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 -