New World Order In The News

Recommendation 816 WEU Assembly (June 3, 2008) - WEU Assembly calls for Solana, 10 nations to lead EU’s security strategy. WEU Assembly Recommendation 816 encourages Javier Solana “to lead the way in providing the Union with a foreign, security and defence policy vision to meet the challenges of the 21st century.”

On the revision of the European Security Strategy - reply to the annual report of the Council

The Assembly,

(i) Taking the view that the European Security Strategy, adopted in 2003, is a good and compelling document, not least because it is short and readable and provides a convincing guideline to the European Union's external action and because of its focus on crisis management and its transformational purpose;

(ii) Reaffirming the deeply-rooted fundamental consensus among EU member states, reflected in the European Security Strategy, about their foreign policy approach drawing on a range of instruments, including aid, trade, diplomacy and military means;

(iii) Confirming the objectives of the European Security Strategy which invites the European Union to be more active, capable and coherent and to work with partners; welcoming progress made in implementing those objectives but convinced that further effort is needed in view of the evolving strategic environment and complex challenges ahead;

(iv) Recalling that the European Security Strategy provides no information about the civil and military capabilities that the Union needs to achieve its objectives;

(v) Aware of the changing relative weight of the European Union in terms of demography, economy and trade and convinced that only a Europe which is more active on the international scene can compensate for its anticipated loss of global influence;

(vi) Welcoming the decision by the European Council to launch a re-examination of the European Security Strategy and encouraging EU High Representative and WEU Secretary-General Javier Solana to lead the way in providing the Union with a foreign, security and defence policy vision to meet the challenges of the 21st century;

(vii) Encouraging the French Government to support the High Representative and WEU Secretary-General carry out a full re-examination of the European Security Strategy, using the dual EU-WEU Presidency to pave the way for a further deepening and widening of the strategic framework for the Union's foreign, security and defence policy action; Read full article...

| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | Solana | NewWorldOrder | 1^st Seal |

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 |

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!

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 |

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.

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 |

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 |

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 |

European Air Transport Fleet Launched European Defense Agency (November 10, 2008) - European Defence Ministers, meeting in the Steering Board of the European Defence Agency, launched today concrete initiatives and projects for improving European military capabilities. Decisions were taken on programmes related to air transport, maritime surveillance and helicopters, amongst others.

"This is the concrete follow-up to the discussions which took place at the Informal EU Defence Ministers meeting in Deauville early October. We are seeing today that the Agency can very quickly translate political intentions into concrete proposals. These programmes will create tangible European capabilities and improve the capacity for crisis management operations”, said Head of the Agency Javier Solana, who chaired the meeting.

European Air Transport Fleet
European Defence Ministers launched today EDA work on establishing a European Air Transport Fleet (EATF). A Declaration of Intent on participation in the initiative was signed by Defence Ministers of Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Spain.

The EATF aims at reducing European air transport shortfalls by pooling aircraft such as the A400M and C130. Participation can take different forms: making aircraft available; purchasing, providing or exchanging flying hours; or to provide and benefit from shared and/or pooled support functions (training, maintenance, etc.). Milestones have been set with the aim of reaching EATF initial operational capability by the next decade. “The EATF Declaration is most welcome, as pooling European aircraft and services will improve the lift capabilities and alleviate a significant European shortfall”, said Alexander Weis, the Agency’s Chief Executive.

Maritime Mine Counter-Measures
The Steering Board also launched two other projects. Ten Member States (Belgium, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Sweden) plus Norway will work closely together in an EDA project for the future replacement of their maritime mine counter-measures capabilities in an EDA project. Activities will commence with an assessment phase, leading to recommendations for the selection of systems solutions and addressing all relevant aspects. Mine counter-measures in littoral sea areas has been identified as one of the initial 12 prioritised actions in the context of the Agency’s Capability Development Plan (CDP).

Future Unmanned Aerial System
Another project, related to Maritime Surveillance, is the launch of work for a Future Unmanned Aerial System. Based on common requirements, seven Member States (Finland, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden) will begin the preparations for the development of an unmanned aerial system, which will be able to take off and land on a ship’s deck. This future system will increase the capability for wide area surveillance in support of ESDP operations, a need which has been identified in the Capability Development Plan.

Space-based Earth Surveillance System
Five Member States (Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Spain) signed a Letter of Intent on the second generation of space-based imaging capacity. This Multinational Space-based Imaging System for surveillance, reconnaissance and observation (MUSIS) project aims at continuity of service from 2015 onwards. The MUSIS partners intend to launch an EDA Category B project on the basis on their initiative, which will be open for other Member States' participation.

Helicopters
The Steering Board endorsed a roadmap for the Helicopter Tactics Training Programme, part of the Agency’s work to improve availability of helicopters for ESDP operations. The contents of this programme will be defined in the course of 2009, based on the results of two studies – focussing on the requirements – and the lessons learned from an exercise, to take place in France in spring 2009. The Programme itself will start in 2010. “The Agency is quickly progressing with its helicopter work. The Helicopter Tactics Programme is proving that in some cases training can provide additional capabilities in the short-term. Improving ESDP capabilities does not always require new equipment”, said Alexander Weis, EDA’s Chief Executive.

Ministers also took stock of the progress made on the Agency’s work on upgrading helicopters, with the aim to offer a detailed menu with upgrade options by spring 2009.

Germany and France informed the Steering Board of their intent to bring their bilateral initiative for a Future Transport Helicopter into the Agency in the near future, opening up the project to other interested Member States. The project aims at developing intra-theatre transport helicopter for the 2020+ timeframe.

European Defence Research and Technology Strategy
Ministers endorsed the European Defence Research and Technology (EDRT) Strategy to enhance and develop more effective research collaboration to deliver timely the right technologies in support of military capabilities. The Strategy defines “ends” (key technologies to invest in), “means” (how to invest better, such as through improved R&T collaborations) and “ways” (roadmaps and action plans). Four of the 12 priority actions of the Capability Development Plan have been chosen for identifying potential R&T projects: Counter-Man Portable Air-Defence Systems (C-MANPADS), Mine Counter- Measures, Counter-Improvised Explosive Devices (C-IED) and Chemical, Biological and Radiological or Nuclear (CBRN) - specifically detection of biological weapons.

The EDRT Strategy completes the EDA work on its strategic framework. With the CDP as the overall strategic tool this framework consists of the EDRT Strategy, the Armaments Cooperation Strategy (endorsed in October 2008) and the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base Strategy (endorsed in May 2007).

Innovative Concepts and Emerging Technologies
Ten Member States (Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain) plus Norway signed the Programme Arrangement for the Joint Investment Programme on Innovative Concepts and Emerging Technologies (JIP-ICET). The Programme aims at promoting basic research cooperation, for example on an integrated navigation architecture and on nanotechnologies for soldier protection.

Forum for Military Airworthiness Authorities
Ministers decided to create a European Union-wide Forum for Military Airworthiness Authorities. This Forum will be used to harmonise the different national military airworthiness regulations within the European Union in order to stop duplication of work, to reduce costs and to shorten timelines for multinational procurement.

Work Programme
The Steering Board approved the Agency’s Work Programme for 2009. The focus of the Work Programme is on concrete projects, in particular related to the 12 prioritised actions stemming from the Capability Development Plan. The Agency will have a 2009 budget of € 30m, including € 8m operational budget for studies, and will recruit ten new staff. The budget was adopted by the General Affairs and External Relations Council in Defence Ministers formation.

Defence Data 2007
Ministers were informed on the results of the Agency’s defence data-collecting for 2007 and on the assessment of the collective benchmarks for Defence R&T and equipment procurement. A dedicated brochure has been released.

EUROPEAN DEFENCE AGENCY
- Background information -

The European Defence Agency (EDA) was established by the Council on 12 July 2004. It is designed "to support the Council and the Member States in their effort to improve European defence capabilities in the field of crisis management and to sustain the ESDP as it stands now and develops in the future". More specifically, the Agency is ascribed four functions, relating to:

a) defence capabilities development;
b) armaments cooperation;
c) the European defence technological and industrial base and defence equipment market;
d) research and technology.

These functions all relate to improving Europe's defence performance, by promoting coherence in place of fragmentation.

The EDA is an Agency of the European Union. High Representative Solana is Head of the Agency, chairman of the Steering Board, which acts under the Council's authority and within the framework of guidelines issued by the Council.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | Solana | NewWorldOrder |

Note that Javier Solana is also Secretary-General of the Council among other large hats he wears as the voice of Europe.

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 |

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 |

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.

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 |

Summary of remarks by Javier Solana, EU High Representative for the CFSP, at the Ministerial Meeting of the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean Council of the European Union (November 4, 2008) - On Tuesday, the plenary session was focussed on the concrete project areas on which the partners will work in priority: de-pollution of the Mediterranean, maritime and land highways, civil protection, alternative energies and the Mediterranean Solar Plan, higher education and research, the Mediterranean Business Development Initiative. During the working lunch, the Ministers discussed regional issues, including the Middle East Peace Process.

The High Representative said: "Today we have made an important step forward. The world in which we live today is a globalized world in which we need global solutions for the common challenges we are facing. The Union for the Mediterranean will contribute to solve important issues.

The qualitative change we have made today is very important and significant. We have six good project areas. We have now the responsibility to work quickly and efficiently. We will be judged on how we progress on those projects. It is very important to have adequate mechanisms that allow 43 countries to adopt decisions swiftly."

FINAL DECLARATION
Marseille, 3-4 November 2008

The Paris Summit of the ‘Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean’ (Paris, 13 July 2008) injected a renewed political momentum into Euro–Mediterranean relations. In Paris, the Heads of State and Government agreed to build on and reinforce the successful elements of the Barcelona Process by upgrading their relations, incorporating more co-ownership in their multilateral cooperation framework and delivering concrete benefits for the citizens of the region. This first Summit marked an important step forward for the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership while also highlighting the EU and Mediterranean partners’ unwavering commitment and common political will to make the goals of the Barcelona Declaration – the creation of an area of peace, stability, security and shared prosperity, as well as full respect of democratic principles, human rights and fundamental freedoms and promotion of understanding between cultures and civilizations in the Euro-Mediterranean region – a reality. It was decided to launch and/or to reinforce a number of key initiatives: De-pollution of the Mediterranean, Maritime and Land Highways, Civil Protection, Alternative Energies: Mediterranean Solar Plan, Higher Education and Research, Euro-Mediterranean University and the Mediterranean Business Development Initiative.

Ministers propose that as from Marseille the “Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean’’ should be called “Union for the Mediterranean”.

Ministers decide that the League of Arab States shall participate in all meetings at all levels of the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean, therefore contributing positively to the objectives of the process, namely the achievement of peace, prosperity and stability in the Mediterranean region.

Ministers reaffirm their commitment to achieve a just, comprehensive, and lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, consistent with the terms of reference of the Madrid Conference and its principles, including land for peace, and based on the relevant U SC resolutions and the Road Map. Ministers also stress the importance of the Arab Peace Initiative and underline their support for efforts to promote progress on all tracks of the Middle East Peace Process.

Ministers stress that the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean is not intended to replace the other initiatives undertaken in the interests of the peace, stability and development of the region, but that it will contribute to their success.

Ministers welcome the positive role played by the EU in the Middle East Peace Process, notably in the framework of the Quartet. They reaffirm their commitment to support the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in order to conclude a peace treaty resolving all outsanding issues, including all core issues without exceptions, as specified in previous agreements. They welcome the commitment of both parties to engage in vigorous, ongoing and continous negotiations making every effort to conclude a peace agreement based on the Annapolis process, as agreed in November 2007. They also encourage the parties to intensify their efforts on the path of direct dialogue and negotiation in the fulfilment of the two states solution: a safe and secure Israel, and a viable, sovereign and democratic Palestinian State, living side by side in peace and security. Final status issues have to be agreed upon by the parties. ...

Ministers welcome and support the indirect peace talks between Israel and Syria under the auspices of Turkey and encourage all efforts deployed to achieve stability, peace and security in the region.

Ministers welcome the establishment of diplomatic relations between Syria and Lebanon.

Ministers reiterate their condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, regardless of the perpetrators, and their determination to eradicate it and to combat its sponsors and reaffirm their commitment to fully implement the Code of Conduct on Countering Terrorism adopted in the Barcelona Summit on 28th ovember 2005 in order to enhance the security of all citizens within a framework that ensures respect for the rule of law and human rights, particularly through more effective counterterrorism policies and deeper cooperation to dismantle all terrorist activities, to protect potential targets and to manage the consequences of attacks. They also reiterate the complete rejection of attempts to associate any religion, civilization or culture with terrorism and confirm their commitment to do their utmost effort with a view to resolving conflict, ending occupation, confronting oppression, reducing poverty, promoting human rights and good governance, improving intercultural understanding and ensuring respect for all religions and beliefs.

Ministers reaffirm their common aspiration to achieve peace as well as regional security according to the Barcelona Declaration of 1995, which, inter alia, promotes regional security by acting in favour of nuclear, chemical and biological nonproliferation through adherence to and compliance with a combination of international and regional non-proliferation regimes and arms control and disarmament agreements such as NPT, CWC, BWC, CTBT and/or regional arrangements such as weapons-free zones, including their verification regimes, as well as by fulfilling in good faith their commitments under arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation conventions.

The parties shall pursue a mutually and effectively verifiable Middle East Zone free of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical and biological, and their delivery systems. Furthermore the parties will consider practical steps to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as well as excessive accumulation of conventional arms; refrain from developing military capacity beyond their legitimate defence requirements, at the same time reaffirming their resolve to achieve the same degree of security and mutual confidence with the lowest possible levels of troops and weaponry and adherence to CCW; promote conditions likely to develop good-neighbourly relations among themselves and support processes aimed at stability, security, prosperity and regional and sub-regional cooperation; consider any confidence and security-building measures that could be taken between the parties with a view to the creation of an "area of peace and stability in the Mediterranean", including the long term possibility of establishing a Euro-Mediterranean pact to that end. more...
| Israel | Islam | Dividing the Land | EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | Solana | NewWorldOrder | 1^st Seal |

There is much travailing over the bringing about of "peace and security" in the Middle East and indeed the whole world is focused on that area as the Bible said they would be. Zechariah 12:1-3 A couple of thoughts regarding this meeting to further support and bring about the goals of the Barcelona Process. I find it interesting that they want to rename it and that its headquarters will be in Barcelona.

The mention of Turkey's involvement in the attempts to foster a relationship between Israel and Syria brings to mind Zechariah 14:1-3 and the idea that the world would be coming against Israel. How is this all connected? In the midst of this push for peace, what would happen if Israel reacted to intelligence that Syria was up to something big and they struck preemptively with great force like that described in Isaiah 17 on Damascus? We know how Iran, Russia and other Islamic nations would react, but would Turkey's involvement in the negotiations between Israel and Syria and its primarily Muslim population bring it into a counter-attack with Iran, Russia, Libya and others as the Bible foretells? Sounds plausible to me and with Europe's push for non-proliferation, if Israel were to use something big enough to make Damascus "a ruinous heap," would there not be an animosity against Israel that ran deep, even if the push for peace continued? It may also be that the weapons capable of destroying Damascus will not be Israel's, but rather that Israel finds out they are being stored there and does something that causes them to go off. I'm honestly guessing on that

I think the world will be temporarily stunned by God's intervention on the attack on Israel enough that all sides will accept the terms of peace, including the dividing of Israel. Keep watching!

Mediterranean Union agrees on HQ, Arab-Israeli role AFP (November 4, 2008) - Foreign ministers from the new Mediterranean Union struck a deal Tuesday for Barcelona to host the forum's headquarters and for Israel and the Arab League to take part side-by-side. The Union's 43 member states held two days of talks in the port of Marseille to end a four-month deadlock on the two contentious issues, which threatened to hamstring the fledgling organisation. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit, whose countries currently co-chair the forum, announced the breakthrough at a joint news conference in the southern French city. "It wasn't supposed to work, and yet it did," said Kouchner, adding: "The essential points were accepted completely and without reservation by all 43 states" in the Union for the Mediterranean.

Ministers from the Mediterranean's mainly-Arab southern rim agreed to back the Spanish city of Barcelona's candidacy to host the Union in exchange for the post of secretary-general going to a southern member. They also clinched a deal on granting the Arab League a full-time seat at the forum -- a key demand of Arab members, strongly opposed by Israel which feared the pan-Arab group would try to block its involvement. "The Arabic participation will take place in every meeting with the right to speak at all levels," said Abul Gheit, although it will have no right to vote. Israel agreed to the Arab League's role in exchange for one of five deputy secretary-general posts for an initial three-year period, possibly renewable. The deputy posts will rotate between three European members and two southern ones, and will initially be held by the Palestinian Authority, Greece, Malta and Italy, alongside Israel, according to the final declaration. The text -- with likely technical amendments -- still has to be formally ratified however by the two co-presidents of the Union, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his Egyptian counterpart Hosni Mubarak.

Launched at a Paris summit in July, the new union brings together EU members with states from north Africa, the Balkans, the Arab world and Israel in a bid to foster cooperation in one of the world's most volatile regions.

An Israeli diplomat said it agreed to the Arab League "compromise" on the basis it would be able to play a front-seat role in setting up the fledgling Union, and hopefully build bridges around the Mediterranean. But she warned "the Barcelona Process can never replace direct bilateral negotiations" to resolve Israel's conflicts with Arab nations. A spokesman for the Arab League also warned that its participation would not lead to normalisation with Israel, Egyptian state news agency MENA reported.

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said he was "delighted" by the accord on Barcelona, while EU external relations commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner called it a "logical choice." The Mediterranean capital of Spain's Catalonia region, Barcelona lent its name to the 13-year-old Barcelona Process, a previous EU regional initiative that stalled in part over Arab-Israeli disputes. In exchange for hosting its headquarters, Spain also agreed to drop the tag "Barcelona Process" from the name of the new forum.

France, which championed the Union, hoped that by basing it on modest regional projects, such as cleaning up pollution in the Mediterranean, it would be able to sidestep the trap of regional disputes. Priorities set out in the declaration include fighting pollution in the Mediterranean, solar energy, building land and sea highways and cooperation on higher education and research.

The Marseille accord, clinched after months of tough negotiations, rescues the forum from the threat of looming deadlock, but it also amounts to formally recognising tensions over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And the highly-political compromise to create five deputies to the secretary-general is a far cry from the slimmed-down, nimble governing structure at first envisaged for the Union.
| Israel | Islam | EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | Solana | NewWorldOrder | 1^st Seal |

Brussels renews attempt to seize control of telecoms EurActiv (October 28, 2008) - The European Commission has drafted a revised set of rules for the Internet and telecoms sector to be presented in November. Overruling a European Parliament vote earlier in September, Brussels is pushing for more European rather than national control over telecoms.

When EU telecoms ministers gather in Brussels on 27 November for their only meeting under the French Presidency this semester, they will find a revised proposal for the bloc's ongoing review of the "regulatory framework for electronic communications" on the table.

The revised proposal, seen by EurActiv, reintroduces a veto power for the Commission and establishes a new Office for European Telecoms Regulators (OETR), which will be heavily controlled by Brussels. With its new proposal, the EU executive wants to favour the emergence of new operators and ultimately force cuts in phone tariffs by further harmonising fragmented European telecoms markets.

On a collision course with Parliament and European capitals

However, it does so by ignoring a revision of the proposal voted upon by the Parliament earlier this year, which broadly reflected the views of national capitals (EurActiv 25/09/08). In a vote on 24 September, MEPs rejected the Commission's proposed European 'super authority', called EECMA, and replaced it with a kind of forum for national regulators (renamed BERT, see background).

But the EU executive is now rejecting those amendments, pushing instead for the introduction of a new authority, called OETR, which would be run by an "administrative board" composed of 12 members - half of which would be appointed by the Commission and the other half by governments. National authorities would be represented individually on a secondary board, which would have an advisory role to the governing board. 

With its revised proposal, the Commission is in fact broadly re-introducing its original plan. In the September vote, the Parliament scrapped the proposed administrative board, leaving all the power directly with national authorities. But the EU executive says it "cannot accept the deletion of the administrative board which ensures a community approach" to regulating the sector, according to the document obtained by EurActiv.

In addition, the Commission is awarding itself a veto right over measures adopted by national regulators, contradicting the Parliament. Indeed, one of the amendments introduced by MEPs last September said national measures should be checked by the EU executive, with national authorities ultimately maintaining control over decisions.

"The Commission cannot accept the wording of this element of the European Parliament proposed amendment, since it would allow (the Office) to usurp the [its] role as guardian of the Treaty," the EU executive said in its revised proposal.

In concessions made to Parliament and member states, the Commission accepted the majority of MEPs' amendments on issues such as functional separation, electronic data protection, copyrights and network security. But the changes it reintroduced makes an agreement on the package at the November Telecoms Council increasingly unlikely.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder |

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 |

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 20, 2008) - ABC News' Matthew Jaffe Reports: Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., on Sunday guaranteed that if elected, Sen. Barack Obama., D-Ill., will be tested by an international crisis within his first six months in power and he will need supporters to stand by him as he makes tough, and possibly unpopular, decisions. "Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

Not only will the next administration have to deal with foreign affairs issues, Biden warned, but also with the current economic crisis. "Gird your loins," Biden told the crowd. "We're gonna win with your help, God willing, we're gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. It's like cleaning the Augean stables, man. This is more than just, this is more than – think about it, literally, think about it – this is more than just a capital crisis, this is more than just markets. This is a systemic problem we have with this economy."

The Delaware lawmaker managed to rake in an estimated $1 million total from his two money hauls at the downtown Sheraton, the same hotel where four years ago Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., clinched the Democratic nomination. Despite warning about the difficulties the next administration will face, Biden said the Democratic ticket is equipped to meet the challenges head on. "I've forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know, so I'm not being falsely humble with you. I think I can be value added, but this guy has it," the Senate Foreign Relations chairman said of Obama. "This guy has it. But he's gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us."

"There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision'," Biden continued. "Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound."

Biden emphasized that the mountainous Afghanistan-Pakistan border is of particular concern, with Osama bin Laden "alive and well" and Pakistan "bristling with nuclear weapons." "You literally can see what these kids are up against, our kids in that region," Biden said in recalling when his helicopter was forced down due to a snowstorm there. "The place is crawling with al Qaeda. And it's real." "We do not have the military capacity, nor have we ever, quite frankly, in the last 20 years, to dictate outcomes," he cautioned. "It's so much more important than that. It's so much more complicated than that. And Barack gets it."

After speaking for just over a quarter of an hour, Biden noticed the media presence in the back of the small ballroom. "I probably shouldn't have said all this because it dawned on me that the press is here," he joked. "All kidding aside, these guys have left us in a God-awful place," he then said of the Bush regime, promptly wrapping up his remarks. "We have the ability to straighten it out. It's gonna take a little bit of time, so I ask you to stay with us. Stay with us."
| NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

Please listen to Glenn Beck's commentary on this story and the possible implications in the audio files here. I think this could be what Glenn pondered on his show and possibly related to Middle East tensions that I think may be starting in the near future. Glenn touches on some other significant topics as well in the audio clip such as the October money printing spree.

Bush backs EU plan on global financial reform EU Observer (October 20, 2008) - US President George W. Bush has backed the European idea of a series of global talks on reform of the world's financial system, with the first summit set to be held shortly after the US presidential elections in November.

The outgoing American leader agreed there needs to be further co-ordinated effort to tackle the "challenges facing the global economy" after a three-hour meeting at Camp David on Saturday (18 October) with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose country currently chairs the 27-strong EU, and with European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso. The three politicians said they would approach other world powers - both from the richest nations and the newly emerging economies such as China and India - and try to reach "agreement on principles of reform needed to avoid a repetition and assure global prosperity in the future."

Later summits will be "designed to implement agreement on specific steps to be taken to meet those principles," the trio said in a joint statement. The top-level talks are due to tackle controversial elements of the current financial order which are seen by some as having contributed or failed to prevent the credit crunch, which originated in the US and spread across the globe.

At the EU level, several such issues have been highlighted as the possible targets of stricter regulation - rating agencies, tax havens, hedge funds, executive pay but also the very role of key global institutions, the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. "We believe in the capacity and the ability of the American people to come up with the answers the world is waiting for, is expecting. Because this sort of capitalism is a betrayal of the capitalism we believe in," Mr Sarkozy said, newswires report.

"The meeting should be held rapidly, perhaps before the end of November. Since the crisis started in New York, maybe we can find the solution in New York," he added. However, US president Bush stressed that "as we make the regulatory and institutional changes necessary to avoid a repeat of this crisis, it is essential that we preserve the foundations of democratic capitalism - the commitment to free markets, free enterprise and free trade." "We must resist the dangerous temptation of economic isolationism and continue the policies of open markets that have lifted standards of living and held millions of people escape poverty around the world." Read full story...

More European banks in the red

Meanwhile, Dutch ING and French Caisse d'Epargne have joined the list of banks affected by the financial crisis. The Dutch government agreed on Sunday (19 October) to pump €10 billion into financial group ING, with the bank's management agreeing to scrap executive bonuses and its year-end dividend to shareholders. The move followed a round of tense negotiations over the weekend sparked by recent share falls by over a 25 percent of value, Reuters reported. The financial injection by the Dutch government is part of €20 billion package the Hague had put aside for possible bank bail-outs, in a move agreed in principle by all other European member states last week in a bid to prevent a bankruptcy of any financial situation essential for a country's whole economy.

In Germany, Bavaria's public sector bank BayernLB will be the first to use the German government's €500 billion rescue package. The bank's supervisory board is due to meet on Tuesday (21 October) to discuss the package, Bavarian state Finance Minister Erwin Huber said in an interview for Bild newspaper.

In France, the chairman of Groupe Caisse d'Epargne and two other top managers resigned on Sunday, following a €600 million trading scandal where a small team of traders had placed illicit bets on stock markets. The French government reacted by suggesting a special audit of all banks in the country.

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

Europeans signal clash with US over global capitalism Telegraph UK (October 19, 2008) - World leaders will meet in the United Sates next month to find a fix for the international financial crisis after President George W. Bush bowed to European calls for a global economic summit. Mr Bush bowed to demands from French President Nicolas Sarkozy, current holder of the EU's rotating presidency and José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, at his Camp David presidential retreat.

The emboldened Europeans signalled that the bloc was ready to ambush Mr Bush and his successor, who is expected to attend the meeting, to impose a European vision for new financial market regulation. "The EU must take over the leadership of change because that is what it has long been calling for while the US was not favourable," said José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the Spanish Prime Minister. "There has to be regulation and limits to everything to do with incentives and rewards."

The French leader reiterated his attacks on the American-led sytem of capitalism. "We cannot continue along the same lines because the same problems will trigger the same disasters," said Mr Sarkozy. "This is no longer acceptable. This is no longer possible. This sort of capitalism is a betrayal of the sort of capitalism we believe in."

The summit, expected to take place just days or weeks after US presidential elections in November, will start a political tussle over The US President has backed the steps European nations have taken in recent weeks to stabilise financial markets but has signalled American uneasiness with some EU calls for a root and branch overhaul of capitalism.

But remarks after the Camp David meeting has already exposed deep trans-Atlanic differences. "We will work to strengthen and modernise our nations' financial systems so we can help ensure that this crisis doesn't happen again," said Mr Bush. "As we make the regulatory and institutional changes necessary to avoid a repeat of this crisis, it is essential that we preserve the foundations of democratic capitalism a commitment to free markets, free enterprise, and free trade," he said. "We must resist the dangerous temptation of economic isolationism and continue the policies of open markets that have lifted standards of living and helped millions of people escape poverty around the world."

In contrast, President Sarkozy and other EU leaders have floated radical ideas of reforming rating agencies, the creation of new international financial supervisors and tough regulation of hedge funds and tax havens. Even the venue of the global economic conference could be a source of discord after President Sarkozy called for it to be held under the auspices of the United Nations in New York, near America's Wall Street financial district, the source, the EU claims, of the present economic crisis. "Insofar as the crisis began in New York, then the global solution must be found to this crisis in New York," Mr Sarkozy said.

A weakened President Bush, who will be seeing out his last months in office after US presidential elections on Nov 4. The US leader is expected to try and wrest back control by holding the summit in Washington. European diplomats are hoping that a new US President-elect might be more receptive to European style "social market" reforms, especially if the elections sweep Democrat candidate Barack Obama into power. As Mr Bush nears the end of his second term and prepares to hand over the White House in January next year, any future American financial reforms will fall to his successor.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

In light of the Glenn Beck show regarding Biden's comments, what I've been feeling about an Obama win would fit quite well into the further integration of America into the global economy as a step to a new global financial system not run on paper currency, but electronically tracked data based on a unique ID system to label individuals in a global database. Crazy? You bet, and every day it seems a step closer in this climate of fear and uncertainty. My guess is that much of the world will accept this solution as an only way out. Time will tell - keep watching.

Gordon Brown expects news on global regulation plans in the 'next few days' Citywire (October 15, 2008) - Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said he expects progress towards a cocoordinated approach to cross order regulation of the financial markets in 'the next few days.' Taking time out from his meeting with EU leaders in Brussels, he told journalists that leaders needed to work together to create a new ‘financial vision’ to ensure that the current crisis in financial markets does is not repeated.

He said it was time to move to stage two of the recovery process and establish appropriate regulation and an early warning process to ‘root out irresponsibilities and excesses’. ‘We need supervision and regulation where it has been lacking and where it is necessary, and international co-operation. We need an early warning system and proper co-ordination,’ he said.

José Manuel Barroso paid tribute to Brown’s role in driving forward the EU response to the financial crisis and said he agreed it was time to take action ‘to the next level’. The two leaders will attend the EU Council in Brussels over the next two days. Gordon Brown said that US president George Bush shared his sense of urgency. He said that although the new US president elected at the end of November will have to sign up to any eventual plan, he said there is no need to wait.

On Monday, Gordon Brown said the world needs an effective global early warning system to alert people across continents to economic and financial risks. He also called for globally accepted standards of supervision that apply equally in all countries, stronger arrangements for cross-border supervision of global firms, and much stronger institutions for co-operation and concerted action in a crisis. Brown is understood to have recommended the creation of a series of colleges of supervisors to oversee cross-border financial institutions.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

The O Jesse Knows New York Post (October 14, 2008) - PREPARE for a new America: That's the message that the Rev. Jesse Jackson conveyed to participants in the first World Policy Forum, held at this French lakeside resort last week. He promised "fundamental changes" in US foreign policy - saying America must "heal wounds" it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the "arrogance of the Bush administration."

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end. Jackson believes that, although "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" remain strong, they'll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.

"Obama is about change," Jackson told me in a wide-ranging conversation. "And the change that Obama promises is not limited to what we do in America itself. It is a change of the way America looks at the world and its place in it." Jackson warns that he isn't an Obama confidant or adviser, "just a supporter." But he adds that Obama has been "a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family." Jackson's son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson's daughter went to school with Obama's wife Michelle.

"We helped him start his career," says Jackson. "And then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged." Read full story...

Will Obama's election close the chapter of black grievances linked to memories of slavery? The reverend takes a deep breath and waits a long time before responding. "No, that chapter won't be closed," he says. "However, Obama's victory will be a huge step in the direction we have wanted America to take for decades." Jackson rejects any suggestion that Obama was influenced by Marxist ideas in his youth. "I see no evidence of that," he says. "Obama's thirst for justice and equality is rooted in his black culture."

But is Obama - who's not a descendant of slaves - truly a typical American black? Jackson emphatically answers yes: "You don't need to be a descendant of slaves to experience the oppression, the suffocating injustice and the ugly racism that exists in our society," he says. "Obama experienced the same environment as all American blacks did. It was nonsense to suggest that he was somehow not black enough to feel the pain."

Is Jackson worried about the "Bradley effect" - that people may be telling pollsters they favor the black candidate, but won't end up voting for him? "I don't think this is how things will turn out," he says. "We have a collapsing economy and a war that we have lost in Iraq. In Afghanistan, we face a resurgent Taliban. New threats are looming in Pakistan. Our liberties have been trampled under feet . . . Today, most Americans want change, and know that only Barack can deliver what they want. Young Americans are especially determined to make sure that Obama wins."

He sees a broad public loss of confidence in the nation's institutions: "We have lost confidence in our president, our Congress, our banking system, our Wall Street and our legal system to protect our individual freedoms. . . I don't see how we could regain confidence in all those institutions without a radical change of direction."

Jackson declines to be more concrete about possible policy changes. After all, he insists, he isn't part of Obama's policy team. Yet he clearly hopes that his views, reflecting the position of many Democrats, would be reflected in the policies of an Obama administration. On the economic front, he hopes for "major changes in our trading policy."

"We cannot continue with the open-door policy," he says. "We need to protect our manufacturing industry against unfair competition that destroys American jobs and creates ill-paid jobs abroad." Would that mean an abrogation of the NAFTA treaty with Canada and Mexico? Jackson dismisses the question as "premature": "We could do a great deal without such dramatic action."

His most surprising position concerns Iraq. He passionately denounces the toppling of Saddam Hussein as "an illegal and unjust act." But he's now sure that the United States "will have to remain in Iraq for a very long time." What of Obama's promise to withdraw by 2010? Jackson believes that position will have to evolve, reflecting "realities on the ground." "We should work with our allies in Iraq to consolidate democratic institutions there," he says. "We must help the people of Iraq decide and shape their future in accordance with their own culture and faith."

On Iran, he strongly supports Obama's idea of opening a direct dialogue with the leadership in Tehran. "We've got to talk to tell them what we want and hear what they want," Jackson says. "Nothing is gained by not talking to others." Would that mean ignoring the four UN Security Council resolutions that demand an end to Iran's uranium-enrichment program? Jackson says direct talks wouldn't start without preparations. "Barack wants an aggressive and dynamic diplomacy," he says. "He also wants adequate preparatory work. We must enter the talks after the ground has been prepared," he says.

Jackson is especially critical of President Bush's approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict. "Bush was so afraid of a snafu and of upsetting Israel that he gave the whole thing a miss," Jackson says. "Barack will change that," because, as long as the Palestinians haven't seen justice, the Middle East will "remain a source of danger to us all."

"Barack is determined to repair our relations with the world of Islam and Muslims," Jackson says. "Thanks to his background and ecumenical approach, he knows how Muslims feel while remaining committed to his own faith."

| NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis | Election 2008 |

Obama's Abortion Extremism The Witherspoon Institute (October 14, 2008) - Sen. Barack Obama's views on life issues ranging from abortion to embryonic stem cell research mark him as not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket.

Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.

Yet there are Catholics and Evangelicals-even self-identified pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals - who aggressively promote Obama's candidacy and even declare him the preferred candidate from the pro-life point of view. What is going on here?

I have examined the arguments advanced by Obama's self-identified pro-life supporters, and they are spectacularly weak. It is nearly unfathomable to me that those advancing them can honestly believe what they are saying. But before proving my claims about Obama's abortion extremism, let me explain why I have described Obama as "pro-abortion" rather than "pro-choice."

According to the standard argument for the distinction between these labels, nobody is pro-abortion. Everybody would prefer a world without abortions. After all, what woman would deliberately get pregnant just to have an abortion? But given the world as it is, sometimes women find themselves with unplanned pregnancies at times in their lives when having a baby would present significant problems for them. So even if abortion is not medically required, it should be permitted, made as widely available as possible and, when necessary, paid for with taxpayers' money.

The defect in this argument can easily be brought into focus if we shift to the moral question that vexed an earlier generation of Americans: slavery. Many people at the time of the American founding would have preferred a world without slavery but nonetheless opposed abolition. Such people - Thomas Jefferson was one - reasoned that, given the world as it was, with slavery woven into the fabric of society just as it had often been throughout history, the economic consequences of abolition for society as a whole and for owners of plantations and other businesses that relied on slave labor would be dire. Many people who argued in this way were not monsters but honest and sincere, albeit profoundly mistaken. Some (though not Jefferson) showed their personal opposition to slavery by declining to own slaves themselves or freeing slaves whom they had purchased or inherited. They certainly didn't think anyone should be forced to own slaves. Still, they maintained that slavery should remain a legally permitted option and be given constitutional protection.

Would we describe such people, not as pro-slavery, but as "pro-choice"? Of course we would not. It wouldn't matter to us that they were "personally opposed" to slavery, or that they wished that slavery were "unnecessary," or that they wouldn't dream of forcing anyone to own slaves. We would hoot at the faux sophistication of a placard that said "Against slavery? Don't own one." We would observe that the fundamental divide is between people who believe that law and public power should permit slavery, and those who think that owning slaves is an unjust choice that should be prohibited. Read full story...

Just for the sake of argument, though, let us assume that there could be a morally meaningful distinction between being "pro-abortion" and being "pro-choice." Who would qualify for the latter description? Barack Obama certainly would not. For, unlike his running mate Joe Biden, Obama does not think that abortion is a purely private choice that public authority should refrain from getting involved in. Now, Senator Biden is hardly pro-life. He believes that the killing of the unborn should be legally permitted and relatively unencumbered. But unlike Obama, at least Biden has sometimes opposed using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion, thereby leaving Americans free to choose not to implicate themselves in it. If we stretch things to create a meaningful category called "pro-choice," then Biden might be a plausible candidate for the label; at least on occasions when he respects your choice or mine not to facilitate deliberate feticide.

The same cannot be said for Barack Obama. For starters, he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. The abortion industry laments that this longstanding federal law, according to the pro-abortion group NARAL, "forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead." In other words, a whole lot of people who are alive today would have been exterminated in utero were it not for the Hyde Amendment. Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry complains are not happening (because the federal government is not subsidizing them) would happen. That is why people who profit from abortion love Obama even more than they do his running mate.

But this barely scratches the surface of Obama's extremism. He has promised that "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act" (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed "fundamental right" to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, "a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons." In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would "sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies."

It gets worse. Obama, unlike even many "pro-choice" legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice. He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a "punishment" that she should not endure. He has stated that women's equality requires access to abortion on demand. Appallingly, he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing "pro-choice" about that.

But it gets even worse. Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is "pro-choice" rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it.

It gets worse yet. In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide.

You may be thinking, it can't get worse than that. But it does.

For several years, Americans have been debating the use for biomedical research of embryos produced by in vitro fertilization (originally for reproductive purposes) but now left in a frozen condition in cryopreservation units. President Bush has restricted the use of federal funds for stem-cell research of the type that makes use of these embryos and destroys them in the process. I support the President's restriction, but some legislators with excellent pro-life records, including John McCain, argue that the use of federal money should be permitted where the embryos are going to be discarded or die anyway as the result of the parents' decision. Senator Obama, too, wants to lift the restriction.

But Obama would not stop there. He has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. This "clone and kill" bill would, if enacted, bring something to America that has heretofore existed only in China-the equivalent of legally mandated abortion. In an audacious act of deceit, Obama and his co-sponsors misleadingly call this an anti-cloning bill. But it is nothing of the kind. What it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.

Can it get still worse? Yes.

Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos. But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. Why would someone not wish to find a method of producing the pluripotent cells scientists want that all Americans could enthusiastically endorse? Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.

This ultimate manifestation of Obama's extremism brings us back to the puzzle of his pro-life Catholic and Evangelical apologists.

They typically do not deny the facts I have reported. They could not; each one is a matter of public record. But despite Obama's injustices against the most vulnerable human beings, and despite the extraordinary support he receives from the industry that profits from killing the unborn (which should be a good indicator of where he stands), some Obama supporters insist that he is the better candidate from the pro-life point of view.

They say that his economic and social policies would so diminish the demand for abortion that the overall number would actually go down-despite the federal subsidizing of abortion and the elimination of hundreds of pro-life laws. The way to save lots of unborn babies, they say, is to vote for the pro-abortion-oops! "pro-choice"-candidate. They tell us not to worry that Obama opposes the Hyde Amendment, the Mexico City Policy (against funding abortion abroad), parental consent and notification laws, conscience protections, and the funding of alternatives to embryo-destructive research. They ask us to look past his support for Roe v. Wade, the Freedom of Choice Act, partial-birth abortion, and human cloning and embryo-killing. An Obama presidency, they insist, means less killing of the unborn.

This is delusional.

We know that the federal and state pro-life laws and policies that Obama has promised to sweep away (and that John McCain would protect) save thousands of lives every year. Studies conducted by Professor Michael New and other social scientists have removed any doubt. Often enough, the abortion lobby itself confirms the truth of what these scholars have determined. Tom McClusky has observed that Planned Parenthood's own statistics show that in each of the seven states that have FOCA-type legislation on the books, "abortion rates have increased while the national rate has decreased." In Maryland, where a bill similar to the one favored by Obama was enacted in 1991, he notes that "abortion rates have increased by 8 percent while the overall national abortion rate decreased by 9 percent." No one is really surprised. After all, the message clearly conveyed by policies such as those Obama favors is that abortion is a legitimate solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies - so clearly legitimate that taxpayers should be forced to pay for it.

But for a moment let's suppose, against all the evidence, that Obama's proposals would reduce the number of abortions, even while subsidizing the killing with taxpayer dollars. Even so, many more unborn human beings would likely be killed under Obama than under McCain. A Congress controlled by strong Democratic majorities under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would enact the bill authorizing the mass industrial production of human embryos by cloning for research in which they are killed. As president, Obama would sign it. The number of tiny humans created and killed under this legislation (assuming that an efficient human cloning technique is soon perfected) could dwarf the number of lives saved as a result of the reduced demand for abortion-even if we take a delusionally optimistic view of what that number would be.

Barack Obama and John McCain differ on many important issues about which reasonable people of goodwill, including pro-life Americans of every faith, disagree: how best to fight international terrorism, how to restore economic growth and prosperity, how to distribute the tax burden and reduce poverty, etc.

But on abortion and the industrial creation of embryos for destructive research, there is a profound difference of moral principle, not just prudence. These questions reveal the character and judgment of each man. Barack Obama is deeply committed to the belief that members of an entire class of human beings have no rights that others must respect. Across the spectrum of pro-life concerns for the unborn, he would deny these small and vulnerable members of the human family the basic protection of the laws. Over the next four to eight years, as many as five or even six U.S. Supreme Court justices could retire. Obama enthusiastically supports Roe v. Wade and would appoint judges who would protect that morally and constitutionally disastrous decision and even expand its scope. Indeed, in an interview in Glamour magazine, he made it clear that he would apply a litmus test for Supreme Court nominations: jurists who do not support Roe will not be considered for appointment by Obama. John McCain, by contrast, opposes Roe and would appoint judges likely to overturn it. This would not make abortion illegal, but it would return the issue to the forums of democratic deliberation, where pro-life Americans could engage in a fair debate to persuade fellow citizens that killing the unborn is no way to address the problems of pregnant women in need.

What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama's America is one in which being human just isn't enough to warrant care and protection. It is an America where the unborn may legitimately be killed without legal restriction, even by the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion. It is an America where a baby who survives abortion is not even entitled to comfort care as she dies on a stainless steel table or in a soiled linen bin. It is a nation in which some members of the human family are regarded as inferior and others superior in fundamental dignity and rights. In Obama's America, public policy would make a mockery of the great constitutional principle of the equal protection of the law. In perhaps the most telling comment made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: "that question is above my pay grade." It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator's pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy - and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then.

In the end, the efforts of Obama's apologists to depict their man as the true pro-life candidate that Catholics and Evangelicals may and even should vote for, doesn't even amount to a nice try. Voting for the most extreme pro-abortion political candidate in American history is not the way to save unborn babies.

| NewWorldOrder | America | Election 2008 |

Jalili's letter to Solana circulated as UN Security Council document Tehran Times (October 12, 2008) - Iran's letter to EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and foreign ministers of the 5+1 group has been circulated as the UN Security Council's document.

Secretary of Supreme National Security Council Saeed Jalili forwarded a letter to Javier Solana, High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy/ Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union and Representative of the six countries on Tuesday, complaining that the Group is looking at nuclear talks with Iran as merely a tactical tool.

""In view of the Geneva Talks and the emphasis of both sides on presenting a clear response to each other, the Islamic Republic of Iran in its letter of 5 August 2008 expressed its readiness to offer transparent response vis-à-vis reciting clear replies to its questions,"" Jalili said in his letter to Solana.

It is interesting for the international community to see that in the course of talks when a rational question is raised, the other party to the talks resorts to levers of pressure instead of offering answers to questions and trying to remove ambiguities, Jalili said, adding that in the judgment of the world community, this unreasonable behavior is an indication of the lack of a clear response to the principled questions of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The absence of civilized tradition of ""dialogue"" among certain powers that prefer to use levers of pressure instead of reasoning is not a matter that is unknown to the world community, he said.
| Iran | Islam | EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | Solana | NewWorldOrder |

America bad, Europe good is what I see here from Iran.

Glenn Beck: What happened? Glenn Beck (October 7, 2008) - Yes, another email letter from your crazy brother. You raised a lot of questions in your last email and I am going to try to answer all of them. I think all of your questions fall into three areas: (1) how did we get here; (2) what's coming; and (3) what can I do to prepare myself and my family.

Consider this email as my answer to your first question, "how did we get here?". I'll be sending you 2 more emails answering your other two questions. Since there's a lot of misinformation out there I will document each of the facts in my emails so you know where I pulled the information from and where you can go to read and learn more.

What you shouldn't do is panic. We'll get through this--don't pull all of your money out of the bank but have enough cash on-hand to meet any possible emergencies.

First, you've got to get the stock market's ups-and-downs out of your mind. The recent drops and upticks are short-term. Our economic problems are much bigger and deeper. Too many people believe that if the stock market goes up our problems are behind us and that's simply not true.

Last week the market had big drops and big upswings. In the end, the market ended down more than 800 points and lots of 'experts' were shouting it was a time to buy. I don't see it that way.

Did you know that just two days after the stock market crashed in October 1929 the market actually gained ground the next two days? The New York Times reported that "the market quickly regained its poise and stability...." Today, Wall Street 'pros' are telling us it's a good time to invest because Warren Buffet is investing. A lot of people were probably using the same argument when the Rockefeller family was buying stocks right after the 1929 crash, what they didn't know was that it would take Wall Street ten more years to see those prices again.

Our current economic crisis was caused by politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, who perverted the American Dream by treating home ownership as an undeniable right rather than what it really is, a privilege. President Bush aggressively promoted the benefits of home ownership through various policy positions, including a reckless zero down-payment initiative for some homebuyers and praised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac even after concerns about their accounting standards began to surface. Read full letter...

Home ownership has always been part of the American Dream. It allows individuals and families to build wealth by having them pay themselves instead of a landlord or rental company and vests people in their communities by grounding them in local schools, stores and government.

The concept that owning a home was a privilege and not a right began to change in 1992 following a flawed Boston Federal Reserve Board study which allegedly found subtle discrimination in loan and mortgage lending by banks and mortgage lenders.

Politicians didn't care that the study was full of errors. The study found discrimination took place when five minority applicants were rejected for special low-income loans even though the applicants were rejected because they made too much money to qualify for a low-income loan, not because of their race. The report also classified as 'rejected' the applications of eight minority borrowers even though these borrowers voluntarily withdrew their mortgage applications. The study's sloppiness also went the other way.

The study reported that a white applicant was approved for a $3,115,000 loan in order to purchase a home valued at $445,000. It was later demonstrated that the actual loan was approved for $311,500, far less than $3 million reported and more importantly, less than the home's purchase price. When these and other errors were corrected no evidence of discrimination existed.

But politicians didn't care. They used this report as the basis to fix a problem which didn't exist. Leading the charge for change was President Clinton who immediately set-out to rework the Community Reinvestment Act to give federal officials the power to pressure banks to make loans they otherwise considered too risky or uneconomical.

Traditional lending requirements were labeled 'outdated' and discriminatory. What 'traditional lending requirements' were viewed as 'outdated' and 'discriminatory'? (1) banks were told that a "lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor" and that "past credit problems" should be viewed and considered in light of any "extenuating circumstances" so loans could be extended when they otherwise would have been denied; (2) banks were encouraged to let borrowers without enough money for a down-payment make-up any deficiency with "gifts, grants, or loans from relatives, nonprofit organizations, or municipal agencies" even though banks considered this risky as the home buyer would have little or no equity in the house; (3) banks were also instructed that borrowers who received child support, welfare payments or unemployment benefits could count that as 'income' for borrowing purposes.

Call me crazy but if you need to count child support money that's intended for your child, or are in such bad economic shape that you're relying on welfare payments to make ends meet or are unemployed, maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't be buying a house. Too bad our politicians and the 'best and brightest' on Wall Street couldn't figure that out!

Community groups like ACORN, threatened to cry racism if banks didn't increase their loans to subprime borrowers. Banks typically avoided subprime loans as they carried a greater risk of default, but with law on its side, ACORN and other groups intimidated lending institutions into making such loans.

Banks soon learned, however, that making subprime loans actually could increase their profits without increasing their risk. Once the banks extended a loan to a subprime borrower that loan could then be sold by the bank to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, two government sponsored entities charged with making home ownership affordable to all Americans.

Banks, Wall Street, and mortgage lenders were soon eager to extend mortgages to subprime borrowers because they could make lots of money without carrying any risk. Fannie and Freddie carried all the risk once the original lending agency sold the loan to them. And once Fannie and Freddie bought the loan this freed up the banks to make even more subprime loans.

So everyone was a winner. The subprime borrower got the money to buy a house. The banks generated mortgages and made a nice profit and Fannie and Freddie executives made tens-of-millions of dollars in salaries and bonuses by hitting their annual goals.

The problem was that in order to keep all of this going lending standards were continually lowered to help the next level of subprime borrowers qualify for mortgages and no one had an incentive to make sure that the new subprime borrowers would actually be capable of making regular mortgage payments. The banks which extended the loans really didn't care because they were just going to sell the loan off to Fannie or Freddie. Fannie and Freddie weren't too concerned because it wasn't their money-they knew that they were insured by the 'full faith and credit' of the federal government (that's government lingo for "you and me").

So when federal regulators began to warn the executives at Fannie and Freddie about the increasing risks of non-payment by subprime borrowers the companies did nothing and when the regulators took their concerns to congress their warnings were met with scorn and contempt. The politicians who received the most political contributions from Fannie and Freddie, by pure coincidence, just happened to be their biggest defenders: Chris Dodd (D-$133,900), John Kerry (D-$111,000) and Barack Obama (D-$105,189).

Representative Barney Frank, who has been a fierce defender of Fannie and Freddie, actually said, while arguing against more regulation, "I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.... " It's nice to know that he doesn't mind gambling with our money. Senator Chris Dodd, in praising Fannie and Freddie said, "I, just briefly will say, Mr. Chairman, obviously, like most of us here, this is one of the great success stories of all time. "While Senator Charles Schumer said, "And my worry is that we're using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie's mission."

Barack Obama has received more money from Fannie and Freddie than any other senator, with the exception of Senator Dodd, in the last four years. Before entering the senate, Obama filed a class-action lawsuit against Citibank, alleging that the bank was red-lining, or not doing enough lending in certain areas. That lawsuit was eventually settled. Arguably, Barack Obama helped cause the problem he now wants to fix.

The Federal Reserve Board was doing its part by throwing huge piles of cash at would-be home buyers by keeping interest rates too low. With low interest rates speculators began to look at houses as business opportunities, while others began to look at their homes as a giant piggy bank rather than a place where you actually lived and raised a family. Alan Greenspan encouraged this type of behavior and proudly said, "American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgages..." President Bush, responding to September 11th unwisely encouraged us to "go shopping" rather than hunker down financially and contribute to the War on Terror in other ways (can you say home equity loans?).

The SEC also shares in the blame. It failed to do its job (failed to adequately regulate mortgage brokers, the credit rating companies, and naked short-sellers), acted only after the markets froze-up (finally addressed mark-to-market rules) and refused to examine how the credit-default-swap market could grow from $919 billion in 2001 to over $54 trillion by 2008 (which allowed companies to make wild financial bets with the false confidence that 'insurance' would be there if the deal went south).

So what happened? Home-ownership rates which had been relatively constant for 25 years began a 10 year upward climb beginning in 1995, around the same time that government began its push and pressure for banks to make more subprime loans. The politicians, banks, lenders and Wall Streeters were thrilled because they were all making gobs of money.

Today we are all paying the price for the decisions made long ago. I have spoken to people involved at the highest levels and they now are all saying the same thing, "it is worse than anyone knows" and "worse than I even thought." Political and business leaders who I respect have told me that the economy is on the edge of an abyss.

The bailout is an outrage and is designed only to buy time for the politicians. It will delay the real hard times from hitting until after the November elections. Not one politician has said that this bailout legislation will put us on a better financial footing or that our economic problems will be put behind us. In fact, we'll be worse off because our politicians, even in this crisis, can't stop themselves from spending. This bill includes an extension of the rum tax benefits for Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands ($192 million), tax benefits for companies which manufacture wooden arrows for kids ($6 million), car racing tracks ($128 million), a provision which forces insurance companies to treat mental health problems like physical problems ($3.8 billion) and many, many more.

International markets don't offer any better alternative. Germany, England, the Netherlands, and Russia have all come out with their own government backed bailout plans. There are now calls for more international regulation (presumably led by the United Nations) and China has taken this opportunity to call for "a diversified currency and financial system and fair and just financial order that is not dependent on the United States." Meanwhile, there is increasing international indications that the dollar will lose its place as the reserve currency of the world.

The politicians from both political parties continue to lie to us. They promise us better healthcare and more government programs. The only thing either party will be able to deliver is higher, much higher, taxes as the debt swells and government revenues fall. The same politicians remain silent, while capitalism, which brought us the highest standard of living in the world, is increasingly attacked and discredited by its enemies.

But it's not capitalism which has been discredited by our current crisis, it's greed that has been shown to be at the root of our present economic uncertainty, and greed is unfortunately a universal human trait and has demonstrated its reach in socialism, fascism, communism and capitalism. The greed of Wall Street is nothing compared to the greed of our politicians who have continued to expand their power and influence at the expense of their country.

Our children and grandchildren will ultimately pay the price for their failure to act prudently and in the best interest of our country because they will be the ones saddled with mountains of debt and diminished standard of living.

I hope that this summary gives you a better idea of how the people who caused this fire are the same ones who are now telling us that they know best how to put it out and a reason not to believe their current promises.

We have faced tough times before. We fought the Nazis in World War II, defeated communism in the Cold War and Americans fought each other to keep our country together in our own Civil War. These tough times require us to educate ourselves and help others understand what has brought us to this point and the grave consequences of what will happen if we let this continue-that is our fight.

In my next email letter I will answer the other question you asked, "what's coming?"

Sis, I know you will always consider me your crazy brother but please pass this message on to all of your friends.  There are too many rumors circulating and I want to put the facts out there. This isn't about slamming the Democrats or Republicans--this is about getting the truth out to as many people as possible.  The more people we can wake-up the more people we will have restoring the hope, promise and opportunity of our great country.  Please pass this on.  Glenn

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

You can also listen to the October 8 show and read the follow-up letters here.

U.S. confirms bank buy-ins Chicago Tribune (October 11, 2008) - The government will buy an ownership stake in a broad array of American banks for the first time since the Great Depression, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said late Friday. "This is a period like none of us has ever seen before," Paulson declared. He said the government program to purchase stock in private U.S. financial firms will be open to a broad array of institutions, including banks, in an effort to help them raise desperately needed money.

The administration received the authority to take such direct action in the $700 billion economic rescue bill that Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed last week. Paulson announced the administration's new effort to prop up banks at the conclusion of discussions among finance officials of the Group of Seven major industrialized countries. That group endorsed the outlines of a sweeping program to combat the worst global credit crisis in decades.

Paulson said the U.S. program would be designed to complement banks' own efforts to raise fresh capital from private sources. The government's stock purchases will be of non-voting shares so it will not have power to run the companies. Few details of the plan were available.

The purchase of stakes in companies would be in addition to the main thrust of the $700 billion rescue effort, which is to purchase distressed assets from financial institutions as a way of unthawing frozen credit, getting banks to resume normal lending operations and staving off severe problems for businesses and everyday Americans alike. It would mark the first time the government has taken equity ownership in banks in this manner since a similar program was employed during the Depression.

The Treasury, under the equity purchase program, would not be involved in bank management, Paulson said. "Such a program would be designed to encourage the raising of new private capital to complement public capital," he said.
| NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

Berlusconi says leaders may close world’s markets Bloomberg (October 10, 2008) - Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said political leaders are discussing the idea of closing the world's financial markets while they "rewrite the rules of international finance." "The idea of suspending the markets for the time it takes to rewrite the rules is being discussed," Berlusconi said today after a Cabinet meeting in Naples, Italy. A solution to the financial crisis "can't just be for one country, or even just for Europe, but global." The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell as much 8.1 percent in early trading and pared most of those losses after Berlusconi's remarks. The Dow was down 0.5 percent to 8540.52 at 10:10 in New York.

Group of Seven finance ministers and central bankers are meeting in Washington today, and will stay in town for the International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings this weekend. European Union leaders may gather in Paris on Oct. 12, three days before a scheduled summit in Brussels, Berlusconi said today, while Group of Eight leaders may hold a meeting on the crisis "in coming days," he said.

Berlusconi didn't give any details about what kind of rules leaders were looking to change, except to say that leaders are "talking about a new Bretton Woods." The Bretton Woods Agreements were adopted to rebuild the international economic system after World War II in a hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. The aim of the agreements was to establish a monetary management system, initially by pegging currencies to gold. The IMF was set up later to help manage the international financial system.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

Interview: EU to govern Internet of the future Euractiv (October 9, 2008) - The European Commission will roll out a range of initiatives in the coming months to promote the Internet of the Future, while remaining highly vigilant in protecting citizens and networks, Information Society Commissioner Viviane Reding told EurActiv in an interview.

The EU executive identified the following key topics to be addressed by 2009 in to prepare Europe to the new generation of the Internet: the early challenges of the Internet of Things, rolling out Next Generation Access Networks, opening radio spectrum to wireless services, broadband for all, security of critical communication infrastructure, privacy concerns related to the massive deployment of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags and Internet governance.

Speaking at the Internet of Things conference organised by the French EU Presidency in Nice on 6-7 October, Commissioner Reding outlined told EurActiv what she expected would be the main challenges ahead.

First of all, Brussels wants to pave the way for possibly the biggest revolution that the Web has ever seen: the emergence of an Internet of Things, whereby objects have a virtual identity and communicate between each other to provide services of every kind, from healthcare to transport security.

At the end of September, the Commission opened a public debate on the main issues related to the Internet of Things, publishing a position document . In November, a recommendation is expected on the privacy and security risks linked to the deployment of RFID tags, the technology at the core of the Internet of Things. Commissioner Reding wants to maintain a fair balance between the promotion of RFID and the new societal risks posed by society (EurActiv 06/10/08).

In early 2009, the EU executive is due to publish definitve guidelines for the roll-out of Next Generation Access Networks, the key infrastructure for a future Internet based on data-hungry services (EurActiv 19/09/08). A review of radio spectrum is also ongoing, so as to exploit the so-called 'digital dividend' which will result from the switch from analogue to digital TV by 2012. The target is to increase the provision of wireless and mobile Internet services and, as a result, broadband penetration in Europe.

Protection of critical online infrastructure, such as networks or key servers, is also high on the Commission's agenda. To avoid cyber-attacks such as that which hit Estonian public Internet services in 2007, the EU executive will propose concrete action at EU level in a document to be published in 2009 (EurActiv 09/04/08).

The global governance of the Internet and its next developments is also considered crucial by Brussels, with Reding explicitly aiming to challenge US control of many key elements of the Net. To read the full text of the interview, please click here.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | Technology |

New World Order: Global co-operation, nationalisation and state intervention - all in one day The Scotsman (October 9, 2008) - IT WAS a day of desperate global action, unprecedented in both scale and cost, intended to stymie the international devastation being wrought by the financial crisis. As the London stock market steeled itself to open again following days of vicious battering, Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, rose to stake the future of the country and the Cabinet on an audacious £500 billion banking bail-out.

And barely had the City begun to digest the hugely complex and unorthodox scheme when it was sent reeling again by an unscheduled interest rate cut – mirrored across the world – by the Monetary Policy Committee. It was the first such co-ordinated approach since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001 – yet another indicator, had one been needed, of the gravity of the situation. The half percentage point drop was immediately passed on to millions of borrowers, with leading high-street banks cutting their mortgages.

The government's scheme, a three-part plan which takes in short, medium and long-term measures, was welcomed by business leaders and analysts. David Kern, adviser to the British Chamber of Commerce, said: "The government has taken a radical step, but it is one we welcome."

But there was concern a phenomenal amount of taxpayers' cash was being staked on a last-ditch measure that could fail. The Taxpayers' Alliance accused ministers of failing to address other options first. Meanwhile, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) issued a fresh warning that Britain was on the brink of recession. In its latest World Economic Outlook, it predicted the UK economy would contract by 0.1 per cent next year as growth across the developed countries slowed to almost zero.

The downturn will mean lost jobs, with unemployment forecast to rise from 5.4 per cent to 6 per cent, while public finances were said to be "considerably weaker" than in previous slowdowns. However, the IMF said it was expecting Britain to bounce back strongly in 2010.

The £500 billion plan includes the government taking shares of up to £50 billion in leading banks, increasing funds available to banks to £200 billion, and guaranteeing their debts when they lend to one another. The guarantees are likely to cost up to £250 billion. The Prime Minister called the plans "bold and far-reaching", but admitted they would offer no quick fix. Read full story...

Eight UK banks and building societies – including Royal Bank of Scotland, Halifax Bank of Scotland, Barclays, Lloyds TSB and Nationwide – have pledged to increase their capital by £25 billion but the government will pump in the funds if called upon. The Treasury also stands ready to make at least another £25 billion available, if necessary. The Bank of England – alongside its interest rate cut – is taking emergency action to help ensure banks have enough cash to run their day-to-day activities. It has increased to £200 billion the size of its special liquidity scheme that lets banks swap risky assets for Treasury bonds.

The government is also making the further £250 billion available for banks to guarantee debt, but a fee will be charged. Mr Brown moved to reassure taxpayers they would have the potential to "earn a proper return" from their investment. There would be "strings attached and conditions to be met" to protect taxpayer interests.

One key concern is whether there will be controls over the bonuses of the "fat cat" bank bosses. Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, said such issues would be dealt with case by case. Remuneration should be "based on responsibility, hard work, effort and enterprise", he said. It had been claimed that RBS bosses, chief executive Sir Fred Goodwin and chairman Sir Tom McKillop, had offered to leave under a boardroom clear-out agreed with the government, but this was denied by the bank.

The announcement provided an initial boost to the FTSE 100 index of leading shares, and in particular to banking stocks, but this fell away later in the day. The FTSE closed at a loss of 5 per cent – its lowest close since 2004 – while banks failed to hold on to the huge gains of up to 60 per cent made earlier in the day.

When Mr Brown stood to address the House of Commons on the package, which could well determine how his premiership is judged, he was able to announce the interest rate cut. Central banks across Europe, the US, Canada and China also reduced interest rates in an emergency move. The banks hope to encourage nervous consumers and businesses to spend more freely again after widespread housing, credit and financial problems. The cut – which was immediately passed on to more than five million homeowners – was cautiously welcomed by analysts and business leaders.

Miles Templeman, director-general of the Institute of Directors, said: "Before today's announcement, the financial system was in the deep freeze. After today, it might be in the fridge, but there is no guarantee. Nobody should be under any illusion that the financial system is now fixed. Our concern now is for the real economy and how much it will slow. "There remains a real risk that the economic downturn under way will further undermine bank capital due to rising repossessions and bad debt."

Howard Archer, an economist, of Global Insight, said: "It's not the magic pill. We have a lot of difficult times ahead. But the first stage is stopping things getting worse, and the hope is this will help to stabilise the economy." Martin Weale, director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, said that, for the UK, it was important that the move came alongside the £500 billion package. He said: "The international banks concluded there is a major international banking crisis. Banks were collapsing in Europe, as well as the United States. I think they rather optimistically concluded a rate cut of this type can restore confidence." Rate cuts were "a valuable piece on the side", but he added: "The key issue is for affected countries to do what Britain has done and show governments are prepared to inject equity capital into banks that look as though they need it. "We will only be confident the worst is over when the US adopts a scheme like Britain."

And Louise Cuming, the head of mortgages at moneysupermarket.com, warned: "This is not a magic cure-all, and we won't see either the mortgage or the housing market bouncing back to where it was 18 months ago." Following the announcements, Mr Brown spoke by phone to the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and the Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, as well as the EC president, José Manuel Barroso. The government is expected to hold up its plan as a potential model for the rest of Europe. The EU – which is concerned about competition implications of a scheme by Ireland to safeguard its deposits – later said it saw no problem with Britain's move.

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

Is the Federal Reserve Engaged in Acts of Economic Warfare Against America? Natural News (October 8, 2008) - In 1942, German intelligence officers rounded up skilled Jewish prisoners and launched Operation Bernhardt, a clever scheme designed to counterfeit hundreds of millions of dollars worth of British Pounds and destroy the British economy by flooding it with counterfeit money. Located in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp, Operation Bernhardt was, even by modern standards, a runaway success that resulted in the creation of forged bank notes worth 132 million British Pounds. This "economic warfare" operation resulted in a devastating economic effect on the British economy. You can read the true history of this operation here.

It is important to note that Operation Bernhardt was an act of war, specifically pursued for the purpose of destroying Britain's economy by creating so much new money that the value of the money already in circulation would plummet. This was considered a strategic attack, just as effective as carpet-bombing tank factories or mowing down soldiers on the field with German-made MG42 machine guns.

What does all this have to do with the Federal Reserve?

Today, the Federal Reserve is engaged in an eerily similar operation, counterfeiting trillions of dollars in U.S. bank notes and flooding the U.S. money supply with money created from nothing. The result, of course, is the same as was intended by Operation Bernhardt in 1942: The economic destruction of the target nation. Only this time, the target is the United States of America.

Hilariously, the Fed claims it's doing this to save the economy. Yet the laws of economics tell us that flooding the money supply with trillions of dollars in new money actually harms the economy. And the Fed has been hard at work causing this harm: $250+ billion two weeks ago, $600+ billion last week and $900 billion earlier this week! It's beginning to crank up the printing presses to the tune of a trillion dollars a week, and by doing so, it's contributing to the destruction of the U.S. economy at a pace the Third Reich could have barely imagined. Read full story...

Has the Fed declared war on the working class?

If the actions pursued by the Federal Reserve were being masterminded by Al-Qaeda, they would be denounced as acts of war. In World War II, such actions were deliberate acts of war. Targeting the economy for destruction by flooding the money supply with counterfeit currency is, by any measure, a threat to any nation.

So why is the Federal Reserve engaged in actions that, if committed by other nations, would warrant a military response? This is not an idle question. I'm not asking this in a satirical way. I'm quite serious about this: Why is the Fed committing acts of economic warfare against the United States of America? (The Fed, by the way, is a private company. It is not, as you've been led to believe, part of the U.S. government.) [Some videos presenting the facts on that here, here, here and here]

The answer is obvious. You've probably already figured it out: The Federal Reserve is at war with America. It's an economic war, of course, not a bombs-and-bullets war. The casualties, though, are just as real: Savings accounts, retirement funds, bank accounts, jobs, businesses, pensions and much more.

By counterfeiting trillions of dollars like a Sachsenhausen operation on steroids, the Fed is carpet-bombing the U.S. economy with an unprecedented flood of fiat currency, causing the exact same economic destruction intended by the Nazis in World War II (but on a much more devastating scale). And it's doing this as part of a new economic war.

Class warfare has begun

What war? The war between the wealthy elite and the working class. The Fed is working hard, of course, to protect the wealthy elite. Over a trillion dollars of taxpayer money has already been earmarked to bail out the rich, elite bankers who lost other people's money in a series of idiotic bets on fictitious financial instruments.

And what are these bankers doing with this taxpayer money? According to an Associated Press report published yesterday, executives of the failed insurance company AIG were sent on a $440,000 retreat "to a posh California resort" less than one week after the U.S. government bailed them out. At the spa, AIG executives enjoyed spa treatments, massages, organic food buffets and bodywork therapy, all while the American taxpayers footing the bill were slaving away in real jobs, doing real work. Want to see the invoice for yourself? View it here.

That's how this new class warfare is taking shape: YOU (the working class) get all the debt, all the losses, and all the financial burden. THEY (the wealthy elite) get all the profits, all the luxury spa treatments, all the tax breaks and billions of dollars in free money from the Federal Reserve.

In the 1942 Operation Bernhardt, the Germans literally planned to load hundreds of millions of dollars in British Pound bank notes and air-drop them over London. The resulting chaos, it was believed, would shut down the British economy, halting the flow of money needed by Britain to fund its war effort. In the United States today, the Fed is taking a different approach: Air-dropping trillions of dollars into the laps and bank accounts of wealthy bankers and financial institution CEOs, concentrating the massive creation of fiat currency into the hands of less than 1% of the population.

And just to make sure the economic carpet-bombing is a complete success, the Federal Reserve and U.S. government are conspiring to create more than a trillion dollars in new money each week, then flood those funds into banks, businesses and insurance companies. This will, of course, devastate the value of the dollars being saved, held or earned by the wage slaves who labor their lives away under this economic regime. (That would be you and me.)

It's a brilliant plan... if you're interested in destroying a nation. This kind of attack would bring almost any nation to its knees. It's an act of war that requires no violence, no bombs and no destruction of real infrastructure. And yet it achieves what every war in history has ever sought to achieve: The transfer of power from the hands of the many to the hands of the few. The Federal Reserve, in effect, has become a modern-day economic Third Reich, and it has set its sights on the U.S. economy.

Acts of economic terrorism?

The Federal Reserve is now doing to the U.S. what the terrorists could never have accomplished: The destruction of a large portion of its economy, its currency and the savings of its people. The economic losses of 9/11 pale in comparison to the financial destruction that has been unleashed onto America by the Federal Reserve.

Yet, amazingly, it wasn't "terrorists" who put this plan into place. Who was it, exactly? Your Congressional representatives played an important role in allowing this to happen. In a grand, historical betrayal of the American people, members of your own U.S. House of Representatives and Senate voted to initiate a massive economic coup in America, violating the wishes of 99% of the American people (who are aligned against bailing out the rich on the backs of the poor).

Of course, to hear them explain it, their actions are meant to save the taxpayers. Yep, that's their plan: To save YOU, the taxpayer, by confiscating your money and handing it over to the wealthy elite. And whatever money can't be stolen from the taxpayers will be counterfeited by the Fed's money-creation machine.

The Real Agenda: A Massive Transfer of Wealth

We are not watching an economic rescue, friends. We are watching an economic coup. Creating and dumping trillions of dollars into the money supply is an act of war. But it's a war with a specific purpose.

What's happening right now is that the United States is being taken over by King Henry and his accomplices. More than fifty percent of the housing and nearly twenty percent of the entire U.S. economy is now controlled by one person -- Henry Paulson -- and that person answers to no one. He isn't elected, he can't be removed from office, and he's subject to no law.

King Henry controls unlimited funds. He can print any amount of money, or confiscate any amount from the taxpayers (by spending taxpayer dollars to bail out his rich friends). If the Federal Reserve is the new Third Reich, King Henry is its Hitler.

The economic war has already been lost by the People. It was lost on September 30, 2008, when Congress surrendered the U.S. economy to King Henry. The People now own nothing but paper money and ephemeral digital account numbers, all of which could be turned into worthless digits overnight by a single decision from King Henry.

In this economic bailout and the Fed's unlimited creation of new money, America has suffered the greatest act of economic warfare in our nation's history. Note carefully that it wasn't conducted by the Nazis, Saddam Hussein or Al Qaeda. It was, in fact, put into place by 172 Democrats and 91 Republicans in the House, and a similar majority in the U.S. Senate. (See the complete list at the original article source linked above.) more...

| NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

Federal Reserve, ECB and Bank of England make emergency interest rate cuts Telegraph UK (October 8, 2008) - The Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and the Bank of England have all cut interest rates in an emergency move to restore confidence in the global financial system. The Fed cut its benchmark rate by a half point to 1.5 pc, the central bank said in a statement. The ECB and central banks of the U.K., Canada, Sweden and Switzerland are also reducing rates, the Fed added. "The recent intensification of the financial crisis has augmented the downside risks to growth and thus has diminished further the upside risks to price stability," according to a joint statement by the central banks. "Some easing of global monetary conditions is therefore warranted." The move comes as the turmoil in financial markets deepens and the UK today unveiled a £500bn rescue package for the country's banking sector.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

National Interests and European Foreign Policy Council of the European Union - Javier Solana (October 7, 2008) - I would like to thank the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik for convening this conference. It follows a good tradition. For many years it has hosted the NATO Review Conference. As NATO General Secretary I valued these intense political brainstormings. It is timely to launch a similar exercise for our Common Foreign and Security Policy.

Next year, it will be ten years since the Kosovo crisis, which played a fundamental role in the creation of the European Security and Defence Policy. The European Security Strategy will see its 5th anniversary in December. So this is a good moment to look back. But even more to think about the future. I hope and expect this conference to contribute to tangible progress in the evolution of Europe's global role.

At the request of the organisers, my intervention will focus on the question of national interests and how they relate to building a common European foreign policy. This is not an easy topic. These days, when debating foreign policy, the concept of "national interest" can seem outmoded and unattractive. In both public opinion and specialist circles, we tend to associate the idea with the cynical pursuit of self-interest.

Take historical figures like Machiavelli: "it is far safer to be feared than loved". Or Lord Palmerston: "my country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests". We like to think diplomats have moved beyond that kind of thinking in the twenty-first century.

In the European context this feeling becomes stronger. European integration has been built on compromises. So a ruthless pursuit of national interests sits ill with the European method of consensus-building. But are national interests and European foreign policy therefore incompatible?

It would be tempting to say yes. But that would miss an important point. For I think the relationship
is more complex. Properly defined, national interests have a place in European policy-making, What has changed in Europe is how people define their interests and, even more, the structure in which they pursue them.

The point is not that we have abolished national interests in the European Union. Rather, the point is that we agree that the best way to safeguard these interests is by working together. Moreover, working together helps to create and identify common European interests. So, it is a two-way street. This is a fundamental truth, which bears repeating.

To avoid any misunderstanding: values matter as much as interests. A foreign policy which is not informed by our values is neither possible nor acceptable. This very much applies to the European Union. Values are at the core of our external actions and an expression of our collective identity. We promote them because of who we are. But also because it is in our interest to do so.

This explains why the European approach to international relations is characterised by the primacy of international law; the search for consensual solutions; and a commitment to making multilateral institutions effective. This is the European way. What we do abroad is shaped by who we are. Not only is this approach right. It is also very effective, as the history of Europe over the last fifty years demonstrates.

There is another aspect to all this. The very concept of national interest has changed in our globalised world. In a nutshell: interests have gone global. We face common problems. You all know the list: terrorism, climate change and energy security, proliferation, organised crime, failing states. These are complex and interconnected problems. They defy simple solutions.

No country acting alone can solve them. So, national and collective interests are linked. You cannot pursue one at the expense of the other. Of course there will always be differences of emphasis, based on history, geography and the electoral cycle. We should be aware of these differences - and discuss how they can be overcome. But the collective, common interest is clear. Global and complex issues require global answers.

So much for the theory. How to do it in practice, in a Union of 27 member-states? By working hard every day. I believe it is possible, because there is such a thing as common European interests. Let me try to explain.

First, I believe it is an interest in itself for the 27 Member states to build unity. Unity is the best way to be heard in a globalised world. Unity is a precondition for Europe to be effective. In turn, being effective helps with creating unity, as the Balkan and Georgia conflicts have shown.

Second, there is the inter-connected nature of the threats that we face, as I mentioned earlier. We have a common interest in addressing complex threats, diplomatically and through collective action on the ground. What is stated in principle must be demonstrated in practice. And Europe is doing just that, tackling crises in our neighbourhood and beyond.

Let me mention some examples which seem of special relevance.

The Iran nuclear issue is a case in point. The importance of the Iranian issue cannot be over-stated. At stake is nothing less than the treaty-based system of non-proliferation. Europe's role has been central. We have been at the forefront of international efforts to solve this sensitive and complex issue, working through the multilateral system. It is consistent with the objectives, interests and values we uphold. We hope for success, but know that it will require cooperation of many actors, first of all Iran.

Or take the Western Balkans. The scale of the EU commitment to putting that region on a path of sustainable peace, reconciliation and growth is unprecedented. From Bosnia Herzegovina to Kosovo, from Serbia to FYROM Europe is seen as an indispensable anchor of stability and development.

Europe is committed to the Balkans for good reasons. This is an area of strategic importance. And our engagement has made the difference, even in very sensitive issues like relations with Kosovo and Serbia. I do not deny or downplay the challenge that was posed by Kosovo's independence - including among EU Member States. But we delivered.

The Union agreed on a common interest in ensuring stability and security in Kosovo, and deployed the EULEX mission to achieve that aim. We were right. Since February, we have seen positive trends in both Kosovo and Serbia, with the EULEX mission gradually deploying and a pro-European political constellation in Belgrade.

All this would have been impossible without the impulse and political initiative from the European Union - and especially the incentive of the European perspective. Compare this situation to the mid- 1990s. The progress we have made is remarkable.

Then there is Georgia. The initiatives taken by the European Union, under the leadership of the French Presidency, were key to preventing further dangerous escalation. It is too early for final judgements at this stage. But over the last two months the EU has been crucial to establishing a path through the crisis, and providing the means, with the EU Monitoring Mission to doing so.

Let me conclude. National interests and European foreign policy have to be linked. But it should be clear that in a globalised world, national interests can best be achieved through collective action. European foreign policy is work in progress. We all know that we can and should improve the efficiency of our decision-making and the effectiveness of our actions. But perhaps paradoxically, the Georgian crisis gives me hope. It showed that strong political will and good co-ordination between the institutions and Member States is critical. And that it can be forthcoming when we need it.

Now we need to ensure that the same conditions will be there in the future. The Treaty of Lisbon will be a central part of delivering that. A swift entry into force of that Treaty is clearly in our common interest.

Dear friends, The world today is more complex and interconnected. Our approach of bringing together member states into collective positions which are stronger than the sum of their parts, is the only realistic response. It is in our interest to continue on this path. Thank you very much.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | Solana | NewWorldOrder | 1^st Seal |

Europe is being set up as the model for which the rest of the world should follow suit in working together and better integrating to make a better world. It sounds great, but as we've seen historically the leaders with the power misuse it to the detriment of the people and according to Bible prophecy, the ultimate incarnation of this will be seen in the man of sin who will rise to power from the revived Roman Empire and from among 10 kings to gain global influence and eventually control the world by his policies. See chart Just a quick review, the man delivering this "intervention" has held and holds the following positions:

• President of the Council of the European Union (July-December, 1995)
• 9th Secretary-General of NATO (December 5, 1995 - October 6, 1999)
• 1st European Union High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (October 18, 1999 - Present)
• Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union (October 1999 - Present) Presiding over:
  • European Defense Agency (EDA)
• Secretary-General of the Western European Union (November 20, 1999 - Present)

Ever heard of him? So could this really be coming to pass now under the radar of the world and even Christians? As the financial collapse helps push international cooperation along with business deals (shipping jobs and manufacturing overseas) and the war on terror, are we being smoothly nudged into the New Age that's been talked about for many years? Considering all the signs from many angles, I've only been more convinced as time goes on that we indeed are at that point in the history of mankind as foretold in the Bible. Keep watching and praying!

George Bush to summon leaders to emergency finance summit Telegraph UK (October 7, 2008) - The prospect of a high-level global meeting came as the US central bank launched a new bid to unfreeze credit markets by effectively lending billions of dollars to US companies. The Federal Reserve moved after lending in the commercial paper market - where companies raise money from the open money markets - all but ceased, raising a serious threat to many American businesses' operations. "This facility should encourage investors to once again engage in term lending in the commercial paper market," the Fed said.

The Fed's move -- which puts billions of dollars of US taxpayers' money at risk -- was the latest sign of how desperate American leaders are to unblock the global financial system and avert a severe recession. Mr Bush underlined that message personally on Tuesday in conversations with other world leaders. The Prime Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, spoke with the United States President by telephone. Mr Bush urged his European counterparts to coordinate efforts to solve financial crisis spreading around the globe. All are expected to agree to attend a meeting if the details can be thrashed out.

Downing Street said it was "a good idea" and welcomed the President's close attention to events in Europe. The idea was floated by Mr Sarkozy, who holds the presidency of the European Union. Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, said: "The president obviously talked to President Sarkozy about his idea to have a meeting. The president's open to that." The venue for the meeting would still have to be decided, although Washington is the likely destination.

Mr Brown squeezed in a last-minute meeting with Mr Bush when he was in America two weeks ago, prior to Congress agreeing the £700 billion rescue plan that had been proposed by Hank Paulsen, the United States Treasury Secretary. At that stage the problems of Europe seemed to relatively minor compared to the crisis unfolding on Wall Street, but events in Europe and elsewhere in the last week have highlighted the need for concerted and co-ordinated action.

In Luxembourg EU finance ministers on Tuesday said that they will talk daily in future and "ensure a comprehensive and coordinated response to the current situation." They agreed to guarantee private savings of up to Euro 50,000 (£38,900) for one year after failing to agree on a higher limit of Euro 100,000 (£77,800). The new limit is below the protection already offered by many EU countries, including the UK.

EU governments have been trying to restore confidence after a series of bank bailouts last week and a "beggar-my-neighbour" scramble by individual countries to increase deposit guarantees, started by Ireland's promise to underwrite 100 percent of deposits. Disparities in EU states' treatment of banks is unnerving investors and prompting savers to shift billions across borders.

In another unilateral European move, Spain on Tuesday announced it was setting up a £30 billion fund to help the financial sector. Taro Aso, the Japanese Prime Minister, said he was concerned that the EU leaders' failure to agree a seamless response to the banking crisis will cause continued turmoil in world markets. Mr Aso said: "European leaders have met, but it didn't go well, and European financial markets have fluctuated rapidly and substantially, so I'm worried about the impact on Japan."
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

European Crisis Deepens; Officials Vow to Save Banks Bloomberg (October 6, 2008) - The credit crunch deepened in Europe as government leaders pledged to bail out troubled banks and protect depositors. BNP Paribas SA will take control of Fortis's units in Belgium and Luxembourg after government efforts to ensure the company's stability failed, while Germany's government and financial institutions agreed on a 50 billion euro ($68 billion) rescue package for Hypo Real Estate Holding AG. U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling said Britain is "ready to do whatever it takes" to help its banks.

The developments yesterday came a day after a summit in Paris where leaders of Europe's four biggest economies stopped short of a plan mirroring the $700 billion rescue in the U.S. to counter the worst financial crisis since World War II. Instead, they agreed to work together to limit the economic fallout, ease accounting rules, and seek tougher financial regulations. "Until now the solutions have appeared to be uncoordinated, so perhaps it's time for a more coordinated approach globally," said Torsten Slok, an economist at Deutsche Bank AG in New York. "It's not just the U.S. and Europe, it's banks in every part of the world."

The euro slid to a 13-month low against the dollar and Treasuries rose as the credit crisis spread outside the U.S., prompting investors to opt for less risky investments. Asian stocks fell for a third day, led by financial companies.

`New World'

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who convened the Oct. 4 meeting, called for a global summit "as soon as possible" to implement "a real and complete reform of the international financial system." He said "all actors" must be supervised, including credit-rating firms and hedge funds. Executive-pay systems must also be reviewed, he said. "We want a new world to come out of this," Sarkozy said. "We want to set up the basis for a capitalism of entrepreneurs, not speculators." Finance ministers from the Group of Seven industrialized nations meet in Washington later this week.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's opposition to collective action underscored the hurdles to a European front. "Each country must take its responsibilities at a national level," she told a joint press conference after the summit. Germany will guarantee the savings of private account holders, Merkel said, in a bid by Europe's biggest economy to prevent a rush of withdrawals. Denmark said today commercial lenders will provide as much as 35 billion kroner ($6.4 billion) over the next two years to a fund to insure depositors against losses. Read full story...

Deposit Guarantees

Until now, German savings accounts, including those of small, privately held companies, have been guaranteed by 180 banks in Germany, the BDB private banks group said on Oct. 2. The guarantees of the banks covered 90 percent of an account's balance to a maximum of 20,000 euros, the group said. The German and Danish governments' commitments follow similar verbal pledges by Sarkozy and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, both of whom have promised to prevent losses for depositors in their countries. Ireland is guaranteeing banks' deposits and debts for two years, to restore confidence in the country's financial industry. Amid the race to shore up Europe's faltering financial institutions, BNP Paribas, France's biggest lender, agreed to pay 14.5 billion euros for control of Fortis's units in Belgium and Luxembourg.

BNP Paribas

The sale comes after a Sept. 28 bailout failed to stabilize what was Belgium's biggest financial-services provider, as clients withdrew money and the company had trouble obtaining loans. Fortis received an 11.2 billion euro capital injection from Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. The Belgian government will have an 11.6 percent stake in BNP Paribas, and Luxembourg a 1.1 percent holding, after the purchases are completed, BNP Paribas said in a statement today.

On Oct. 3, the Dutch government took control of Fortis's units in the Netherlands for 16.8 billion euros after deciding the initial rescue didn't go far enough. Meanwhile, Hypo Real Estate won a reprieve after Germany's finance ministry said the country's banks and insurers agreed to double a credit line for the company to 30 billion euros. The federal government's guarantee for the credit line remains unchanged, Torsten Albig, a spokesman for Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck, said late yesterday in an e-mailed statement.

Too Big to Fail

Munich-based Hypo Real Estate had earlier announced that a government-backed 35 billion-euro bailout plan collapsed after commercial banks withdrew their support. The government and the Bundesbank have said that the nation's second-biggest property lender is too big to fail. The Hypo reprieve comes after Dexia SA, the world's biggest lender to local governments, got a 6.4 billion euro state-backed rescue on Sept. 30. Belgium's federal and regional governments, France and the company's largest shareholders will supply the funds for Brussels- and Paris-based Dexia.

Meanwhile, UniCredit SpA, Italy's biggest bank by assets, said it planned to boost capital by as much as 6.6 billion euros in an effort to calm investors' concerns about the strength of the lender's finances. The capital-raising project approved late yesterday by the bank's directors includes replacing the lender's cash dividend for 2008 earnings with 3.6 billion euros of new shares, and selling 3 billion euros of convertible securities.

Helping Banks

In the U.K., Darling said the government, which took over Bradford & Bingley Plc last week, is ready to offer further support to banks that may get into financial difficulty. He did not rule out a further injection of capital for failing institutions. "We are ready to do whatever it takes, and that is, we've put money in to help banks generally," Darling told the British Broadcasting Corp.'s Sunday AM program. "There are other measures we will be taking too, and I will announce them when we are ready to do that."

Darling's boss, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, was among the leaders gathered in Paris, along with Berlusconi, Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and European Central Bank President Jean- Claude Trichet.

Severe Crisis

"The good news out of the Paris meeting is that the European heads of state now recognize the severity of this crisis," Goldman Sachs Group Inc. economists Natacha Valla and Erik Nielsen said in a note to investors. "A pan-European approach would be much preferred, but given the urgency and complexities of organizing such measures between different fiscal regimes, national measures -- coordinated to the extent possible -- might still be good enough."

The leaders agreed on policy recommendations touching on regulation and accounting and said they'd press for looser enforcement of budget and competition rules at the EU level. They said they would seek to harmonize guarantees of deposit levels. The U.K. bank regulator increased its insurance ceiling to 50,000 pounds ($88,300) per account from 35,000 pounds to stem a flow of funds to Ireland after officials in Dublin guaranteed all debts and deposits of its banks.

Policy Recommendations

Anticipating increased spending, declining tax revenue, and government bank takeovers, European leaders called for "greater flexibility" in the application of the EU budget ceiling. European finance ministers last month pledged to keep their budget deficits below 3 percent of gross domestic product even as the economic slowdown dents tax receipts and boosts welfare payments. The leaders said they want to allow banks to keep some assets valued as if they'd be held until maturity, instead of having to review their value each quarter.

They also said they want to change accounting rules that require banks to review their holdings each quarter and report losses when the values decline, the so-called mark-to-market standard. Banks worldwide have written down more than $580 billion since last year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

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

Four European nations call for new EU body to supervise banks Breitbart.com (October 4, 2008) - Four major European nations agreed Saturday to set up within the European Union a body to supervise banks as part of their efforts to stem the spread of the financial turmoil, triggered by the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis, in Europe. In a statement released after an emergency summit in Paris to deal with the financial crisis, leaders of Britain, France, Germany and Italy said mechanisms should be established within the European Union to oversee cross-border European financial institutions and enhance international cooperation.

The four nations also agreed that should public support be necessary for ailing financial institutions, it should take place in "a framework which recognizes adequate protection of taxpayers' money, the responsibility of managers, and shareholders to bear their share of the burden." They welcome the decision of the European Investment Bank to mobilize 30 billion euros of support for small and medium size European enterprises and urge the bank to frontload this effort, the statement said.

The four European Group of Eight member nations also agreed that the application of the Stability and Growth Pact, which governs fiscal policies of EU member states, should "reflect the current exceptional circumstances." The pact requires EU member states to limit the size of their budget deficit to less than 3 percent of gross domestic product. But the agreement by Britain, France, Germany and Italy suggests they will tolerate the deficit of an EU member state breaching the 3 percent of GDP threshold if it occurs as a result of the nationalization of failed financial institutions.

The four nations also expressed strong support for the recent actions taken by the European Central Bank and other European central banks to respond to the financial crisis and pledged to "take all the necessary measures" to ensure the soundness and stability of the European banking and financial system. French President Nicolas Sarkozy told a press conference after the summit that an emergency G-8 summit should be convened to discuss and come up with global countermeasures for the crisis. In addition to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, other European leaders, including ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet attended the summit.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

Rebuilding EU-US relations Euractiv (October 3, 2008) - "There is a new window of opportunity to rebuild relations between the US and the EU as the Bush era draws to a close," according to Ronald D. Asmus, executive director of the Brussels-based Transatlantic Centre, a think tank. To do this, the United States and Europe need to define a common strategic agenda, argues Asmus's November paper. Deepening their economic integration ranks highly among the issues on which they must cooperate more, believes Asmus.

Rather than lowering tariffs or trade barriers, the aim here should be to create more common regulatory frameworks that eliminate barriers to trade and investment altogether, the author argues. Not only would leadership on this issue boost the GDP of both countries, it would also "assure the stability and openness of the global economy in this new era," he argues.

Asmus also calls on the "United States and Europe to define cooperation in homeland security to defend their societies and borders against the risk of terrorist and bio-weapon attacks". Furthermore, the two continents should aim to create fully liberalised visa regimes and travel between the United States and Europe because "such openness has tremendous potential to touch the lives of average citizens and bring both sides of the Atlantic back together". In Asmus's view, the transatlantic alliance should also promote democracy and freedom beyond its own borders and embrace those who seek to join the democratic community. Indeed, he states: "Keeping our doors open and anchoring young democracies while confronting a more nationalistic and assertive Russia is again at the top of the transatlantic agenda." Nevertheless, he says that the United States and Europe are not yet able to pursue a new and broader transatlantic agenda. He believes "we need to get the plumbing – the day-to-day processes of working together – of a new transatlantic relationship right" first.

In today's world, the US does not only need to cooperate with Europe on military and defence issues, but other policy domains such as energy, health and the environment, Asmus argues, all of which are within the competence of the EU. Thus, the United States cannot afford to have strong relations with NATO alone. "It needs strategic engagement with both organisations," he claims. To ensure that the transatlantic alliance works in practice, Asmus suggests that pragmatism should be the guiding principle, stating: "Washington and Brussels should embrace the well-known lesson of past transatlantic disputes: first work it out in practice; then rewrite the theory." To conclude, Asmus hopes that the next US president will have "the vision and the will to make the right kind of difference".
 | EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America |

NATO and EU to pool helicopters and air carriers EU Observer (October 2, 2008) - Both the EU and NATO seek to pool their defence capabilities drawn from the same European countries, after having experienced similar shortfalls in helicopters and air carriers in their missions in Chad and Afghanistan. The idea has been championed by the French EU presidency, which hopes to see several concrete initiatives adopted in November by EU defence ministers.

At an informal EU defence minister meeting in Deauville on Wednesday (1 October), France obtained the backing of several member states for initiatives such as setting up a trust fund to upgrade Europe's helicopter fleet to make up for shortfalls in helicopters and transport aircraft needed for quick and effective EU deployments abroad. The final decision will be taken at a formal defence ministers' summit in Brussels on 10 November.

The shortfall in helicopters was already highlighted on Monday, when General Patrick Nash, the operational commander of the EU mission in Chad told a press conference in Brussels that four helicopters might be soon borrowed from Russia, with talks being at "a very advanced stage." Yet the problem is not unique to the EU mission, as NATO and the United Nations experience similar challenges.

General James Mattis, in charge of NATO's capability development and transformation, recently met his EU counterpart, the chief executive of the European Defence Agency, Alexander Weis, in order to find "areas of common interest", such as helicopter and airlift capabilities. "In regards to airlift, helicopters, medical transports – whether it is an EU mission to Darfur or a NATO mission somewhere else, we just need those capabilities," General Mattis told journalists at a briefing on Wednesday during NATO Industry Day, which took place in Brussels.

He also stressed that when the EU and NATO draw on troops, they do it "from the same population of forces", which means that the two entities need to look for solutions that "resonate with each other, not contradict each other." "We're not a the point right now where the EU and NATO are working that closely, although they're starting," General Mattis said. Read full story...

The French connection

Yet France might play a pivotal role in this regard, with President Nicolas Sarkozy setting the improvement of EU defence capabilities as a precondition for his country to rejoin NATO's military structure, which is expected to take place at NATO's 60th anniversary summit in April next year.

French defence minister Herve Morin proved his commitment to pool EU military capabilities even when asked if the current global financial crisis will have an impact on the member states in terms of defence spending. "There are two ways you can face an economic crisis, when you have reduction in state revenue," Mr Morin said on Wednesday after the ministers meeting in Deauville.

"One is to say, let's forget everything and say there is nothing we can do in the future. The other reaction is to say, we may have less available, so let's pool our resources. That's a more intelligent response, surely. Let's share we've got, if we are going to have less," he urged.

Boeing for NATO, Airbus for EU

While the French defence minister was unveiling in Dauville a plan to lend Airbus A400M transport planes between EU countries or to create a multinational fleet at their disposal, in Brussels 10 NATO countries plus Sweden and Finland signed a deal to jointly buy and operate three Boeing C-17 carriers.

This NATO initiative, called Strategic Airlift Capability (SAC) "will support operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere, as well as other national missions, including EU and UN missions", Peter Flory, NATO Assistant Secretary General for Defense Investment said in a press release.

The 10 NATO members involved in SAC are Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and the United States, while the planes are to be placed at the Hungarian air base Papa early next year.

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

Foreign economists urge 'global plan' The Washington Times (October 1, 2008) - Leaders and economists from Western Europe to East Asia Tuesday urged the United States to go beyond reviving a failed domestic bailout and start working on a new global financial system.  Associated Press Traders at MICEX, the Moscow Interbank Currency Exchange, watch and wait during a tense session in Moscow on Tuesday when stock indexes sank despite a two-hour trading halt. "The Americans don't have a choice — they must absolutely have a global plan," Christian Noyer, head of the French central bank, said in Paris.

David Smick, a global strategist and author of "The World Is Curved: Hidden Dangers of the Global Economy," said the next U.S. president should immediately call for a second "Bretton Woods" conference to devise a new doctrine of international finance. The tiny New Hampshire town hosted a conference shortly after World War II that established rules for economic interchange among the world's industrial powers and created the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. "I am convinced that the sickness runs deep and that we need to rethink the entire financial and monetary system, as we did in Bretton Woods ... to create the tools for worldwide regulation made necessary by the globalization of trade," French President Nicolas Sarkozy said in the French city of Toulon on Monday.

He said that officials from France, Britain, Germany and Italy will meet next week in Paris with the Continent's top financial officials to prepare for a proposed global summit on the economic crisis. European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet will participate. The 27-nation European Union said Tuesday that the crisis "has become a global problem" and Washington has a "special responsibility" to resolve it. German Chancellor Angela Merkel took aim at the House failure to pass the Bush administration's $700 billion bailout proposal, which sparked a global stock market plunge. She called the package a "precondition for creating new confidence in the markets." Kaoru Yosano, the Japanese minister of economic and fiscal policy, agreed. "The outcome has caused a major impact on not only the U.S. economy but also the world economy," he said.

Until a few weeks ago, foreign governments were blase and even gloated about U.S. financial woes, Mr. Smick said. "The decoupled theory has taken a crash landing," demand is plummeting worldwide and foreign financial institutions have been forced to come to terms with their own "toxic waste," he said.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

France's Sarkozy battles fallout from financial crisis AFP (September 29, 2008) - President Nicolas Sarkozy on Monday battled to contain fallout from the global financial crisis, moving ahead with plans for a world summit and calling a meeting of French banking and insurance chiefs. France will host a meeting of European officials to prepare a summit "in the coming weeks to establish the basis of a new international financial system," said Sarkozy, whose country holds the presidency of the European Union. Officials from Britain, France, Germany and Italy -- the EU members of the G8 -- will meet in Paris in the coming days to lay the groundwork, he said on the sidelines of an EU-India summit in the southern city of Marseille.

On Tuesday, the president is to meet at the Elysee presidential palace with banking and insurance company chiefs to take a close look at the health of French banks and review the credit level of French households and businesses. The announcements came as the Franco-Belgian bank Dexia announced an emergency board meeting after liquidity concerns sent its shares into freefall. Dexia's shares closed Monday down 30 percent on the Paris exchange, at seven euros worth less than a third of their value this time last year.

Belgium's federal government announced late Monday that it had tentatively agreed, along with its three main regions and shareholders, to help prop up the embattled bank -- less than 24 hours after stepping in to rescue Belgian-Netherlands banking and insurance giant Fortis. "During consultations between the federal government and the three regional governments (Wallonia, Flanders and Brussels) this afternoon, they confirmed their in-principle agreement to take part in a joint effort to boost Dexia group's funds," a statement said. The statement, distributed by the office of Prime Minister Yves Leterme, made no mention of financial details but Belgian media said the support could amount to seven billion euros (10 billion dollars). Read full story...

On Sunday, the Benelux countries stepped in to partially nationalise Fortis, increasing fears the crisis that has wiped out several US and British banks was spreading across Europe. Sarkozy warned in a major address last week that France would not be spared from the turmoil unleashed by the US banking crisis. In Paris, the CAC 40 index plunged 5.04 percent to 3,953.48 points Monday in line with other European stock markets.

A further sign of economic trouble came with the release Monday of jobless figures showing that 41,300 people joined the ranks of France's unemployed in August, the biggest monthly spike since 1993, bringing the figure to 1,949,600. The government convened a crisis meeting of job sector officials late Monday to discuss the figures, which have compounded worries about the financial storm. Critics accused the government of deceit, saying that for months it had touted progress in economic reforms when the jobless situation was less than rosy even before the financial storm struck.

Last week Sarkozy insisted the government would "guarantee the security" of the French banking system and warned he would "not accept that a single customer loses a single euro" to collapsing banks. The right-wing president won election in May 2007 on a promise to rev up the economy and bring unemployment -- long the nation's number one concern -- down to five percent. The government unveiled a draft budget on Friday that scrapped a pledge to stamp out the deficit by 2012 and as Paris struggled to rein in public spending amid sluggish growth. "We are in a quasi-recession," said presidential adviser Henri Guaino.

France is headed into a "difficult period" and the government will "do everything that is necessary" to prevent the economy from taking a nosedive, Guaino said. Economy Minister Christine Lagarde said she nevertheless expected 2009 to end with a jobless rate of 7.1 percent, down from 7.2 percent in the second quarter of 2008. That figure was the lowest rate in 25 years, capping a steady decline in the unemployment rate that had even allowed the problem to slide off the national radar over the past year. Opinion polls show purchasing power has replaced unemployment as the number one concern of the average French voter.

Lagarde also Monday unveiled a plan to help French households from falling into a credit trap after the Bank of France said 88,000 people had filed for personal bankruptcy over the past four years, an increase of 70 percent.

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

They're working to "establish the basis of a new international financial system" huh? Where is this leading do you think? What is the cheapest way to implement a new international financial system in a short period of time? Technology... and the technology is here now.

Training A Socialist Army of World Servers News With Views (September 28, 2008)

Obama: “I will ask for your service and your active citizenship when I am president of the United States ... this will be a central cause of my presidency."[1]

Obama: "People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve.... I will set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year...."[2]

Saul Alinsky (Obama's Marxist mentor): "The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization.... All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new."[3] Rules for Radicals (excerpts here)

Brave New World: "A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned... to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers."[4] Aldous Huxley

“These are serious times," said Barack Obama recently. "And they call for a serious debate about where we need to take the nation.”[5] That's true! So where does he want "to take our nation?" How does his version of "service" fit his vision of CHANGE? And what will it cost in terms of freedom, privacy, taxes, and government control?

There's nothing wrong with the old voluntary, personal service to the poor and needy. For centuries, Christian missionaries have given their lives and comforts to serve God among the sick, hungry and dying people in distant parts of the world. Others have shown the same God-given compassion in their own community. They've demonstrated His love, shared His Truths, and brought hope as well as help to the needy.

Obama's plan is radically different. Aimed at socialist change, it would raise "religious" boundaries, limit free speech, and ban divisive truths. It must be tolerant of today's amoral values and militantly intolerant toward traditional values. And -- like the tactics outlined in Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" -- it would use deception and "agitation" to create conflict, and the Hegelian/Marxist dialectic process to manipulate minds and establish the planned solidarity.[6] Obama learned all about it during his years as "Community Organizer" in Chicago. Read full story...

| NewWorldOrder | America |

Statewatch: The Shape of Things to Come Statewatch EU Future Report: Analysis by Tony Bunyan -

Wall Street rescue deal blocked BBC (September 26, 2008) - Talks to agree a huge $700bn (£380bn) bail-out of the US financial industry have ended in a "shouting match". After several hours of discussions with President George W Bush, a group of Republican members of Congress blocked the government plan. The proposal would have seen the government buy bad debts from US banks to prevent more of them collapsing. President Bush is due to make a statement about the negotiations at 0935 in Washington (1435 BST).

Both sides have agreed to resume talks later on Friday. The leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, told ABC News that she "hoped" a bailout plan could be agreed within 24 hours, because "it has to happen". Financial markets are gummed up because banks do not know exactly how much bad debt they hold and are therefore reluctant to lend to businesses, consumers and each other. The fall-out of this credit crunch continues to make a huge impact: The United States suffered its largest bank failure yet, when regulators moved in to close down Washington Mutual and then sold it to US rival JP Morgan Chase for $1.9bn

In a co-ordinated move the European Central Bank, the US Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, Bank of Japan and the Swiss National Bank announced new short-term loans to the banking sector worth tens of billions of dollars. Banks continued to cut costs, with UK banking giant HSBC saying it would axe 1,100 jobs Shares in UK bank Bradford & Bingley fell another 20% to 17 pence before recovering slightly. Read full story...

'Full throated discussion'

On Thursday, Democratic and Republican legislators appeared to have struck a deal. A group of Democrats and Republicans even made a public statement, with Senator Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announcing that they had reached "fundamental agreement" on the principles of a bail-out plan.

But after the White House meeting, the top Republican on the committee, Richard Shelby, told reporters: "I don't believe we have an agreement." The intense discussions reportedly saw US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson literally down on one knee, begging Ms Pelosi to help push through the bail-out package. However, the agreement unravelled when a group of Republican legislators objected to the principle of the plan. The talks at the White House, led by Mr Paulson and US President George W Bush, then descended into what one participant described as "a full-throated discussion". Officials with the campaign team of Republican presidential candidate John McCain spoke of "a contentious shouting match".

The Republican critics of the bail-out plan worry about both its cost and how it would involve the government in the financial sector. Instead, they want a government-backed insurance policy for the huge amounts of bad debt built up by US banks. This proposal, however, was described as "unworkable" both by Democratic politicians and some US government officials.

Doubts over presidential debate

Some Democrats were scathing about the lack of support for the Paulson plan. "For House Republicans to take a walk is just appalling," said Democrat Barney Frank. He later added that the passage of the bill depended on the Republicans. "It depends on the House Republicans dropping this revolt against the president and cooperating in trying to amend the plan," he said.

The breakdown of talks has put a huge question mark over the first debate in the presidential election campaign in the US. Democratic candidate Barack Obama and Mr McCain were supposed to meet in Oxford, Mississippi. But Mr McCain said he wanted to pull out and focus on getting a bailout plan agreed instead. Democrats accused him of posturing and avoiding telling voters how he would solve the crisis.

Bank failure

As the credit crunch continues to bite, regulators moved in and shut down Washington Mutual (WaMu), one of the largest savings and loan institutions in the US. Depositors had withdrawn $16.7bn from the bank during the past 10 days alone. They immediately sold on the bank to banking giant JPMorgan Chase for $1.9bn. "With insufficient liquidity to meet its obligations, WaMu was in an unsafe and unsound condition to transact business," said the Office of Thrift Supervision.

WaMu had seen its share price drop by more than 80% this year, after suffering considerable losses due to failed mortgages. Earlier this year JPMorgan Chase also bought investment bank Bear Stearns when it faced collapse.

| NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

We're seeing further consolidation of financial power while the government is taking greater control and the Federal Reserve (neither federal nor reserve), along with global central banks, are pumping money into the system and devaluing currency. I believe we may be seeing the destruction of global economies to make way for a consolidation of power and control leading to the eventual fulfillment of the mark of the beast, the implementation of a global cashless monetary system enabled by technology.

WaMu is largest U.S. bank failure Reuters (September 25, 2008) - Washington Mutual Inc was closed by the U.S. government in by far the largest failure of a U.S. bank, and its banking assets were sold to JPMorgan Chase & Co for $1.9 billion. Thursday's seizure and sale is the latest historic step in U.S. government attempts to clean up a banking industry littered with toxic mortgage debt. Negotiations over a $700 billion bailout of the entire financial system stalled in Washington on Thursday.

Washington Mutual, the largest U.S. savings and loan, has been one of the lenders hardest hit by the nation's housing bust and credit crisis, and had already suffered from soaring mortgage losses. Washington Mutual was shut by the federal Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp was named receiver. This followed $16.7 billion of deposit outflows at the Seattle-based thrift since Sept 15, the OTS said. "With insufficient liquidity to meet its obligations, WaMu was in an unsafe and unsound condition to transact business," the OTS said. Customers should expect business as usual on Friday, and all depositors are fully protected, the FDIC said.

FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said the bailout happened on Thursday night because of media leaks, and to calm customers. Usually, the FDIC takes control of failed institutions on Friday nights, giving it the weekend to go through the books and enable them to reopen smoothly the following Monday. Washington Mutual has about $307 billion of assets and $188 billion of deposits, regulators said. The largest previous U.S. banking failure was Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust, which had $40 billion of assets when it collapsed in 1984.

JPMorgan said the transaction means it will now have 5,410 branches in 23 U.S. states from coast to coast, as well as the largest U.S. credit card business. It vaults JPMorgan past Bank of America Corp to become the nation's second-largest bank, with $2.04 trillion of assets, just behind Citigroup Inc. Bank of America will go to No. 1 once it completes its planned purchase of Merrill Lynch & Co. The bailout also fulfills JPMorgan Chief Executive Jamie Dimon's long-held goal of becoming a retail bank force in the western United States. It comes four months after JPMorgan acquired the failing investment bank Bear Stearns Cos at a fire-sale price through a government-financed transaction. On a conference call, Dimon said the "risk here obviously is the asset values." He added: "That's what created this opportunity." Read full story...

JPMorgan expects to incur $1.5 billion of pre-tax costs, but realize an equal amount of annual savings, mostly by the end of 2010. It expects the transaction to add to earnings immediately, and increase earnings 70 cents per share by 2011. It also plans to sell $8 billion of stock, and take a $31 billion write-down for the loans it bought, representing estimated future credit losses. The FDIC said the acquisition does not cover claims of Washington Mutual equity, senior debt and subordinated debt holders. It also said the transaction will not affect its roughly $45.2 billion deposit insurance fund. "Jamie Dimon is clearly feeling that he has an opportunity to grab market share, and get it at fire-sale prices," said Matt McCormick, a portfolio manager at Bahl & Gaynor Investment Counsel in Cincinnati. "He's becoming an acquisition machine."

BAILOUT UNCERTAINTY

The transaction came as Washington wrangles over the fate of a $700 billion bailout of the financial services industry, which has been battered by mortgage defaults and tight credit conditions, and evaporating investor confidence. "It removes an uncertainty from the market," said Shane Oliver, head of investment strategy at AMP Capital in Sydney. "The problem is that markets are in a jittery stage. Washington Mutual provides another reminder how tenuous things are."

Washington Mutual's collapse is the latest of a series of takeovers and outright failures that have transformed the American financial landscape and wiped out hundreds of billions of dollars of shareholder wealth. These include the disappearance of Bear, government takeovers of mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the insurer American International Group Inc, the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc, and Bank of America's purchase of Merrill.

JPMorgan, based in New York, ended June with $1.78 trillion of assets, $722.9 billion of deposits and 3,157 branches. Washington Mutual then had 2,239 branches and 43,198 employees. It is unclear how many people will lose their jobs. Shares of Washington Mutual plunged $1.24 to 45 cents in after-hours trading after news of a JPMorgan transaction surfaced. JPMorgan shares rose $1.04 to $44.50 after hours, but before the stock offering was announced.

119-YEAR HISTORY

The transaction ends exactly 119 years of independence for Washington Mutual, whose predecessor was incorporated on September 25, 1889, "to offer its stockholders a safe and profitable vehicle for investing and lending," according to the thrift's website. This helped Seattle residents rebuild after a fire torched the city's downtown.

It also follows more than a week of sale talks in which Washington Mutual attracted interest from several suitors. These included Banco Santander SA, Citigroup Inc, HSBC Holdings Plc, Toronto-Dominion Bank and Wells Fargo & Co, as well as private equity firms Blackstone Group LP and Carlyle Group, people familiar with the situation said.

Less than three weeks ago, Washington Mutual ousted Chief Executive Kerry Killinger, who drove the thrift's growth as well as its expansion in subprime and other risky mortgages. It replaced him with Alan Fishman, the former chief executive of Brooklyn, New York's Independence Community Bank Corp. WaMu's board was surprised at the seizure, and had been working on alternatives, people familiar with the matter said. More than half of Washington Mutual's roughly $227 billion book of real estate loans was in home equity loans, and in adjustable-rate mortgages and subprime mortgages that are now considered risky. The transaction wipes out a $1.35 billion investment by David Bonderman's private equity firm TPG Inc, the lead investor in a $7 billion capital raising by the thrift in April. A TPG spokesman said the firm is "dissatisfied with the loss," but that the investment "represented a very small portion of our assets."

DIMON POUNCES

The deal is the latest ambitious move by Dimon. Once a golden child at Citigroup before his mentor Sanford "Sandy" Weill engineered his ouster in 1998, Dimon has carved for himself something of a role as a Wall Street savior. Dimon joined JPMorgan in 2004 after selling his Bank One Corp to the bank for $56.9 billion, and became chief executive at the end of 2005.

Some historians see parallels between him and the legendary financier John Pierpont Morgan, who ran J.P. Morgan & Co and was credited with intervening to end a banking panic in 1907. JPMorgan has suffered less than many rivals from the credit crisis, but has been hurt. It said on Thursday it has already taken $3 billion to $3.5 billion of write-downs this quarter on mortgages and leveraged loans.

Washington Mutual has a major presence in California and Florida, two of the states hardest hit by the housing crisis. It also has a big presence in the New York City area. The thrift lost $6.3 billion in the nine months ended June 30. "It is surprising that it has hung on for as long as it has," said Nancy Bush, an analyst at NAB Research LLC.

| NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

UN chief calls for 'global leadership' Breitbart.com (September 23, 2008) - UN chief Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday stressed the need for "global leadership" as he pressed world leaders not to pursue narrow national interests in the face of hard economic times. "I see a danger of nations looking more inward, rather than toward a shared future," he said at the opening of the UN General Assembly's annual debate. He spoke of a "challenge of global leadership" to tackle the world's worsening financial, energy and food crises.

"We see new centers of power and leadership -- in Asia, Latin America and across the newly developed world," Ban told more than 120 heads of state or government, including Presidents George W. Bush of the United States and Nicolas Sarkozy of France. "In this new world, our challenges are increasingly those of collaboration rather than confrontation," he added. "Nations can no longer protect their interests, or advance the well-being of their people, without the partnership of the rest."

On the world's current financial crisis, the UN secretary general stressed the need to "restore order to the international financial markets". "We need a new understanding on business ethics and governance, with more compassion and less uncritical faith in the 'magic' of markets," the UN boss said.

Ban, who has chosen implementation of key poverty reduction goals as a major theme of this year's debate, said he saw "a danger of retreating from the progress we have made, particularly in the realm of development and more equitably sharing the fruits of global growth." "Global growth has raised billions of people out of poverty. However, if you are among the world's poor, you have never felt poverty so sharply."

On Thursday, he will host a summit meeting on implementation of the poverty reduction Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) on the margins of the General Assembly session. Ban said he would use Thursday's summit to press world leaders, the private sector, foundations, and civil society to make "ambitious and concrete" proposals to ensure that these goals are implemented by a 2015 deadline.

Monday, a summit meeting on Africa's development needs adopted a political declaration urging rich countries to honor their pledge to double their annual aid to the continent, which is struggling to meet the MDGs. And returning to the theme of global leadership, Ban told the assembly: "It takes leadership to honor our pledges and our promises in the face of fiscal constraints and political opposition. "It takes leadership to commit our soldiers to a cause of peace in faraway places. It takes leadership to speak out for justice. To act on climate change despite wonderful voices against you."
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

FINAL WARNING: The Birth Pangs of the New World Order David Allen Rivera (September 23, 2008) - In an address delivered to the Union League of Philadelphia on November 27, 1915, Nicholas Murray Butler said: The old world order changed when this war-storm broke. The old international order passed away as suddenly, as unexpectedly, and as completely as if it had been wiped out by a gigantic flood, by a great tempest, or by a volcanic eruption. The old world order died with the setting of that days sun and a new world order is being born while I speak, with birth pangs so terrible that it seems almost incredible that life could come out of such fearful suffering and such overwhelming sorrow.

In a 1919 subscription letter for the magazine International Conciliation, M. C. Alexander, the Executive Secretary of the American Association for International Conciliation wrote: The peace conference has assembled. It will make the most momentous decisions in history, and upon these decisions will rest the stability of the new world order and the future peace of the world.

In August, 1927, Dr. Augustus O. Thomas, President of the World Federation of Education Associations said:

If there are those who think we are to jump immediately into a new world order, actuated by complete understanding and brotherly love, they are doomed to disappointment. If we are ever to approach that time, it will be after patient and persistent effort of long duration. The present international situation of mistrust and fear can only be corrected by a formula of equal status, continuously applied, to every phase of international contacts, until the cobwebs of the old order are brushed out of the minds of the people of all lands.

Adolf Hitler said: National Socialism will use its own revolution for the establishing of a new world order. In the 1932 book The New World Order, author F. S. Marvin said that the League of Nations was the first attempt at a New World Order, and said that nationality must rank below the claims of mankind as a whole.

Edward VIII became King of England on January 20, 1936, but he was forced to abdicate the throne eleven months later, when he married a commoner. He became the Duke of Windsor, and in July, 1940, became the governor of the Bahamas. He is on record as saying: Whatever happens, whatever the outcome, a new Order is going to come into the world ... It will be buttressed with police power ... When peace comes this time there is going to be a new Order of social justice. It cannot be another Versailles.

In a New York Times article in October, 1940, called New World Order Pledged to Jews, comes the following excerpt: In the first public declaration on the Jewish question since the outbreak of the war, Arthur Greenwood, member without portfolio in the British War Cabinet, assured the Jews of the United States that when victory was achieved an effort would be made to found a new world order based on the ideals of justice and peace.

The Declaration of the Federation of the World, written by the Congress on World Federation, which was adopted by the Legislatures of some states, including North Carolina (1941), New Jersey (1942), and Pennsylvania (1943), said:

If totalitarianism wins this conflict, the world will be ruled by tyrants, and individuals will be slaves. If democracy wins, the nations of the earth will be united in a commonwealth of free peoples; and individuals, wherever found, will be the sovereign units of the new world order.

From an article in a June, 1942 edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer: Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles tonight called for the early creation of an international organization of anti-Axis nations to control the world during the period between the armistice at the end of the present war and the setting up of a new world order on a permanent basis.

According to a February, 1962 New York Times article called Rockefeller Bids Free Lands Unite: Calls at Harvard for Drive to Build New World Order, New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller told an audience at Harvard University:

The United Nations has not been able nor can it be able to shape a new world order which events so compellingly demand (The new world order that will answer economic, military, and political problems) urgently requires, I believe, that the United States take the leadership among all the free peoples to make the underlying concepts and aspirations of national sovereignty truly meaningful through the federal approach. The Associated Press reported that on July 26, 1968, Governor Rockefeller said in a speech to the International Platform Association at the Sheraton Park Hotel in New York, that as President, he would work toward international creation of a New World Order.

Richard Nixon wrote in the October, 1967 issue of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) journal Foreign Affairs: The developing coherence of Asian regional thinking is reflected in a disposition to consider problems and loyalties in regional terms, and to evolve regional approaches to development needs and to the evolution of a new world order. In 1972, while in China, in a toast to Chinese Premier Chou En-lai, Nixon expressed the hope that each of us has to build a new world order.

Richard Gardner, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations under Kennedy and Johnson, and a member of the Trilateral Commission, wrote in the April, 1974 issue of Foreign Affairs (pg. 558):

In short, the house of world order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great booming, buzzing confusion, to use William James famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault.

Richard A. Falk, wrote in his article Toward a New World Order: Modest Methods and Drastic Visions (from the 1975 book On the Creation of a Just World Order):

The existing order is breaking down at a very rapid rate, and the main uncertainty is whether mankind can exert a positive role in shaping a new world order or is doomed to await collapse in a passive posture. We believe a new world order will be born no later than early in the next century and that the death throes of the old and the birth pangs of the new will be a testing time for the human species.

In 1975, 32 Senators and 92 Representatives in Congress signed A Declaration of Interdependence (written by the historian Henry Steele Commager) which said that we must join with others to bring forth a new world orderNarrow notions of national sovereignty must not be permitted to curtail that obligation. Congresswoman Marjorie Holt, who refused to sign it, said:

It calls for the surrender of our national sovereignty to international organizations. It declares that our economy should be regulated by international authorities. It proposes that we enter a new world order that would redistribute the wealth created by the American people.

In an October, 1975 speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations, Henry Kissinger said:

My countrys history, Mr. President, tells us that it is possible to fashion unity while cherishing diversity, that common action is possible despite the variety of races, interests, and beliefs we see here in this chamber. Progress and peace and justice are attainable. So we say to all peoples and governments: Let us fashion together a new world order.

During the 1976 Presidential campaign, Jimmy Carter said:

We must replace balance of power politics with world order politics. In a February 14, 1977 speech, Carter said: I want to assure you that the relations of the United States with the other countries and peoples of the world will be guided during my own Administration by our desire to shape a world order that is more responsive to human aspirations. The United States will meet its obligation to help create a stable, just, and peaceful world order.

Harvard professor Stanley Hoffman wrote in his book Primacy or World Order:

What will have to take place is a gradual adaptation of the social, economic and political system of the United States to the imperatives of world order.

Conservative author George Weigel, director of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. said:

If the United States does not unashamedly lay down the rules of world order and enforce them ... then there is little reason to think that peace, security, freedom or prosperity will be served.

In a December, 1988 speech, Mikhail Gorbachev told the United Nations: Further global progress is now possible only through a quest for universal consensus in the movement towards a new world order. more...
| NewWorldOrder |

The coming 1-world currency WorldNet Daily (September 21, 2008) - On Wednesday, finance chiefs of five of the six-member, oil-rich Gulf Cooperation Council approved a proposal to create a monetary union as a move toward adopting a single currency, according to the AFP. The six Islamic states constituting the Gulf Cooperation Council are Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Oman pulled out of the agreement last year. Five states in the compact have agreed to set 2010 as the target date for the creation of a monetary union and the adoption of common currency.

The emergence of an Islamic single currency among these oil-rich Middle Eastern countries marks a significant step in the emerging worldwide movement to abandon national currencies in favor of regional currencies, along the model where the EU states have abandoned their national currencies in favor of the European Central Bank and the euro.

In 2002, the finance ministers of the Gulf Cooperation Council states sought out the assistance of the European Central Bank, as the model for their single currency, according to BBC reports. The council was created in 1981 to promote the development of the member countries. The monetary union will entail the creation of a central bank to issue the single currency.

At the Wednesday meeting in the Saudi Red Sea city of Jeddah, the finance and economy ministers reviewed the European Union's response to the council's view on eliminating obstacles that have blocked a long-stalled free trade agreement with the EU. Progress was also made on key convergence factors required to underpin the common currency, including setting the ratio of budget deficit and public debt to the gross domestic product, target interest rates and reserve requirements. Progress yet remains in reaching a consensus on inflation, the last remaining stumbling block to creating the common currency.

International Monetary Fund Chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who met with the Gulf Cooperation Council finance ministers in Jeddah, hailed the move by the Gulf states toward economic integration, though he continued to express doubts the single currency would be adopted within two years.

"Achieving monetary union by 2010 will be a major challenge, as much remains to be done to enable the creation of a single currency within two years," Straus-Kahn. "Overcoming the current inflationary pressures, developing a clear vision of the powers of the future common central bank, choosing an exchange regime of the common currency, and harmonizing financial regulations and structures will be critical in this process." One factor easing the transition toward a single currency is that the six Gulf Cooperation Council member states all currently peg their currencies to the U.S. dollar.

For more on how globalists are pushing regional currencies toward a one-world currency, read Jerome Corsi's Red Alert, the premium, online intelligence news source by  the WND staff writer, columnist and author of the New York Times No. 1 best-seller, "The Obama Nation."
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

Government rushing to finish huge financial rescue plan Associated Press (September 19, 2008) - The Bush administration sketched out a multi-faceted effort on Friday to confront the worst U.S. financial crisis in decades, outlining a program that could cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars to buy up bad mortgages and other toxic debt. Relief washed over Wall Street with a surge of buying.

President Bush, flanked by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, acknowledged that the program will put a "significant amount of taxpayers' money on the line."

Markets unhinged by anxiety in recent months greeted the plan enthusiastically. The Dow Jones industrials shot up over 400 points and stayed in that territory into the afternoon. Global stock markets soared, too.

The administration is asking Congress to give it sweeping new powers to execute the plan. Paulson said it "needs to be big enough to make a real difference and get to the heart of the problem."

Paulson gave few details but said he would work through the weekend with leaders of Congress from both parties to flesh out the program, the biggest proposed government intervention in financial markets since the Great Depression. Members of the Senate Banking Committee said they had yet to receive details of the proposal, but were ready to move quickly when they do. Read full story...

Before the markets opened Friday, the government announced plans to temporarily insure money-market deposits and to block short-selling in financial securities. Short selling is a trading method that bets the stocks will go down.

Speaking to reporters at the Treasury Department, Paulson said that the new troubled-asset relief program that he wants Congress to enact must be large enough to have the necessary impact while protecting taxpayers as much as possible.

"I am convinced that this bold approach will cost American families far less than the alternative — a continuing series of financial institution failures and frozen credit markets unable to fund economic expansion," Paulson said in a prepared statement. "The financial security of all Americans ... depends on our ability to restore our financial institutions to a sound footing," he said.

Paulson said mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will step up their purchases of mortgage-backed securities to help provide support to the crippled housing market. He also said the Treasury Department will expand a program, announced earlier this month, to buy mortgage-backed securities, which have been badly hurt by the housing and credit crises. "As we all know, lax lending practices earlier this decade led to irresponsible lending and irresponsible borrowing. This simply put too many families into mortgages they could not afford," Paulson said.

At a news conference in which he only took three questions, Paulson was asked the approximate dollar size of the government intervention. "We're talking hundreds of billions," he said. Paulson did not address specifics about the plan to buy back bad debt or whether the government would take a direct stake in troubled banks in exchange for its help. "These illiquid assets are clogging up our financial system, and undermining the strength of our otherwise sound financial institutions. As a result, Americans' personal savings are threatened, and the ability of consumers and businesses to borrow and finance spending, investment, and job creation has been disrupted," Paulson said.

He said that the administration would present Congress with a proposed legislative package and then work with lawmakers "to flesh out the details through the weekend. And we're going to be asking them to take action on legislation next week." "This is what we need to do. Because for some time we've been saying that the root cause of the problems in our economy and our financial system is housing, and until we get stability in the housing market we are not going to get stability in our financial markets," he said.

Earlier, Bush authorized Treasury to tap up to $50 billion from a Depression-era fund to insure the holdings of eligible money market mutual funds. And the Federal Reserve announced it will expand its emergency lending program to help support the $2 trillion in assets of the funds. Both moves are designed to bolster the huge money market mutual fund industry, which has come under stress in recent days.

The Fed said it is expanding its emergency lending efforts to allow commercial banks to finance purchases of asset-backed paper from money market funds, which should help the funds meet demands for redemptions.

The Securities and Exchange Commission early Friday imposed a temporary emergency ban on short-selling, which had been contributing to the collapse of stock values of investment and commercial banks.

Congressional leaders said they expected to get the rescue plan Friday and act on it before Congress recesses for the election. The government's actions could help alleviate the uncertainty that has been sending the markets into tumult over the past week. Lending has come to a virtual standstill in the wake of the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

European Central Bank, Swiss National Bank and Bank of England also offered up more cash Friday. The three banks put a combined $90 billion into money markets in a lockstep move.

The chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Chris Dodd, D-Conn., warned on ABC's "Good Morning America" Friday that the United States could be "days away from a complete meltdown of our financial system" and said Congress would work quickly to prevent that.

Later Dodd told reporters that the government's rescue plan will be costly, and demanded more details. "We're anxious to hear the specifics. None of us have any idea what the details are. We understand the gravity of the moment," he said. predicted the new bailout plan would cost at least half a trillion dollars.

Paulson said he wanted action next week by Congress. "Time is of the essence," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Thursday night after being briefed by Paulson and Bernanke. Rep. Roy Blunt, the No. 2 GOP leader in the House, suggested the rescue can be handled without a tax increase. "It doesn't necessarily have to be something that impacts taxpayers in a negative way," said Blunt, R-Mo. "It all depends on how you put that structure together."

GOP presidential candidate John McCain said any action should "be designed to keep people in their homes and safeguard the life savings of all Americans." Democratic rival Barack Obama said it is critical that leaders in both parties work in concert. "Truly we are all in this together," he said. The federal government already has pledged more than $600 billion in the past year to bail out, or help bail out, some of the biggest names in American finance.

| NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

The words "government," "rush," "financial" and "sweeping new powers" are not key words I want to hear, but from the response in the stock market and from several commentators I've heard, its the "best thing" for right now. In other words the alternative is worse, so we're ok with the lesser of two evils. And where are we getting all this money as we are so deep in debt? Get some more historical background on our current financial system here, here, here and here. I have a feeling that these increase governmental controls and "sweeping new powers" are going to lead to the end scripture speaks of such that we will be beholden to the government who in turn will be beholden to the financial rescue of the central banks who ultimately are working to bring about the New World Order and hand over their power to the man of sin. One thing to remember, you can't serve God and mammon (money) and in the end, those who rely on the temporal escape by man's government via the mark of the beast will lose eternal life in God's presence. Revelation 14:9-12 Perhaps you don't think this will happen in your lifetime... perhaps you're right, maybe you're wrong. Either way, keep watching!

China Paper Urges New Currency Order After "Financial Tsunami" Reuters (September 17, 2008) - Threatened by a "financial tsunami," the world must consider building a financial order no longer dependent on the United States, a leading Chinese state newspaper said on Wednesday. The commentary in the overseas edition of the People's Daily said the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc "may augur an even larger impending global 'financial tsunami'."

The People's Daily is the official newspaper of China's ruling Communist Party, and the overseas edition is a smaller circulation offshoot of the main paper. Its pronouncements do not necessarily directly reflect leadership views, but this commentary by a professor at Shanghai's Tongji University suggested considerable official alarm at the strains buckling world financial markets.

China's central bank earlier this week cut its lending rate for the first time in six years, a move analysts said was aimed at bolstering the economy and the battered stock market. "The eruption of the U.S. sub-prime crisis has exposed massive loopholes in the United States' financial oversight and supervision," writes the commentator, Shi Jianxun. "The world urgently needs to create a diversified currency and financial system and fair and just financial order that is not dependent on the United States."

But Vice Premier Wang Qishan, on a visit to the United States, told U.S. trade officials in a meeting on Tuesday that China and the United States needed to maintain close economic ties with global markets going through such turbulence. "The Chinese government is well aware of the fact that the United States, which is the world's largest developed country, and China, which is the world's largest developing country, should have constructive and cooperative economic and trade relations," he said.

China is a major buyer of U.S. Treasury bonds, and through its sovereign wealth fund it has taken stakes in two large U.S. financial institutions. In July 2005, China revalued the yuan and freed it from a dollar peg to float within managed bands. But the yuan and China's trade remains tightly linked to the fortunes of the dollar.

The commentary suggested China must brace for grave economic fallout and look to alternatives, saying the crisis brings to mind the Great Depression of the 1930s. "Lehman Brothers announced bankruptcy will not only have a domino effect on the global financial world, it will bring a shock to the world economy," the front-page comment stated.
| NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

Juncker rules out Lisbon treaty before 2010 EU Observer (September 17, 2008) - The European Union's Lisbon Treaty will not enter into force before the European Parliament elections in June 2009, as was initially hoped, and is unlikely to do so before 1 January 2010 either, Luxembourg's Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker said in Brussels on Wednesday (17 September).

"I don't think that the treaty will be in place in June [2009], when the next European elections will take place," Mr Juncker, who is also the president of the eurogroup - gathering the finance ministers of the eurozone - said at a conference organised by the Brussels-based European Policy Centre (EPC).

In order for the document to be in place by June 2009, it would have to be ratified by all 27 EU member states by February - something which according to Luxembourg's premier is "not realistic." "It's not possible to have this treaty enter into force before the year 2010," he stressed.

Mr Juncker is the first high-level politician to publicly state the Lisbon treaty may be impossible to adopt next year. Originally, the document - aimed to replace the failed European Constitution and to provide for a better and more efficient functioning of the EU - was planned to enter into force in January 2009. But Irish citizens voted No in a referendum on the treaty in June, casting a doubt over the possibility to reach the goal.

EU leaders will be expecting to hear from Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen on the issue at a summit meeting in October, with the EU insisting ratification of the document should continue in other member states, and a second referendum in Ireland seen by some as a possibility to bypass the June No vote. Mr Juncker, however, said that a possible revote in Ireland should not take place in the immediate future. "Given the economic crisis we're living in, given the confidence that's lacking, given that governments are increasingly unpopular all over Europe, organising a referendum around a European treaty is a dangerous road to take," he said. "If I was the Irish Prime Minister, I wouldn't go for a referendum in the next few months."

If the Lisbon treaty does not come into force in 2009, that will affect the composition of both the European Parliament and the European Commission next year, which would have to be conducted under the EU's current set of rules, the Nice treaty. It would mean that the number of seats in the European Parliament would shrink from the current 785 to 736 – instead of 751, as foreseen in the Lisbon treaty. But the number of commissioners in the next commission - to be nominated by November 2009 - would also be reduced, as under Nice, their number should be "less than the number of member states."

| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder |

I’ll bet that if something like Isaiah 17 and Ezekiel 38,39 were to transpire, Europe would coalesce and give their power to a foreign minister able to deal with the increasing situations in the Middle East and Europe. Remember there are potentially some big earth-changing events on the near horizon and what may seem impossible now can change in an instant. It’s happened before and it will happen again. We’ve got the current financial situations globally, Israel-“Palestine” issues, Iran, Russia – all working toward the desired goal of peace and security. The only ones who don’t want it are those working chaos to take control and the more ignorant the population, the easier it is to take control. (David Icke’s interview - Listen here)

New Wall Street crisis will create a new financial world order, says RCM CIO City Wire UK (September 16, 2008) - As the sell-off in global markets continues, RCM's CIO for Europe Neil Dwane believes the aftermath of Monday's events will lead to the formation of a 'new world order', in which the remaining financial giants will flourish.

'Merrills rushed into the arms of Bank of America (BoA) who last night shut down its investment banking operations admitting failure. Surely BoA will not indulge Merrills' investment banking operations anywhere near to the extent that the old Merrills' management had done?' Dwane asks. Dwane believes the key implication of the Fed's decision not to facilitate the sale of Lehmans Brothers is that it shows that capacity is being removed from the markets, alongside the clear message that 'policy will not bail out all investors and losers'.

'Moral hazard is back and negligent Boards will find there to be no willing supplier of capital except on very onerous terms. The key messages of this weekend remain that capital remains scarce, leverage and accounting for the leveraged assets remains incomplete and inconsistent and a New World order is being born where financial behemoths are best placed,' he says.

One of the key features of this 'New World order' will be increased regulation, transparency and risk control, according to Dwane. However, the CIO of the equity specialist of Allianz Global Investors is anxious that 'investors remain complacent over the changes to come and the lower returns and earnings power of the sector in the future'.
| NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

Draghi: Deeper Crisis Would Call for Global Solution Doug McIntosh (September 16, 2008) - National solutions have been enough to stem the financial-sector crisis so far, ECB Governing Council member Mario Draghi said in a Berlin speech Thursday, but they may not be enough if things get worse. “Policies are taking a variety of shapes that can be grouped within two broad categories: emergency and structural responses,” said Mr. Draghi, who also heads Italy’s central bank. “Until now, the first remained typically national since each crisis was unique to the financial structure of the country and so were the remedies. However, if the crisis were to become systemic - and the past weekend has shown just how sudden and dramatic the turn of events can be — I believe that an internationally coordinated effort will be necessary.”

Mr. Draghi’s words have international heft, since he chairs the Financial Stability Forum — a group of global regulators and central bankers working on solutions for preventing the next blowup. He indicated the framework of the global financial system is undergoing a gut check: “A resilient infrastructure is one that is capable of withstanding the effects of the failure of a large financial institution. As we speak, this objective is being tested by reality.”

Overall, he said, the global banking system has enough capital to meet its needs “under reasonable scenarios.” He offered no prediction about whether market conditions would continue to be “reasonable” but did say banks will need to raise “at least once again the amount of capital raised since the crisis began.” Mr. Draghi’s estimate of that amount, according to a person familiar with the matter, is $350 billion. Some banks will have an easier time of it than others - namely those “that ran the debt-financed, highly leveraged and maturity mismatched business model that provided steady fee income over the last several years.” –Joellen Perry
| NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

A Trillion Here; A Trillion There Doug McIntosh (September 16, 2008) - It was Everett Dirksen, a politician from Illinois a few decades back who once said of government spending, " A billion here and a billion there, pretty soon you are really talking some money." This was in the 1970's, when a billion still meant something. It was in 1969 I think when the entire US government spending was $100 billion dollars and we were howling about an inflation rate of 3%. The good ole days to be sure.

Now we are dealing with nothing less than systemic collapse. I have been watching the news media coverage of the "situation on Wall Street." We do not have a situation here: we have the phased collapse of the American economy. When you find out Jeb Bush is a "consultant" for Lehman Brothers; when you hear McCain call for a "9-11 type commission to investigate Wall Street" you know the fix is in. It was the Bushes who destroyed the Savings and Loan industry, along with the Democrat St. Germaine, who raised the insurance coverage to $100,000. For me, there is a very clear trail of cookie crumbs in this so called "crisis." It is a planned crisis.

While watching PBS and its "Nightly Business Report" last night I was struck by how clueless these people really are. They simply don't have the capacity to understand what is going on. It is like my old 386 computer with its 4 Megabytes of RAM trying to run too many software programs at the same time: overload city. The mainstream simply doesn't have the mental ability to deal with what is happening right now in the economic sphere. The reason for that is simple: it isn't in their script. Of course, for someone of my impeccable doom and gloom credentials, I am not in the least surprised, amazed, or even stressed. After writing for over a decade on the open corruption of the "system", I may be many things, angry and appalled for instance, but not surprised or stunned. The New World Order is nothing if not consistent.

The reason for the current stock market meltdowns, the meltdowns being global and plural, is simple: the system is corrupt. It is pathetic to watch McCain call for investigations, or others for new regulations. One of the major reasons for this is because Congress repealed the Glass/Seagall? act from the Great Depression a few years back. There are specific actions taken, laws repealed for instance, that have directly resulted in the current "crisis." Specific people, regulators, politicians, economic experts and media whores have taken specific actions, and not taken specific actions, which have led to the current situation. I don't see any indication of any Congressperson or Senate person being indicted for Treason and tried for their vote repealing Glass/Seagall for instance. Nor will there ever be. This is also the way the NWO works. No accountability at all. Never has been and never will be. The insolence of the elite is well justified.

The headlines are screaming the ratings agencies just downgraded AIG, the insurance blob. I am so glad the ratings agencies decided to do their jobs. It is upon the politicians, the media, the ratings agencies the fake appraisals, the liar loans and all the other root causes of the current crisis may be laid. We do not need new government regulations; what we need is a system where corruption is punished and not rewarded. What we need is consequences and not bailouts. What we need is truth and not lies. But, it doesn't matter now. The fix is in. Read full story...

The other television show I watched last night was also PBS, "The Leher news hour." The segment had the famous Roubini, who is the closest thing to a doomer in the mainstream, as well as a former head of the IMF, the international monetary fund. The IMF being one of the biggest terror groups on this planet. The economic misery the IMF has caused is beyond description. After listening to Mr. Roubini's rather dismal views, doomer lite I call it, the knives came out. This former IMF guy gave the NWO plan right out there in plain view. Paraphrasing here, "Eventually, the US taxpayer will have to foot the bill." Yep, foot the bill for what now? All 5.5 TRILLION of Fannie and Freddie mortgages; all the rest. The NWO plan is to set up another savings and loan bailout system, resolution trust is what I think it was called, and stick it to the American taxpayer. So, because the NWO runs things; because the regulators, the courts, the politicians, the media and the court economists have been bought off and the "capitalists" have raped, looted and pillaged their way to vast wealth, we the American taxpayer get to clean up the mess. Like I said, the NWO is consistent. Trapped in a rut really. Take one greedy, insolent elite. Add a corrupt bought off system. Stir in vast amounts of money. Shake, rattle and roll until you get a frothy mixture of stupidity and excess. Then wait for the inevitable meltdown. Declare a crisis and when it gets bad enough use that crisis to advance NWO political agenda towards dictatorship and even more wealth concentration. Did I leave anything out?

Except this time the NWO has miscalculated, very, very badly. For one thing, our insolent elite hasn't factored in the chaos theory, or random events, or even the other NWO groups. Whether you think the hurricanes, Gustav, Fay and IKE were random events, or whether you think they are part of a larger weather manipulation effort intended to destroy the USA, it is clear to me the NWO didn't factor them in. And because they didn't do that, they have got a massive synergistic effect. This being the 2 plus 2 equals 16 and not four effect. As the USA heads into mid September we have not only bona fide economic crisis's in our stock markets, real estate, local and state governments and energy sectors, we have the physical destruction of a large swath of Texas.

I will make it plain for you. The damage from IKE was much more than the lying media and government has told you. At best, it will take 2 weeks to get the refineries on line. The main pipelines, like Colonial for instance, are shut down for lack of refined product. It takes 18 days to get oil pumped from Texas or the Gulf to New Jersey over these pipelines. My math tells me this is five weeks at a minimum before New Jersey starts to get heating oil deliveries. By the way, AIG, the imploding insurer, is a major insurer of oil refineries I hear. Figure it out yourself.

| NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

I differ slightly from Doug's perspective in that I believe the mystery of iniquity at work today is indeed pushing the New World Order agenda, but to the end that a whole new global cashless system will have to be implemented and will be done centered in Europe. According to Bible prophecy, this will be the center of the New World Order and in order to participate in this new economic system that will bail out the current failing one, each person must pledge allegiance to the man of sin and receive his mark on the forehead or hand. (More on the mark of the beast and the current technology that could bring it here.) I believe everything is in place to support this system within a short period of time if not completely now thanks to the credit card companies and RFID tattoo ink. Considering the speed things are falling apart now and the other tensions building in the middle east among attempts to hold things together, we could very well be in the timeline of the HIStory, Our Future Bible studies and if so, time is very short. Who exactly is behind what is happening isn't what's most important, rather getting in right relationship with the only One who can save us from what is coming and bring us into eternal relationship with Him. Yeshua will judge what is happening now and knows exactly who it is. While we may watch and see, I prefer to leave the judging to Him and keep watching His Word come to pass.

Taxation Nation: Now You Own Fannie and Freddie McAlvany Weekly Commentary (September 10, 2008) - "It seems to me in one sentence, two things. We're right in the midst of the greatest financial crisis in the history of our country - number one - and number two; we're probably already over the line to becoming socialistic state, the USSA, the United Socialist States of America." - Jim Deeds
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

After listening to this, you probably already know where I think we're headed - a global cashless society where perceived wealth and prosperity are provided by the globalist government, the New World Order. This ½ hour show goes into the socialist steps that will bring us there and how the financial instability we are currently experiencing will lead us there.

Ireland may consider EU defence opt-out to pass Lisbon Treaty Irish Times (September 8, 2008) - The government is exploring the possibility of opting out of European security and defence policy in an effort to make the Lisbon Treaty more palatable to the public. But Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin has admitted that this course of action would have serious consequences for the Defence Forces, and he is personally against it. "Irish troops have received praise across the board for the neutrality, objectivity and sensitivity with which they go about their task. It has helped our Defence Forces to modernise" he told journalists at an EU foreign ministers' meeting in Avignon, France. "We don't want to damage or undermine the capacity of the Irish Army to function as effective peacekeepers." A decision to opt out completely from European security policy would mean that the Defence Forces may not be able to take part in EU peacekeeping missions overseas, such as the operation in Chad. Mr Martin said isolation was no longer the way forward for countries such as Ireland, as there was an increasing interdependence between economic and security policies. "You cannot isolate the issues or categorise them as conveniently as some people would like us to do," he said. But he added the Government had to explore all the options open to it following the public's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty in June, and this was the reason his officials visited Copenhagen last month to assess the consequences of Denmark's decision in 1992 to completely opt out of EU defence. Another option the Government may consider is negotiating a declaration insisting that Irish people could never be conscripted into any future EU force. "Conscription as an issue isn't going to happen because of Lisbon, but the point is it raises the fact that people have concerns about the defence and military nature. So how do we deal with that is the question. Do we reassure people on conscription per se?" said Mr Martin. He added that most Irish people held a noble view of the Defence Forces' participation in EU missions. Any proposal to opt out of EU defence is likely to be opposed by the Defence Forces. Minister for Defence Willie O'Dea last night warned that a withdrawal from all EU military co-operation would have serious consequences for Ireland's future United Nations role. The UN is increasingly subcontracting peacekeeping missions to regional bodies, such as the EU - as has happened already in Chad. "We are very well-respected internationally because of our peacekeeping activities. Naturally, I would not like to se anything that would diminish that," Mr O'Dea told The Irish Times. He said that "nobody had approached" him with a proposal that Ireland should pull out of such military co-operation. The Government's decision to explore its role in EU security and defence policy coincides with a wider EU review of strategy. At the foreign ministers' meeting in Avignon, EU foreign affairs chief Javier Solana presented a paper outlining reforms to the EU's 2003 security strategy - the key document outlining the principles behind the EU's policy in the area. The discussion paper proposes a redraft of this strategy to add climate change, energy shortages and cybercrime as new threats to the security of the EU. Meanwhile, Minister for European Affairs Dick Roche will meet German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier today to update him on how Ireland intends to respond to its rejection of the Lisbon Treaty. He will tell a conference of German diplomats he believes the Irish people are gradually reflecting more on the possible consequences of their vote and how they might move ahead in a way that serves both their national interest and the interests of their EU partners.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder |

Fannie and Freddie Glenn Beck (September 8, 2008) - Now, I've been doing some I've been doing homework on Freddie and Fannie for I don't know how long and I've been waiting for this day because I knew that if I presented this three, four months ago, nobody would really pay attention to it because everyone was denying that Freddie and Fannie were going to fall apart. Still everybody is in somewhat denial, everybody is saying, oh, this is only going to cost the American taxpayers you $200 billion. That is a lie. It's going to cost you a whole lot more than that. Some say up to $1.6 trillion. To give you some idea of how much money that is, the original remember, "Oh, my gosh, all of a sudden we are having problems with our financial sector." The original panic was that the banks might have to write down as much as $200 billion. That's what we're writing a check for today for Freddie and Fannie, out of your pocket. I told you at the time when everyone said, oh, it's going to be $200 billion. No, it's not. It's going to be in the trillions, it will at least start with $1 trillion. Now we are approaching a trillion dollars in the regular financial markets and this is going to cost you a trillion dollars. This one is costing you. Now, I want to know where is the outrage. I want to know where is the outrage from the press. Where is the outrage from congress. I'm going to ask three questions and then I'm going to give you the answers, and I ask you just to pay attention here for just a second because when you know the real story behind Freddie and Fannie, blood is going to shoot out of your eyes. Here are the questions. Question one: Why aren't the CEOs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac going to jail? Do you remember the name Ken Lay? Why aren't the CEOs and corporate executives required to give back, at the very minimum, give back the millions of dollars they put into their pockets while they inflated the results to meet their bonus triggers? I want to explain something here. What they did, what Freddie and Fannie did is they have these CEOs that said, oh, we're going to meet our budget. And if they met their budget, they get these big bonuses. Well, they would say that they met their budget and then they would get the bonuses but then they wouldn't meet their budget and they would come back later and say, oh, we had to readjust. No one, no one questioned them. I'm sorry. Members of the press like the Wall Street Journal questioned them. We had questioned them. But nobody else had questioned them. The question I have now is, why. Why. I'll explain in a second when I introduce you to the players. I won't even have to explain. You are going to say, oh, my gosh, you're kidding me. Question number two: Why aren't the shareholders wiped out? Why is the federal government protecting the shareholders of Fannie and Freddie today? This isn't capitalism. Question number three: Where's the end game? You know everybody always says in congress, especially the Democrats, "We want an end game. How come, you know, if you're going to go in for a war, you've got to know how to get out. Where's the strategy here? Where's the end game? What does victory look like?" I can tell you what victory looks like but nobody else is going to tell you this. They will all deny it, but it is not a coincidence today that they put a 15 month, pretty much just a 15 month Band Aid on this. What they've done is save these problems for the next congress and the next President. Why? I'll explain hopefully later on here. We'll get into a chance to do that but I'll explain in great detail on tomorrow's program and show you what congress is actually doing right now. They are setting us up right now. more...
| NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

So if the government bails out Fannie and Freddie, does that mean the Government now owns the loans on the land here in the US?

Solana to reveal his updated European Security Strategy UE2008.fr (September 5, 2008) - The Friday afternoon working session (14.30-18.00) will be dedicated to a debate on the future of relations between the European Union and the United States, notably in terms of major international issues ranging from regional crises to global challenges. Bernard Kouchner will hold a press conference with Javier Solana, the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, and the European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy, Benita Ferrero Waldner, on 5 September at 18.00. During the Saturday morning working session (9.30 – 12.30), the ministers will examine the Georgian crisis, in the wake of the extraordinary European Council meeting of 1 September. More specifically, they will consider the European Union’s involvement in Georgia in terms of humanitarian aid, reconstruction and a political settlement. Against this backdrop, ministers will also raise relations between the European Union and Russia in view of the forthcoming EU-Russia Summit scheduled for 14 November 2008. Javier Solana will present his ideas on the updating of the European Security Strategy at the end of the morning session. The working lunch will be devoted to the Middle East Peace Process and the European Union's role in this region. The European Commissioner for Enlargement, Olli Rehn, and Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, Chairman of the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee, will participate in this discussion, which will also be attended by Axel Poniatowski, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committees of the French National Assembly. The foreign ministers from the three candidate countries (Croatia, Turkey, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), will take part in some of the morning’s discussions. The Presidency’s concluding press conference will be held at 14.30. The Gymnich takes place once every six months and takes its name from the German castle in which the very first European Union foreign ministers' meeting was held in 1974 under the German Presidency. This informal meeting, inasmuch as it allows participants to engage in free and detailed exchange, does not produce conclusions but enables better preparation of European diplomatic positions over the months to come.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | Solana | NewWorldOrder |

America's demonization next step in New World Order? Old-Thinker News (August 27, 2008) - Georgia is the graveyard of America's unipolar world

"Why that should be so isn't hard to understand. It's not only that the US and its camp followers have trampled on international law and the UN to bring death and destruction to the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan... For the rest of us, a new assertiveness by Russia and other rising powers doesn't just offer some restraint on the unbridled exercise of global imperial power, it should also increase the pressure for a revival of a rules-based system of international relations."

Related: Australian paper proclaims: A New World Order as U.S. prosperity falls

After the recent Georgian incursion into South Ossetia, discussion has been rampant regarding America's influence and dominance on the world scene. Some are proclaiming that Russia has laid to rest aspirations for a so called New World Order. From one angle this may appear to be the case, but there is a bigger picture needs to be examined. The United States is going to - and to a degree already is - be held up as an example of why "global mechanisms" and a "world structure" need to be in place to prevent such actions as the invasion of Iraq and U.S. support of Georgian forces in the invasion of South Ossetia. We've been presented with a problem, now globalist think tanks and organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations will provide us with a solution. National sovereignty has no place in this era, so we're told. We must "share power". Former President of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, has stated that he sees the U.S. led Iraq war as an example of the need for a "new world order" to manage the globe.

"Look at the US in Iraq, everybody was opposed, even their allies, but they did not listen and what happened? They do not know how to get out of it now. Now we understand that... we are all linked to the US and if it falls apart it would be a real collapse. We have to help them to get out of there. That means that cooperation is needed, a new world order is necessary and global mechanisms to manage it."

Turkish President Abdullah Gul has made similar statements recently in response to the Georgia-Russia conflict. As the AFP reports,

"Turkish President Abdullah Gul predicted "a new world order" of joint international action, in an interview published in the U.K. on Saturday... He added that the conflict in Georgia shows the U.S. can no longer shape global politics on its own, and that it should start sharing power with other nations."

The 2008 election gives us an idea of the current trends underway and provides a window into the establishment's long term game-plan. Both Barack Obama and John McCain have openly indicated that globalist policy will be pursued if either of them are elected president. John McCain discussed his proposed "League of Democracies" at the Hoover institution in May of 2007. McCain stated in part,

"This League of Democracies would not supplant the United Nations or other international organizations. It would complement them. But it would be the one organization where the world's democracies could come together to discuss problems and solutions on the basis of shared principles and a common vision of the future. If I am elected president, I will call a summit of the world's democracies in my first year to seek the views of my democratic counterparts and begin exploring the practical steps necessary to realize this vision."

Barack Obama made his globalist stance known during his highly publicized speech in Berlin on July 24th. He said,

"Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more -- not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity... In this new world, such dangerous currents have swept along faster than our efforts to contain them. That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone."

The more sophisticated branch of globalist elites who see the route to power through slower, deliberate and incremental steps are now making their move. The aggressive Neocons have served their purpose and are making the establishment nervous with further provocative actions. The corruption and wars that have tarnished the American people's name will now be used to further the aims of the global elite. America's demonization, and in turn its use as an example of the necessity of global governance, may very well be the next stage of the establishment's plan for world government.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America |

It is increasingly becoming the status quo that a globalized world is the only way. Both presidential candidates hold this view and according to the Bible, it is the inevitable end. However the Biblical version is not as pretty as the globalists try to paint it today. How will we get from their vision to Biblical reality? I believe fear and the desire for peace and safety will be used to direct the world toward the ultimate end according to scripture. The New Age Movement has a goal of bringing all belief to an ecumenical position that excludes what are termed exclusionary and fundamentalist. Already there is the Alliance of Civilizations working with religions around the world from apostate Christianity to Buddhist and everything in between to essentially remove the fundamentalist aspects from all belief systems and label those who refuse as incompatible with the new age of peace they are trying to build on earth. Those who remain true to God's Word, which says that Yeshua is the only way to salvation will become more and more shunned and those who agree in rejecting the Truth will band together against those who refuse to conform. Perhaps you think I go a little too far, but remember that according to the Bible the ultimate end of a global government is centered around worship of a New Age Christ, a false Messiah who the world will adore while rejecting the God of Love because they had no love for the Truth.

John 14:23-29
Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.

John 15:12-22
This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. These things I command you, that ye love one another. If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.

Europe into the breach International Herald Tribune (August 26, 2008) - Some diplomatic movement has returned to the Middle East. Under American supervision, Israelis and Palestinians have been negotiating again since the end of 2007. Syria and Israel have begun an indirect negotiation process with Turkey as a mediator. In Lebanon, a new government including all relevant political factions has finally been formed. This would not have been possible without a green light from Syria. And this green light would not have come had Damascus not been convinced that its own negotiations with Israel could, in the medium term at least, lead to a bilateral agreement and also bring about an improvement of Syrian-American relations. Individual European Union states have already honored this constructive about-turn of Syrian policies. For all those engaged in Middle East diplomacy - this goes for the Arab-Israeli fold as well as for the Iranian nuclear file - the U.S. political calendar is always present: No one expects the current U.S. administration to settle any of the conflicts in the region or to bring any of the ongoing diplomatic processes there to a conclusion during the rest of its term. This is explicitly so for the Syrian-Israeli negotiations: Syria has already declared that it would not move from indirect to direct talks before the inauguration of a new American administration ready to actively engage with such a process. Implicitly, however, the same applies to the Annapolis process between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. President Bush has repeatedly said that he wants the two sides to reach an agreement while he is still in office. Israel's outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, who lead the talks, are both aware of the contours of a possible, mutually acceptable agreement, and they seem to have come closer with regard to some of the particularly difficult so-called final-status issues. Nonetheless, even under the most positive scenario, the best one could expect is a further narrowing of the gaps. A comprehensive agreement that would sort out such complex issues as the future of Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, future borders between Israel and Palestine, or infrastructural links between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, will not be reached within only a couple of months. And neither Israel's prime minister nor the Palestinian president would today have the authority and the necessary majorities to ratify, let alone to implement a peace agreement. All this does not speak against the process, only against exaggerated expectations. The process is extremely fragile, and it could easily break down - particularly in the absence of sustained external "care," of guidance and support from a third party both able and prepared to drive the process forward and encourage the negotiating parties to continue their efforts even in the face of domestic opposition. The current U.S. administration will cease to play its role after the November elections; many of its representatives will by then be looking for new jobs. The new U.S. president will first have to get his senior officials confirmed by Congress, and a foreign policy review, before he begins any major policy initiative. As a result, we should expect a time-out for any active American involvement in the Middle East peace process between the end of this year and at least March or April 2009. Herein lays Europe's challenge. As an active partner in the so-called Middle East Quartet with the United States, Russia and the United Nations, the EU has helped to bring about the current talks between Israelis and Palestinians. The EU and several of its member states are contributing to the process through the support of state- and institution-building in the Palestinian territories, particularly in the security and justice sectors. But beyond that, the EU must now prepare itself to keep the process alive from the end of this year through to next spring. Considering such a task we also have to be aware of the particular structures of the Union. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, which currently holds the rotating presidency of the EU, has already announced a more active support for the Middle East peace process. But the French presidency ends in December 2008, and the Czech government, which takes over in January 2009, is unlikely to summon the same energy and resources for the Middle East. The EU's special representative for the Middle East, the Belgian diplomat Marc Otte, does not have enough political weight to assume a role that so far has been played by the U.S. secretary of state. Individual EU states like France, Germany or Spain would have the resources and diplomatic skills and could even be interested in temporarily guiding the process until a new American administration resumes this function. In practice, however, jealousy among EU states would make it impossible for any one of them to act for Europe in this or any other important foreign-policy field, unless this country happens to hold the EU presidency. EU states that want to promote a consensual and common European approach would therefore not even try to assume this role; others that might want to take it on would not be able to fill it. This does not make the EU incapable of acting. [Who ya gonna call?] The Union, through its Council of Foreign Ministers, should as soon as possible give a mandate to Javier Solana, the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the EU, to make himself available, with the approval of Israel, the Palestinians, and the current U.S. administration, as a temporary mediator for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations from the end of the year. Solana would not take such an initiative on his own, but he can do so with a mandate from the Council. His staff is familiar with the subject matter and his diplomatic skills are beyond doubt. Any coalition of willing EU states could support him by delegating some of their own experienced diplomats to his office for the task. Solana and the EU would not be expected to make peace or to bring the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations to a conclusion and to dispel any opposition to an agreement. This cannot be done by the EU, simply because, compared to the United States, it has less influence over Israel and cannot give security guarantees to either Israel or the Palestinians. The EU, however, can act as a temporary trustee for the process, thereby preventing it from breaking down and, given its knowledge of the regional situation, help the parties to find practical solutions for some of the most complicated final-status questions - for example, the political division of Jerusalem as the future capital of two states - only to hand back the process and the role of external guidance to Washington once the new administration there is ready for it. As an active trustee in this sense, the EU could not only show that it lives up to its own claim of contributing to crisis management through preventive diplomacy, it would also demonstrate to the new U.S. administration how high a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ranges on the European list of priorities, and how useful it can be for the United States to cooperate on this with its trans-Atlantic partners.
| Signs of the Times | Israel | Islam | Dividing the Land | EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | Solana | NewWorldOrder | 1^st Seal | America |

I agree with Fulfilled Prophecy regarding the must-read nature of this story and thank them for their watching of the many things I would miss were it not for their diligence. I wonder what would happen if some kind of Middle East war were to break out and through it all, a particular person who helped author part of the roadmap were to actually bring the peace agreement to fruition and divide Israel? I believe he could be seen as an incredibly good diplomat and give further credibility to give him more power to bring peace in the world. Keep watching...

Credit crisis triggers unprecedented response The Washington Post (August 8, 2008) - Since the credit crisis erupted a year ago, the Bush administration has presided over one of the broadest expansions of the government into private lending in U.S. history, risking public money to prop up financial firms both large and small. The administration has transformed federal agencies into dominant players in such diverse realms as student lending and mortgage finance while exposing itself to trillions of dollars in loans. The scope of these commitments demonstrates the unprecedented nature of the challenge facing the nation. Not since the Great Depression have so many debt markets been in turmoil at the same time, financial historians say. During the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s, for example, the financial upheaval was largely contained to banks and thrifts, though the real estate market also felt the impact. Now, the contagion has rapidly spread from mortgages to bonds and exotic securities, student and corporate lending, credit cards and home equity loans, and residential and commercial real estate. The disruption has buffeted investment and commercial banks, mortgage finance agencies, and insurance firms of different stripes. "We have a banking crisis and an agency crisis and a mortgage crisis and a coming credit card crisis. We've never seen anything like that before. And it all seems to be coming home to roost at the same time. That's never happened either," said Charles Geisst, professor of finance at Manhattan College. He said the Great Depression was the last time financial markets were hammered by such a variety of factors. "But we did not even have credit cards in the 1930s; there were no such thing as student loans," he added. The breadth and speed of events have sent federal officials scrambling to plug leaks in the financial system. In the process, the government has bound taxpayers to the fate of a wide variety of banks and borrowers and could ultimately be responsible for losses in the tens of billions of dollars or more, according to estimates by congressional reports and interviews with regulators. But the government may also end up paying nothing at all, largely because it received collateral in return for backing much of these debts and could recoup some money if borrowers stop making their interest payments. No one knows for sure because much of the government's response involved novel programs designed to contain an unpredictable crisis. As the credit crisis worsened, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., a strong proponent of free markets and the architect of much of the administration's response, began to push initiatives that enlarged the government's involvement on Wall Street and in the housing industry. "What I've said is that I'm playing the hand that was dealt and that my responsibility is to protect the U.S. economy and the American people," Paulson said in an interview. The pace of these interventions accelerated as the credit crisis spread across the capital markets. At first, the administration avoided programs that exposed taxpayers to potentially large losses. The Federal Housing Administration, for instance, offered struggling mortgage holders a chance to refinance into low-cost loans backed by the government with any losses borne by the agency's insurance fund. Last summer, Paulson also pressed private mortgage lenders to form an alliance called Hope Now to rework mortgages. The initiative did not require public funds, except to set up a hotline, and it may have prevented lawmakers at that time from pursuing more expensive initiatives, he said. Within months, however, Paulson was directing more significant intrusions into the markets. In March, he strongly endorsed the Fed leaders' decision to put $29 billion in public money on the line to facilitate the takeover of the crippled investment firm Bear Stearns by Wall Street bank J.P. Morgan Chase. In April, Paulson helped the Department of Education set up emergency programs to ensure students could get loans as private lenders fled the business because of trouble in the credit markets. Education officials ramped up their direct lending, which some analysts say could reach $75 billion, and got new authority from Congress to buy loans outright from lenders. Then, last month, Paulson pushed for new authority to lend or invest in mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the Congressional Budget Office said could impose a wide range of costs to taxpayers, from nothing to more than $100 billion. Along the way, the Fed was injecting money into the banking system, including through several new, unusual programs. In negotiations over the Bear Stearns rescue, the Fed agreed to back $30 billion worth of risky mortgage assets but persuaded J.P. Morgan to absorb the first $1 billion of any losses. At the end of July, the portfolio was worth $29.1 billion, according to the central bank. Because the Fed can be patient and sell the assets gradually over time, officials believe taxpayers are highly unlikely to lose more than a couple billion dollars and the central bank may ultimately make some money. more...
| NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

This all seems to be leading to a point where our current financial system could be most easily replaced by a global cashless system and the nations indebted to those with wealth and power would have no alternatives but to join the global banking system that offers stability and security, forgiving debts in exchange for allegiance. I don't think this will be fully implemented until after the abomination of desolation, but I also believe that we're building up to that point now. Keep watching!

EU keeps ticking without Lisbon treaty, report says EU Observer (August 8, 2008) - Europe continues to work without the Lisbon treaty and the demise of the document would not be a catastrophe for the bloc, an influential think tank has said. In an assessment of Ireland's referendum rejection of the EU treaty published on Thursday (7 August), the London-based Centre for European Reform concludes that "Europe works fairly well in many areas with the current treaties." It notes that the 27-nation bloc continues to achieve results and "integrate" using intergovernmental bodies such as the European Defence Agency and through new laws such as those on liberalising the energy market in Europe or the Emissions Trading Scheme. But the paper suggests that the EU would be "much better off" with the Lisbon Treaty - already ratified by 23 member states - as it would clear up the "dreadful arrangements" for managing EU foreign policy, currently a mishmash of personalities and responsibilities. It would also allow easier decision-making in the area of justice and home affairs and give more power to national parliaments, writes Charles Grant, the author of the report and director of CER. His assessment concludes that there are three possible options ahead, with the treaty needing ratification by all member states if it is to go into place.

Under the first scenario, Ireland would hold a second referendum having secured reassurance from its EU partners that certain areas such as tax, neutrality and abortion would not be affected by the treaty. Timing would be important. If Dublin does not hold the referendum before April next year, then the current rules for reducing EU commissioners - and the haggling this entails - will remain in place.

The second scenario envisages Dublin refusing to have a second referendum although this is likely to result in "huge pressure" from the French EU presidency, amongst others. This would likely mean that while the Lisbon treaty as a whole would be ditched, governments would try and salvage parts of it using Croatia's accession treaty.

Under the third "most poisonous" scenario, Ireland would hold a second referendum and vote No, leading to "internal divisions," with countries such as Britain and central European states likely to block any attempt to kick the country out of the EU. The paper predicts that whatever eventually happens with the Lisbon Treaty, it is likely to be the last attempt by the EU to adopt a "big, comprehensive" treaty. Instead the bloc will probably opt for sectoral treaties in areas such as energy or migration policy in future. more...
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder |

Managing Global Security per German Foreign Minister Walter Steinmeier Constance Cumbey (July 29, 2008) - This was a telling speech given to the latest "Managing Global Insecurity" conference. It was delivered at the Berlin site of the MGI July 14-15 Conference co-held by the Brookings Institution and the Bertelsmann Foundation. It was given by German Foreign Minister Walter Steinmeier. As it says, they are now 'singing from the same sheet." Having read and listened so very many times to Javier Solana's launching speech delivered March 21, 2007 in Washington, D.C., I cannot help but notice the deep similarities to the speech given now by one of the constituent foreign ministries to Javier Solana's European wide one. You may read Solana's launching speech last year by clicking here. As a former political speech writer, I wonder who composed this one? As you can see from the context, they have BIG PLANS for 2009. Stay tuned!

"Responsible Sovereignty in an Era of Transnational Threats", Rede von Bundesaußenminister Steinmeier anlässlich der Konferenz "Managing Global Insecurity" der Bertelsmann Stiftung, Berlin

"Mr. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Mr. Pachauri, Javier [Solana], Mr. [Strobe] Talbott, Mr Thielen, Mr. Ischinger, Excellencies, distinguished friends, First of all, I would like to thank you most warmly for this opportunity to speak to you this evening. And I would like to extend a special welcome to our guests from abroad. I am delighted to welcome you to Berlin! This really is an impressive gathering of foreign and security experts tonight! Ladies and gentlemen, If we look back only 20 years, nobody could have predicted what this place, this area would look like today: This used to be a place of division, the Berlin Wall just a couple of hundred metres down the road. Now exchanges of free thoughts and ideas - such as ours tonight - are possible just across the street from where some of the most important institutions of communist East Germany used to have their seat: the Central Committee in the building now occupied by the Federal Foreign Office, the People"s Chamber and the State Council. There are signs that 20 years from now the world will have changed dramatically again. And I share with you, Mr Talbott, and your partners in the Managing Global Insecurity Project, the strong conviction that today we have an opportunity and a duty to try to shape this future. I really appreciate the undertaking led by the Brookings Institution and I am looking forward to the results and proposals you present. Ladies and gentlemen, as we all know now, after the fall of the Iron Curtain, the world did not enter a phase of "capitalist peace". Neither did it mean the end of history, as some analysts and prophets used to put it. Instead, from the early nineties to the present day globalization has been the name of the game, shifting the traditional patterns of geo-economic and geo-political realities. The tragic events of 11 September 2001 and the ongoing struggle against fundamentalism [emphasis added] and international terrorism in Afghanistan and beyond is a constant reminder of the threats we still face today. And it seems that the scope of threats undermining peace and stability is widening. International terrorism has been joined by a new cluster of challenges, jolting the very basis of our system of global governance. Food insecurity, climate change, growing competition for resources as well as global financial turmoil are undermining global stability, international law and democratic transition worldwide. That has rarely been more obvious than in the last few months. And what these last few months have shown is that our current system of global governance is not sufficiently prepared to deal with these new challenges. We are in the midst of a global reorientation, a collective process of adjustment in reaction to these new challenges. We need to come up with new concepts to master them. 'Responsible Sovereignty' - as you term it in your project - refers to the most important part of this new approach: shared responsibility among the members of the international community, maximizing the opportunities and minimizing the risks brought about by the changed international situation. Indeed, we are singing from the same sheet. I have called in my recent speeches for a Global Responsibility Partnership in the world’s search for a new global order... One thing is clear: no country and none of the traditional alliances - present or future - can shoulder these tremendous tasks alone. By global we mean truly global. We cannot manage the new challenges without integrating the emerging powers of Asia, Latin America and Africa into rules-based global regimes. We need to think about possible designs for a renewed international framework of institutions. A framework that can handle both old and new threats, hard and so-called soft security issues. In all these challenges we either win together or we fail together. Therefore, we need to come up with a way to not only link up our capacities to anticipate and prevent threats but also to identify our joint political interests, to forge global consensus and to strengthen international cooperation. Responsibility and Cooperation - these are the key terms for shaping the 21st century. Ladies and gentlemen, This world needs a fresh approach to global governance - an approach that is more holistic, more inclusive, more proactive and more focused on the real challenges of the 21st century. And, ladies and gentlemen, the time is ripe to work towards such a new approach: 2009 is the year of opportunities. A newly elected President in Russia, a new US President, China after the Olympics: all these changes push open a window of opportunity to create a legitimate and effective world order for the 21st century. Let me just make one brief remark regarding the G8. In the coming year, the G8 plus 5 Heiligendamm process will be reviewed during Italy"s G8 Presidency. I have said before that we need to both deepen and broaden the outreach process. I advocate making the outreach format more inclusive - let’s make it a G 13! - and, at the same time, strengthening the conclave character of the G8. more...

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

U.S. companies vulnerable to foreign buyers Reuters (July 29, 2008) - With a record volume of international takeovers of U.S. companies, it almost appears America itself is up for sale. The weak dollar and slumping stock prices of U.S. companies has created a window of opportunity for international buyers to snatch up American icons such as beer brewer Anheuser-Busch Cos Inc and the landmark Chrysler Building in New York. "The dollar has depreciated so much that America is on the sale rack," said Sung Won Sohn, a professor of economics at California State University. "America has such an appetite for foreign goods -- Chinese imports and oil -- that U.S. dollars have gone overseas. Now, many Americans aren't happy that foreign companies are buying pieces of America with the money we gave them in the first place," Sohn said. In the second quarter, acquisitions of U.S. companies by international buyers totaled $124.3 billion, marking the highest total for any second quarter on record and jumping 23 percent over the year-earlier quarter, according to research firm Dealogic. International takeovers represented 22 percent of all U.S. merger activity in the first half of the year, up from 17 percent in the first half of 2007, according to research firm Dealogic. InBev NV's deal to acquire Anheuser-Busch for $52 billion gave Belgium the distinction of being the most active foreign buyer of U.S. assets in the first half of this year, followed by Spain and Canada, Dealogic said. The Anheuser-Busch deal ranked as the second-biggest cross-border acquisition of a U.S. company in history, following Vodafone Group Plc's  $60.3 billion acquisition of AirTouch Communications in 1999, according to Thomson Reuters. Other U.S. assets recently falling into international hands include Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc, which agreed to be acquired by Israel's Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, the world's largest generic drug company, for $7.46 billion; and eye care company Alcon Inc which is being bought by Switzerland's Novartis AG for about $27.7 billion. Earlier this month, Swiss drugmaker Roche AG made a bid to acquire the shares of its U.S. partner Genentech Inc it does not already own for $43.7 billion. Even the Pennsylvania Turnpike awarded long-term leasing rights to a Spanish-led investor group for $12.8 billion. Although some investment bankers and analyst pin the spike in cross-border activity to the weak dollar, others contend that strategy and the desire to expand globally were the motivators behind many of these recent corporate deals. "Strategic buyers don't wake up in the morning and say: 'This currency is cheap. I'm going to go do a deal.' They do a deal because it's strategic and makes sense," said Herald Ritch, president and co-chief executive officer of investment bank Sagent Advisers. "There's no question that, on the margin, currency levels tend to influence decisions, but strategic deals get done because they fit a company's strategy," Ritch said. European companies have been the most active buyers of U.S. assets, with 314 deals so far this year, compared with 117 deals by Asian acquirers, and 33 by African and Middle Eastern buyers, according to Thomson Reuters. "Europe and the U.S. dominate deal activity globally, so it makes sense that deals between those areas would predominate," Ritch said. Although some investment bankers view the second quarter's record pace of U.S. takeovers as an anomaly, Sohn said the 13-percent depreciation of the dollar against major currencies over the past 18 months should fuel more acquisitions. "There are trillions of dollars overseas that have to be put to work. This is just the tip of the iceberg," Sohn said.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

How does Europe become the international power and authority Bible prophecy says it will be? Slowly and surely, bit by bit. Sung Won Sohn makes the statement that "America has such an appetite for foreign goods -- Chinese imports and oil -- that U.S. dollars have gone overseas." Have you noticed that you can't buy anything that isn't made in China today? I certainly haven't had any great desire to see manufacturing go overseas as it has, but policy has pushed it there because it's cheaper and this world, especially the business world, runs on money. America doesn't have many options when it comes to its desire for Chinese imports because business and government have created it this way. Is there an over-arching plan behind it? Given what Bible prophecy says and where we're headed, it's hard for me to deny the dots are connected. There's so much more out there relegated to "conspiracy theory" as well which all points toward the same conclusions. America is being sold out and this will help prop Europe up as the center it is prophesied to be. America is ceding power to Europe and being drained of its manufacturing ability and strength. Business and law are moving internationally, globally and what is a possible end to this? A nation in debt who will be forgiven that debt along with the rest of the world if they just take a mark and worship the man of sin who claims to be God. The technology and methodology is already present and easily implementable while the conditions that would call for its implementation are fast approaching in line with other signs of the times. Bible prophecy isn't fairy tales, it's foreknowledge dictated by God for the benefit of those who trust God's Word and to make us aware and awake as the time draws near. Keep watching!

Barack Obama and the UN’s Drive for Global Governance Christian Worldview Network (July 18, 2008) - Senator Barack Obama has introduced a dangerous bill and it’s on the fast track to Senate passage, probably because of his high profile position as the expected Democrat presidential nominee. Obama hasn’t done much legislatively in his freshman Senate term, but this one is very telling about what we can expect from a President Obama. The bill is the “Global Poverty Act” (S.2433) and is not just a compassionate bit of fluff that Obama dreamed up to help the poor of the world. This bill is directly tied to the United Nations and serves as little more than a shakedown of American taxpayers in a massive wealth redistribution scheme. In fact, if passed, The Global Poverty Act will provide the United Nations with 0.7% of the United States gross national product. Estimates are that it will add up to at least $845 billion of taxpayer money for welfare to third world countries, in addition to the $300 billion Americans spent for the same thing in 2006. The situation is urgent because the Global Poverty Act has already passed the House of Representatives by a unanimous voice vote on September 25, 2007. The senate version has been passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by unanimous consent and ready for a full Senate vote. Of course the United States has had an ongoing program of supplying foreign aid and assistance to the poor for decades. And the U.S. pays most of the bills at the UN for its herd of programs. So what’s new about Obama’s bill, and why is it dangerous? Some history that led up to the Global Poverty Act. In 1999 and 2000 non-governmental organizations, NGOs held numerous meetings around the world to write what became known as the Charter for Global Democracy. The document was prepared to be a blueprint for achieving global governance. In reality it was a charter for the abolition of individual freedom, national sovereignty and limited government. The Charter for Global Democracy outlined its goals in 12 detailed “principles:”

• Principle One called for the consolidation of all international agencies under the direct authority of the UN.
• Principle Two called for UN regulation of all transnational corporations and financial institutions, requiring an “international code of conduct” concerning the environment and labor standards.
• Principle Three explored various schemes to create independent revenue sources for the UN – meaning UN taxes including fees on all international monetary transactions, taxes on aircraft flights in the skies, and on shipping fuels, and licensing of what the UN called the “global commons,” meaning use of air, water and natural resources. The Law of the Sea Treaty fits this category.
• Principle Four would restructure the UN by eliminating the veto power and permanent member status on the Security Council. Such a move would almost completely eliminate U.S. influence and power in the world body. In turn Principle Four called for the creation of an “Assembly of the People” which would be populated by hand-picked non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which are nothing more than political groups with their own agendas (the UN calls NGOs “civil society”). Now, the UN says these NGO’s will be the representatives of the “people” and the Assembly of the People will become the new power of the UN.
• Principle Five would authorize a standing UN army.
• Principle six would require UN registration of all arms and the reduction of all national armies “as part of a multinational global security system” under the authority of the UN.
• Principle Seven would require individual and national compliance with all UN “Human rights” treaties and declarations.
• Principle Eight would activate the UN Criminal Court and make it compulsory for all nations -- now achieved.
• Principle Nine called for a new institution to establish economic and environmental security by ensuring “Sustainable Development.”
• Principle Ten would establish an International Environmental Cort
• Principle Eleven demanded an international declaration stating that climate change is an essential global security interest that requires the creation of a “high level action team” to allocate carbon emissions based on equal per-capita rights -- The Kyoto Global Warming Treaty in action.
• Principle Twelve demanded the cancellation of all debt owed by the poorest nations, global poverty reductions and for the “equitable sharing” of global resources, as allocated by the UN -- here is where Obama’s Global Poverty Act comes in.

Specifically, the Charter for Global Democracy was intended to give the UN domain over all of the earth’s land, air and seas. In addition it would give the UN the power to control all natural resources, wild life, and energy sources, even radio waves. Such control would allow the UN to place taxes on everything from development; to fishing; to air travel; to shipping. Anything that could be defined as using the earth’s resources would be subject to UN use-taxes. Coincidentally, all twelve principles came directly from the UN’s Commission on Global Governance. more...
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom |  America | NewWorldOrder |

Americans may be losing faith in free markets Los Angeles Times (July 16, 2008) - For a generation, most people accepted the idea that the core of what makes America tick was an economy governed by free markets. And whatever combination of goods, services and jobs the market cooked up was presumed to be fine for the nation and for its citizens -- certainly better than government meddling. No longer. Spurred by the continued housing crisis, turmoil in financial markets, spiking oil prices, disappearing jobs and shrinking retirement savings, the nation and its political leaders have begun to sour on the notion that the current market system is the key to a fair, stable and efficient society. "We're at a hinge point," said William A. Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington who helped craft President Clinton's market-friendly agenda during the 1990s. "The strong presumption in favor of markets, which has dominated public policy since the late 1970s, has been thrown very much into question." Now, to a degree not seen in years, politicians and outside experts are looking with favor at more, not less, government involvement in the economy. Of course, Americans always grouse during troubled times. And as market advocates are quick to point out, the current run of bad economic breaks has yet to result in the throwing over of free-market principles in favor of some drastically different approach -- such as a government-directed economy. "There may be a backlash against markets at the moment," acknowledged Kevin A. Hassett, economic studies director at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington and an advisor to presumed Republican presidential nominee John McCain. "But the backlash doesn't seem to be informed by any alternative view of how the world works." more...
| NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

U.N. scheme to make Christians criminals WorldNet Daily (July 10, 2008) - Dozens of nations dominated by Islam are pressing the United Nations to adopt an anti-"defamation" plan that would make Christians criminals under international law, according to a United States organization that has launched a campaign to defend freedom of religion worldwide. "Around the world, Christians are being increasingly targeted, and even persecuted, for their religious beliefs. Now, one of the largest organizations in the United Nations is pushing to make a bad situation even worse by promoting anti-Christian bigotry," the American Center for Law & Justice said yesterday in announcing its petition drive. The discrimination is "wrapped in the guise of a U.N. resolution called 'Combating Defamation of Religions,'" the announcement said. "We must put an immediate end to this most recent, dangerous attack on faith that attempts to criminalize Christianity." The "anti-defamation" plan has been submitted to the U.N. repeatedly since about 1999, starting out as a plan to ban "defamation" of Islam and later changed to refer to "religions," officials said. It is being pushed by the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference nations, which has adopted the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, "which states that all rights are subject to sharia law, and makes sharia law the only source of reference for human rights." The ACLJ petition, which is to be delivered to the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights, already had collected more than 23,000 names in just a brief online existence. The ACLJ's European division, the European Center for Law & Justice, also has launched its work on the issue. It submitted arguments last month to the U.N. in opposition to the proposal to institute sharia-based standards around the globe. "The position of the ECLJ in regards to the issue of 'defamation of religion' resolutions, as they have been introduced at the U.N. Human Rights Council and General Assembly, is that they are in direct violation of international law concerning the rights to freedom of religion and expression," the organization's brief said. "The 'defamation of religion' resolutions establish as the primary focus and concern the protection of ideas and religions generally, rather than protecting the rights of individuals to practice their religion, which is the chief purpose of international religious freedom law." "Furthermore, 'defamation of religion' replaces the existing objective criterion of limitations on speech where there is an intent to incite hatred or violence against religious believers with a subjective criterion that considers whether the religion or its believers feel offended by the speech," the group continued. Interestingly, in nations following Islam, the present practice is to use such laws to protect Islam and to attack religious minorities with penalties up to and including execution, the brief noted. "What should be most disconcerting to the international community is that laws based on the concept of 'defamation of religion' actually help to create a climate of violence," the argument explained. more...
| Signs of the Times | Islam | EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder |

What happens when the world is worshipping the man of sin foretold in scripture? Remember that most of the world will be deceived...

Revelation 13:4-5, 15
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 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.

U.S. and EU near deal on sharing data International Herald Tribune (June 28, 2008) - The United States and the European Union are nearing completion of an agreement that would allow law enforcement and security agencies to obtain private information - including credit card transactions, travel histories and Internet browsing habits - about people on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. Seeking to improve information-sharing to fight crime and terrorism, government officials have been meeting since February 2007 to reach a pact. Europe generally has more-stringent laws restricting how governments and businesses can collect and transfer personal data, which have led to high-profile disputes over American demands for such information. Negotiators have largely agreed on draft language for 12 major issues that are central to a "binding international agreement" making clear that it is lawful for European governments and companies to transfer personal information to the United States, and vice-versa, according to an internal report obtained by The New York Times. American and European Union officials are trying to head off future confrontations "by finding common ground on privacy and by agreeing not to impose conflicting obligations on private companies," said Stewart Baker, the assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security, who is involved in the talks. "Globalization means that more and more companies are going to get caught between U.S. and European law." Paul Schwartz, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said such a blanket agreement could transform international privacy law by eliminating a problem that has led to negotiations of "staggering" complexity between Europe and the United States. "The reason it's a big deal is that it is going to lower the whole transaction cost for the U.S. government to get information from Europe," Schwartz said. "Most of the negotiations will already be completed. They will just be able to say, 'Look, we provide adequate protection, so you're required to turn it over."' But the prospect that the agreement might lower barriers to sending personal information to the U.S. government has alarmed privacy-rights advocates in Europe. The Bush administration and the European Commission, the EU's executive body, have not publicized the talks. But in a little-noticed paragraph deep in a joint statement following a summit meeting between President George W. Bush and European leaders in Slovenia this month, the leaders hailed their progress. Issued June 10, the statement declared that "the fight against transnational crime and terrorism requires the ability to share personal data for law enforcement," and it called for the creation of a "binding international agreement" to facilitate such transfers while also ensuring that citizens' privacy is "fully" protected. In addition, businesses that operate on both sides of the Atlantic are pushing to eliminate the prospect of getting caught between conflicting legal obligations. "This will require compromise," said Peter Fleischer, the global privacy counsel for Google. "It will require people to agree on a framework that balances two conflicting issues - privacy and security. "But the need to develop that kind of framework is becoming more important as more data moves onto the Internet and circles across the global architecture." more...
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America |

PLO Sees Bush's Exit as Chance for EU To Take Over One News Now (June 24, 2008) - Hind Khoury, French ambassador of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), said Monday that next year's exit of American President George W. Bush from office will allow France and the rest of the European Union (EU) to exercise a more powerful role in the Middle East. Khoury noted that French diplomats have expressed they are prepared to "shake hands with Hizbullah." French President Nicolas Sarkozy met on Monday with Palestinian Authority (PA) leaders, including Khoury, at the French consulate in Jerusalem.
| Islam | EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America |

Scientist: 'Global warming' scheme to push global tax WorldNet Daily (June 19, 2008) - A scientist whose reservations about "global warming" have been officially endorsed by tens of thousands of other scientists is accusing the U.N. of using "mob rule" to generate fear-mongering climate change reports intended to scare national leaders into submitting to its worldwide taxation schemes. "Science has always progressed on the basis of observations, experiments, and thoughts published by individual scientists and sometimes pairs or small groups of scientific coworkers," Art Robinson, a research professor of chemistry and co-founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, said in a recent column in Human Events. Except at the U.N., he said. Robinson's concern over the political manipulation of science earlier led him to launch the Petition Project, a compilation of more than 31,000 scientists – with more names arriving daily – who have voluntarily signed their names to the following statement:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

He said the scientific process begins with the results of individuals' work and their distribution of their ideas. "A few of these published articles are especially valuable; a greater number, while not remarkable, provide relative mundane studies that add to the infrastructure of science; many are not useful at all; and some are completely wrong. As individual scientists read these articles, they use their own wisdom, knowledge, and judgment to separate new information that they find valuable from information that they find of no use," Robinson said. Eventually, the good, accurate and valuable information is advanced. "Always, scientific progress is a result of a large number of individual decisions that trend in a specific direction," he said. Not so, however, at the United Nations. Especially with the organization's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has generated many of the claims of catastrophic results of man's use of hydrocarbon fuels, including submerged coastlines and a deadly, massive expansion of African deserts. The IPCC website boasts of sharing the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore Jr. for "efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change." It also notes its goals are to eradicate poverty and hunger, achieve universal primary education, promote gender equality, reduce child mortality, improve mothers' health, combat HIV/AIDS, ensure environmental sustainability and others. "The IPCC provides its reports at regular intervals and they immediately become standard works of reference, widely used by policymakers, experts and students," the organization itself says. "The primary requirement for selection is a willingness to participate in the United Nations' new 'process' and the agenda behind it," Robinson said. "These people study and discuss the current and past research literature concerning climate and climate prediction. … These emanations are closely observed by a very select small group of United Nations operatives." At the end of the meetings, "this small group of observers combines the products of the meeting into a large important-looking report – carefully editing the report so that it supports United Nations political objectives," Robinson said. "At no time is this report submitted to the 600-plus 'scientists.'" The results then are distributed as "settled science," he said, "regardless of the fact that the scientists involved do not agree upon the text. … The elite few who oversaw the meeting and interpreted its results are special. They are the U.N.'s anointed messengers of the truth." A spokeswoman for the United Nation's Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon declined to respond to WND questions about the process, referring those questions to the IPCC office in Geneva. There a spokeswoman confirmed for WND the process that has a small number of specially appointed U.N. operatives write reports following "scientific" meetings. Also, "science" has become devalued. "And nowhere is it more abused than in the United Nations, where institutionalized mob rule is called 'science,'" he said. "In its headlong drive to gain the power to tax and ration world energy (and thereby control world technology – sharing taxation authority with other governments in return for their support) the United Nations has created a 'process,' which it calls 'science,'" he said. In real science, however, "truths are never determined through such meetings; unsolved scientific questions are never resolved by such meetings; and scientific articles are never published unless every putative or listed author has personally approved every word of the publication," Robinson said. "Scientific truth is never decided by meetings organized to decide which ideas are true and which are false. more...
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder |

Senate Housing Bill Requires eBay, Amazon, Google, and All Credit Card Companies to Report Transactions to the Government Freedom Works (June 19, 2008) - Update: Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Charles Grassley is pushing the bill. Hidden deep in Senator Christopher Dodd's 630-page Senate housing legislation is a sweeping provision that affects the privacy and operation of nearly all of America's small businesses. The provision, which was added by the bill's managers without debate this week, would require the nation's payment systems to track, aggregate, and report information on nearly every electronic transaction to the federal government. FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey commented: "This is a provision with astonishing reach, and it was slipped into the bill just this week. Not only does it affect nearly every credit card transaction in America, such as Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express, but the bill specifically targets payment systems like eBay's PayPal, Amazon, and Google Checkout that are used by many small online businesses. The privacy implications for America's small businesses are breathtaking." "Privacy groups like the Center for Democracy and Technology and small business organizations like the NFIB sharply criticized this idea when it first appeared earlier this year. What is the federal government's purpose with this kind of detailed data? How will this database be secured, and who will have access? Many small proprietors use their Social Security number as their tax ID. How will their privacy be protected? What compliance costs will this impose on businesses? Why is Sen. Chris Dodd putting this provision in a housing bailout bill? The bill also includes the creation of a new national fingerprint registry for mortgage brokers. "At a time when concerns about both identity theft and government spying are paramount, Congress wants to create a new honey pot of private data that includes Social Security numbers. This bill reduces privacy across America's payment processing systems and treats every American small business or eBay power seller like a criminal on parole by requiring an unprecedented level of reporting to the federal government. This outrageous idea is another reason to delay the housing bailout legislation so that Senators and the public at large have time to examine its full implications." From the Senate Bill Summary:

Payment Card and Third Party Network Information Reporting. The proposal requires information reporting on payment card and third party network transactions. Payment settlement entities, including merchant acquiring banks and third party settlement organizations, or third party payment facilitators acting on their behalf, will be required to report the annual gross amount of reportable transactions to the IRS and to the participating payee. Reportable transactions include any payment card transaction and any third party network transaction. Participating payees include persons who accept a payment card as payment and third party networks who accept payment from a third party settlement organization in settlement of transactions. A payment card means any card issued pursuant to an agreement or arrangement which provides for standards and mechanisms for settling the transactions. Use of an account number or other indicia associated with a payment card will be treated in the same manner as a payment card. A de minimis exception for transactions of $10,000 or less and 200 transactions or less applies to payments by third party settlement organizations. The proposal applies to returns for calendar years beginning after December 31, 2010. Back-up withholding provisions apply to amounts paid after December 31, 2011. This proposal is estimated to raise $9.802 billion over ten years.

| NewWorldOrder |

Ireland to hold second referendum The Australian (June 23, 2008) - THE Irish Government is expected to bow to Franco-German pressure and hold a second referendum to try to rescue the Lisbon treaty that voters rejected this month. The plan for a possible new vote in Ireland, being discussed by some ministers in Dublin, will be greeted with outrage by opponents of the treaty in Britain. Irish ministers say they might be able to rescue the treaty if they can secure concessions from Europe to placate voters on a list of issues. "A yes vote can be achieved if the Irish people are offered guarantees on issues like defence and taxation," said one senior Irish official. "The no campaign will be picked off one by one. Everyone has a price." The likely time for a new referendum is next spring so that the treaty can come into force before the June 2009 European election campaign for the Brussels parliament. The date is favoured by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. If the Irish vote no again, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown would have to choose between siding with Ireland to stop its citizens being turned into second-class Europeans or siding with France and Germany to push ahead with further EU integration. Concessions likely to be sought by Ireland include guarantees to protect its neutrality in the event of European armed forces being created, the reinstatement of its right to a European commissioner, and the right to set its own abortion laws and corporate tax rates. Mr Sarkozy is determined to "save" the EU as France takes over the rotating presidency on July 1. "It is not written down in the summit conclusions, but everyone agreed that we need to get out of this before next year's European elections," Mr Sarkozy said last week. He said European leaders had already mandated France to ensure the EU "does not grind to a halt". Both Mr Sarkozy and Ms Merkel have exerted subtle pressure on Ireland and its potential allies by threatening the end of the EU's enlargement east if theLisbon treaty does not come into force. The French President will visit Ireland on July 11 for talks with Brian Cowen, the Taoiseach, or Prime Minister. "We will try to make this 'no' an opportunity," he said, pledging to use "English pragmatism" to find a solution. The Irish Government has to decide its next move before the European Council meeting on October 15. more...
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder |

RBS issues global stock and credit crash alert Telegraph UK (June 19, 2008) - The Royal Bank of Scotland has advised clients to brace for a full-fledged crash in global stock and credit markets over the next three months as inflation paralyses the major central banks. "A very nasty period is soon to be upon us - be prepared," said Bob Janjuah, the bank's credit strategist. A report by the bank's research team warns that the S&P 500 index of Wall Street equities is likely to fall by more than 300 points to around 1050 by September as "all the chickens come home to roost" from the excesses of the global boom, with contagion spreading across Europe and emerging markets. Such a slide on world bourses would amount to one of the worst bear markets over the last century. RBS said the iTraxx index of high-grade corporate bonds could soar to 130/150 while the "Crossover" index of lower grade corporate bonds could reach 650/700 in a renewed bout of panic on the debt markets. "I do not think I can be much blunter. If you have to be in credit, focus on quality, short durations, non-cyclical defensive names. "Cash is the key safe haven. This is about not losing your money, and not losing your job," said Mr Janjuah, who became a City star after his grim warnings last year about the credit crisis proved all too accurate. RBS expects Wall Street to rally a little further into early July before short-lived momentum from America's fiscal boost begins to fizzle out, and the delayed effects of the oil spike inflict their damage. "Globalisation was always going to risk putting G7 bankers into a dangerous corner at some point. We have got to that point," he said. US Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank both face a Hobson's choice as workers start to lose their jobs in earnest and lenders cut off credit. The authorities cannot respond with easy money because oil and food costs continue to push headline inflation to levels that are unsettling the markets. "The ugly spoiler is that we may need to see much lower global growth in order to get lower inflation," he said. more...
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

EU Presses Ahead With Treaty Ratification Despite Irish "No" Deutsche Welle (June 18, 2008) - Ahead of a summit in Brussels, the European Union called Wednesday for the ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty to continue despite its crushing rejection by Irish voters last week. A planned two-day European Union summit which opens on Thursday, June 19, meant to focus on weighty topics such as rising oil prices is likely to be overshadowed by the institutional crisis plaguing the bloc after Irish voters last week resoundingly rejected the Lisbon treaty. Ireland plunged the European Union into chaos last week when 53 percent of voters rejected the treaty meant to streamline the bloc's cumbersome institutions and to make it more efficient after a recent eastward expansion. Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Jansa, who will act as chair for the last time as president of the European Union, insists that "not a single item has been dropped from the official agenda because of what happened in Ireland." "Leaders will want to show that they are paying attention to what matters to consumers, which is oil and food prices," one diplomat told news agency DPA. Yet despite their best intentions, EU leaders will inevitably focus on the institutional chaos sparked by Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso called on the EU heads of state and government to take time at Thursday and Friday's summit in Brussels to find a consensus together with Ireland. "We must work very closely with the Irish government to help solve this problem," Barroso told members of the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Wednesday after being harangued by a group of deputies wearing green sweat shirts emblazoned: "Respect the Irish Vote." But the Social Democrats warned of a "crisis of trust" in EU institutions. It was worrying that all the major Irish parties had called for a yes vote and the electorate had still voted no, Social Democrat faction leader Martin Schulz said. According to leaked results of an EU survey published on Tuesday by the Irish Independent, many of the people who voted no in the referendum did so either because they did not understand the treaty, or because they had other concerns, such as immigration and unemployment. Moreover, 70 percent of those who rejected the treaty thought it could be easily renegotiated. One possible solution is for Ireland to be granted a number of concessions before being asked to vote again, either in the autumn or early next year. In the meantime, leaders have called for the remaining eight national parliaments to ratify the treaty and have avoided talking about a "two-speed Europe," whereby some member states would go ahead with further integration, leaving the sceptics behind. "We want to continue with a one-speed Europe," Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Jansa said on Tuesday. more...
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder |

Eye on the EU: The Trouble With Iron and Clay Fulfilled Prophecy (June 14, 2008) - The Lisbon Treaty was rejected Thursday by Irish voters. What does their vote mean for the EU and for the WEU Ten? Guest columnist Mishael Meir — an attorney with interest in EU legal development — answers this question. Ireland’s “No” vote on the Lisbon Treaty tells us just how brittle the EU structure really is. The existing EU treaties gave rise to a power-thirsty oligarchic government that overlays 27 sovereign democracies. It’s quite a brittle blend of iron and clay, an iron fist attempting to rule over the pliable clay of democracy. Having bullied the vote on the Lisbon Treaty out of citizens’ hands from all but one democracy, the EU heads of state concocted a bait and switch: get Ireland to say yes by hiding their plans for expansion of the EU military and security mechanisms until after the Irish had voted. See here, here and here. Up until the vote results came in early Friday morning, EU leaders had been huddled behind closed doors, divvying up the power they hoped would soon be handed over by the member states under the Lisbon Treaty. As reality sets in and finger pointing begins, the EU leaders may again pressure the Irish to reconsider and hold a second referendum, just like they did in 2001 when they agreed to insert stronger provisions to preserve Ireland’s neutrality as incentive for the Irish to approve the Nice Treaty on their second vote. More immediately, the EU will press its member states to continue with the remaining ratifications through 2008. Without these outcomes, the EU won’t be able to assess how much work is needed to fashion yet another means to what they call “institutional efficiency.” See here. But more on that later. What could deepen this crisis even further is that the EU could see more “No” votes in coming months. Thus far, 18 state parliaments have voted “Yes,” Ireland’s citizens have voted “No,” and eight parliamentary votes remain. Citizens in the UK and the Netherlands will bring increasing pressure on their governments to allow them to vote instead of their parliaments. See here and here. Without getting the Irish on board and collecting the remaining ratifications, it will be nearly impossible for the EU to enact the failed constitution/Lisbon Treaty under yet another treaty or by legislation. See here. That’s because for EU power to have legitimacy, it has to have at least the semblance of democratic consent. See here. It doesn’t look like it is going to get it. Meanwhile, the WEU Ten Is the Only Alliance Standing. more...
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder |

Ireland's no vote: Europe is not going away Times Online (June 14, 2008) - It took hundreds of pages of the Federalist papers, a few dozen men locked for weeks in a sealed room in Philadelphia and a bloody civil war for the US constitution to be accepted. So the little local difficulties in France, the Netherlands and now Ireland must be seen in a broader perspective. Anti-Europeans are lacing their champagne with Guinness as they celebrate the “no” vote and proclaim with W.B. Yeats “all changed, changed utterly”. Yet the EU, its Commission, existing treaties and directives will still be in place tomorrow. Europe has been here before and will be again. Ireland's “no” campaigners accused the wordy Lisbon treaty of introducing abortion and high taxes, and abolishing peat-cutting, union rights and Irish neutrality. Then Alistair Darling gave a speech saying that Ireland's beloved Common Agricultural Policy should be pruned and Peter Mandelson promised to reduce agricultural protectionism to help the Doha trade talks. The chance to kick British bigwigs and their own former prime minister, now helping the authorities with their inquires, was too tempting. As the money men, the Socialist Workers' Party, the Unite union and Sinn Fein enjoy their weekend of joy, Ireland and the rest of Europe will wake up on Monday with a headache but not much else. Not a single Eurocrat will lose his job. The bloated 27-strong Commission may even breathe a sigh of relief as a little-noticed clause in the treaty cut its size. The loss of a guaranteed EU Commission seat for Ireland was one argument used by the “no” campaign to defeat the treaty - the first time that Eurosceptics have sprung to the defence of the Brussels bureaucracy instead of wanting it slimmed down. The big losers are Turkey and Croatia. British Tory Eurosceptics hypocritically proclaim their support for Turkish accession, but know that demanding referendums on future treaties means an end to enlargement. No EU treaty can come into force until all signatory nations ratify it. But Ireland represents 1 per cent of the EU's total population and some old-fashioned democrats may feel that 1 per cent does not outweigh the rest of Europe's nations which are saying “yes” to the treaty. But the rules are clear. Had the Irish voted “yes” and the British Parliament voted “no”, it is unlikely that Open Europe and Stuart Wheeler would describe the Irish popular vote as superior to one by Britain's sovereign parliament. But amid the clamour from anti-EU campaigners in Britain and other nations to ignore sovereign parliamentary decisions, some way forward will have to be found. So what now? First, the Irish Government must tell its 26 EU partners what happened and why. Secondly, other European nations must stay calm, despite the screeching of the “no” camp for instant repudiation of the treaty. Many countries have voted not once but twice for a new EU rule book. They will be sore that the French and the Dutch, and now the Irish, have blocked new rules deemed necessary to make Europe work better. more...
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder |

It will be interesting to see how this plays into the development of Europe. With Turkey also losing even more the opportunity to join the EU, where might they turn to ally themselves if Europe rejects them?

Nicolas Sarkozy plans to bypass Irish no vote Telegraph UK (June 13, 2008) - Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, is working with European Union officials and diplomats to plan a special "legal arrangement" to bypass Ireland's referendum rejection. Mr Sarkozy takes over the EU's rotating presidency in July and will be tasked with resurrecting, for a second time, Lisbon Treaty proposals first contained in the European Constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters three years ago. Diplomats and officials have no intention of letting the Irish no vote sink a blueprint to boost the EU's powers on the international stage and to create a President of Europe. Gordon Brown has already phoned Paris to promise Mr Sarkozy that Britain will ignore Ireland to continue parliamentary ratification of the EU Treaty. Jean-Pierre Jouyet, the French Europe Minister, has hinted that Paris already has a legal "fix", such as plans revealed in The Daily Telegraph on Wednesday, to keep the EU Treaty alive. "The most important thing is that the ratification process must continue in the other countries and then we shall see with the Irish what type of legal arrangement could be found," he said. "We must remain within the framework of the Lisbon treaty." Eight countries are still engaged in parliamentary ratification of the Treaty but are expected to have finished, without any upsets by the autumn. Plans to find a "mechanism" keeping Ireland within the EU but temporarily outside the Lisbon Treaty will then be tabled at an October or December meeting of Europe's leaders. "Ireland must not stop the process of getting the Treaty through. Then we can take stock," said a diplomat close to negotiations. Mr Brown will join Mr Sarkozy and other EU leaders at a Brussels summit next Thursday to vow that it is business as usual on pushing the Treaty through. There are advanced plans in Brussels for a "bridging mechanism" to allow Ireland to be removed from the list of signatories to the Lisbon Treaty after the EU's 26 other member states have ratified it.' Ireland will continue to remain in the euro and be covered by existing Treaties but will be left out of the creation of an EU president and foreign minister, which would proceed as planned. more...
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder |

Lisbon No vote: What happens next? RTE News (June 13, 2008) - With Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, politicians and pundits in Ireland and across Europe are talking about what will happen next. Government leaders have described the situation post-vote as 'uncharted territory'. Taoiseach Brian Cowen said he did not have an answer to what happens next, but would have to go to next week's European summit to see if there is a consensus on the way forward. Mr Cowen appeared to rule out a second referendum during the campaign, but speaking to RTÉ's Bryan Dobson this evening he said that at this point he could not rule anything 'out or in, up or down'. The fact that Ireland has already been made to vote again once after it rejected the Nice treaty in 2001 makes the idea improbable, but not impossible. Minister John Gormley said this treaty was Plan B and he does not know what Plan C is. Minister Gormley said it would be problematic to go back to the people because he does not know what could be added. He said that Ireland cannot gain any more concessions. He said that under Nice each country will still lose a commissioner. In the short term, the Irish vote means the new positions of a permanent president of the European Council of EU leaders and a stronger foreign policy chief with a real diplomatic service will be delayed. The EU will be weakened internationally, notably in dealings with difficult powers such as Russia and Iran, by having to limp on with dysfunctional foreign policy and defence institutions, and by the sheer loss of face, diplomats said. Pending legislation to fight climate change, promote energy efficiency and open the EU internal energy market to more competition should not be delayed by the Irish vote, they said. It remains unclear exactly what course the EU and Ireland will follow, but the ratification process in other countries looks set to continue. The ratification of the Lisbon Treaty 'must continue' in other member states despite Ireland's rejection in a referendum, European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso has stressed. 'The ratification process is made up of 27 national processes, 18 member states have already approved the treaty, and the European Commission believes that the remaining ratifications should continue to take their course,' Mr Barroso told journalists. France's European affairs minister Jean-Pierre Jouyet said the EU could negotiate a 'legal arrangement' with Ireland to avert a crisis. But he agreed, along with other European leaders who have made statements, that 'the most important thing is that the ratification process must continue in the other countries.' 'Then we shall see with the Irish what type of legal arrangement could be found,' the French minister said. The Netherlands, which rejected the EU constitution three years ago, will continue ratifying the Lisbon treaty despite its apparent rejection by Ireland, Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said. The Head of the Socialist Grouping in the European Parliament has said he is very worried about the information coming from Ireland. Speaking in Brussels, German MEP Martin Schulz said that if there was a No vote in Ireland it would be one of the biggest problems in the EU for a long time. He said that it is now up to the Irish Government to explain to Europe how we should proceed. Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek warned that the Irish result would lead to 'political complications'. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said even with a No vote on the Lisbon Treaty, the EU would look for ways to bring the treaty into effect. He said the referendum in Ireland won't disqualify the treaty. Antonio Missiroli of the European Policy Centre think tank said the vote triggered a European political crisis that required strong leadership in Ireland, in Brussels and key member states.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder |

Fate of Lisbon Treaty rests on Irish referendum Telegraph UK (June 13, 2008) - The fate of Europe lay in the hands of the Irish electorate after they were given the opportunity of a vote denied to the British people. The outcome of the referendum, which will see Ireland's 2.8 million registered voters determine the future of the EU's 495 million citizens, was still too close to call when the polls closed on Thursday night. A low turnout threatened to see the major European Union (EU) reform defeated. While the Yes campaign took comfort in the fact voting levels increased from the earlier low of 20 per cent, initial indications estimated a turnout of 40 per cent. Academics who have studied earlier Irish polls predicted a 45 per cent turnout was the minimum required to deliver a Yes vote, but while in Dublin there were signs of levels reaching the 40-45 per cent, outside the capital, estimates were often lower. A vigorous "no" campaign led by Declan Ganley, the multimillionaire leader of the Libertas group and a son of Irish emigrants, had seen the rival camps draw level in opinion polls. Ireland's main political parties urged their supporters to back the treaty and the formidable political machine of the ruling Fianna Fail party rallied supporters. The contest even saw a Papal intervention, with Pope Benedict XVI appearing to encourage Catholic Ireland to vote yes. In St Peter's Square, the Pontiff paid tribute to St Columbanus, a monk from Co Meath who led a mission into Europe in AD500. "With his spiritual strength, with his faith, with his love of God and neighbour, he became one of the Fathers of Europe, showing us today the way to those roots from which our continent may be reborn," the Pope said. A no vote could delay or doom the painstakingly negotiated pact, which must be ratified by all 27 states. Implementation would see the number of EU commissioners reduced from 27 to 18 and require foreign, defence and security decisions to be taken unanimously.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | RCC |

It's not surprising that the Pope would step in to support a yes vote to the referendum. If indeed the Vatican represents the woman riding the beast of Revelation 13 and 17, the fourth kingdom, then this fits with the support of the reviving of the Roman Empire being attempted through Democratic means today. I have a feeling that it will be a yes and if not, something will happen to circumvent a no vote, there's just too much riding on this politically. Of course I could be wrong so keep watching!

The EU's options should Ireland reject the Lisbon Treaty EU Business (June 11, 2008) - Some options given in the article:

• FORCE IRELAND TO CHANGE ITS MIND
• RENEGOTIATE THE LISBON TREATY
• FORGE AHEAD USING THE NICE TREATY
• CUT IRELAND ADRIFT FROM THE EU

Secret Bilderberg Agenda To Microchip Americans Leaked Prison Planet (June 10, 2008) - Sources from inside the 2008 Bilderberg meeting have leaked the details of what elitists were discussing in Chantilly Virginia last week and the talking points were ominous - a plan to microchip Americans under the pretext of fighting terrorist groups which will be identified as blonde haired, blue eyed westerners. Veteran Bilderberg sleuth Jim Tucker relies on sources who regularly attend Bilderberg as aides and assistants but who are not Bilderberg members themselves. The information they provided this year is bone-chilling for those who have tracked the development of the plan to make the general public consider implanted microchips as a convenience as routine as credit cards. "Under the heading of resisting terrorism there were points made about how the terrorist organizations are recruiting people who do not look like terrorists - blonde, blue eyed boys - they're searching hard for those types to become the new mad bombers," said Tucker. Ominously, Tucker's source also told him that Bilderberg were discussing the microchipping of humans on a mass scale, which would be introduced under the pretext of fighting terrorism whereby the "good guys" would be allowed to travel freely from airports so long as their microchip could be scanned and the information stored in a database. Tucker said the idea was also sold on the basis that it would help hospital staff treat a patient in an emergency situation because a scan of the chip would provide instantaneous access to health details. Tucker underscored that Bilderberg were talking about subdermally implanted chips and not merely RFID chips contained in clothing. The discussion took place in a main conference hall and was part of the agenda, not an off-hand remark in the hotel bar. Such a bizarre concept may seem unbelievable to some, but over the last ten years there have been dozens of examples of people accepting implanted chips for a variety of different reasons. In 2004, Mexico's attorney general and 160 of his office staff were implanted with tracker chips to control access to to secure areas of their headquarters. The Baja Beach Club in Barcelona and other nightclubs around the world are already offering implantable chips to customers who want to pay for drinks with the wave of a hand and also get access to VIP areas of the club lounge.

Bilderberg skeptical of attack on Iran

Tucker's source told him that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates did attend Bilderberg despite him not appearing on the official list. Tucker said that his sources told him Gates was in attendance to present his case for war with Iran, but that the majority of Bilderberg members were against an attack at this time. "The Europeans were generally opposed to an invasion of Iran - Gates made the regular war propaganda drill about how Iran is a nuclear threat to everybody," said Tucker, adding that European Bilderbergers made snide comments about where such nuclear weapons actually were being kept and at one point joking that they were possibly "in Saddam Hussein's tomb". Despite Bilderberg opposition, Tucker said that the administration was still considering an attack before Bush leaves office in January. "At least 90 per cent of the Europeans oppose a war, probably closer to 100 per cent," said Tucker, adding, "most of the Americans were passive and deferential to the Secretary of Defense and Condoleezza Rice's pitch in so far as Iran is concerned". Tucker said that most Americans present at the meeting were opposed to attacking Iran but dare not be as visible and loud in their opposition as the Europeans.

Energy and oil prices

"One of the Bilderberg boys raised this question - should we put a lid on the rise in oil prices, are we reaching the point of diminishing returns," said Tucker, adding that Bilderberg noted how Americans were trading in their SUV's in record numbers for small and more fuel efficient cars and using more public transport to combat high gas prices. Tucker's source said that Bilderberg were predicting $5 for a gallon of gas by the end of this summer and oil over $150 dollars a barrel, but that this was a ceiling and oil prices would probably begin to decline thereafter because they thought the acceleration had happened too quickly. As we previously reported, Bilderberg called for oil prices to soar in 2005 when oil was a mere $40 a barrel. During the conference in Germany, Henry Kissinger told his fellow attendees that the elite had resolved to ensure that oil prices would double over the course of the next 12-24 months, which is exactly what happened. During their 2006 meeting in Ottawa Canada, Bilderberg agreed to push for $105 a barrel before the end of 2008. With that target having been smashed months ago, the acceleration towards $150 is outstripping even Bilderberg's goal, which is why the elitists expressed a desire to cool prices at least in the short term. Just two days after he left Bilderberg, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, George W. Bush and others expressed support for a strong dollar and Bernanke hinted that interest rates could rise, which immediately caused oil prices to drop in line with Bilderberg's consensus.
| Iran | EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | Technology | America | Economic Crisis |

I usually don't post things from Prison Planet, some reasons why here, but what Jim Tucker reports from his sources at the meetings that is posted at Prison Planet has some big implications, especially given the timing of the HIStory, Our Future Bible studies. My decision to share this is based on the RFID aspect of the story, there's a lot of deception out there so guard your mind. Personally, I believe the mark technology will actually not be an implantable chip, but rather an RFID tattoo ink currently being used on cattle. This pushing of the technology based on fear of terrorism brings to mind how the spirit of antichrist works.

Daniel 8:25
And through his policy [intelligence, understanding, wisdom] also he shall cause craft [deceipt, fraud, treachery] to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

Ultimately the system being developed now by the mystery of iniquity will require either a pledge of allegiance to the man of sin or death. So in the name of peace and security, the deceitful system is being put in place that will destroy all those who refuse to worship this man who would claim to be God.

Regarding Iran, I think this summer may bring about God's intervention and destruction of the Iranian-Turkish-Russian allied forces that are prophesied to attack Israel from the North. There are many aspects to this prophecy that are coming into alignment and even though that is the case, I still can't claim to be 100% sure. Just read through the Gog/Magog and Isaiah 17 news to see why I think this is forming on the near horizon. Will this involve action on the part of America? I don't think so, although I can't rule out strategic action against America, the great Satan, coinciding with an attack on Israel, the little Satan. Keep watching and praying!

Revelation 13:16-18
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.

0:02:25

U.S. stops following foreign money trail WorldNet Daily (June 9, 2008) - Foreign investment in the United States is on the rise and key U.S. businesses and infrastructures such as roads and airports are being sold to foreign investors. Now comes word from the U.S. Department of Commerce the Bureau of Economic Affairs will stop publishing a key report tracking those foreign dollars. WND reported earlier on a decision by the Federal Reserve to quit publishing M3 data, a money-supply measure watched closely by economists. Last month, econometrician John Williams reported on his subscription website, "Shadow Government Statistics," that the M3 statistic he compiles from available government data shows the growth of M3 at historically high rates last seen in June 1971, two months before President Nixon closed the gold window and instituted wage and price controls. Charles McMillion, president and chief economist at MBG Information Services in Washington, D.C., also has expressed concern over the recent decision by the Department of Commerce to discontinue publishing foreign investment data and warned that may forecast an unprecedented surge in foreign investment anticipated by the Bush administration. In the announcement, BEA claimed funding limitations necessitated halting future reports. The most recent report, released Wednesday, showed direct foreign investment in U.S. businesses reached $276.8 billion in 2007, the second largest amount recorded and the highest since 2000, when new foreign investment outlays peaked at $335.6 billion. Of the direct foreign investments in the U.S. in 2007, only about 10 percent, approximately $21.9 billion, established new U.S. businesses, while foreign investments to acquire existing U.S. businesses totaled $255.0 billion. Nearly 37 percent of the foreign investments in 2007 involved European investors, although the BEA noted investments from Asia and the Middle East rose substantially. McMillion noted in an e-mail that the BEA decision to discontinue publishing foreign investment data comes at a time when public and congressional concerns have increased over the acquisition of U.S. assets by foreign investors McMillian referenced the recent attempt by "China's mysterious but closely state-aligned Huawei" to acquire 3Com, a key supplier of Internet security technologies to the U.S. Department of State, in conjunction with Boston-based Bain Capital, a private equity firm founded by Republican 2008 presidential candidate Mitt Romney. In March, Bain pulled out of the deal after learning that the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, organized in the U.S. Treasury Department, planned to block the deal. In May, during a four-day trip to the Middle East that included Saudi Arabia and Dubai, U.S. Secretary of Treasury Henry Paulson encouraged foreign investment in the United States, arguing the controversy over Dubai Ports in 2006 did not reflect an adverse U.S. attitude toward foreign investment. "I have met with many leaders from the Middle East who ask if the United States really continues to welcome investment," Paulson said in a speech to the U.S.-United Arab Emirates Business Council, according to Bloomberg.com. "As we seek to open new markets abroad, America will keep our markets open at home to investment from private firms and from sovereign wealth funds." WND previously reported that since the beginning of the year, Dubai and Abu Dhabi, two of the largest United Arab Emirate states, have been in discussions with the U.S. Treasury, offering reassurances that their investments in U.S. banks and security firms would not impose restrictions usually dictated by Islamic law, commonly known as sharia. WND also has reported sovereign wealth funds in six Persian Gulf countries, including Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, have now amassed $1.7 trillion, positioning them for attempts to control major banks and securities firms in the United States. In September 2007, Dubai acquired 19.9 percent of Nasdaq, the second largest stock exchange in the United States. WND also reported last month the top bid to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike on a long-term public-private-partnership, or PPP lease, for a bid of $12.8 billion was submitted by Spanish infrastructure management company Abertis Infraestructuras of Barcelona.
| Islam | NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

We can reduce risk in the financial system Financial Times (June 8, 2008) - Since last summer, we have lived through a severe and complex financial crisis. Why was the financial system so fragile? What can be done to make the system more resilient in the future? The world experienced a financial boom. The boom fed demand for risk. Products were created to meet that demand, including risky, complicated mortgages. Many assets were financed with significant leverage and liquidity risk and many of the world’s largest financial institutions got themselves too exposed to the risk of a global downturn. The amount of long-term illiquid assets financed with short-term liabilities made the system vulnerable to a classic type of run. As concern about risk increased, investors pulled back, triggering a self-reinforcing cycle of forced liquidation of assets, higher margin requirements, increased volatility. What should be done to strengthen the system in the future? First, when we get through this crisis we have to increase the shock absorbers held in normal times against bad macroeconomic and financial outcomes. This will require more exacting expectations on capital, liquidity and risk management for the largest institutions that play a central role in intermediation and market functioning. They should be set high enough to offset the benefits that come from access to central bank liquidity, but not so high that they succeed only in pushing more capital to the unregulated part of the financial system. Second, we have to improve the capacity of the financial infrastructure to withstand default by a big institution. This will require taking some of the risk out of secured funding markets, increasing resources held against default in the centralised clearing house, and encouraging more standardisation, automation and central clearing in the derivatives markets. Third, the regulatory framework cannot be indifferent to the scale of leverage and risk outside the supervised institutions. I do not believe it would be desirable or feasible to extend capital requirements to leveraged institutiions such as hedge funds. But supervision has to ensure that counterparty credit risk management in the supervised institutions limits the risk of a rise in overall leverage outside the regulated institutions that could threaten the stability of the financial system. And regulatory policy has to induce higher levels of margin and collateral in normal times against derivatives and secured borrowing to cover better the risk of market illiquidity. Fourth, we need to streamline and simplify the US regulatory framework. Our system has evolved into a confusing mix of diffused accountability, regulatory competition and a complex web of rules that create perverse incentives and leave huge opportunities for arbitrage and evasion. The blueprint by Hank Paulson, Treasury secretary, outlines a sweeping consolidation and realignment of responsibilities. The institutions that play a central role in money and funding markets – including the main globally active banks and investment banks – need to operate under a unified framework that provides a stronger form of consolidated supervision, with appropriate requirements for capital and liquidity. To complement this, we need to put in place a stronger framework of oversight authority over the critical parts of the payments system – not just the established payments, clearing and settlements systems, but the infrastructure that underpins the decentralised over-the-counter markets. Because of its primary responsibility for the stability of the overall financial system, the Federal Reserve should play a central role in such a framework, working closely with supervisors in the US and in other countries. At present the Fed has broad responsibility for financial stability not matched by direct authority and the consequences of the actions we have taken in this crisis make it more important that we close that gap. The big central banks should put in place a standing network of currency swaps, collateral policies and account arrangements that would make it easier to mobilise liquidity across borders quickly in a crisis. As we reshape the incentives and constraints for risk-taking in the financial system, we have to recognise that regulation has the potential to make things worse. Regulation can distort incentives in ways that may make the system less safe. One of the strengths of our system is the speed with which we adapt to challenge. It is important that we move quickly to adapt the regulatory system to address the vulnerabilities exposed by this financial crisis. We are beginning the process of building the necessary consensus here and with the other main financial centres. more...
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

This was authored by New York Federal Reserve president Timothy Geithner. It seems to me that international cooperation in business and finance is just another step toward a global economy with a centralized power structure like that which will be necessary to fulfill Bible prophecy such that nobody will be able to buy or sell without participation in this system. Ultimately this will involve the "security" provided through technology so that transactions can be cashless and locked to the individual. The perfect technology for this is Somark's RFID tattoo ink.

"Jim Tucker from the American Free Press speaking on the Alex Jones show today stated that one of his Bilderberg sources revealed to him that the global elite are planning to push forward their cashless society grid agenda with the use of implantable microchips. The implantable microchips would be sold as a way for people to easily move through the militarized control grid that they’ve setup via the bogus terror war. Tucker also mentioned that we would see the media hyping the phony terror war and specifically the phony “white Al-Qaeda terror threat” as a way for them to continue the justification of the enslavement grid. Assuming Tucker’s Bilderberg source is providing accurate information, this agenda that Geithner is pushing in his Financial Times article is right in line with their well documented plans to get rid of cash. The central bankers would need a global regulatory framework for the banking system so they can move closer to a global currency operating in a cashless society." Link

EU foreign policy expected to enter 'new era' EU Observer (April 6, 2008) - The European Parliament is seeking to bolster its role in the bloc's common foreign and security policy (CFSP), with senior MEPs saying it is time for Europe to become a "player and not just a payer" on the world stage. Polish centre-right MEP and head of the foreign affairs committee, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, says that EU foreign is moving "from one era to another" with the new Lisbon Treaty, due to kick in next year. The proposed new EU foreign minister and diplomatic service as well as the possibility for a group of member states to move ahead in defence cooperation mean foreign policy is "one of the most innovative parts of the treaty." The fact that Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, will for the first time be present at the MEPs' annual debate on CFSP on Wednesday (4 June) is in itself a "turning point," said the Pole at a briefing on Tuesday. Euro-deputies will today debate a report that sets out principles for the EU's foreign policy - such as respect for human rights - calls for certain issues to be prioritised and says that the CFSP budget from now until 2013 is "insufficient." "Either we have to beef up foreign policy financially, or we have to rethink whether we really want to be a global player," said Mr Saryusz-Wolski, who next week will travel to Paris to discuss the issue with the incoming French EU presidency. "We ask why is nothing ready, prepared for the events that will happen if the treaty [comes into force], and we haven't had an answer," he said. "We are asking this question also: do you have any hidden reserves? What's your view? How to finance the new set up? No answer."

Democratic oversight

The report also calls for parliament to be given greater democratic oversight over the area, which to date has remained firmly the domain of member states. It suggests that the foreign minister "regularly" appear before MEPs and that the parliament be "fully consulted" on who the foreign minister should be, as well as what the diplomatic service should look like. Deputies are also urging the future EU foreign minister to inform the parliament before any "common actions" are taken. "If we start sending soldiers into danger, it is up to the parliament to give its blessing," says Mr Saryusz-Wolski. The report also takes a more long-term view of the future of common foreign and security policy, with the head of the foreign affairs committee urging the bloc to stop acting like a "fire brigade" rushing to put out emergencies here and there and to think more of the "long-term strategic interests of the Union…20–30 years ahead."

EU army

Mr Saryusz-Wolski, who believes the union will gradually develop its own army, says it is no longer enough that the bloc exercises its traditional role as a soft power. "Too often we spend money without any conditions being attached. I am against Europe being a payer and not a player," he said. But he admits there is a "fear" in the parliament that the foreign minister and the new permanent president of the European Council may add to the trill of voices of on the EU stage all claiming to speak for Europe and may not turn Europe into a player. The potential for overlap between the two posts – starting in January - and for rivalry with the European Commission president is high. Debates on the posts are expected to start in earnest in autumn and be wrapped up by December. In time-honoured EU fashion, balancing who wins the posts will have to involve the consideration of a series of factors, including nationality, whether a candidate comes from an old or new member state or a small or big member state, and the person's political hue.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | Solana | NewWorldOrder |

European HQ heads Sarkozy plan for greater military integration Guardian UK (June 7, 2008) - France has proposed a battery of measures aimed at boosting European military integration - including the EU's first permanent operational headquarters in Brussels for planning military missions abroad - threatening a bruising battle with the British government. The proposals, circulated to European governments in a five-page document detailing Paris's security policy priorities, include common EU funding of military operations, a European fleet of military transport aircraft, European military satellites, a European defence college, and the development of exchange programmes for officers among EU states. Since 2004, the British have resisted the headquarters idea, seeing it as a French ploy to undermine the Nato alliance and boost common European defence by establishing a European rival to Nato's Shape planning headquarters at Mons in Belgium. The prime minister's spokesman said yesterday the British government is committed to Nato remaining the cornerstone of European defence, but also supports permanent structured cooperation on defence within the EU so long as it does not duplicate the work of Nato, or remove the UK veto. The two governments are already negotiating quietly over President Nicolas Sarkozy's defence proposals, sources said, adding that Washington is privately pressing the Brown government to reach a deal with the French. In a speech to Greece's parliament, Sarkozy said the EU must be able to defend itself, but he said: "It is not a case, nor will it ever be a case of competing with Nato. We need both. A Nato and European defence that oppose each other makes no sense." Details of the French proposals, obtained by the Guardian, confirm that Sarkozy is determined to use his six-month EU presidency, starting in three weeks, to drive forward his military agenda for Europe. The French have sought to keep their proposals private for the moment so as not to derail ratification of the EU treaty. Ireland is holding its referendum on the Lisbon treaty next week and British peers are due to vote on whether to demand a similar referendum next Wednesday. The British government insisted the document was a set of preliminary proposals for discussion with the British and Germans, and did not represent French government policy. Most sensitively, Paris is insisting on the new Brussels headquarters coming under the authority of Europe's foreign policy supremo, a post whose powers are considerably boosted under the EU's reform treaty and which is currently held by Javier Solana of Spain. Ultimately, the Brussels headquarters would plan and control EU missions abroad. "Solana thinks we need a more permanent structure in Brussels. There's no doubt about that. The big problem is the Brits," said an EU foreign policy official. more...
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | Solana | NewWorldOrder |

'Undemocratic' EU needs to be tamed Gulf Daily News (June 6, 2008) - The famous 40th anniversary of the May 8, 1968 storming of the Parisian establishment by the revolutionary students came and went like a damp squib. No Daniel Cohn Bendick here. But, in 1968 real issues of freedom were being addressed across Europe. Now it is more sulky objections to Sarkozy's proposal that the students and public sector work a little harder. Hardly a moral imperative to protest in favour of doing nothing. The old joke rings true; 'How many people work in the EU?' 'Oh about 30 per cent says the businessman, the rest are paid by the state'. So they are too feather-bedded to do a "68". The lack of serious protest in the face of increasing undemocratic, bureaucratic controls is strange, As Bill Bryson said 'It is interesting for an American to see the richest countries in Europe enthusiastically ceding their sovereignty to a body that appears to be out of control and answerable to no-one.' And so despite votes by the French and Dutch the amended, but essentially unchanged European constitutional treaty is pushed through by the political and bureaucratic classes. The last chance is down to Ireland, as a referendum cannot be avoided under their constitution. So come on you Irish, show some rebel spirit and save Europe from the new commissarat. May 8, of course, is also officially Victory in Europe Day. Every village had its parade with flags and medals to the War Memorials, with a speech by the mayor followed by aperitifs in the village hall. In Britain, who with its Empire, did most of the fighting, it passed almost unnoticed. A poignant comment on the vibrancy of the two cultures. So France claims the victory for when the Allies liberated them. Good for them. France has shown clever leadership with its unwavering strategy to shape Europe to its interest while Britain has sulked in the corner to its detriment. As Sarkozy made clear when he and Merkel removed their support from Blair's candidacy to be Europe's first president, because Britain is not in the Euro, nor Schengen and invaded Iraq, there are now two classes of European members. Those committed to common policies and integration and those not. Britain needs to face this reality and either move to associate status, like Norway regaining sovereignty but retaining trade access or embrace fully the EU. And influence its policies. This is a major opportunity for the UK Conservative Party, but on my recent visit no-one seemed interested in Europe at all. more...
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder |

France readies for 'heaviest Presidency in EU history' EurActiv (June 2, 2008) - With climate and energy negotiations at the top of France's priorities and a reshuffle of the European institutions in sight for 2009, the French Presidency promises to be "the heaviest in EU history," diplomats say. On 1 July 2008, France takes over the EU's six-month rotating presidency from Slovenia with an exceptionally busy agenda. According to a French diplomat in Brussels, "this presidency is the heaviest one of all the history of the European Union in terms of workload". This, he explained, is because the EU is getting more cumbersome: there are more countries and commissioners than ever before and the Parliament has gained more powers. But it is also because additional factors have accumulated. "For the first time, you have this coincidence of a heavier Union but there is also the end of the political mandate of the Commission and Parliament as well as the end of the [ratification process of] the Lisbon Treaty. You never had all these things together." A series of sensitive dossiers have also piled up, all of which have to be closed by the end of the year. The energy and climate change package, tabled by the European Commission in January, is the first among them. The package includes a proposed revision of the EU's CO2 trading scheme and a new renewable energy directive, two dossiers which involve tough negotiations on how to share the burden of commitments between each EU member state. "Energy and climate change is enough to feed a presidency," the diplomat pointed out. But he added that "there are circumstances which mean the agenda is heavier for political reasons because some things have been delayed." This includes for instance a debate on the future of the Common Agricultural Policy, which the French are keen to help shape under their Presidency. The outcome of the Irish referendum on 12 June will undoubtedly have a considerable impact on the Presidency's schedule. Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, spoke about the issue at the European Policy Centre in Brussels on 26 May. "If the process continues without incident as it has so far today - and our sights are first turning to Ireland - we will have at heart to finish the preparatory work that started under the Slovenian presidency," he said. But what will happen if the Irish reject the treaty? "There is no Plan B", Kouchner answered, echoing the European Commission's official line. In practice, though, a solution will need to be found if the treaty is rejected and EU leaders will have plenty of time to discuss this during a summit on 19-20 June, just days before the start of the French Presidency. And provided all goes well and Ireland ratifies, there will still be a lot to do as the pressure then will fall on preparations for the Treaty's new provisions, which enter into force on 1 January 2009. According to Kouchner, the French Presidency's work there will centre on designating the future permanent president of the Council and the new foreign policy chief, decisions which are all expected to be taken by EU heads of state at a summit in December. Speculation is already rife about the names of the candidates, with names already being circulated (see our LinksDossier on 'Mr. Europe'). But Kouchner recently suggested that there could still be a few surprises and that more candidates could emerge (EurActiv 27/05/08). Questions remain, however, as to how all the new roles will fall into place. According to the agreed schedule, the Treaty should be ratified by the end of 2008 and start applying as of 1 January 2009. This should also apply for the new permanent EU President and foreign policy chief. But when EU leaders meet in December to pick their champion, the outcome of the European elections will still be unknown. more...
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder |

The Rebellion Within The New Yorker (June 2, 2008) - Last May, a fax arrived at the London office of the Arabic newspaper Asharq Al Awsat from a shadowy figure in the radical Islamist movement who went by many names. Born Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, he was the former leader of the Egyptian terrorist group Al Jihad, and known to those in the underground mainly as Dr. Fadl. Members of Al Jihad became part of the original core of Al Qaeda; among them was Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s chief lieutenant. Fadl was one of the first members of Al Qaeda’s top council. Twenty years ago, he wrote two of the most important books in modern Islamist discourse; Al Qaeda used them to indoctrinate recruits and justify killing. Now Fadl was announcing a new book, rejecting Al Qaeda’s violence. “We are prohibited from committing aggression, even if the enemies of Islam do that,” Fadl wrote in his fax, which was sent from Tora Prison, in Egypt. Fadl’s fax confirmed rumors that imprisoned leaders of Al Jihad were part of a trend in which former terrorists renounced violence. His defection posed a terrible threat to the radical Islamists, because he directly challenged their authority. “There is a form of obedience that is greater than the obedience accorded to any leader, namely, obedience to God and His Messenger,” Fadl wrote, claiming that hundreds of Egyptian jihadists from various factions had endorsed his position. Two months after Fadl’s fax appeared, Zawahiri issued a handsomely produced video on behalf of Al Qaeda. “Do they now have fax machines in Egyptian jail cells?” he asked. “I wonder if they’re connected to the same line as the electric-shock machines.” This sarcastic dismissal was perhaps intended to dampen anxiety about Fadl’s manifesto—which was to be published serially, in newspapers in Egypt and Kuwait—among Al Qaeda insiders. Fadl’s previous work, after all, had laid the intellectual foundation for Al Qaeda’s murderous acts. On a recent trip to Cairo, I met with Gamal Sultan, an Islamist writer and a publisher there. He said of Fadl, “Nobody can challenge the legitimacy of this person. His writings could have far-reaching effects not only in Egypt but on leaders outside it.” Usama Ayub, a former member of Egypt’s Islamist community, who is now the director of the Islamic Center in Münster, Germany, told me, “A lot of people base their work on Fadl’s writings, so he’s very important. When Dr. Fadl speaks, everyone should listen.” Although the debate between Fadl and Zawahiri was esoteric and bitterly personal, its ramifications for the West were potentially enormous. Other Islamist organizations had gone through violent phases before deciding that such actions led to a dead end. Was this happening to Al Jihad? Could it happen even to Al Qaeda? ... This August, Al Qaeda will mark its twentieth anniversary. That is a long life for a terrorist group. Most terror organizations disappear with the death of their charismatic leader, and it would be hard to imagine Al Qaeda remaining a coherent entity without Osama bin Laden. The Red Army Faction went out of business when the Berlin Wall came down and it lost its sanctuary in East Germany. The Irish Republican Army, unusually, endured for nearly a century, until economic conditions in Ireland significantly improved, and the leaders were pressured by their own members to reach a political accommodation. When one looks for hopeful parallels for the end of Al Qaeda, it is discouraging to realize that its leadership is intact, its sanctuaries are unthreatened, and the social conditions that gave rise to the movement are largely unchanged. On the other hand, Al Qaeda has nothing to show for its efforts except blood and grief. The organization was constructed from rotten intellectual bits and pieces—false readings of religion and history—cleverly and deviously fitted together to give the appearance of reason. Even if Fadl’s rhetoric strikes some readers as questionable, Al Qaeda’s sophistry is rudely displayed for everyone to see. Although it will likely continue as a terrorist group, who could still take it seriously as a philosophy? more...
| Islam | NewWorldOrder |

This is a long article, but an interesting one. Islamic terrorism is currently a global threat, but will that always be the case? I believe it could be a tool of humanity's spiritual enemy to consolidate further control over the world in the name of peace and security. According to Bible prophecy, the center of power is going to be in the beast from the sea and the future prince of the Romans that destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD. Daniel 9:26,27 So how do we get from the conflict between Islam and the West today to a point of some kind of integration? I believe this will happen and will be the result of the emergence of the 12th Mahdi. I believe this man will unite the Sunni and Shia sects of Islam and "correctly interpret" the prophecies. What I also find interesting is that there is a character in Bible prophecy called the false prophet, who comes out of the earth. According to scripture, this man will direct worship to the man of sin, commonly called the antichrist. Central to the influence of these two men are signs and lying wonders that will accompany them. They will be able to call fire from heaven among other things they will be given power to do when the time comes. I believe the coming together of these two figure to rule the world will be what brings Islam and the West together under the influence of Lucifer.

I would also like to point out that between now and then, I believe the Magog invasion will take place in which Muslim and Muslim-allied armies will attack Israel from the North and God destroys the attackers with fire and brimstone from heaven. It's just a hunch, but I believe the majority of those who are more radical in their beliefs will want to participate and so when God destroys them, those that remain will be somewhat subdued temporarily and those that didn't participate will be more hesitant. I do not believe that violence will be eliminated however. It will just be directed to those that refuse to worship the man of sin and who will be beheaded for that refusal. The difference between now and then will be that the focus of their worship will be present and giving the order to eliminate those that stand in the way of global cooperation under him. I have a feeling that the ratio will be heavy on the side of those who decide to worship and support the man of sin although I pray that is not the case.

Irish referendum could scupper EU treaty Telegraph UK (May 31, 2008) - In 1973, when Ireland joined what is now the European Union, it was the poorest country on the continent. Today, thanks in no small part to £32 billion in EU grants, it is the second richest per capita (after Luxembourg). So the result of a referendum on June 12 on whether to consolidate EU powers by ratifying the Treaty of Lisbon must surely be a foregone conclusion. Think again. Despite every major political party backing the Yes campaign, support for a No vote is growing daily. The most recent poll put the Yes voters at 41 per cent and the No voters at 33 per cent. That sounds like a healthy lead until you discover the Yes campaign was polling well over 50 per cent on the eve of another Irish EU referendum – on the Nice Treaty in 2001 – before the electorate delivered a resounding No. In Brussels, European parliamentarians are twitchy about the future of the EU's 495 million citizens resting in the hands of the one million Irish voters expected to turn out on polling day. Having spent two years rebuilding the Treaty of Lisbon from the scrap parts of the defeated European Constitution, the Eurocrats can only watch as a learner driver takes the wheel of their juggernaut and drives it towards the edge of a cliff. This scenario has arisen because, while all 26 of the other member states have decided to wave through the treaty via their parliaments (the UK included), Ireland alone has a legal obligation under its constitution to put the matter to a public vote. Because the treaty must be passed unanimously by all 27 member states, an Irish No vote would kill it. Earlier this week, the European Commission president, José Manuel Barroso, suggested a No vote would be catastrophic for the EU. "We will all pay a price for it, Ireland included," he said, adding that there was "no plan B" if Ireland exercised its veto. Mr Barroso and his cohorts argue that the treaty represents the next glorious stage in the EU's future, creating a new post of full-time European Council president, streamlining the European Commission and redistributing voting powers. If you don't find these allegedly crucial changes inspiring, you're not alone. And therein lies the fundamental problem for Ireland's Yes campaigners. Try as they might, they have been unable to come up with anything approaching a coherent, inspirational argument for a Yes. Most tellingly of all, the new Irish premier, Brian Cowen, has admitted he hasn't read all of the 287-page treaty, and nor has Ireland's EU Commissioner, Charlie McCreevy, who said no sane person could read it from cover to cover. more...
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder |

If a no vote is made, I have a feeling something else will make this happen because all the future plans and consolidation of power are resting on the creation of a European Constitution, the next step in reviving the Roman Empire leading to the fulfillment of Bible prophecy.

Lisbon Treaty Unlikely to End the WEU Anytime Soon Fulfilled Prophecy (May 26, 2008) - In 2002, Fulfilled Prophecy began reporting on a 10-nation military alliance, called the Western European Union, that appears to match a 10-nation alliance foretold in Bible prophecy. Now, with ratification of the European Union’s Lisbon Treaty underway, some may wonder what effect the treaty, if adopted, will have on the alliance. Guest columnist Mishael Meir answers this question. Although repeated efforts have been made to kill it off, the Western European Union (WEU) lives on as a mutual defense treaty among its 10 permanent members. While the Lisbon Treaty appears to put into place elements that indicate a planned WEU demise, the WEU Ten always manages to survive. To understand what is happening, here’s some helpful background.

The Magic Number ‘10’

The WEU was created in 1954 by the modified Brussels Treaty as a means for Europe to interface with NATO through its own security and defense organization. Any of the 10 permanent members could withdraw after 50 years from the 1948 date of the original treaty or beginning in 1998. None of them has done so. Additionally, all 10 members could choose to terminate the treaty by “denouncing” it. That hasn’t happened either. Since 1998, there have been many calls to terminate the treaty. None has succeeded. Interestingly, in the WEU Council’s Dec. 6, 2000, Reply to Recommendation 666, the Council made clear that the WEU was sticking around, saying:

the collective defence commitment provided for under Article V of the modified Brussels Treaty will remain and there is no intention on the part of its signatories to denounce the Treaty. Source

Beginning in 2001, the European Union absorbed almost all of the WEU’s functions. However, because the modified Brussels Treaty remains in effect, so does the treaty’s mutual defense clause that gave rise to the 10-state military alliance. The WEU’s Council exists only as a formality. It hasn’t convened as a body since November 2000, but the same people now sit within the structure of the EU as its Political and Security Committee, where it exercises “political control and strategic direction” of EU crisis-management operations. The WEU’s arms procurement body has been absorbed into the European Defence Agency, an agency of the EU headed by Javier Solana. In June 2001, Solana, acting in his role as the WEU’s Secretary General, announced that the WEU Ten had capped the number of permanent members at 10, exactly as the prophet Daniel predicted (Daniel 7:24). After all, why continue expanding the WEU when the EU was beginning efforts to replace it internally? The Netherlands apparently agreed. In 2004, on the eve of the draft constitution’s signing, the Dutch tried and failed to get the WEU Ten to terminate the treaty. Other WEU Ten members said no: The modified Brussels Treaty had to stay in place to maintain the binding commitment of mutual defense, given that such a commitment was not contained in the draft constitution. Source

Enter the Lisbon Treaty

After the French and Dutch citizens rejected the constitution in their 2005 referendums, the WEU urged the EU to continue building its security and defense framework using the legal authority of the EU’s existing treaties. The EU opted instead to trot out the constitution again, this time repackaged as the Lisbon Treaty. To ensure its ratification, the heads of state blocked their own citizens from being able to go to the polls, that is, except for the Irish who go to the polls on June 12. All of Europe is holding its breath to see the outcome of this crucial vote. Source So, what happens if the Irish say yes and what happens if they say no? What effect will the Lisbon Treaty have on the WEU if it actually goes into effect? If the Irish vote yes, the Lisbon Treaty, on its face, appears to endorse the continued existence of the WEU. Under Protocol No. 11, the EU and WEU are to make arrangements for enhanced cooperation between them. This is curious considering that the WEU is little more than an empty shell with only its democratic Assembly left. Also, the Lisbon Treaty has something the draft constitution never had: a binding mutual defense provision that embraces all 27 member states. Although that would make the modified Brussels Treaty Article V redundant, the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty would not by itself terminate the modified Brussels Treaty. Only the WEU Ten can do that. Additionally, the Lisbon Treaty contains provisions for “permanent structured cooperation” (PSCoop). It would allow members who meet certain criteria to build their own permanent military framework that the other states could later join, assuming they met the funding and troop level criteria set out in Protocol No. 11. Apparently some EU states have suggested that the WEU Ten would logically form the PSCoop membership. Source If the Lisbon Treaty goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2009, and PSCoop gets underway, look for another call to terminate the modified Brussels Treaty. However, these are very big “ifs.” Even if it plays out as the EU hopes, it may take a long time before the PSCoop club got anything going. In the meantime, the WEU Ten will still exist as a military alliance and they aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. If the Irish veto the Lisbon Treaty, the EU has no Plan B. The treaty will fail just like the draft constitution failed. Be assured the heads of state will arm twist the Irish into another referendum so they can vote until they get it “right.” This is exactly what happened with their no-vote on the Nice Treaty, which the Irish finally ratified at a second referendum.

‘Man of Lawlessness’

What occurs to me in the analysis of EU and WEU treaties is that the antichrist will be a “man of lawlessness” (2 Thessalonians 2:3). Treaties are law and must be followed. The antichrist won’t care what a treaty says. As a pertinent example, consider the transformation of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire. The Roman Republic built the legal foundation for Western civilization, including the checks and balances system for democratic governance. Once Caesar Augustus transformed the Republic into the Roman Empire in 31 B.C., law turned into whatever the caesars said it was, regardless of what had already been established through the democratic Senate and treaties with foreign states. Why a 10-state military alliance in the revived Roman Empire would suddenly hand the antichrist power can be explained under an endless number of scenarios. One is this. What if disaster happens while the EU is wrangling treaties and the only existing alliance is the WEU Ten? We all know who loves chaos and confusion, and it sure isn’t our God! (See 1 Corinthians 14:33). As Herb would say, “stay tuned.”
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder |

Spain to run America's 1st superhighway? WorldNet Daily (May 19, 2008) - Stretching through the rural countryside with limited access and no speed limit in 1940, the Pennsylvania Turnpike was built to resemble Germany's autobahn. Now thanks to a $12.8 billion dollar offer, it may soon become Spain's. According to a report in the Philadelphia Daily News, Gov. Ed Rendell has announced that Abertis Infraestructuras of Barcelona has offered the top dollar bid to the state of Pennsylvania for the rights to manage the toll road under a 75-year lease. The highway could become just the latest in a string of U.S. infrastructure landmarks to be operated by foreign companies. In 2004, management of the Chicago Skyway, a stretch of elevated road connecting I-90 and I-94, was granted to Cintra, another Spanish operation that outbid Abertis at $1.83 billion. Abertis lost out to Cintra again when the Indiana Toll Road was taken over in 2006 for $3.8 billion. This time, Abertis beat out Cintra and other firms, hoping to add the Pennsylvania Turnpike to its list of operations including toll roads in Spain, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Chile, Colombia and Argentina. Abertis also operates airports, including the airports in Orlando, Fla.; Burbank, Calif.; and one concourse of the Atlanta airport. Even though the controversial Dubai ports deal was squashed by public outcry in 2006, foreign firms have nonetheless purchased long-term leases on other American transportation networks. The Chicago Skyway is tied up for 99 years. The Indiana Toll Road is leased for 75. As WND reported earlier this year, Chicago is seeking a more than 50-year lease on Midway Airport. Among the potential suitors for Midway are 6 international firms, including Abertis. The leases are being made possible through an increasingly common practice of establishing "public-private partnerships" (PPP's), contracts between public agencies and private entities that enable private sector participation in public transportation. Many of the PPP's implemented in the U.S. bring large up-front cash infusions. In both the proposed Midway and Pennsylvania Turnpike offers, the billions in cash are touted as a quick solution to shoring up under-funded government employee pension funds. Many, however, see an imminent threat in turning over U.S. infrastructure to foreign companies. "The USA is up for sale," an attendee of a conference in Colorado to discuss PPPs told WND. "Whatever the public now owns – roads, ports, waste management water systems, rail lines, public parking facilities, airports, even lotteries and sports stadiums – are up for grabs and the only requirement is that the foreigners have the cash." Even William Capone, the director of communications for the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, told WND in a telephone interview earlier this year, "We don't favor turning the Pennsylvania Turnpike into a private entity through a PPP lease. If we keep the Pennsylvania Turnpike in the hands of a public entity, we believe we can actually invest more dollars into roads than a private corporation could do." The proposal still has to go through the Pennsylvania legislature, a decision that is likely to be hotly contested. Many in the capital are hoping Act 44, a law passed by the state legislature in 2007 to make I-80 a toll road as well, will stem the financial crisis and deflate the impetus for accepting the Turnpike proposal. According to the newspaper report, the toll road plan with Abertis allows the newcomer to raise tolls 25 percent year and 2.5 percent or the rate of inflation every year after that. more...
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America |

Population Control and a World Food Authority Reshaping the International Order Part 5 Knowledge Driven Revolution (May 5, 2008) -

"... it is of utmost importance that an equilibrium be established between the world's total population and the capacity of 'spaceship earth'..." - RIO: Reshaping the International Order, 1976 (p124)

The establishment of a World Food Authority to control the food supply of the world is a major goal of The Club of Rome's RIO report. This issue is intertwined with exaggerated fears of environmental collapse and the elite's obsession with population control.

The Environmental Scare From RIO: Reshaping the International Order: [Italicised text is original emphasis and bolded text is added by author.]

"History has frequently shown that people, in times of crisis and once convinced of the necessity for change, are prepared to accept policies which demand changes in their behaviour so as to help secure better lives for themselves and their children." - 110

The threat of environmental catastrophe to further the population control agenda is nothing new and continues to this day with the manmade global warming scare. Back in the 1970's the Club of Rome was not shy at using the environmental catastrophe card to push for population control. Below are some examples from RIO: Reshaping the International Order:

"Moreover, it has been estimated that by 1985 all land surfaces, except those so cold or at such high altitudes as to be incompatible with human habitation or exploration, will have been occupied and utilized by man." - 89

"Although not yet proven, climatologists are being forced to conclude that our planet has in recent times passed through a period which may well have been optimal as far as food production is concerned. They believe that future decades may well be characterized by extremes - hot and cold, wet and dry - without necessarily a change in average temperature. (4)" - 90

The endnote used to back up this claim is given below:

"(4) There is certainly sufficient evidence for this concern: the Asian monsoons were unsatisfactory for three successive years between 1972-1974; severe droughts in the Sahel and other parts of Africa and the Great Plains area of the United States and Canada in 1974; an unexpected late frost in Brazil in 1975 which may have destroyed as much as 60 per cent of its 1976 coffee crop. The growing season of the best grain producing areas in the Soviet Union is now believed to [be] about a week shorter than it was in the 1950's; an even more pronounced shift appears to have taken place in the United Kingdom." - 97

Do these types of arguments sound familiar?

"Much effort has been made in the past ten years, in some industrialized countries, to bring the disadvantage facing many Third World countries to the attention of large numbers of people. If it has met with only limited success, it is probably because it has failed to bring out the concept of interdependence of countries and issues. More attention must in future be focused on information and education on how our planet functions and on the 'survival fact' that the claim of the whole is wider and deeper than the claim of any of its parts. There is also a fundamental need to develop a broadly educated political class which is capable of understanding science and the broad implications, possibilities and dangers of technological advance, and which can harness technological advance for constructive social purposes." - 111

Population Control and The World Food Authority

"... these threats [of food shortage] might well be exacerbated by increasing population pressures and deteriorating climatological conditions." - 135

"Population control policies carry the important indirect consequence of restricting the supply of unskilled labour, thereby raising its price." - 73

"If the world is to be liberated from the continual nightmares of hunger and malnutrition, these and the various measures proposed by the FAO [Food and Agricultural Organization] Worlds Food Conference should be implemented to the full and call for the creation of the World Food Authority, with extensive and real powers; or, as a second best, the World Food Council proposed by the World Food Conference." - 138

"internationally owned and internationally managed [food] buffer stocks..." - 226

"the question of introducing meat rationing should be seriously considered [for developed countries]." - 227

Food as a Weapon

The incredible power that would be accomplished from a massive concentration of food stocks under the control of a single agency did not escape the authors of this report to the Club of Rome. The reigning food situation in the world was dominated by the great dependence of many countries on the North American breadbasket. This gave the Americans a considerable amount of power over their dependent countries.

"the American Secretary for Agriculture who has observed: "Food is a weapon. It is one of the principal tools in our negotiating kit" " - 29

The further centralization of food stocks under a single international power would only increase the abuse of food supplies not decrease it. This, quite naturally, is the point. The result of this control is well described by Bertrand Russell (who strongly supported this idea) in his 1952 book The Impact of Science of Society [2]:

"To deal with this problem [increasing population and decreasing food supplies] it will be necessary to find ways of preventing an increase in world population. If this is to be done otherwise than by wars, pestilence, and famines, it will demand a powerful international authority. This authority should deal out the world's food to the various nations in proportion to their population at the time of the establishment of the authority. If any nation subsequently increased its population it should not on that account receive any more food. The motive for not increasing population would therefore be very compelling. What method of preventing an increase might be preferred should be left to each state to decide." - 124

Conclusion

The final article in this series deals with a variety of issues including global solidarity, regional unions, legal changes and a standing United Nations Peace Force.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America |

UN-American WorldNet Daily (May 5, 2008) - On the last day of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, as Benjamin Franklin was leaving Independence Hall, a lady asked him, "Well, doctor, what have we got?" Franklin pointedly responded, "A republic, if you can keep it." James Madison, chief architect of the Constitution, defined a "republic" to be "a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices ... for a limited period, or during good behavior." In other words, in our constitutional republic, the people possess the power to govern themselves by laws they enact through elected representatives. Today, the most serious threat to our nation's sovereignty and the republican form of government we cherish is the United Nations and other international organizations that work through ill-advised treaties and irresponsible bureaucrats to usurp the power of the American people to govern themselves. Unfortunately, more than a few politicians in our country are willing to cede power to foreign control. One of those powers is the right to control the oceans and seas. The president's proposed budget for 2009 includes a request for nearly $5 million to support the International Seabed Authority, an international tribunal established by the Law of the Sea Treaty. For years this treaty has been rejected by the U.S. Senate because it would take power away from the U.S. government and give an unfair advantage to countries like China, which uses the treaty's vague language to make claims about the waterways it controls far beyond its proper jurisdiction. This treaty would also impose a global tax on U.S. companies if ratified by the Senate. The presumptive Republican nominee for president, Sen. John McCain, wrote a letter in 1998 to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in favor of the Law of the Sea Treaty. As late as 2003, McCain submitted written testimony to the committee in favor of the treaty. But since seeking the Republican presidential nomination, McCain has been telling conservatives that he will "probably" vote against the treaty because its terms negatively affect U.S. sovereignty. Other politicians want the U.S. to fund welfare programs for the rest of the world. The leading Democratic candidate for president, Sen. Barack Obama, is presently sponsoring S.B. 2433: the Global Poverty Act of 2007. This bill would sanction spending as much as $845 billion in taxpayer money to reduce global poverty to meet the "U.N. Millennium Summit Goals." In addition to calling for a reduction in global poverty through unconstitutional foreign aid, the Millennium Summit Goals urge nations to sign many other dangerous treaties like the Kyoto Protocol and the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child – both of which the Senate has rejected for many years. The Kyoto Protocol sets limits on the amount of "greenhouse gases" that nations can emit while specifically excluding countries like China that it categorizes as "developing nations." It also subjects participating nations to penalties for exceeding those limits. Japan, Italy and Spain face penalties totaling over $33 billion for failing to meet their obligations under Kyoto. Each of those countries admits that the cost will be covered by taxpayers and businesses. Thus, joining Kyoto would subject the American people and U.S. businesses to a global tax. As for Obama's rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton, her husband formally signed the Kyoto Protocol on Nov. 12, 1998, at a global conference in Buenos Aires. In February 2005, Sen. Clinton gave a speech on the "Future Role of the United Nations" in which she openly supported then-Secretary General Kofi Annan and the U.N.'s Millennium Summit Goals. Clinton has also long supported the adoption of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child even though the treaty would wreak havoc on parental rights. One thing all the leading presidential candidates for both major parties support is continued financial aid to the U.N. despite its dismal record of fraud and mismanagement. An audit last month discovered that the U.N. has wasted tens of millions of dollars in its "peacekeeping operations" in Sudan. Last year, a task force uncovered "multiple instances of fraud, corruption, waste and mismanagement at U.N. headquarters and peacekeeping missions ... with an aggregate value in excess of $610 million." A series of audits from 1996 to 2003 revealed "gross mismanagement" in the U.N.'s $100 billion oil-for-food program in Iraq. Yet, Clinton in her speech about the future role of the U.N. stated that she "deplored" Americans "who have sought to weaken, undermine and underfund the U.N." Actually, given the corruption and mismanagement of the U.N., monetary support for the U.N. is un-American. The obstinate support of the U.N. and continual reliance on treaties with foreign powers to solve our problems is reminiscent of the time when ancient Israel depended upon Egypt instead of the Lord for its protection. Isaiah prophesied:

Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help; and stay on horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many; and in horsemen, because they are very strong; but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek the Lord! ... Now the Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh, and not spirit. When the Lord shall stretch out his hand, both he that helpeth shall fall, and he that is holpen [helped] shall fall down, and they all shall fail together.

The leading presidential candidates have repeated Israel's mistake: They are looking to other nations for guidance and have failed to seek guidance from God – the one upon Whom our nation was founded and our ultimate security depends. In the process, "We the People" are losing our right to self-determination and representative government through the encroaching influence of the international community. George Washington declared in his First Inaugural Address that "the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, and finally staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people." If the American experiment fails, republican government falls with it. We must call on our leaders to fight for America and to rely upon God.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America |

UNfortunately for us, the political leadership believes that uniting the world together is the best thing we can do. And indeed it sounds good on the surface. However we must also remember that there is a war in heaven about to be waged and what is set up here on earth will be taken over by those that fell from heaven and used to control the earth as prophesied. Of course to those who don't believe and rather trust only in man's works look to this as foolishness, but time will prove the Bible's foretelling of the end. Can we affect change in the course that is set? I don't think so, the more I learn the further along I see we are than I previously believed.

Getting people to open their eyes seems to be the hardest thing, I don't necessarily want to believe all this either, but I'm also not going to stick my head in the sand. I think we should focus on reaching the individuals around us with the Truth of the Gospel when we can. Learning what I have, I have too much faith in God's Word coming to pass to think we can change what is set for the appointed times. Let us rather be aware and speak the Truth in love.  For those in Christ, our kingdom is not of this world.

John 18:35-37
Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

The Bible foretells of Christ's kingdom that will come after a time of great tribulation when the man of sin is given power by Lucifer to come against those who hold the testimony of Christ. It is after this time that He will return to set up His eternal kingdom. From now until the time of great tribulation begins...

Matthew 24:10-21
And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Reshaping Public Opinion and the White Coated Propagandists Reshaping the International Order Part 4 Knowledge Driven Revolution (April 28, 2008) -

"Atomic and political scientists from Harvard University and MIT meeting in November 1975 concluded that an atomic war will certainly occur before the year 2000. This, they believed, could only be prevented by the decision of all nation-states to surrender their sovereignty to an authoritarian world government, a possibility they viewed as unlikely." - RIO: Reshaping the International Order, 1976 (p46)

Public opinion is not generated by the public it is driven into them by marketing and propaganda. One of the main aspects of generating public opinion is the use of experts or specialists to tell the public what to think and give them a false sense of security derived from the belief that there are armies of experts making all of the difficult decisions for them. What if the legions of experts are just white coated propagandists?

Importance of Public Opinion

Any attempt at creating a new international order requires the reshaping of public opinion from their current modes of thought into newer more appropriate forms. This important detail was not overlooked by The Club of Rome. From RIO: Reshaping the International Order: [Italicised text is original emphasis and bolded text is added by author.]

"The possibility of implementing ideas of a new power structure would, in democratic societies, necessitate the acceptance of such ideas by wide sections of public opinion. It is of paramount importance, therefore, that new ways and means be found to establish, within industrialized countries, contacts between formal and informal groups of concerned citizens, scientists and politicians..." - 109

"Political feasibility. Crucially important especially during the early phases of the transformation of the existing order..." - 101

"Development implies a constant destruction of sociological and psychological structures. The real problem of development is cleverly to balance positive and real improvements with severe destructions... It is the responsibility of every nation to make its own choice between economic progress and socio-psych structure destructions, and to define its own fundamental objectives for real development, which is the development of man as a totality and of the totality of men." - (Part of RIO member Maurice Guernier's position statement) - 321

"The satisfaction of needs implies that each person available for and willing to work should have an adequately remunerated job... Education is the most important non-material component for fulfilling individual ambitions... At a higher level, education not only contributes directly to individual satisfaction by developing that individual's spiritual endowment, but also indirectly by preparing the individual, mentally as well as morally, for a future role in a changing world..." - 64

Reshaping Public Opinion

Public opinion is not generated from the public, but rather given to them from politicians, experts, fiction, news media, etc.

"Public opinion is no phenomenon sui generic. It is in part the result of government policies and by definition politicians cannot hide behind their own creation. If some sectors of public opinion in the industrialized countries are immersed in the rhetoric and slogans associated with misunderstanding, then much of this may be inherited from their political leaders. And if these leaders are in part responsible for a situation which impedes acceptance of the need for change, then they themselves must be held responsible for changing this situation." - 110

No Technocracy, Just White Coated Propagandists

"One of our main weapons in this search is the vast arsenal of scientists we are potentially able to deploy. To fully utilize this resource, we must deliberately choose to focus investigation in directions we believe to be really relevant." - 107

"In political process too, the search for 'new combinations' can be expected to produce valuable results. Such a search is likely to demonstrate the responsibilities which scientists and other specialists have, not only to their nations, but also to the constituency of mankind. In the past, specialists have often been reluctant to engage in political debate or to share their knowledge and fears with the general public. Given social dilemmas, they have often preferred to adopt neutral rather than value positions, to tacitly advise rather than openly advocate. This generalization no longer holds true. In many branches of science there are radical movements. Increasingly, both in the rich and poor worlds, scientists are involved in active advocacy which they see as an intellectual and ethical duty.

These observations suggest that specialists be provided with greater opportunities to participate in the making of decisions in areas of vital importance to the future of mankind This is not to suggest the creation of a technocracy nor that political will can ever be substituted by scientific expertise... Specialists must serve as 'advocates of the unborn' and the expansion of their role can be viewed as an example of functional representation in international decision-making.

Not only must specialists advocate courses of action in international fora, they must also more fully commit themselves to development efforts at the local level. Their commitment must be total, their allegiance to a problem or community unstinting. Experts operating through bilateral and multilateral channels have not always meet these requirements. The 'new expert', in actively promoting local self-reliant development, may need to subordinate his own values even his knowledge, to those of the community he is attempting to serve. We have seen the rise of 'barefoot doctors'; we must encourage the rise of 'barefoot experts'." - 108

The above quote clearly states that the "new experts" should form a league of white coated propagandists willing to subordinate their knowledge (the only thing they have to offer) to a desired political agenda. It should also be noted the use of the term "functional representation". This is significant because the Club of Rome redefines sovereignty from what they call "territorial sovereignty" to "functional sovereignty" completely changing the meaning of sovereignty. More on the redefinition of sovereignty here.

Using Other Groups

"The most important options for organizing institutions lie in three main areas. The first relates to the way in which the means of operating society are grouped into bunches which can appropriately be handled by one institution. From the viewpoint of efficiency, the most suitable approach would be to group together those means requiring similar techniques of control. The second option concerns the various levels of decision-making and the hierarchy corresponding to it. This important structural consideration applies to single institutions as well as to the relationship between persons and between institutions. ... Third... Membership should not be limited to national governments; it should also embrace non-governmental organizations of many kinds operating at different levels." - 101

"Whereas national public opinion may exist in the singular, internationally it exists in the plural... Groups of many different kinds, both in and outside the production process - students, trade unions, scientists - from both the Third World and the industrialized countries should join forces in their attempts to shape public and political opinion. The aim here must be the internationalization of attempts at 'conscience-raising'. There would appear to be tremendous scope for a range of non-governmental organizations in this field and for cooperation among them." - 111

"... a conscious attempt must be made to organize intellectual and political lobbies to re-educate international public and political opinion." - 177

"Convincing Public and Political Opinion: Coordinated and intensified effort should be made, particularly in industrialized countries, to publicize the need to create an international social and economic order which is perceived as more equitable by all peoples. ... The primary task of many non-governmental organizations must be to undertake the effort suggested." - 122

The Ministry of Third World Truth

The Club of Rome proposes the creation of a Ministry of Third World Truth to help shape international public opinion.

"Such reform [of news media] should include the creation of a Third World information centre to specifically serve Third World needs and to facilitate the dissemination of information on the Third World, both in industrialized and Third World countries." - 111

Conclusion

The creation of a World Food Authority and its use for population control is examined in part 5. The final article in this series deals with a variety of issues including global solidarity, regional unions, legal changes and a standing United Nations Peace Force.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America |

Global Paradigm Shift: From Free Market Capitalism to State Controlled Socialism McAlvany Weekly Commentary (April 30, 2008)

While listening to this audio, keep in mind that according to Bible prophecy, there will be a global cashless economic system. One of the precursors to that, according to some interpretation of scripture, is an economic and food crisis, the third seal, which could lead to the implementation of a new financial system.

| NewWorldOrder | Economic Crisis |

Euro dives as wheels fly off eurozone economy Telegraph UK (April 26, 2008) - The euro has suffered its sharpest drop in four years as a blizzard of weak data from Germany, Belgium, France, and Spain spark fears that economic contagion may be spreading from the Anglo-Saxon world to Europe. Spain's business federation warned that Spanish unemployment will rise by 500,000 by the summer unless the government takes "valiant measures" to offset the housing and construction crash. "For every dwelling not built, two workers will lose their jobs," said the group's president, Gerardo Diaz Ferran. The country's credit group ASNEF said the volume of personal loans had dropped 30pc in the first quarter, the worst performance since the country's financial crisis in the early 1990s. Troubling data in Spain has been building for months, but investors have tended to focus on Germany as a proxy for the whole eurozone. A shock drop in Germany's IFO business confidence index yesterday caused an abrupt change of mood in the currency markets. The euro plunged to $1.5646 against the dollar, down from its all-time peak of $1.6018 on Tuesday. It is still 27pc above its level two years ago. The German data follows a slide in the Belgian index, which captures crucial port activity in Antwerp. The headline confidence figure fell to -7.4 in April from plus 1.2 in March, with a dramatic slump in the export order books to -14. This is flashing near-recession warnings. David Owen, an economist at Dresdner Kleinwort, said Europe would soon be engulfed by the twin effects of a "collapse in export volumes" and a slow motion credit squeeze. "The wheels are coming off the eurozone economy," he said. BNP Paribas warned clients yesterday that the "decoupling story" was no longer credible. "We see Europe in the early stage of a credit crunch, and if we are right credit supply will shut down," it said. Key governors of the European Central Bank began to back away from their hawkish stance of recent weeks, clearly disturbed by the market perception that they are mulling a rate rise to choke off price rises. Inflation has reached a post-EMU high of 3.6pc on surging oil and food costs. Jean-Claude Trichet, ECB president, went out of his way yesterday to brief journalists that "sharp" currency moves had "possible implications for financial and economic stability", a coded threat of co-ordinated intervention by world central banks. more...
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | Economic Crisis |

Keep in mind that while Europe is the center of power in Bible prophecy, there is going to be a new global economic system that I believe will replace paper money with electronic money linked through technology to RFID that will require a mark to buy or sell. The world central banks seem to be the ones with the power to bail out anyone and they are some of the greatest proponents of a global governance scheme. I think its a matter of time before this comes about and if the timing I've come across is accurate it could be within a year. Is that possible? Given the events that are coming about, it just may be but I'm still watching too.

On St George's Day, EU wipes England off map Telegraph UK (April 24, 2008) - England has been wiped off a map of Europe drawn up by Brussels bureaucrats as part of a scheme that the Tories claim threatens to undermine the country's national identity. The new European plan splits England into three zones that are joined with areas in other countries. The "Manche" region covers part of southern England and northern France while the Atlantic region includes western parts of England, Portugal, Spain and Wales. The North Sea region includes eastern England, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and parts of Germany. A copy of the map, which makes no reference to England or Britain, has even renamed the English Channel the "Channel Sea". Each zone will have a "transnational regional assembly", although they will not have extensive powers. However, the zones are regarded as symbolically important by other countries. German ministers claimed that the plan was about "underlying the goal of a united Europe" to "permanently overcome old borders" at a time when the "Constitution for Europe needs to regain momentum". The Tories are drawing attention to the plan today, St George's Day. Eric Pickles, the shadow secretary of state for communities and local government, said: "We already knew that Gordon Brown had hoisted the white flag of surrender to the European constitution. "Now the Labour government has been caught red-handed, conspiring with European bureaucrats to create a European super-state via the back door." The disclosure of the European map comes as a YouGov poll commissioned by The Daily Telegraph showed that one third of people want England to have its own parliament. Twenty per cent want England to be an independent country and for Britain to be broken up.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder |

MEPs to use budget power over EU president perks EU Observer (April 22, 2008) - Members of the European Parliament are prepared to use their hold over the bloc's purse-strings to try and make sure that the proposed new EU president does not wield too much power. "The treaty is very clear about the duties [of the president]," the head of the parliament's budget committee, Reimer Boege, told EUobserver, noting that it says the person can have an administrative role, "but not take over an executive function." "Budget power is always used as a weapon. This is a principle," said the centre-right German MEP. The parliament, wary of upsetting the fine balance of power between the EU institutions, will have a chance to use this weapon when it comes to negotiations later this year on the 2009 budget. Mr Boege said that MEPs will looking out to see that if any extra perks for the president – a private plane and a residence are rumoured to be under consideration – would be "linked to lowering the communitarian level in the treaty", meaning reducing the power of the European commission and boosting inter-governmental politics. The MEP urged member states who are due to deliver a draft budget to the parliament before the summer to show a "flexible and responsible approach" and indicated that euro-deputies would be inclined to accept a staff set-up for the president that does not exceed that of the immediate staff of the European commission president (around 20). The first reading of the budget is due in October, but MEPs are already fretting about the institutional implications of the Lisbon Treaty, which is supposed to come into force by the beginning of next year. Earlier this month, senior MEPs, including parliament President Hans-Gert Poettering, met European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso to raise certain points about the treaty, particularly concerning the remit of the proposed president. The treaty foresees a purely administrative role for the President of the European Council – the formal title of the post - organising the meetings of EU leaders. However, there is the potential for external representation overlap with the foreign minister and the commission president, while the role is also set to be defined by the person who gets the job. A powerful EU president that is neither subject to parliamentary control nor elected by citizens "would lead us to a pre-democratic situation," German centre-right MEP Elmar Brok told the constitutional affairs committee earlier this month. more...
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder |

"Functional" Sovereignty and the Common Heritage of Mankind Reshaping the International Order Part 3 Knowledge Driven Revolution (April 21, 2008) -

"The achievement of this global planning and management system calls for the conscious transfer of power - a gradual transfer to be sure - from the nation State to the world organization. Only when this transfer takes place can the organization become effective and purposeful." - RIO: Reshaping the International Order, 1976 (p185)

This article addresses the redefinition of sovereignty from "territorial sovereignty" to "functional sovereignty" by The Club of Rome. Also discussed is the use of the concept of the "common heritage of mankind" to gain international control of not just the oceans, atmosphere and outer space but also all material and non-material resources. Part 1 of this series gives an overview of the proposed new international order described by the RIO report as "humanistic socialism". This includes: collective neighbourhood armies, a fully planned world economy, global free trade, public international enterprises, proposed changes in consumption patterns among other topics. Changes to the financial system including international taxation and the creation of a World Treasury, World Central Bank and World Currency are examined in part 2.

Territorial Sovereignty versus Functional Sovereignty From RIO: Reshaping the International Order: [Italicised text is original emphasis and bolded text is added by author.]

"Given the growing list of problems confronting mankind, every effort must be made to stimulate processes which point in directions which can be deemed desirable. This would certainly apply, for example, to the tendency towards the increasing centralization of decision-making involving issues beyond national frontiers should be viewed as a logical continuation of the process of change and a precondition for the effective assertion of national sovereignty." - 103

The "increasing centralization of [international] decision-making" being a "precondition for the effective assertion of national sovereignty" may seem contradictory. The reason for this misunderstanding is your definition of sovereignty is based on an apparently outdated "territorial sovereignty" instead of the much more modern and politically correct "functional sovereignty".

"In other words, the traditional concept of territorial sovereignty should be replaced by the concept of functional sovereignty, which distinguishes jurisdiction over specific uses from sovereignty over geographic space. This would permit the interweaving of national jurisdiction and international competences within the same territorial space and open the possibility of applying the concept of the common heritage of mankind both beyond and within the limits of national jurisdiction."- 172

That is right, "sovereignty" no longer involves governmental control within a geographic space, rather it refers to governmental control of specific functions within a geographic space. Which functions would depend on the dictates of a world authority.

"Acceptance of these elements calls for a reinterpretation of the concept of national sovereignty. Participation and social control suggest a functional rather than a territorial interpretation of sovereignty, or jurisdiction over determined uses rather than geographical space. Conceptually, this interpretation will make possible the progressive internationalization and socialization of all world resources - material and non-material - based upon the 'common heritage of mankind' principle. It also permits the secure accommodation of inclusive and exclusive uses of these resources, or, in other words, the interweaving of national and international jurisdiction within the same territorial space... Ultimately, we must air for decentralized sovereignty with the network of strong international institutions which will make it possible." - 82

Common Heritage of Mankind as "Functional Ownership"

"... the new concepts of functional sovereignty and functional ownership (common heritage of mankind)." - 314

"The [Communist Yugoslavian] concept of social ownership and its attributes are clearly applicable to the 'common heritage' concept." - 81

"Effective planning and management calls for the fundamental restructuring of the United Nations so as to give it broad economic powers and a more decisive mandate for international economic decision-making... It is also hoped that major changes in the United Nations structure will be made over the next decade so that it is not only able to play a more forceful role in world political affairs but it is also able to become more of a World Development Authority in managing the socio-economic affairs of the international community. ... The most effective way of articulating the planning and management functions of this organization would be through a functional confederation of international organizations, based upon existing, restructured and, in some instances, new United Nations agencies - to be linked through an integrative machinery. This system and its machinery, if it is really to reflect interdependencies between nations and solidarity between peoples, should ultimately aim at the pooling and sharing of all resources, material and non-material, including means of production, with a view to ensuring effective planning and management of the world economy and of global resource use in a way which would meet the essential objectives of equity and efficiency." - 185

"In the long term, and assuming progress towards the creation of an equitable international economic and social order leading to a pooling of material and non-material resources, mineral resources will need to be viewed as a common heritage of mankind. This concept implies both a real world market for all mineral resources and a system of world taxation to replace national mining taxation. The revenues collected should be redistributed among Third World countries - possibly through such an agency as IDA [International Development Association - World Bank group]...

This tax could, for instance, be introduced as one of a moderate rate and gradually be raised to something in the order of 70 per cent of profits on fossil fuels and 50 per cent of the value of production of ores (including uranium).

Such a tax would, like the present taxes on oil products, in fact be paid by the consumers...

Such a tax, at the rates proposed, would probably induce consumers to restrict their consumption of mineral raw materials..." - 148

This concept includes the manipulation of the Third World "national liberation" movements in the post colonial era. These are only stepping stones toward "functional sovereignty".

"[Third World territorial sovereignty] is a weapon which must be used in the struggle for a new international order." - 247

"After the exercise of national sovereignty by Third World countries over their national resources has helped to establish more equality between mineral producing and consuming countries, a switch to the concept of the 'common heritage of mankind' is recommended and a gradual transformation of the principle of territorial sovereignty into functional sovereignty. This must be viewed as the most desirable approach to the world management of national and other resources, material and non-material." - 150

"Sovereignty and the Common Heritage of Mankind... the first objective to be achieved is the attainment by Third World countries of full sovereignty over their resources in compliance with the UNCERDS [United Nations Charter of the Economic Rights and Duties of States]. Only after this objective has been achieved can the concept of the common heritage of mankind, traditionally limited to resources considered as res nullius such as the oceans and outer space, be expanded to new domains such as mineral resources, science and technology, means of production and other sources of wealth. After the exercise of national sovereignty has contributed toward the creation of a more equitable international order, the aim should be to pool all world resources - material and non-material - with a view to ensuring effective planning and management of the world economy and of global resource use in a way which would meet the dual objectives of equity and efficiency. In this perspective resources would need to be managed on the basis of decentralized planetary sovereignty. Proposals contained in the following chapters for the application of the common heritage concept to particular fields should thus be viewed in this broader context." - 123

Remember when you hear the term "Common Heritage of Mankind" it does not just refer to the oceans, atmosphere and outer space, it refers to all material and non-material resources. Anything that might be considered a source of wealth would be brought under strict international authority. Keep in mind non-material resources includes, among other things, the education of "human resources". more...
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America |

Boy this brings to mind the article from the last newsletter: Minerals: Crumbling Bedrock of U.S. Security.

Defining a better Mediterranean union The Daily Star (April 21, 2008) - Next July 13, in Paris, Europe will better define the Union for the Mediterranean (UM), its latest venture in the Middle East. Initially proposed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the idea has undergone radical transformation, so that the current incarnation bears little resemblance to the initial proposal. The shape of the UM will only be clear once the July summit is over, but as things now stand, the union holds many challenges, but also some promise, for the Middle East. The original idea, floated during Sarkozy's presidential campaign, was highly nebulous. Seen as a means of rebuilding France's role in the Middle East, the plan was also a way for Sarkozy to appeal to voters of North African origin. Initially, it involved the 10 Mediterranean states and only the southern states of the European Union. However, Germany, fearing the creation of a power block within the EU, vociferously objected. Chancellor Angela Merkel slammed the plan as "very dangerous," arguing it would release "explosive forces in the EU that I would not like to see." As a result of German lobbying, the UM idea has since been watered down. Whereas initially the union was to be independent of existing EU instruments, such as the Barcelona Process and the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP), it has now been reconfigured, as Hans-Gert Pottering, the president of the European Parliament, has described it, to "strengthen and further the Barcelona Process." The UM is now attached to the EU and involves all 27 member states. Additional EU funds will not be forthcoming, although it is rumored that Qatar and private donors will be contributing money. The UM, however, does still maintain its project-specific nature, with an opt-out clause for those states who do not wish to take part in the projects being offered, which currently center on energy, pollution, and civil security cooperation issues. But even the new, expanded project is drawing a fair amount of flak. As one commentator noted, the involvement of the 27 EU states may lead to a danger of "too many meetings, with too many participants that achieve too little." Such concerns compound fears of duplication and an expansion of an already overly bureaucratic European system, unless extreme care is taken in overseeing the linkage with the ENP. Pessimists point to other potential stumbling blocks - primarily the acrimonious relations between the Middle Eastern partners in the UM. Chief among these worries is the simmering Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but hostile Syrian-Lebanese relations and Moroccan-Algerian tensions are also predicted to place limits on what the UM can realistically achieve. Supporters, however, liken this to the EU model, whereby shared interests might generate conflict resolution, with French Minister for European Affairs Henri Guaino arguing that "it's through concrete cooperation ... that we can create solidarity between nations." As observers have noted, most of the areas marked for projects have been those where collaboration has taken place under the Barcelona Process. Closer regional relations, therefore, will have to result not from a novel approach, but from revived association - a question of degree, not content. Yet if Guaino's argument is correct, then the UM might do more than enable Israeli-Palestinian cooperation. Collaboration on various projects may also provide a helpful platform in aiding rapprochement in North Africa, vital in light of rising violence by Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. Another point of criticism is the lack of clarity regarding the relationship of the UM with the EU's political basket - namely the need to enhance democracy and rule of law in the Middle East. So far, the UM appears focused on business-oriented initiatives, leading human rights activists to fear the sidelining of democracy and rule of law requirements within the framework of the EU's relationship with the Mediterranean states. Yet the silence over governance issues can cut both ways. For the Arab counterparts, it's a welcome relief. Combined with the shared presidency of the UM (one European country will hold the post together with a Mediterranean country), this could go some way toward addressing regional resentment of the Barcelona Process and the ENP - viewed by many as unfairly weighed in favor of the EU. Redressing this imbalance will enable a sense of appropriation by the Mediterranean counterparts, providing for more enthusiastic European-Middle East relations. more...
| Islam | EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder |

North American Union: PR Was Focus of Recent Secret Meeting of the SPP Natural News (April 19, 2008) - An internal memo from Canada's Foreign Affairs and Internal Trade ministry, obtained by World Net News under the Access to Information Act, documents the agenda at the most recent secret summit meeting of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) in Montebello, Quebec, held on August 20-21, 2007. The central activity of the meeting was to figure out a way to get the American people to swallow the idea of the collaboration leading to the North American Union, and to squelch the growing criticism surrounding it. Present at the meeting were U.S. President George Bush, Mexico's President Felipe Calderon, and Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The SPP consists of 20 working groups plus the attending cabinet officers from each country and the heads of state. Also present were members of the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), the only participants invited to meet behind closed doors with the SPP bureaucrats. The NACC is a largely secretive advisory council to the SPP consisting of representatives from 30 North American corporations selected by the Chambers of Commerce in the three nations. The NACC issued no press releases disclosing specific recommendations made to them by the SPP trilateral working groups tasked with "integrating" and "harmonizing" administrative rules and regulations into a unified North American format. However, the memo documents that the NACC was urged to launch a public relations campaign to counter growing criticism of the trilateral cooperative that is seen by many as a major step toward the North American Union, see (http://www.naturalnews.com/022707.html). "Leaders had a successful meeting with the members of the NACC, which had been launched at the leader's meeting in Cancun in March 2006, to counsel governments on how they might enhance North American competitiveness," the memo begins. As discussion continues, the members of the NACC were urged to "assist in confronting and refuting critics of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America". According to paragraph four of the memo, the public relations theme continued during the meeting. "In closing, all leaders expressed a desire for the NACC to play a role in articulating publicly the benefits of greater collaboration in North America." Further on, according to the memo, "Leaders discussed some of the difficulties of the SPP, including the lack of popular support and the failure of the public to understand the competitive challenges confronting North America." The memo continues, "Governments are faced with addressing the rapidly evolving competitive environment without fueling protectionism, when industry sectors face radical transformation." The memo documents a comment by the U.S. President. "In terms of building public support, President Bush suggested engaging the support of those who had benefited from NAFTA and from North American Integration (including small business owners) to tell their stories and humanize the impressive results." Regarding import safety, the document says, "President Bush underlined the importance of tackling the issue more broadly and showing that governments are ahead of this issue in order to prevent a trade protectionist backlash, especially against China." The memo again reinforces the public relations theme, emphasizing, "NACC members should have a role in communicating the merits of North American collaboration, including by engaging their employees and unions." Meanwhile, a policy of secret, closed-door meetings where the press and the public is not invited to participate or observe the process continues to characterize meetings of the SPP and trilateral working groups. A meeting of the SPP that was virtually unreported in the U.S. and Canada on February 27-28, 2008 in Los Cabos, Mexico, was disclosed in the Mexico City newspaper La Jornada. According to the newspaper, the Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez visited Mexico City prior to the Los Cabos meeting "to renegotiate NAFTA" by offering the information to Mexico that undisclosed U.S. corporations and the U.S. government are planning to place as much as $141 billion in new investments in Mexico under the Mexico National Infrastructure Project 2007-2012. In a press release published February 21 on the U.S. Trade and Development Agency website, the agenda for the February 26-28 meeting in Mexico City was presented. At this meeting Secretary Gutierrez planned to announce United States Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) grants totaling more than $1.7 million made "to promote the development of transportation, energy and environmental projects under Mexico's National Infrastructure Program". Another press release on the USTDA website documents the launching by President Calderon of Mexico's National Infrastructure Program in July, 2008. Its goal is to create $141 billion dollars worth of new infrastructure investment opportunities for U.S. firms by 2012. more...
| NewWorldOrder | America |

British prime minister calls for global 'interdependence' Associated Press (April 18, 2008) - British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, in his first foreign policy address in the United States, called on the U.S. and Europe on Friday to lead a new era of global "interdependence" aimed at solving international problems such as terrorism, poverty and climate change. "We urgently need to step out of the mindset of competing interests and instead find our common interests, and we must summon up the best instincts and efforts of humanity in a cooperative effort to build new international rules and institutions for the new global era," Brown said in a speech to about 350 invited guests at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. Brown cited Kennedy's Independence Day speech in 1962, when the president proposed a "new and global declaration of interdependence." Brown said Kennedy's call for public service "still reverberates around the world and always will." Noting Kennedy's creation of the Peace Corps, Brown called for the creation of "a new kind of global peace and reconstruction corps," which he described as an organization of trained civilian experts available any time to rebuild states. Brown also talked about U.S. leadership following World War II, include the Marshall Plan that funneled millions in economic aid and technical assistance to help rebuild Europe. "We must summon inspiration from the vision, humanity and leadership shown by those reformers to guide our actions today," he said. Brown reiterated his call for reform of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and United Nations to give emerging countries such as China, India and Brazil more say in the international institutions. He called on the World Bank to intensify programs to reduce poverty and said the institution should become a bank for both development and the environment by transferring billions in loans and grants to encourage the poorest countries to adopt alternative sources of energy. The British leader, who has set a mandatory target in the U.K. to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent by 2050, insisted that a new global pact on reducing carbon emission must be agreed on by the end of 2009. He said the deal, which would replace the Kyoto Protocol that was rejected by the U.S. and expires in 2012, should be led by the United Nations and needs to set binding targets for all developed countries. Brown, who has overseen some U.K. troop withdrawals in Iraq and sought to soothe public anger in Britain over the unpopular war, did not mention Iraq directly. But he insisted he would support future military action to intervene in failing states. He praised President Bush for leading the world in an attempt to root out terrorism and "our common commitment that there be no safe haven for terrorists." Brown said the United States and Europe should act as "hardheaded internationalists," and use "diplomatic, economic, and yes, when necessary military action -- to prevent crimes against humanity when states can no longer do so."
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America |

France seeks more ambitious EU globalisation strategy EurActiv.com (April 17, 2008) - The EU's growth and jobs strategy needs to be supplemented by a global arm if Europe wants to remain competitive in the future, argues a new report for the French government , which could become official policy when the country assumes the EU Presidency on 1 July. Although the Lisbon Strategy is delivering initial results, the EU needs to "quicken the pace" and "adopt a global viewpoint" or it will be "out of the race by 2020", argued Laurent Cohen-Tanugi, the author of the report, in an interview with EurActiv France before the official presentation of the report to the government on 15 April. Admitting that the Lisbon Strategy has been "visionary" in giving Europe a "head start over the rest of the world," the author criticises its failure to achieve the intrinsic goal of reducing the competitiveness gap with the US. Now Europe even risks being overtaken in certain sectors by major emerging countries such as China, India or Brazil if it chooses to maintain the current status quo, argues Cohen-Tanugi. "Europe is once again behind in a world that is developing at unprecedented speed," he says, resulting from its failure to implement the promised reforms. A new 'Lisbon Plus'? The report calls for the Lisbon Strategy to be renamed "Lisbon Plus" and integrated into a broader "EuroWorld 2015 Strategy" which would produce a "more comprehensive strategy" than the Lisbon Agenda. While "Lisbon Plus" would become the EU's internal component of this "strategic vision", the second pillar would rely on common external policies, such as trade, agriculture or the internal market, to help shape globalisation, according to the report. "The importance given to external policies is intended to signal the start of a new phase in the history of European unification in which Europe is no longer centred on itself but on its relationship with the rest of the world," the author claims, highlighting a "genuine paradigm shift". "Competitiveness through innovation" The focus of Lisbon Plus should be on "competitiveness through innovation," the report suggests, linking the different economic, social and environmental dimensions. Moreover, the author expresses his hope that the French Presidency (to begin on 1 July) will stimulate the so-called "knowledge triangle" (higher education, research and innovation), enhancing the value of Europe's human capital and promoting a new "green economy". "The real global challenge with which Europe is confronted is to stay in the race, in terms of prosperity and international influence, in a world that is destined to be dominated by an America/Asia duopoly," says Cohen-Tanugi. "It is now up to the French EU Presidency to start carrying through this new strategic vision," the report concludes.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | Solana | NewWorldOrder |

From Constance Cumbey's Blogspot:

According to a recent article appearing in EurActiv.com, the gentleman at the left, Laurent Cohen-Tanugi has been delegated by the French government for its upcoming 6 month EU presidency to make plans to vastly project European power -- far beyond the "sweeping reforms" Javier Solana has declared the in ratification progress "Lisbon Treaty" will make. Msr. Cohen-Tanugi says that the "Lisbon Strategy is an inadequate answer to globalisation." I found 87 google hits of Solana's and Laurent Cohean-Tanugi's name together. I have not yet had time to analyze all. According to Euractiv:

Although the Lisbon Strategy is delivering initial results, the EU needs to "quicken the pace" and "adopt a global viewpoint" or it will be "out of the race by 2020", argued Laurent Cohen-Tanugi, the author of the report, in an interview with EurActiv France before the official presentation of the report to the government on 15 April.

It is hard to say if this is being done at Solana's behest or to upstage him. As I recall the prophecies, whoever and whatever "the beast" ends up being would trample the whole earth underfoot. It certainly sounds like the European aspirations are decidedly global.

Berlusconi "wants more EU influence" Reuters (April 16, 2008) - Italian prime minister-elect Silvio Berlusconi said on Wednesday he would help the EU regain the influence he said it had lost since he was last in power and called for the European Central Bank's mandate to be broadened. Speaking on one of his own television channels after winning Italy's April 13-14 election, Berlusconi said the EU needed a "top leadership squad" to make it count in the world. "There is a need to reconstruct a Europe that has a leading role in the Western world that can tackle with determination the problems facing the world," said the 71-year-old conservative media mogul, who is expected to take office next month. In later comments that could anger some of Italy's European Union partners, for whom ECB independence is sacrosanct, Berlusconi said its mandate should be widened beyond keeping inflation in check. He did not specify what he meant, but in the past he has urged the central bank to support economic growth. Rules set out in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty give the ECB the power to pursue its primary goal of maintaining price stability free of political influence. "I believe the ECB's functions need to be widened beyond the power to control inflation," Berlusconi told a news conference. Italy's third-richest man and owner of AC Milan soccer club, Berlusconi said during the election campaign he wanted to "intervene" with the ECB and would discuss it with EU leaders such as France's Nicolas Sarkozy and Germany's Angela Merkel. Sarkozy has repeatedly called for action to curb the sharp rise in the value of the euro, while Germany has vigorously defended the ECB's independence from politicians. Berlusconi often blames the euro for the underperformance of Italy's economy, echoing the opinion of many Italians who say their spending power has waned since they gave up the lira. Exporters complain the strong euro makes them less competitive. Berlusconi's victory had been expected to deal a final blow to the sale of loss-making Alitalia to Air France-KLM, which has been blocked by unions. Berlusconi wants a home-grown rescue, but has left the door open to the foreign bid if Alitalia is given equal footing in any future international airline group. more...
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder |

Reshaping the International Financial Order Reshaping the International Order Part 2 Knowledge Driven Revolution (April 14, 2008) -

"Among the instruments of implementation at the international level, I attach the highest priority to the introduction of international taxation and the establishment of an international central bank." - Mahbub ul Haq, Director of Policy Planning World Bank (1970-1982) and RIO Member (p321)

The Club of Rome is a premiere think tank composed of approximately 100 members including leading scientists, philosophers, political advisors, former politicians and many other influential bureaucrats and technocrats. This series of articles describes the major conclusions of the 1976 book Rio: Reshaping the International Order: A Report to the Club of Rome [1] coordinated by Nobel Laureate Jan Tinbergen. The RIO report "addresses the following question: what new international order should be recommended to the world's statesmen and social groups so as to meet, to the extent practically and realistically possible, the urgent needs of today's population and the probable needs of future generations?" Part 1 of this series gives an overview of the proposed new international order described by the RIO report as "humanistic socialism". This includes: collective neighbourhood armies, a fully planned world economy, global free trade, public international enterprises, proposed changes in consumption patterns among other topics. Below is a summary of some of the changes to the financial system proposed by The Club of Rome.

Creation of a World Reserve Currency From RIO: Reshaping the International Order: [Italicised text is original emphasis and bolded text is added by author.]

"Phasing out of national reserve currencies as well as gold from reserve creation, confining increasingly the latter to SDR [Special Drawing Rights] type assets created by joint decisions..." - 128

"The residual use of gold as a reserve stock for central banks should and will be phased out gradually." - 199

"The creation of an international reserve currency by an international authority, such as an International Central Bank, which should be under international management without being dominated by the interests of one particular group of nations;" - 184

"Fundamental reforms in the international monetary system so that international liquidity is not created in such an unplanned fashion that it generates alternate cycles of inflation, stagflation and depression. If national reserve currencies are replaced by an international reserve currency, to be created and managed by the international community in line with the genuine needs for the growth of the international economic system and with special regard to the pressing needs of the Third World, it can considerably help in avoiding some of the present unplanned fluctuations in economic activity." - 183

Some tricks never seem to get old. Prevention of "alternate cycles of inflation, stagflation and depression" is exactly the same hogwash used to sell the Federal Reserve Act to the Americans in 1913. How well did that work?

Creation of a World Treasury and Global Taxation

"It also follows that some groups must today devote their efforts to the preparation of long range proposals in order to ensure that they will be operative on time. This applies especially to investigations into the feasibility of the more ambitious long range proposals, such as the creation of a World Treasury." - 125

"The gradual introduction of a system of international taxation which should be handled by a World Treasury, both to meet the current as well as the development needs of the poorer nations;" - 184

"The statutes of transnational enterprises should be under the supervision of, and their profits taxed by, an inter- or supranational authority." - 160

"international commons... ocean-tolls and air-tolls should be considered..." - 165

"these observations would suggest that, in the long run, a World Treasury could form an effective instrument for attaining some of the aims of an international community. In that it would operate from a current budget of expenditures, it would require a current budget of income. This would be derived from two obvious sources: revenue from international taxes and from the world community's ownership of productive resources. Taxes and incomes, profits, the use of scarce resources and the royalties received from concessions could figure among the most important types of revenue." - 131

"Ultimately, there is a need for the equivalent of a World Treasury, the resources of which are derived from international taxation and ownership of international productive resources (such as the resources of the oceans)." - 133

Some Techniques of Implementation

One implementation technique requires the use of "pioneering" countries to voluntarily submit to international taxation and their new monetary order.

"A desirable form of international decision-making, however, is one in which a genuinely supranational authority takes decisions on a qualified majority principle. A qualified majority may comprise a system of weighted votes, be based on a simple majority, or based on a system in which not only the total number of representatives but also the representatives of some well defined groups must together form a majority... (b) A decision-making body can be initiated by several pioneering countries on a voluntary basis and then be gradually extended. Some of the means used could first be applied at low levels, for example, a tax on consumer durables, and be gradually raised and extended to include more categories and eventually more countries. (c) Membership of an international decision-making body should be open to both public authorities and private organizations, whether non-profit or profit-making, or a combination of these categories." - 104

Another technique of implementation requires the use of organizations like OPEC to collect international taxes on behalf of the world community.

"The Financing of Development: A new framework for international resource transfers form an essential part of the effort to establish a new international order. It will take time to negotiate such a framework and put its various elements in place, but at least some of the principles on which this framework should be based can be spelt out. (I) An element of automation must be built into the resource transfer system. To be realistic, the world community is still too early in its stage of evolution and recognition of its interdependence to accept the concept of international taxation of the rich nations for the benefit of the poor nations. But the concept need not be accepted in its entirety: it can be introduced gradually over time through a variety of devices:... (b) certain sources of international financing can be developed - such as tax on non-renewable resources, tax on international pollutants... (c) if the rich industrialized nations are unwilling to tax themselves, others can collect and distribute these tax proceeds on the basis of what the rich nations consume - e.g. even a one-dollar per barrel 'development levy' by OPEC..." - 216

One World Currency

"The Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States... already lays down the fundamental principles which should govern international economic relations. The transformation, over time, of the Charter into the proposed framework treaty would greatly facilitate the establishment of a new international order. If this is to be done, some more specific provisions, omitted from the Charter, should be considered for inclusion in the framework treaty. Such provisions could include:...

(g) All States shall accept an international currency to be created by an international authority;" - 117

The Club of Rome is currently working on a project entitled Monetary Simplification Euro/Dollar: Towards a Global Currency headed by Ramon Tamames. more...
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder |

Mobilising People and Actions for War A Time, Times, And Half A Time (April 13, 2008) - This article is the second of a three part series which compares the legal and cultural changes being made by today’s global government to those made by the Nazis. Part I, Ghost of Nazi Past, Ghost of Nazi Present focused on cultural, media, parliamentary, and judicial manipulations while this part focuses on science, religion, religious education, and spiritual mobilization. The format of this post is as follows: texts in bold font are citations from Richard Evans’ book The Third Reich in Power. Italicized texts that follow Evens’ citations are quotations from global governance actors along with some of my commentary. Writing of the hostilities between the Nazis and the Catholic Church, Evans explains “…the German government repeatedly told the Vatican that its fight against Marxism and Communism demanded the unity of the German people through the ending of confessional divisions.” (pg. 241) Today, we see the identical argument being advanced by the Alliance of Civilizations, the World Commission on Global Consciousness & Spirituality, et al. In the interest of combating extremism and terrorism we are told a global code of conduct which embraces only common spiritual and political ideologies must be adopted. Contributors to this code of conduct are groups such as the World Commission on Global Consciousness & Spirituality which will “activate” the evolutionary process of global consciousness; the Alliance of Civilizations which is currently developing guidelines for how religions must interpret scripture; Religions for Peace which is advancing A Common Word, an initiative designed to undermine religious doctrines and hijack religion; etc. Orchestrated efforts to incite violence against those who refuse to set aside their doctrines—particularly against the monotheistic faiths – have intensified on multiple fronts. Evans writes “Nazism imbued the German language with the metaphors of battle: the battle for jobs, the struggle for existence, the fight for culture…The language itself began to be mobilized for war.” (pg. 214) We are in this same place today. Christians who dare voice an unpopular opinion are accused of having a violent ethos. The existence of the new civilization is threatened if the egocentric are permitted to continue with their “defective disconnection”. It is, as they say, a fight for civilization. Setting the stage for the new religious ethos is Karen Armstrong, Alliance of Civilizations High Level Group member. **Video at link** See use doctrine. The full version of the Karen Armstrong presentation can be found here.

Science
One criticism consistently launched against the adherents of the Abrahamic faiths’ is that the doctrines cannot be scientifically proven and the faithful have abandoned rational scientific inquiry. Yet many of the same critics who claim superiority have no problem advancing unproven occult doctrines such as notions of a “planetary spiritual hierarchy”; the existence of the Aryans and Atlantis; evolutionary advancement through Luciferic initiations; etc., etc.

“The real core of Nazi beliefs lay in the faith Hitler proclaimed in his speech of September 1938 in science – a Nazi view of science – as the basis for action.” Pg 259

“But humanity has hitherto lacked an adequate global grammar and a global lens to fully activate this integral/holistic/dialogic technology of mind; and since our living realities are co-created by out patterns of minding, the supreme technological advance in the human condition is this advance to the integral technology of minding.” – World Commission on Global Consciousness & Spirituality

Religion
Here the comparisons I draw are between the Third Reich’s attempts to control Christianity and the global government’s plans to control the three monotheistic faiths. The below World Commission citations that refer to the egocentric mind refer to individuals who believe their religious texts to be true and are not prepared to abandon their convictions for a new revelation. The egocentric mind also pertains to political dissenters of the globalization process.

“National Socialism is not only a political doctrine, it is a total and all-encompassing general perspective on all public matters. So our entire life has to be based on it as a matter of natural assumption. We hope that the day will come when nobody needs to talk about National Socialism any more…One day, the spiritual awakening of our time will emerge from this will to culture.” - Joseph Goebbels Pg 211

“Our great spiritual traditions and teachers were all in diverse ways fostering and opening the way to the awakening of global consciousness.” – World Commission on Global Consciousness & Spirituality

“One striking result of the general global law – we are as we mind…But humanity has hitherto lacked an adequate global grammar and a global lens to fully activate this integral/holistic/ dialogic technology of mind; and since our living realities are co-created by our patterns of minding,, the supreme technological advance in the human condition is this advance to the integral technology of minding.” – World Commission on Global Consciousness & Spirituality

“As an SS plan put it in 1937: ‘We live in the age of the final confrontation with Christianity. It is part of the mission of the SS to give to the German people over the next fifty years the non-Christian ideological foundations for a way of life appropriate to their own character.’…Christianity, Himmler was to declare on 9 June 1942, was ‘the greatest of plagues’; true morality consisted not in exalting the spirit of the individual but in abnegating oneself in the service of the race. Moral values could be derived only from consciousness of one’s place in, and duty to, the chain of ‘valuable’ heredity.” Pg 252

“Perhaps the single most powerful event facing humanity today is a great awakening on a planetary scale that has been millennia in the making. We humans are in the midst of a profound advance as a species to a higher form of global consciousness that has been emerging across cultures, religions and worldviews through the centuries. This awakening…is nothing less than a shift…from more egocentric patterns of life to a higher form of integral and dialogic patterns of life.” – World Commission on Global Consciousness & Spirituality

“…it should now be apparent that global spirituality is precisely this crossing from egocentric life into the deep–dialogic life of global consciousness: this is the highest telos and consensus of our great planetary spiritual endowment…True Spirituality is the highest expression of our rational essence and is not to be confused with egocentric religious life. Spirituality is the awakening of our highest being, bringing us into direct relation with Reality as the Logosphere; it is the process of self–transformation from ego life to the awakened life of mature Integral Natural Reason and flowing in harmony with the Lawlike Moral Energy of the Logosphere. And Global Spirituality is this awakening of the Global Mind, the highest mature form of spirituality in its global power. Global Spirituality then is Awakened Critical Reason and is thus free of all ego ideology and ego dogma. Now, hopefully, the direct link between global consciousness and global spirituality should be more manifest.” – World Commission on Global Consciousness & Spirituality

“By 1937 the Protestant Church was either deeply divided between the German Christians and the Confession Church…biblical fundamentalism and Nazified Christianity were equally repellent.” Pg 228

“The egocentric… mind is a stage in our human development (evolution) which tends to separate and objectify the thinking subject from the objects of though, and to remain centered in and privileging its particular worldview (religion, ideology, cultural lens) as the exclusive measure of reality (meaning, truth, fact, value, experience, existence). The egocentric mind is broken off from the Integral Field of Reality and packages, constructs, separates, divides, polarizes, fragments all its touches….ego minding is the primary cause of the spectrum of human pathologies. And the consensus prescription is that to change this mentality is the single most important factor in transforming the human condition.” - World Commission on Global Consciousness & Spirituality

“Anti-Christian writings of the Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg, who publicly rejected such central doctrines as the immortality of the soul and Christ’s redemption of humankind from original sin. In his book The Myth of the Twentieth Century, Rosenberg excoriated Catholicism as the creation of the Jewish clericalism” pg 238

“Robert Ley, leader of the Labour Front, went even further than Rosenberg in his disdain for Christianity and his rejection of the Divinity of Christ…” pg 251

“Jesus, whom the Muslims regard as a prophet, as in fact do many of the New Testament writers. Luke’s gospel calls Jesus a prophet from start to finish; the idea that Jesus was divine was a later development, often misunderstood by Christians.” Karen Armstrong, Alliance of Civilizations

Karen Armstrong, a apostate and former Catholic nun, is certainly aware that this is considered heresy by the Catholic church and that her words were intended to attack an entire religion. At least the Alliance of Civilizations is no longer attempting to pretend to be something they are not.

Religious Education
“Remoulding the educational system would create a new generation of young Germans who had known no alternative source of values to Nazism. Yet there was of course one area in which such values did persist…That was religion. For reasons of political expediency and caution, the Third Reich had stopped short in 1933 of attacking the Churches and their dependent secular institutions. As it became more self-confident, however, it began to turn its attention to Christianity too, and to seek a means of either converting it to a form more suitable to the new Germany, or, if that did not work, of doing away with it altogether.” Pg 218

“Nazis now launched a sustained campaign to close denominational schools and replace them with non-religious ‘community schools’…Parents were forced to sign prepared statements declaring that they ‘did not want the education of my child at school to be misused by stirring up religious unrest’ Pg 246

“By the summer of 1939, all denominational schools in Germany had been turned into community schools, and all private schools run by the Churches had been closed down or nationalized…By 1939 religious instruction in vocational schools had been reduced to half an hour a week, and in many areas it had to follow guidelines…Parents who objected to these moves…were obliged by the local authorities to withdraw their objection, summoned to special meetings at the school to pressure them to sign their children up for ideological instruction instead of religious education…” pgs 246-247

“The German Christian’s attempt to create a synthesis between German Protestantism and Nazi racism had effectively collapsed…Hitler reluctantly abandoned his ambition of convereting it into the official state Church of the Third Reich. Instead, he ordered the creation of a new Ministry for Church Affairs, established in July 1935 under the 48-year-old Hanns Kerrl…The new Ministry was given wide-ranging powers, which Kerrl did not hesitate to deploy in order to bring refractory pastors to heel…Pastors were banned from preaching, or had their pay stopped. They were forbidden to teach in schools. All theological students were ordered to join Nazi organizations.” Pg 230

Such measures are most likely to succeed if supported by religious education that is based upon a sound interpretation of religious teachings. – Alliance of Civilizations High Level Group

“Education as we understand it here makes it possible to view with equanimity the completion of the process of secularisation, first of structures, then of society itself, as just one of several possible reflections of a modern way of life. School should give children a clearer understanding of the psychosocial, cultural and sometimes political functions of religion. This sort of approach would undoubtedly help to sharpen and challenge their critical faculties and combat the wilder excesses of particularism. This has fundamental consequences for the educational system, particularly as regards the teaching of religious education. Who should teach religion? Who can make a valid comparison between the different doctrinal elements of religions? We must beware of confusion here. A clear distinction needs to be drawn between religious education in the sense understood by adherents of a faith, which consists of transmitting the values, teachings and liturgy of their religion with a view to the proper practice of that religion (e.g. the Catholic catechism), and the teaching of comparative religion which aims only to instil knowledge about religion and the history of religion. Only the latter forms one of the bases of learning for the intercultural dialogue through education. Religious education of the first kind is perfectly legitimate, but is not relevant to the objective under discussion. Comparative religion should therefore be taught by professional teachers capable of providing a comparative analysis of religions, regardless of their own religious choice, with the objectivity of an expert, not the passion of a devotee. This is an essential choice that will determine the success of the dialogue through education. The difficulty of the exercise lies in integrating religion, which is such a sensitive issue in the Euro-Mediterranean area, into the field of education, taking into account its irreducibility and its mission to provide absolute truth, but without altering the educational philosophy of mutual knowledge based on curiosity, self-respect and openness to the Other.” - Dialogue Between Peoples and Cultures in the Euro-Mediterranean Area more...
| NewWorldOrder | Apostasy |

It's a little easier to see the repetition of the New Age ideology and how the use of governments to harmonize belief will lead to a persecution of those that refuse to conform to it. I see this and the HIStory, Our Future Bible study conclusions, among other things, as a strong indicator of how near the end we truly are. Keep watching!

EU: Europe Needs More Say in World Economy Talks As Strong Euro Gains Ground Associated Press (April 11, 2008) - The European Union's top economy official has said that Europe deserved a greater say in the global economy as the strong euro gains ground as the world's second major currency. EU Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said Friday that the rest of the world now sees the euro currency zone as "a pole of stability" and the currency had the potential to become even more important. The euro is now second to the weak U.S. dollar as a reserve currency held by foreign investors and has risen sharply against the dollar in recent months, hitting a new all-time high of $1.5912 on Thursday. Almunia said the euro area is now "playing an increasingly important role in supporting the stability of the world economy and the global financial system." "Non-EU countries increasingly perceive the euro area and the EU as a whole as a pole of stability, a source of new capital, and also a source of advice and expertise on regulatory approaches," he said in a speech to the Petersen Institute in Washington D.C. His prepared remarks were distributed ahead of time by his Brussels office. The EU official called for the 15 euro nations to share a single seat when world leaders meet to discuss the economy at the International Monetary Fund or the G-7 group of top seven industrialized nations. In the G-7, this would come at the expense of euro users Germany, France and Italy which now represent themselves at these talks. The euro's greater role carried some risks, he warned, because it increased the region's exposure to shocks from other parts of the world and "disruptive portfolio shifts" between major currencies. "It is precisely such shocks that are likely to occur more frequently in a world characterized by financial and economic globalization," he said. He again signaled worry about the U.S.' huge current account deficit, saying a sudden "unwinding" could hit Europe hard, since its currency is still appreciating against the dollar. The euro now makes up 26 percent of foreign exchange reserves and is the second most actively traded currency after the U.S. dollar on global foreign exchange markets. Euro-dollar trades are the most popular foreign exchange deals, accounting for more than a quarter of global turnover.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

What Does a World Governed by Humanistic Socialism Look Like? Reshaping the International Order Part 1 Knowledge Driven Revolution (April 7, 2008) - "The establishment of a New International Economic Order entails fundamental changes in political, social, cultural and other aspects of society, changes which would bring about a New International Order." - RIO: Reshaping the International Order, 1976 (p5) The Club of Rome is a premiere think tank composed of approximately 100 members including leading scientists, philosophers, political advisors, former politicians and many other influential bureaucrats and technocrats. This series of articles describes the major conclusions of the 1976 book Rio: Reshaping the International Order: A Report to the Club of Rome [1] coordinated by Nobel Laureate Jan Tinbergen. The RIO report "addresses the following question: what new international order should be recommended to the world's statesmen and social groups so as to meet, to the extent practically and realistically possible, the urgent needs of today's population and the probable needs of future generations?" From RIO: Reshaping the International Order: [Italicised text is original emphasis and bolded text is added emphasis by author.]

"Many in the RIO group believe that this equitable social order could best be described as humanistic socialism..." - 63

So what exactly does a new social order based on "humanistic socialism" look like? Below is the RIO group's own description of what the future should look like.

Collective Workers and Full Employment

"Society must also deliberately aim at creating employment for all those seeking it and at ensuring that the distribution over different types of jobs achieves a balance between the satisfaction derived from the job and the satisfaction of the needs of society. The latter necessitates that certain unpleasant (heavy, dirty, dangerous) activities be performed. If these activities can be learnt relatively easily, they could be performed by all citizens. Their efforts could be organized in the form of 'land' or 'neighbourhood armies' for work in rural areas, in the field of environmental care..." - 69

"A full employment policy should be adopted by all governments as part of their development plan." - 145

"As a counterpart to these rights, a number of duties must be accepted, especially the duty to use one's capacities in the interest of an adequate level of production..." - 63

"Public power should be used to ensure that education is geared to meet the needs of individuals and the needs of society, that is, all individuals. The supply of qualified types of labour should be so planned as to equal, to the greatest extent possible, the demand for them by society (i.e. by the 'organizers of production')." - 69

A Planned World Economy

"Effective application of public power implies the need for middle and long-range planning at different levels... The UN Economic and Social Council might be best suited for undertaking such a task, perhaps assisted by the UN Development Planning Committee." - 70

"At the highest level, the level of world affairs, international institutions must form the prime movers of planned change." - 100

"... the optimum utilization of human and physical resources in the world as a whole." - 140

"One of the basic questions which today faces the international community is whether it should accelerate the process of this evolution and consciously put in place the various elements of a system for global planning and the management of resources...

The achievement of this global planning and management system calls for the conscious transfer of power - a gradual transfer to be sure - from the nation State to the world organization. Only when this transfer takes place can the organization become effective and purposeful." - 184

Private Sector and Global Free Trade

"New forms of cooperation between private initiative and public authorities will have to be characterized by a certain balance of power..." - 280

"In the trade field, an International Trade and Development Organization, formed by expanding the responsibilities of UNCTAD [United Nations Conference on Trade and Development], should be set up with a very broad mandate for overall coordination of policy issues relating to international trade in primary commodities and manufactured goods. Likewise, UNIDO's [United Nations Industrial Development Organization] responsibilities should be increased to enable it to participate in the planning of a more equitable world industrial order;..." - 184

"This [Third World development] implies that, if a new international order is to be created, the rich nations must be prepared to give up part of their future productive capacity. [Explain outsourcing?] To be able to do this smoothly they will need to resort to adjustment policies and such policies must form part of their development strategies... The creation of an optimal international division of labour, and as such the selective development of economic activities in Third World countries, calls for the substantial extension of such adjustment policies...

It is no longer desirable that the industrialized countries adopt policies of protecting their labour-intensive industries in the manufacturing sector. Rather, they should seek, as must the Third World, to develop those industries in which they have a comparative advantage...

The process described, albeit with distortions, is already taking place: some sectors of Western manufacturing industry are moving to Third World countries. The movement of Western European garment industries to North Africa is a case in point. As such, private initiative will no doubt prove responsible for a large part of the adjustment required. That adjustments are at present insufficient is witnessed by the millions of workers who migrate from the Third World to seek employment in the Western industrialized nations. To the extent that the adjustments brought about by private initiative on the strength of international market forces will be inadequate, and in view of the fact that private enterprises may not be sufficiently creative nor responsive to the needs of countries, adjustment must be stimulated and guided by selective taxes and subsidies. Subsidies should be offered to those industries with a clear potential for contributing to a country's or a regions' development efforts. Such subsidies could aim at supporting changes, where necessary, in the production mix of enterprises...

To ensure the effectiveness of adjustment policies, there is a clear need for coordination of policies both between the industrialized countries and between public authorities and the private sector..." - 112

"The industrialized countries, on their part, will have to introduce policies of adjustment, develop specialization in knowledge-intensive products and gradually introduce and enforce environmental protection standards." - 143

"In the long term, transnational enterprises will still form part of the world structure, in either their present form of private enterprises or in a renovated form comprising genuine international ventures." - 160

Public International Enterprises

"The possibility of genuine internationalization of some transnational enterprises or transnational operations should be further investigated. They could be owned, controlled and managed by an international development authority. The pharmaceutical industry could be used as an initial test case for analysis because of its international social implications." - 281

"Active sharing of benefits [of the ocean], with particular regard to the needs of the less developed countries, through a variety of devices including international public enterprises, especially for fishing and offshore oil production; international tax on ocean uses, etc." - 175

Consumption Patterns

"The rich nations... must develop new consumption styles which are less wasteful, less resource - intensive and geared to the consumption of social services rather than of superfluous consumer durables." - 183

"Growth in equality would make it less difficult for people to accept the principle of self-restraint in the satisfaction of material needs, the ideological cornerstone of the future 'steady state'. It would equally create the necessary social conditions for self-control of family size and the consequent reduction in population pressure; birth-control campaigns are likely to remain largely ineffective (unless enforced by coercion, which is clearly unacceptable) up to the time that peasants are freed from material insecurity, that infant mortality rates go down, and that the use of unpaid child labour is no longer necessary to make ends meet." - 162

"Ultimately, they must aim to construct their policies on a series of 'maxima' which define an appropriate style of civilized living in a world of deprivation and declare that all consumption beyond that fixed maxima is not only waste but a conscious action against the welfare of large numbers of poor and disprivileged, their own children, and the prospects for a peaceful world." - 76

Financial and Monetary Change

"(a) The gradual introduction of a system of international taxation which should be handled by a World Treasury, both to meet the current as well as the development needs of the poorer nations;

(b) The creation of an international reserve currency by an international authority, such as an International Central Bank, which should be under international management without being dominated by the interests of one particular group of nations;" -184

"The statutes of transnational enterprises should be under the supervision of, and their profits taxed by, an inter- or supranational authority." - 160

More on the proposed changes to the financial system in part 2 of this series entitled: Reshaping the International Financial Order.

International Control of All Mineral Resources - The Common Heritage of Mankind Concept

"In the long term, and assuming progress towards the creation of an equitable international economic and social order leading to a pooling of material and non-material resources, mineral resources will need to be viewed as a common heritage of mankind. This concept implies both a real world market for all mineral resources and a system of world taxation to replace national mining taxation. The revenues collected should be redistributed among Third World countries - possibly through such an agency as IDA [International Development Association - World Bank group]...

This tax could, for instance, be introduced as one of a moderate rate and gradually be raised to something in the order of 70 per cent of profits on fossil fuels and 50 per cent of the value of production of ores (including uranium).

Such a tax would, like the present taxes on oil products, in fact be paid by the consumers...

Such a tax, at the rates proposed, would probably induce consumers to restrict their consumption of mineral raw materials..." - 148

"It is now recognized that a more elaborate system of careful husbandry and management of raw materials and scarce resources is inevitable." - 244

The redefinition of sovereignty from "territorial sovereignty" to "functional sovereignty" as well as the establishment and expansion of the concept of the "common heritage of mankind" is discussed in more detail in part 3 of this series entitled: "Functional" Sovereignty and the Common Heritage of Mankind.

Reshaping Public Opinion

"Public opinion is no phenomenon sui generic. It is in part the result of government policies and by definition politicians cannot hide behind their own creation. If some sectors of public opinion in the industrialized countries are immersed in the rhetoric and slogans associated with misunderstanding, then much of this may be inherited from their political leaders. And if these leaders are in part responsible for a situation which impedes acceptance of the need for change, then they themselves must be held responsible for changing this situation." - 110

The reshaping of public opinion and the importance of the scientist and experts is further described in part 4 of this series entitled: Reshaping Public Opinion and the White Coated Propagandists.

World Food Authority

"A number of measures have been proposed which should bring greater planning and coordination in the field of domestic food production and international supplies of food, including the establishment of world grain reserves... In the last analysis, it may require the setting up of a World Food Authority to supervise this vital area of human activity and survival" - 184

More on the establishment and functioning of the World Food Authority in part 5 of this series entitled: Population Control and the World Food Authority.

A Glimpse into the New Order

The final article in this series will examine a wide range of topics including: regional unions, world solidarity, foundations of the international legal system, freedom and the establishment of an standing United Nations military.
| NewWorldOrder |

Shell chief favours cross-border cooperation over competition to cut CO2 CNN Money (April 7, 2008) - Royal Dutch Shell Plc.'s (NYSE:RDS A) chief executive Jeroen van der Veer said the group favours a scenario to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions which promotes cross-border cooperation rather than countries rushing to secure energy resources for themselves. Speaking at an event here, the chief executive said coalitions should take on the challenges of economic development, energy security and environmental pollution through cross-border cooperation. Under the group's favoured 'Blueprints' scenario, innovation should occur at the local level, as major cities develop links with industry to reduce local emissions, he said. Added to that, national governments should introduce efficiency standards, taxes and other policy instruments to improve the environmental performance of buildings, vehicles and transport fuels. 'The Blueprints scenario will be realised only if policymakers agree on a global approach to emissions trading and actively promote energy efficiency and new technology in four sectors: heat and power generation; industry; transport and buildings,' he said. 'This will require hard work and time is short'. Under the scenario, the group assumes carbon dioxide (CO2) is captured at 90 per cent of all coal and gas fired power plants in developed countries by 2050, plus at least 50 per cent in non-OECD countries. The chief executive said government support is needed for carbon capture and storage (CCS) because the system adds costs and yields no revenues. 'At least, companies should earn carbon credits for the CO2 they capture and store,' he said. In response, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana said he supports the 'Blueprint' scenario in general terms. He said the scenario is 'dramatic' in that it requires the cooperation of every country in the world. 'The EU needs to act together rapidly in the Blueprint type of model. A single policy is absolutely fundamental,' Solana said. more...
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | Solana | NewWorldOrder | America |

This story came from Björn (farmer's) blog for April 7.

EU foreign policy expected to enter 'new era' EU Observer (April 6, 2008) - The European Parliament is seeking to bolster its role in the bloc's common foreign and security policy (CFSP), with senior MEPs saying it is time for Europe to become a "player and not just a payer" on the world stage. Polish centre-right MEP and head of the foreign affairs committee, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, says that EU foreign is moving "from one era to another" with the new Lisbon Treaty, due to kick in next year. The proposed new EU foreign minister and diplomatic service as well as the possibility for a group of member states to move ahead in defence cooperation mean foreign policy is "one of the most innovative parts of the treaty." The fact that Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, will for the first time be present at the MEPs' annual debate on CFSP on Wednesday (4 June) is in itself a "turning point," said the Pole at a briefing on Tuesday. Euro-deputies will today debate a report that sets out principles for the EU's foreign policy - such as respect for human rights - calls for certain issues to be prioritised and says that the CFSP budget from now until 2013 is "insufficient." "Either we have to beef up foreign policy financially, or we have to rethink whether we really want to be a global player," said Mr Saryusz-Wolski, who next week will travel to Paris to discuss the issue with the incoming French EU presidency. "We ask why is nothing ready, prepared for the events that will happen if the treaty [comes into force], and we haven't had an answer," he said. "We are asking this question also: do you have any hidden reserves? What's your view? How to finance the new set up? No answer."

Democratic oversight

The report also calls for parliament to be given greater democratic oversight over the area, which to date has remained firmly the domain of member states. It suggests that the foreign minister "regularly" appear before MEPs and that the parliament be "fully consulted" on who the foreign minister should be, as well as what the diplomatic service should look like. Deputies are also urging the future EU foreign minister to inform the parliament before any "common actions" are taken. "If we start sending soldiers into danger, it is up to the parliament to give its blessing," says Mr Saryusz-Wolski. The report also takes a more long-term view of the future of common foreign and security policy, with the head of the foreign affairs committee urging the bloc to stop acting like a "fire brigade" rushing to put out emergencies here and there and to think more of the "long-term strategic interests of the Union…20–30 years ahead."

EU army

Mr Saryusz-Wolski, who believes the union will gradually develop its own army, says it is no longer enough that the bloc exercises its traditional role as a soft power. "Too often we spend money without any conditions being attached. I am against Europe being a payer and not a player," he said. But he admits there is a "fear" in the parliament that the foreign minister and the new permanent president of the European Council may add to the trill of voices of on the EU stage all claiming to speak for Europe and may not turn Europe into a player. The potential for overlap between the two posts – starting in January - and for rivalry with the European Commission president is high. Debates on the posts are expected to start in earnest in autumn and be wrapped up by December. In time-honoured EU fashion, balancing who wins the posts will have to involve the consideration of a series of factors, including nationality, whether a candidate comes from an old or new member state or a small or big member state, and the person's political hue.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | Solana | NewWorldOrder |

Brown to host world leaders at 'progressive' summit AFP (April 4, 2008) - Prime Minister Gordon Brown is to host a summit of some 20 world leaders and key figures to discuss "progressive" governance, after a conference on the issue in London Friday, officials said. South African President Thabo Mbeki, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and former US president Bill Clinton are among participants at the summit of broadly centre-left leaders outside London on Saturday, said Downing Street. EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, World Trade Organization chief Pascal Lamy and national leaders from Australia, Chile, Cyprus, Ghana, Italy, Liberia, Lithuania, New Zealand, Norway and Slovakia are also scheduled, according to a participants' list released by Downing Street. In a speech pre-released on video ahead of the conference Friday, and the "progressive governance summit" on Saturday, Brown called for the development of a form of "globalisation that is fair and sustainable for all." The conference brings together some 300 leaders, officials and experts in a location outside London which has so far not been disclosed. When the summit was last held in Britain it was in Bagshot, south of the capital. The conference is organised by the Policy Network, which describes itself as "an international thinktank dedicated to promoting progressive policies and the renewal of social democracy." The idea for the summit was launched by Clinton in 1999, when he was still in office. The first one was held in Berlin in 2000, before Stockholm in 2002, London in 2003, Budapest in 2004 and Johannesburg in 2005. Brown will host it after returning from Bucharest, where he has been attending the NATO summit. The 2008 meeting will focus on globalisation, climate change and poverty. "Achieving an inclusive globalisation, one that can combine economic dynamism with social justice in a sustainable way for all, is the key political challenge facing this generation of leaders and politicians," Brown said in a video posted on the website of the Guardian daily.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | Solana | NewWorldOrder | America |

Will Uncle Sam let the dollar collapse? Telegraph.uk (April 1, 2008) - The dollar is taking a pounding. With the US sinking deeper into recession, the greenback recently hit an all-time low against the euro and a 12-year low against the yen. Last week, America's currency fell again - dropping more than 2 per cent in euro terms, to $1.5779. On a trade-weighted basis, the dollar is now south of its late-70s low point and close to its historic nadir of the mid-1990s. The markets sense the US Federal Reserve, having already slashed interest rates by 300 basis points to 2.25 per cent since the credit crunch erupted last summer, will soon cut rates even more. The European Central Bank, in stark contrast, looks determined to keep rates at 4 per cent - where they've been since sub-prime broke. Eurozone inflation, at 3.3 per cent, is still way above target. And with ECB Chairman Jean-Claude Trichet stressing upside price pressures last week, eurozone rate cuts seem unlikely. In other words, the gap between euro and dollar rates looks set to get wider - making the US currency even less attractive. And, last week, just as fresh data showed America's housing and manufacturing sector weakening further, business confidence in Germany - the eurozone's largest economy - jumped up. That suggested an even bigger euro-dollar interest differential, piling still more pressure on the greenback. But a falling dollar is not necessarily bad news for the American economy. The underlying reason for the currency's weakness, beyond the current woes on Wall Street, is that years of over-consumption have resulted in a massive US trade deficit - which, in 2006, reached 6 per cent of GDP. The dollar's decline has lately helped address that - by making US goods more competitive. Over the last two years, American exports have risen 17 per cent in value terms, cutting the trade shortfall to 4.7 per cent of national income. In other words, as has often happened in recent decades, a falling dollar has shoved the burden of America's adjustment onto the rest of the world. And now - as the White House knows well - a further dollar slide will play a large part in rescuing the domestic economy. The US takes a dim view of other countries - such as China - allowing their currencies to remain weak against the dollar. But when it comes to old-fashioned beggar-thy-neighbour exchange rate policy, the Americans are past masters. There are limits to this process. The euro has risen some 17 per cent against the dollar over the last year, with much of that rise happening since January. This makes life tough for the eurozone's exporting economies - which, apart from Germany, are now suffering badly. That's why Trichet now expresses "concern" at the drooping dollar. French president Nicolas Sarkozy has gone further - describing America's ailing currency as "a precursor to economic war". Elsewhere, too, the complaints are getting louder. Japan's Finance Minister, Fukushiro Nukaga, says the dollar's decline is now "excessive". Such statements are preparing the ground for a meeting in two weeks' time - when finance ministers and central bankers from the G7 gather in Washington. The headlines will be about post sub-prime regulation. But the meat of the summit concerns the dollar. The big question is whether to intervene in foreign exchange markets to prop up the currency. When co-ordinated among several large central banks, such initiatives have worked quite well. The 1987 Louvre Accord helped halt a sliding dollar, as did joint intervention by the US and Japan in 1995. But, if the G7's upcoming dollar dialogue is conducted in whispered tones, another much bigger question won't be discussed at all - the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency. The cracks are now starting to show in the dollar's reserve currency status. For the first time, Saudi Arabia now refuses to cut interest rates in line with the Fed - the first step towards a break in the kingdom's dollar peg. If that break happened, it would spark a massive flight of Middle Eastern assets away from the US currency. Chinese exporters are also now shunning the dollar in non-US transactions. Again, that's a worrying sign for the States. With its $1,400bn of reserves, China is the biggest investor in dollar-denominated assets by far. With the Fed expected to cut rates by at least another 25 basis points at its next meeting on April 30, the dollar can only get weaker in the coming month. So the US may be forced into a G7 initiative to strengthen its currency. The trouble is, since the last joint-intervention, the balance of world power has changed. Today, around 75 per cent of the world's foreign exchange reserves are held not by the West, but by the likes of China, Russia and Brazil. So any initiative will have to involve them - even though they're not in the G7. And that will expose the grouping for what it is - an anachronistic hark-back to a world that no longer exists. more...
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

I think the apparent stability in Europe may signal that being the center of a global cashless system in the event of global disaster or other emergencies. According to Bible prophecy, disaster is coming as is the center of power from the revived Roman Empire evidenced in the global governance being developed from there and affecting the Western world. Free trade and fear of terrorism is harmonizing international law and Europe is being viewed more and more as the template for success in that matter given the surface perspective of success since WWII ended. With the North American Union (video), we are seeing the same pattern eating slowly away at our control over our own laws and eventually currency just as with Europe after WWII. You'll never hear them admit it in that light though.

"Doomsday Seed Vault" in the Arctic Global Research (April 1, 2008) - One thing Microsoft founder Bill Gates can’t be accused of is sloth. He was already programming at 14, founded Microsoft at age 20 while still a student at Harvard. By 1995 he had been listed by Forbes as the world’s richest man from being the largest shareholder in his Microsoft, a company which his relentless drive built into a de facto monopoly in software systems for personal computers. In 2006 when most people in such a situation might think of retiring to a quiet Pacific island, Bill Gates decided to devote his energies to his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the world’s largest ‘transparent’ private foundation as it says, with a whopping $34.6 billion endowment and a legal necessity to spend $1.5 billion a year on charitable projects around the world to maintain its tax free charitable status. A gift from friend and business associate, mega-investor Warren Buffett in 2006, of some $30 billion worth of shares in Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway put the Gates’ foundation into the league where it spends almost the amount of the entire annual budget of the United Nations’ World Health Organization. So when Bill Gates decides through the Gates Foundation to invest some $30 million of their hard earned money in a project, it is worth looking at. No project is more interesting at the moment than a curious project in one of the world’s most remote spots, Svalbard. Bill Gates is investing millions in a seed bank on the Barents Sea near the Arctic Ocean, some 1,100 kilometers from the North Pole. Svalbard is a barren piece of rock claimed by Norway and ceded in 1925 by international treaty (see map). On this God-forsaken island Bill Gates is investing tens of his millions along with the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto Corporation, Syngenta Foundation and the Government of Norway, among others, in what is called the ‘doomsday seed bank.’ Officially the project is named the Svalbard Global Seed Vault on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen, part of the Svalbard island group. The seed bank is being built inside a mountain on Spitsbergen Island near the small village of Longyearbyen. It’s almost ready for ‘business’ according to their releases. The bank will have dual blast-proof doors with motion sensors, two airlocks, and walls of steel-reinforced concrete one meter thick. It will contain up to three million different varieties of seeds from the entire world, ‘so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future,’ according to the Norwegian government. Seeds will be specially wrapped to exclude moisture. There will be no full-time staff, but the vault's relative inaccessibility will facilitate monitoring any possible human activity. Did we miss something here? Their press release stated, ‘so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future.’ What future do the seed bank’s sponsors foresee, that would threaten the global availability of current seeds, almost all of which are already well protected in designated seed banks around the world? Anytime Bill Gates, the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto and Syngenta get together on a common project, it’s worth digging a bit deeper behind the rocks on Spitsbergen. When we do we find some fascinating things. The first notable point is who is sponsoring the doomsday seed vault. Here joining the Norwegians are, as noted, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; the US agribusiness giant DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred, one of the world’s largest owners of patented genetically-modified (GMO) plant seeds and related agrichemicals; Syngenta, the Swiss-based major GMO seed and agrichemicals company through its Syngenta Foundation; the Rockefeller Foundation, the private group who created the “gene revolution with over $100 million of seed money since the 1970’s; CGIAR, the global network created by the Rockefeller Foundation to promote its ideal of genetic purity through agriculture change. CGIAR and ‘The Project’ As I detailled in the book, Seeds of Destruction, in 1960 the Rockefeller Foundation, John D. Rockefeller III’s Agriculture Development Council and the Ford Foundation joined forces to create the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in Los Baños, the Philippines.1 By 1971, the Rockefeller Foundation’s IRRI, along with their Mexico-based International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center and two other Rockefeller and Ford Foundation-created international research centers, the IITA for tropical agriculture, Nigeria, and IRRI for rice, Philippines, combined to form a global Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR). CGIAR was shaped at a series of private conferences held at the Rockefeller Foundation’s conference center in Bellagio, Italy. Key participants at the Bellagio talks were the Rockefeller Foundation’s George Harrar, Ford Foundation’s Forrest Hill, Robert McNamara of the World Bank and Maurice Strong, the Rockefeller family’s international environmental organizer, who, as a Rockefeller Foundation Trustee, organized the UN Earth Summit in Stockholm in 1972. It was part of the foundation’s decades long focus to turn science to the service of eugenics, a hideous version of racial purity, what has been called The Project. To ensure maximum impact, CGIAR drew in the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, the UN Development Program and the World Bank. Thus, through a carefully-planned leverage of its initial funds, the Rockefeller Foundation by the beginning of the 1970’s was in a position to shape global agriculture policy. And shape it did. Financed by generous Rockefeller and Ford Foundation study grants, CGIAR saw to it that leading Third World agriculture scientists and agronomists were brought to the US to ‘master’ the concepts of modern agribusiness production, in order to carry it back to their homeland. In the process they created an invaluable network of influence for US agribusiness promotion in those countries, most especially promotion of the GMO ‘Gene Revolution’ in developing countries, all in the name of science and efficient, free market agriculture. Genetically engineering a master race? Now the Svalbard Seed Bank begins to become interesting. But it gets better. ‘The Project’ I referred to is the project of the Rockefeller Foundation and powerful financial interests since the 1920’s to use eugenics, later renamed genetics, to justify creation of a genetically-engineered Master Race. Hitler and the Nazis called it the Ayran Master Race. The eugenics of Hitler were financed to a major extent by the same Rockefeller Foundation which today is building a doomsday seed vault to preserve samples of every seed on our planet. Now this is getting really intriguing. The same Rockefeller Foundation created the pseudo-science discipline of molecular biology in their relentless pursuit of reducing human life down to the ‘defining gene sequence’ which, they hoped, could then be modified in order to change human traits at will. Hitler’s eugenics scientists, many of whom were quietly brought to the United States after the War to continue their biological eugenics research, laid much of the groundwork of genetic engineering of various life forms, much of it supported openly until well into the Third Reich by Rockefeller Foundation generous grants.² The same Rockefeller Foundation created the so-called Green Revolution, out of a trip to Mexico in 1946 by Nelson Rockefeller and former New Deal Secretary of Agriculture and founder of the Pioneer Hi-Bred Seed Company, Henry Wallace. The Green Revolution purported to solve the world hunger problem to a major degree in Mexico, India and other select countries where Rockefeller worked. Rockefeller Foundation agronomist, Norman Borlaug, won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work, hardly something to boast about with the likes of Henry Kissinger sharing the same. In reality, as it years later emerged, the Green Revolution was a brilliant Rockefeller family scheme to develop a globalized agribusiness which they then could monopolize just as they had done in the world oil industry beginning a half century before. As Henry Kissinger declared in the 1970’s, ‘If you control the oil you control the country; if you control food, you control the population.’ Agribusiness and the Rockefeller Green Revolution went hand-in-hand. They were part of a grand strategy which included Rockefeller Foundation financing of research for the development of genetic engineering of plants and animals a few years later. John H. Davis had been Assistant Agriculture Secretary under President Dwight Eisenhower in the early 1950’s. He left Washington in 1955 and went to the Harvard Graduate School of Business, an unusual place for an agriculture expert in those days. He had a clear strategy. In 1956, Davis wrote an article in the Harvard Business Review in which he declared that “the only way to solve the so-called farm problem once and for all, and avoid cumbersome government programs, is to progress from agriculture to agribusiness.” He knew precisely what he had in mind, though few others had a clue back then--- a revolution in agriculture production that would concentrate control of the food chain in corporate multinational hands, away from the traditional family farmer.³ A crucial aspect driving the interest of the Rockefeller Foundation and US agribusiness companies was the fact that the Green Revolution was based on proliferation of new hybrid seeds in developing markets. One vital aspect of hybrid seeds was their lack of reproductive capacity. Hybrids had a built in protection against multiplication. Unlike normal open pollinated species whose seed gave yields similar to its parents, the yield of the seed borne by hybrid plants was significantly lower than that of the first generation. That declining yield characteristic of hybrids meant farmers must normally buy seed every year in order to obtain high yields. Moreover, the lower yield of the second generation eliminated the trade in seed that was often done by seed producers without the breeder’s authorization. It prevented the redistribution of the commercial crop seed by middlemen. If the large multinational seed companies were able to control the parental seed lines in house, no competitor or farmer would be able to produce the hybrid. The global concentration of hybrid seed patents into a handful of giant seed companies, led by DuPont’s Pioneer Hi-Bred and Monsanto’s Dekalb laid the ground for the later GMO seed revolution.⁴ In effect, the introduction of modern American agricultural technology, chemical fertilizers and commercial hybrid seeds all made local farmers in developing countries, particularly the larger more established ones, dependent on foreign, mostly US agribusiness and petro-chemical company inputs. It was a first step in what was to be a decades-long, carefully planned process... Plant breeders and researchers are the major users of gene banks. Today’s largest plant breeders are Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta and Dow Chemical, the global plant-patenting GMO giants. Since early in 2007 Monsanto holds world patent rights together with the United States Government for plant so-called ‘Terminator’ or Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURT). Terminator is an ominous technology by which a patented commercial seed commits ‘suicide’ after one harvest. Control by private seed companies is total. Such control and power over the food chain has never before in the history of mankind existed. This clever genetically engineered terminator trait forces farmers to return every year to Monsanto or other GMO seed suppliers to get new seeds for rice, soybeans, corn, wheat whatever major crops they need to feed their population. If broadly introduced around the world, it could within perhaps a decade or so make the world’s majority of food producers new feudal serfs in bondage to three or four giant seed companies such as Monsanto or DuPont or Dow Chemical. That, of course, could also open the door to have those private companies, perhaps under orders from their host government, Washington, deny seeds to one or another developing country whose politics happened to go against Washington’s. Those who say ‘It can’t happen here’ should look more closely at current global events. The mere existence of that concentration of power in three or four private US-based agribusiness giants is grounds for legally banning all GMO crops even were their harvest gains real, which they manifestly are not. These private companies, Monsanto, DuPont, Dow Chemical hardly have an unsullied record in terms of stewardship of human life. They developed and proliferated such innovations as dioxin, PCBs, Agent Orange. They covered up for decades clear evidence of carcinogenic and other severe human health consequences of use of the toxic chemicals. They have buried serious scientific reports that the world’s most widespread herbicide, glyphosate, the essential ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide that is tied to purchase of most Monsanto genetically engineered seeds, is toxic when it seeps into drinking water.⁹ Denmark banned glyphosate in 2003 when it confirmed it has contaminated the country’s groundwater.¹⁰  The diversity stored in seed gene banks is the raw material for plant breeding and for a great deal of basic biological research. Several hundred thousand samples are distributed annually for such purposes. The UN’s FAO lists some 1400 seed banks around the world, the largest being held by the United States Government. Other large banks are held by China, Russia, Japan, India, South Korea, Germany and Canada in descending order of size. In addition, CGIAR operates a chain of seed banks in select centers around the world. CGIAR, set up in 1972 by the Rockefeller Foundation and Ford Foundation to spread their Green Revolution agribusiness model, controls most of the private seed banks from the Philippines to Syria to Kenya. In all these present seed banks hold more than six and a half million seed varieties, almost two million of which are ‘distinct.’ Svalbard’s Doomsday Vault will have a capacity to house four and a half million different seeds. more...
| NewWorldOrder | Earth Changes |

Bernanke: Federal Reserve caused Great Depression WorldNet Daily (March 19, 2008) - Despite the varied theories espoused by many establishment economists, it was none other than the Federal Reserve that caused the Great Depression and the horrific suffering, deprivation and dislocation America and the world experienced in its wake. At least, that's the clearly stated view of current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. The worldwide economic downturn called the Great Depression, which persisted from 1929 until about 1939, was the longest and worst depression ever experienced by the industrialized Western world. While originating in the U.S., it ended up causing drastic declines in output, severe unemployment, and acute deflation in virtually every country on earth. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "the Great Depression ranks second only to the Civil War as the gravest crisis in American history." What exactly caused this economic tsunami that devastated the U.S. and much of the world? In "A Monetary History of the United States," Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman along with coauthor Anna J. Schwartz lay the mega-catastrophe of the Great Depression squarely at the feet of the Federal Reserve. Here's how Friedman summed up his views on the Fed and the Depression in an Oct. 1, 2000, interview with PBS:

PBS: You've written that what really caused the Depression was mistakes by the government. Looking back now, what in your view was the actual cause?

Friedman: Well, we have to distinguish between the recession of 1929, the early stages, and the conversion of that recession into a major catastrophe. The recession was an ordinary business cycle. We had repeated recessions over hundreds of years, but what converted [this one] into a major depression was bad monetary policy. The Federal Reserve System had been established to prevent what actually happened. It was set up to avoid a situation in which you would have to close down banks, in which you would have a banking crisis. And yet, under the Federal Reserve System, you had the worst banking crisis in the history of the United States. There's no other example I can think of, of a government measure which produced so clearly the opposite of the results that were intended. And what happened is that [the Federal Reserve] followed policies which led to a decline in the quantity of money by a third. For every $100 in paper money, in deposits, in cash, in currency, in existence in 1929, by the time you got to 1933 there was only about $65, $66 left. And that extraordinary collapse in the banking system, with about a third of the banks failing from beginning to end, with millions of people having their savings essentially washed out, that decline was utterly unnecessary. At all times, the Federal Reserve had the power and the knowledge to have stopped that. And there were people at the time who were all the time urging them to do that. So it was, in my opinion, clearly a mistake of policy that led to the Great Depression.

Although economists have pontificated over the decades about this or that cause of the Great Depression, even the current Fed chairman Ben S. Bernanke, agrees with Friedman's assessment that the Fed caused the Great Depression. At a Nov. 8, 2002, conference to honor Friedman's 90th birthday, Bernanke, then a Federal Reserve governor, gave a speech at Friedman's old home base, the University of Chicago. Here's a bit of what Bernanke, the man who now runs the Fed – and thus, one of the most powerful people in the world – had to say that day:

I can think of no greater honor than being invited to speak on the occasion of Milton Friedman's ninetieth birthday. Among economic scholars, Friedman has no peer. … Today I'd like to honor Milton Friedman by talking about one of his greatest contributions to economics, made in close collaboration with his distinguished coauthor, Anna J. Schwartz. This achievement is nothing less than to provide what has become the leading and most persuasive explanation of the worst economic disaster in American history, the onset of the Great Depression – or, as Friedman and Schwartz dubbed it, the Great Contraction of 1929-33. … As everyone here knows, in their "Monetary History" Friedman and Schwartz made the case that the economic collapse of 1929-33 was the product of the nation's monetary mechanism gone wrong. Contradicting the received wisdom at the time that they wrote, which held that money was a passive player in the events of the 1930s, Friedman and Schwartz argued that "the contraction is in fact a tragic testimonial to the importance of monetary forces."

After citing how Friedman and Schwartz documented the Fed's continual contraction of the money supply during the Depression and its aftermath – and the subsequent abandonment of the gold standard by many nations in order to stop the devastating monetary contraction – Bernanke adds:

… Before the creation of the Federal Reserve, Friedman and Schwartz noted, bank panics were typically handled by banks themselves – for example, through urban consortiums of private banks called clearinghouses. If a run on one or more banks in a city began, the clearinghouse might declare a suspension of payments, meaning that, temporarily, deposits would not be convertible into cash. Larger, stronger banks would then take the lead, first, in determining that the banks under attack were in fact fundamentally solvent, and second, in lending cash to those banks that needed to meet withdrawals. Though not an entirely satisfactory solution – the suspension of payments for several weeks was a significant hardship for the public – the system of suspension of payments usually prevented local banking panics from spreading or persisting. Large, solvent banks had an incentive to participate in curing panics because they knew that an unchecked panic might ultimately threaten their own deposits.

It was in large part to improve the management of banking panics that the Federal Reserve was created in 1913. However, as Friedman and Schwartz discuss in some detail, in the early 1930s the Federal Reserve did not serve that function. The problem within the Fed was largely doctrinal: Fed officials appeared to subscribe to Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon's infamous 'liquidationist' thesis, that weeding out "weak" banks was a harsh but necessary prerequisite to the recovery of the banking system. Moreover, most of the failing banks were small banks (as opposed to what we would now call money-center banks) and not members of the Federal Reserve System. Thus the Fed saw no particular need to try to stem the panics. At the same time, the large banks – which would have intervened before the founding of the Fed – felt that protecting their smaller brethren was no longer their responsibility. Indeed, since the large banks felt confident that the Fed would protect them if necessary, the weeding out of small competitors was a positive good, from their point of view.

In short, according to Friedman and Schwartz, because of institutional changes and misguided doctrines, the banking panics of the Great Contraction were much more severe and widespread than would have normally occurred during a downturn. …

Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again. Best wishes for your next ninety years.

Today, the entire Western financial world holds its breath every time the Fed chairman speaks, so influential are the central bank's decisions on markets, interest rates and the economy in general. Yet the Fed, supposedly created to smooth out business cycles and prevent disruptive economic downswings like the Great Depression, has actually done the opposite.
| NewWorldOrder | America | Economic Crisis |

What strikes me about this is that it is admitted that the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression, and one of the results of the Great Depression was the confiscation of gold by the government in 1933 by Executive order of President Roosevelt.

Executive order: By virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 5(B) of The Act of Oct. 6, 1917, as amended by section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, in which Congress declared that a serious emergency exists, I as President, do declare that the national emergency still exists; That the continued private hoarding of gold and silver by subjects of the United States poses a grave threat to the peace, equal justice, and well-being of the United States; and that appropriate measures must be taken immediately to protect the interests of our people.

"Therefore, pursuant to the above authority, I herby proclaim that such gold and silver holdings are prohibited, and that all such coin, bullion or other possessions of gold and silver be tendered within fourteen days to agents of the Government of the United States for compensation at the official price, in the legal tender of the Government. All safe deposit boxes in banks or financial institutions have been sealed, pending action in the due course of the law. All sales or purchases or movements of such gold and silver within the borders of the United States and its territories, and all foreign exchange transactions or movements of such metals across the border are herby prohibited.

"Your possession of these proscribed metals and/or your maintenance of a safe-deposit box to store them is known to the Government from bank and insurance records. Therefore, be advised
that your vault box must remain sealed, and may only be opened in the presence of an agent of The Internal Revenue Service.

"By lawful Order given this day, the President of the United States."

This forced the trade of gold by individuals for paper currency that lost 95% of its value in the following years. Watch America: Freedom to Fascism as well as Monopoly Men, Money As Debt, and Money, Banking & the Federal Reserve for more history on what our Dollar really is and how unstable it is. In a society living on credit made from thin air feeding the international bankers, the system is bound to collapse. Now one could label me a conspiracy theorist, but I don't mind because there are people with a plan that is self-serving and takes advantage of the general population. They are guided by a spirit that God says we are at war with, spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:11,12 This isn't a war of traditional weapons, but of spiritual weapons, the Word of God and the ideas of love expressed in them that we are to live by in imitation of Christ.

Could it be that a small group with a big plan could push through a system intended to milk a nation to feed the bigger plan of a New World Order as foretold in the Bible? Thinking in terms of just men, the thought is pretty crazy. However, we must remember that a spiritual force who has been around from before mankind is working for our destruction and has great influence over an ignorant mankind and he often uses generation after generation of initiates into groups keeping secrets. This is the mystery of iniquity at work today, not always defined by single men yet evident at times in their actions and the fruits of their labors. Is this another case of men being tricked and manipulated for a transfer of wealth and power toward a globalist end? Time will tell, but the more I study and watch, the more likely it seems. The way the Federal Reserve came into existence and what it caused and where we're at now because of it all seems to point in the same direction and believe it or not, there are conspiracies out there. What can be done? Nothing if the Bible is true as it foretells this global control and the man to whom Lucifer will give it. I believe the Bible is the Word of God and will come to pass exactly as foretold. What we should do is build our personal relationship with Yeshua and share the good news of our salvation with those with ears to hear. The end will come in God's timing, let us remain faithful to Him in grace and truth toward others.

Ghost of Nazi Past, Ghost of Nazi Present A Time, Times, and Half A Time (March 16, 2008) - Quite often as I’ve spent time preparing material for this blog space, I’ve thought to myself, “this is a resurgence of Nazism”. I had been raised in a household by a father who purchased every book he could find related to the first and second world wars. I knew that it was important to direct attention to this area and parallel the changes the Nazi’s made to law with those being prepared by the global government. I understood this would be an extremely time consuming task and one which I was not too excited to start. Fortunately for me, around Christmas time, as I passed through the history section in Barnes & Noble, a book title caught my eye. The book The Third Reich In Power by Richard J. Evans had done exactly what I was preparing to do. It seemed as though it was God’s Christmas present to me for which I am thankful. Richard Evans has provided an excellent high level overview of Nazi changes to law and culture—a book which I highly recommend. I will be quoting from Evans’ work extensively in this and the next blog post. The format will be that I present a passage from The Third Reich In Power followed by citations of global governance proposals. I have already dedicated ink to much of the material I’m about to cover, but it is worth re-reading as one considers we have seen this before in various dictatorships, and in particular, the Nazi regime. Throughout my lifetime, I’ve heard people argue that what happened in Nazi Germany could never happen again. My father advised me that when people truly start to believe that, that’s when it will happen. Perhaps Richard Evans best explains this mindset as “the further in time we get from Nazi Germany, the more difficult it becomes for historians living in democratic political systems and in cultures which respect the rights of the individual to make the leap of imagination necessary to understand people’s behaviour in a state such as Nazi Germany, where imprisonment, torture or even death might await anyone who dared to voice the slightest criticism of the regime and its leaders.” Pg 116 Indeed, and today the masses may be prepared to accept the doctrines like those of the Nazis-- the newly-proposed model of Shared Security, a.k.a, “Civilian-Military Cooperation (CIMIC), “Responsibility to Protect”, “Human Security”—because their architects present the doctrines as belonging to the human rights framework. Nonetheless, the definition of human rights has become a slippery slope. For example, any religious or political viewpoint that does not fall within “common shared value” guidelines is considered extremist and said to be a gross violation of another’s human rights. Therein the hostilities begin. Following, I have divided sections into topic. The lead section which is bolded has been quoted from The Third Reich in Power. The italicized sections following it are citations which demonstrate there are calls to implement similar legislation.

Cultural/Social

“…he [Justice Minister Gurtner] quickly appointed a committee to revise the Reich Criminal Code of 1871 in accordance with the new ethos of the Third Reich. As one committee member, the criminologist, Edmund Mezger, put it, the aim was to create a new synthesis of ‘the principle of the individual’s responsibility to his people, and the principle of the racial improvement of the people as a whole.” Pg 72

“Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.” – Article 29, Universal Declaration on Human Rights

“UNESCO promotes respect for all dimensions of cultural diversity since it is the very fabric of humankind and the “common heritage of humanity”, as stipulated in the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity…The Declaration furthermore aims at preserving cultural diversity as a living, and thus renewable treasure that must not be perceived as static but rather as a process guaranteeing the survival of humanity…the Declaration is dedicated to preventing segregation and fundamentalism which, in the name of cultural differences, could sanctify those differences and in doing so, counter the message of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Rosa Guerreiro  more...
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America |

Congress, watchdog probe passport security The Washington Times (March 27, 2008) - Three House leaders and the Government Printing Office's watchdog said yesterday that they are investigating security concerns about the production of electronic passports highlighted during an investigation by The Washington Times. Rep. Bennie Thompson, Mississippi Democrat and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, criticized the GPO for using foreign components in new electronic passports. "It is just plain irresponsible to jeopardize the gold standard in document security by outsourcing production when U.S. companies ought to be able to do the same work here," said Mr. Thompson, who announced that his panel is investigating the outsourcing. Rep. John D. Dingell and Rep. Bart Stupak said they also are investigating the overseas production of electronic passports. The two Michigan Democrats said they are looking into whether profits made by the GPO through selling blank passports to the State Department may have violated the law limiting the GPO's business practices. The Times reported yesterday that the GPO chose two European computer chip makers over U.S. manufacturers to make tens of millions of electronic passports. The passports are being assembled in Thailand by one company that was a victim of Chinese economic espionage. "If true, these allegations raised in today's press reports are extremely serious not only to the integrity of our e-Passport program, but also to our national security," said Mr. Dingell, chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Mr. Stupak, chairman of the subcommittee on oversight and investigations, said, "Given all of the personal information contained in an e-passport, it is essential that the entire production chain be secure and free from potential tampering." Mr. Dingell and Mr. Stupak said in a letter yesterday to GPO Inspector General J. Anthony Ogden and Public Printer Robert Tapella that they are investigating the management, production and distribution of electronic passports. Mr. Thompson, commenting on a report in yesterday's editions of The Washington Times, said in a statement that the credibility of U.S. passports is "of the utmost importance to our homeland security." "Questions alone about the production and chain of custody of blank U.S. passports can send shock waves through our homeland security infrastructure," he said. "The Committee on Homeland Security will use all of the tools available to determine if American technologies are being overlooked and what implications there might be for other border security documents and technologies." Mr. Ogden earlier said his office is conducting an "end-to-end" review of the agency's production of electronic passports and will look into the outsourcing of some passport components, such as computer chips embedded in travel documents. "We do pay close attention to the issue of passport manufacturing. It is a high priority of this office," Mr. Ogden said in an interview. Mr. Ogden said his office's current work plan includes the review "to help improve the process of manufacturing passports. That's no secret." One of the companies involved in passport production in Thailand, Smartrac, charged in a court filing in the Netherlands last year that its technology was stolen by China. The company issued a statement yesterday saying its passport assembly plant was secure, CNN reported. The outsourcing has raised concerns among investigators over the security of passports. GPO and State Department officials have sought to play down security concerns and have said they conduct regular checks of overseas manufacturers. Mr. Ogden said deficiencies in passport manufacturing detailed in an Oct. 12 report cited by the paper were related to older, non-electronic passports. He declined to specify the deficiencies but said the agency has been responsive in addressing many of the problems.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | Technology | America | Economic Crisis |

I suppose I'm not really surprised that European companies using cheaper labor in Thailand would be making our e-passports since in the end the same basic system will probably be used for tracking people through the mark of the beast.

Outsourced passports netting govt. profits, risking national security The Washington Times (March 26, 2008) - The United States has outsourced the manufacturing of its electronic passports to overseas companies — including one in Thailand that was victimized by Chinese espionage — raising concerns that cost savings are being put ahead of national security, an investigation by The Washington Times has found. The Government Printing Office's decision to export the work has proved lucrative, allowing the agency to book more than $100 million in recent profits by charging the State Department more money for blank passports than it actually costs to make them, according to interviews with federal officials and documents obtained by The Times. The profits have raised questions both inside the agency and in Congress because the law that created GPO as the federal government's official printer explicitly requires the agency to break even by charging only enough to recover its costs. Lawmakers said they were alarmed by The Times' findings and plan to investigate why U.S. companies weren't used to produce the state-of-the-art passports, one of the crown jewels of American border security. "I am not only troubled that there may be serious security concerns with the new passport production system, but also that GPO officials may have been profiting from producing them," said Rep. John D. Dingell, the Michigan Democrat who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Officials at GPO, the Homeland Security Department and the State Department played down such concerns, saying they are confident that regular audits and other protections already in place will keep terrorists and foreign spies from stealing or copying the sensitive components to make fake passports. "Aside from the fact that we have fully vetted and qualified vendors, we also note that the materials are moved via a secure transportation means, including armored vehicles," GPO spokesman Gary Somerset said. But GPO Inspector General J. Anthony Ogden, the agency's internal watchdog, doesn't share that confidence. He warned in an internal Oct. 12 report that there are "significant deficiencies with the manufacturing of blank passports, security of components, and the internal controls for the process." more...
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | Technology | America | Economic Crisis |

Toward A Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World From What Björn Thinks (March 24, 2008) - This is a 152-page document prepared to lay out the case for transatlantic cooperation that I believe is leading to the fulfillment of the declared New World Order and will expand in the coming times to battle religious fundamentalism and act as the foundation and framework for the war on the saints. The linked page has the source document, but primarily picks out certain aspects of the document pointing out the reasons why. Thank you Björn!
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America |

It's the end of Britain as we know it Christian Science Monitor (March 24, 2008) - The Lisbon Treaty spells the end of a sovereign Britain. You might want to take that vacation in England just as soon as you can – before its 1,000-year run as a sovereign nation comes to an end. This winter, 27 nations of the European Union (EU) signed the Treaty of Lisbon. You may think, "Innocuous enough," as Portuguese-inspired visions of the Tagus River and chicken piri-piri swirl before your eyes. But for England (Britain, actually) the Treaty of Lisbon isn't that appetizing. That's because, if ratified, it will become the decisive act in this creation of a federal European superstate with its capital in Brussels. Britain would become a province and its "Mother of Parliaments," a regional assembly. And that's no small humiliation for a country that gave the world English and saved Western civilization in the Battle of Britain in 1940. The Eurocrat elite in Brussels might not admit it, but the Treaty of Lisbon is essentially a constitution for a "country" called Europe. More bluntly, it's a cynical repackaging of the EU Constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair promised to put the EU Constitution to the British people in a referendum. But his successor, Gordon Brown, has reneged on that promise. He insists that the Treaty of Lisbon is shorn of all constitutional content and that it preserves key aspects of British sovereignty. On March 11, the bill to ratify the treaty cleared the House of Commons. And now the Brown government is poised to win passage in the House of Lords, too. But British resistance is stirring. In a recent series of mini referendums, almost 90 percent of voters gave the Lisbon Treaty an emphatic thumbs down and demanded a nationwide referendum. If all 27 nations ratify the treaty this year, it will begin to come into effect on Jan. 1, 2009. The British will then be expected to transfer loyalty and affection to the EU and devote themselves increasingly to its wellbeing. With its flag, anthem, currency, institutions, regulations, and directives, the EU has long been indistinguishable from a nation-state-in-waiting. Now the Lisbon Treaty gives it those requisites of nationhood it's always lacked: a president, a foreign minister (and diplomatic corps), a powerful new interior department, a public prosecutor and full treaty-making powers. Add to those its common system of criminal justice, an embryonic federal police force, and the faintly sinister-sounding European Gendarmerie Force, and what this union becomes is a monolithic state with great power pretensions. Most alarmingly, though, is that the Lisbon Treaty can be extended indefinitely without recourse to further treaties or referendums. That 27 European nations are on the verge of being reconstituted as a federal European superstate is substantially the achievement of the fanatical French integrationist Jean Monnet, for whom the nation state was anathema. When British Prime Minister Edward Heath took Britain into the Common Market in 1973, the country thought it was entering a free-trade agreement. It hoped membership would sprinkle some European stardust on Britain's shipwrecked economy. Mr. Heath, a passionate Europhile, assured the country that membership would not entail any sacrifice of "independence and sovereignty." Like Europe's fervent integrationists, whose plans for political union had always been disguised as increasingly beneficial economic integration, Heath maintained the fiction that he had simply joined a trading bloc. Britain had been a highly successful nation state and global power. Now, it seemed, she needed Europe to reverse a relentless decline. Thus when the British were asked to decide on continued membership in the Common Market in a 1975 referendum, almost 70 percent voted to stay in. The "Yes" campaign swept to victory on a platform of jobs, prosperity, and peace. But the implications for the weakening of national sovereignty went unheeded. Few recalled that in 1961 the Anti-Common Market League had warned that signing the Treaty of Rome (which created the Common Market) "would mean a permanent, irrevocable loss of sovereignty and independence" and that Britain's affairs "would increasingly be administered by supranational bodies … instead of by our own elected representatives." Surrendering to supranational rule is hard for Britain given its celebrated past. Its European neighbors, by contrast, their histories indelibly stained by tyranny, military defeat, and imperial barbarity, seem eager to subsume themselves in a suffocating superstate. The Treaty of Lisbon crystallizes the EU's core belief that nation states are every bit as defunct as Stone Age tribes. In the case of Britain, though, it would curtail the freedom of action and global vision of a nation whose people are far from convinced that sovereign independence is a badge of shame. Britain could walk out of the EU today simply by repealing the 1972 European Communities Act. But political courage of that order is in short supply. Perhaps only Queen Elizabeth II can rescue her realm from the baleful Treaty of Lisbon. She could veto it when it comes to her for royal assent and – sensationally – declare that she's not prepared to see her proud, independent, liberty-loving country swallowed up by an arrogant, authoritarian, and unloved European superstate. She would be in excellent company. Queen Anne refused assent to the Scottish Militia Bill in 1708. And that was only about a bunch of musket-toting rubes of doubtful loyalty. This is about national survival.
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | Solana | NewWorldOrder |

This article makes several valuable points. First of all, the road to a European State being created through the Treaty of Lisbon began with free-trade agreements, exactly what the SPP is working on with Canada and Mexico for a "North American Union." This works to harmonize trade and laws to international law, which is increasingly being dictated from Europe. This shouldn't be any surprise to those that study Bible prophecy as Europe is the center of the circles of power for the fourth kingdom. The Treaty of Lisbon is the constitution creating the nation of Europe, Rome revived and headed by the 10 member-states with voting powers from which Javier Solana has risen. He is the first one in line to take over the foreign minister position created by the Lisbon Treaty. Even if the treaty isn't ratified by all 27 members, certain powers will go into effect January 1, 2009. The article also points out the deception given to the public regarding these participations in "trade blocs" that are not taking away sovereignty or independence. However, what makes a nation sovereign? I posit that self-determination is a factor and the ability to create and enforce its own laws and money. Under the guise of free-trade, law is internationalized and harmonized to the extend that national law is dictated from outside in the interest of international integration. That is global governance in a nutshell and how the New World Order is coming into effect silently and effectively. It makes the powerful richer and those who see the problems cannot effect any change. Ireland is the only country able to hold a referendum to stop the Treaty of Lisbon, but a big media blitz to "inform the public" is probably going to nullify that prospect of stopping it. What began in Europe as "free-trade" has turned into unelected leaders determining policy without the regard of the people they "serve." Sure, that's national sovereignty! The bad news is that if we are really in the end-times, there is absolutely nothing we can do to change it. But the good news is that God is in control and has a plan which He has revealed in His Word, the Bible for those who have faith in His Word. My faith has grown in study of it and I welcome you to strengthen your faith too.

Inside the hush-hush North American Union confab World Net Daily (March 13, 2008) - A largely unreported meeting held at the State Department discussed integration of the U.S., Mexico and Canada in concert with a move toward a transatlantic union, linking a North American community with the European Union. The meeting was held Monday under the auspices of the Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy, or ACIEP. WND obtained press credentials and attended as an observer. The meeting was held under "Chatham House" rules that prohibit reporters from attributing specific comments to individual participants. The State Department website noted the meeting was opened by Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs Daniel S. Sullivan and ACIEP Chairman Michael Gadbaw, vice president and senior counsel for General Electric's International Law & Policy group since December 1990. WND observed about 25 ACIEP members, including U.S. corporations involved in international trade, prominent U.S. business trade groups, law firms involved with international business law, international investment firms and other international trade consultants. No members of Congress attended the meeting. The agenda for the ACIEP meeting was not published, and State Department officials in attendance could not give WND permission under Chatham House rules to publish the agenda. The meeting agenda included topics reviewing the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, and the U.S.-EU Transatlantic Economic Council, or TEC. The SPP, declared by the U.S., Canada and Mexico at a summit meeting in 2005, has 20 trilateral bureaucratic working groups that seek to "integrate and harmonize" administrative rules and regulations on a continental basis. Several participants said the premise of the SPP is to create a North American business platform to benefit North America-based multi-national companies the way the European Union benefits its own. Others noted the premise of the TEC is to create a convergence of administrative rules and regulations between Europe and North America, anticipating the creation of a "Transatlantic Economic Union" between the European Union and North America. Participants pointed out that transatlantic trade is currently 40 percent of all world trade. They argue that trade and non-trade barriers need to be further reduced to maintain that market share as a framework is put in place to advance transatlantic economic integration. Still, some participants argued that many corporations in North America already have moved beyond a North American focus to adopt a global perspective that transcends even the Transatlantic market. "Supply chains and markets are everywhere," one participant asserted. "What's to stop global corporations from going after the cheapest labor available globally, wherever they can find it, provided the cost of transporting goods globally can be managed economically?" Other participants argued regional alliances were still important, if only to put in place the institutional bases that ultimately would lead to global governance on uniform global administrative regulations favorable to multi-national corporations. "North America should be a premiere platform to establish continental institutions," a participant said. "That's why we need to move the security perimeters to include the whole continent, especially as we open the borders between North American countries for expanding free trade." One presentation on the agenda identified four reasons why administrative rules and regulations need to be integrated by SPP in North America and by the Transatlantic Economic Council, bridging together European Union and North American markets:

• Standardization – to keep prices low and productivity high;
• Investment – for every $1 traded, $4 is invested; right now 75 percent of investment in the U.S. comes from the EU, and 52 percent of the investment in the EU comes from the U.S.;
• Productivity Improvements – to lower production costs and stimulate trade; and
• Open Borders – to facilitate the free movement of labor to markets where employment opportunities are available.

The discussion pointed out the SPP trilateral working groups and the Transatlantic Economic Council were being supported by top-level Cabinet officers and the heads of state in both the EU and in North America. Progress in EU-U.S. regulatory integration was noted in financial market coordination, investment rule cohesion, trade security measures and efforts undertaken recently to preserve intellectual property rights. more...
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | NewWorldOrder | America |

Wonder why the borders aren't being dealt with? It works to eliminate national sovereignty for a global environment, a goal of the New World Order to bring all the nations of the world under one authority. International law dictates national law and thereby bringing about global governance while maintaining, for the time being, an illusion of national sovereignty. But if we don't make our own laws or have control of our own currency, how sovereign are we really? The integration under the guise of global markets is leading to the system that will become the mark of the beast, where nobody can buy or sell unless they have the mark. With the emergency situations the Bible foretells of and the economic problems that come about with our current financial situation, a new global cashless society built on the already integrating global economy is that much closer to reality today. The infrastructure is there as is the technology to make it happen. With this kind of integration, it's only a matter of time. Keep watching!