, adding that Paris, which as both a G7 member and current chair of the six-month rotating EU presidency temporarily has two seats at such meetings, will offer one of its two places to Madrid.

Meanwhile, Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg's premier and finance minister as well as president of the Eurogroup, said he requested on Friday a single seat for the eurozone countries within the international financial institutions, with non-euro countries represented separately.

But he admitted that his idea was "too difficult for prime ministers to cope with", yet maintained confidence that this would happen eventually, as most of the EU countries, including the UK, will be part of the eurozone in 10 years.

He said he was "not offended" for not having been invited to the G20 meeting on 15 November - a day he would instead spend "between his bedsheets." Still, he criticised the fact that the EU has the tendency to be "over-represented" in the financial institutions, noting that the European Commission was not a G20 member, but will still take part in the global talks.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

Dollars lining up for 'civilian national security force'? WorldNet Daily (November 6, 2008) - President-elect Barack Obama raised questions during an election campaign stop in Colorado Springs when he asserted the U.S. needs a "civilian national security force" that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force, but few of those questions have been answered.

But now one report is proposing a possible solution for part of the equation: From where would the money for such an organization come? Democrats in Congress now are floating the idea of cutting U.S. military spending by 25 percent, or $150 billion a year, and according to a report from blogger Jay Tea, that could be used for the new "security force." The idea to cut the military, proposed by Rep. Barney Frank, already is being opposed by Republicans.

Frank, D-Mass., recently told a newspaper the Pentagon will have to start choosing the cuts from its weapons programs because he wants to slash more than $150 billion from the estimated $607 billion in defense spending already approved for fiscal year 2008. U.S. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., argued America now is fighting terror worldwide, including active wars in Afghanistan and Iran, and that has stretched the capabilities of the military already. He warned cutting funding in such a drastic way would be irresponsible. "You know if we don't make the right decisions about the military nothing else will matter will it? Because if we don't have a free country then you know what do these other programs matter at all? That's the number one responsibility," he said.

The blogger, however, saw the plan linked this way: "Representative Barney Frank, apparently not content with his role in wreaking havoc on the nation's financial system, has announced that he will push for a 25 percent cut in defense spending. This could actually work hand-in-hand with one of Obama's proposals for a 'civilian National Security Force,' which he said would be as well-funded as the military. If the defense budget is slashed, then it makes it easier to fund a new organization at the same level."

On the FamilySecurityMatters.org website, blogger Peter Gadiel lamented the lack of information about Obama's plan and its accompanying implied threat. "Such an outfit would be worse than useless in any foreign action. Its only possible use could be for domestic purposes. Since we already have police forces, and the National Guard what could a 'Domestic National Security Force' possibly be used for? Suppressing dissent? We simply do not know," he wrote. It was in a July speech in Colorado Springs that Obama insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set." A video of his comments is here:

Obama spokesmen have declined to return WND calls requesting an explanation. Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions about it. "If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together? "Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.

His call generated intense Internet discussions. The Blue Collar Muse blog commented, "In 2007, the U.S. Defense budget was $439 billion. Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? The questions are legion and the implications of such an organization are staggering! What would it do? According to the title, it's a civilian force so how would it go about discharging 'national security' issues? What are the Constitutional implications for such a group? How is this to be paid. … The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such 'youth' organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?"

Obama's Colorado Springs speech was about a "call to service." WND also reported Obama's "Universal Voluntary Public Service" program promoted on his campaign website. According to an editorial in Investor's Business Daily, Obama plans to use an existing group called Public Allies as a model for his national effort. "Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas," said IBD. "They plan to herd American youth into government-funded re-education camps where they'll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of 'social change.'"
| NewWorldOrder | America | Obama |

3 'Superbanks' Now Dominate Industry MSNBC (November 6, 2008) - The financial crisis that has been sweeping the globe has reshaped nearly every corner of the economy, but no industry has been altered more radically than banking. Several of the nation's biggest banks have failed or been absorbed by healthier institutions, leaving three giant "superbanks" with an unprecedented concentration of market power: Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo. While that may be good news for emerging giants and the failing companies they helped rescue, the new oligopoly raises troubling questions about regulation and competition, analysts and consumer advocates say.

"Bank fees are going up, up, up, and that’s the danger to consumers as more of these banks consolidate,” says Sally Greenberg, executive director of the National Consumer League. “It’s difficult for the average person to get a bank account that doesn’t involve fees, and if you get into financial distress you’re cooked, and you’ll be ‘fee-ed’ to death.” According to a recently released banking fee study from Bankrate.com, ATM surcharges rose 11 percent this year to an average of $1.97, and the fee for a bounced checks rose 2.5 percent to an average $28.95. "Consumers are going to be victims of higher and more punitive fees,” Greenberg predicts.

Moreover, many analysts worry about how federal and state authorities, who were unable to prevent the current financial industry meltdown, will be able to monitor the new giant banks that combine a wide range of operations from investment banking to consumer lending. “Large institutions are impossible to manage prudently, let alone regulate,” says Amar Bhide, a professor at the Columbia Business School. In fact, existing federal banking laws say that no bank can have more than 10 percent of the domestic deposit market — a threshold recently surpassed by all three superbanks.

When asked whether the government would take any action, a Justice Department official was noncommittal. “It’s always something we’ve looked at and will continue to look at," said spokeswoman Gina Talamona. "It’s something we’ve looked at as part of our general antitrust review.”

The reason limits on market share were put in place were so banks didn’t get so big they’d become monopolies that could risk the whole economy, explains Atul Gupta, finance department chair for Bentley University in Boston. But now the government appears to be pushing banks in the direction of more consolidation. The Treasury is pouring some $250 billion of taxpayer money into healthy financial institutions, and some of that is being used by stronger banks to snap up weaker rivals. “The government is convinced that allowing any of these firms to fail would have catastrophic implications,” says Gupta. “So the government is saying, ‘This bank is in trouble, so I want this bank to buy that one.’ And everyone holds their noses and hopes things work out.”

In the current environment, such rapid consolidation is a “no brainer," says Gregory F. Udell, Chase Chair of Banking and Finance at the Indiana University Kelley School of Business. The risk of creating monopolies, he says, “is a lot less than the risk of having a lot of zombie institutions out there.” He also points out that consolidation in the banking sector, though recently at a fever pitch, is nothing new. Indeed, the number of commercial banks and savings & loans in the United States has fallen in the past 20 years to 8,451 as of June, compared to 16,574 in 1988, according to FDIC data.

Espen Eckbo, finance professor at Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business, believes economies of scale will only help the troubled financial sector. He maintains the banking sector got into trouble because of out-of-control risk taking — not because banks got too big. His answer: “We need to educate the boards of these banks that ultimately are supposed to be a stopgap for these things. They need to have a bird’s-eye view of the organization and understand if the left arm is taking on debt while the right arm is taking on debt. They have to oversee that.” But some analysts are arguing that the current wave of consolidation could be followed by a move to break up the biggest banks. Read full story...

In a recent congressional hearing, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said the consolidation of the banking industry is "a very serious problem." I think it’s part of a general failure to enforce antitrust laws in the last few years. So one of the things I think is part of your exit strategy is that we have to think about breaking up some of the big banks.” Even American Banker, which covers the industry, predicts in a story titled “Pressure Builds to Corral the Giant Firms” that “the financial services companies considered ‘too big to fail’ may face a political backlash next year.”

Another major issue will be how successfully these merged banks will be able to integrate their operations, from staffing to technology. Even in the best of circumstances where companies have months to plan for a merger things can go awry, says Carol M. Beaumier, executive vice president of global industry programs at Protiviti, a business consulting and internal audit firm. “The level of due diligence and planning doesn’t exist,” says Beaumier of the rapid consolidations that have resulted from the financial meltdown. “We are creating a daunting task for companies that have to carry out these mergers. It creates uncertainty among employees (and) customers, and the government will be looking over its shoulder.”

Good employees at some of these institutions may be lost in the shuffle because, she says, “You don’t have time to prepare and identify those key performers.” As they grow, the megabanks could end up shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to service, says Standard & Poor’s analyst Stuart Plesser. “When they get really big they may lose some relationships in the end because there’s certainly some impersonal banking going on when they get that big,” he says.

The National Consumer League’s Greenberg believes government should move quickly to keep banking fees down for consumers, just as Congress capped executive compensation as part of the bailout bill. “The system isn’t working now, and all this consolidation means less competition,” she says. “It is incumbent on regulators and Congress to step in and say, ‘Wait a second. You don’t get to impose exorbitant fees.'” “These banks have to get away from a business plan that’s based on fines and penalties, she adds, “and get back to providing consumers, farmers and small businesses credit at a reasonable rate that serves both the lender and the borrower.”

Until a new administration takes action, consumers and small businesses can always vote with their feet and use a smaller, community bank. “Many consumers (are) turning to local banks, saying, 'I’m much more comfortable having my money with you,’” says Nancy Atkinson, senior analyst with Aite Group, a research firm that covers the financial services industry. “And small businesses say, 'I know my local banker, and I trust that person.’”

| NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

Obama and EU to reinvent global politics, pundit says EU Observer (November 6, 2008) - The Obama administration will play a big role in "reinventing" the international system, especially on the financial side, in strong partnership with the EU, US foreign policy expert David J. Rothkopf said on Wednesday.

A former trade offical in the Clinton administration and a consultant on foreign affairs and emerging markets, Mr Rothkopf was talking from Washington during a video-conference organized by the Brussels branch of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, an international think-tank associated with the US State Department. "President Obama will play a bigger role in re-inventing the international system than any other president before in past decades," Mr Rothkopf argued, with a number of organisations and treaties badly needing an "update" or to be replaced altogether – ranging from the stalled Doha round of trade talks known to the non-proliferation treaty, as well as outdated bodies such as the G7 or the International Monetary Fund that don't include the emerging economies such as China.

US-EU relations will "clearly" improve, with a second trip to Europe probably taking place in the first months of his mandate, Mr Rothkopf said. The tendency of the Democratic Party to be "more comfortable" with multi-lateralism and listening to its European partners will also contribute to improving relations, he said. But there was also a "necessity" for this partnership to improve, Mr Rothkopf argued. "We can't do things alone, we need partnerships and burden sharing. I would expect a debate within NATO about a broader role and sense of burden sharing," he said, mentioning Afghanistan as an example where European help is needed. "Problems within Europe are going to have an impact on this as much as US obligations are, to the extent that the EU is divided on some of the big issues of the time and on the nature of the common foreign policy and common defence policy," Mr Rothkopf added.

New global financial regulator and IMF reform

Mr Rothkopf emphasised the need for a global financial regulator – something the G20 meeting in Washington on 15 November is still unlikely to agree upon, with the outgoing Bush administration opposing this idea and the Obama team yet not in charge. But G20 leaders would probably agree to meet again in the first months of 2009, when both the creation of such a body, as well as the reform of the IMF could take a more concrete shape.

He spoke of a "regulatory renaissance" and of of "fusion capitalism", by which he means seeing European and Asian visions of capitalism and how markets are to be regulated take greater prominance on the international stage, and not just the so-called Washington Consensus. Yet on the down side, Mr Rothkopf warned against "blazing new trails on protectionism" that would isolate economies and only aggravate problems.

In terms of what a global financial regulator would look like, Mr Rothkopf mentioned the EU as an example of "creating super-national structures," while also noting the problem of enforcement. "Getting everybody in a room and agreeing on principles is easy – this is what we are probably going to get on 15 November – but next year we'll see whether we'll get institutions that have the ability to enforce new global standards on the international financial markets. That's going to be the challenge," he said.

Any financial agreement would also foresee a leadership role for the US, in coalition with the EU and other countries, Mr Rothkopf projected.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis | Obama |

I'm brought back to what Glenn Beck spoke of regarding Biden's comments on a coming test by the world and global financial decisions that Obama would need their support on (October 20, 2008), even though it may seem like the wrong decision at the time. Be careful what you ask for America... you'll get it. If the HIStory, Our Future timeline is accurate, then this new global financial system would be implemented in the beginning to middle of 2009... the timeframe regarding these global financial system changes they want to make. Further global cooperation in these matters means America will essentially be under the same thumb as the rest of the world financially and part of building and implementing that system.

Javier SOLANA, EU High Representative for the CFSP, congratulates Barack Obama on his election as President of the United States of America Council of the European Union (November 5, 2008) - Javier SOLA9A, EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), made the following statement today following the Presidential elections in the United States of America :

"I want to congratulate Barack Obama on his impressive election victory. Elections are about political renewal. The campaign has been exciting and uplifting and the turnout impressive. The sense of renewal also applies to the transatlantic relations. Europeans and Americans are keen to open a new chapter in their relations.

President-elect Obama ran on a ticket of change. This is most welcome since many things in the world today need changing. Let us do that together.

Europe is willing and able to help. There is a high number of very complex global problems: from the Middle-East to Iran and Afghanistan and Pakistan, from climate change to nonproliferation. We need to address those problems together with determination and creativity.

President-elect Obama personifies what is good and impressive about America. He also personifies today's complex and globalized world where change is a constant. As we grapple with these problems, it is good to have someone who put change, empathy and good judgement at the heart of his campaign.

I am looking forward to working with President Obama and his administration."
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | Solana | America |

Ron Paul Warns Of Great Shift Toward Global Government Under Obama Infowars (November 5, 2008) - Texas Congressman and 2008 presidential candidate Ron Paul has warned that the euphoria surrounding the election of Barack Obama combined with the overwhelming fear of major international crises could facilitate a cataclysmic shift toward a new world order.

Appearing live on the Alex Jones show earlier today, the Congressman spoke of a feeling of dread surrounding the change of guard both in the White House and on Capitol Hill: "I do feel it but I don't think it's brand new, I didn't wake up with it, I've had it for a while, I don't think the election was a surprise, but the rhetoric is getting pretty strong and they are getting very bold." he commented.

Speaking on the stage management of the election, and calling it a "huge distraction" from real issues, the Congressman outlined how both candidates were pre-positioned by the elite interests with the knowledge that either would satisfactorily serve their agenda: "I think McCain was obviously a back up candidate in case something happened where Obama didn't win, they'd have been satisfied with McCain, but they have been positioning Obama for a long long time." "This started even before he announced he was running. Anybody who would have gotten that much favorable coverage for so long, you know that the plans are laid for him to be the individual that's going to be taking care of the corporate elite." the Congressman continued.

Paul also warned that Democrats gains within the House and the Senate make for a particularly worrying situation of absolute power, similar to that held by the Republican party eight years ago. "Just as a Republican Congress wouldn't say boo to a Republican Congress, you know that the Democratic Congress is NEVER going to stand up." "I think it is very dangerous and the first year is going to be the most dangerous year." Paul stated. "Just think of Bush's first year, he also had the 9/11 thing that he could use to scare everybody to death. And Obama will use the financial crisis, which will get worse, and there will be more military skirmishes around the world." Paul asserted. The Congressman also warned that many Republican representatives may go along with Obama just to win favor with the electorate and be seen to follow popular opinion.

Commenting on the much touted "International crisis" that luminaries such as Colin Powell, Joe Biden and Zbigniew Brzezinski have all guaranteed will occur within weeks of Obama entering the White House, the Congressman stated that he believes it may be a catalyst for a shift toward world government: "I think it's going to be an announcement of a new monetary order, and they'll probably make it sound very limited, they're not going to say this is world government, even though it is if you control the world's money and you control the military, which they do indirectly." "A world central bank, worldwide regulation and world control of the whole system, of all the commodities and all the natural resources, what else can you call it other than world government?"

"Obama wouldn't be there if he didn't toe the line, and when the meeting starts on November 15th for the new monetary system, this could be the beginning of the end of what's left of our national sovereignty." Paul said, also warning that the global media are already hailing Obama as the world's leader.

With Obama having previously announced that he will shift military attention to Pakistan, the Congressman also warned that the president elect will, thanks to the previous administration, have the necessary precedent to escalate the war on terror: "It's the philosophy of the Bush doctrine, which was that we have the right to preemptively strike anybody and then he even expanded that recently by saying we don't have to invade and conquer, but we have the right to go in and bomb anybody without their permission, and that's why we go into Pakistan and Syria, which are acts of war. So they have the tools to do it and the sentiment and most Americans are oblivious to what is happening."

Paul also suggested that any escalation could be facilitated by false flag events such as Gulf of Tonkin style incidents. Urging listeners not to lose faith in the campaign for liberty and the quest to restore and the Republic, Ron Paul spoke of reason to look ahead: "We have to look for sources of optimism... ultimately though all that happens to us is a result of philosophy and beliefs and convictions and that is where I think we have made some inroads. We have drawn attention to the importance of monetary policy, the importance of the central bank, the importance of how government causes so much problems, it's just that we're in the minority." Paul said.

"We have to continue to do what we are doing, you are in the business of passing on and spreading information, that, to me, is most crucial, getting more people engaged, more people understanding what the issues are, nothing else is more important than that. Then when you see an opportunity we have to turn this into political action." the Congressman concluded.
| NewWorldOrder | America | Obama | Economic Crisis |

U.S. Treasury teaches 'Islamic Finance 101' WorldNet Daily (November 5, 2008) - The Treasury Department has announced it will teach "Islamic finance" to U.S. banking regulatory agencies, Congress and other parts of the executive branch today in Washington, D.C. – but critics say it is opening a door to American funding of Islamic extremism.

'Islamic Finance 101'

According to its announcement, the "Islamic Finance 101" forum is "designed to help inform the policy community about Islamic financial services, which are an increasingly important part of the global financial industry." The Treasury Department has collaborated with Harvard University's Islamic Finance Project to coordinate the event. The department says it expects about 100 people will attend the seminar. Some speakers include Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Neel Kashkari, senior adviser to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Jr.; Harvard Business School professor Samuel Hayes; Mahmoud El-Gamal, chair of Islamic economics, finance and management at Rice University and Islamic finance adviser to the Treasury Department; Sarah Bell of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Yusuf Talal DeLorenzo, Shariah adviser and Islamic scholar; Michael McMillan, chair of the Islamic Legal Forum at the American Bar Association and professor of Islamic finance; and Rushdi Siddiqui, global director for the Dow Jones Islamic Market Indexes and vigorous advocate for Islamic finance.

Islamic finance is a system of banking consistent with the principles of Shariah, or Islamic law. It is becoming increasingly popular, having reached $800 billion by mid-2007 and growing at more than 15 percent each year. Wall Street now features an Islamic mutual fund and an Islamic index. However, critics claim anti-American terrorists are often financially supported through U.S. investments – creating a system by which the nation funds its own enemy.

Aiding the enemy

In his essay, "Financial Jihad: What Americans Need to Know," Vice President Christopher Holton of the Center for Security Policy writes, "America is losing the financial war on terror because Wall Street is embracing a subversive enemy ideology on one hand and providing corporate life support to state sponsors of terrorism on the other hand."

Holton refers to Islamic finance, or "Shariah-Compliant Finance" as a "modern-day Trojan horse" infiltrating the U.S. He said it poses a threat to the U.S. because it seeks to legitimize Shariah – a man-made medieval doctrine that regulates every aspect of life for Muslims – and could ultimately change American life and laws.

Shariah-compliant finance is becoming a major movement, because American banks and investors are seeking wealth from oil profits in the Middle East. Some advocates claim Islamic finance is socially responsible because it bans investors from funding companies that sell or promote products such as alcohol, tobacco, pornography, gambling and even pork.

However, Islamic financial institutions also require all industry participants to adhere to tenets of Shariah law. According to Nasser Suleiman's "Corporate Governance in Islamic Banking, "First and foremost, an Islamic organization must serve God. It must develop a distinctive corporate culture, the main purpose of which is to create a collective morality and spirituality which, when combined with the production of goods and services, sustains growth and the advancement of the Islamic way of life." Three nations that rule 100 percent by Shariah law – Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan – hold some of the most horrific human rights records in the world, Holton said. "This strongly suggests that Americans should strenuously resist anything associated with Shariah."

Tenets of Shariah

In his essay, "Islamic Finance or Financing Islamism," Alex Alexiev outlined the following tenets of Shariah taken from "The Reliance of the Traveler: The Classic Manual of Sacred Law":

• A woman is eligible for only half of the inheritance of a man
• A virgin may be married against her will by her father or grandfather
• A woman may not leave the house without her husband's permission
• A Muslim man may marry four women, including Christians and Jews; a Muslim woman can only marry a Muslim
• Beating an insubordinate wife is permissible
• Female sexual mutilation is obligatory
• Adultery [or the perception of adultery] is punished by death by stoning
• Offensive, military jihad against non-Muslims is a religious obligation
• Apostasy from Islam is punishable by death without trial
• Lying to infidels in time of jihad is permissible

'Useful idiots'

Alexiev writes that many Islamic financial institutions claim Shariah-Compliant Finance "derives its Islamic character from the strict observance of the ostensible Quranic prohibition of lending at interest, the imperative of almsgiving (zakat), avoidance of excessive uncertainty (gharar) and certain practices and products considered unlawful (haram) to Muslims …" However, he said, "[E]ven a casual examination of the reality of Islamic finance today reveals it to be a bogus concept practiced by deceptive ploys and disingenuous means by practitioners that are or should be aware of that, but remain predictably silent."

Shariah finance institutions that have funded militant Islamism for more than 30 years. Alexiev cites Islamic Development Bank's hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Hamas in support of suicide bombing. Bank Al-Taqwa and other banks and charities run by Saudi billionaires have funded al-Qaida activities.

Additionally, Shariah law mandates that Muslims donate 2.5 percent of their annual incomes to charities – including jihadists. When 400 banks regularly contribute to such charities, potential financial sums can be virtually limitless.

If Western banks endorse Shariah, they will "end up becoming what Lenin called useful idiots or worse to the Islamists," Alexiev writes. "And it is a very thin line between that and outright complicity in the Islamist agenda."
| Islam | NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts Carolina Journal Online (November 4, 2008) - Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts — including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration. Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly.

The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers’ retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration.

Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, in prepared remarks for the hearing on “The Impact of the Financial Crisis on Workers’ Retirement Security,” blamed Wall Street for the financial crisis and said his committee will “strengthen and protect Americans’ 401(k)s, pensions, and other retirement plans” and the “Democratic Congress will continue to conduct this much-needed oversight on behalf of the American people.”

Currently, 401(k) plans allow Americans to invest pretax money and their employers match up to a defined percentage, which not only increases workers’ retirement savings but also reduces their annual income tax. The balances are fully inheritable, subject to income tax, meaning workers pass on their wealth to their heirs, unlike Social Security. Even when they leave an employer and go to one that doesn’t offer a 401(k) or pension, workers can transfer their balances to a qualified IRA.

Mandating Equality

Ghilarducci’s plan first appeared in a paper for the Economic Policy Institute: Agenda for Shared Prosperity on Nov. 20, 2007, in which she said GRAs will rescue the flawed American retirement income system (www.sharedprosperity.org/bp204/bp204.pdf).

The current retirement system, Ghilarducci said, “exacerbates income and wealth inequalities” because tax breaks for voluntary retirement accounts are “skewed to the wealthy because it is easier for them to save, and because they receive bigger tax breaks when they do.”

Lauding GRAs as a way to effectively increase retirement savings, Ghilarducci wrote that savings incentives are unequal for rich and poor families because tax deferrals “provide a much larger ‘carrot’ to wealthy families than to middle-class families — and none whatsoever for families too poor to owe taxes.”

GRAs would guarantee a fixed 3 percent annual rate of return, although later in her article Ghilarducci explained that participants would not “earn a 3% real return in perpetuity.” In place of tax breaks workers now receive for contributions and thus a lower tax rate, workers would receive $600 annually from the government, inflation-adjusted. For low-income workers whose annual contributions are less than $600, the government would deposit whatever amount it would take to equal the minimum $600 for all participants.

In a radio interview with Kirby Wilbur in Seattle on Oct. 27, 2008, Ghilarducci explained that her proposal doesn’t eliminate the tax breaks, rather, “I’m just rearranging the tax breaks that are available now for 401(k)s and spreading — spreading the wealth.”

All workers would have 5 percent of their annual pay deducted from their paychecks and deposited to the GRA. They would still be paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, as would the employers. The GRA contribution would be shared equally by the worker and the employee. Employers no longer would be able to write off their contributions. Any capital gains would be taxable year-on-year.

Analysts point to another disturbing part of the plan. With a GRA, workers could bequeath only half of their account balances to their heirs, unlike full balances from existing 401(k) and IRA accounts. For workers who die after retiring, they could bequeath just their own contributions plus the interest but minus any benefits received and minus the employer contributions.

Another justification for Ghilarducci’s plan is to eliminate investment risk. In her testimony, Ghilarducci said, “humans often lack the foresight, discipline, and investing skills required to sustain a savings plan.” She cited the 2004 HSBC global survey on the Future of Retirement, in which she claimed that “a third of Americans wanted the government to force them to save more for retirement.”

What the survey actually reported was that 33 percent of Americans wanted the government to “enforce additional private savings,” a vastly different meaning than mandatory government-run savings. Of the four potential sources of retirement support, which were government, employer, family, and self, the majority of Americans said “self” was the most important contributor, followed by “government.” When broken out by family income, low-income U.S. households said the “government” was the most important retirement support, whereas high-income families ranked “government” last and “self” first (www.hsbc.com/retirement).

On Oct. 22, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Argentinean government had seized all private pension and retirement accounts to fund government programs and to address a ballooning deficit. Fearing an economic collapse, foreign investors quickly pulled out, forcing the Argentinean stock market to shut down several times. More than 10 years ago, nationalization of private savings sent Argentina’s economy into a long-term downward spiral.

Income and Wealth Redistribution

The majority of witness testimony during recent hearings before the House Committee on Education and Labor showed that congressional Democrats intend to address income and wealth inequality through redistribution.

On July 31, 2008, Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, testified before the subcommittee on workforce protections that “from the standpoint of equal treatment of people with different incomes, there is a fundamental flaw” in tax code incentives because they are “provided in the form of deductions, exemptions, and exclusions rather than in the form of refundable tax credits.”

Even people who don’t pay taxes should get money from the government, paid for by higher-income Americans, he said. “There is no obvious reason why lower-income taxpayers or people who do not file income taxes should get smaller incentives (or no tax incentives at all),” Greenstein said.

“Moving to refundable tax credits for promoting socially worthwhile activities would be an important step toward enhancing progressivity in the tax code in a way that would improve economic efficiency and performance at the same time,” Greenstein said, and “reducing barriers to labor organizing, preserving the real value of the minimum wage, and the other workforce security concerns . . . would contribute to an economy with less glaring and sharply widening inequality.”

When asked whether committee members seriously were considering Ghilarducci’s proposal for GSAs, Aaron Albright, press secretary for the Committee on Education and Labor, said Miller and other members were listening to all ideas.

Miller’s biggest priority has been on legislation aimed at greater transparency in 401(k)s and other retirement plan administration, specifically regarding fees, Albright said, and he sent a link to a Fox News interview of Miller on Oct. 24, 2008, to show that the congressman had not made a decision.

After repeated questions asked by Neil Cavuto of Fox News, Miller said he would not be in favor of “killing the 401(k)” or of “killing the tax advantages for 401(k)s.”

Arguing against liberal prescriptions, William Beach, director of the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation, testified on Oct. 24 that the “roots of the current crisis are firmly planted in public policy mistakes” by the Federal Reserve and Congress. He cautioned Congress against raising taxes, increasing burdensome regulations, or withdrawing from international product or capital markets. “Congress can ill afford to repeat the awesome errors of its predecessor in the early days of the Great Depression,” Beach said.

Instead, Beach said, Congress could best address the financial crisis by making the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003 permanent, stopping dependence on demand-side stimulus, lowering the corporate profits tax, and reducing or eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends.

Testifying before the same committee in early October, Jerry Bramlett, president and CEO of BenefitStreet, Inc., an independent 401(k) plan administrator, said one of the best ways to ensure retirement security would be to have the U.S. Department of Labor develop educational materials for workers so they could make better investment decisions, not exchange equity investments in retirement accounts for Treasury bills, as proposed in the GSAs.

Should Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, congressional Democrats might have stronger support for their “spreading the wealth” agenda. On Oct. 27, the American Thinker posted a video of an interview with Obama on public radio station WBEZ-FM from 2001.

In the interview, Obama said, “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.” The Constitution says only what “the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you,” and Obama added that the Warren Court wasn’t that radical.

Although in 2001 Obama said he was not “optimistic about bringing major redistributive change through the courts,” as president, he would likely have the opportunity to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices.

“The real tragedy of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused that I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change,” Obama said.
| NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis | Obama |

French EU defence plan is not anti-NATO, minister says EU Observer (November 4, 2008) - The US is still critical of the EU's common security and defence policy, a pet project of the bloc's French presidency, but French interior minister Michelle Alliot-Marie defended the initiative on Monday as not being aimed against NATO.

Challenged by the deputy chairman of the NATO military committee, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberrry to explain France's view on the transatlantic link in the enhanced EU security and defence policy, Ms Alliot-Marie said "there are countries who don't have confidence in this [transatlantic] dialogue and believe a strong European security and defence policy is aimed at minimizing NATO, but I believe the opposite." She stressed that the EU is better adapted to deal with certain conflicts, while in others "NATO power" is needed. Both were addressing a 100-odd audience at the "Security and Defence Days" conference in Brussels on Monday evening.

Mr Eikenberry made acidic remarks about the EU's ability to plan, deploy and conduct successful missions, stressing that out of the bloc's 20 missions so far, five were short-term operations in Congo. "I'm not questioning the value of those missions, they were successful in the relief of pressing humanitarian problems, but what is the overarching strategic thinking in the EU with regard to the Congo?"

He also criticized the EU's "overwhelming preference for soft power" and lack of deployable troops despite massive spending on defence. "European security in this century depends on peace and stability abroad. This is a paradigm shift often stated but still not evident in terms of policies and strategic choices. The current European strategy does not articulate clear regional priorities or comprehensive integrated responses to trans-national threats," he said.

The NATO deputy chairman nevertheless underlined that in the US there is openness towards a closer cooperation between his organisation and the European Union. "President's Sarkozy's notion of bringing more Europe into NATO is pushing against a door that is already wide open," he argued.

French defence minister Herve Morin told the Financial Times on Monday that the mood in Washington had changed, after president Sarkozy announced that France would become a full member of NATO. "It took hours of conversation for the Americans to realise that France wasn't trying to set up a rival operation and that European defence could actually bolster the capabilities of the transatlantic alliance as a whole," Mr Morin had told FT.

Mr Morin also criticised British opposition to establishing a headquarters in Brussels for the EU's common security and defence policy (ESDP). "I appreciate British pragmatism but we have a situation where we have numerous headquarters - in Britain, France, Germany, Italy and now even Greece - and that costs us money," he said.

More ESDP even without Lisbon Treaty

Meanwhile, German conservative MEP Karl von Wogau, the chairman of the European Parliament's sub-committee on security and defence argued at a parliament hearing on Monday, that the failure of the Lisbon treaty, rejected in the Irish referendum, is no impediment for building up the ESDP. The treaty would have allowed more EU power in the field of security and defense, which still remains a core competence of national governments, the MEP said. But he referred to the creation in 2004 of the European Defence Agency (EDA), an EU body aimed at helping the bloc's governments to co-ordinate and prioritise defence spending, as an example of how the ESDP can proceed without Lisbon.

Nick Witney, former EDA chief, argued the same line, while praising France's efforts to re-energize the ESDP. He also stressed the need for a common headquarters in Brussels, capable of strategic planning for the EU's different missions.

UK opposes Brussels headquarters

France's push for a common headquarter is being challenged by the UK argument that the EU can draw on NATO's planning capabilities and its 17,000-strong European headquarter in Mons, some 70 km south of Brussels.

This is enshrined in the current EU treaty of Nice, which says that "when a given crisis gives rise to an EU-led operation making use of NATO assets and capabilities, the EU and NATO will draw on the so-called "Berlin Plus arrangements." "These arrangements cover three main elements that are directly connected to operations and which can be combined: EU access to NATO planning, NATO European command options and use of NATO assets and capabilities."
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America |

Obama Tells Abbas: I Support Dividing Jerusalem Israel National News (November 4, 2008) - Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama privately expressed his support for a new Arab state within Israel's current borders, including eastern Jerusalem, during his meeting with Palestinian Authority Chairman and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah this summer.

According to a report published Tuesday in the Lebanese newspaper al-Ahbar, Obama told Abbas that he supports a PA state, and Arab "rights to east Jerusalem" as well. The sources said Abbas and PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad "heard the best things they ever heard from an American president" during the meeting. However, said sources quoted in the report, the candidate asked them to keep his declaration a secret.

PA spokesman Nimar Hamad said he had no comment on the remarks, other than to describe the briefing Abbas and Fayyad had given to the presidential hopeful. Later official PA reaction to the report categorically denied that Obama had made the statements attributed to him.

"The Palestinian Authority views the American elections as an internal matter and does not favor one person over another," he said in an official statement. "The PA hopes that the next American president will fulfill his commitment towards the Palestinians and pressure Israel."

Abbas, Fayyad and the rest of the Arab world are clearly hoping for an Obama victory, however. Hamas sources quoted in the article said that Arabs fear new wars would break out in the Middle East if Republican candidate Senator John McCain wins, but they believe there will be an official peace agreement with an Obama White House.

Mixed Messages in Gaza

PA Arabs who live in Gaza were reportedly celebrating in the streets with impromptu demonstrations, waving Hamas flags in anticipation of an Obama win, according to Voice of Israel government radio. But officials for the terrorist group that controls the region were skeptical that a change in the White House would lead to a change in facts on the ground. Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhum was quoted by Voice of Israel as saying that voters who would have to choose between Obama and McCain were being presented with two "awful" options.

The group's Damascus-based political bureau chief, Khaled Mashaal, softened the statement by saying the group is prepared to work with any U.S. president and would welcome any change in American policy, especially if it corrected what he referred to as a "bias" toward the Jewish State.
| Israel | Islam | Dividing the Land | America | Obama |

Rebbetzin Esther Jungreis: Prepare for the Coming of Messiah Israel National News (October 27, 2008) - Internationally renowned Jewish inspirational speaker Rebbetzin Esther Jungreis warns that we are feeling the "birth pangs of the Mashiach," with limited time to save ourselves from dark prophecies surrounding his arrival.

In an exclusive interview on Israel National Radio's popular new show Mah Nishma with host Gavriel Sanders, Rebbetzin Jungreis, who is the founder of the successful 'Hineni' Jewish outreach organization and author of many books including the recently published 'Life is a Test: How to Handle Life's Challenges Successfully', addressed the fear that people feel as turbulent global events begin to make their mark on Jews and their allies around the world.

The birthpangs of the Messiah

"Anyone who has been just looking around and has his or her eyes open must be frightened. Things are happening that just don't make sense. Overnight, our cherished institutions, our icons, have collapsed. We don't understand it. People blame this one and that one. It's not just in the United States, it's all over the world, and we have so many natural disasters, and so much illness. What is happening?"

Rebbetzin Jungreis says G-d is bringing the world closer to redemption in a process called "chevlei Mashiach" – the labor pains of the arrival of the Messiah. "Now labor pains, you know, could be very, very painful…as the birth becomes more imminent, the pain becomes more intense, to the point where the mother can not bear it anymore, and just when she thinks she can not bear it, it's 'Mazal Tov!', and the baby is born."

'The generation of the dog'

Based on the writings of ancient Jewish sages, Jungreis concludes that this generation is replete with the signs that are prophesied to hail the coming of the Messiah, including endemic impudence, followership, idol worship, disasters, and war. "All our [sages] agree…they do not want to be present for the chevlei Mashiach, the birth pangs, because the birth pangs are going to be very painful… It's going to be a generation that will abound in chutzpah [audacity]. Chutzpah will be colossal. Families will be fragmented. Children will turn against parents, parents against children. The elderly will not be respected. Youth will be worshipped.

"… The generation will be like the generation of the dog.  What does that mean? The dog runs ahead but always looks back to see if the master is behind him. Similarly, people don't have their own opinions today. What is the media saying? The media is controlling the world…"

According to Rebbetzin Jungreis, the greatest idol worship of this generation is money, an obsession which causes the Western world to ignore the lurking danger posed by Islamist terror against Israel and the United States. "We have been very blessed, perhaps there was never in history such a wealthy Jewish generation as ours was. But there was no Hakaras HaTov, no credit to Hashem. "My strength did all this". We became arrogant, we became chutzpahdik, we forgot Hashem… Imach shemam [their names be obliterated], the sons of Ishmael, every minute it's "Allah". The sons of Esav, "the Lord," every minute. Their leadership is always speaking the name of G-d. Am Yisrael … they heard the word of Hashem panim el panim, face to face - has forgotten its G-d."

The propensity of the world to worship money is so great, says Rebbetzin Jungreis, that the murder of six million Jews during the Holocaust, Iran's effort to attain a nuclear weapon, and the rise of fascist and anti-Western powers can be attributed to it. "[Following the US stock market crash in 1929] America was so absorbed, Hitler had the playground of the world at his disposal, and no one stopped him," she says. "Too late did America and the world wake up. Early thirties – no one intervened with Hitler. They were all absorbed in a financial crisis.

"Fast forward. We have a financial crisis now. Ahmadinejad has the entire world at his disposal, came to New York, made the most toxic, poisonous accusations… if you had made those accusations against Muslims they would have burned down New York City, everyone would have been apologizing. Jews? No problem. He says it, and nobody even looks up, no one looks up. And in addition to him, all the rogue nations, all the demagogues, all the new Hitlers got into the act. Russia woke up again, back to its old tricks, making treaties with Chavez of Venezuela, right here in our own hemisphere. And of course, there is always North Korea. And America is worried about the stock market."

Ahmadinejad, Islamist terror - all part of prophecy

Islamist terror, says Rebbetzin Jungreis, is also predicted in the 9th century (Gregorian calendar) Jewish work, ' Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer,' which prophesied that before the coming of Messiah in the end of days, Ishmael – who is described as a brutal, wild man – will rule the world. Rebbetzin Jungreis attributes Arab terror in Israel, the Islamization of Europe, and the welcoming of Iranian President and vocal anti-Zionist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in New York to the ancient prophetic writing.

"Ahmadinejad comes to New York, and he has the audacity, the chutzpah to proclaim … in public, at the UN, that it's Zionist Jews who are responsible for the financial crisis in the world, that they are manipulating the world, they're controlling the world… And guess what: The entire world is silent, no outcry, no outrage, no one says anything, and he – just for good measure – he adds that Israel is this cesspool that has to be destroyed, annihilated. No outcry, not a word."

Ahmadinejad himself has a role in the unfolding arrival of the Messiah, says Jungreis, and was also predicted to wield lethal power during the end of days. "You know it says in Yalkut Shimoni that right before Mashiach will come, during Chevlei Mashiach, the king of Persia, now what is Persia? Persia is today's Iran. The king of Persia is going to have a weapon that is going to terrorize the entire world."

'Hashem is hiding'

The current low spiritual state of the Jewish People has caused G-d to hide His face from them, says Rebbetzin Jungreis, who says this concealment is meant to provoke the Jewish People to search for Him.

"In parshas Vayelech… Hashem tells Moshe Rabbeinu that in the future, there will come a generation who will forget Hashem, and terrible sufferings will come upon them. And finally they will say 'you know why this is happening? Ein Eloka, G-d is not with us. G-d is not in our midst.' And then it says … " I will continue to hide My face." Dichotomous. If we admit that G-d is not with us, then why is G-d hiding? … That puts the onus of responsibility upon G-d – it's Your fault. You are not with us. We have to say 'We are not with Hashem! We are not with our Torah! We are not with our Mitzvot! We are responsible."'

Rebbetzin Jungreis says G-d's concealment is a crucial element in developing the proper relationship with Him, with the key to understanding it being found in the biblical story of Adam and Chava [Eve].

"What was the first sin of Adam and Chava?. We say that we ate from a fruit that was forbidden? No! Hashem was ready to negotiate that. The first sin was scapegoating!. 'The woman who You gave to be with me, it's her fault, she made me do it.' Not only was Adam scapegoating, he was an ingrate. And Chava, what did she say? 'It was the serpent.' And that's when Hashem said 'That's it. That's it. Out! Gan Eden is over.' And that is what we are doing. But listen to the chesed [kindness] Hashem said. 'I will hide My face.'

"When a mother goes with her toddler to the supermarket, let's say, and the toddler has a temper tantrum, and he doesn't want to go out unless he gets candy, what does the mother do? She says 'Okay, I'm leaving, you will have to stay here by yourself," and she goes away. Is she really going away? Of course not. She is keeping an eye on her baby, but she pretends to go away so the child should seek her out and run after her. So Hashem says 'I'm hiding' but if you're hiding, you want somebody to find you. There's a beautiful mashal [parable] from a Rebbe who was walking on the street and he sees a little boy crying, and he says 'why are you crying my little child?' 'I'm crying because I'm playing hide-and-seek and nobody's looking for me.'… Hashem is hiding, but He wants us to find Him. And we are not looking for Him, so what are we doing? Whose fault was it?" For part two of the article, click here.
| Iran | Israel | Islam | Gog/Magog | America | Economic Crisis |

Romans Chapter 13 Chuck Baldwin (August 10, 2008) - It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone." Or words to that effect.

No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the other hand, let's be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. And Romans 13 is their escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the way.

Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously misinformed), let's briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."

Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not oppose President Bush or any other political leader really believe that civil magistrates have unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt whether they truly believe that.

For example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject's bride on the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren sheepishly say, "Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government"? I think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a law?

So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. (Lordship and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.)

By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection.

Civil government is a "minister of God to thee for good." It is a not a minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates have a divine duty to "execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." They have no authority to execute wrath upon him that doeth good. None. Zilch. Zero. And anyone who says they do is lying. So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.

Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab and Jezebel? Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops? Did Daniel violate God's principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's law to not pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the state? Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem? Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to obey those authorities who demanded that he abandon his missionary work? In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.

Remember that every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile civil authorities opposed to their endeavors. Christians throughout church history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God's principle of submission to authority?

So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority--even civil authority--is limited.

Plus, Paul makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be predicated on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said, "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than just "because they said so." It is also a matter of conscience. This means we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness of our government's laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation.

Therefore, there are times when civil authority may need to be resisted. Either governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both) could precipitate civil disobedience. Of course, how and when we decide to resist civil authority is an entirely separate issue. And I will reserve that discussion for another time.

Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this country. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with any man or any group of men. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with the President, the Congress, or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand the significance of this distinction? I hope so.

This means that in America the "higher powers" are not the men who occupy elected office, they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Americans:

"Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution is] God's minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."

Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our responsibility to civil authority in these United States, as per the teaching of Romans Chapter 13.

Furthermore, Christians, above all people, should desire that their elected representatives submit to the Constitution, because it is constitutional government that has done more to protect Christian liberty than any governing document ever devised by man. As I have noted before in this column (See: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2005/cbarchive_20050630.html ), Biblical principles form the foundation of all three of America's founding documents: The Declaration of Independence, The U.S. Constitution, and The Bill of Rights. As a result, Christians in America (for the most part) have not had to face the painful decision to "obey God rather than men" and defy their civil authorities.

The problem in America today is that we have allowed our political leaders to violate their oaths of office and to ignore, and blatantly disobey, the "supreme Law of the Land," the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if we truly believe Romans Chapter 13, we will insist and demand that our civil magistrates submit to the U.S. Constitution. Now, how many of us Christians are going to truly obey Romans Chapter 13?
| America |

Solana’s speech to Institute for Security Studies Consilium Europa (October 30, 2008) - Dear friends, Let me start our "tour d'horizon" with the financial crisis. It has been the emblematic event of 2008, putting all else into the background. It is worth analysing, especially for its consequences for foreign policy. Allow me to make some observations:

First, the diagnosis. This crisis has confirmed that globalisation remains the dominant force shaping our world. This really is a global crisis. It has spread at incredible speed. Functionally, from sub-prime mortgages to credit markets to the real economy. And geographically from the US to Europe to emerging markets. Not everyone is affected equally; but no one is immune.

In its wake, the balance between markets, states and individuals will have to be adjusted. But globalisation itself - that is the global spread of goods, people, ideas and technology - will not stop. The crisis has highlighted globalisation's central dilemma. Today's big problems are global in nature. But the main resources and legitimacy are located at the national level. In a way, European integration is an attempt to resolve this core dilemma.

Regarding, the policy response, the crisis has demonstrated - once more - the need for stronger global institutions. With goodwill and creativity a lot can and has been achieved. Through ad-hoc crisis management among political leaders, central bankers and others. But if we are honest we must admit that the existing architecture is not up to the task - neither in Europe, nor globally.

I have been convinced, for some time, and I have underlined that in different fora, that the current international system is inadequate. Now the case for deep reform has become overwhelming. This must start with the international financial institutions. But we need to go further.

From the UN and the G8 to the regimes and institutions dealing with the big issues of our time: nonproliferation, energy and climate change, migration. Hopefully, the obvious need to deepen cooperation in the area of finance will act as a catalyst for these necessary wider reforms.

In any case, this effort cannot be handed by the US plus Europe alone. Even the talk of us "leading" is misleading. Apart from changing formats, the mindset needs changing too. We better not see this as the Western powers inviting the others for coffee after our discussions. We need all relevant players "present at the creation" of the new system, to use Acheson's famous phrase. And we need to be ready to engage them seriously. Read the full story...

| Iran | Israel | Islam | Gog/Magog | EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | Solana | 1^st Seal | America | Economic Crisis |

A Real Election Choice On The United Nations Forbes (October 30, 2008) - When Barack Obama said he'd like to "spread the wealth around," he was widely understood to be talking about redistributing income within the U.S. But there's another arena in which Obama fans are waiting impatiently for the promised wealth-spreading--the United Nations.

Officially, under its 1945 charter, the U.N. is a neutral body that takes no sides in U.S. politics. But a recent story in the Washington Post, headlined "At the U.N., Many Hope for an Obama Win," reports the same drumbeat I've been hearing from the U.N.'s New York headquarters. There's little love lost there for John McCain, who replies to the U.N.'s chronic scandals and tyrant-friendly tilt by proposing some competition, via a League of Democracies.

Obama, by contrast, promises to give the U.N. a bigger role in U.S. foreign policy and many more American tax dollars than the $5 billion or more per year that currently accounts for roughly one-quarter of the total U.N. budget--already the biggest share by far among the U.N.'s 192 member states.

A disturbing caveat here is that the total annual U.N. budget is something of a mystery even to the U.N., which produced an estimate two years ago of $20 billion. That has since grown, but the U.N. either won't or can't say by how much.

Cocooned in diplomatic immunities, and spent across borders, the U.N. budget is multilayered, secretively administered, erratically audited and often filtered through multiple U.N. agencies that charge fees to each other. These days, in the name of "public-private partnerships," it is also opaquely intertwined with assorted private foundations and corporations worldwide.

The danger here is not only graft and waste but the ease with which the U.N. collective, with its majority of nonfree member states, lends itself to support for dictatorships, money laundering and questionable transfers of technology and goods to rogue regimes (all of which emerged in investigations into both the U.N.'s 1996-2003 Oil-for-Food program in Iraq, and its more recent Cash-for-Kim scandal in North Korea).

Obama has yet to put forward a viable plan for holding the U.N. accountable. But he's already promising to embrace a massive U.N. program called the Millennium Development Goals, saying "When I'm president, they will be America's goals." This U.N. program in effect sets U.N.-approved central planning targets for poor countries and urges developed countries to pay for it by handing over 0.7% of gross national product--in effect, a direct tax levied by the U.N.

Obama is promising upfront that by 2012 he'd be tossing at least $50 billion a year into this pit. If, as president, he signs onto the full U.N. program, the tab for American taxpayers over the next four years could total well over $300 billion.

With the pale exception of Japan (the number two financial donor after the U.S.), America has been the only U.N. member state to even try to impose serious oversight on the U.N. Almost the entire U.S. effort came from a now-departed team brought to the U.S. mission in 2005 by former Ambassador John Bolton, and a few Republican members of Congress, chiefly Sen. Norm Coleman and the late Rep. Henry Hyde. Coleman, a former prosecutor who put himself on the line to uncover U.N.-related nests of money laundering, graft and abuse, is now running for re-election in Minnesota--where he might lose his seat to comedian Al Franken.

U.N. reforms proclaimed with fanfare in recent years have fizzled. A policy of financial disclosure by top U.N. officials, promised by Kofi Annan, has turned out to require no public disclosure whatsoever. A system-wide audit promised by Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon in early 2007 was scaled back within the week to a tardy and off-site audit of a portion of the U.N.'s operations in North Korea.

A special task force set up almost three years ago to investigate U.N. procurement activities has identified at least 20 major cases of fraud, kickbacks and malfeasance tainting a total of more than $630 million worth of contracts. But this probe is due to be shut down by the end of this year, leaving behind at least 150 unfinished investigations.

Given the current U.N. scene, it's not just Joe the Plumber who comes to mind. American taxpayers might want to recall the fate of Boxer the horse, in George Orwell's Animal Farm, whose mantra as he slaved in the name of the collective good was "I must work harder"--right up until he was carted away to the glue factory.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | America | Election 2008 |

Egyptian War Games Cause For Concern in Israel, Lawmaker Says CNS News (October 29, 2008) - Israel is upset over Egyptian military exercises in which the simulated “enemy” is Israel, and some are calling on the U.S. to reconsider its aid to Egypt because of it. Israel and Egypt – two U.S. regional allies – signed a U.S.-sponsored peace treaty in 1979 – Israel’s first with an Arab nation.

The Egyptian navy reportedly carried out the largest exercise in its history last week. Dubbed Victory 41, the military maneuvers marked the Egyptian sinking of the Israeli Naval vessel Eilat 41 years ago, in which 47 Israeli sailors were killed and 91 wounded. According to the daily Ha’aretz, Oct. 20 was set aside as a holiday marking the sinking of the Israeli vessel for the Egyptian naval forces. The paper also quoted the Egyptian Navy commander in chief Vice Admiral Mohad Mamish in an interview with the Arabic newspaper Al Ahram, saying that the Egyptian Naval vessels were outfitted with advanced missiles and the Navy had supply contracts with Germany, Russia and the U.S.

“Unfortunately now for more than 10 years most of the big [Egyptian] exercises are simulating war against Israel,” said Dr. Yuval Steinitz, member of the Israeli Knesset’s influential Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. The first time was in 1996 when they imitated a war against “a little country that is bordering Egypt on the northeast,” Steinitz told CNSNews.com on Wednesday. Looking on the map, it’s clear who they were simulating the war against, he said. The only new thing this time is that it has been leaked to the press, said Steinitz.

On Wednesday, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert telephoned Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to apologize for comments made by a right-wing Knesset member, who noted that Mubarak has never come on a state visit to Israel. Olmert told Mubarak that Israel considered him to be “a strategic partner and a close friend.”

But there are signs of other strains in relations. The Hebrew daily Maariv reported on Tuesday that on a recent trip to Egypt, the director of the military/political and policy bureau of Israel’s Ministry of Defense, told Egyptian Intelligence chief Omar Suleiman and Defense Minister Hussein Tantawi that Israel was concerned about Egypt carrying out of Egyptian army exercises "that are directed against an Israeli threat and that relate to it [Israel] as an enemy.” (A translation was provided by the Independent Media Review and Analysis.)

Israel also is concerned that it has become the central focus for Egyptian officers in building their forces and by the lack of “any relations of any kind” between the Israeli and Egyptian armies, Gilad was quoted as saying. According to the paper, Tantawi said relations between the armies could improve in the future in tandem with progress in regional peace. He also said that security challenges obligate Egypt to build an effective deterrent force.

Steinitz said the military exercises, combined with massive Egyptian force building plus indoctrination of the military against Israel, was “something to be concerned about.” He also said that despite the peace agreement between the two countries, Egypt is anti-Israel in most international bodies and is also educating the public “for hatred and not for peace.”

Earlier this year, the Anti-Defamation League told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that its analysts had found the Egyptian press to be “a leading propagator of anti-Semitic images” for many years and that that trend was now spreading to other newspapers in the region.

Egypt is considered one of America’s allies in the region and has been a mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. It is currently mediating reconciliation talks between the military Hamas group and the Fatah faction of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. Read full story...

U.S. aid

Since signing a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, Egypt has received an average of more than $2 billion annually in economic and military foreign assistance from the U.S. – the second largest foreign aid package after Israel. The administration has requested $1.3 billion in military aid for 2009 – the same amount it received in 2008. “U.S. policy toward Egypt is aimed at maintaining regional stability, improving bilateral relations, continuing military cooperation, and sustaining the March 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty,” according to a Congressional Research Service report to Congress in August 2008.

Egypt has long been viewed by U.S. administrations as a “moderating influence” in the Middle East. Many congressmen see Egypt as a “stabilizing force” in the region, but others would like to see the U.S. pressure Egypt to, among other things, “take a more active role in reducing Arab-Israeli tensions,” the report said.

The U.S. Embassy here had no comment on the military exercises.

But the Zionist Organization of America criticized the Egyptian “celebration” of its past attacks on Israel and urged the U.S. to reconsider its massive aid to Egypt contingent on Egypt adopting “truly peaceful actions and policies toward Israel.”

“Egypt has shown in a variety of ways that it remains a country deeply hostile to Israel and may indeed be a leading influence in Arab world hostility to Israel,” ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said in a statement. “In an era of peace that was meant to be ushered in by the 1979 Camp David peace treaty, Egypt should not be celebrating past military assaults on Israel which were fought in pursuit of a policy to eliminate Israel,” Klein said.  “This is not a matter of a country simply honoring its war dead. It is matter of maintaining the hostility to Israel’s existence,” he said.

The ZOA noted that the Egyptian celebrations were in the wider context of Egyptian political, cultural and media hostility toward Israel. Earlier this year, Egyptian Culture Minister Farouk Hosni said he would “burn Israeli books himself if found in Egyptian libraries.” In 2006, a poll found that 92 percent of Egyptians regarded Israel as an enemy nation, and 50 percent regarded the U.S. as an enemy, the ZOA reported.

| Israel | Islam | Isaiah 17 | Gog/Magog | NewWorldOrder | America |

It seems to me that America has her hands pretty deep into the Middle East mess and that we've easily given away our money for peace. But I think we are just being taken for our money, and now that this is diminishing in global influence, someone has to step in. Actually Europe has been stepping into that role and indeed Javier Solana was one of the authors of the roadmap to peace according to him. But then money is being given from Europe as well in the name of peace and security while it seems that the "chaos" from which peace is supposed to arrive could be just around the corner.

According to Bible prophecy, Islam will be coming against Israel time and again in these end times and a certain alliance of them will gather their forces and attack Israel from the North at which time God will destroy those invaders in the mountains of Israel and protect His people for His namesake. Israel has a role in the end times as made clear in the study of Bible prophecy. Ultimately this is what the HIStory, Our Future Bible studies lay out, Israel's central place in the completion of God's plans to bring a remnant of His people Israel through the fire to accept Yeshua as the Messiah prompting His return in glory.

One of these foreshadows is the rebuilding of the temple, a feat that seems impossible now. I posit that God's intervention in such a manner on Israel's behalf would not only silence the radical Islamic nations for a time, but I think it would also embolden the nation of Israel and cause a fundamental spiritual shift that would not only bring many more Jews to the Holy Land, but also bring the nation together and united under the authority of scripture, which to them includes the rebuilding of the temple and the resumption of the daily sacrifice while excluding the first coming of the Messiah. They will therefore very much desire to have the temple and according to scripture, they rebuild it.

I believe this action would also bring Israel's enemies from all around the world to be more focused on her and united together, giving the appearance of global unity - but under whom?

As we see this and other collusions such as Syria-Russia and the Russian navy enlarging Syrian ports for her ships. (Syrian ports lie to the North of Israel) Or large Russian war games and Hezbollah takeovers of Lebanon, (see also) also just to the North of Israel. Could all these activities of military forces as described in Ezekiel 38,39 be buildup to a planned attack in the future that God will stop?

As US forces make an attack inside Syria while our economy is weakened and we are increasingly viewed as the "big Satan" and Israel the "little Satan," a view of weakness in Israel's primary "friend" and something to spark the tensions, like say a possible Iranian underground nuclear test, could all be leading to the fulfillment of Isaiah 17 in a preemptive strike on Damascus. This could be the straw that brings the currently forming allies to utilize their prepared military forces in a sudden attack on Israel justified to the world in Israel's actions on Damascus. Would Turkey turn on Israel if the peace they were dealing with between Israel and Syria were seen as thrown away by an aggressive nation?

Perhaps I'm just imagining things. If not, time is short.

Uses for $700B Bailout Money Keep Changing Fox News (October 26, 2008) - First, the $700 billion rescue for the economy was about buying devalued mortgage-backed securities from tottering banks to unclog frozen credit markets. Then it was about using $250 billion of it to buy stakes in banks. The idea was that banks would use the money to start making loans again.

But reports surfaced that bankers might instead use the money to buy other banks, pay dividends, give employees a raise and executives a bonus, or just sit on it. Insurance companies now want a piece; maybe automakers, too, even though Congress has approved $25 billion in low-interest loans for them. Three weeks after becoming law, and with the first dollar of the $700 billion yet to go out, officials are just beginning to talk about helping a few strapped homeowners keep the foreclosure wolf from the door.

As the crisis worsens, the government's reaction keeps changing. Lawmakers in both parties are starting to gripe that the bailout is turning out to be far different from what the Bush administration sold to Congress. In buying equity stakes in banks, the Treasury has "deviated significantly from its original course," says Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. "We need to examine closely the reason for this change," said Shelby, who opposed the bailout.

The centerpiece of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act is the "troubled asset relief program," or TARP for short. Critics note that tarps are used to cover things up. The money was to be devoted to buying "toxic" mortgage-backed securities whose value has fallen in lockstep with home prices. But once European governments said they were going into the banking business, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson followed suit and diverted $250 billion to buy stock in healthy banks to spur lending. Bank executives hinted they might instead use it for acquisitions. Sen. Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate banking committee, said this development was "beyond troubling."

Sure enough, a day after Dodd, D-Conn., made the comment, the government confirmed that PNC Financial Services Group Inc. was approved to receive $7.7 billion in return for company stock. At the same time, PNC said it was acquiring National City Corp. for $5.58 billion. "Although there will be some consolidation, that's not the driver behind this program," Paulson recently told PBS talk show host Charlie Rose. "The driver is to have our healthy banks be well-capitalized so that they can play the role they need to play for our country right now."

Other planned uses of the bailout money have lawmakers protesting, although it is only fair to note there is nothing in the law that they just wrote to prevent those uses. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. questioned allowing banks that accept bailout bucks to continue paying dividends on their common stock. "There are far better uses of taxpayer dollars than continuing dividend payments to shareholders," he said. Schumer, whose constituents include Wall Street bankers, said he also fears that they might stuff the money "under the proverbial mattress" rather than make loans.

Neel Kashkari, head of the Treasury's financial stability program, told Dodd's committee this past week that there are few strings attached to the capital-infusion program because too many rules would discourage financial institutions from participating.

As the bank plan has become a priority, the effort to buy troubled assets has receded from the headlines. Potential conflicts of interest pose all kinds of problems in finding qualified companies to manage that program. "Firms with the relevant financial expertise may also hold assets that become eligible for sale into the TARP or represent clients who hold troubled assets," Kashkari said.

The challenge was made plain when the Treasury hired the Bank of New York Mellon Corp. as "custodian" of the troubled assets purchase program. The bank will conduct "reverse auctions" to buy the toxic securities on behalf of the Treasury. The lower the price they set, the better chance sellers have of getting rid of the devalued securities.

On the same day it hired Mellon, the Treasury also picked the company to receive a $3 billion investment as part of the capital-infusion program. The same bank hired to help manage part of the economic rescue plan became a beneficiary of it.

With the Nov. 4 election nearing, lawmakers decided it was important to remind the government officials running the bailout program about parts of the law aimed at helping distressed homeowners by offering federal guarantees to mortgages renegotiated down to lower monthly payments. "The key to our nation's economic recovery is the recovery of the housing market," Dodd said. "And the key to recovery of the housing market is reducing foreclosures." Sheila Bair, who heads the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., responded that her agency is working "closely and creatively" with Treasury officials to "realize the potential benefits of this authority."
| America | Economic Crisis |

U.S. attacks inside Syria WorldNet Daily (October 26, 2008) - The U.S. Army today confirmed it carried out a raid inside a Syrian village near the Iraqi border, killing at least eight. Today's operation is the first in which American forces so openly attacked militants on Syrian soil, clearly broadening the scope of the U.S. military campaign in Iraq.

The U.S. has long accused Damascus of failing to stop insurgents from crossing from Syria into Iraq, where they purportedly attack coalition troops and return to safety zones inside Syria. An official Syrian spokesman confirmed earlier reports by the country's SANA state-run television, which reported U.S. helicopters were involved in an attack in Al-Sukkariya, some five miles from the Iraqi border.

Eyewitnesses told reporters they saw four helicopters hover overhead and then at least eight soldiers disembark, where they engaged a number of men at a civilian construction site. SANA reported: "Four American helicopters violated Syrian airspace around 16:45 local time (13:45 GMT) on Sunday." It claimed "American soldiers" who had emerged from helicopters "attacked a civilian building under construction and fired at workmen inside, causing eight deaths." "The helicopters then left Syrian territory towards Iraqi territory," reported SANA.

The reported incident took place near the Iraqi border city of Qaim, which the U.S. has labeled as a major crossing point for insurgents, weapons and money. A U.S. official confirmed the attack targeted what he said were elements of arobust foreign fighter logistics network operating in Syria and that due to Syrian inaction the U.S. was now "taking matters into our own hands."

There have been unconfirmed reports in the past of U.S. forces operating along the Syrian-Iraqi boarder and even entering hundreds of feet into Syria in pursuit of insurgents, but today's reported operation would be the largest yet.

Israeli security officials said the Jewish state was not involved in the operation. They said it was likely the U.S. attacked insurgent or al-Qaida elements that ran inside Syria. They said the operation, if confirmed, likely was to send a signal to Damascus that it is not immune from retaliation if it continues to allow insurgents to utilize the country.

Already Syria has summoned the U.S. and Iraqi envoys to Damascus to protest against what it called a U.S. military attack on its soil. According to Syrian sources speaking to WND, Syria conveyed a message to the U.S. claiming Syria does not support the insurgency and opposes any insurgent or al-Qaida elements operating on Syrian soil. Syria told the U.S. they were not upset America had attacked insurgents or al-Qaida elements, if indeed that was the target, but that their protest was against the U.S. operating on Syrian soil without prior permission.
| Israel | Islam | Isaiah 17 | Gog/Magog | America |

Russia blasts off back to the future Scotland on Sunday (October 26, 2008) - As they tracked Russian military maneuvers last week, the US government's Kremlin-watchers might have been forgiven for wondering if they were seeing recycled newsreels. A huge exercise, Stability 2008, spread tens of thousands of troops, thousands of vehicles and scores of combat aircraft across nearly all 11 time zones of Russian territory in the largest war game since the collapse of the Soviet Union. There was no specified enemy, but the Russian forces appeared to be enacting a nationwide effort to quell unrest along Russia's southern border – and to repulse a US-led attack by Nato forces, according to experts in Moscow and Washington.

In a grim finale, commanders launched three intercontinental ballistic missiles, the type that can carry multiple nuclear warheads. It was a clear signal of the drastic endgame the Kremlin might consider should its conventional forces not hold. One of the missiles flew more than 7,100 miles, allowing Russian officials to claim they had set a distance record.

If these images of Russian power projection appeared drawn from the dark decades of Dr Strangelove, the response from Washington was anything but. Defence secretary Robert Gates and admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, provided the same sanguine reply, echoed down through the ranks of government analysts who have spent years reading Russian military journals and scrutinising classified satellite photographs.

The Russian military fell to Third World standards from neglect and budget cuts in the turbulent years when Boris Yeltsin was president, they say. The new Kremlin leadership is working to create a force that can actually defend the nation's interests.

The military has embarked upon a programme to buy modern weapons, improve training and healthcare for troops, trim a bloated officer corps and create the first professional class of sergeant-level, small-unit leaders since the Second World War.

That is not to say that the US will stop judging Russian behaviour in light of what it considers a clumsy, ill-advised invasion of the former Soviet republic of Georgia. Yet policymakers also say the Kremlin's efforts at military modernisation should not prevent co-operation on mutual concerns, including countering terrorism and halting nuclear proliferation.

Even a high-profile speech last month by President Dmitry Medvedev, ordering a military modernisation programme and the largest increases in defence spending since the death of the old USSR, was viewed in Washington as short on substance and designed more for a domestic political agenda. Medvedev declared that, by 2020, Russia would construct new types of warships and an unspecified air and space defence system. Military spending, he said, will leap 26% next year, bringing it to 1.3 trillion rubles (about £30bn), its highest level since the collapse of the Soviet Union – but still a fraction of US military spending.

American experts were unimpressed. "Russia is prone to make fairly grandiose announcements about its military," said a defence department official. "These programmes have long been in the works. They are not new plans."

Even so, analysts of Russian military affairs acknowledge that a military renaissance would allow the Moscow leadership to increase political pressure on former Soviet republics, as well as former Warsaw Pact allies that embraced Nato after the collapse of communism. "What the Russian leadership has discovered is proof of an old maxim: that a foreign policy without a credible military is no foreign policy," said Dale Herspring, a scholar on Russian military affairs at Kansas State University. Read full story...

Some of the steps undertaken to wrench the Russian military out of mediocrity resemble changes in the American military over several decades. Russia plans for its ground forces to move to a system designed for the deployment of brigades, rather than bulkier division or corps headquarters – nearly copying the US army's approach.

The Russian military also plans to offer pay and housing incentives to attract noncommissioned officers – the valuable class of sergeants – to make a long-term career of military service. The plan would shift Russia further from reliance on one-year conscripts, who are not in uniform long enough to master even basic skills.

The Russian general staff will be trimmed to 900 from the current 1,100. But in an acknowledgment that the general officer corps can slow the pace of change throughout the military, most of those reductions will occur through retirement.

The Kremlin knows that its military bureaucracy is riddled with corruption. Experts in Washington say that audits ordered after Vladimir Putin took over from Yeltsin in 2000 found that 40% of the budget for some weapons programmes and salaries was lost to theft and waste. The new defence minister, Anatoly Serdyukov, was a surprise choice, given that he had no military background but was an expert in finance and taxes. As he moved to clean house across the military-industrial complex, the reason for his selection became clear.

Analysts of Kremlin affairs note that a central risk to Russian military reform might not be foreign armies but the current economic collapse, which has seen a plummeting of oil prices, robbing Russia of profits earmarked for upgrading the armed forces. An irony is emerging. One central cause of the Soviet collapse was that the USSR's centrally planned, calcified economy simply could not support the Kremlin's superpower military ambitions. If oil prices continue to drop, Medvedev and Putin may be faced with the same economic limits on their military plans.

| Israel | Islam | Isaiah 17 | Gog/Magog | America |

At the U.N., Many Hope for an Obama Win The Washington Post (October 26, 2008) - There are no "Obama 2008" buttons, banners or T-shirts visible here at U.N. headquarters, but it might be difficult to find a sliver of territory in the United States more enthusiastic over the prospect of the Illinois senator winning the White House. An informal survey of more than two dozen U.N. staff members and foreign delegates showed that the overwhelming majority would prefer that Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, saying they think that the Democrat would usher in a new agenda of multilateralism after an era marked by Republican disdain for the world body.

Obama supporters hail from Russia, Canada, France, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Indonesia and elsewhere. One American employee here seemed puzzled that he was being asked whether Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was even a consideration. "Obama was and is unstoppable," the official said. "Please, God, let him win," he added.

"It would be hard to find anybody, I think, at the U.N. who would not believe that Obama would be a considerable improvement over any other alternative," said William H. Luers, executive director of the United Nations Association. "It's been a bad eight years, and there is a lot of bad feeling over it."

Conservatives who are skeptical of the United Nations said they are not surprised by the political tilt. "The fact is that most conservatives, most Republicans don't worship at the altar in New York, and I think that aggravates them more than anything else," said John R. Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. "What they want is the bending of the knee, and they'll get it from an Obama administration."

The candidates have said little about their plans for the United Nations, but Obama has highlighted his desire to pursue diplomacy more assertively than the Bush administration, whereas McCain has called for the establishment of a league of democracies, which many here fear is code for sidelining the United Nations.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has avoided showing a public preference about the presidential campaign -- although he has hinted at a soft spot for Obama in private gatherings, according to U.N. officials. His top advisers say they think McCain and Obama would support many of Ban's priorities, including restraints on production of greenhouse gases that fuel climate change. "The secretary general and the Secretariat of the United Nations take no position on the U.S. election," said Ban's chief spokeswoman, Michele Montas. "The secretary general deeply respects the democratic process, and he looks forward to working with whomever the American people choose."

Many U.N. rank and file are less circumspect, saying they see in Obama's multicultural background -- a Kenyan father, an Indonesian stepfather and a mother and grandparents from Kansas -- a reflection of themselves. "We do not consider him an African American," said Congo's U.N. ambassador, Atoki Ileka. "We consider him an African." Read full story...

One U.N. official threw a party over the summer and asked guests to place stickers of either an elephant or a donkey on the front door to show their political preference. At the end of the night, the door was covered with about 30 donkeys and two elephants. "We found out that one of the Republicans was an American and the other couldn't vote," according to a U.N. official who attended. "So we convinced the American to vote for Obama."

"I have not heard a single person who will support McCain; if they do, they are in hiding," said another U.N. Obama booster from an African country. "The majority of people here believe in multilateralism," he said. "The Republicans were constantly questioning the relevance of the United Nations."

For the small minority of U.N. officials who have stuck with McCain -- only two of 28 U.N. officials and diplomats questioned said they favored the Arizona senator -- life in Turtle Bay can seem lonely. "I keep my mouth shut," said one American official here who plans to vote for McCain. "Everyone is knocking on wood, counting the days to the elections. Some Americans here are planning to move to Washington," in search of jobs in an Obama administration.

"It will be devastating if Obama loses," the official said. "There has been such an amount of faith placed on the outcome."

The official, who like all other Secretariat staffers spoke on the condition of anonymity, recalled that Democrats have not always been so supportive of the United Nations, citing the Clinton administration's lone 1996 campaign to block the reelection of then-Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. And some foreign delegations, including Georgia, have been outspoken in their support of the foreign policy approach of McCain, who reacted quickly and sharply to Russian intervention in Georgia.

Still, the Obama candidacy has enormous emotional resonance among delegates from developing countries, particularly for what it says about race in America. They recall that one of the United Nations' most famous civil servants, Ralph Bunche -- an African American who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for his Middle East mediation -- could never have risen to the same heights in U.S. foreign policy circles. And Kofi Annan, the first black U.N. secretary general, said the prospect of an Obama presidency would be "phenomenal."

Even while critics of the Bush administration here root for Obama, they acknowledge that the U.S. attitude toward the United Nations has improved dramatically in recent years, citing cooperation on Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq.

They say President Bush deserves much credit for supporting U.N.-backed initiatives, including the provision of billions of dollars in funding to fight AIDS and malaria in Africa as well as support for the largest expansion of U.N. peacekeeping in history. And they expect that whichever candidate prevails will be compelled by the United States' falling financial fortunes to work more cooperatively with foreign governments.

"We don't have voting rights," said Yukio Takasu, Japan's ambassador to the United Nations.

But, he added, "We expect whoever [wins] in Washington will have a fresh look at the U.N. and the utility of working through the U.N. And, of course, we have to adjust to them."

| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | America | Election 2008 |

Political alarms ring as panicked markets dive Reuters (October 25, 2008) - Asian and European leaders closed ranks on Saturday to try to bolster confidence among investors who fear that a global credit crunch has ushered in a deep and damaging world recession. The worst financial crisis in 80 years has forced countries to work together to find ways to help shore up a financial system crippled by banks fearful of lending to each other.

But with evidence mounting that Europe is already in recession, analysts fear that cooperation in shoring up banking systems could be threatened as governments begin to turn their attention to reviving domestic demand. "We must use every means to prevent the financial crisis impacting growth of the real economy," Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao said at the end of a two-day summit of 43 Asian and European leaders in Beijing.

Governments have pledged around $4 trillion to support banks and restart money markets to try to stem the crisis and are considering tougher financial rules to guard against any repeat. Wen said countries needed to strike a balance between innovation and regulation and between savings and consumption. "We need financial innovation, but we need financial oversight even more," he said, adding that China's priority was to spur domestic demand to ensure the country maintained fairly fast, steady growth.

U.S. President George W. Bush, who will host a global summit on the financial crisis next month, said in a radio address on Saturday: "While the specific solutions pursued by every country may not be the same, agreeing on a common set of principles will be an essential step toward preventing similar crises in the future."

In the Gulf, finance ministers and central bank governors said at a meeting on coordinating policy that they would look at directing more government funds into banks and regional stock markets, Al-Arabiya television reported. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and four other Gulf states have so far adopted separate responses to ease the pressures of the liquidity crunch on their banking sectors. Qatar's finance minister, Youssef Kamal, said the crisis would give impetus to create regional monetary union and he was sure the measures taken to protect the economies were sufficient.

Any significant redirection of Gulf investment to domestic markets could be a concern for banks and other firms in the West which have eyed the huge sums in the region's state-run sovereign wealth funds as a potential source of capital while European and U.S. credit and share markets are seized up. But the scarcity of private sector capital is being felt in the Gulf. Officials were set to discuss the risk of investments from countries hit by the crisis being "liquidated." Saudi Arabian stocks plummeted 8.7 percent on fears of an oil price fall and recession. more...
| Islam | EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | America | Economic Crisis |

Newspaper shows Obama belonged to socialist party WorldNet Daily (October 24, 2008) - Evidence has emerged that Sen. Barack Obama belonged to a socialist political party that sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda. Several blogs, including Powerline, previously documented that while running for the Illinois state Senate in 1996 as a Democrat, Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of the socialist-oriented New Party, with some blogs claiming Obama was a member of the controversial party.

The New Party, formed by members of the Democratic Socialists for America and leaders of an offshoot of the Community Party USA, was an electoral alliance that worked alongside the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. The New Party's aim was to help elect politicians to office who espouse its policies. Among New Party members was linguist and radical activist Noam Chomsky.

Obama's campaign has responded to the allegations, denying the presidential candidate was ever a member of the New Party. But the New Zeal blog dug up print copies of the New Party News, the party's official newspaper, which show Obama posing with New Party leaders, list him as a New Party member and include quotes from him. The party's Spring 1996 newspaper boasted: "New Party members won three other primaries this Spring in Chicago: Barack Obama (State Senate), Michael Chandler (Democratic Party Committee) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary). The paper quoted Obama saying "these victories prove that small 'd' democracy can work." The newspaper lists other politicians it endorsed who were not members but specifies Obama as a New Party member.

New Ground, the newsletter of Chicago's Democratic Socialists for America, reported in its July/August 1996 edition that Obama attended a New Party membership meeting April 11, 1996, in which he expressed his gratitude for the group's support and "encouraged NPers (New Party members) to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration."

Becoming a New Party member requires some effort on behalf of the politician. Candidates must be approved by the party's political committee and, once approved, must sign a contract mandating they will have a "visible and active relationship" with the party.

The New Party, established in 1992, took advantage of what was known as electoral "fusion," which enabled candidates to run on two tickets simultaneously, attracting voters from both parties. But the New Party went defunct in 1998, one year after fusion was halted by the Supreme Court.

Following the initial reports of Obama's purported membership in the New Party, Obama associate and former Chicago New Party activist Carl Davidson posted a statement on several blogs claiming his former party was not socialist, but he admitted it worked with ACORN. "[The New Party] was a pragmatic party of 'small d democracy' mainly promoting economic reforms like the living wage and testing the fusion tactic, common in many countries but only operational in New York in the U.S. The main trend within it was ACORN, an Alinskyist outfit, which is hardly Marxist," wrote Davidson.

But the socialist goals of the New Party were enumerated on its old website. Among the New Party's stated objectives were "full employment, a shorter work week, and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal 'social wage' to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time, and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth and like programs to ensure gender equity." The New Party stated it also sought "the democratization of our banking and financial system – including popular election of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets, community-controlled alternative financial institutions."

Many of the New Party's founding members were Democratic Socialists for America leaders and members of Committees of Correspondence, a breakaway of the Communist Party USA. Obama attended several DSA events and meetings, including a DSA-sponsored town hall meeting Feb. 25, 1996, entitled "Employment and Survival in Urban America." He sought and received an endorsement from the DSA. According to DSA documents, the New Party worked with ACORN to promote its candidates. ACORN, convicted in massive, nationwide voter fraud cases, has been a point of controversy for Obama over the presidential candidate's ties to the group.

In 1995, the DSA's New Ground newsletter stated, "In Chicago, the New Party's biggest asset and biggest liability is ACORN. "Like most organizations, ACORN is a mixed bag. On one hand, in Chicago, ACORN is a group that attempts to organize some of the most depressed communities in the city. Chicago organizers for ACORN and organizers for SEIU Local 880 have been given modest monthly recruitment quotas for new New Party members. On the other hand, like most groups that depend on canvassing for fundraising, it's easy enough to find burned out and disgruntled former employees. And ACORN has not had the reputation for being interested in coalition politics – until recently and, happily, not just within the New Party."
| America | Election 2008 |

Closer global integration needed: Blair Canada.com (October 22, 2008) - Any impulse to retreat from a globalized economic system would be exactly the wrong response to the current worldwide financial crisis, warns former U.K. prime minister Tony Blair. Blair - whose successor, Gordon Brown, is being hailed as the architect of a financial rescue plan largely copied in the U.S. and other industrial nations - told the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal that the crisis demonstrates the need for closer global integration, not less.

Those who would pull back from global trade and financial flows are taking the wrong lesson from the banking and credit tumult, Blair said, because globalization is "a fact, not driven by governments, but by people." The challenge facing governments is to make it work better, he said. Blair asked a rhetorical question: "Why is it that irresponsible lending in one area suddenly produces a convulsion in the world economy?" Because, he answered, all countries are now so closely linked that it isn't realistic to imagine withdrawing from the risks and benefits of globalization.

However, unlike some commentators who focus on the need for internationally co-ordinated regulatory constraints on business, Blair also pointed to the dangers of too much regulation. There must clearly be globally synchronized financial regulation "where there is systemic risk," Blair said, referring to the kinds of risks that can go beyond one bank or institution to endanger the whole financial system. A recent example was the collapse of Lehman Bros., a leading U.S. investment bank, which triggered a collapse in confidence that bank obligations would be honoured and greatly worsened stresses on financial institutions. However, Blair insisted that such new regulation must not be so heavy-handed that it stifles the entrepreneurship that he described as the heart of any successful economy.

Blair's comments about the financial crisis were part of a broader perspective on a more closely knit world in which, he warned, no serious challenge, from climate change to terrorism, can be dealt with successfully without close international co-operation. Partnered with the theme of global interdependence was one of power shifting inevitably toward Asia, leaving the big Western powers with a limited window of opportunity to help define the nature of a new world order. "Power is shifting East, and shifting East fast," Blair said.

He noted that in meetings with Chinese leaders during this summer's Olympic Games, he learned that China is now building more power stations than have been created in Europe since the Second World War and planning to open no fewer than 70 new international airports. India will soon be in a position to achieve similar spectacular growth, he said. The lesson of this gigantic power shift, Blair said, is that the West can no longer dominate the world through sheer economic and military strength. Instead of dictating, it must seek to persuade through the power of universal values: freedom, democracy and justice. And to be persuasive in enshrining such values in global institutions, it must be true to them - working harder, for instance, to solve the problems of disease, hunger and poverty in the poorest nations.

Brown, who is now the official envoy of the Quartet on the Middle East, a group including the United Nations, the U.S, the U.K. and Russia, offered another example from his current work. If there were to be a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he said, this would be the most powerful influence imaginable in creating healthier relations between the West and the Islamic world. Brown was speaking at Montreal's Palais des congres, at an event sponsored by the TD Bank Financial Group.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

Top Iran officials recommend preemptive strike against Israel Haaretz (October 22, 2008) - Senior Tehran officials are recommending a preemptive strike against Israel to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear reactors, a senior Islamic Republic official told foreign diplomats two weeks ago in London. The official, Dr. Seyed G. Safavi, said recent threats by Israeli authorities strengthened this position, but that as of yet, a preemptive strike has not been integrated into Iranian policy.

Safavi is head of the Research Institute of Strategic Studies in Tehran, and an adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The institute is directly affiliated with Khamenei's office and with the Revolutionary Guards, and advises both on foreign policy issues. Safavi is also the brother of Yahya Rahim Safavi, who was the head of the Revolutionary Guards until a year ago and now is an adviser to Khamenei, and holds significant influence on security matters in the Iranian government.

An Israeli political official said senior Jerusalem officials were shown Safavi's remarks, which are considered highly sensitive. The source said the briefing in London dealt with a number of issues, primarily a potential Israeli attack on an Iranian reactor.

Safavi said a small, experienced group of officials is lobbying for a preemptive strike against Israel. "The recent Israeli declarations and harsh rhetoric on a strike against Iran put ammunition in these individuals' hands," he said. Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz said in June that Israel would be forced to strike the Iranian nuclear reactor if Tehran continues to pursue its uranium enrichment program.

Safavi said Tehran recently drafted a new policy for responding to an Israeli or American attack on its nuclear facilities. While the previous policy called for attacks against Israel and American interests in the Middle East and beyond, the new policy is to target Israel alone. He added that many Revolutionary Guard leaders want to respond to a U.S. attack on Iranian soil by striking Israel, as they believe Israel would be partner to any U.S. action.

Safavi said that Iran's nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes only, and that Khamenei recently released a fatwa against the use of weapons of mass destruction, though the contents of that religious ruling have not yet been publicized. Regarding dialogue with the United States and the West, Safavi said Iran's decision would be influenced by the results of the U.S. presidential elections next month, as well as by the Iranian presidential elections in June and the economic situation in the Islamic Republic.

Safavi also said that a victory by U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama would pave the way for dialogue with Washington, while a John McCain presidency would bolster Iran's extreme right, which opposes dialogue. If conditions are favorable following the U.S. election, he said, Iran could draw back from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration that "the nuclear case is closed," and put it back on the agenda.

Safavi said he believed that U.S. sanctions on Iran have run their course, and that there would be no point in strengthening them. Tehran would therefore demand "firm and significant" U.S. measures in return for stopping uranium enrichment. He also said Ahmadinejad is not guaranteed victory in the June 2009 elections, particularly given the dire economic situation in Iran. Still, Iranian experts believe his only real competition is former president Mohammad Khatami, who has not yet joined the race.

Safavi said the inflation rate in Iran is similar to that before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but that unrest among civilians today is not as strong. This is because the current government uses oil revenues to help the poor, he said.
| Iran | Israel | Islam | Gog/Magog | America |

Obama's expected victory in US election could signal bad times for Israel YNet News (October 22, 2008) - Unless we see a dramatic and unexpected development, in about two weeks we shall have a new president in the United States: Barak Obama. Did I say “we”? Yes, we. The identity of the man who will be entering the White House and staying there in the coming years is more important for us and for our lives here than one could imagine. Seven million Israeli citizens go about their daily lives while having no clue as to how much their lives and wellbeing depend on the US, and first and foremost on the person who sits in the Oval Office.

As not to argue with the faithful amongst us, certainly not right after Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, we shall only say that some of the prayers we recently uttered would do well to make it to Pennsylvania Ave. in Washington. Our life hinges on the desire, or heaven forbid lack of desire, declarations, and deeds of the president – and apparently it will be Barack Obama.

To be honest, Obama doesn’t make us sleep well at night. We are about to see a president who has nothing to do with Judaism, Jews, and the State of Israel. He doesn’t know Malcolm Hoenlein (executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents), he is not scared of Abe Foxman (head of the Anti-Defamation League,) he has not delivered speeches on behalf of the Israel Bonds, and he has not traveled as the guest of the Jewish National Fund. His familiarity with the Middle East is minimal, and on top of that, right now he has a global economic crisis to resolve before he can drink tea with Tzipi Livni and coffee with Mahmoud Abbas.

The way things look now, with an emphasis on “for the time being,” the State of Israel won’t be overjoyed as a result of this development. Obama is not Bush Sr. (who was so-so in his attitude to Israel,) he is not Bill Clinton (who was like a member of the Jewish Federation,) and he is not Bush Jr. (who was like a former fighter in Ariel Sharon’s unit.) Meanwhile, we have several minor problems that require a solution, such as the Iranian nuke threat, Islamic terrorism, Hamas, Syria, and the economy.

For generations, we heard legends around here about the power of the Jewish “lobby” in Washington: AIPAC – now, its members are facing a test. However, here too we have a problem: American Jewry is not what it used to be when it comes to its attachment to Israel, and the generation of the children and grandchildren no longer blindly follows Israel’s leadership, its speeches and demands. Therefore, prepare for the arrival of the Obama. Apparently, although let’s hope this won’t happen, soon we shall go back to the biblical verse we love so much: “A people dwelling alone."
| Israel | America |

MEPs debate EU response to world crises with French president Sarkozy European Parliament (October 21, 2008) - At a debate with MEPs on the EU summit of 15-16 October, EU President-in-Office Sarkozy said the Russo-Georgian war and the financial crisis had strengthened the case for a united European response to major world problems. He rejected any idea that the EU should backtrack on its climate change commitments because of the crisis. While the main EP political groups broadly supported him, some felt the roots of the financial crisis went back a long way and queried the role of unbridled free markets.

Introducing the debate, the President of Parliament, Hans-Gert Pöttering, said that in the recent crises, Europe under the leadership of President Sarkozy had shown its ability to take coordinated, collective action. Without such action - and without the existence of the euro - "we would have been in a disastrous situation".

Georgia

The first subject considered by President Sarkozy, speaking on behalf of the European Council, was the Russo-Georgian war. While regarding the Russian reaction as "disproportionate", he also stressed it was a "reaction" to a previous "inappropriate" action. He then described the peace-making efforts carried out by himself on behalf of the EU. The Americans had thought "dialogue with the Russians is pointless" but in his view this was folly, since "Europe does not want another Cold War". He emphasised "it is Europe that has brought about peace", adding "it is a long time since Europe has played this sort of role in this kind of conflict".

World financial crisis: how to prevent a recurrence

Turning next to the world financial situation, Mr Sarkozy said "what was a serious crisis became a systemic crisis" with the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Moreover, the solutions now being found - in which Europe had taken the lead - simply amounted to "crisis management".

A key point was "how can we prevent a recurrence?". He had proposed to the UN General Assembly the creation of a "new global financial system" or "new Bretton Woods". The aim must be to "overhaul capitalism", not "by questioning the idea of a market economy" but observing certain principles: no bank working with state money must work with tax havens, all financial institutions must be subject to financial regulation, traders' bonus structures must not push them to take undue risks and the monetary system must be rethought. The USA and the EU had proposed a series of "summits on global governance", starting in November, involving first the G8 and then adding the G5, at which, he stressed, "Europe must speak with one voice".

Elsewhere in his speech, Mr Sarkozy returned to the financial crisis, saying it was undoubtedly now leading to an economic crisis and this too would require a "united European response". Among ideas he floated were measures to ensure that "European companies are not bought up by non-European capital while their stock exchange values are low" and the creation of sovereign wealth funds by each EU country. At a later point in the debate he pointed the finger at hedge funds and questioned the competence and independence of ratings agencies, pointing out that the latter were mainly US-based and perhaps Europe needed its own ratings agencies.

He also believed that "the eurozone cannot continue without clear economic governance". The European Central Bank must be independent but must be able to hold discussions with "an economic government" at head of state/government level.

No backsliding on energy/climate change

Mr Sarkozy's next topic was the future of the EU's energy and climate package. He rejected any idea "that the world should do less to combat climate change because of the financial crisis", saying "Europe must set an example" to the world. He recognised the difficulty some European countries were facing, especially those that are 95% dependent on coal, but some flexible solution must be found. Referring to the 20/20/20 targets, he described "respect for the climate change objectives" and "respect for the timetable" as essential.

Turning to the EU Immigration Pact, the French president said this was "a great example of European democracy" as, despite initial differences, the EU had agreed on a joint policy.

Lisbon Treaty

Lastly, the president argued that the recent crises with Georgia and the financial markets showed that "it would be a major mistake not to proceed with institutional reform" since Europe often needs "a powerful, rapid and united response", something which was difficult, for example, with the EU's six-month rotating presidency. The French presidency was thus looking to a roadmap to find a solution by December to the question of Irish ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. Concluding, he said "the world needs a Europe that speaks with a strong voice" and expressed appreciation to the EP for its "solidarity" in helping to create this sense of unity.

Commission President Barroso

President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso said Mr Sarkozy's handling of the crisis had shown him as "dynamic as only he can be" and welcomed the fact that Europe was now working hand in hand with the US. He said "the EU should mould a global response with it values and interests".

He outlined a number of practical steps. He said the Commission would be looking at executive pay and derivatives. The feasibility of pan-Europe financial regulation would also be under review. He also signalled his forthcoming visit to China for talks saying: "The goal should be to devise a system of global financial governance adapted to the challenges of the 21st century – in terms of efficiency, transparency and representation."

Turning to the so called "real economy" he said that Europe faced a "serious economic slowdown" with jobs, incomes and order books affected. He went on to say: "There is no national road out of this crisis...we will swim or sink together. We must not give in to siren calls for protection. We must not turn our backs on globalisation or put our single market at risk."

He said that "European citizens need support - especially the vulnerable". To deal with the slowdown he called for "smart support" that would hit two targets at once. For example: "Helping the construction industry...but doing this by promoting an energy-efficient housing stock....Helping key industries like cars...but preparing them for tomorrow's markets of clean cars."

He told MEPs that there is "no national route out of this crisis" and that in Europe "we swim or sink together". He said that: "Europe shows its true colours in a crisis - in Georgia we stopped a war whilst with the financial crisis we are dealing with it."

He went on to say that: "There is no magic bullet to turn around the EU economy. What we have to do is take every option, explore every potential way in which EU policy can help Member States to seize every opportunity to put Europe on the road to growth. That is our task in the coming weeks. And it is a task I want to tackle together with the European Parliament." He finished by saying that it was: "The kind of occasion where the crisis calls into question old certainties and minds are more open to change."

Later, speaking after the main group speakers Mr Barroso said that analysis compiled by the Commission showed the crisis was triggered "by sectors that were not regulated in US". On climate change he said that with the financial crisis it would be "dramatically bad" if the EU backtracked on the 20/20/20 emission formula agreed last. He said that "the world - not just Europeans, are looking to us". Read full story...

Political group speakers

For the EPP-ED group, Joseph DAUL (FR) believed that Europe working together had twice over the summer helped show the way through major crises: Georgia and the financial markets. President Sarkozy had worked tirelessly and shown the value of the EU Presidency and the role for Europe on the world stage.

Parliament had already done key work on the financial situation with recommendations on regulation and surveillance, reform and an end to golden parachutes. He said "It is in economic crises that we develop rules for the future. Free markets have to be accompanied by rules and regulations If they existed previously they were not properly applied"

Mr Daul did not want to see the efforts of the little people in Europe wiped out. SMEs need support and we need to guarantee the social market and solidarity. He asked for all to ratify the Lisbon Treaty as soon as possible so that Europe could run more smoothly. He concluded that ahead we face many major issues together: climate, energy, defence. For the sake of future generations he stressed that we need to work on the basis of a Social Market economy model to solve them.

For the Socialist group, Martin SCHULZ (DE) was impressed by the recent resolute action of both President Sarkozy and Barroso. However, he felt we need to make full use of the current crisis to make sure we never again suffer such a disaster in the financial markets which has triggered a disaster in the real economy. We need new rules by the end of the year for banks, private equity.

Mr Schulz noted that in this debate Messrs Sarkozy, Daul, Barroso all spoke the language of true European Social Democracy." I am glad you have finally arrived, however late" he said. Mr Schulz was concerned about the situation of the ordinary citizen, the taxpayer, the small business in this crisis. We need to boost purchasing power to revive the Single Market and we need to cover the risks for the ordinary citizen not just the big fish.

He was delighted everyone was now singing from the same hymn sheet of social democracy but warned this was the time also to remember the long-term issue of climate change which would remain after the credit crunch had subsided. We should all be working towards sustainability. Finally, in this crisis he emphasised that we must not forget rights and keep the question of fundamental values on the agenda.

Thank you for these warm and encouraging words about working hand in hand", said Graham Watson (UK), for the ALDE group, "but why do the Council conclusions refer only to the Commission and the Council? Why, for example, under climate change, is there no reference to the Parliament?" "You will need the EP", he predicted, pointing to some Member States' behind-the-scenes attempts to "unpick" agreements on CO2 emission targets for new cars (2012) and emission sharing (2013).

"Since the Berlin wall fell, 50 million people have been lifted out of poverty, but today we are seeing what happens when markets lack transparency", said Mr Watson, welcoming the fact that co-ordinated measures had alleviated the immediate pressures. He stressed that the EU must play a leading role in applying such remedies internationally - working with the US if possible, and without it if necessary.

Mr Watson nonetheless regretted that the summit had failed to produce plans for an effective supervisory regime, such as a European financial services authority. "Supervision is still the missing piece of the jigsaw", he said. Finally, Mr Watson acknowledged that Mr Sarkozy's role as a "man of action" in managing the crises underlined the EU's need for a permanent President.

"Energy and willpower are required in politics, and are good for Europe", agreed Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Greens/EFA, DE), for his group. He stressed that all the crises - financial, environmental and hunger worldwide - are interdependent, and must be tackled together.

"These crises did not start in July or August, but years ago", he said in a reference to Mr Sarkozy's speech. "It was calls for unbridled growth and the rejection of financial market regulation a year ago that led us into these crises", he said, urging Europe's leaders to be "more self-critical". What Europe needs is a "social and environmental market", which entails "rethinking the way we manufacture, and the way we live".

"The German car industry already has money in tax havens, and does not need more", said Mr Cohn-Bendit, in a reference to car industry "climate change waivers" (which, he said, had been backed by both right and left wingers). He urged Mr Sarkozy to press for tax havens to be obliged to declare the country of origin of these funds. Finally, subjecting climate change proposals to unanimity in the Council "will put you at the mercy of countries that are backsliders" in December, he warned Mr Sarkozy.

For the UEN group, Cristiana MUSCARDINI (IT) said she agreed 100% with the statements and proposals made by French President Nicholas Sarkozy and thanked the Council for the immigration pact and the asylum pact, "common sectors which are important to us all". However, she called on certain "Commissioners, including competition Commissioners "to do the right thing". The statement on heating oil has not reassured the markets. "We need more on financial derivatives, which have laid low some European States.

Mrs Muscardini said a united, if not equal, Europe, would help to pinpoint strategies to solve the crisis, which she called "systemic" and "in order to combat a systemic crisis we need a new system". She called on Nicholas Sarkozy to recast global capitalism and maybe even go further to make sure that "market freedom is not untrammelled liberalism". She added that the European Central Bank "could have done more" to help banks that have and are "failing".

Francis WURTZ (FR), on behalf of the GUE/NGL group, warned that the "worst is still to come" of this "multidimensional crisis of such scale and seriousness". The dimensions may be "unfathomable", but the crisis still needs to be debated. The "shock" of this crisis is being felt everywhere and "we have a drop in public expenditure and plans for privatising public services are ahead," he said.

Mr Wurtz continued "We need to be held accountable to our citizens", adding that this cannot be avoided, by introducing regulation or "doing away with golden handshakes". He pointed to the fact that 2% of monetary transactions were for services and production, while the remaining 98% went on finance. "We must attack the roots of this evil" and we need a "new Bretton Woods".

According to Nigel FARAGE (UK) of the Independence and Democracy group, when President Sarkozy went to Georgia he was "not acting for the EU" as "there had been no meeting". "You did it as the President of France". As regards the financial crisis, "I'm glad the Irish and the Greeks did their own thing", he said, before adding "I haven't heard anyone say that this crisis is a failure of regulation. We haven't had a lack of regulation, we have a blizzard of regulation and this has not protected a single investor. We need to rethink what we have been doing. We need to act in our national interest. The Swiss can and they have the adaptability, to weather the financial crisis better than EU states"

The speaker from the non-aligned MEPs, Bruno GOLLNISCH (FR), said "We are looking at part of things here but we are quiet on the causes. No one saw this coming …. apart from a few economists and Jean Marie Le Pen's voice crying in the wilderness." In his view, "We need unfettered freeing up and decoupling of the financial side of things and the real economy, which is now declining." Turning to foreign affairs, he said "You don't see that Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence paved the way to South Ossetia." His final comment was "You have to have a radical break with the global system and the movement of goods has to be rethought."

British and Irish speakers

Linda McAVAN (PES, UK) said it was not time to abandon climate change ambitions, adding that the socialists want "a credible agreement that balances environment, jobs and competitiveness" by Christmas and in time for international talks. "Let's have the political courage," she said.

Avril DOYLE (EPP-ED, IE) said that Europe's leaders had "committed themselves to reducing greenhouse gases by 20%". Now, in order to secure an agreement at Copenhagen "we will have to make a clear and unambiguous statement", she added. "There should be no delay and we cannot pay the higher price in the future" or, as President Sarkozy said, we will miss our date with history.

Giles CHICHESTER (EPP-ED, UK) told the House "It would not be far fetched to liken the crisis to a hurricane. Once the wind abates there is an illusion of calm but the devastation takes years to clear up." He continued "Tackling change is a long-term matter and there is no silver bullet". Moreover, "Over-regulation could precipitate something much worse, a re-run of the 1930's slump". "Let us not kill off the goose that lays the golden egg", he concluded.

John BOWIS (EPP-ED, UK) agreed with President Sarkozy that the climate change package "is so important that we cannot simply lose it under the pretext of a financial crisis". However, he went on "we will need reassurances for the countries which have real problems, as Poland does with coal" and "we must also be very clear that our support for biofuels in transport is dependent on the development of fuels from sustainable sources".

| Gog/Magog | EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | Solana | NewWorldOrder | 1^st Seal | America | Economic Crisis |

Training A Socialist Army of World Servers Part II News With Views (October 21, 2008) - Click here for part 1

Mind Change and Collective Service

"Obama.... plans to double the Peace Corps' budget by 2011 and expand AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, VISTA, YouthBuild Program, and the Senior Corps. ...he proposes to form a Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, Homeland Security Corps, Global Energy Corps, and a Green Jobs Corps."[1] Obama's Civilian National Security Force

"Jesus was a community organizer." (A visitor's response to "Training a Socialist Army of World Servers")

"[A community] organizer... does not have a fixed truth -- truth to him is relative and changing. ... To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations...."[2] Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky, the Marxist "organizer" whose disciples mentored Obama

“Jesus said... 'If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.'” John 8:31-32

"I was shocked," wrote one of our visitors, "when I read your first article on Obama's service programs. "Why is this getting a free ride in the press?" The simple answer is that Obama's revolutionary values match those of the mainstream media and the power brokers behind it. [3] Contrary voices are ignored or ridiculed. Perceptions are swayed by suggestions and exciting images, while facts become increasingly irrelevant. And as discernment drowns in this postmodern muddle, illusion reigns -- and few even care!

Without facts we'll lose our freedom! A sobering 1970 prediction by Professor Raymond Houghton, a spokesman for "progressive education," may soon be reality:

"...absolute behavior control is imminent.... The critical point of behavior control, in effect, is sneaking up on mankind without his self-conscious realization that a crisis is at hand. Man will... never self-consciously know that it has happened."[4]

STEPPING STONES TO RADICAL CHANGE

At the dawn of Stalin's deadly reign in the 1930s -- when Communist leader Antonio Gramsci was writing his cunning formula for transforming the West[5] -- numerous European Marxist were searching for effective strategies for mass control. As Hitler rose to power, some fled to America where they fine-tuned their tactics at "progressive" institutions like Columbia University. Welcomed by "progressive" educators, they found plenty of opportunity to test and teach their theories. Others merely exported their research to fellow revolutionaries in America. Their names -- Adorno, Marcuse, Lukács and Lewin -- don't ring many bells today, but no one can escape their impact on our nation.[6]

Their radical schemes fit right into the dialectic process. Like Saul Alinsky, their followers would "unfreeze" minds from uncompromising Truth, fill them with a passion for collectivism, "and refreeze" them with the new ideology. Before long, the mind-changing tactics that transformed the Soviet masses became the centerpiece of "service learning" in American schools and communities.

Remember, the primary goal behind such group service is "service learning," NOT compassion for the poor. The latter is mainly a feel-good incentive for group participation in a communal purpose, vision, activity and transformation.

This scheme matches the old Nazi model. Young Germans from age 10 to 19 had to serve in the Hitler Youth program. And, as Hitler affirmed back in 1933, 'the whole of National Socialism [Nazism] is based on Marxism."[7] His brainwashed servants, who became anything but compassionate, just copied the Communist strategies:

"The purpose of labor service was partly practical -- to... provide a source of cheap labor -- but mainly ideological. It was part of the cult of community current in the youth movement now manipulated by the Nazis for their own end."[8]

But shouldn't we gladly and willingly serve the needy and each other? Yes, of course! But not in ways that prompt us to twist, compromise or hide His Word under the banner of unity or charity.

LOVING THEIR SERVITUDE

"Belongingness" is the "ultimate need of the individual," wrote William Whyte, co-author of The Organization Man. His benchmark book -- a bestseller back in the sixties -- describes group thinkers who would gladly trade their home-taught convictions for the warm fuzzies of "belongingess."

According to Whyte, "man exists as a unit of society," and "only as he collaborates with others does he become worth while."[9] That sad assumption provided a useful "crisis" that spurred vast numbers of transformational "leadership training" conferences everywhere. As Whyte said,

"What is needed is an administrative elite, people trained to recognize that what man really wants most is group solidarity even if he does not realize it himself. ... They won't push him around; they won't even argue with him... They will adjust him. Through the scientific application of human relations, these... technicians will guide him into satisfying solidarity with the group so skillfully and unobtrusively that he will scarcely realize how the benefaction has been accomplished."[9]

Two decades earlier, Aldous Huxley had shared his concern about such "belongingness." Knowing the manipulative tactics behind collectivism, he wrote in Brave New World,

"The most important Manhattan Projects of the future will be vast government-sponsored enquiries into what the politicians and the participating scientists will call 'the problem of happiness' — in other words, the problem of making people love their servitude....

"The love of servitude cannot be established except as the result of a deep, personal revolution in human minds and bodies. To bring about that revolution we require... First, a greatly improved technique of suggestion.... Second, a fully developed science of human differences.... (Round pegs in square holes tend to have dangerous thoughts about the social system and to infect others with their discontents.)"[10]

Today's leadership training and continual assessments help our managers assess and track "human resources" everywhere -- even in churches. Those assessments of "human differences" help facilitators create the conflicts and stir tension needed for change. As Saul Alinsky wrote,

"...the organizer is constantly creating new out of the old. He knows that all new ideas arise from conflict [tension]; that every time man has had a new idea it has been a challenge to the sacred ideas of the past and the present and inevitably a conflict has raged."[11]

Alinsky taught his "organizers" (or facilitators) to lead "with a free and open mind void of certainty, hating dogma."[11] Do those words sound familiar? They would if you've read our excerpts from UNESCO: Its purpose and Its Philosophy by Julian Huxley (Aldous' brother). As head of this powerful UN agency, he wrote,

"The task before UNESCO... is to help the emergence of a single world culture.... [At] the moment, two opposing philosophies of life confront each other.... individualism versus collectivism... capitalism versus communism... Christianity versus Marxism. Can these opposites be reconciled, this antithesis be resolved in a higher synthesis? ... If we are to achieve progress, we must learn to uncrystallize our dogmas."[12]

That's the aim of the dialectic process: to "uncrystalize our dogmas." Its success is evident in today's post-modern generation that rejects the very notion of truth and certainty. Though he claims to be Christian, Obama fits this picture. During a 2004 interview with Chicago Sun-Times religion editor Cathleen Falsani for her book, The God Factor, Obama said,

"I’m rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe there are many paths to the same place, [emphasis mine see ] and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.'"[13]

This is the new pluralism! Unity over Truth! Any path is okay -- unless it clashes with the ground rules for the dialectic process -- the foundation for Obama's expansive service plan. His website gives us a glimpse of that plan:

Obama will expand AmeriCorps from 75,000 slots today to 250,000.... He will establish a Classroom Corps to help teachers and students.... and a Homeland Security Corps to help communities plan, prepare for and respond to emergencies. ...

Obama will double the Peace Corps to 16,000 by 2011. He will work with the leaders of other countries to build an international network of overseas volunteers so that Americans work side-by-side with volunteers from other countries. ...

Obama will set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year. He will develop national guidelines for service- learning and will give schools better tools both to develop programs and to document student experience."[14] Read full story...

| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America |

Thanks for the story JB, and he brings to light the connection of Obama with the Alliance of Civilizations. To find out some more on the AoC, please check out Richard Peterson's blog. To read the story from Obama's website in context to what the AoC stands for, read:

An Alliance of Civilizations Could Make Friends for Obama's America Official Obama Website (February 1, 2008) - "As an American residing in Spain, the Alliance of Civilizations (AoC), a United Nations initiative underway since 2004, sounds as tailor-made for Barack Obama as those trendy gray suits he wears. US participation in the Alliance or in some other similar peace initiative, led by an Obama Administration, could result in peace and understanding winning out over war and extremism."

Keep in mind that "extremism" to the AoC is defined as claiming sole ownership to the Truth, something the Bible does, and so anyone who associates themselves to absolutely becomes an "extremist."

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Revelation 13:1-9
And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. If any man have an ear, let him hear.

For more on the beast from the sea with the seven heads and 10 horns, examine this chart and read about Daniel's prophesied fourth kingdom. Rome has been reborn as prophesied and now is coming to power as described with a seven-year confirmed covenant with many, including Israel, and is led by one man who has been given the power to speak for Europe with one voice. And Obama is very aligned with the policies coming from Europe. Is McCain any better? While not as vocal, he is a member of the CFR and also has globalist leanings. So from where I stand today it appears that either way the globalists will get what they want, but it also appears that Obama has captured the minds of much of the nation and the globalists and the rest of the world couldn't be happier. I'm glad my hope is not in this world or I might fall apart with it, where is yours? Are you watching?

Biden to Supporters: "Gird Your Loins", For the Next President "It's Like Cleaning Augean Stables" ABC News Political Radar Blog (October