The Final Push for World Government

Germany to Station Troops in France for First Time Since WWII

Spiegel Online
February 2, 2009

Germany will station troops in France as part their joint crisis reaction force, Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy have said. In a joint opinion piece published ahead of the Munich Security Conference on Friday, the two leaders call for greater European and world cooperation on security.

The leaders of Germany and France urged greater European and trans-Atlantic unity on global security on Wednesday and underscored their call by announcing that German troops will be stationed in France as part of the joint Franco-German Brigade, a rapid reaction force.

"Anyone who knows our common history will be aware of the historical significance of this new step in the Franco-German friendship," German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicholas Sarkozy said in a joint opinion piece published on Wednesday in Germany's Süddeutsche Zeitung and France's Le Monde.

SPIEGEL reported last month that a German army battalion of 500 troops would be stationed in the town of Colmar in France's Alsace region. French media have reported Strasbourg, Metz or Bitche as possible locations.

It will be the first stationing of German troops in France since World War II. The Franco-German brigade was set up in 1989 and has around 5,000 troops that, until now, have been stationed at seven locations in Germany. It has served in Afghanistan and in the Balkans.

Merkel and Sarkozy said international coordination on security policy was essential to tackle the Middle East conflict, the dispute over Iran's nuclear program, terrorist attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as the international financial and economic crises.

"Security policy must be interpreted in a new and broader way," Merkel and Sarkozy said, adding that cooperation on military security needed to be complemented with a joint approach on the global financial architecture, energy supply and population migration.

They said it was essential that Europe and the US deepen their cooperation given the new risks they face in the 21st century.

"That means joint analysis, decision-taking and implementation. Unilateral steps would contradict the spirit of this partnership. But it also means that we Europeans must speak even more with one voice, which requires a strong measure of discipline from the member states," the leaders wrote.

"And we must further bundle and increase our capabilities, both civilian and military. The synergy between both is the trademark of European security policy," they added.

The statement is a show of unity between the French and German leaders who have had a rocky relationship over the last two years with disagreements on a range of issues including the financial crisis and French plans for a Mediterranean Union...

Merkel and Sarkozy said Iran was openly speculating that the international community would stand by and let it proceed with its nuclear program.

"We will not permit an Iranian nuclear bomb because that would constitute a threat to world peace," they said. "And we are ready, in line with the expected involvement of the new American government, to stop the Iranian threat with increased dialogue but also -- if necessary -- with very determined sanctions."

Gordon Brown Urges Global ‘Grand Bargain’

February 20, 2009

Aftermath News - After meeting with World Bank head Robert Zoellick and IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Khan to plan the G-20 summit, Brown said that the world needed to work together to improve global financial regulation to prevent a repeat of the current financial crisis. The meeting of the Group of 20 advanced and developing nations on April 9 is seen as critical in developing an international response to the current crisis...

South Korean Lawmakers Brawl Over U.S. Free Trade Pact

December 18, 2008

Associated Press – Brawling South Korean lawmakers tried to sledgehammer their way into a parliamentary meeting room barricaded by the ruling party as the National Assembly descended into chaos Thursday over a free trade agreement with the United States.

Opposition parties were incensed by the ruling Grand National Party's move to submit the agreement to a committee on trade, setting in motion the process for the accord to win approval in the legislature.

Security staff and aides from the ruling party stood guard outside the room to keep opposition lawmakers away after the committee's GNP-affiliated chairman invoked his right to use force to "keep order" in parliamentary proceedings.

Scuffles broke out as dozens of opposition members and their aides attempted to push their way into the office. TV footage showed people from both sides shoving, pushing and shouting in a crowded hall at the National Assembly building amid a barrage of flashing cameras. Opponents later used a sledgehammer and other construction tools to tear open the room's wooden doors, only to find barricades of furniture set up inside as a second line of defense. Cable news channel YTN reported that an electric saw was used to open the door. YTN footage showed security guards spraying fire extinguishers at those trying to force their way inside and one man with blood trickling down his face.

The opposition attempt failed, and 10 GNP legislators introduced the bill to the committee. "This is a clear violation of law," the main opposition Democratic Party said in a statement, accusing the GNP of illegally occupying the parliamentary chamber and unilaterally introducing the bill. "This is a declaration of war against the opposition and the people."

Clashes between lawmakers are not unusual in the National Assembly. Such violence has long been cited as one of the worst ills of South Korean politics.

South Korea and the United States signed the accord that calls for slashing tariffs and other barriers to trade in April last year after 10 months of tough negotiations, though neither side's legislature has yet ratified it — the key step needed for it to take effect.

The pact is the largest for the U.S. since the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico and the biggest ever for South Korea. NAFTA, signed in 1993, took effect the following year.

Proponents in both countries say it would not only expand trade but further cement ties between Washington and Seoul — key security allies who have cooperated on issues such as North Korea for decades. Opponents counter that it will cause pain to key sectors in both nations — agriculture in South Korea and automobiles in the United States.

GNP legislators had locked themselves in the committee room earlier in the day to head off any opposition attempts to occupy the chamber — the only place where the bill can be introduced. After a subcommittee review, the bill would be put to a vote at the committee before reaching the full parliamentary session for a final vote.

The GNP says it aims to pass the bill by year's end. The party has a majority in both the committee and in the entire parliament, with 172 seats in the 298-member unicameral National Assembly. But the process is expected to be tough going because opposition parties say they will do whatever possible to stop it.

The Democratic Party says the trade deal should not be approved until the government comes up with better measures to protect farmers and others expected to suffer from increased U.S. imports. The ruling GNP says the trade pact should be approved as early as possible because South Korea — a major exporting nation — stands to gain much from the deal.

Amid concern the administration of President-elect Barack Obama might ask to renegotiate the agreement, supporters of the pact believe early ratification by Seoul could also put pressure on the U.S. Congress to do the same.

Educators Seek Shift in U.S. Schooling to Stress 'Global' Values, See Nationalism as 'Obsolete'

December 15, 2008

In October of 2007, the annual Frontiers in Education Conference met in Milwaukee Wisconsin. Among the several papers presented at the conference was, Critical Theory, Globalization and Teacher Education In A Technocratic Era. The paper was written by three professors, Mark Malisa, Randall Koetting, and Kristin Radermacher. The authors opening statements read:

"Our perspective is that of educators who view the current world as one that is highly internationalized and intensely global, rendering nationalistic orientations obsolete. We also view education and educators as involved agents in the construction of a just social world, and contend that this implies infusing the curriculum and teacher education with cosmopolitan sensibilities, frequently, through critical theory and critical pedagogy."

The authors propose that because of globalization, education programs must be reordered. The report states that teacher education programs in the U.S. must adopt a "global perspective" and that "...the time of splendid isolation is over... purposes of education have changed."

"As globalization becomes the dominant term for describing and conceptualizing teacher education, colleges and schools of education will need to revisit their mission statements and rethink what it means to be part of the global community," the report states.

"As such, educators will have to evaluate the extent to which they function as part of a new system that creates and sustains a new dominant global culture..."

Educators in the "global world" will, "...need an unprecedented willingness to teach and be taught by the rest of the world. Part of this will involve rethinking the language and practice of nationalism... even in the classroom."

The report concludes that there will be resistance to these measures, but offers a solution,

"...a lot of work remains to be done in creating a critical consciousness that makes it possible to realize that global solidarity does not threaten nationalism."

Whether or not these professors realize it, their objectives are at the heart of an agenda that has been pursued at the highest levels of the U.S. educational system for decades. As the 1954 Reece Committee discovered, tax-exempt foundations, particularly the Rockefeller Foundations, Ford Foundation, Carnegie Foundation and others were instrumental in influencing U.S. education. Their goals, as the committee found, were international in scope.

The Committee cited a report from the President's Commission on Higher Education, published in 1947, which outlines the goals of educational programs: The realization on part of the people of the necessity of world government "...psychologically, socially and... politically". The cited report states:

"In speed of transportation and communication and in economic interdependence, the nations of the globe are already one world; the task is to secure recognition and acceptance of this oneness in the thinking of the people, as that the concept of one world may be realized psychologically, socially and in good time politically.

It is this task in particular that challenges our scholars and teachers to lead the way toward a new way of thinking. There is an urgent need for a program for world citizenship that can be made a part of every person's general education.

As the United States enters into uncharted economic waters, and possibly a new depression, globalist ideology is losing its flavor to many intelligent young people. However, the agenda will continue in an attempt to raise a generation to man the controls of a world-wide system of governance.

Bush Hands Over Reins of the U.S. Economy to the European Union

November 19, 2008

The results of the G-20 economic summit amount to nothing less than the seamless integration of the United States into the European economy.

In one month of legislation and one diplomatic meeting, the United States has unilaterally abdicated all the gains for the concept of free markets won by the Reagan administration and surrendered, in total, to the Western European model of socialism, stagnation, and excessive government regulation.

Sovereignty is out the window. Without a vote, we are suddenly members of the European Union. Given the dismal record of those nations at creating jobs and sustaining growth, merging with the Europeans is like a partnership with death.

At the G-20 meeting, Bush agreed to subject the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and our other regulatory agencies to the supervision of a global entity that would critique its regulatory standards and demand changes if it felt they were necessary. Bush agreed to create a College of Supervisors. According to The Washington Post, it would "examine the books of major financial institutions that operate across national borders so regulators could begin to have a more complete picture of banks' operations." Their scrutiny would extend to hedge funds and to various "exotic" financial instruments. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), a European-dominated operation, would conduct "regular vigorous reviews" of American financial institutions and practices. The European-dominated College of Supervisors would also weigh in on issues like executive compensation and investment practices.

There is nothing wrong with the substance of this regulation. Experience is showing it is needed. But it is very wrong to delegate these powers to unelected, international institutions with no political accountability. We have a Securities and Exchange Commission appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, both of whom are elected by the American people. It is with the SEC, the Treasury, and the Federal Reserve that financial accountability must take place.

The European Union achieved this massive subrogation of American sovereignty the way it usually does, by negotiation, gradual bureaucratic encroachment, and without asking the voters if they approve.

What's more, Bush appears to have gone down without a fight, saving his debating time for arguing against the protectionism that France's Nicolas Sarkozy was pushing. By giving Bush a seeming victory on a moratorium against protectionism for one year, Sarkozy was able to slip over his massive scheme for taking over the supervision of the U.S. economy.

All kinds of political agendas are advancing under the cover of responding to the global financial crisis.

Where Franklin Roosevelt saved capitalism by regulating it, Bush, to say nothing of Obama, has given the government control over our major financial and insurance institutions. And it isn't even our government! The power has now been transferred to the international community, led by the socialists in the European Union.

Will Obama govern from the left? He doesn't have to. George W. Bush has done all the heavy lifting for him. It was under Bush that the government basically took over as the chief stockholder of our financial institutions and under Bush that we ceded our financial controls to the European Union. In doing so, he has done nothing to preserve what differentiates the vibrant American economy from those dying economies in Europe.

Why have 80 percent of the jobs that have been created since 1980 in the industrialized world been created in the United States? How has America managed to retain its leading 24 percent share of global manufacturing even in the face of the Chinese surge? How has the U.S. GDP risen so high that it essentially equals that of the European Union, whose population is 50 percent greater?

It has done so by an absence of stifling regulation, a liberation of capital to flow to innovative businesses, low taxes, and by a low level of unionization that has given business the flexibility to grow and prosper. Europe, stagnated by taxation and regulation, has grown by a pittance while we have roared ahead. But now Bush — not Obama — Bush has given that all up and caved in to European socialists.

The Bush legacy? European socialism. Who needs enemies with friends like Bush?

Statement From G-20 Summit

November 19, 2008

Catherine Austin Fitts “translation” of the official statement from the Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy:

1. Now that the growth of debt and derivatives bubbles has stalled, we are committed to using governmental-central bank mechanisms to cover the positions of any of the large private financial institutions whose profits are at risk due to their management of these bubbles and who can use this opportunity to squeeze and acquire smaller rivals at low cost.

2. Our commitment to use derivatives and market interventions to shift investment from the real economy and commodities into a paper economy is firm. We will continue to use centralized governmental mechanisms to subsidize and manage this process.

3. All of the organizations and players who reaped a fortune engineering the debt and derivatives bubbles will be allowed to keep their winnings.

4. We will use this period of consolidation to further centralize the global financial system by enforcing greater centralization of the standards, practices and control of enforcement and regulatory bureaucracies. This increased governmental centralization will be presented as the “fix” for our “problems.”

5. We will continue the move toward one world government and one world currency.

6. We are prepared to use coordinated inflation of global money supplies and fiscal stimulus to protect our control and positions.

7. We are committed to the Slow Burn (see my blog post on this subject).

8. This process will continue to be managed to protect large insurance and risk positions.

9. The net result will be to continue to exercise growing control over the real economy by a handful of private families and institutions designed to protect and grow intergenerational wealth.

G-20 are silent on the military and covert action that will be required to make this stick. They are also silent on how they are going to manage this much inflation. For example, the most recent figures from the St. Louis Fed indicate that the aggregate monetary base is growing at an annualized rate of almost 800%.

Watch for a new focus on “green investing” as the trick in all of this will be how to create new productivity when the absence of real prices mean there is no market to provide the necessary signals and financial incentives.

China Gives No Sign of Bailout Help After Summit

November 16, 2008

China gets pledge of greater say in global finance but gives no sign of bailout help.

China got what it wanted in Washington's financial summit--a promise of a bigger role for developing countries in global finance--but gave no sign Sunday whether it will respond by using any of its $1.9 trillion in reserves in a bailout fund.

China has been pushing for developing countries generally--and itself specifically--to have more influence at the International Monetary Fund and other global bodies. Analysts say that might be Beijing's price to give in to foreign appeals to dip into its reserves and contribute money toward an IMF emergency loan fund for struggling countries.

The Washington summit was an "important and positive" step toward "the reform of the international financial structure," foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang said in a statement. It made no mention of possible bailout contributions, and a man who answered the phone at the ministry press office said he had no information.