America went to the polls on November 4th. We voted using a secret ballot. That is a way to allow us to exercise our right to enfranchisement as citizens. We are able to vote according to our own conscience, without sharing our choice, if we so choose.
The Unions and Democrats are pushing to remove the secret ballot as an means for those deciding whether to form a union. They have come up with the 'Employee Free Choice Act'. It is a misleading name at best. At worst it is downright cynical.
Currently, once 30% of a company's workers sign union authorization cards, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administers a confidential vote, typically 39 days after it receives the cards. The union and employer campaign for votes.
Under the 'Employee Free Choice Act' being promoted by unions, when more than 50% of employees sign authorization cards, the NLRB would have to recognize the new union. No campaign. No secret ballot...........just a "friendly" union representative.
The measure passed the US House in 2007 after the Democrats took control. The Democrats now have the votes to pass it in the Senate. They now have a President who will sign it. Even former Democratic nominee George McGovern has come out against it.
The proposed change would give unions and pro-union employees more incentive to use peer pressure, or worse, to persuade reluctant workers to sign their cards. And without elections, workers who weren't contacted by union organizers would have no say in the final outcome. Who wants a union organizer standing at their work space with a card and pen in hand, asking them to sign; while their coworkers all stare?
Labor leaders, such as AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, argue's that the proposed law wouldn't prohibit private balloting. This is accurate but misleading. Union organizers would have no reason to seek an election if they had union cards signed by more than 50% of workers. And if they had less than a majority, they'd be unlikely to call for a vote they'd probably lose.
The legislation has other questionable provisions as well. For example, once a union is formed, if labor and management can't agree on a contract, a federal arbitration board would be called on to go beyond the normal role of facilitating talks and actually dictate terms.
Labor has seen its role decline since the 1950s, when about a third of all private sector employees belonged to unions, compared with about 7.5% today. So it's understandably eager to find ways to expand membership, particularly at a time when workers are feeling economically vulnerable. More members, more members dues.
The Democrats have a vested interest in ensuring passage. The unions have long been big donors to Democratic candidates. If the unions have declining membership and related dues, then there is less to give to the Democrats. If the Democrats get this passed and signed into law, the union officials and Democrats win. Unfortunately, the workers lose. This undermining of Democratic ideals is a poor deal for America's workers.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
WHILE ROME BURNS
Our 'Stimulus Bill' that Obama and Pelosi hoisted on the US. to create jobs is misleading. It will create some jobs, but not necessarily for Americans.
According to the USAToday, Tens of thousands of jobs created by the economic stimulus law could end up filled by illegal immigrants, particularly in big states such as California where undocumented workers are heavily represented in construction, experts on both sides of the issue say.
They fault Congress for failing to require that employers certify legal immigration status of workers before hiring by using a Department of Homeland Security program called E-Verify. The program allows employers to check the validity of Social Security numbers provided by new hires. It is available to employers on a voluntary basis. Obama and Pelosi both rebuked the inclusion of the common sense measure.
"They could have deterred this, but they chose not to," said Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies.
The version of the stimulus bill passed by the House of Representatives included a provision requiring employers to check immigration status with the E-Verify system before hiring. The Senate did not include such a provision, and it was not in the version sent to President Obama. The Obama administration has delayed until at least May 21 a Bush administration executive order requiring federal contractors to use the E-Verify system in hiring. It had been scheduled to take effect in January. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed suit seeking to block the requirement, joined by the Associated Builders and Contractors and other business organizations.
So not only will many Americans be passed over for these jobs taken by Illegal Aliens, American tax dollars will pay their salaries.
Not willing to tolerate criticism, the Democrats are dredging up the 'Fairness Doctrine' in an attempt to quelch opposition to their socialist policies. It seems they are not satisfied with merely controlling the print and television media (exception FOX News), they want to silence talk radio. They are gunning for Limbaugh and Hannity. They make no mention of fervent Obama supporters, MSNBC's Chris Mathews, Keith Olberman or Rachel Maddow.
On a more personal front. While Washington and the rest of America's cities burn economically, the recession is not being felt at the White House. The Obama's have been enjoying a fun-filled succession of parties at the White House.
These parties are purely for socializing, with talk of politics discouraged. Sort of reminds me of another First Lady whose first name began with an "M". When told their fellow countrymen were suffering she is said to have replied, "let them eat cake".
According to the USAToday, Tens of thousands of jobs created by the economic stimulus law could end up filled by illegal immigrants, particularly in big states such as California where undocumented workers are heavily represented in construction, experts on both sides of the issue say.
They fault Congress for failing to require that employers certify legal immigration status of workers before hiring by using a Department of Homeland Security program called E-Verify. The program allows employers to check the validity of Social Security numbers provided by new hires. It is available to employers on a voluntary basis. Obama and Pelosi both rebuked the inclusion of the common sense measure.
"They could have deterred this, but they chose not to," said Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies.
The version of the stimulus bill passed by the House of Representatives included a provision requiring employers to check immigration status with the E-Verify system before hiring. The Senate did not include such a provision, and it was not in the version sent to President Obama. The Obama administration has delayed until at least May 21 a Bush administration executive order requiring federal contractors to use the E-Verify system in hiring. It had been scheduled to take effect in January. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed suit seeking to block the requirement, joined by the Associated Builders and Contractors and other business organizations.
So not only will many Americans be passed over for these jobs taken by Illegal Aliens, American tax dollars will pay their salaries.
Not willing to tolerate criticism, the Democrats are dredging up the 'Fairness Doctrine' in an attempt to quelch opposition to their socialist policies. It seems they are not satisfied with merely controlling the print and television media (exception FOX News), they want to silence talk radio. They are gunning for Limbaugh and Hannity. They make no mention of fervent Obama supporters, MSNBC's Chris Mathews, Keith Olberman or Rachel Maddow.
On a more personal front. While Washington and the rest of America's cities burn economically, the recession is not being felt at the White House. The Obama's have been enjoying a fun-filled succession of parties at the White House.
These parties are purely for socializing, with talk of politics discouraged. Sort of reminds me of another First Lady whose first name began with an "M". When told their fellow countrymen were suffering she is said to have replied, "let them eat cake".
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Obama Begins 'Tax Cuts' For 95% Of Americans
In his weekly radio address to the nation today, Obama announced that he was fulfilling his campaign promise to provide tax relief to 95% of Americans. This is rather disingenuous since 40% of Americans do not pay income taxes.
So what he is really doing is providing tax relief to 55% of Americans and another form of welfare to the other 40%. This is to begin April1, 2009.
"I'm pleased to announce that this morning the Treasury Department began directing employers to reduce the amount of taxes withheld from paychecks, meaning that by April 1st, a typical family will begin taking home at least $65 more every month," Obama said in his weekly radio address.
"Never before in our history has a tax cut taken effect faster or gone to so many hard-working Americans," he said.
The measures have received a mixed early reaction from gloomy financial markets uncertain whether they will succeed in arresting the downward economic spiral. Since Obama has been leading America's economic efforts, the market has hit lows that surpass that obtained after the attacks of 9/11.
His announcement on the tax cuts capped a week that saw him sign the stimulus package into law and announce new measures to help families facing foreclosure and those struggling to make mortgage payments. The latter is Obama's life-line to reward poor judgement.
In essence, Obama is telling me that if I exercised good judgement in acquiring a mortgage that I could afford and saved for, make my mortgage payment, and live within my means; I am now expected to pay for those who did not.
Obama will kick it up a notch next week when he holds a summit at the White House on Monday to look at how to rein in the country's ballooning deficit and bring government spending under control as the economy starts to recover. While not an economist, I might suggest that he take the approach my family follows. If you do not have it, do not spend it.
Many Americans fail to recognize that you do not spend yourself out of a recession. FDR and Japan demonstrated that years ago.
As we continue to borrow money from communist China (with their false economy), we continue to reduce the value of the dollar. In other words, that foreign made Television that costs $1500 today, will cost $1700 after you borrow more money from foreign investors. All the money in the stimulus/spending bills has to be borrowed, and the more we borrow, the lower the value of the dollar.
My friends here in DC tell me all this spending and talk of doom and glom is not so much about the economy as it is about the administrations social agenda. Granted the economy is in recession. The talk of Depression is a bit of a stretch.
During the Depression, unemployment was well into the 20+% levels. Interest rates were sky high. Even when Reagan came into office, unemployment and interest rates were double-digit. That is not the case now.
Obama is a polished speaker and persuader. However, his talk of "stimulus" is a smoke-screen. How else do you explain the fact that his "stimulus bill" was more social engineering than stimulus?
He is a masterful politican and knew that Americans would not support his social agenda were they not sold on the idea that the sky was falling and massive spending was the only way to the promised land of recovery. He does not speak of hope today. He plays on our fear and foreboding of what lies ahead.
If you take time to look closer at the Stimulus Bill that was passed, you will find a social agenda bill passed off as a much sought after economic stimulus.
The Charltan of Chicago is playing Americans like a drum!!
So what he is really doing is providing tax relief to 55% of Americans and another form of welfare to the other 40%. This is to begin April1, 2009.
"I'm pleased to announce that this morning the Treasury Department began directing employers to reduce the amount of taxes withheld from paychecks, meaning that by April 1st, a typical family will begin taking home at least $65 more every month," Obama said in his weekly radio address.
"Never before in our history has a tax cut taken effect faster or gone to so many hard-working Americans," he said.
The measures have received a mixed early reaction from gloomy financial markets uncertain whether they will succeed in arresting the downward economic spiral. Since Obama has been leading America's economic efforts, the market has hit lows that surpass that obtained after the attacks of 9/11.
His announcement on the tax cuts capped a week that saw him sign the stimulus package into law and announce new measures to help families facing foreclosure and those struggling to make mortgage payments. The latter is Obama's life-line to reward poor judgement.
In essence, Obama is telling me that if I exercised good judgement in acquiring a mortgage that I could afford and saved for, make my mortgage payment, and live within my means; I am now expected to pay for those who did not.
Obama will kick it up a notch next week when he holds a summit at the White House on Monday to look at how to rein in the country's ballooning deficit and bring government spending under control as the economy starts to recover. While not an economist, I might suggest that he take the approach my family follows. If you do not have it, do not spend it.
Many Americans fail to recognize that you do not spend yourself out of a recession. FDR and Japan demonstrated that years ago.
As we continue to borrow money from communist China (with their false economy), we continue to reduce the value of the dollar. In other words, that foreign made Television that costs $1500 today, will cost $1700 after you borrow more money from foreign investors. All the money in the stimulus/spending bills has to be borrowed, and the more we borrow, the lower the value of the dollar.
My friends here in DC tell me all this spending and talk of doom and glom is not so much about the economy as it is about the administrations social agenda. Granted the economy is in recession. The talk of Depression is a bit of a stretch.
During the Depression, unemployment was well into the 20+% levels. Interest rates were sky high. Even when Reagan came into office, unemployment and interest rates were double-digit. That is not the case now.
Obama is a polished speaker and persuader. However, his talk of "stimulus" is a smoke-screen. How else do you explain the fact that his "stimulus bill" was more social engineering than stimulus?
He is a masterful politican and knew that Americans would not support his social agenda were they not sold on the idea that the sky was falling and massive spending was the only way to the promised land of recovery. He does not speak of hope today. He plays on our fear and foreboding of what lies ahead.
If you take time to look closer at the Stimulus Bill that was passed, you will find a social agenda bill passed off as a much sought after economic stimulus.
The Charltan of Chicago is playing Americans like a drum!!
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Global Government & Taxation advances in DAVOS.
Months ago I brought up Obama's 'Global Poverty Act', (you can look through the blog to find the article), and I was met with some skepticism. It was sponsored by then Senator Obama. I pointed out that it will cede too much of America's sovereignty to the United Nations. I also demonstrated that it will result in a 'Global' tax, and 'Global' government.
Can the American public truly be so easily distracted as to miss something of this magnitude?
This past week and weekend the World Economic Forum met in Davos, Switzerland. Many of it's members are concurrent members of the Bilderberg Group. I would suggest that those who are not familiar with the 'Bilderberg Group' take a moment and "google' it.
Cliff Kincaid, of Accuracy In Media, reported on this meeting. I am including his report as an FYI.
Global Taxes and Global TV Now on the Agenda
AIM Column | By Cliff Kincaid | January 26, 2009
In addition to global taxes, “The Global Agenda 2009” report urges creation of a global television channel.
President Obama’s pick for Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, is being urged to lay the foundation for “global governance” by considering “international taxation” measures to loot more money from U.S. taxpayers.
The recommendation is included in the report, “The Global Agenda 2009,” which is being considered by the World Economic Forum (WEF), meeting in Davos, Switzerland, January 28 - February 1. The WEF is not an official government group but does include dozens of government, corporate and labor leaders at its annual meetings.
Media companies such as News Corporation (parent of Fox News, the Fox Business Network, and the Wall Street Journal), CNBC, and Forbes are official sponsors of the WEF meeting. News Corporation is listed as one of about 100 “strategic partners” of the World Economic Forum.
“Look for live coverage on CNBC, all day every day,” reports CNBC “Squawk Box” co-anchor Becky Quick. “We kick things off at 6 a.m. Eastern time Wednesday on Squawk, with serious interviews from the headliners.” Her report, however, fails to disclose that CNBC is an “industry partner” of the World Economic Forum this week.
CNBC is a subsidiary of General Electric, whose GE Capital is receiving a $139-billion taxpayer-financed loan guarantee as part of the Wall Street bailout. CNBC’s sister networks are NBC and MSNBC.
Other “industry partners” of the WEF include Reuters, the British-based news agency. A Reuters story about the meeting that starts on Wednesday sounds like a press release from the organization, hailing its “achievements” over time but failing to note that Reuters is a sponsor of this year’s event.
CNBC is advertising a “No Way Back – the Road to Recovery” debate hosted at the conference by CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo. One of the participants is Steve Schwarzman, Chairman, CEO and co-founder of the Chinese-funded and partly owned Blackstone Group.
Representing Chinese economic dominance in what Henry Kissinger has labeled a “New World Order,” Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao is speaking to a special session of the conference on its first day.
The event’s corporate sponsors, which pay about half a million dollars each to participate, include several failing institutions that have received tens of billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers. They include Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Morgan Stanley. These entities are termed “Strategic Partners” of the World Economic Forum.
But will CNBC highlight this kind of extravagant spending when the cable business network is helping sponsor the event?
In a major embarrassment, the WEF has released a report, “The Future of the Global Financial System,” which acknowledges “intellectual stewardship and guidance” provided by a steering committee co-chaired by John Thain, the former Merrill Lynch & Co. chief executive officer who was recently ousted from Bank of America in a scandal. Thain oversaw the disastrous sale of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America and was criticized for lavish spending on office decorations, including a $1,405 waste basket and $87,784 rug.
The other co-chair of the committee was David Rubenstein, co-founder and managing director of The Carlyle Group, who has been quoted as saying that China holds the key to the world economy’s future. One report notes that Rubenstein says Carlyle “was an early investor in the Chinese marketplace,” that its China office “has hired many native-born Chinese, and the company is seeking to build its buyout and growth-capital businesses there.”
“The Global Agenda 2009” report says that “sovereign states do not adequately address problems reaching across borders” and that “international taxation” may be needed to generate the “additional resources” for “global governance.”
Could this become a source of new bailout money here and abroad?
“As current global governance problems come from market failures, sovereign failures and intergovernmental failures that cross boundaries, sacrificing sovereignty for greater gain may become an option,” the report says.
The report says the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty, which is a top priority for Senate ratification under the Obama Administration, is a measure that has “earned the acceptance and compliance” of most nations. The treaty would turn over oil, gas, and mineral resources to the U.N. and authorize access to them through payment of a global tax to a U.N. body.
The so-called “Council on Global Governance” of the World Economic Forum includes Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of the Princeton University Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs who has been picked by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to run the State Department’s Office of Policy Planning. Slaughter wrote the 2004 book, A New World Order.
In terms of media interest and backing for the controversial event, one of the co-chairs is Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corporation, the Fox News Channel parent company. Another co-chair is Kofi Annan, the disgraced former U.N. Secretary-General. As director of U.N. peacekeeping, Annan was accused of ignoring genocide in Rwanda. As Secretary-General, he was investigated for presiding over the oil-for-food corruption scandal involving Saddam Hussein’s Iraq regime.
Annan, however, claimed that he was “exonerated” by a report issued by Paul Volcker, the former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman and now one of Obama’s chief economic advisers.
In the past U.S. officials have been major participants in the World Economic Forum. But it’s not clear if any of Obama’s top officials will be going to this year’s event. However, some of his labor backers, including Andrew Stern of the Service Employees International Union, and John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, are listed as participants.
In addition to global taxes, “The Global Agenda 2009” report urges creation of a global television channel.
“Media has the capacity to connect the world, bridging cultures and peoples, and telling us who we are and what we mean to each other. The media can also ensure that no voice goes unheard,” it says. “We believe that this new moment also calls for a new media platform, across all media channels, a global non-profit ‘CNN’ providing a new form of independent journalism to inform, illuminate and deepen knowledge about issues that improve the state of the world.”
The report doesn’t explain how this new global TV channel will be financed. But global taxes cannot be ruled out.
Perhaps this new era of transparency and disclosure can start with disclosing details about media sponsorship and backing of the World Economic Forum and its plans for “global governance.”
Can the American public truly be so easily distracted as to miss something of this magnitude?
This past week and weekend the World Economic Forum met in Davos, Switzerland. Many of it's members are concurrent members of the Bilderberg Group. I would suggest that those who are not familiar with the 'Bilderberg Group' take a moment and "google' it.
Cliff Kincaid, of Accuracy In Media, reported on this meeting. I am including his report as an FYI.
Global Taxes and Global TV Now on the Agenda
AIM Column | By Cliff Kincaid | January 26, 2009
In addition to global taxes, “The Global Agenda 2009” report urges creation of a global television channel.
President Obama’s pick for Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, is being urged to lay the foundation for “global governance” by considering “international taxation” measures to loot more money from U.S. taxpayers.
The recommendation is included in the report, “The Global Agenda 2009,” which is being considered by the World Economic Forum (WEF), meeting in Davos, Switzerland, January 28 - February 1. The WEF is not an official government group but does include dozens of government, corporate and labor leaders at its annual meetings.
Media companies such as News Corporation (parent of Fox News, the Fox Business Network, and the Wall Street Journal), CNBC, and Forbes are official sponsors of the WEF meeting. News Corporation is listed as one of about 100 “strategic partners” of the World Economic Forum.
“Look for live coverage on CNBC, all day every day,” reports CNBC “Squawk Box” co-anchor Becky Quick. “We kick things off at 6 a.m. Eastern time Wednesday on Squawk, with serious interviews from the headliners.” Her report, however, fails to disclose that CNBC is an “industry partner” of the World Economic Forum this week.
CNBC is a subsidiary of General Electric, whose GE Capital is receiving a $139-billion taxpayer-financed loan guarantee as part of the Wall Street bailout. CNBC’s sister networks are NBC and MSNBC.
Other “industry partners” of the WEF include Reuters, the British-based news agency. A Reuters story about the meeting that starts on Wednesday sounds like a press release from the organization, hailing its “achievements” over time but failing to note that Reuters is a sponsor of this year’s event.
CNBC is advertising a “No Way Back – the Road to Recovery” debate hosted at the conference by CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo. One of the participants is Steve Schwarzman, Chairman, CEO and co-founder of the Chinese-funded and partly owned Blackstone Group.
Representing Chinese economic dominance in what Henry Kissinger has labeled a “New World Order,” Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao is speaking to a special session of the conference on its first day.
The event’s corporate sponsors, which pay about half a million dollars each to participate, include several failing institutions that have received tens of billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers. They include Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Morgan Stanley. These entities are termed “Strategic Partners” of the World Economic Forum.
But will CNBC highlight this kind of extravagant spending when the cable business network is helping sponsor the event?
In a major embarrassment, the WEF has released a report, “The Future of the Global Financial System,” which acknowledges “intellectual stewardship and guidance” provided by a steering committee co-chaired by John Thain, the former Merrill Lynch & Co. chief executive officer who was recently ousted from Bank of America in a scandal. Thain oversaw the disastrous sale of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America and was criticized for lavish spending on office decorations, including a $1,405 waste basket and $87,784 rug.
The other co-chair of the committee was David Rubenstein, co-founder and managing director of The Carlyle Group, who has been quoted as saying that China holds the key to the world economy’s future. One report notes that Rubenstein says Carlyle “was an early investor in the Chinese marketplace,” that its China office “has hired many native-born Chinese, and the company is seeking to build its buyout and growth-capital businesses there.”
“The Global Agenda 2009” report says that “sovereign states do not adequately address problems reaching across borders” and that “international taxation” may be needed to generate the “additional resources” for “global governance.”
Could this become a source of new bailout money here and abroad?
“As current global governance problems come from market failures, sovereign failures and intergovernmental failures that cross boundaries, sacrificing sovereignty for greater gain may become an option,” the report says.
The report says the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty, which is a top priority for Senate ratification under the Obama Administration, is a measure that has “earned the acceptance and compliance” of most nations. The treaty would turn over oil, gas, and mineral resources to the U.N. and authorize access to them through payment of a global tax to a U.N. body.
The so-called “Council on Global Governance” of the World Economic Forum includes Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of the Princeton University Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs who has been picked by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to run the State Department’s Office of Policy Planning. Slaughter wrote the 2004 book, A New World Order.
In terms of media interest and backing for the controversial event, one of the co-chairs is Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corporation, the Fox News Channel parent company. Another co-chair is Kofi Annan, the disgraced former U.N. Secretary-General. As director of U.N. peacekeeping, Annan was accused of ignoring genocide in Rwanda. As Secretary-General, he was investigated for presiding over the oil-for-food corruption scandal involving Saddam Hussein’s Iraq regime.
Annan, however, claimed that he was “exonerated” by a report issued by Paul Volcker, the former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman and now one of Obama’s chief economic advisers.
In the past U.S. officials have been major participants in the World Economic Forum. But it’s not clear if any of Obama’s top officials will be going to this year’s event. However, some of his labor backers, including Andrew Stern of the Service Employees International Union, and John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, are listed as participants.
In addition to global taxes, “The Global Agenda 2009” report urges creation of a global television channel.
“Media has the capacity to connect the world, bridging cultures and peoples, and telling us who we are and what we mean to each other. The media can also ensure that no voice goes unheard,” it says. “We believe that this new moment also calls for a new media platform, across all media channels, a global non-profit ‘CNN’ providing a new form of independent journalism to inform, illuminate and deepen knowledge about issues that improve the state of the world.”
The report doesn’t explain how this new global TV channel will be financed. But global taxes cannot be ruled out.
Perhaps this new era of transparency and disclosure can start with disclosing details about media sponsorship and backing of the World Economic Forum and its plans for “global governance.”
OBAMA STYLED "CHANGE" & "STIMULUS"
On November 4Th, the American electorate voted for "Change". Throughout the campaign Barack Obama convinced enough voters to not look to close, and trust his untested leadership.
Now barely two weeks into this administration that promised hope and change, we find ourselves with exactly what the electorate deserves. We have been given cabinet nominees, many of which feel above having to pay their taxes. This of course includes our new Treasury Secretary who will oversee the IRS. He did cough up the $34,000 after receiving the Treasury nomination. He had no intention of doing so prior to that time. This is 'change'?
Under the guise of a "stimulus package", the Democrats have usurped the legitimacy of such a noble cause, and instead, put forth a pork laden bill catered to the 'no accountability' left wing.
This attempt to borrow and spend our way out of a recession is not a new idea. Roosevelt tried in the 30's, and when he ran for his third term in 1940, our unemployment rate still hovered around 20%. That was after eight years of the same style stimulus programs. If not for the war clouds of Europe his reelection was in question. He went on to win because of promising to keep America out of the war, in spite of his dismal economic policies.
Japan tried the Roosevelt model during their prolonged recession of the 90's. It failed to work that time as well.
Now the Rain Man of Chicago politics appears to be attempting to imitate Bullwinkle. We all remember Bullwinkle trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat. Having pulled out a Rhinoceros, and then a lion by mistake, Bullwinkle exclaims "this time for sure".
According to the democratic controlled Congressional Budget Office, only one fifth of this stimulus would be felt in 2009. Most of the money is scheduled to be spent after the recession is predicted to end.
Obama claims to want this bill to pass in order to create jobs. It falls far short according to estimates. The Endowment for the Arts employs how many people? Contraception? How about $650 million for 'Digital TV.coupons'?
Less than 10% of the bill could be considered true stimulus, if one assumes tax credits and infrastructure spending will jolt the economy. The other 90% of the bill represents one of the most egregious acts of generational theft in our nation's history, with taxpayer money going to special-interest earmarks, an ill-conceived bailout to states, and permanent spending increases that expand government's reach in areas like health care and education.
The bill's selling point is that three million jobs will be created or saved by this package. What's alarming is that each job will cost $286,000 to create or save. Moreover, one in five will be a government job....I start my new government job next Tuesday!!
One of the more egregious provisions in the Senate bill is a $166 billion bailout plan for the states that rewards bad budgeting at the state level. Simply sending cash to states without asking for appropriate sacrifices is grossly irresponsible. States will no longer have the incentive to live within their means, because they'll assume the federal government will be there to bail them out.
Instead of a bailout, Congress could offer states an emergency loan that could be repaid at a low interest rate. This approach apparently wasn't considered because the members who wrote the bill aren't simply interested in saving jobs -- they want to push their agenda along the way.
A key example is health care. The Senate bill doubles the amount of the Medicaid bailout requested by governors and lays the groundwork for government-run health care, which invariably leads to rationing. This ideological overreach has led even some Democrats, like Nebraska's Ben Nelson, to express concern that various "sacred cows" in the package are hurting the bill's overall goals.
The bill is also loaded with old-fashioned pork, despite President Barack Obama's insistence that members of Congress refrain from adding earmarks. In fact, the bill contains the most expensive earmark in history: $2 billion for the FutureGen near-zero emission power plant in Matoon, Ill.
Of course Obama has no problem with a $5 billion earmark for his friends at ACORN. We all remember ACORN. This is the organization that had it's offices raided by the FBI after it became evident that the organization was blatantly involved with voter registration fraud, registering people multiple times, and registering fictitious names. Why punish them? Under this administration we will reward them. They not only drank the kool-aid, they helped pass it out!
Other non stimulative pork provisions include $88 million for a new polar icebreaker for the Coast Guard, $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees, and $850 million for Amtrak.
What is not in the bill is as troubling as what is. The package does nothing to clear the toxic assets and bad mortgages that helped trigger the credit crisis. These are some of the same scam mortgage products that Congressman Barney Frank D-MA defended when attempts were made to add more regulation to Fannie Mae. Why wouldn't Barney block re regulation? His lover, Herb Moses was the architect at Fannie Mae who was selling these mortgages and bringing home the resulting bonuses to Barney and keeping him draped in gold lame'.
It also contains very little meaningful tax relief to make small businesses and American companies more competitive. Instead, the tax provisions of the stimulus are essentially a modest cash handout that repeats the failed policy of George W. Bush's rebate-check stimulus.
The only thing that will be "stimulated" with this bill, is America's collective sphincter!
Now barely two weeks into this administration that promised hope and change, we find ourselves with exactly what the electorate deserves. We have been given cabinet nominees, many of which feel above having to pay their taxes. This of course includes our new Treasury Secretary who will oversee the IRS. He did cough up the $34,000 after receiving the Treasury nomination. He had no intention of doing so prior to that time. This is 'change'?
Under the guise of a "stimulus package", the Democrats have usurped the legitimacy of such a noble cause, and instead, put forth a pork laden bill catered to the 'no accountability' left wing.
This attempt to borrow and spend our way out of a recession is not a new idea. Roosevelt tried in the 30's, and when he ran for his third term in 1940, our unemployment rate still hovered around 20%. That was after eight years of the same style stimulus programs. If not for the war clouds of Europe his reelection was in question. He went on to win because of promising to keep America out of the war, in spite of his dismal economic policies.
Japan tried the Roosevelt model during their prolonged recession of the 90's. It failed to work that time as well.
Now the Rain Man of Chicago politics appears to be attempting to imitate Bullwinkle. We all remember Bullwinkle trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat. Having pulled out a Rhinoceros, and then a lion by mistake, Bullwinkle exclaims "this time for sure".
According to the democratic controlled Congressional Budget Office, only one fifth of this stimulus would be felt in 2009. Most of the money is scheduled to be spent after the recession is predicted to end.
Obama claims to want this bill to pass in order to create jobs. It falls far short according to estimates. The Endowment for the Arts employs how many people? Contraception? How about $650 million for 'Digital TV.coupons'?
Less than 10% of the bill could be considered true stimulus, if one assumes tax credits and infrastructure spending will jolt the economy. The other 90% of the bill represents one of the most egregious acts of generational theft in our nation's history, with taxpayer money going to special-interest earmarks, an ill-conceived bailout to states, and permanent spending increases that expand government's reach in areas like health care and education.
The bill's selling point is that three million jobs will be created or saved by this package. What's alarming is that each job will cost $286,000 to create or save. Moreover, one in five will be a government job....I start my new government job next Tuesday!!
One of the more egregious provisions in the Senate bill is a $166 billion bailout plan for the states that rewards bad budgeting at the state level. Simply sending cash to states without asking for appropriate sacrifices is grossly irresponsible. States will no longer have the incentive to live within their means, because they'll assume the federal government will be there to bail them out.
Instead of a bailout, Congress could offer states an emergency loan that could be repaid at a low interest rate. This approach apparently wasn't considered because the members who wrote the bill aren't simply interested in saving jobs -- they want to push their agenda along the way.
A key example is health care. The Senate bill doubles the amount of the Medicaid bailout requested by governors and lays the groundwork for government-run health care, which invariably leads to rationing. This ideological overreach has led even some Democrats, like Nebraska's Ben Nelson, to express concern that various "sacred cows" in the package are hurting the bill's overall goals.
The bill is also loaded with old-fashioned pork, despite President Barack Obama's insistence that members of Congress refrain from adding earmarks. In fact, the bill contains the most expensive earmark in history: $2 billion for the FutureGen near-zero emission power plant in Matoon, Ill.
Of course Obama has no problem with a $5 billion earmark for his friends at ACORN. We all remember ACORN. This is the organization that had it's offices raided by the FBI after it became evident that the organization was blatantly involved with voter registration fraud, registering people multiple times, and registering fictitious names. Why punish them? Under this administration we will reward them. They not only drank the kool-aid, they helped pass it out!
Other non stimulative pork provisions include $88 million for a new polar icebreaker for the Coast Guard, $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees, and $850 million for Amtrak.
What is not in the bill is as troubling as what is. The package does nothing to clear the toxic assets and bad mortgages that helped trigger the credit crisis. These are some of the same scam mortgage products that Congressman Barney Frank D-MA defended when attempts were made to add more regulation to Fannie Mae. Why wouldn't Barney block re regulation? His lover, Herb Moses was the architect at Fannie Mae who was selling these mortgages and bringing home the resulting bonuses to Barney and keeping him draped in gold lame'.
It also contains very little meaningful tax relief to make small businesses and American companies more competitive. Instead, the tax provisions of the stimulus are essentially a modest cash handout that repeats the failed policy of George W. Bush's rebate-check stimulus.
The only thing that will be "stimulated" with this bill, is America's collective sphincter!
Monday, November 24, 2008
Obama Choosing Arab Peace Initiative Over Israel
During his July trip to Europe and the Middle East, Obama met privately with Palestinian leadership. He quietly endorsed the Arab Peace Initiative.
It means that the land Israel took control of when it's Arab neighbors attacked it in 1967 will be returned to the Arabs. It will establish a new Palestine. Obama asked that they not publicly discuss his assurances until after the election. He had claimed to be a great supporter of Israel during the campaign and wanted the charade to continue until he no longer needed the Jewish vote.
Obama backs the Arab League's Initiative, which defenders of Israel warn would leave the Jewish state with truncated, difficult to defend borders and could threaten Israel's Jewish character by compelling it to accept millions of foreign Arabs.
Obama's team has been meeting with various Arab leaders over the past two weeks, and an official said in most cases it was the Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, that stressed the importance of the plan. He said Obama's advisers expressed a positive attitude toward the plan, but he stopped short of confirming a London Sunday Times article last week that claimed Obama would make the plan a central part of his Mideast policy.
One senior Obama adviser was quoted telling the Times that on a visit to the Middle East last July, Obama said privately to the Palestinian leadership it would be "crazy" for Israel to refuse the Initiative, which Obama purportedly said could "give them peace with the Muslim world."
Although Ross denied Obama would trumpet the Arab plan, Israeli President Shimon Peres told the British media last week that in conversations he held with the president-elect, Obama proclaimed himself "very impressed" with the Arab League's peace plan. Peres was responding to questions about whether he thought Obama would advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process in general and the Arab League's plan in particular.
Initiative threatens Jewish state
The Arab Initiative, originally proposed by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in 2002 and later adopted by the Arab League, states that Israel would receive "normal relations" with the Arab world in exchange for a full withdrawal from the entire Gaza Strip, West Bank, Golan Heights and eastern Jerusalem, which includes the Temple Mount.
The West Bank contains important Jewish biblical sites and borders central Israeli population centers, while the Golan Heights looks down on Israeli civilian zones and was twice used by Syria to mount ground invasions into the Jewish state.
The Arab plan also demands the imposition of a non-binding U.N. resolution that calls for so-called Palestinian refugees who wish to move inside Israel to be permitted to do so at the "earliest practicable date."
Palestinians have long demanded the "right of return" for millions of "refugees," a formula Israeli officials across the political spectrum warn is code for Israel's destruction by flooding the Jewish state with millions of Arabs, thereby changing its demographics.
When Arab countries attacked the Jewish state after its creation in 1948, some 725,000 Arabs living within Israel's borders fled or were expelled from the area that became Israel. Also at that time, about 820,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries or fled following rampant persecution.
While most Jewish refugees were absorbed by Israel and other countries, the majority of Palestinian Arabs have been maintained in 59 U.N.-run camps that do not seek to settle those Arabs elsewhere.
There are currently about 4 million Arabs who claim Palestinian refugee status with the U.N., including children and grandchildren of the original fleeing Arabs; Arabs living full-time in Jordan; and Arabs who long ago emigrated throughout the Middle East and to the West.
According to Arab sources close to the Arab Initiative, Arab countries are willing to come to an agreement whereby Israel absorbs about 500,000 "refugees" and reaches a compensation deal with the PA for the remaining millions of Palestinians.
Obama advisers back Arab plan
Some top Obama current and former advisers have recently endorsed the Arab Initiative. The Times referenced a partisan group of senior foreign policy advisers who urged Obama to give the Arab plan top priority immediately after his election victory, including Lee Hamilton, the former co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Democratic former national security adviser. Brent Scowcroft, a Republican former national security adviser, also joined in the appeal.
A PA official said that in recent weeks even the Bush White House and State Department has been focused on a drive to reach a series of understandings between Israel and the PA that ultimately seeks to create a Palestinian state in nearly the entire pre-1967 borders, meaning the entire Gaza, West Bank and eastern Jerusalem areas.
"We are confident from this mood of Bush that an Obama administration will be even more willing to embrace the pre-1967 borders as the starting point of further talks," the PA official said.
It means that the land Israel took control of when it's Arab neighbors attacked it in 1967 will be returned to the Arabs. It will establish a new Palestine. Obama asked that they not publicly discuss his assurances until after the election. He had claimed to be a great supporter of Israel during the campaign and wanted the charade to continue until he no longer needed the Jewish vote.
Obama backs the Arab League's Initiative, which defenders of Israel warn would leave the Jewish state with truncated, difficult to defend borders and could threaten Israel's Jewish character by compelling it to accept millions of foreign Arabs.
Obama's team has been meeting with various Arab leaders over the past two weeks, and an official said in most cases it was the Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, that stressed the importance of the plan. He said Obama's advisers expressed a positive attitude toward the plan, but he stopped short of confirming a London Sunday Times article last week that claimed Obama would make the plan a central part of his Mideast policy.
One senior Obama adviser was quoted telling the Times that on a visit to the Middle East last July, Obama said privately to the Palestinian leadership it would be "crazy" for Israel to refuse the Initiative, which Obama purportedly said could "give them peace with the Muslim world."
Although Ross denied Obama would trumpet the Arab plan, Israeli President Shimon Peres told the British media last week that in conversations he held with the president-elect, Obama proclaimed himself "very impressed" with the Arab League's peace plan. Peres was responding to questions about whether he thought Obama would advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process in general and the Arab League's plan in particular.
Initiative threatens Jewish state
The Arab Initiative, originally proposed by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in 2002 and later adopted by the Arab League, states that Israel would receive "normal relations" with the Arab world in exchange for a full withdrawal from the entire Gaza Strip, West Bank, Golan Heights and eastern Jerusalem, which includes the Temple Mount.
The West Bank contains important Jewish biblical sites and borders central Israeli population centers, while the Golan Heights looks down on Israeli civilian zones and was twice used by Syria to mount ground invasions into the Jewish state.
The Arab plan also demands the imposition of a non-binding U.N. resolution that calls for so-called Palestinian refugees who wish to move inside Israel to be permitted to do so at the "earliest practicable date."
Palestinians have long demanded the "right of return" for millions of "refugees," a formula Israeli officials across the political spectrum warn is code for Israel's destruction by flooding the Jewish state with millions of Arabs, thereby changing its demographics.
When Arab countries attacked the Jewish state after its creation in 1948, some 725,000 Arabs living within Israel's borders fled or were expelled from the area that became Israel. Also at that time, about 820,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries or fled following rampant persecution.
While most Jewish refugees were absorbed by Israel and other countries, the majority of Palestinian Arabs have been maintained in 59 U.N.-run camps that do not seek to settle those Arabs elsewhere.
There are currently about 4 million Arabs who claim Palestinian refugee status with the U.N., including children and grandchildren of the original fleeing Arabs; Arabs living full-time in Jordan; and Arabs who long ago emigrated throughout the Middle East and to the West.
According to Arab sources close to the Arab Initiative, Arab countries are willing to come to an agreement whereby Israel absorbs about 500,000 "refugees" and reaches a compensation deal with the PA for the remaining millions of Palestinians.
Obama advisers back Arab plan
Some top Obama current and former advisers have recently endorsed the Arab Initiative. The Times referenced a partisan group of senior foreign policy advisers who urged Obama to give the Arab plan top priority immediately after his election victory, including Lee Hamilton, the former co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Democratic former national security adviser. Brent Scowcroft, a Republican former national security adviser, also joined in the appeal.
A PA official said that in recent weeks even the Bush White House and State Department has been focused on a drive to reach a series of understandings between Israel and the PA that ultimately seeks to create a Palestinian state in nearly the entire pre-1967 borders, meaning the entire Gaza, West Bank and eastern Jerusalem areas.
"We are confident from this mood of Bush that an Obama administration will be even more willing to embrace the pre-1967 borders as the starting point of further talks," the PA official said.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
The Bush Betrayal And Globalization
I voted for George W. Bush twice. I believed he had America's best interest at heart and viewed him more favorably than his opponents. That is not to say that I have not been very disappointed by him. Most recently is a sense of betrayal.
First disappointment was his leadership and judgement in the execution of the Iraq War. I will not go into the merits of this war. I believe he used too small a force when he initially went in. This needlessly resulted in an increase in cost, in human lives, time spent, and monetary expense. He tried to pull off a war "on the cheap". This policy has proven disastrous.
Our "allies" were not going to be happy with the war; however he conducted it. We know that Europe enjoys the naive belief that all problems can be resolved through diplomacy. We saw that in the lead up to WWII. We saw it in the Balkans. We witnessed it prior to the Iraq War. Most recently we watched their diplomacy fail to end Iran's nuclear ambitions. Europe is a conglomerate of socialist states, far to the left of Americas limited socialism. For them it is much more palpable to capitulate to demands, any demands, than to stand on principle. It is easy to understand, when you realize that for them "principle" is tenuous at best. It is similar to electricity. In their weak state, they are too willing to embrace the "path of least resistance".
In Britain this is seen with the creation of Sharia Law courts right in London itself. It allows Muslims to bypass the British courts and be tried before a Sharia Court, usurping the sovereignty of Britain. We realize those with leftist ideologies tend to be wimps when it comes to putting up a fight. They find comfort in capitulation.
We can see that right here in the U.S. within the Democrats party. They would argue and protest to save a whale before they would defend human life, unless that human life was on death row.
Had we gone into Iraq with an overwhelming force from the beginning and finished the job sooner, we could have been salving the European angst at our unilateralism much sooner.
For me, last Friday came the ultimate Bush betrayal. The G-20 leaders were in Washington, DC attempting to find common solutions to our world financial crisis. It was at this meeting that I believe that President Bush formalized the selling out of America as a economic and military superpower. He has proven himself to be a globalist amongst globalist. While those other leaders hate him, they coyly embraced him.
In a development that attracted the attention of some media, the U.S. agreed at the conference to the establishment of “supervisory colleges” by March 31, 2009, to monitor “all major cross-border financial institutions.” It is the beginning of a new global regulatory body that could eventually impose and collect a currency transactions tax known as the Tobin Tax, named after the late Yale University economist, James Tobin. Such a tax, which could affect stocks, mutual funds, and pensions, could generate hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
But ignored by most of the media was the fact that buried in the “declaration” endorsed by Bush and other leaders meeting on Saturday was (Point number 14) support for the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, “the development assistance commitments we have made,” and a reaffirmation of “the development principles agreed at the 2002 United Nations Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey, Mexico, which emphasized country ownership and mobilizing all sources of financing for development.”
This language may sound vague or confusing. However, to those familiar with the U.N. and its conferences and the Millennium Development Goals, it all makes perfect sense. This is a commitment to devote 0.7 percent of the Gross National Product to official foreign aid, a plan envisaged in President-elect Barack Obama’s Global Poverty Act. It will cost $845 billion, to be recovered in whole or part through a global tax. The phrase “all sources of financing for development” is U.N.-speak for global taxes.
In addition to his Global Poverty Act, which could pass Congress in a lame duck session or after President Obama takes office, the Jubilee Act is also being pushed for the benefit of other nations of the world. It would cancel as much as $75 billion in debt owed by foreign countries. The total of the two measures is $920 billion. Since the U.S. will have to borrow the money, the figure will go higher when interest is added.
In a conversation with Margaret Lee, my much older sister, I brought up the issue of the Global Poverty Act. Like so many Americans, she had not heard of it and questioned the validity of my claim. Many Americans will be surprised by this development, and share my sense of betrayal.
America's mainstream media are part of the complicity to impose this stealth globalization on our citizenry before they know what is going on. I believe the ball began rolling decades ago at the behest of the Trilateral Commission and more recently under the direction of the Bilderberg Group. This a global effort that is bypassing "voters" worldwide.
It is no coincidence that one of Obama’s personal representatives to the G20 meeting was former Republican Rep. Jim Leach, a left-winger who not only gave a speech backing Obama at the 2008 Democratic National Convention but is a long-time collaborator of the World Federalist Movement. This is a group that favors global taxes to finance world government.
Leach is clearly hoping for an appointment from Obama as the new U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, where he could help implement the Millennium Development Goals.
To demonstrate how the media view all of this, Washington Post columnist Sebastian Mallaby on Thursday devoted a column headlined “Supersize the IMF” to the idea that the global financial institution known as the International Monetary Fund should get a massive infusion of American taxpayer dollars as well. He argued that the U.S. and other governments should triple their financial commitments to the IMF.
Mallaby, who doubles as director of the Center for Geoeconomic Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, didn’t put a price tag on this. But it was clear that he believes the more money the better. “A bigger IMF should be on its [the Obama Administration’s] agenda, he said.
Meanwhile, now that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has admitted that his $700-billion plan didn’t work out as planned, some in the media are acknowledging that they helped stampede the Congress into passing it.
On his CNN Reliable Sources show, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post asked his colleague Steven Pearlstein, “Wasn’t there a prevailing drumbeat that this package had to pass?” The reply: “I was, I guess, part of that drumbeat. It did have to pass.” Pearlstein added, “You know, the Congress and the government had to do something to get liquidity moving in the financial system. There’s no playbook for how to do this in a situation like this. People are making it up as they go along. And so we really shouldn’t be surprised that they tried something, it doesn’t work. They try something else, maybe it works. They’re throwing a lot of darts at the wall.”
But since it didn’t work and Paulson changed the plan, Kurtz asked, “Where is the journalistic outrage here?” It’s a good question. The only outrage I can find is coming from the taxpayers.
For his part, Pearlstein’s new column, “Toward a New International Capitalism,” includes no apologies over his central role in what has happened. Instead, he hails the arrival of a new era in which America “can no longer expect to dominate the institutions of international finance and will have to share power and influence with rapidly developing countries…”
In other words, America has been cut down to size and the beneficiaries are those who were always jealous of her wealth and power. The result will not only be less U.S economic power but the diminution of American military power. One will inevitably follow the other, especially if more U.S. manufacturing industries go bankrupt.
This is not “international capitalism.” It’s the victory of global socialism.
We are witnessing the leveling of the global playing field. A field where all nations and peoples will be on equal footing, irregardless of personal effort, and lacking any reward.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". - Karl Marx
http://washingtonroundup.blogspot.com/
First disappointment was his leadership and judgement in the execution of the Iraq War. I will not go into the merits of this war. I believe he used too small a force when he initially went in. This needlessly resulted in an increase in cost, in human lives, time spent, and monetary expense. He tried to pull off a war "on the cheap". This policy has proven disastrous.
Our "allies" were not going to be happy with the war; however he conducted it. We know that Europe enjoys the naive belief that all problems can be resolved through diplomacy. We saw that in the lead up to WWII. We saw it in the Balkans. We witnessed it prior to the Iraq War. Most recently we watched their diplomacy fail to end Iran's nuclear ambitions. Europe is a conglomerate of socialist states, far to the left of Americas limited socialism. For them it is much more palpable to capitulate to demands, any demands, than to stand on principle. It is easy to understand, when you realize that for them "principle" is tenuous at best. It is similar to electricity. In their weak state, they are too willing to embrace the "path of least resistance".
In Britain this is seen with the creation of Sharia Law courts right in London itself. It allows Muslims to bypass the British courts and be tried before a Sharia Court, usurping the sovereignty of Britain. We realize those with leftist ideologies tend to be wimps when it comes to putting up a fight. They find comfort in capitulation.
We can see that right here in the U.S. within the Democrats party. They would argue and protest to save a whale before they would defend human life, unless that human life was on death row.
Had we gone into Iraq with an overwhelming force from the beginning and finished the job sooner, we could have been salving the European angst at our unilateralism much sooner.
For me, last Friday came the ultimate Bush betrayal. The G-20 leaders were in Washington, DC attempting to find common solutions to our world financial crisis. It was at this meeting that I believe that President Bush formalized the selling out of America as a economic and military superpower. He has proven himself to be a globalist amongst globalist. While those other leaders hate him, they coyly embraced him.
In a development that attracted the attention of some media, the U.S. agreed at the conference to the establishment of “supervisory colleges” by March 31, 2009, to monitor “all major cross-border financial institutions.” It is the beginning of a new global regulatory body that could eventually impose and collect a currency transactions tax known as the Tobin Tax, named after the late Yale University economist, James Tobin. Such a tax, which could affect stocks, mutual funds, and pensions, could generate hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
But ignored by most of the media was the fact that buried in the “declaration” endorsed by Bush and other leaders meeting on Saturday was (Point number 14) support for the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, “the development assistance commitments we have made,” and a reaffirmation of “the development principles agreed at the 2002 United Nations Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey, Mexico, which emphasized country ownership and mobilizing all sources of financing for development.”
This language may sound vague or confusing. However, to those familiar with the U.N. and its conferences and the Millennium Development Goals, it all makes perfect sense. This is a commitment to devote 0.7 percent of the Gross National Product to official foreign aid, a plan envisaged in President-elect Barack Obama’s Global Poverty Act. It will cost $845 billion, to be recovered in whole or part through a global tax. The phrase “all sources of financing for development” is U.N.-speak for global taxes.
In addition to his Global Poverty Act, which could pass Congress in a lame duck session or after President Obama takes office, the Jubilee Act is also being pushed for the benefit of other nations of the world. It would cancel as much as $75 billion in debt owed by foreign countries. The total of the two measures is $920 billion. Since the U.S. will have to borrow the money, the figure will go higher when interest is added.
In a conversation with Margaret Lee, my much older sister, I brought up the issue of the Global Poverty Act. Like so many Americans, she had not heard of it and questioned the validity of my claim. Many Americans will be surprised by this development, and share my sense of betrayal.
America's mainstream media are part of the complicity to impose this stealth globalization on our citizenry before they know what is going on. I believe the ball began rolling decades ago at the behest of the Trilateral Commission and more recently under the direction of the Bilderberg Group. This a global effort that is bypassing "voters" worldwide.
It is no coincidence that one of Obama’s personal representatives to the G20 meeting was former Republican Rep. Jim Leach, a left-winger who not only gave a speech backing Obama at the 2008 Democratic National Convention but is a long-time collaborator of the World Federalist Movement. This is a group that favors global taxes to finance world government.
Leach is clearly hoping for an appointment from Obama as the new U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, where he could help implement the Millennium Development Goals.
To demonstrate how the media view all of this, Washington Post columnist Sebastian Mallaby on Thursday devoted a column headlined “Supersize the IMF” to the idea that the global financial institution known as the International Monetary Fund should get a massive infusion of American taxpayer dollars as well. He argued that the U.S. and other governments should triple their financial commitments to the IMF.
Mallaby, who doubles as director of the Center for Geoeconomic Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, didn’t put a price tag on this. But it was clear that he believes the more money the better. “A bigger IMF should be on its [the Obama Administration’s] agenda, he said.
Meanwhile, now that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has admitted that his $700-billion plan didn’t work out as planned, some in the media are acknowledging that they helped stampede the Congress into passing it.
On his CNN Reliable Sources show, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post asked his colleague Steven Pearlstein, “Wasn’t there a prevailing drumbeat that this package had to pass?” The reply: “I was, I guess, part of that drumbeat. It did have to pass.” Pearlstein added, “You know, the Congress and the government had to do something to get liquidity moving in the financial system. There’s no playbook for how to do this in a situation like this. People are making it up as they go along. And so we really shouldn’t be surprised that they tried something, it doesn’t work. They try something else, maybe it works. They’re throwing a lot of darts at the wall.”
But since it didn’t work and Paulson changed the plan, Kurtz asked, “Where is the journalistic outrage here?” It’s a good question. The only outrage I can find is coming from the taxpayers.
For his part, Pearlstein’s new column, “Toward a New International Capitalism,” includes no apologies over his central role in what has happened. Instead, he hails the arrival of a new era in which America “can no longer expect to dominate the institutions of international finance and will have to share power and influence with rapidly developing countries…”
In other words, America has been cut down to size and the beneficiaries are those who were always jealous of her wealth and power. The result will not only be less U.S economic power but the diminution of American military power. One will inevitably follow the other, especially if more U.S. manufacturing industries go bankrupt.
This is not “international capitalism.” It’s the victory of global socialism.
We are witnessing the leveling of the global playing field. A field where all nations and peoples will be on equal footing, irregardless of personal effort, and lacking any reward.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". - Karl Marx
http://washingtonroundup.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
