FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
NWOBama-Nation Reloaded
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
atm



Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3864

PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 1:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:


Editorial: Time for new world order

http://www.bdafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11043&Itemid=5854

November 5, 2008: Of all the general elections in foreign countries, 0n Monday’s US election has been the most watched locally. While the local ancestry of Democratic candidate Barack Obama has contributed largely to that the current blitz, we need to learn lessons from the behaviour of candidates and their supporters whom we closely monitored.

We saw the two leading candidates, Mr Obama and Republican John McCain take jointly to the podium to discuss issues that concern their country. At the end they hugged each other and left for the campaign trail.

While election campaigning is bitter, frenzied and spirit wrenching it should never translate to violent episodes and no candidate - or his/her supporters - should ever be allowed to advocate violence on opponents. Similarly, we should never allow voters to be threatened.

It is only last year that we faced a general election that is still laced with bitter memories after vote tallying was disputed. Of course the US electoral has its short-coming but the behaviour of candidates and their think-tanks goes a long way in either destroying a nation or building a democracy.

Like most nations, we have always chosen the democracy path and, despite its short-comings too, it is still the best system we have in place.

Whatever the outcome, the candidature of Obama is a big lesson to us. You don’t have to come from a big community to win and you cannot use your community to win.

It is the new world order. We hope.




atm Eyes roll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RedMahna



Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1512
Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And now a word from our sponsors?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/world/europe/06russia.html?em

Quote:
Russia Warns of New Missile Deployment By ELLEN BARRY and SOPHIA KISHKOVSKY
Published: November 5, 2008

MOSCOW — In a wide-ranging attack on the United States as it elected a new president, the Russian leader Dmitri A. Medvedev warned on Wednesday that Moscow might deploy short-range missiles in the Baltic region to counter a perceived threat from a proposed American missile defense shield in Eastern Europe.

Mr. Medvedev also proposed to extend the constitutional term of the presidency from four years to six — a move that could enable future Russian presidents to serve 12 years in two consecutive terms. His remarks, in his first state of the nation address since assuming the presidency in May, were delivered within hours of the election of Barack Obama and offered a chilling glimpse into the potential issues and tensions confronting the new American leader when he takes office in January. His comments also seemed at odds with the broader groundswell of support for the American president-elect from many governments across the globe.

In his speech, Mr. Medvedev did not congratulate Mr. Obama on his victory, saying only that he hoped that “our partners — the new U.S. administration — will make a choice in favor of a full-fledged relationship with Russia.”

But he sent a telegram later saying that “Russian-American relations have historically been an important factor for stability in the world and have great importance and sometimes key significance for resolving many of today’s international and regional problems.”

‘“I hope for a constructive dialogue with you based on trust and consideration of each other’s interests,” Mr. Medvedev’s telegram said, according to the Kremlin Web site.

In his speech a few hours earlier, Mr. Medvedev spoke of a “new configuration for the military forces of our country” that would include abandoning plans to dismantle some missile regiments and the stationing of missiles in Russia’s Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad.

“We earlier planned to take three missile regiments within the missile division stationed in Kozelsk off combat duty and discontinue the division itself by 2010. I have decided to refrain from these plans,” Mr. Medvedev said.

“The Iskander missile system will be deployed in Kaliningrad region to neutralize, when necessary, the missile shield,” Medvedev said.

“Radioelectronic equipment located in the western region” of Russia in the Kaliningrad region “will jam objects of the U.S. missile defense system,” Mr. Medvedev said.

“These are forced measures,” Mr. Medvedev said. “We have told our partners more than once that we want positive cooperation, we want to act together to combat common threats, that we want to act together. But they, unfortunately, don’t want to listen to us.”

He was apparently referring to discussions on the proposed missile shield with the United States.

Kaliningrad lies between Lithuania and Poland on the Baltic Sea, a wedge between countries firmly aligned with the West since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Lithuania and Poland are members of the American-led NATO alliance.

Iskander missiles have a range of about 250 miles and use conventional warheads, according to news reports. The United States say the missile shield is needed to intercept missiles from states including Iran and does not threaten Russia. But Russia says it regards the system as a threat and has warned that it would target such installations in lands that belonged to the Warsaw Pact.

In the 90-minute speech, he rounded on the United States, saying the global financial crisis had begun as a “local extraordinary event” in American markets and blaming the August war in Georgia on “the U.S. administration’s policy which is selfish, cannot stand criticism and prefers unilateral decisions,” Reuters reported.

He said Washington’s belief in “its own opinion as the only right and indisputable one” had “in the final account led the United States to economic blunders.”

Referring to the fighting in Georgia, he said: “The conflict in the Caucasus was used as a pretext for sending NATO warships to the Black Sea and then for the forceful foisting on Europe of America’s anti-missile system, which in its turn will entail retaliatory measures by Russia.”

The fighting in Georgia was “among other things, the result of the arrogant course of the U.S. administration which hates criticism and prefers unilateral decisions,” Medvedev said, according to news reports.

His speech was broadcast live on television and radio.

Speaking about Russia’s constitutional arrangements, Mr. Medvedev said he proposed increasing term limits for presidents from four to six years and for lawmakers from four to five years. He did not say when the changes would come into effect.

The issue of term limits surfaced during the eight-year rule of Mr. Medvedev’s successor, Vladimir Putin, when there was speculation that Mr. Putin might seek to remain in office by changing the Constitution to secure a third term. Instead, Mr. Medvedev appointed his predecessor to the prime minister’s post.

Mr. Medvedev said the proposed extension was necessary to confront challenges. And, he said, he wanted to enhance the powers of Parliament.

“I am convinced that our movement toward freedom and democracy will be successful and steadfast only if the authority of the president and the State Duma will be high,” he said, according to Reuters. He said the authorities should have “enough time to implement what they announced and show the results of their work to the people.”

Ellen Barry and Sophia Kishkovsky reported from Moscow, and Alan Cowell contributed from Paris.


oooooops.
red

_________________
just cos things are fucked up doesn't mean it isn't progress...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
atm



Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3864

PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stop it! I can't remote control myself!

atm Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atm



Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3864

PostPosted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 7:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote



atm Razz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atm



Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3864

PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:


Asian economists warn Barack Obama policies could make downturn worse

Senior Asian economists fear the incoming US administration of Barack Obama could drag their economies deeper into the global downturn with protectionist policies.

By Thomas Bell in Jakarta
Last Updated: 3:43PM GMT 11 Nov 2008

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/3440467/Asian-economists-warn-Barack-Obama-policies-could-make-downturn-worse.html

Ammar Siamwalla, one of Thailand's leading economists, said that recessions in the West will hit Thailand's export dependent economy next year.

"The best that can be expected [from this weekend's summit of world leaders] is for them to go against protectionism," he said. "Given the recent change in the US, that's a little bit worrisome."

Many in Asia fear Mr Obama, who struck a protectionist tone during the campaign, will adopt policies designed to protect American jobs.

That in turn would impose more "made in America" problems on export dependent Asian economies already struggling with the fallout from the Wall Street crisis.

"I think protectionism will increase," said Anton Gunawan, chief economist at Indonesia's Bank Danamon.

The concerns were raised as finance ministers from the Group of 20 (G20) rich world and developing economies prepare to meet in Washington on Saturday.

The G20 was created in 1999 to contain the Asian financial crisis, which began in Thailand in 1997. This time around, regional economists fear that south east Asia's relatively healthy economies will catch a dose of "American flu".

The credit crunch has already made it difficult to finance trade. "There should be some kind of co-ordination to guarantee trade financing," said Mr Gunawan. Indonesian coffee and Thai sugar exports have been hit in recent weeks by fears that buyers will default on payments for the goods they receive.


Grim memories of the Asian financial crisis hang heavily over the region. Many are still resentful of the painful conditions they were forced to accept from the International Monetary Fund in exchange for loans.


In Indonesia, the crisis was severe enough to topple the 30-year-old dictatorship of General Suharto in 1998. The country has the region's largest economy and is the only one that will be represented at the G20.

This time around, according to Bank Danamon's Mr Gunawan, the country is in a much better position. "Indonesia probably learnt a lesson from 1998, got policies in place and got the banking sector relatively sound," he said.

Thailand's banks, having been so badly burnt, are now relatively conservative. "We don't have all these derivatives and financial mumbo-jumbo that could get us into trouble," said Dr Siamwalla. "The conditions of the banks are – famous last words – reasonably good."

Many Asian governments have a far larger cushion of foreign reserves than they did in ten years ago.

"Nobody wants to be close to the IMF," said Mr Gunawan, recalling the bitter experiences of the 1990s.

Although the region is braced for job losses in manufacturing it is still expecting to grow. Mr Gunawan expects growth in Indonesia, with a population of 240 million people, to slow from 6.1 per cent this year to 5 per cent in 2009.

The G20 meeting will concentrate on the world's biggest economies, and many expect it will give scant attention to emerging countries such as Indonesia.

But as Dominque Strauss-Khan, the chief of the IMF has said, in 2009 emerging economy growth "is the only growth that we will have".

Therefore, he said, "The say of emerging countries will be bigger than in other situations".




atm Confused
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atm



Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3864

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:


G-20 Summit: A New World Order?

November 13, 2008

http://seekingalpha.com/article/105748-g-20-summit-a-new-world-order

This Friday and Saturday, the leaders of the world's largest nations are to meet in Washington at a summit of the G-20 members in order to develop a framework for extricating us from the worst financial crisis in 75 years. Expectations are not high. Although the crisis threatens to deepen, most pundits do not believe the G-20 can agree because their national agendas are so different.

Right now, we are presented with an historic opportunity to create a new economic world order. However, it is unlikely that this opportunity will be seized. Failure could mean a more severe crisis and economic chaos of the most severe kind. In this post, I will explain what sort of an agreement could work to restore some semblance of order and whether we may ultimately get to this framework.

Much of what I write here regarding fiat currencies, gold and inflation is unknown to the public at large even though the information is freely available. If more people informed themselves about economic history, we would be much better off economically.

Who are the G-20?

The G-20 is generally used as a proxy to represent the most inclusive list of the world's economic leaders. It is not all encompassing -- large, rich countries like Spain are not represented. However, it does bring together most of the major players. Below is a description of the organization from its own website.

The members of the G-20 are the finance ministers and central bank governors of 19 countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The European Union is also a member, represented by the rotating Council presidency and the European Central Bank. To ensure global economic fora and institutions work together, the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the President of the World Bank, plus the chairs of the International Monetary and Financial Committee and Development Committee of the IMF and World Bank, also participate in G-20 meetings on an ex-officio basis.

Therefore, a meeting of this group should be of great significance and lead to major outcomes to set us on the right path to dealing with the credit crisis. However, I am less optimistic about the prospect of a meaningful agreement toward eliminating global structural imbalances. Many nations have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo - the United States principal amongst them. Moreover, the U.S. is led by an administration that is just 2 months from its end. And, we probably have not seen enough carnage to force the relevant parties into developing a new framework. This will only happen at a figurative economic gunpoint.

The existing global economic framework

The existing economic structure came into being as a result of a 1971 decision by the Nixon administration to close the gold window ending the Bretton Woods framework that had lasted from 1944. This framework is based on floating exchange rates with the U.S. Dollar acting as the system's effective anchor and world's reserve currency.

What the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency has meant is that the United States Government effectively sets the standard on monetary policy. Other nations, holding most of their reserves in dollars, must follow the U.S. if they want to maintain a relatively stable currency peg to the U.S. dollar. And, that gives the U.S. government a license to print money and inflate. Therefore, the United States benefits the most from the current global system.

Before 1971, the United States Government was constrained by a fixed peg to Gold. In fact, this peg was set at $35 per ounce and the United States pledged to redeem any dollars presented to it by foreign central banks for gold. This effectively meant that an arbitrage situation existed where foreigners could hold the U.S. dollars in reserve if they felt those dollars were worth $35 an ounce. Or they could exchange their U.S. dollars for gold. If the United States ran an inflationary monetary policy, foreign central banks would lose confidence in the dollar and redeem their dollars for gold, stripping the U.S. coffers of all its money.

The problem for the United States was that it wanted to spend more money than it had. All governments, left unchecked, will spend to their hearts content. In the 1960s, the U.S. government ran a "Guns and Butter" policy of increasing spending domestically while increasing military spending to fund the war in Vietnam. The Johnson administration did not want to increase taxes, so the U.S. inflated the money supply by printing more dollars. Foreign central banks started to become suspicious and eventually the French under the often anti-Anglo-American Charles de Gaulle started to redeem its dollars for gold.

However, excess U.S. Government spending and the Vietnam War continued into the Nixon Administration and on August 15, 1971, Richard Nixon closed the gold window. The U.S. went off the gold peg and a floating currency regime came into existence.

The current regime has meant inflation

After the U.S. de-linked from Gold, it was free to inflate as it pleased. However, there were nasty consequences: oil prices rose, commodity prices rose, gold rose, inflation rose, and the dollar fell. During the 1970s, the new economic regime meant a period of severe weakness for the U.S. dollar and the U.S. economy.

This period ended when Paul Volcker became the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in 1979 and proceeded to hike interest rates to unseen levels above 15% -- which is unimaginable when compared to the 1% we see today. The result was a severe double-dip economic recession and stock market crash. But, the most important result was Volcker crushed inflation, setting the stage for an historic bull market during the 1980s and 1990s.

While Volcker's drastic actions were laudable, it did not stop the U.S. Government's urge to inflate. We were living in a world of fiat currencies. With the U.S. dollar still the world's reserve currency, the U.S. was free to run budget deficits, trade imbalances, and inflate. So it did.

Unfortunately this inflation was not the consumer price variety that we had seen in the 1970s. As the United States deregulated, as the U.S. government privatized and as U.S. industry moved overseas, inflation was seen mainly in asset prices.

Moreover, when the stock market crashed in 1987, the Federal Reserve learned that monetary easing can work wonders in helping ease crisis. As a result, the Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan developed an asymmetric monetary policy that flooded the economy with money whenever crisis or recession became a threat.

So, as the 1990s took shape, the world was awash in dollars. These dollars funded severe asset price inflation, not only in the U.S. but abroad, leading to severe boom bust cycles in Mexico in 1994-1995, Emerging Asia in 1997-1998, Russia and Brazil in 1998. And Argentina at the beginning of this decade.

The emergence of China as a deflationary counterweight to the United States was also helpful in maintaining consumer price inflation at low levels as China used a beggar thy neighbor currency policy which allowed it to become the producer of choice and export low cost goods to the rest of the world.

The end of the super bubble

All of this produced a certain sense of Nirvana for many for a very long time. However, underlying this were massive trade, currency and fiscal imbalances and a shed load of debt. It is the debt that tells one we have been experiencing inflation. All measures of debt and deficit in the United States have been rising for nearly a quarter century to levels never witnessed in history. Only recently have we again started to witness consumer price inflation from this underlying monetary inflation.

However, the credit crisis has interrupted this whole process. We are witnessing the most severe financial and economic crisis in three-quarters of a century. This in large part because the financial system had become so unstable that more debt and leverage just was not possible. In essence, the subprime housing crisis was a trigger for massive de-leveraging globally. Nevertheless, monetary authorities are doing their level best to save this fiat currency monetary system by flooding the world with money - so much so that they must hide the mechanism behind this reflationary effort. I am skeptical as to whether they will succeed.

What the world needs now

We need an end to fiat money. Fiat money is what has caused the U.S. to inflate. And it is what has caused a massive super bubble and build up in debt.

If you go back in economic history, there have been numerous attempts to issue fiat money -- money based only on the promises of the issuer. Every single time, these monetary regimes have failed. In the United States, many states issued their own money in the 18th and 19th centuries. But, the temptation to inflate was too great and these regimes failed too.

In order to promote stability, money must be backed by something of value like gold. Gold is a valuable commodity in limited supply. Because the supply cannot be increased, money supply cannot be increased excessively when the currency is backed by gold. Otherwise one runs into the problem that the U.S. ran into when it closed the gold window in 1971.

It also must be noted that the limited supply of gold is critical. If you look back in time to the 16th century, the Spanish economy went off the rails after it started to import lots of gold from the new world. The Spanish were the world's superpower at the time. They found lots of treasure in the new world, particularly gold in the Incan empire. While stealing gold from the Incas seemed a blessing, it was a curse in disguise for Spain because it inflated the money supply, resulting in severe inflation in the Spanish economy and eventually economic collapse and ruin.

However, there is one problem with the gold standard right now: prices. The Federal Reserve has gold holdings of about 286 million ounces. However, the Fed has been inflating their balance sheet at an unprecedented rate to deal with this crisis. The Fed's balance sheet liabilities were $900 billion in August. They are now approximately $2 trillion and well on their way to $3 trillion by the end of the year.

Therefore, the US dollar would have to be pegged to gold at over $7,000 an ounce and as high as $10,000 an ounce. Gold trades around $700 an ounce in the open market. In a recent paper, QB Partners has also done the math for other currencies as well.

Aggregating the gold holdings of the ECB and the legacy central banks that comprise the Eurozone would imply a $6,300 gold price. Again using the Bretton Woods system as a model, the US dollar and Euro might be designated as “global reserve currencies” because they could most easily be converted to gold. The remainder of participating global currencies could then be made exchangeable into US Dollars/Euros at fixed, but amendable rates (floating foreign exchange rates).

The trickier part of converting paper currencies to a global gold standard would be persuading economies with high paper currency-to-gold ratios. Their paper currencies would suffer devaluations versus currencies with higher gold reserves. For example, the Japanese Yen’s gold price equilibrium would equate to nearly $40,000/ounce when calculated against the Bank of Japan’s gold holdings and the Chinese Renminbi’s gold price equilibrium would equate to about $117,000/ounce when calculated against the People’s Bank of China’s published gold holdings.

This makes a gold standard rather untenable. Moreover, the U.S. and the U.K., with high debt levels, are two economies that want to inflate in order to reduce the burden of their debt loads as everyone de-leverages. China, Russia, Brazil and the Middle East, with massive dollar reserves, have zero interest in going to gold because it would mean an enormous economic loss for these countries holding dollars.

So, my conclusion is that there can be no agreement to solve this crisis until we have a global economic shakeout, forcing the various interested parties to the table. In all likelihood this would mean severe economic turmoil and depression unless the monetary authorities can successfully reflate our way out of crisis. So, we will get a new world order only by plumbing the depths of a depressionary crisis or through the successful efforts of central banks to inflate their way out of trouble.

Whether we experience depression or see a successful reflation effort, the future after the crisis looks to be one predicated on much debt. De-leveraging will continue apace for some time and that is a very good thing.


atm Eyes roll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atm



Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3864

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:


Broun Sorry for Calling Obama Policies Marxist

Julia Malone
Atlanta Journal Constitution
November 13, 2008

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2008/11/12/broun.html


Washington —- U.S. Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia backed away Tuesday from comparing the policies of President-elect Barack Obama to those of Hitler or a Marxist dictator.


After stirring a controversy that was grabbing national attention, the Republican lawmaker from Athens apologized for making such references.

“I regret putting it that way,” Broun told WGAC radio in Augusta. “I apologize to anyone who has taken offense at that.”

Broun acknowledged that he called Obama a Marxist at a Rotary Club meeting in Augusta last week. In an Associated Press interview Monday night, he went further, charging that an Obama campaign proposal for a civilian national security reserve corps would be like the security forces of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

The Obama transition office has declined comment on Broun’s remarks, but a spokesman told the AP that the idea of a civilian corps was similar to one proposed by the Bush administration to recruit civilians for defense-related work such as rebuilding war-torn Iraq.

“The point I tried to make is that he is extremely liberal, he has promoted a lot of socialistic ideas, and it just makes me concerned,” Broun said Tuesday.

His comments to the Associated Press, however, drew criticism from Georgia Democrats and both of the state’s Republican senators Tuesday.

“I don’t agree with the statement,” said U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson, who called the president-elect Monday and left a message of congratulations.

U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss echoed that view. “I commend President-elect Obama on his historic election,” said the senator, who faces a run-off on Dec. 2 with Democratic challenger Jim Martin.

Chambliss said of Broun’s Hitler remarks, “I do not agree with him, and I do not believe that type of political rhetoric is appropriate.”

Martin was measured in his critique, calling Broun’s remarks “extremely unfortunate” and adding, “We ought not to engage in that kind of rhetoric.”

State Democratic Party spokesman Martin Matheny accused Broun of “playing to the extremes” at a time “when Americans are coming together to celebrate history and renew America’s promise.”

“Broun’s neo-McCarthyism has no place in today’s political environment,” Matheny said.

U.S. Rep. Sanford Bishop, an Albany Democrat, said Broun’s disappointment at the Republican losses had “apparently taken his reasoning capacity hostage.” Bishop said the references to Hitler and Marxism were “the most outlandish, out of touch, and unrealistic characterization of President-elect Obama’s views that I have ever heard.”

However, Broun found defenders, including some Georgians who were queried by e-mail by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

“Rep. Broun is not out of line in soliciting follow-up answers to some of Obama’s campaign rhetoric,” wrote Brian Ludvigsen, 25, of Atlanta. “Many of his constituents may have a problem with the notion of creating a new ‘national security force.’ “

County Republican chairman James Box of Clarke County, which is in Broun’s district, also defended his congressman’s earlier comments.

“President-elect Obama has a background —- and some of his statements he’s made —- that lead many of us to believe that he has very socialist orientations,” Box, 77, said, adding that the national press has not examined the incoming president vigorously enough.

“I wouldn’t say he’s going to be a Hitler, but what Paul Broun says is that he has a potential for being a Hitler.”

Asked for his own view, Box said, “I don’t know. You never know with a politician.”

Another Georgian, Clinton Bastin, 81, of Avondale Estates, offered a different view: “I remember Hitler’s rise to power and his hatred and persecution of Jews,” he wrote in an e-mail. “President-elect Obama is no Hitler or Marxist. He has arrived at a wonderful time and will be a great president.”


atm Eyes roll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atm



Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3864

PostPosted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote



atm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bri



Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 3174
Location: Capacious Creek

PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


Napolitano is likely pick as homeland nominee


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/20/MNRI149148.DTL

Quote:
As U.S. attorney, she was involved in the investigation of Michael Fortier of Kingman, Arizona, in connection to the Oklahoma City bombing.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Napolitano#Political_career

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Fortier_(American)

Quote:
Michael was released from prison on January 20, 2006 into the Witness Protection Program and given a new identity.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7922

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mandatory 'Volunteerism' is on again.
Then off again.
Then back on again.

Looks like they are testing the reaction of the peasants.
Or simply wearing 'em down, more like.

Quote:
Expanded Americorps has an authoritarian feel

By Examiner Editorial - 3/26/09

With almost no public attention, both chambers of Congress in the past
week advanced an alarming expansion of the Americorps national service
plan, with the number of federally funded community service job
increasing from 75,000 to 250,000 at a cost of $5.7 billion.


Lurking behind the feel-good rhetoric spouted by the measure’s advocates
is a bill that on closer inspection reveals multiple provisions that together
create a strong odor of creepy authoritarianism.

The House passed the measure overwhelmingly, while only 14 senators
had the sense and courage to vote against it on a key procedural motion.
Every legislator who either voted for this bill or didn’t vote at all has some
serious explaining to do.

Last summer, then-candidate Barack Obama threw civil liberties to the
wind when he proposed “a civilian national security force that’s just as
powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the regular military. The
expanded Americorps is not quite so disturbing, but a number of
provisions in the bill raise serious concerns.

To begin with, the legislation threatens the voluntary nature of Americorps
by calling for consideration of “a workable, fair, and reasonable
mandatory service requirement for all able young people.”
It anticipates
the possibility of requiring “all individuals in the United States” to perform
such service – including elementary school students. The bill also
summons up unsettling memories of World War II-era paramilitary groups
by saying the new program should “combine the best practices of civilian
service with the best aspects of military service,” while establishing
“campuses” that serve as “operational headquarters,” complete with
“superintendents” and “uniforms” for all participants. It allows for the
elimination of all age restrictions in order to involve Americans at all
stages of life. And it calls for creation of “a permanent cadre” in a
“National Community Civilian Corps.”

But that’s not all. The bill also calls for “youth engagement zones” in which
“service learning” is “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the
secondary schools served by the local educational agency.”


This updated form of voluntary community service is also to be
integrated into the science, technology, engineering and mathematics
curricula” at all levels of schooling
. Sounds like a government curriculum
for government approved “service learning,” which is nothing less than
indoctrination. Now, ask yourself if congressmen who voted for this
monstrosity had a clue what they were voting for. If not, they’re guilty of
dereliction of duty. If yes, the implications are truly frightening.

UPDATE:

Between being first officially "reported" to the House and being voted on
by the full House, bill managers stripped one whole section of the measure
that created a Congressional Commission on Civil Service, thus removing
the section that contained the language cited above concerning "a
workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able
young people" and a possible requirement for "all individuals in the United
States" to perform such service. The section could be restored during the
Senate-House conference committee meeting. A new, separate bill
containing that language has since been introduced in the House.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Expanded-Americorps-has-an-authoritarian-feel-41889742.html

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7922

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:


Quote:
OBAMA DEFENDS HUMAN
RIGHTS POLICY REVERSALS


SpoofNews by Fintan Dunne, 16th May, 2009

President Obama today defended his policies after concerns over
reversals on detention and trial of Guantanamo detainees and
release of photographs showing prisoners being abused.

"There's no question of going back to the human rights abuses
of the Bush era
," said Obama. "We'll have to think up new ones."



The furore over policy reversals by Obama shows us that the strategists
have determined it's time to cast loose the promises and implement the
copperfastening of the fascist-state model empowered by 9/11 and then
enshrined by subsequent Bush legislation.

This was always the plan: promise Change, and a relaxation
of these extra-legal policies, but slowly shift back to the same policies.

The net result: the political landscape remains fascist in tone. The Bush
era saw the bar raised a foot; Obama promised to lower it eight inches
again, but ends up lowering it by three inches: net gain nine inches with
no enduring popular resistance.

This is PsyWar against Obama's own supporters --especially
lawyers and other professionals who have civil liberties ideals.

Social Engineering at work. Wink

Quote:
Critics Call Obama's Tribunals "Bush Lite"

President Says Detainees' Legal Rights Will Be Protected,
But Restarting Terror Trials May Jeopardize Closing Of Gitmo


WASHINGTON, May 16, 2009

(CBS/AP) In an apparent reversal, President Barack Obama is
reviving the Bush administration's much-criticized military tribunals
for Guantanamo Bay detainees, shocking those who expected the
president to end them completely.


CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier reports that the president says
these will not be your Bush-era tribunals, promising a new system that
guarantees more legal rights for detainees.

Mr. Obama said the changes were designed to give defendants stronger
legal protections, such as a ban on evidence "obtained through torture, or
by using cruel or degrading interrogation methods," like waterboarding;
limiting use of hearsay evidence; granting the accused more say in who
represents them; and protecting detainees who refuse to testify from
legal sanctions.

But his action was almost instantly denounced by critics who called the
new tribunals "Bush Lite," reports Dozier......

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/16/politics/main5018988.shtml

Quote:
Inside Obama's Detainee Photo Reversal

Understanding Why Obama Backed Down
On Release Of Detainee Photographs


May 16, 2009

Saying that no good could conceivably come of it, President Barack
Obama this week reversed his administration’s plan to release
photographs of alleged detainee abuse dating from the Bush
administration's war on terror without at least putting up the
appearance of a legal fight.


"The reversal is another indication of a continuance of the Bush
administration policies under the Obama administration," said ACLU
attorney Amrit Singh. "President Obama’s promise of accountability is
meaningless [and] this is inconsistent with his promise of transparency."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/15/opinion/main5018280.shtml


Meanwhile, back at the coalface
of Corporate malfeasance:


Quote:
Obama Nominates Superfund Polluter Lawyer
To Run DOJ Environment Division


President Barack Obama has nominated a lawyer for the nation’s
largest toxic polluters to run the enforcement of the nation’s
environmental laws.


On Tuesday, Obama “announced his intent to nominate” Ignacia S.
Moreno
to be Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural
Resources Division in the Department of Justice. Moreno, general counsel
for that department during the Clinton administration, is now the
corporate environmental counsel for General Electric, “America’s
#1 Superfund Polluter“:

Number five in the Fortune 500 with revenues of $89.3 billion and
earnings of $8.2 billion in 1997, General Electric has been a leader in the
effort to roll back the Superfund law and stave off any requirements for
full cleanup and restoration of sites they helped create.....

Before General Electric, Moreno worked as a corporate attorney at
Spriggs and Hollingsworth. Moreno’s name is found in the Westlaw
database as an attorney defending General Motors in another Superfund
case, the GM Powertrain facility in Bedford, Indiana.....

During the Clinton administration, Moreno was involved in another
controversial case, unsuccessfully defending the Secretary of
Commerce’s decision to weaken the dolphin-safe tuna standard. In
Brower v. Daley, Earth Island Institute, The Humane Society of the United
States, and other individuals and organizations brought suit against the
United States government for actions that were “arbitrary, capricious, an
abuse of discretion, and contrary to law,” winning their case in 2000....

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/15/ignacia-moreno-superfund/

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
atm



Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3864

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Barack Hussien Obama is deceiving the world.

Obama is a deception, a cruel hoax.

Nice one, Fintan; long overdue analysis

atm Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.