Posts tagged World Government
Posts tagged World Government
The evil inside the White House operative, Cass Sunstein, is out this morning with a short essay in WSJ.
Under the guise of filling us all in on what his White House department is doing to “clear away red tape”, the evil bastard is really informing his followers about the advancements in one world government and a North American union:
In an interdependent global economy, diverse regulations can cause trouble for companies doing business across national boundaries. Unnecessary differences in countries’ regulatory requirements can cost money, compromising economic growth and job creation. Think of divergent requirements for car headlights, or the labeling of food, or standards for container sizes.
Recognizing this, President Obama’s Jobs Council has called for U.S. agencies to better align U.S. regulations with those of our major trading partners. And today the president is issuing an executive order, “Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation,” with a simple goal: to promote exports, growth, and job creation by eliminating unnecessary regulatory differences across nations.
The order makes clear that we will not undermine American laws or compromise our national prerogatives. But it emphasizes that international cooperation and harmonization can increase trade and job creation, eliminating pointless burdens without creating a regulatory race to the bottom. From now on, an interagency working group chaired by the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [Note; Sunstein chairs this agency-RW] will be a forum for reducing this red tape.
Here’s the advancing of the North American union:
More generally, President Obama has worked closely with his Canadian and Mexican counterparts to create High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Councils with both countries. The councils are developing and implementing plans to eliminate or prevent the creation of unnecessary burdens on cross-border trade, streamline regulatory requirements, and promote greater certainty for the general public and for businesses in the regulation of food, pharmaceuticals, nanotechnology and other areas.
The U.S. and Canada have already agreed to harmonize their rules with respect to fuel economy, building on a long history of collaboration on national emission standards for new vehicles. This step will avoid divergent requirements and unnecessary costs on both automobile companies and consumers.
Here’s the advance of the One World government:
The U.S. is also working closely with the European Union to eliminate unnecessary differences in U.S.-European regulatory requirements. Last February, the Obama administration announced an agreement with the EU under which organic products certified as such in Europe or in the U.S. may be sold as “organic” in either jurisdiction. This is not just a victory for those who grow and eat organic broccoli. The trans-Atlantic partnership, involving the two largest organic food producers in the world, will help support jobs in the years to come.
Whether the issue involves chemicals or vegetables, nations can do a far better job of harmonizing regulatory requirements to make it easier for companies to do business, and without sacrificing public health, safety and the environment. We hope that today’s executive order provides a new model for eliminating red tape and promoting trade and job creation. Let’s get to work.
Bottom line: You have been warned by the evil insider, himself, the march towards a North American union and a one world government continues.
Side Note: If you’re into politics and haven’t heard the phrase ‘New World Order’ - then clearly you ARE NOT ‘into politics’. If you still regard this phrase as some peculiar ‘conspiracy theory’ - once again, you’re not paying attention.
The phrase “New World Order” is so loaded with explosive assumptions and perceptions that its very usage has become a kind of journalistic landmine. Many analysts (some in the mainstream) have attempted to write about and discuss this very real sociopolitical ideology in a plain and exploratory manner, using a fair hand and supporting data, only to be attacked, ridiculed, or completely ignored before they get a chance to put forward their work. The reason is quite simple; much of the general public has been mentally inoculated against even the whisper of the terminology. That is to say, they have been conditioned to exhibit a negative reaction to such discussion instinctively without even knowing why.
Some of this conditioning is accomplished through the stereotyping of New World Order researchers as “conspiracy theorists” (another term for loony) grasping at fantasies in a desperate bid for “attention”, or, as confused individuals who attempt to apply creative logic to a mad chaotic world swirling on the periphery of a great void of coincidence and chance. I know this because I used to be one amongst the naive herd of “rationalists”, and I and many I knew used the same shallow arguments to dismiss every cold hard fact on the NWO that we happened upon. After seeing the conspiracy crowd made iconic and ridiculous in hundreds if not thousands of books, movies, TV shows, commercials, and news specials, it becomes difficult for many to enter into the topic without a severe bias already implanted in their heads.
Another circumstance that leads to the immediate dismissal of NWO research is, ironically, the lack of open discussion on the subject. Yes, it’s a chicken and egg sort of thing. If more people were less afraid to shine a floodlight on the truth of the matter, more people, in turn, would be more willing to absorb it. And, if more unaware people were willing to listen to the information with an open mind, more people with knowledge would be willing to share it. The psychological barrier to the information, therefore, is not based on any legitimate argument against the existence of the NWO. Instead, people refuse to listen because they fear to embrace concepts personally that they believe are not yet embraced by the majority.
It is a sad fact of society that most men and women gravitate towards the life of the follower, and not of the leader. Only through great hardship and trauma do some plant their feet solidly in the Earth, and find the strength to break free from the collectivist mindset.
Elitist think-tanks and propaganda machines like the Southern Poverty Law Center take full advantage of the hive mentality by attacking Liberty Movement proponents and NWO researchers in light of the populace’s lack of background knowledge. A perfect example of this was the SPLC’s latest hit-piece on an Oath Keepers article dealing with the exposure of a Department of Defense program designed to import and train Russian soldiers on U.S. soil. Because the article dares to mention the “NWO”, the SPLC jumps to the vapid conclusion that Oath Keepers are “paranoid”:
The poorly written diatribe is little more than an Ad Hominem stab by an ankle biting author, but I felt it did hold a certain value as a test case of the strategic exploitation of uneducated mass opinion. Without the ignorance of a sizable portion of the American public, yellow journalism like the kind peddled by the SPLC would be relegated to the great dustbin of history…
If a man is able to get past his negative preconceptions on the matter, the next step is to ask a relatively straightforward question; what is the New World Order? What is the foundation of the philosophy that drives it? What are its origins? This is something mainstream pundits never explore. They simply take for granted that we in the Liberty Movement somehow made the whole thing up for our own entertainment. In reality, the phrase New World Order made its public debut early in the 20th Century, and it was expounded by numerous political and business elites decades before there was such a thing as “conspiracy theorists”.
The Liberty Movement has always defined the NWO as a concerted effort by elitist organizations using political manipulation, economic subversion, and even war, to centralize global power into the hands of an unelected and unaccountable governing body. The goal; to one day completely dismantle individual, state, and national sovereignty. However, what I and many others hold as fact on the New World Order is not enough. We must examine the original source and how we came to our mutual conclusions.
I have in numerous articles outlined the irrefutable data surrounding the directed efforts of corporate globalization and the deliberate strategies of central banks in the co-option of financial control over nations. But, to solidify our understanding of what the most financially and politically powerful men on Earth and their cheerleaders believe the NWO is, why not go straight to the horse’s mouth:
“It is the system of nationalist individualism that has to go….We are living in the end of the sovereign states….In the great struggle to evoke a Westernized World Socialism, contemporary governments may vanish….Countless people…will hate the new world order….and will die protesting against it.” H.G. Wells, in his book, “The New World Order”, 1940
“Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
- David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405
“In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.”
- Strobe Talbot, President Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, Time Magazine, July 20th, 1992
“There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the communists, or any other group, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments … I have objected both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies … but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known … The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) … the American Branch of a society which originated in England … believes national boundaries should be obliterated and [a] one-world rule established.”
Prof. Carroll Quigley, mentor to Bill Clinton, from his book ‘Tragedy and Hope’
“Ultimately, our objective is to welcome the Soviet Union back into the world order. Perhaps the world order of the future will truly be a family of nations.”
President George Bush at Texas A&M University 1989
“We will succeed in the Gulf. And when we do, the world community will have sent an enduring warning to any dictator or despot, present or future, who contemplates outlaw aggression. The world can therefore seize this opportunity to fufill the long-held promise of a new world order - where brutality will go unrewarded, and aggression will meet collective resistance.”
President George Bush State of the Union Address 1991
“The Final Act of the Uruguay Round, marking the conclusion of the most ambitious trade negotiation of our century, will give birth - in Morocco - to the World Trade Organization, the third pillar of the New World Order, along with the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund.”
Part of full-page advertisement by the government of Morocco in The New York Times (April 1994)
“To keep global resource use within prudent limits while the poor raise their living standards, affluent societies need to consume less. Population, consumption, technology, development, and the environment are linked in complex relationships that bear closely on human welfare in the global neighborhood. Their effective and equitable management calls for a systemic, long-term, global approach guided by the principle of sustainable development, which has been the central lesson from the mounting ecological dangers of recent times. Its universal application is a priority among the tasks of global governance.”
United Nations Our Global Neighborhood 1995
“What Congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system…a first step toward a new world order.”
Henry Kissinger on NAFTA, Los Angeles Times
“All these new challenges are bringing together about the biggest restructuring we’ve ever seen not just of the global economy but global order as a whole. And two hundred years ago, a famous British foreign secretary said that the new world had been called into existence to address the balance of the old. In 1989 another world war ended dominated by the cold war and people talked then in 1990 of the new world order. What they meant then was a new political order. And what was not foreseen then but is obvious now, from everything that we see and do, what we experience every day of our life is the sheer scale and speed and scope of globalization…”
Prime Minister Gordon Brown, CBI Speech 2007
“The New World Order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down…but in the end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault.”
CFR member Richard Gardner, writing in the April 1974 issue of the CFR’s journal, Foreign Affairs
WHAT IF We got rid of cash? - CNBC
Spain Bans Cash Transactions Over 2,500 Euros … Spain has outlawed the use of cash in business transactions in excess 2,500 euros in order to crack down on the black market and tax evaders. The motivations behind the push for digital currencies is exposed as Spain heads down the road of the Greeks in combating their sovereign debtcrisis. As the government scrambles for every tax dollar it can get its hands on, even though they already gave every Spaniard $23,000 Euros in debt last year alone (approximately $32,500), they are now banning all large cash business transactions. Why? So they can track the transactions and make sure that people and business are paying taxes. Being able to track the transactions is also aimed to combat the growing black market in Spain. – Alexander Higgins’ blog
Dominant Social Theme: This cash has gotta go. It’s evil.
Free-Market Analysis: They are not even making a pretense anymore that the West is run via market economies. As we have long predicted, the phony “sovereign debt” crisis in Europe is being used to justify all sorts ofauthoritarian measures.
It is government pols that gladly borrowed what European banks threw at them. And somehow the upshot earlier this week is that Spanish citizens now lose the right to conduct many transactions in cash.
Spectactularly, the reports such as this one, excerpted above, don’t even both to hide the real point. The Spanish government wants to ensure that it can “track transactions and make sure that people and businesses are paying taxes.”
Of course, anyone who has visited Spain of late knows that the tax burden in Spain is onerous indeed, and is one reason that the truculent tribes that have co-existed uneasily with Madrid are again beginning to beat the drums of secession.
The taxes that the central government levies on small businesses especially are verging on punitive. But there are no apologies. The official position is one of unflinching demands.
It is surely part of a larger meme having to do with a “cashless” society. Just recently the UK Telegraph asked “Is mobile the way we’ll all be paying?” The answer, as can be expected, was a qualified yes, but issued in the predictable upbeat way.
The cashless society has been a much-mooted concept ever since consumer credit cards were widely introduced in the 1950s. Now it seems that “mobile money” is the new gold rush. The term – used to describe the way the mobile phone is used to pay for goods – yields no fewer than 126 million results on a Google search …
Market research firm Yankee Group believes that global mobile transactions will become a $1trillion market by 2015. While Berg Insight says there will be 894m worldwide users of mobile banking by the same year. Peter Ayliffe, chief executive of Visa Europe, who sits on the Monitise board, believes 50pc of all Visa transactions in Europe will be on a mobile device by 2020.
The top men are beginning to issue their predictions. The march to a cashless society has begun. Perhaps we owe Spain a debt of gratitude for revealing the REAL reason for a cashless society. It makes tax collecting so much easier.
But this is only part of the story. Taxes are certainly to be paid … but the RESULTS of tax payments and the government expenditures they give rise to are seemingly more questionable every day.
In Spain this is certainly evident. The REAL problem that Spain faces as its depression spirals out of control is the infrastructure that politicos built over the past decade. Every small town has bike paths, outdoor parks and other unnecessary public venues that will soon prove, well … unsupportable.
EFF, OpenMedia.ca, CIPPIC and a number of civil society organizations have declared this to be ‘Stop Cyber Spying Week’ in protest of several controversial U.S. cybersecurity legislative proposals, including the bill currently before Congress and the Senate called CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing & Protection Act of 2011. While ‘Stop Cyber Spying Week’ is focused on U.S. initiatives, Canadians should be concerned as well as the adoption of a privacy-invasive U.S. cybersecurity strategy is likely to have serious implications for Canadian civil liberties. For this reason, Canadian civil society groups have joined the protest. In general, Canadians would do well to remain vigilant.
Using the guise of ‘cybersecurity’, CISPA aims to mobilize Internet intermediaries to institute a sweeping, privacy-invasive, voluntary information-sharing regime with few safeguards. The U.S. cybersecurity strategy, embodied in CISPA and other legislative proposals, also seeks to empower Internet companies to deploy ill-defined ‘countermeasures’ in order to combat these threats. Use of these powers is purportedly limited to situations addressing ‘cybersecurity’ threats, yet this term is so loosely defined that it can encompass almost anything – even,potentially, to investigate potential breaches of intellectual property rights!
The cornerstone of the privacy-invasive CISPA component is the establishment of private-public partnerships for information sharing. This creates a two-tiered regime that, on the one hand, facilitates the collection of personal Internet data by private Internet companies as well as the sharing of that information with the government and, on the other, allows government agencies to share information with private companies.
To enable information flows from Internet companies to government agencies, CISPA will grant Internet companies immunity from civil or criminal liability for any monitoring or sharing of user activity—as long as it is done in ‘good faith.’ Specifically, CISPA authorizes companies to “use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information.” Aggrieved users who sue Internet companies for wrongfully handing over their data to the government willhave to meet the incredibly high bar of proving the decision comprised ‘willful misconduct.’
The U.S. cybersecurity strategy will also permit Internet companies to employ dubiously defined ‘countermeasures,’ provided they are justified with equally vague and undefined ‘defensive intent.’ Internet companies will be permitted to deploy ‘cybersecurity systems’ – products designed to ‘safeguard…a network from efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy’. While it is unclear exactly what this would permit an Internet company to do, it could allow blocking of specific websites or individuals or even a much broader range of filtering. Given the potentially all-encompassing and inclusive definition of ‘cybersecurity’, it would not be surprising if these ‘countermeasures’ were ultimately used to block online entities such as Wikileaks or sites accused of copyright infringement. The inclusion of ‘degrade’ in the definition of permissible ‘cybersecurity systems’ could even raise net neutrality concerns, as ISPs have, in the past, claimed ‘network degradation’ as justification for the throttling of downstream services such as peer-to-peer applications. Indeed, U.S. cybersecurity laws have a history of being employed by private Internet companies to stifle downstream competition.
In sum, the U.S. cybersecurity strategy envisions a voluntary cooperative regime where Internet companies are given broad-ranging immunities to surveil Internet users and downstream online services. This amounts to an erosion of personal privacy safeguards currently in place. Under this regime, an online company need only to assert a vague ‘cybersecurity objective’ and it will have carte blanche to bypass domestic laws and protections against privacy invasion.
IT’S election season again, and the main contenders for the Oval Office are knocking themselves out to reassure Americans that their nation remains at the pinnacle of the global pecking order. MittRomney recently declared that “this century must be an American century.” Not to be outdone, President Obama insisted in his State of the Union address that “anyone who tells you that America is in decline” doesn’t “know what they’re talking about.”
Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama might overdo it a bit, but they’re actually not far off the mark. Despite two draining wars, sluggish growth and a diffusion of power from the West to China and the “rising rest,” a combination of economic resilience and military superiority will keep the United States at or near the top for decades.
Still, they’re missing the point. The most potent challenge to America’s dominance comes not from the continuing redistribution of global power, but from a subtler change: the new forms of governance and capitalism being forged by China and other rising nations.
The democratic, secular and free-market model that has become synonymous with the era of Western primacy is being challenged by state capitalism in China, Russia and the Persian Gulf sheikdoms. Political Islam is rising in step with democracy across the Middle East. And left-wing populism is taking hold from India to Brazil. Rather than following the West’s path of development and obediently accepting their place in the liberal international order, rising nations are fashioning their own versions of modernity and pushing back against the West’s ideological ambitions.
As this century unfolds, sustaining American power will be the easy part. The hard part will be adjusting to the loss of America’s ideological dominance and fashioning consensus and compromise in an increasingly diverse and unwieldy world.
Former US Secretary of State and foreign policy pundit Henry Kissinger has claimed in an interview that the US military is now considering plans to occupy seven Gulf states. These states include Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Oman and are home to one of the largest oil reserves in the world. Not only that, he stated that the US has plans to tighten the noose around China and Russia as well. So far as Iran was concerned, he stated that Israel would decimate it by its sheer military strength. From the ashes of the next great war, the US would form the new world order, he warned.
Indeed, as of now the US has more than 700 foreign military bases scattered all over the globe; it has several aircraft carrier fleets cruising the open seas bullying a number of countries. Until a few years ago, its military budget spiked greatly owing to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and stood larger than that of the rest of the world. Indeed, the American foreign policy for the past many decades has largely been influenced by Neocons that is represented on the academic side by Bernard Lewis, Leo Strauss, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfield, former President Bush and others of their kind in American power structure. Though the Democrats are in power, Pentagon and Capitol Hill still remain under the thumb of such ideologues. That the main thrust of the American foreign policy under such influence is aggression against the world and is manifested by the ongoing war in Afghanistan, drone warfare in Pakistan and the threatening presence of troops in predominantly other Muslim states. Iran and Syria seem likely next targets. Likewise, one reason why it intends to squeeze China and Russia is because of their neutral stand towards Iran and resistance to US hegemony. Recently, Washington brazenly backed Israel in its intimidation of the neighbouring Muslim countries particularly in the 2006 war against Lebanon that resulted in a daylight massacre of innocent men, women and children. These are only some of the facts which chime in with Mr Kissinger’s assessment.
Meanwhile, a report in this paper says that the CIA has chalked out a plan to get favourable coverage from Pakistan’s media. Under such times when the US is on a crusade to conquer and decimate a number of Muslim countries and its allies like China, we can ill-afford to let our guard down. The CIA intends to counter the popular anger against the war that will further receive an impetus with recent deaths of nine British soldiers. Up until now the Pakistani media has been bravely exposing the US especially with respect to the excesses committed in the war on terror. It is hoped it would continue to watch national interest and would strongly repel CIA’s propaganda offensive.
KULIAB, Tajikistan – Authorities have installed surveillance cameras in all mosques surrounding and within the city of Kuliab, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL)’s Tajik service reported April 2.
Similar cameras already exist as a public safety measure in all mosques in Dushanbe, the Dushanbe municipal government said. Kuliab has five central and 50 ordinary registered mosques.
The process of compelling all state and private institutions to install security cameras, backed by a presidential decree, began last year after a series of terrorist acts.
Dushanbe Mayor Makhadsaid Ubaidulloyev has ordered all Dushanbe state and private institutions to complete camera installation by April 15.
H.G. Wells FIRST, 1920 edition of THE OUTLINE OF HISTORY includes the plans for a future one world government - a lengthy passage that I excerpt from below - later editions of H.G. Wells THE OUTLINE OF HISTORY, like the 1949 two-volume edition excludes this passage. H.G. Wells talks more about this in his other books however, including in his books ANTICIPATIONS, and THE NEW WORLD ORDER - along with THE OPEN CONSPIRACY.
“If we suppose a sufficient righteousness and intelligence in men to produce presently, from the tremendous lessons of history, an effective will for world peace - that is to say, an effective will FOR A WORLD LAW UNDER A WORLD GOVERNMENT - for in no other fashion is a secure world peace conceivable - in what manner may we expect things to move towards this end? That movement will certainly not go on equally in every country, nor is it likely to take at first one uniform mode of expression.”
“The attainment of the world state may be impeded and may be opposed today by many apparently vast forces; but it has, urging it on, a much more powerful force, that of the free and growing common intelligence of mankind. …”
“Let us ape Roger Bacon in his prophetic mood, and set down what we believe will be the broad fundamentals of the coming world state.
(i) It will be based upon a common world religion, very much simplified and universalized and better understood. This will not be Christianity nor Islam nor Buddhism nor any such specialized form of religion, but religion itself pure and undefiled; the Eightfold Way, the Kingdom of Heaven, brotherhood. creative service, and self-forgetfulness. …
(ii) And this world state will be sustained by a universal education, organized upon a scale and of a penetration and quality beyond all present experience. …”
Why isn’t this passage in his later edition of his book? Most likely because the United Nations had been formed and he figured including this part would be common knowledge among the people at that point. Instead, these plans turned into “conspiracy theory”.
One more thing; H.G. Wells was close friends - and a teacher to the Huxleys, primarily Aldous and Julian. Aldous Huxley of course went on to write BRAVE NEW WORLD which talks about this One World Government, and Julian Huxley of course went to work for the United Nations and set up UNESCO - to ultimately try and fulfill what is stated in the portion above marked with “(ii)”.
I plan on writing more about this later.
Side Note: This is just some more small steps towards a cashless society…
Please note the reasons given for Canada’s abandonment of the penny:
- “It costs taxpayers a penny-and-a-half every time we make one,” Finance Minister Jim Flaherty told the Commons, adding the move will save taxpayers $11-million annually.
- Mr. Flaherty, whose department described the penny as a “nuisance” in budget documents, said the 2.35-gram coin is now more trouble than it’s worth.
Businesses are being told that they might have to round up to the nearest nickel… but the article also states “the five-cent coin’s days are now numbered too.”
I posted a story a few days ago from CBS called “Why Cash Is Losing It’s Currency” [http://cbsn.ws/HzTmE3] in which it states:
“Everyone thinks cash is so simple and so easy and so fast and so secure. It’s NONE of those things,” said author David Wolman. In his new book, “The End of Money,” he argues the biggest knock against cash is that it’s costly.
“It’s really expensive to move it, store it, secure it, inspect it, shred it, redesign it, re-supply it, and round and round we go!” Wolman said.
It already costs the U.S. government almost TWICE as much to make a penny and a nickel, than they’re actually WORTH.
Don’t be fooled - moving to a DIGITAL currency (i.e. a ‘cashless society’) has been planned for quite awhile. The primary difference between cash and digital currency (like BITCOINS) is that digital currency can be tracked. There is no ‘anonymity’ when your money is digitized - and that is the intent.
Along with this trend, we only have to look at Louisiana who in 2011 made it illegal to use cash in 2nd hand purchases. Why? Because cash, once again, is VERY difficult to track. When money is digitized, you can quickly discover who purchased what when in a matter of seconds. [http://bit.ly/HzUPKq] As Louisiana State Representative Rickey Hardy quite blatantly states: “It’s a mechanism to be used so the police department has something to go on and have a lead.”
One more quick point - once money is digitized, it’ll be much easier to integrate into society a regional (similar to the Euro, but for North America in this case) or to a global currency.
Canada is scrapping the penny, ending production this year of a coin that weighs down consumers’ pockets while adding little to their purchasing power.
The government announced in Thursday’s federal budget that it will shortly jettison the one-cent coin – a casualty of Ottawa’s drive for efficiency and thrift.
“It costs taxpayers a penny-and-a-half every time we make one,” Finance Minister Jim Flaherty told the Commons, adding the move will save taxpayers $11-million annually.
Mr. Flaherty, whose department described the penny as a “nuisance” in budget documents, said the 2.35-gram coin is now more trouble than it’s worth.
“Pennies take up too much space on our dressers at home,” Mr. Flaherty added. “They take up far too much time for small businesses trying to grow and create jobs.”
The USA Africa Command, which America calls ‘Africom’, is a military structure of the Defence Department of America. Africom was formed in 2007 during President George W Bush’s second term of office. That was two months after America had bombed a small African country, Somalia, destabilising it to the ashes it is today and to the danger it now poses to Africa and international trade. The coast of Somalia is infested with sea piracy and kidnappings. This is as a result of the earlier American invasion of Somalia, in pursuit of its illegitimate economic interests in Africa. The political instability of Somalia has now caused the problem of ‘terrorism’ for East African countries such as Kenya.
In October 2011, the Institute of Security Studies held a seminar in Pretoria, South Africa, on United States’ security policy in Africa and the role of the US Africa Command. The main speaker was the American Ambassador to South Africa. He presented what was a ‘non-military insider’s perspective on the United States’ Africa Command.’ This way he was supposedly to ‘separate facts from fiction and rumours and deal directly with misconceptions and misapprehensions about Africom.’
The American apologists of Africom suggested that the creation of this American military structure under the American Defence Department ‘has turned out to be different from what the USA government had originally envisioned and what the United States of America had originally perceived, having quickly foresworn locating its headquarters in Africa.’
It seems that even in this 21st century the United States of America government does not respect the sovereignty of African states and the territorial integrity of the continent. If it did, it would know that Africans have national and continental interests and the right to protect them. Assistance should be solicited. Those who need assistance know what kind of assistance they want. The United States of America has no right to prescribe Africom on Africa even at the expense of dividing Africa and weakening the African Union. America wants its own interests to prevail over those of Africa.
Africans have a painful history of the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade, racism and colonialism by nations that claim to be ‘civilised’ but have behaviour that is contrary to civilisation. They dehumanised Africa’s people and saw nothing wrong with that. They have never shown any remorse for their inhuman deeds to Africans or offered any reparations for the colossal damage they inflicted on Africans. America’s persistence to impose Africom on Africa proves this beyond reasonable doubt.
Uganda suffered unspeakable atrocities under Idi Amin’s government that was installed by Britain under Prime Minister Edward Heath. The British government did not like the socialist policies of President Milton Obote. Idi Amin killed many Ugandans. They included the Anglican Archbishop Janani Luwum.
After the overthrow of Idi Amin, there emerged Joseph Kony, leader of what he calls the Lord’s Resistance Army. Kony has murdered thousands of Ugandans. This included kidnapping hundreds of Ugandan children who he forced to join his army to fight the Ugandan government. Many of those children were killed in the senseless war. This has gone on for over 20 years.
The US government never approached Uganda or the African Union or its predecessor, the Organisation of African Unity, to ask how the United States could help. Now there is discovery of oil in Uganda. Almost immediately, there are reports that US government has sent an army to Uganda to find Joseph Kony and rescue Uganda’s children. Why did America not make this offer long before Uganda discovered this oil wealth? Acquisition of Africa’s resources is the chief purpose of Africom, not the development of Africa.
Some African countries have been threatened with sanctions and ‘regime change.’ One of them is Libya, where Colonel Maummar Gaddafi was killed under the dark cloud of NATO and United States of America. When Africans raise concerns about ‘Africom’ they are said to suffer ‘misconceptions, misapprehensions, rumours, and fiction.’ Now, is the United States of America government prepared to allow Russia or China to establish their own ‘American Command’ and call it ‘Americom’ in pursuit of their national interests in America? How would Americans react to this? Would they go to the streets and say, ‘Welcome messiah!’
Anyway, the architect of ‘Africom’ President George W Bush has said that the United States’ Africa Command ‘will co-ordinate all United States security interests throughout Africa.’ If this is not imperialist arrogance and contempt for the sovereignties of African States, then the proponents of ‘Africom’ must be sent to a mental hospital for treatment.
Today’s one-day annual summit of the so-called Brics countries – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – has received scant attention in the west. That may be because the grouping has achieved little in concrete terms since its inception in 2009. Critics deride it as a photo-op and talking shop.
But this neglect, or disdain, may also reflect the fact that the Brics, representing almost half the world’s population and about one-fifth of global economic output, pose an unwelcome challenge to the established world order as defined by the US-dominated UN security council, the IMF and the World Bank. The truth of the matter probably lies somewhere in-between. The five national leaders – presidents Dilma Rousseff of Brazil, Dmitri Medvedev of Russia, Hu Jintao of China and Jacob Zuma of South Africa and their host in Delhi, India’s prime minister Manmohan Singh – are not noted for iconoclastic radicalism.
Rousseff has been the most outspoken, insisting that developing countries must be protected from the global “tsunami” of cheap money, unleashed by the US and the EU in the wake of the financial crisis, that was rendering their exports less competitive. “We will defend our industry and prevent the methods developed countries use to escape from crisis resulting in the cannibalisation of emerging markets,” she said this month.
Brics boosters project a grandiose vision. India’s commerce secretary, Anand Sharma, said this week the group sought nothing less than “to create a new global architecture”. But commentators interpret such ambitions as essentially anti-American hot air. Pointing to a signal lack of substantive policy agreements, they suggest a desire to counter Washington’s global dominance is the Brics’ sole unifying objective.
“There are calls to establish a permanent secretariat and even a development bank in an effort to bolster the grouping’s political impact,”wrote Walter Ladwig of the Royal United Services Institute. “But this focus on institution-building is misplaced. It is the fundamental incompatibility of the Brics nations, not their lack of organisation, which prevents [them] acting as a meaningful force on the world stage”. Ladwig continued: “Beyond the issues of economic governance, in many key areas the Brics nations are actually in strategic competition. Within Asia, India and Russia are potential obstacles to China’s presumed regional dominance. At the international level, Russia, Brazil and India desire the emergence of a multipolar international system in which they are major actors, with the latter two seeking membership in an expanded UN security council.
“In contrast, China aims for a bipolar world in which it serves as the counterbalance to American power.” So far, Beijing has opposed India’s bid for a permanent security council seat.
Side note: There is a lot of heroin being produced in Afghanistan, MUCH more than what was being produced before the US/NATO invasion in fact - with, what clearly appears to be the USA and NATO’s help. The theory is, it’s being produced for two primary reasons 1) for the obvious enormous profits from the global opium black market and 2) to destabilize Russia - a nation that, like China, is threatening the USA’s global power.
The St. Petersburg Times
The black market for heroin in Russia, fueled by large-scale production in Afghanistan, is worth $6 billion dollars, said Federal Drug Control Service head Viktor Ivanov on Friday.
Ivanov said the marijuana market is worth $1.5 billion, the market for synthetic drugs $1 billion. and the cocaine market much less at $80 million, Interfax reported.
Earlier this month, the drug control service said there are five million regular drug users in Russia.
Over the weekend, anti-narcotics forces seized a huge haul of Afghan heroin, over 40 kilograms, from the home of two Tajik natives in St. Petersburg, Ivanov also said Friday. The pair is believed to be part of a larger drug-trafficking group, the members of which are currently being sought by authorities, Ivanov said.
Afghanistan: Special Forces Under CIA Control Would be Considered Spies, Allowing White House to Claim U.S. Troops Have Been Withdrawn
Cryptogon follows this stuff closely, check that site out.