UN's Marxist Plan for Global Government

[vector7]

UN's Marxist Plan for Global Government

United Nations General Assembly President Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann intends to leave his mark on the United Nations and the global economic-political picture before his one-year term ends in September. D'Escoto, a longtime top official in the communist Sandinista government of Nicaragua, has chosen as his primary vehicle for making this mark the UN Conference on the World's Financial and Economic Crisis to be held June 24-26 at the UN headquarters in New York.

The D'Escoto-UN plan, which has received scant media coverage, is nothing short of s full-blown call for world government administered through the UN. The Draft Outcome Document issued by D'Escoto on May 8, 2009 on behalf of the "G-192" (the representatives of the 192 Member States of the UN), decries the evils of "a profit centered economy" and the current "prevailing socio-economic system" and declares: "The anti-values of greed, individualism, and exclusion should be replaced by solidarity, common good and inclusion."

How do D'Escoto and his UN comrades propose to accomplish this? The 19-page document lays out a Sandinista-style Marxist-Leninist program for the entire planet that involves global government, with a huge new global bureaucracy exercising vast powers over all human activity.

Point 78 of the document's 80-point program proclaims:

New Structures are also necessary to achieve recovery and restructure the prevailing socio-economic model. They should be created by the United Nations General Assembly who should also approve their budgets and supervised and coordinated by ECOSOC with staff support of UNDESA and United Nations Regional Economic and Social Commissions.

Point 79 then lists the proposed new UN institutions that would rule all life on our planet:

Global Stimulus Fund
Global Public Goods Authority (Sea, Space, Cyberspace)
Global Tax Authority
Global Financial Products Safety Commission
Global Financial Regulatory Authority
Global Competition Authority
Global Council of Financial and Economic Advisors
Global Economic Coordination Council
World Monetary Board (Contingent SDR emissions)

Finally, point number 80 of the Draft Outcome Document tells us that "it is not possible to continue globalizing human relations without global regulation and institutions." According to the UN document, "Our growing global problem set will also eventually require global financial mechanisms to solve them. There are serious constraints to achieving this, but until we do, globalization without global institutions will continue to lead the world into chaos. It is up to the G-192, the General Assembly of the United Nations to assure that the Global Stimulus for Restructuring and Survival generates new global institutions as part of the same process that overcomes the crisis and restructures our socio-economic model."

Red-Pink-Green Coalition

The plan put forward by D'Escoto for exploiting the current economic crisis to build an all-powerful world government is the product of the usual coalition of UN forces: hardcore communists, "moderate" socialists, and militant environmentalists — all funded by various national and regional governments, UN agencies, tax exempt foundations, and corporate one-world elitists. As a top Sandinista official, "Father" Miguel D'Escoto fits clearly into the communist category. He was suspended from his priestly functions by the Vatican in 1982, along with fellow Sandinista priests Ernesto and Fernando Cardenal, Alvaro Arguello, and Edgar Parrales. Pope John Paul II severely chastised these Liberation Theology "Padres" when he visited Managua in 1983. Nevertheless, in violation of Canon Law and papal orders, they defiantly remained in the Soviet- and Cuban-backed Sandinista regime that brutally oppressed the Nicarguan people and persecuted faithful Catholics, laity and clergy alike, as well as Protestants and Jews.

As Foreign Minister under Sandinista chief Daniel Ortega, D'Escoto was a member of the ruling junta that imposed a rigid Soviet-style political-economic system on Nicaragua, while exporting terrorism and revolution to the rest of Latin America. Imprisonment, torture, murder, and expropriation became the order of the day as the Sandinista secret police implemented the methods they had learned from the Soviet KGB and Cuban DGI. Daniel Ortega returned as president in 2007. Thanks to a divided opposition, a phony public act of contrition by Ortega, and Sandinista voter intimidation and fraud, Ortega was able to take the presidency with only 38 percent of the vote. Due to a previously enacted "reform" — supported by Ortega and the Sandinistas — a first-round plurality of only 35 percent enables the victor to avoid a run-off election. However, Ortega's election campaign claims about having converted to Christianity and his (outwardly) penitent reconciliation with Cardinal Obando y Bravo (whom he had previously persecuted), turned out to be total ruses. Since taking office he has reinstituted the repression, intimidation, torture, and corruption of the earlier Sandinista regime.

One of "El Comandante" Ortega's most recent accomplishments is the repeal of the 1962 decision to revoke communist Cuba's membership in the Organization of American States (OAS). The OAS had ejected Castro's dictatorship because its "adherence ... to Marxism-Leninism is incompatible with the inter-American system." Ortega can be seen here triumphantly giving the communist clenched-fist salute at the OAS summit in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, on June 3, immediately after the vote to reinstate Havana's unapologetic Marxist-Leninist regime.

Ortega has not changed from his earlier Sandinista days; he's the same old Marxist-Leninist. And, as before, "Padre D'Escoto" (as he prefers to be called) is there to help him as an official adviser. Lest there be any doubt as to D'Escoto's political tilt, he even mentions in his official UN profile (with apparent pride) that he was the recipient of "the International Lenin Peace Prize (1985/86) awarded by the Soviet Union." For those unfamiliar with this "distinguished" award, it was originally instituted as the "Stalin Peace Prize," but after Stalin's death the Kremlin decided to moderate the Soviet image by denouncing the horrendous crimes of Stalin. The name of the award was then changed to honor communist leader V. I. Lenin instead.

As General Assembly president, Padre D'Escoto is able to project the Sandinista vision on a global scale. He is only able to do so, however, because of the indispensable help of a global brain trust that begins with his trusty Sandinista assistant, Paul Oquist.

The Geneva-based human rights group UN Watch reports that at a May 12 meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, with NGO representatives to promote the June economic crisis conference, D'Escoto expanded on his recurring diatribes against free market "greed" as the source of all the world's woes. Said UN Watch:

D'Escoto Brockmann was joined by his senior advisor, former Nicaraguan Minister Paul Oquist. Evidently the brains behind the initiative, Oquist explained that its goal is to make a new "Bretton Woods" agreement to address the entire financial system and architecture and promote a global stimulus.

It was Oquist, reports UN Watch, who presented D'Escoto's "solution" for the world's economic ills, a plan "requiring 5% of world GDP and involving various international taxes, including on pollution, cyberspace, the seas, and financial transactions."

The New York Times, in a May 24 bouquet to D'Escoto and his upcoming UN conference, did not bother to remind its readers of the former Sandinista foreign minister's blood-drenched record, but it did make this interesting (though not surprising) comment about Oquist's choice of seating for the Times' interview:

Sitting beneath portraits of Fidel Castro of Cuba, President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, among others, Mr. Oquist also said that the meltdown of 2008 proved that no state or states had a monopoly on financial wisdom.

Casting far larger shadows than Oquist, however, are the big guns of D'Escoto's Commission of Experts on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System. The chairman of the Commission is Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Laureate, former economist for the Clinton administration and the World Bank (and probably the most quoted economic guru of our day). Besides chairing the UN coterie that plans to restructure the world, Stiglitz is now a professor at Columbia University. But he has another important feather in his cap that his admirers in the media (and they are legion) seem to be taking special pains to ignore and conceal. Professor Stiglitz is also chairman of the Commission on Global Financial Issues sponsored by the Socialist International (SI), the worldwide congregation of socialist parties (including many that are communist - like the Sandinista FSLN - "ex-communist," and crypto-communist. The longest-serving president of the SI was the late German Chancellor Willy Brandt, who, after his death in 1992, was exposed as having been a Soviet KGB agent since before World War II. (Like Dr. Stiglitz, Brandt was also a Nobel Laureate.)

Now, since the Socialist International is such an important global player (even though it is little known in the United States), counting many ruling parties and heads of state as members, it would seem to be relevant to include Dr. Stiglitz's chairmanship of the SI Commission in his vita, especially since the SI Commission and the UN Commission are pushing virtually identical programs for socialist world government, under the guise of dealing with the current economic crisis. But then someone might notice that the SI has been pushing that same program for decades.

As The New American has repeatedly reported over the years, the Congress of the Socialist International in 1962 stated: "The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government." That has never changed, as the agenda of the current Stiglitz-led SI Commission bears out. But, since the "socialist" label, even in the era of Obama socialism, still carries a stigma in America, the UN's globalist-oriented friends in the media have opted to sanitize this information out of existence. And of course they won't point out that the Socialist International call for world government merely mirrors the much earlier official "Program of the Communist International" adopted by the Soviet Union in 1928, calling for "a World Union of Soviet Socialist Republics uniting the whole of mankind under the hegemony of the international proletariat organized as a state."

The current UN-D'Escoto-Stiglitz-SI plan for world government proposes something closely akin to that 81-year-old Soviet program. However, considering the scope of the UN's proposed global restructuring scheme, there has been very little mention of it by the Obama administration, members of Congress, or the so-called mainstream media. To the extent that it has been mentioned, the general line seems to be: "Oh, don't worry about that; the G8-G20 folks won't go along with anything that radical." But as we've previously detailed in the articles below, the global program kicked off by the recent G20 London Summit is cause enough for serious alarm and should be stirring forceful opposition. In fact, it may well be that the primary purpose served by Padre D'Escoto and the Stiglitz-chaired Commission is to make the G20 plan for world government appear conservative (and therefore acceptable, even welcome) by comparison.

Related articles:

Global Fusion: The G20, IMF, and World Government

Rooting for World Government

Dropping All Pretenses About "Global Governance"

Target: World Government

[Beetle]

exploiting the current economic crisis to build an all-powerful world government

Sal Alinsky would be proud.

[vector7]

The Plan For Socialist World Government

AIM Report | By Cliff Kincaid | June 17, 2009

These proposals, the document says, include initiatives involving “taxation for global objectives.”

While meaningless United Nations hand-wringing over the North Korean nuclear weapons program garnered the headlines, the world body is moving ahead with a global conference to lay the groundwork for world government financed by global taxes. The communist head of the U.N. General Assembly is leading the effort, but he is getting crucial support from "progressive" economists who advise the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party.

The United Nations Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Development, previously scheduled for June 1-3, will now take place on June 24-26.

U.N. General Assembly President Miguel D'Escoto is the U.N. point man on these "global governance" issues. We noted his role at the United Nations in a column last October. Now, even the New York Times is paying attention to what this crackpot has been up to.

D'Escoto, the Times said, believes the way out of the global financial crisis "should be lined with all manner of new global institutions, authorities and advisory boards," including the Global Stimulus Fund, the Global Public Goods Authority, the Global Tax Authority, the Global Financial Products Safety Commission, the Global Financial Regulatory Authority, the Global Competition Authority, the Global Council of Financial and Economic Advisers, the Global Economic Coordination Council, and the World Monetary Board.

D'Escoto is the former foreign minister of Communist Sandinista Nicaragua and Catholic Priest of the Maryknoll Order who advocates Marxist-oriented liberation theology and won the Lenin Peace Prize from the old Soviet Union. D'Escoto also claims a Master's of Science from Columbia University's School of Journalism.

The Times interviewed Paul Oquist, D'Escoto's senior adviser for the conference, who sat beneath portraits of Fidel Castro of Cuba, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, among others.

The problem is that the Times, in its story, "At U.N., a Sandinista's Plan for Recovery," didn't mention until the 13th paragraph that the official U.N. list of "experts" behind the plan include an American economist, Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning professor from Columbia University who supported and contributed to Obama's presidential campaign and advises Congressional Democrats on economic policy.

Stiglitz, an advocate of nationalizing U.S. banks, is also a member of the Socialist International Commission on Global Financial Issues and his name appears on a separate list of 15 "special advisers" to D'Escoto obtained from the U.N. by Inner City Press. Another name on the list-Noam Chomsky-is on the board of the Communist Party spin-off, the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism.

Working With A Castroite

Aides to D'Escoto "point out repeatedly that the president got many of his ideas from a distinguished panel of experts led by an American economist and Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz," the Times noted.

Stiglitz, a former Clinton official and financial contributor to the Democratic Party and its candidates, wrote the book, Making Globalization Work, in which he argues for a variety of global tax schemes that would cost American taxpayers billions of dollars. Last October he met behind closed doors with congressional Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to devise the economic "stimulus" plan of more federal spending and debt.

Incredibly, Stiglitz was quoted in a U.N. press release last October as saying that the United Nations, which is notorious for corruption, had to intervene in the financial crisis because it was "the one institution that was inclusive and had political legitimacy..."

Another one of the "experts" the Times neglected to mention was Robert Johnson, former managing director at Soros Fund Management and board member of the Institute for America's Future, a sponsor of a June 1-3 "progressive" conference in Washington, D.C. that will honor pro-Castro Rep. Barbara Lee and socialist labor leader John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO.

The Hand Of Soros

The Soros-funded Open Society Institute gave the Institute for America's Future $500,000 in 2008 in the area of "Idea Generation and Policy Change."

Johnson also serves on the board of the Democracy Alliance, a wealthy liberal group that includes Soros and is committed to "fostering collaboration among progressive leaders and institutions..."

Johnson's involvement in the United Nations Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis demonstrates how this "collaboration" is occurring at the global level and involves representatives of socialist and communist governments at the U.N.

Other "experts" on the D'Escoto panel come from Russia and China, with one of his "special representatives," Oswaldo Martinez, identified only as being from Communist Cuba, with no biography attached. Another D'Escoto "special representative," socialist and Jesuit Priest Francois Houtart, is the author of "Socialism for the 21st Century."

Toward this end, the "Report of the Commission of Experts of the President of the UN General Assembly on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System" raises the possibility of global taxes to finance one of President Obama's legislative goals when he was a senator-committing 0.7 percent of Gross National Income as "official development assistance," or foreign aid. This was the essence of Obama's Global Poverty Act, which never came up for a full Senate vote because of increasing public awareness that it would commit the U.S. to spending $845 billion in additional foreign aid.

Global Tax Agenda

Under the heading of "Innovative Sources of Financing" (page 109), the U.N. document declares that "For some time, the difficulty in meeting the UN official assistance target of 0.7 per cent of GNI of industrial countries as official development assistance, as well as the need for adequate funding for the provision of global and regional public goods (peace building, fighting global health pandemics, combating climate change and sustaining the global environment more generally) has generated proposals on how to guarantee stable sources of financing for these objectives."

These proposals, the document says, include initiatives involving "taxation for global objectives." It adds, "Two suggestions deserve special attention: a carbon tax and a levy on financial transactions." The global carbon tax, the document says, could generate $130 billion a year, while estimates of the revenues from a currency transaction tax range from $15 to $35 billion. Other global taxation options are also examined.

However, as D'Escoto and his "experts" move ahead with the U.N.'s global economic conference, some of Obama's representatives at the U.S. Mission to the U.N. seem to have grown sensitive to the communist's frequent outbursts of loony leftism and anti-American rhetoric. Such remarks could bring unwarranted attention to what D'Escoto and the "progressive" American economists are trying to implement in the international economic realm.

For example, The Washington Post reported on American criticism of D'Escoto's statements about Iran having no nuclear weapons program, exaggerating civilian deaths in Iraq, and calling for the release of Cuban Communist agents imprisoned in the U.S. D'Escoto "has repeatedly abused his position to pursue his personal agenda, and in doing so he diminishes the office and harms the General Assembly," one U.S. official was quoted as saying.

The Times story about the upcoming global economic conference said that D'Escoto's critics, who are "legion," say that some of his proposals-"like levying an international tax on all financial transactions or replacing the dollar as the international reserve currency"-"are well beyond the role of the United Nations." But none of these critics was identified as being in the Obama Administration or at the U.S. Mission to the U.N. Some of the critics seemed to be ambassadors from foreign countries who were peeved that they didn't get more direct input into formulating the conference document.

However, other than being too outspoken about the elaborate plans for new global institutions and world government that are being drawn up, it would appear that D'Escoto's goals and those of the Obama Administration correspond nicely. Perhaps that is because they share some of the same economic "experts" and Marxist philosophy.

PELOSI'S CONTROVERSIAL MARXIST CONNECTIONS
Like the president, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not have to go through a background investigation in order to get a security clearance.

This loophole in the law enables the president and members of Congress to automatically qualify for security clearances, even if they have controversial backgrounds and associations, by virtue of the fact that they get elected to high office in Washington, D.C.

In the case of Speaker Pelosi, who is second in the line of succession to the presidency after the vice president, there is increasing concern about whether she can be trusted with national security secrets. But the concern not only involves her unsubstantiated charges against the CIA over what officials told her about the treatment of terrorists, but her close personal relationship with pro-CastroRep. Barbara Lee and the "progressive" Hallinan family of San Francisco, once under scrutiny by the California Senate Fact-Finding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities for their pro-Soviet propaganda efforts.

Pelosi used a May 22 news conference to offer up other members of the House Democratic leadership as "human shields" to deflect questions from the press about the CIA controversy. They droned on about the liberal legislative agenda.

At the very end of the news conference, as Pelosi was trying to leave the podium and had already issued an edict that she didn't have anything more to say about the CIA matter, a reporter tried to ask a question about Rep. Steve King's intention to introduce a resolution asking the House to suspend Pelosi's security clearance until the controversy is resolved. The reporter asked, "And were you aware that Steve King is asking for your security clearance to be revoked?" But Pelosi walked away without commenting.

With the help of the mainstream media, Pelosi is obviously hoping that she can stonewall further inquiry. On a recent "Meet the Press," on NBC, Washington Post liberal columnist Eugene Robinson, a follower of the Democratic Party line, declared that he wasn't sure that she was "in such terrible political danger" and that "People underestimate Nancy Pelosi sometimes as a politician."

Pelosi the politician is clearly depending on the press to stop asking questions.

However, since Pelosi and other elected officials don't have to go through background investigations, it is the job of the media to perform this function. In the case of Pelosi, it is long overdue.

San Francisco Democrat

Pelosi has represented the city of San Francisco, perhaps the most liberal in the nation, since 1987, and is a very close friend of Rep.

Barbara Lee, who represents neighboring Oakland and Berkeley, California, and is the most vocal apologist for Communist Cuba in Congress today. Lee, head of the Congressional Black Caucus, recently led a delegation to Cuba to meet with the Castro brothers to discuss normalization of relations. But she paid no attention to political dissidents or political prisoners being held on the communist island.

Lee, who calls Pelosi "a magnificent woman" and "one of California's greatest representatives," began her career in the California state legislature as a secret member of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, a spin-off from the Communist Party. As a member of the staff of Rep. Ron Dellums, Lee was shown to have been collaborating with communist officials on the island of Grenada, according to documents captured after the liberation of that island nation. These revelations have not hurt Lee's standing with Pelosi and other "progressives." Indeed, Lee also served as the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

But even more interesting than the Barbara Lee connection is Pelosi's long-time friendship and association with Vincent and Vivian Hallinan, one of the most radical left-wing families in San Francisco over the course of five decades.

Pelosi hailed them as "one of San Francisco's great Irish families" in a March 17, 1999, statement, after the passing of Vivian Hallinan. "Vivian was a pioneer, a mentor and a leader," Pelosi said. "Our community was blessed by her presence and will long remember her many significant contributions to improving society. I will miss my friend, Vivian."
Pelosi called Vivian Hallinan, who openly held "socialist" views, a "pioneer" in "a wide range of progressive causes."

But these causes included support for communists in Central America during the 1980s, when Soviet- and Cuban-backed forces were subverting Central America through violence and terrorism and fighting for control of the region.

Indeed, Pelosi paid tribute to Vivian Hallinan by inserting into the Congressional Record an article saying that she had "opposed U.S. policy in Central America" under President Reagan, had "befriended Daniel Ortega, Nicaragua's [Communist] Sandinista leader," and had met with Cuban dictator Castro.

"She was a role model for many of us," Pelosi said. "If Vincent was the lion, Vivian was the lioness."

"My mother and Nancy were pretty close," acknowledges Conn Hallinan, one of their sons.

Official Scrutiny

The names of the Hallinans, including some of their sons, are included in the annual volumes of the California State Senate Fact-Finding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities. The subcommittee was a well-regarded investigative body which examined not only communist activities in California but right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society and the Minutemen.

In the case of the Hallinans, there was a lot to examine. Vincent Hallinan, a lawyer who died in 1992, was a founding member of the San Francisco chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, officially designated a front of the Communist Party, and defended secret Communist Party member and labor leader Harry Bridges.

In addition, he was a self-described "roaring atheist" who specialized in attacks on the Catholic Church. In one case, according to the New York Times, he "sued the Roman Catholic Church for fraud, demanding that it prove the existence of heaven and hell."

Vincent Hallinan also ran for president on the ticket of the Progressive Party, "a creature of the Communist apparatus, and completely dominated by the Communist Party from start to finish," the subcommittee said.

A 1961 subcommittee report says that Vincent Hallinan traveled to the Soviet Union with his wife to vouch for the legitimacy of the communist show trial of Francis Gary Powers, the American U-2 pilot shot down over the Soviet Union. Powers' mission had been to document the Soviet missile build-up. It adds, "[Vincent] Hallinan's glowing accounts of the Soviet Union and favorable comments concerning the fairness accorded Powers at his trial were sold in great quantity by the Communist Book Stores both in San Francisco and in Los Angeles."

A 1953 edition of the report states that Vincent Hallinan was a participant in a meeting of the Committee to Secure Justice in the Rosenberg Case, a "Communist front organization." The Rosenbergs were communists executed for committing atomic espionage against the United States on behalf of the Soviet Union.

A wealthy woman, Vivian Hallinan had contributed financially to one of Pelosi's campaigns. Her only other political contributions on the federal level, as recorded by the Federal Election Commission, went to Senator Barbara Boxer and Reps. Barbara Lee and Ron Dellums.

The "Progressive Champion"

Despite her pro-communist record, Lee was honored as a "progressive champion" at the June 2 "awards gala" sponsored by the Campaign for America's Future, perhaps the largest "progressive" group in the U.S. The gala, held in conjunction with a conference, is being chaired by the AFL-CIO, whose president, John Sweeney, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, is also being honored; the Service Employees International Union; the National Education Association; and Hollywood producer Norman Lear, among others.

Fenton Communications, the public relations firm which represented George Soros during his attempt to buy the White House in 2004, is one of several groups and individuals on the Gala Awards host committee.
At the group's 2006 conference, Pelosi was a featured attraction, telling the assembled "progressives" that if Democrats took control of Congress and made her speaker that Democrats would "make the most corrupt, closed Congress in history the most open and honest Congress in history."

But Pelosi tried desperately to avoid being open and honest about her charges against the CIA.

Time To Drop the Matter

One reporter did note that after Pelosi charged that she had been misled by the CIA, Republican House Leader John Boehner had said that she needed to produce the evidence or apologize, and that CIA director Leon Panetta has said the CIA was not in the practice of misleading Congress.

Pelosi replied, "I have made the statement that I'm going to make on this. I don't have anything more to say about it. I stand by my comments..."

Pressed for further explanation, she reiterated, "I won't have anything more to say about it."

The New York Times thought the performance was impressive, declaring that Pelosi had stuck to the "script" and had not succumbed to "the impatient media horde."

This was a signal to the rest of the press that they should drop the matter.

DEAR FELLOW MEDIA WATCHDOG JUNE-B, 2009

FORMER REPUBLICAN HOUSE SPEAKER NEWT GINGRICH HAS REALLY had a turn-around. You may remember when we alerted you to his television commercial with Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promoting the Al Gore theory of climate change. Back then he was promoting a "Contract With the Earth," the title of one of his books. But when gas prices went up, he suddenly dropped that line and promoted more oil drilling. Now he's calling for Pelosi to go, in the wake of her unsubstantiated charges against the CIA. In addition, Gingrich has called Obama's Supreme Court pick, Sonia Sotomayor, a racist, and has urged that she withdraw. I don't know which Gingrich is authentic-the conservative or liberal version. In any case, it's a fact that he's getting loads of press attention. He seems to be on all of the networks, from Fox News to NBC News. Some people seem to think that Gingrich is preparing to run for the presidency, but his controversial personal life may argue against that. He has been married three times, and has just changed his religious affiliation, under the guidance of his third wife, Callista.

I THINK ONE OF THE BEST SPOKESPERSONS FOR THE CONSERVATIVE POINT OF VIEW IN THE media today is Elizabeth Cheney, the daughter of the former Vice President and a State Department official in the Bush Administration. She has defended enhanced interrogation techniques, used to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil, and has criticized the Obama Administration's incoherent plan to move at least some of the Guantanamo terrorists to American locations. She's weak on the homosexual issue, probably because her sister Mary is a lesbian, but on foreign policy she has been very effective.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE ALLEGED CONSERVATIVE OR REPUBLICAN spokespeople appearing in the media. Fox News aired an interview with a "Republican strategist" by the name of Mark McKinnon, who worked for George W. Bush and John McCain but has been advising Senate Republicans not to oppose Obama Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor. His rationale was that opposition to her might damage Republican political prospects with Hispanic voters. McKinnon wrote a piece for a liberal website called "The Daily Beast" declaring that "Sotomayor is going to be confirmed. There is little doubt about it. So, going into weeks or months of paroxysms and hysterics about alleged 'judicial activism' is just going to make the [Republican] party look bitter, mean, tone deaf, and out of touch." Her record and the substance of the charges against her were deemed irrelevant. He put the term "judicial activism" in quotes, as if it is a matter of dispute, when she was captured on YouTube saying that the Court of Appeals makes policy. She quickly tried to correct the mistake, but she had said it. Thank you, YouTube. Please send McKinnon the enclosed postcard.

ANOTHER FAKE REPUBLICAN IN THE MEDIA IS STEVE SCHMIDT, WHO WAS McCAIN'S campaign manager. He was on ABC's "This Week" program on May 17 claiming to be a Catholic but defending Notre Dame's honoring of Barack Obama. Schmidt had previously appeared before the homosexual "Log Cabin Republicans" in April and had endorsed homosexual marriage. Another speaker at the group's conference was Meghan McCain, the daughter of the Senator and 2008 GOP presidential candidate. She is another supporter of homosexual marriage.

REGULAR READERS OF THE AIM REPORT WILL RECOGNIZE THE OBAMA APPEARANCE AT Notre Dame and the push for homosexual marriage as the signs of our culture in decline. This corruption is the result of a deliberate strategy by left-wing "progressives" who have adopted the formula of Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci. Rather than pursue revolution through violence and terrorism, they have tried to take over America through infiltration of cultural institutions such as the church. All of this was explained in the recent AIM Report, "How Obama's Revolution Came to America," by Bob Chandler. In this context, one of the translators of one of Gramsci's works was Professor Joseph A. Buttigieg of the University of Notre Dame. The first effort to introduce Gramsci's Marxism to the U.S. came in the mid-1950s when Carl Marzani published The Open Marxism of Antonio Gramsci. Marzani was a Soviet agent receiving Soviet money to finance his publishing house. He also published Gideon's Army, a history of the communist-controlled Progressive Party written by Curtis MacDougall. Yes, this is the same Curtis MacDougall who wrote my college textbook, Intrepretative Reporting, and ran for office on the Progressive Party ticket. We noted in our last AIM Report that MacDougall's FBI file demonstrates that he had a history of involvement in Communist Party front organizations.

THE SOTOMAYOR NOMINATION HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE CONTEXT OF THE GRAMSCI assault. Everything we know suggests that she believes in using the courts to impose her own personal left-wing point of view on society. One of her inspirations was socialist presidential candidate Norman Thomas, as reflected in a quote that she put in a yearbook. She was on the board of a left-wing "Latino Justice" organization and has been quoted as saying that being a Latina woman gives her a "better" perspective than a white male. This is the quote that has given rise to the charges of racism against her. She is described as being raised Catholic, but the White House would only confirm that she currently attends church for "family celebrations and other important events." So she is not a practicing Catholic. Her senior thesis at Princeton reportedly expressed sympathy for the Puerto Rican independence movement, a creation of Fidel Castro that led to violence, bombings and killings in the U.S. during the 1970s. She apparently believes, based on accounts of what was in that thesis, that the U.S. is a colonialist and imperialist power and that "Americanization" would threaten the island. Of course, I think Obama shares that view. That is why the pick of Sotomayor should not be a surprise. But as I write these words, it is being reported that some Senate Republicans may shy away from subjecting her to serious scrutiny, even though she is clearly on the record against the individual right to keep and bear arms. Similarly, House Republican leader John Boehner is reportedly telling House Republicans to back away from their criticism of Nancy Pelosi in the CIA controversy. After issuing a co-comment, Pelosi took off for China to talk about "climate change."

YOU CAN EXERCISE SOME INFLUENCE THROUGH AIM AND OUR POSTCARD CAMPAIGNS. They are effective. I strongly urge you to immediately send the enclosed postcard to Senator Roger Wicker, the senior Republican on the Senate Subcommittee on International Organizations and Operations, with jurisdiction over the United Nations. He needs to understand the threat posed by the U.N. conference we write about in our first article. But in regard to the Supreme Court, one way that you can demonstrate your concern is to send the other postcard to Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., asking that he continue to take a stand against using foreign law to make court decisions in the U.S. What we need is a forthright statement from the Supreme Court, under guidance from Roberts, that rulings or decisions from international courts affiliated with the U.N. and foreign countries will not influence the direction of American law. President Bush made some mistakes, but putting Roberts and Samuel Alito on the high court were major moves in the right direction and hold out hope for the survival of our system of government and our cultural institutions. Roberts and Alito could prove decisive in holding back the next wave of Obama's Marxist revolution.

For Accuracy in Media,

Editor

[Malsua]

These unelected bureaucrats are going to get people killed as they try to impose their will on the world. A lot of people are going to die before this is all over with who would otherwise have been left alone to live free.

[vector7]

UN official proposes global bankruptcy court for nations in debt

Edith M. Lederer
Associated Press

UNITED NATIONS: The UN trade chief said Thursday there is a "missing link" in the international financial system that is becoming more critical as the global economic crisis drags on: What happens when a country is bankrupt and can't pay its debts? Supachai Panitchpakdi told a UN financial summit he is trying to help 90 poor countries with vulnerable economies, many with debts beyond 100 percent of the value of their overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product.

Developing countries at the three-day conference, which ends Friday, have been pleading for more money to shore up ailing economies hard-hit by a crisis they didn't cause.

Prime Minister Stephenson King of St. Lucia, one of 10 world leaders at the summit, urged the international community for a "significantly larger amount of grant funding" in the next two years, saying: "We simply cannot afford the stranglehold of additional debt." He said there is no international court to deal with the bankruptcy of a country so every nation would have to rely on its own national rules and regulations.

Panitchpakdi, secretary general of the UN conference on Trade and Development, cited Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, which permits all businesses to reorganize under US bankruptcy laws, as a possible model - a view echoed by Martin Khor, executive director of the South Center, a Geneva-based research organization with 50 developing countries as members.
"We are afraid that many developing countries will be plunged into a new debt crisis which would be very unfortunate," Khor said, noting that the World Bank recently said 40 countries are facing serious debt problems as a result of the global economic meltdown.
Chrysler and General Motors filed for bankruptcy under US law "so that the motor car can run again," he said.
"If the motor car can run again, so can the low income countries and the indebted countries where billions of people" are facing increasing poverty and hardships.

Both companies got multi-billion-dollar lifelines from the US government, probably more than the budgets of many developing countries.

Khor said the establishment of an "international debt arbitration system" - which he likened to a kind of international bankruptcy court for developing countries unable to meet their debt payments - was first raised by UNCTAD in the late 1990s and then by the International Monetary Fund, and is long overdue.

For a country whose reserves are running very low, Khor suggested, the court could organize the creditors to come to meet the debtor and scientifically calculate what the debt is worth and how much the creditors should be repaid - "in other words a drawdown on the debt."

There would be no litigation against the debtor, "and finally new financing should be given to the debtor so that the country can continue again as a viable entity," he said.

Both Panitchpakdi and Khor said the most immediate need is a temporary moratorium on debt payments by poor countries, similar to the five-year debt moratorium for the countries hardest-hit by the Asian tsunami in 2004, to deal with the fallout from the economic crisis.

But the UNCTAD chief had a slightly different idea of how to address "the missing link we are seeing at the moment in the international financial system - [which] is a system to deal with a so-called sovereign debt insolvency" by a country.

During the debt standstill, Panitchpakdi said, "some new financing could be generated so countries could go on living and paying attention to their own economic growth - and at the same time to be looking at the debt restructuring in a way that would have the involvement of the international institutions like the International Monetary Fund." He called for a new discussion on the insolvency of countries that would not only include the IMF and World Bank but UN agencies to generate "impartiality" as well as organizations like the South Center.

Germany's development minister, Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, told the summit "we must ensure that developing countries are not pushed into a renewed spiral of debt by development partners."

She said that this should be done by providing more concessional funding and "establishing a sovereign debt workout mechanism."

Norway's International Development Secretary Hakon Golbrandsen noted that "a lot has been achieved in terms of debt relief over the last few years." "In order to avoid that unsustainable debt again builds up, we would like to underline the responsibility of both lenders and borrowers," he said.

[vector7]

The Dear Leader in so many words said America is no longer a superpower, but a member of a new world order, the old arguments are over.

He then went on to surrender America to the Jihadists by slamming our presence in Iraq and now capitulating on Afghanistan. He apologized to every despot on the planet and stated we are no better than the lowest nation.

This guy desires to be Emperor of the world.

Obama to world: Don't expect America to fix it all



Play Video AP – Obama to U.N.: Our Nation won't solve world problems

• Slideshow:President Barack Obama
• Play Video Video:Obama to take blunt tone in UN speech CBC.ca
• Play Video Video:Jake Tapper on Obama at the U.N. ABC News

AP – President Barack Obama addresses the 64th session of the General Assembly at United Nations headquarters, …

By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer Ben Feller, Associated Press Writer – 55 mins ago

UNITED NATIONS – In a blunt challenge to his nation's critics, President Barack Obama on Wednesday exhorted world leaders who once accused the United States of acting alone to now join with him in solving global crises rather than wait for America to do it on its own.

In his first address to the U.N. General Assembly, Obama sought to set a new tone in U.S. relations, moving away from the unilateralism of his predecessor, George W. Bush. He coupled conciliatory words about a "new era of engagement" with a summons for other nations to shoulder more of the burden.

"Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone," Obama said.

"Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

Obama said past policies and a perception of unilateralism by the United States had fed "an almost reflexive anti-Americanism" that too often was used as an excuse for inaction.

"The time has come for the world to move in a new direction," Obama said before a U.N. chamber packed with more than 100 of his global counterparts.

The president offered a litany of policy changes and actions his administration had undertaken during his first nine months in office, with the overarching message that the United States has no interest in a go-it-alone stance and instead wants to act as an equal partner with others on the world stage.

"In an era where our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game," Obama said. "No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed."

Obama received hearty applause when he entered the room, from even the likes of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, and his address was interrupted several times by polite applause. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not join in the applause.

Gadhafi addressed the General Assembly immediately after Obama, but White House aides made sure the two leaders would not cross paths.

Tensions with the Libyan leader are high in the wake of Scotland's recent release of Libyan Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, who was convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, in which 270 people died.

In his speech, Obama summoned fellow leaders to do their part to address a long list of global challenges: to help bring about a nuclear weapons-free world, to increase security from terrorists and promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians, to tackle climate change and to create more economic opportunity. In essence, Obama's message was that he expects plenty in return for reaching out.

"If we are honest with ourselves," he told world leaders, "we need to admit that we are not living up" to the shared responsibility to meet such challenges.

"Extremists sowing terror in pockets of the world," Obama said. "Protracted conflicts that grind on and on; genocide; mass atrocities; more nations with nuclear weapons; melting ice caps and ravaged populations; persistent poverty and pandemic disease."

"I say this not to sow fear, but to state a fact: The magnitude of our challenges has yet to be met by the measure of our actions," Obama said.

He said that Iran and North Korea must be held accountable if they continue to put their pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of international security.

"The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise and that treaties will be enforced," he said.
Obama has said the door is open to Iran to discuss the issue, but that U.S. patience is not limitless. He has taken the same position with respect to the reclusive communist regime in North Korea.

Seeking to build on his three-way meeting in New York on Tuesday with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, Obama urged nations aligned with either side to join the cause of advancing Mideast peace — by speaking honestly to Israelis about Palestinian's legitimate claims and to Palestinians and Arab nations about Israel's right to exist.

"All of us must decide whether we are serious about peace, or whether we only lend it lip-service," Obama said. "To break the old patterns, to break the cycle of insecurity and despair all of us must say publicly what we would acknowledge in private."

On the warming planet, Obama said "the danger posed by climate change cannot be denied — and our responsibility to meet it must not be deferred."

The president said he understood the temptation of nations to put economic recovery ahead of efforts to address climate change, but said that must not be allowed to happen.

Ahead of the G-20 meetings of industrial and developing nations that Obama is hosting later this week in Pittsburgh, he lobbied for stronger financial regulations — "new rules of the road" — to prevent future economic calamities. Momentum for such changes has fallen off as the economy appears to be limping back to health.

While Obama's summons for world leaders to work together is hardly new, it is sharper because of the political context. Obama follows Bush, who at times questioned the U.N.'s toughness and credibility, particularly in containing Iraq's Saddam Hussein.

Obama's team is intent on drawing the contrast.

"The United States has dramatically changed the tone, the substance and the practice of our diplomacy at the United Nations," said Susan Rice, Obama's ambassador to the U.N.

Obama started his day with his first meeting with the new Japanese prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama, who has said he wants to shift Japan's diplomatic stance from one that is less centered on Washington's lead.

Obama and Hatoyama said after their talks that the traditional alliance between their nations will continue. Hatoyama's sometimes anti-Washington remarks weren't mentioned directly.

Later, Obama was meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. That session comes just days following Obama's decision to abruptly scrap a Bush-era missile defense plan that Russia deeply opposed, swapping it for a proposal the U.S. says better targets any launch by Iran.

[vector7]

Obama to Usher In New World Order at G-20

President will announce Friday morning a significant expansion of the consortium of countries that tackles global economic and climate change issues.

By Kelly Chernenkoff
FOXNews.com
Friday, September 25, 2009

Sept. 24: President Obama and first lady Michelle greet China's President Hu Jintao as they arrive for dinner at the Pittsburgh G20 Summit. (Reuters)


PEOPLE WHO READ THIS ALSO READ

• U.S. to Accuse Iran of Building Secret Nuke Plant 27952402
• Elementary School Students Reportedly Taught Songs Praising President Obama 27932814
• Officials: Terror Plot Most Significant Since 9/11 27951204
• Japan Launches Probe of Secret Pacts With U.S. 27950110
• Muslims to Conduct National Prayer Rally Outside Capitol 27945360

In a surprising late-night twist on the eve of the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh, FOX News has learned President Obama will announce Friday morning a significant expansion of the consortium of countries that tackles global economic and climate change issues.

Obama will tell reporters that the G-20, comprised of 19 industrial and emerging-market countries plus the European Union, will supplant the smaller Group of Eight nations, G-8, as the go-to group for solving the world's economic ills.

"This decision brings to the table the countries needed to build a stronger, more balanced global economy, reform the financial system, and lift the lives of the poorest," the White House said in a statement.
The G8 will retain its national security focus, but be replaced by the broader G-20 on the issues of climate change, financial regulatory reform and global imbalances.

President Obama pressed for the change at the last G-8 Summit in Italy, expressing his displeasure at the unwieldy array of G-8 meeting variations.

Obama said, "There is no doubt that we have to update and refresh and renew the international institutions that were set up in a different time and place. What I've noticed is everybody wants the smallest possible group, the smallest possible organization, that includes them. So, if they're the 21st largest nation in the world, they want the G-21, and think it's highly unfair if they have been cut out."

Though the news itself was an unexpected turn, the reasoning behind it was written in the tea leaves Thursday when Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner sang the praises of broadened global cooperation; making special note of the strides China, a non-G-8 country, has made in financial reforms.

The more inclusive approach will allow countries such as Brazil, China, and India, who have griped about not being part of the G-8, to now have a bigger stake in strengthening global cooperation and economic stability. President Obama also supported their inclusion, noting fewer meetings would be more effective.

The G-20 started ten years ago as a group of Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors from industrialized and developing economies, but has involved Heads of State Summits, such as the one taking place Friday.

The G-8's members are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission attends as well.

[vector7]

G20 to become world's economic council

Sumeet Desai, Reuters Published: Thursday, September 24, 2009
More On This Story

Bloomberg Global leaders will institutionalize the G20 as the world's main economic governing council, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said on Thursday.

UNITED NATIONS -- Global leaders will institutionalize the G20 as the world's main economic governing council, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said on Thursday.

In New York for a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly before flying to Pittsburgh for the third Group of 20 leaders' summit, Mr. Brown told reporters that the body would meet regularly under a new framework from now on.

"What we are trying to do is to create a new system of international economic co-operation around the world," he said.

"It's never really happened before. We've had the G8, we've had all these organizations -- we've got this one chance to make a huge success of international economic cooperation."

Mr. Brown said Shriti Vadera will leave her role as business minister in the government and become an advisor to the G20 presidency, working closely with South Korea who will take over the chairmanship of the group in 2010.

"Her expertise in this area is such that that there is no one better to do this job."

Trade minister Mervyn Davies will take over Vadera's ministerial responsibilities.

Mr. Brown said it was important that leaders agree they need to keep the life-support packages for their economies in place for now as the recovery was still fragile.

He said he did not expect any discussion on the Chinese currency at this week's G20 meeting but said: "We would like to see China importing more."

Mr. Brown noted there were US$7-trillion worth of foreign exchange reserves in the world economy which he said were "not necessarily being used in a constructive way."

He said he has proposed he wanted to see the International Monetary Fund come up with an insurance scheme that would lessen some countries' need to accumulate reserves so that they could use those funds to support their economies.

Before flying to Pittsburgh later on Thursday, Mr. Brown will attend a meeting of the United Nations Security Council on nuclear non-proliferation.

"We are coming to a moment of truth with Iran," Mr. Brown said. "We will be proposing fuller and tougher sanctions."

Asked about reports of tension between him and U.S. President Barack Obama, Mr. Brown said the proof of their relationship is in their common goals and actions.

"The special relationship is strong and strengthening. And it's strengthening because there is a common purpose," he said.

© Thomson Reuters 2009

[American Patriot]

Wow.... looks like it won't be a civil war in one country. It will be a few Americans against most of Europe. LOL

[vector7]

Barack Obama's resolution aimed at nuclear-free world approved in UN

The UN Security Council unanimously approved a resolution on Thursday aimed at ridding the world of nuclear weapons at a summit-level meeting chaired by US President Barack Obama.


Published: 4:17PM BST 24 Sep 2009



"Although we averted a nuclear nightmare during the Cold War, we now face proliferation of a scope and complexity that demands new strategies and new approaches," Mr Obama told the 15-member body.

"Just one nuclear weapon exploded in a city, be it New York or Moscow, Tokyo or Beijing, London or Paris, could kill hundreds of thousands of people."

Related Articles

• There'll never be a world without nuclear weapons
• If Russia is ready to deliver, the ball will be in China's court

Russia, China and developing nations supported the US-sponsored measure, giving it global clout and strong political backing.

The resolution calls for increased efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, promote disarmament and "reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism".

Mr Obama, the first American president to preside over a Security Council summit, said the global effort would seek to "lock down all vulnerable nuclear materials within four years".

The resolution does not mention any country by name, but it comes as Iran's suspect atomic programme has once again been thrust into the spotlight, with world powers warning more sanctions could follow if Tehran refuses to comply with UN demands to rein in its nuclear ambitions.

"This is not about singling out an individual nation," Mr Obama said. "International law is not an empty promise, and treaties must be enforced."

The resolution reaffirms previous Security Council resolutions that imposed sanctions on Iran and North Korea for their nuclear activities, but does not call for any new sanctions.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said that "our main shared goal is to untie the problem knots" among nations seeking nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament.

"This is complicated since the level of mistrust among nations remains too high, but it must be done," he said.

Obama aides said the adoption of the resolution was an endorsement of the president's entire nuclear agenda, as laid out in his April speech in Prague.

The president called in that speech for the slashing of US and Russian nuclear arsenals, adoption of the treaty banning all nuclear tests, an international fuel bank to better safeguard nuclear material, and negotiations on a new treaty that "verifiably" ends the production of fissile materials for atomic weapons.

He also strongly backed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT, which requires signatory nations not to pursue nuclear weapons in exchange for a commitment by the five nuclear powers to move toward nuclear disarmament. States without nuclear weapons are guaranteed access to peaceful nuclear technology for electricity generation.

All those measures are included in the resolution.

While people are saying, "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. (1 Thessalonians 5:3)

[vector7]

Thinking global brings a world of problems
The idea of global governance is meaningless without mechanisms to enforce it, says Janet Daley.

By Janet Daley
Published: 5:35PM BST 26 Sep 2009

Comments 51 | Comment on this article

You are a political leader whose domestic programme is bogged down in messy controversy: what do you do? You go global. You walk the world stage with an air of supercilious moral righteousness, implying by your preoccupied manner that all the trouble back at home is just parochial backbiting.

I am not just talking about Gordon Brown. He is part of a great tradition of failing prime ministers and presidents at the fag end of their tenures going walkabout on the international circuit, in the hope that this larger arena will provide some sort of dignified final chapter to their historical story. But Barack Obama is at it too, and he is just at the beginning of what could still be (in spite of his present difficulties) a successful presidency.

No, there is something quite different going on: it is not just the clapped-out and desperate players who are leaping on to the grand transnational plane. There is a new discourse in the air which goes beyond the established understanding of the relationship between national and international politics: a language of "global governance" and an apparent consensus that all the interests of responsible countries are now "shared interests".

This vocabulary has aroused little resistance outside America, perhaps because older nations are sufficiently cynical to utter platitudinous phrases that they never intend to be bound by, whereas the US, whose political culture rests on sacred documents, places much more significance on words. And some of the words that are bandied about by the G20 are fatuous at best and sinister at worst.

The idea of global governance is meaningless without mechanisms to enforce it, so what are we talking about here? World government? A system of laws and policing which would be beyond the reach of the electorates of individual countries, and therefore have no direct democratic accountability to the peoples of those nations? Even assuming that such institutions did not take on a self-justifying life of their own – which history teaches us is almost inevitable – and that they remained fastidiously responsive to the heads of national governments, they would still be, by definition, supranational.

In other words, their function would be precisely to ignore those needs and interests of individual countries which might endanger the welfare of the larger entity. And the welfare of that larger entity would be judged by – what? The interests of the most powerful or the most populous countries? Or by a simplistic majority vote? Or by endless wrangling and ineffectual compromise – as we see now in that sententious talking shop, the G20? And in this vast permanent seminar, how much would democratic legitimacy count in a nation's degree of influence: would a dictatorship have as much power as a fully fledged democracy, which would have to take the wishes of its own citizens as a priority?

Then there is the moral blackmail of "shared interests". Mr Obama has actually contended that, in the newly interconnected world, all of our interests are shared. Which is clearly false. Some of them are and some of them aren't, as has always been the case. When nations do indeed share interests, whether they are economic or military, there are traditional ways of formalising their mutually advantageous understandings. There have always been bilateral or multilateral trade and credit arrangements, just as there have always been mutual defence treaties and foreign policy agreements. It is no coincidence that such arrangements have tended to be temporary: national interests change with time and circumstances. Does Mr Obama (and Mr Brown, who is trotting alongside him) believe that we have reached the end of history, or that circumstances are actually altering more slowly now than in previous eras? Surely not. All of his rhetoric, in fact, says the opposite.

Which brings us to the sticking point: the tricky bit comes when the interests of sovereign countries are not shared, but actually conflict. When Russia's territorial inclinations are at odds with the independence of eastern European republics, or China's reliance on exports is contributing to America's credit problems, or Germany's economic priorities threaten Britain's finance industry – what then? Intoning pious banalities about global consensus will not make these differences go away: for the countries concerned they are – or may seem like – fundamental imperatives.

Every country has its unique history, its political culture, its sense of continuity and progress – and, above all, a duty to its own people. At the moment, the global governance fashion is trying to depict that duty as simply a malign parochialism – a kind of purblind national selfishness in which nations would rather beggar their neighbours than engage in civilised give-and-take. Again, sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.

What nobody seems to be saying is that it is the proper business of democratically elected governments to protect and defend the needs and wishes of their own people. This is nothing less than the whole 18th-century project of modern democracy with which we are playing fast and loose. Ironically, the fad for "global governance" – whatever that turns out to mean – suits democratically elected leaders rather well: it absolves them of responsibility while enhancing their prestige. Perfect. But then exposure on the world stage is also likely to betray the limits of their understanding: does Mr Obama really think that he can coerce or shame European nations – with all their historical baggage and self-serving complacency – into forsaking what he calls their "collective inaction" on foreign policy (on Iran, say)? It is hard enough for a leader to remain in touch with the consciousness of his own people: playing to a global electorate puts almost any politician out of his depth. Not that we are talking about electorates any longer. Voters are way, way down on the list of considerations in this new ball game.

But perhaps you find yourself convinced, in the present economic circumstances, that there are no national crises any more, only global ones – and that the governing of all nations must now be subsumed under some overarching international framework of law and supervision, to be monitored and policed by suitably empowered agencies. Maybe you think that is an acceptable price to be paid for stability at home and security abroad. But consider this: what if the new dispensation, once installed, fails to produce that stability and security, or delivers it only to certain nations (not yours), or does so only by limiting freedoms that you consider precious? What recourse will you have then to remove it peaceably from power, as you do your national government?

[vector7]

The Word 'Government' for 1st Time in the Treaty...UN mandates consuming US sovereignty

Glenn Beck October 30th, 2009 New World Order 1 3

Glenn Beck October 30th, 2009 New World Order 2 3

Glenn Beck October 30th, 2009 New World Order 3 3

[vector7]

Has Anyone Read the Copenhagen Agreement?

U.N. plans for a new 'government' are scary.

By JANET ALBRECHTSEN

We can only hope that world leaders will do nothing more than enjoy a pleasant bicycle ride around the charming streets of Copenhagen come December. For if they actually manage to wring out an agreement based on the current draft text of the Copenhagen climate-change treaty, the world is in for some nasty surprises. Draft text, you say? If you haven't heard about it, that's because none of our otherwise talkative political leaders have bothered to tell us what the drafters have already cobbled together for leaders to consider. And neither have the media.

Enter Lord Christopher Monckton. The former adviser to Margaret Thatcher gave an address at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota, earlier this month that made quite a splash.

For the first time, the public heard about the 181 pages, dated Sept. 15, that comprise the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—a rough draft of what could be signed come December.

So far there have been more than a million hits on the YouTube post of his address. It deserves millions more because Lord Monckton warns that the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty is to set up a transnational "government" on a scale the world has never before seen.

The "scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention" that starts on page 18 contains the provision for a "government." The aim is to give a new as yet unnamed U.N. body the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.

The reason for the power grab is clear enough: Clause after complicated clause of the draft treaty requires developed countries to pay an "adaptation debt" to developing countries to supposedly support climate change mitigation. Clause 33 on page 39 says that "by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least $67 billion] or [in the range of $70 billion to $140 billion per year]."

And how will developed countries be slugged to provide for this financial flow to the developing world? The draft text sets out various alternatives, including option seven on page 135, which provides for "a [global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties." Annex 1 countries are industrialized countries, which include among others the U.S., Australia, Britain and Canada.

To be sure, countries that sign international treaties always cede powers to a U.N. body responsible for implementing treaty obligations. But the difference is that this treaty appears to have been subject to unusual attempts to conceal its convoluted contents. And apart from the difficulty of trying to decipher the U.N. verbiage, there are plenty of draft clauses described as "alternatives" and "options" that should raise the ire of free and democratic countries concerned about preserving their sovereignty.

Lord Monckton himself only became aware of the extraordinary powers to be vested in this new world government when a friend found an obscure U.N. Web site and searched through several layers of hyperlinks before discovering a document that isn't even called the draft "treaty." Instead, it's labelled a "Note by the Secretariat."

Interviewed by broadcaster Alan Jones on Sydney radio Monday, Lord Monckton said "this is the first time I've ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a 'government.' But it's the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening." He added: "The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start—that's even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do."

Critics have admonished Lord Monckton for his colorful language. He has certainly been vigorous. In his exposé of the draft Copenhagen treaty in St. Paul, he warned Americans that "in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever." Yet his critics fail to deal with the substance of what he says.

Ask yourself this question: Given that our political leaders spend hundreds of hours talking about climate change and the need for a global consensus in Copenhagen, why have none of them talked openly about the details of this draft climate-change treaty? After all, the final treaty will bind signatories for years to come. What exactly are they hiding?

Thanks to Lord Monckton we now know something of their plans.

Janos Pasztor, director of the Secretary-General's Climate Change Support Team, told reporters in New York Monday that with the U.S. Congress yet to pass a climate-change bill, a global climate-change treaty is now an unlikely outcome in Copenhagen. Let's hope he is right. And thank you, America.

Ms. Albrechtsen is a columnist for the Australian.

[vector7]

Glenn Beck Talks NWO With Damon Vickers (Part 1)

Damon Vickers visits the Glenn Beck program to talk about the real possibility that a New World Order and One World Government isn't far away. Vickers is a Managing Director of Nine Points Capital Partners






Glenn Beck- A New World Order? (Part 2)

Aired Live November 17, 2009-(Clip 2) Damon Vickers visits the Glenn Beck program to talk about the real possibility that a New World Order and One World Government isn't far away.



Glenn Beck- A New World Order? (Part 3)

[vector7]

This could also be posted in "Be Prepared To Learn Chinese"

Soros: China should lead ‘new world order’
By Daniel Tencer
Wednesday, October 28th, 2009 -- 3:56 pm

China should step up to the plate as the leader of a new global economic order, and the US shouldn't fear the establishment of a global currency because it would help the economy, billionaire investor George Soros says.

In a recent interview with the Financial Times, Soros said that China hasn't been pulling its weight in reorganizing the global economy after last year's economic collapse, and the way to convince China to lead is to allow it to "own" the reorganization of the global financial system that is underway.

"You really need to bring China into the creation of a new world order, a financial world order," Soros told FT. "They are kind of reluctant members of the IMF. They play along, but they don’t make much of a contribution because it’s not their institution. ... They have to own it the same way as, let’s say, the United States owns the Washington consensus, the current order, and I think this would be a more stable one where you would have co-ordinated policies. I think the makings of it are already there because the G20, in agreeing to peer reviews, effectively is moving in that direction."

Peer reviews are a mechanism by which members of the G20 club of economic powers can review other members' economic performance and warn those members of dangers to their economies.

Soros also advocated for the creation of at least a limited global currency, which he says would help reduce the imbalances in the global economic structure and would actually benefit the United States, whose dollar currently acts as a de facto global currency.

[vector7]

CHUCK NORRIS ON COPENHAGEN NEW ONE WORLD ORDER !!!

[vector7]

The One Thing: 11/19

Can the government legislate the redistribution of wealth?




To see the entire show rebroadcasted on YouTube go here:

[vector7]

WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Obama may put Americans
under world judges' power
International Criminal Court issues
are focus of delegation to The Hague
--WND
Posted: November 19, 2009
9:00 pm Eastern

By Michael Carl
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

International Criminal Court

President Obama has dispatched a delegation this week to The Hague to explore issues involving the United States' possible participation in the International Criminal Court, an organization critics charge could be used to prosecute Americans under international legal standards for actions that are not crimes in the U.S.

Andy Laney of the U.S. State Department confirmed the delegation is comprised of members of the State Department as well as the Defense Department. He said they were dispatched on a week-long trip because of U.S. concerns over how "aggression" is defined internationally.

"There is an inter-agency party, half from the State Department, half from the Defense Department, there to engage other delegations on matters of U.S. interest and specifically over our concerns on the definition of the crime of aggression," he said.

Critics, however, warn that they believe former U.S. war crimes prosecutor Ambassador Stephen Rapp is on a trip that involves more than just the definition of a word.

"The Obama administration would like the U.S. to be a party to the court," said Brett Schaefer, an international regulatory expert with the Heritage Foundation.

"The Obama administration would like to establish closer ties with the ICC if it turns out the U. S. can join the court. The objective here is to address the major objections to the U. S. joining the court," he said.

White House officials declined to comment.

The court was introduced to the U.S. when President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute in 1998. But President George W. Bush pulled the U. S. out in 2003 over concerns that the ICC might prosecute American soldiers for war crime charges coming from the U. S. campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The concern was that the ICC doesn't recognize many of the U.S. Constitution's provisions protecting defendants in criminal trials, such as the right to a trial by jury and protections against double jeopardy.

"The meeting at The Hague is also in preparation for the Rome Statute's review in May of 2010," Schaefer said. "Mr. Rapp is there to find out if (the 108) member states are interested in amending the document to address U.S. concerns. Ambassador Rapp is there to learn how substantial the barriers to the U.S. joining the court actually are."

Laney admitted it was a change in U.S. direction that prompted the trip.
"The decision to send Ambassador Rapp reflects the commitment of this administration to engage the international community on issues that affect our foreign policy interests," Laney said.

"Ambassador Rapp says he wants the U. S. to join the ICC. Since coming into office, President Obama says he wants the U. S. to join and Secretary of State Clinton says it's unfortunate that the U. S. is not a part of the ICC," Schaefer said.

"The previous administration in its early years sought to amend the treaty to alleviate U. S. concerns ... the treaty would intrude on U. S. policy and its obligations overseas," Schaefer said. "That effort failed. So, the Bush Administration in 2003 sent a letter to the Secretary General of the U. N. saying it no longer considered itself bound to the jurisdiction of the ICC."

Schaefer said the process as it now is set up presents dangers.

"Israel took action in Gaza earlier this year to attack Hamas and knock out the Hamas rocket launchers in the Gaza Strip," he said. "Israel took enormous cautionary measures to prevent civilian casualties. Even though Israel and the Palestinian Authority are not signatory members of the ICC, the ICC is still investigating the Israeli military to see if they can prosecute members of the Israeli Army for war crimes."

Mathew Staver, lead attorney for Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University Law School, said U.S. membership in the ICC would be a mistake.
"This administration is globalist and transnationalist and wants to bring this country into the global system. The U.S. stands to have its citizens being prosecuted by the international court in The Hague and have its citizens come under the world court's jurisdiction," he said.

Schaefer confirmed Staver's fears.

"Supposing the U. S. engages in a military action and that action results in civilian casualties. We do an investigation of the matter and find no guilty party. If we are a member of the court, if we are a party to the Rome Statute, the ICC at that point has the opportunity to second-guess us," he said. "They may be able to use evidence and they may be able to pursue routes of trial that would not be portable in the U. S. because of the different standards established in the U. S. legal system and the rules set forth in the Rome Statute."

His warning is that the ICC could, "in essence … come and prosecute U.S. citizens, U.S. soldiers, U.S. officials for actions the U.S. deems entirely lawful."

He believes the Obama White House will begin the push for ratification after the May 2010 review of the treaty.

"After the May review is when I believe the administration will seek to go to Congress to make the changes in our system necessary that will allow us to participate in the ICC," he said.

Staver said Americans should be worried.

"Everything anyone has ever heard about the globalist system is being promoted by this administration," he said. "President Obama definitely wants the U. S. to be a part of a transnational, global system."

WND columnist David Limbaugh has raised similar concerns.

"Transnationalists," he wrote, "believe that American judges, in interpreting our Constitution, can resort to this 'community of reason' (foreign laws) to choose between two 'plausible' legal positions."

It is the global community, he wrote, that such transnationalists "look to" to determine standards.

In his book, "Global Deception," author Joseph Klein warns that the International Criminal Court is just one building block of a "brave new world" already under way.

He said the court would have "secret proceedings that would make terrorist trials look open by comparison" and suggested the plan is for them to "take precedence over the U.S. judicial system."

[vector7]

The latest from the EUSSR leader

[vector7]

EPA ruling allows greenhouse gas emissions to be regulated

The Environmental Protection Agency issued a long-expected ruling Monday that greenhouse gases threaten public health, giving the Obama administration power to regulate smokestack and tailpipe emissions that feed global warming.

Coming near the start of the international climate change conference now underway in Copenhagen, some experts said the ruling tells the other conference participants the U.S. can now control emissions whether or not the U.S. Congress passes legislative caps.

"The U.S. is telling the international community we will act even if Congress doesn't get its act together," says David Bookbinder of the Sierra Club in Washington, D.C., a member of the legal team that won a 2007 Supreme Court decision that said greenhouse gases are pollutants and subject to Clean Air Act regulation. The ruling required the EPA to decide if global warming threatens human health and if so, to start controlling the emissions.

"The overwhelming amount of evidence shows the threat is real," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said Monday.

The finding covers six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, produced as a byproduct of burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. Jackson cited global warming risks of heat waves, asthma and rising seas, among others, in making the finding.

No emission regulations spring immediately from the announcement, but the finding opens the door to stricter car and truck rules expected in March and cement manufacturing rules expected in June.

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded it is "highly likely" that greenhouse gases largely contributed to a roughly 1-degree Fahrenheit rise in global average temperatures since 1905, and likely will lead to a 3- to 7-degree rise by 2100.

Jackson said emission limits were intended for large sources of greenhouse gases, those burning hundreds of train cars of coal each year for example, "not small or medium businesses."

Melissa McHenry, a spokeswoman for American Electric Power in Columbus, Ohio, a $14.4 billion power company, said the announcement signals the need for energy legislation, "rather than the clumsy tool of regulation," to address greenhouse gas emissions. "We've expected this announcement for months."