Tag: One World Government

  • Is Obama the Lenin of America?

    Is Obama the Lenin of America?

    WRITTEN BY SAM BLUMENFELD

    samblumenfeldThere can be no doubt that Barack Hussein Obama is a deeply committed socialist intent on destroying the American capitalist system and our Constitutional form of government. Anyone who reads Stanley Kurtz’s new book, Radical-in-Chief, will come away with that conviction. Kurtz writes:

    From his teenage years under the mentorship of Frank Marshall Davis, to his socialist days at Occidental College, to his life-transforming encounters at New York’s Socialist Scholars Conferences, to his immersion in the stealthily socialist community-organizer networks of Chicago, Barack Obama has lived in a thoroughly socialist world….

    At every turn, Obama has disguised his socialist past, sometimes through grievous sins of omission, sometimes through opaque and misleading pseudo-confessions, and at other times through outright lies. To say that Obama has lied about his past doesn’t quite do justice to what’s been going on…. By hiding his core political convictions, the president has systematically deceived the American people.

    Indeed, it was at the New York Socialist Conferences that Obama learned why he had to become a skilled liar. He learned in New York that if socialists were ever to achieve high elective office, they would have to become stealth socialists, never admitting to being socialists while promoting a socialist agenda. Since most Americans don’t know the difference between liberalism, progressivism and socialism, it would be quite easy to deceive the electorate. And even after it became known that Obama had connections with such notorious radicals as Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, he was able to deceive enough people so that he could ride to the presidency on a white horse in the name of “change.”

    It is interesting that after graduating from Columbia University, Obama first got a job in a private firm that he hated, and then went to Chicago to become a community organizer, a form of radical activism invented by Saul Alinsky. The purpose of a community organizer is to turn Americans into mobs that can be used by stealth socialists to intimidate opponents to the socialist agenda.

    Kurtz writes: “We’ve seen that the favorite strategies of community organizers are designed to push the country into socialism well before the public can figure out what’s happened. Stealth-socialist community organizers habitually disguise their long-term goals.”

    In Wisconsin we have witnessed how the strategy works. Unionized teachers and government workers are mobilized by community organizers to fill the state house with screaming mobs. The teachers bring their students with them. Apparently the students have not been taught anything about constitutional government and believe that mobs are the appropriate way to intimidate a conservative governor.

    But why may Obama be America’s Lenin? I believe that his commitment to socialism is so deep and strong that he wants to go down in history as the greatest single socialist in the pantheon of great socialists, along with Marx, Engels, and Lenin, Lenin was able to impose communism on an economically weak, politically backward nation, while Obama’s challenge has been to take the greatest capitalist nation on earth and transform it into a socialist society. What an achievement that would be in socialist eyes!

    In other words, I believe that Obama considers himself to be clever enough to do the impossible: destroy American capitalism and lead this nation into a socialist world government.

    As a stealth socialist, Obama has lied his way to the exalted office of the presidency of the United States. And apparently he is also involved in a deception concerning his eligibility to be president under our Constitutional requirements. Why else would he refuse to make public his actual birth certificate and important documents pertaining to his education? It would be so simple to end the controversy over his birth by letting the public read his birth certificate. But since deception is second nature to him, he has no trouble doing what no other political leader has done: hide the actual facts of his birth.

    What emerges from Obama’s autobiography, Dreams from My Father, is a very strong ego and great pride in his African-Muslim heritage. He explains to a fellow student at Occidental College that his name Barack means blessed in Arabic and that his grandfather was a Muslim. His father, however, was an atheist socialist

    That is why the socialist-Islamic connection is no problem for Obama. He is comfortable among Muslims and socialists. To him conservative Americans are the enemy.

    Once you understand that Obama believes that he will go down in history as the world’s greatest socialist, then you can begin to understand his constantly shifting strategy. He is the only socialist who has become President of the United States. But like all socialists, he realizes that he will face great opposition from the capitalist enemy. And so Obama was prepared for the reaction to his socialist agenda in the November elections. But Lenin was able to beat the opposition to communist rule by defeating his opponents in a civil war.

    Mobs will be Obama’s chief means of defeating his opponents. The Democratic Party has been transformed into a socialist battering ram, aiding and abetting the community organizers in their job of forming mobs. Unionized government employees can be easily mobilized by the left to make conservative state governments ungovernable. Dumbed down teachers and their dumbed down students are easily persuaded that mob rule is a legitimate and democratic way to prevent conservatives from legislating a conservative agenda.

    As for destroying American capitalism, it’s quite easy to do: let the government’s debt reach the point where America must default on its interest payments, and the game will be over. The dollar will no longer be used as the world’s reserve currency, and we will be reduced to economic chaos which will lead to riots and violence. Martial law will permit the socialists to impose brute force over the nation and keep Obama in power as dictator.

    The fact that Obama is doing nothing to reduce the federal debt indicates that he is counting on the debt undoing the American system. Bill Costello writes in the February 2011 issue of China Today:

    “America’s federal debt is almost US$14 trillion and shooting up. Yet the government is still spending more money than it collects in taxes. In its 2010 budget year, it spent approximately US$1.3 trillion more than it collected, creating the second largest deficit in American history.”

    John Fund recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “Obama’s budget actually increases our crushing deficit.”

    But the Radical-in-Chief has threatened to veto the Republican’s very modest $61 billion cut in his $3.73 trillion budget, cuts which Democrats have called “draconian.” The fact that Obama is doing all in his power to increase the federal debt indicates his adherence to his basic socialist strategy aimed at destroying the American capitalist system.

    But it is unlikely that he will succeed. Even though the federal government may default on its debts and go bankrupt, the American economy is simply too large and diverse to collapse entirely. As for widespread mob rule and riots, the American people are well armed and not about to let anarchy and chaos destroy the country. But you can be sure that Obama will not stop trying.

    Dr. Samuel L. Blumenfeld is the author of nine books on education including NEA: Trojan Horse in American Education, The Whole Language/OBE Fraud, and The Victims of Dick & Jane and Other Essays. Of NEA: Trojan Horse in American Education, former U.S. Senator Steve Symms of Idaho said: “Every so often a book is written that can change the thinking of a nation. This book is one of them.

    ” Mr.Blumenfeld’s columns have appeared in such diverse publications as Reason, The New American, The Chalcedon Report, Insight, Education Digest, Vital Speeches, and WorldNetDaily

    www.thenewamerican.com, 23 FEBRUARY 2011

  • Brzezinski on WikiLeaks: VERY POINTED

    Brzezinski on WikiLeaks: VERY POINTED

    Israeli Prime Minister Menachem BEGIN engages BRZEZINSKI in a game of chess at CAMP DAVID“very pointed” .. [and] .. “clearly calculated in terms of its potential impact on disrupting the American-Turkish relationship.”

    ANALYSIS AIR DATE: Nov. 29, 2010

    How Will New WikiLeaks Revelations Affect Diplomatic Candor?

    Gentlemen, it’s good to have you both with us.

    So, Secretary Clinton said today she is confident that this will not have long-lasting — do permanent damage to U.S. relations with other countries.

    Stephen Hadley, do you agree with her? Is she right about that?

    STEPHEN HADLEY, former adviser, U.S. National Security: In one sense, yes. I think, in the short run, it’s going to have some very deleterious effects.One is, you know, confidential communications between our government and other governments are important in terms of making policy. And if we cannot keep the secret and the confidences of other governments, they will be reluctant to share their innermost thoughts with us.

    It also is corrupting because our people in diplomatic posts overseas want to be able to give their candid assessments about people with whom they’re dealing in their countries up to U.S. leadership. It’s important to inform the president, secretary of state. They will now be reluctant to be as candid in the reporting cables, for fear that it will become public and harm their relationship with a country.

    So, it’s very corrupting of the process of confidence on which our diplomacy depends, both internally and with other governments.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Dr. Brzezinski, what do you think the fallout is going to be?

    ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, former adviser, U.S. National Security: Well, you know, the best assessment I can give is to cite a phrase which used to be used very often in Vienna when it was the capital of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

    And when some crisis would take place, it would be said, it’s catastrophic, but not serious. And this is the way I look at. I think Steve has put his finger on it by saying that some things will pass. Of course, some things will endure.

    But I think the most serious issues are not those which are getting the headlines right now. Who cares if Berlusconi is described as a clown. Most Italians agree with that. Who cares if Putin is described as an alpha dog? He probably is flattered by it.

    The real issue is, who is feeding Wikipedia on this issue — Wiki — Wiki — WikiLeaks on this issue? They’re getting a lot of information which seems trivial, inconsequential, but some of it seems surprisingly pointed.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, what are you referring to?

    ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, for example, there are references to a report by our officials that some Chinese leaders favor a reunified Korea under South Korea.

    This is clearly designed to embarrass the Chinese and our relationship with them. The very pointed references to Arab leaders could have as their objective undermining their political credibility at home, because this kind of public identification of their hostility towards Iran could actually play against them at home.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: And I want to ask you about that, because the impression is — and I want to turn to Steve Hadley on this as well — Saudi Arabia has not been public about its view, as — and we heard the quote from King Abdullah, that the U.S. should go after or Israel should go after Iran and its nuclear weapons program.

    So, what — what effect could this have now that that’s out there that it’s confirmed?

    STEPHEN HADLEY: Well, actually, I don’t think that’s new.

    And a lot of people have been saying, without going into details and without going into these sort of sensational quotes, that the Arab states are very concerned about Iran, very concerned about the impact of a nuclear Iran.People have been saying that’s one of the odd things about how Israel and the Arab states actually have common cause about their concern about Iran.

    So, I think the fact that there is concern is not new. But, unfortunately, the way it is expressed, with these, you know, very headline-grabbing phrases, that’s what’s unfortunate and that’s what’s embarrassing. And that’s what may make people a little bit less candid in their communications in the future.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: And what is it — what are you worried about with regard to the knowledge that…

    The Grand ChessboardZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: It’s not a question of worry. It’s, rather, a question of whether WikiLeaks are being manipulated by interested parties that want to either complicate our relationship with other governments or want to undermine some governments, because some of these items that are being emphasized and have surfaced are very pointed.

    And I wonder whether, in fact, there aren’t some operations internationally, intelligence services, that are feeding stuff to WikiLeaks, because it is a unique opportunity to embarrass us, to embarrass our position, but also to undermine our relations with particular governments.

    For example, leaving aside the personal gossip about Sarkozy or Berlusconi or Putin, the business about the Turks is clearly calculated in terms of its potential impact on disrupting the American-Turkish relationship.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Just criticizing the people around…

    ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: And the top leaders, Erdogan and Davutoglu and so forth, are using some really, really, very sharp language.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: But this is 250 — it’s a quarter-of-a-million documents.

    ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Precisely.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: How easy would it be to seed this to make sure that it was slanted a certain way?

    ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Seeding seeding it is very easy.

    I have no doubt that WikiLeaks is getting a lot of the stuff from sort of relatively unimportant sources, like the one that perhaps is identified on the air. But it may be getting stuff at the same time from interested intelligence parties who want to manipulate the process and achieve certain very specific objectives.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you have that concern?

    STEPHEN HADLEY: Obviously, it would always be a concern.

    The — what we know or what has been said publicly is it looks like a data dump through a pretty junior-level person. So, in terms of that material, it looks like a data dump. Generally, in Washington, I have had the rule that, if there are two explanations, one is conspiracy and one is incompetence, you ought to go with incompetence. You will be right 90 percent of the time.

    (LAUGHTER)

    But you can’t rule out what Dr. Brzezinski talked about. And if not in the past, in terms of how we got here, it would be interesting — and now, having heard this, I suspect there will be some intelligence services thinking about maybe we could seed in these data dumps something that would be useful. You can’t rule it out.

    But it has the appearance at this point of a core dump. For some reason, people get a thrill out of leaking classified documents. It’s never — you know, it’s — whether it’s a sense of self-importance.

    But I think it’s more likely, in terms of the volume, that that’s what’s at work. But you can’t rule out, particularly going forward, the kind of thing Dr. Brzezinski is talking about.

    ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: But, Steve, the other foreign intelligence services don’t have to wait for me to make that suggestion.

    (LAUGHTER)

    I think they can think of it themselves, particularly after the first instance.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: What effect do you think this will have, though, on the willingness of foreign — whether it’s leaders, diplomats — to talk candidly with Americans about their views? Is this going to affect that?

    ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, I haven’t seen anything in it that really affects serious issues that would be constrained in direct talks.

    It’s the more sensational impacting items that can have a political significance that I find that more significant. Beyond that, of course, there is a second problem which I think is serious in this otherwise, in my view, non-catastrophic situation. Namely, it’s an absolute scandal that this now is happening again.

    You know, the head of the Bureau of the Budget has issued an instruction to all the heads of departments to the effect that they must safeguard classified information, and any failure is unacceptable. It will not be tolerated.

    Well, this is the second instance. I would like to know what the administration has done since the first to make the second one less likely.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: But a lot of these documents have been in the hands — haven’t they been in the hands of WikiLeaks for some time…

    ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: We don’t know that for a fact.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: … because of — because of this private who is in jail and accused, Army private?

    STEPHEN HADLEY: We don’t know it. And what Dr. Brzezinski is talking about, I think, also shows one of the dilemmas in all of this, is one of the things you like to do is to get information that would be useful to people in the field out to the field. And that means fairly widespread distribution.

    After things like this, there is an effort, usually a reaction, understandable, to narrow down the distribution. And that could have the effect of denying information to people who could use it in their jobs day to day.

    So, just exactly — this is the challenge. How do you try to limit the risk of this kind of activity in going — in a way going forward, while still making this information available to those who can use it, particularly in the field in their day-to-day activities?

    JUDY WOODRUFF: And what about asking diplomats, in essence, to spy? I mean, we have learned now that Secretary Clinton and, before her, Secretary Rice were asking diplomats to collect confidential information, credit cards and so forth, on foreign diplomats.

    You’re smiling.

    ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, yes, because, look, diplomats are supposed to be reporting. They’re not supposed to shut their eyes and close their ears.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: But doesn’t that blur the line?

    ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, not really. I mean, they’re not asked to do anything that is really a violation of the laws.

    But if they can obtain some information regarding key individuals, I see nothing wrong with it, provided it doesn’t become a major task or a significant assignment.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: And — but, on balance, you’re not worried that this changes the level of candor in diplomatic communities?

    ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Do you think foreigners are not doing that?

    (LAUGHTER)

    STEPHEN HADLEY: No, I’m worried about the heads of state having their communications compromised and how willing they are going to be talk candidly going forward.

    Quite frankly, there’s a difference between getting information from diplomats.Of course, that’s what you want — that’s what you have diplomats out there for, is to get you all kinds of information. And you want to know the background of the people you’re dealing with.

    That’s different than stealing secrets. That’s what your intelligence services do.I don’t think there’s a line here that’s been crossed.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Stephen Hadley, Zbigniew Brzezinski, thank you both.

    ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Thank you.

    STEPHEN HADLEY: Thank you.

    , Nov. 29, 2010

  • One World Government? Globe may not be big enough.

    One World Government? Globe may not be big enough.

    By Dana Milbank

    Wednesday, November 11, 2009

    The Washington Post

    It arrived at the Capitol, until that moment the seat of American government, in the form of the stooped and bespectacled figure of Ban Ki-moon, who as U.N. secretary general is the de facto leader of what conspiracy theorists call the One World Government. One floor beneath the Senate chamber, Ban, a South Korean national, took his place behind a lectern bearing the Senate seal and spelled out his demands.

    “I would certainly expect the Senate to take the necessary action; that’s what I have encouraged the senators,” he told reporters as a trio of lawmakers stood at his side. He added an admonition for the chamber to deliver “as soon as possible.”

    The One World Government has specific requirements, Ban added, namely a “legally binding” commitment to “25 to 40 percent greenhouse gas reduction . . . as recommended by the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

    Uh-oh. A U.N. official standing in the Capitol telling U.S. lawmakers what binding commitments intergovernmental authorities expect from them? Glenn Beck was going to burst a blood vessel.

    But the man who orchestrated this putsch by the New World Order, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry (D-Switzerland), did not appear concerned by the imagery. He called the secretary general “Your Excellency.” Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana (a Republican, but he drives a Prius) was equally deferential as he spoke of “the privilege of this distinguished visitor.”
    And Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) hailed Ban for “the accelerated leadership role” that the United Nations has taken. “Your vision, that in Copenhagen there can be a politically binding agreement that will lead to a legally binding agreement to follow . . . is a very reasonable, sensible and hopeful course.”
    Somewhere in Manhattan, Sean Hannity was tearing up his script for the night’s broadcast.
    Kerry invited Ban to lecture the Foreign Relations Committee, but it’s not clear what the chairman hoped to gain from the photos of him standing with Ban in the Capitol’s Brumidi Corridors. Indeed, it seemed quite possible that a U.N. endorsement of Kerry’s climate efforts would embolden its foes, who like the world body even less than they like cap-and-trade. In the pantheon of conspiracy theories, the United Nations is right up there with the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Federal Reserve and the Council on Foreign Relations — which, as it happens, Kerry addressed a couple of weeks ago.
    Even Americans who don’t come from the grassy-knoll tradition tend not to regard the United Nations with great confidence. A Gallup poll earlier this year found that 65 percent of respondents thought it was doing a bad job, compared with 26 percent who think it is doing a good job. Ban himself is not terribly nefarious, if only because he is unknown. A Wall Street Journal poll found that 81 percent of those surveyed didn’t know who he was. The others may have confused him with the Unification Church’s Rev. Sun Myung Moon.
    Ban’s profile could become much higher, and not in a good way, if Americans start to perceive him as meddling in Senate consideration of climate legislation. Even before he stormed the Capitol, Fox News was drawing a connection between global warming talks in Copenhagen next month and One World Government.
    “America, if you believe this country is great but you’re not really into that whole One World Government thing, watch out,” Fox News Channel’s Beck warned a couple of weeks ago. His guest, Lord Christopher Monckton of Britain, told Beck that “at Copenhagen, a treaty will be signed that will, for the first time, create a world government with powers to intervene directly in the economy and in the environmental affairs of individual nations.” Earlier on Fox News, Dick Morris informed Hannity that President Obama “believes in One World Government.” And author Jerome Corsi went on Hannity’s show to warn about a One World Government in which “our sovereignty would be subject to the dictates” of the United Nations and other international organizations.
    The One World Government was on open display at the Capitol on Tuesday, as international U.N. staffers waited outside the room where Ban spoke to the senators. The secretary general had come with his own world government (armed?) security detail, who stood alongside the Capitol police.
    Ban, wearing a gold U.N. lapel pin, unfolded his speech. “Less than a month from now, the leaders of the world will gather in Copenhagen,” he said. “They must conclude a robust global agreement,” that is “comprehensive, binding, equitable and fair.”
    Speaking softly but firmly, the South Korean cautioned the Americans that “the world is not standing still,” and that “all the eyes of the world are looking to the United States.”
    After a few minutes, Kerry cut off questioning. “Folks, the secretary general has to get to the airport.”
    Ban needed to catch the U.S. Airways shuttle to New York. The One World Government Air Force isn’t what it’s cracked up to be.
    The Washington Post

  • Medical Martial Law

    Medical Martial Law

    This excerpt from The Corbett Report podcast discusses the possible implementation of martial law in the event of a pandemic flu scenario. Martial law will likely be used to implement forced vaccinations and quarantines and put the finishing touches on decades-long planning for the undermining of our democratic processes. For more information on this subject (including dozens of links to news stories and documents) and to listen to the rest of this podcast episode, please follow the link:

  • A Bigger, Bolder Role Is Imagined For the IMF

    A Bigger, Bolder Role Is Imagined For the IMF

    Alert: IMF are exploiting financial crisis towards one world currency

    –HD

    Changes Suggest Shift in How Global Economy Is Run

    By Anthony Faiola
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Monday, April 20, 2009

    Inside a cavernous assembly hall in downtown Washington, dignitaries gather twice a year for routine meetings of the International Monetary Fund. Before long, though, the room could take center stage in the IMF’s transformation into a veritable United Nations for the global economy.

    Surrounded by blond wood paneling and a digital screen the size of a cinema’s, central bankers and finance ministers would meet to convene a financial security council of sorts. Serving almost as ambassadors to the IMF, they would debate ways to put out the world’s economic fires and stifle reckless policies before they ignite new ones.

    Bowing to a new economic world order, the IMF would grant fresh powers to the likes of China, India and Brazil. It would have vastly expanded authority to act as a global banker to governments rich and poor. And with more flexibility to effectively print its own money, it would have the ability to inject liquidity into global markets in a way once limited to major central banks, including the U.S. Federal Reserve.

    That image of a radically transformed IMF — whose role in the global economy had turned largely advisory in recent years — is now coming together through internal IMF documents, interviews and think-tank reports. Finance ministers from major nations will begin grappling with the formidable details of the IMF’s makeover this weekend when they converge in Washington for the fund’s biannual assembly.

    The changes, broadly outlined by President Obama and other leaders of the Group of 20 nations in London earlier this month, could take months, even years to take shape. But the IMF is all but certain to take a central role in managing the world economy. As a result, Washington is poised to become the power center for global financial policy, much as the United Nations has long made New York the world center for diplomacy.

    The IMF’s mission is expanding so broadly that its managing director, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, said in an interview that the organization — which underwent deep cuts last year before the financial crisis swept the globe — may boost staffing in coming months, potentially creating dozens of high-paying jobs in the District.

    “The IMF is changing, and with it, there will be a sea change in the way the world economy is run,” said C. Fred Bergsten, director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “Their role will dramatically shift. You’re talking about monitoring fiscal stimulus, moving toward tighter regulations for financial institutions. You’re talking about global economic management in a way we have never seen.

    Already, the economic crisis is triggering a profound cultural shift, with the IMF moving away from its long-held mission to spread the gospel of capitalism around the globe.

    Founded at the end of World War II to maintain stability in global currency markets, it later became known as the lender of last resort for nations in crisis, particularly as financial fires raced across Asia and Latin America in the 1990s. Its bailouts, however, were the bane of many poor countries; they often came with demands for fiscal austerity and free-market reform as the cures for developing nations — even if that meant nations had to cut back on programs for health care and schools.

    The IMF, Strauss-Kahn suggested, will become less ideological. Critics maintain the fund is still attaching too many restrictions to its longer-term bailouts for poor countries. But the IMF has signed off in recent weeks on no-strings-attached credit lines for countries with solid economic track records, offering $47 billion to Mexico and $20.5 billion to Poland.

    “If the fund is considering a country and is technically convinced that privatization of any enterprise is needed to fix the country today, let’s privatize. But if it’s a general idea of privatization that has nothing to do with the problem, let’s forget it,” Strauss-Kahn said. “At the same time, if nationalization will help, let’s do it.”

    Developing nations — including some that were once down-and-out clients of the fund — are now coming to the IMF’s rescue as part of the pledge made by leaders in London to beef up the organization’s war chest to $1 trillion. In exchange for better representation on the governing board, China, which has fewer voting rights than Belgium, is set to give more than $40 billion. Brazil, which received a massive IMF bailout in the late 1990s, is pledging $4.5 billion.

    There is even talk that the next managing director — traditionally a European, while an American ran its sister organization, the World Bank — may come from the developing world. “Why not?” Strauss-Kahn said.

    For an organization long demonized by the developing world, such changes were once unthinkable. “I spent 20 years of my life carrying posters that said ‘IMF out,’ “ Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a former union leader, said last week in Rio de Janeiro. “Now the minister of finance says we are going to lend money to the IMF.”

    The IMF is also moving toward taking the lead role as the global economic watchdog. An intense debate, however, remains over the scope of the edicts it may issue as well as the power it will be granted to enforce them.

    Along with the Switzerland-based Financial Stability Board, the IMF is set to develop benchmarks for financial governance, from guidelines on executive pay to methods to prevent the spread of toxic assets through global banks. But no one is talking seriously about allowing the IMF to impose sanctions to force compliance as the United Nations does. There is even a strong reluctance to grant the IMF powers such as those held by the World Trade Organization in Geneva, which issues binding rulings on violations of global trade law.

    Instead, the IMF is likely to wield what Strauss-Kahn called “the strength of truth telling.” Put another way, the organization’s public pronouncements would carry the force of the nations seated at its table, including the world’s most powerful industrialized and developing economies.

    Some critics, however, say that may not be enough. A case in point: An internal IMF document recently called for Eastern European nations to adopt the euro as their currency to stabilize their economies, even without the approval of euro-zone nations. But stiff opposition from Western Europe has thus far prevented that document from being made public.

    Additionally, some smaller European and low-income nations remain skeptical about the creation of a financial security council, arguing they would not be well represented. Even within the IMF, there is a debate over the council’s purview and makeup. Some see the council turning into a venue to hash out major economic disputes, such as U.S. and European charges that China is keeping its currency artificially weak.

    Others say it should steer away from country-specific rulings. Another camp argues the fund should not exist at all. Even Strauss-Kahn has sought to dispel the notion of too grand a role for the IMF, saying its primary mission should remain monitoring and surveillance rather than enforcement.

    “The fund is supposed to take on a more regulatory role, holding accountable even wealthy countries,” said Moshin Khan, the IMF’s former Middle East and Central Asia director. “But I will have to see that happen to believe it. Whenever I’ve seen them going after the bigger countries, if the countries don’t like what the fund has to say, the fund doesn’t say it.”

    Source:  The Washington Post, April 20, 2009

  • Time to Say `No’ to World Government

    Time to Say `No’ to World Government

    21st CENTURY Science & Technology

    THE COMING ICE AGE: Why Global Warming is a Scientific Fraud

    Introduction:  Time to Say `No’ to World Government

    by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
    November 1997

    As this Special Report goes into production, George Soros’s operations are reported as having lost an amount in excess of 2 billion U.S. dollars equivalent, much of this in the last two weeks’ unsuccessful efforts to break the Hong Kong economy as the same forces had successfully looted Thailand and other Asian economies earlier.

    Nonethless, the piratical speculative assault on Japan, Korea, and China continues, with the London financial center calling new forces from Sweden and other parts of Europe, for the next round of assaults. Thus does London continue to saw at the branch upon which it sits.

    No matter what else may occur, by the close of the present century, plus or minus a year or two, the international financial system, as we have known it during the most recent decades, will have ceased to exist. Either a concert of governments will act to put the present system out of its misery, by declaring it bankrupt and putting its institutions into receivership, or, if governments lack the nerve to do so, then the system will self-destruct, leaving global chaos behind.

    The point I am making, is that what have become, until now, the “mainstream” trends in policy-making, during the course of the recent 30 years, are now facing an abrupt end. Most of these trends will end automatically, through the unstoppable collapse of the institutions associated with them. Others, unfortunately, might outlive the inevitably doomed present international financial system. However, at the worst, the time is either here, or fast approaching, when it may be possible to summon sufficient popular support to bring certain malicious, dangerous hoaxes of the recent decades to an end.

    Among those trends which must be ended, is a series of frauds, beginning with Rachel Carson’s {Silent Spring} hoax against the safest insecticide since the invention of birds, DDT. Since then, the virtual banning of DDT has killed countless human beings through the pests whose menace to humanity had been virtually ended with DDT. Since then, the rate of human sickness and even death through tainted food, has been escalating as a result of another hoax, the anti-scientific charge, that chloroflourocarbons are the cause for man-made depletion of the so-called ozone layer. Now, the same hoaxsters are deployed by Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair and his European allies from behind Alice’s Looking-Glass, in demanding an accelerated increase in misery, sickness, and death-rates, through a “Global Warming” hoax.

    There are three leading issues among those which should impel us to rid our planet of these anti-scientific hoaxes put forward in the name of “ecology.”

    (1) The Issue of National Sovereignty

    The chaotic state of economic and monetary affairs being unleashed by the present global financial crisis, is creating a situation in which either sovereign nations return to significant degrees of economic protectionism, or the entire planet will collapse into a ruinous state of

    chaos worse than anything imagined during this century to date.

    Under these conditions, it is necessary to bring to an end, and to reverse trends toward imposing self-enforcing, supra-national rule over the internal affairs of national economies. Most of the so-called “population” and “ecology” regulations already in place should be repealed, and, certainly, no new such regulations ought to be tolerated.

    (2) The Issue of National Economy

    There has been no net physical-economic growth in the U.S. economy, since the 1970-1972 interval of breakdown of the replacement of the old Bretton Woods agreements by the increasingly chaotic and corrosive effects of maintaining a “floating exchange-rate system.” Measured in physical content of market-baskets, including maintenance of infrastructure and productive capital, per capita of labor-force, the U.S. economy’s productivity has collapsed by about half during the recent three decades.

    The reported growth of employment in the U.S. economy, is in forms of administrative and unskilled services, while the percentile of the employed labor-force in production occupations has collapsed catastrophically. Otherwise, the alleged growth of the economy is a mixture of fraud and self-deception cloaked in a mushroom-cloud of purely parasitical financial speculation.

    Without both a massive infusion of such elements of infrastructure as water-management, modern mass transit, massive expansion of power production, and renewal and modernization of urban infrastructure and productive capital, the physical economy of leading and other nations will spiral into an early state of general collapse. Without purging the system of groundless, irrational restrictions imposed in the abused name of “ecology,” it is human beings who become the world’s leading endangered species.

    (3) The Issue of Technology

    If we measure market-baskets of incomes of households, infrastructure-maintenance, agriculture, and manufacturing in terms of “energy of the system” standards, per capita of labor-force, the productivity of the U.S. economy has been declining during the recent quarter of a century, a collapse which is becoming nearly irreversible during any future medium-term period. This danger to the human species can not be resisted effectively without introducing high rates of technological attrition. This will require us to apply the intensity of credit and other investment incentives to scientific and technological progress in peace-time production of power, mass-transit, and goods, which we have pushed previously only as a part of national-defense mobilization.

    We must remove unnecessary bureaucratic and related obstacles to such greatly increased emphasis upon investment in scientific and technological progress.

    For these three and other implicit reasons, the time has come, for rational people to join forces, in reexamining the so-called “ecology issue.” It is time to bring reason back into policy-making of government, and to purge the system of the kinds of anti-scientific hoaxes which should never have been tolerated in the first place.

    Thus, the time has come for a fresh examination of some of the worst of the hoaxes which have been made virtual articles of religious blind faith among the “ecology lobby” set. Let us return to the proven methods for “cleaning up the environment,” deploying the technologies needed to do the job.

    Economist Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. is a Contributing Editor of the Executive Intelligence Review, and a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of 21st Century Science & Technology magazine.

    Source: www.larouchepub.com, November 1997