If Bernanke and Paulson had a shred of integrity, they would have offered their resignations.  If they were traditional Japanese, they would have committed seppuku....(hey, I can dream, can't I?) but no, they're neocon men from Wall Street, aka American Fascists, so they just asked for more money. That's a fundamental rule in the neocon playbook--never, ever, ever admit that you screwed up.  No way anything they did could have been what trashed the economy, nossir.

They admitted that $700 billion was a number they pretty much pulled out of their asses. They even admitted that this was something they'd seen coming for a while.  But somehow that didn't matter when they said, "pay up NOW, on THESE TERMS or we're all screwed!"  (even though they're not actually going to start handing the money out until mid-November!)  They had America by the short hairs and everybody knew it, and so the Senate and ultimately the House  squawked and grumbled and grew the proposal from three pages to over four hundred, with a few half-assed conditions thrown in, plus a lot of bribes to get people to feel a little better about the whole ugly mess--a hundred and fifty billion dollars worth of tax breaks for everything from toy wooden arrows to solar panels.  Talk about perversion!

But hey, if they didn't, Bush might declare martial law--after all, Congress gave him the power, since he was gracious enough to ask for it, and a brigade of US Army regulars has recently been reassigned to the US from Iraq, and are busy training in "non-lethal crowd control"--rubber bullets and tasers, which have proved lethal to plenty of people in their time. Uhh..anybody seen the Posse Comitatus act lately? Hmmm......but there's no significance to that, no, none at all....just give us the money in small, unmarked bills, like what you gave us for Iraq.....

And what did these neo-con artists propose to buy with our seven hundred billion dollars?  Worthless assets that banks created and got stuck with in the course of the Ponzi scheme that has been the American economy ever since Bill Clinton crammed NAFTA down our throats and America's manufacturing economy literally went south.

Seven hundred billion dollars worth of bad mortgages.  Seven hundred billion dollars for overvalued, trashed-out, abandoned houses, many of which would not sell for a dollar at public auction.  Houses that it will cost money just to tear down.  Actually, the financial instruments are so Byzantine that owning the debt on the house may not convey title to the house, so that means we're not even getting the lot under a trashed-out house, we're just getting a piece of paper, and good luck ever selling it for anything besides making "Save your CDO certificates/The United States Will Rise Again!" posters.

Hank and Bill will be generous with our money, giving the poor bankers whatever price they claim those mortgages are worth, but basically, Congress voted to spend seven hundred billion dollars on--nothing.  We couldn't afford thirty-five billion for childrens' health care.  We can't afford to take proper care of Iraq war veterans.  We can't afford to rebuild our country's infrastructure in a way that will mute the effects of climate change.  We can't afford health coverage for all.  None of those things we really need will cost seven hundred billion dollars, all would have a clear payback, and in fact will save not only our money but our asses to the tune of far more than seven hundred billion dollars, but we can't afford them.

Seven hundred billion dollars is what we spend every year on imported oil, and we can afford that.  Seven hundred billion dollars is about a quarter of what the war in Iraq is likely to cost us, maybe less than a quarter. The tax cuts for the wealthy that the Bush junta pushed through have cost the government about four hundred billion dollars a year since 2003, for a total of two trillion dollars and counting, but none of the high muckamucks in our government seem to have any qualms about the cost of any of that.  Hey, that's all money into (or at least not out of) their pockets, and besides, they own the presses, they can print more dollars if they need 'em.  Sure, they'll be worth less (worthless?  or just worth less?  who knows!), and foreign governments and other investors may be a lot less interested in taking them, but the asses of the wealthy have been covered, and that's what counts to the neo con-men.  They will all be going off to someplace safe, leaving you and me to go down with the ship--and the bills.

Oh, and just in case Obama gets elected and has any ideas about doing anything creative, this will tie his hands, just like his pledge to continue the "war on terror" by escalating in Afghanistan will tie his feet.  Smooth move, Mr. Rove!

There are a few sops thrown into this bill.  Some of them could mitigate the chilling effect this bill will have on our national budget, if Obama's government is progressive and courageous and not just a replay of the Democratic Leadership Council-led Clinton years that set us up for this mess.  Now, maybe I'm crazy to expect courage from the Democrats at this point, but if Obama's Secretary of the Treasury has the nerve, he can, instead of buying bad bank assets at high prices, buy preferred stock in the banks, so that the government will then own them in exchange for bailing them out.  As bank owners, the government can change bank policy--and fire the scheming, selfish jerks--I mean executives--who got us into this mess.  Paulson has this option, too, but you can bet he won't take it.  He's not gonna sell his banker buddies down the river.  From all indications, Obama is going to feel the same way--his main economic adviser is Jason Furman, who thinks Walmart has been great for the economy and free trade is a wonderful thing.  La-la land stuff, y'know?

The bill also suggests that banks could renegotiate their nonperforming loans and mark them down to the real value of the homes involved, but that's like asking Dracula to pretty please quit sucking the blood out of people.  He ain't gonna do it.

If they wanted to provide some real relief, they could have outlawed eviction, directing banks to negotiate a reasonable rent with folks who can't make their mortgage payments.  They didn't do that.  They could have loosened up our country's newly draconian bankruptcy laws, which Joe Biden championed and which make it all but impossible for individuals to get out of debt,  but they didn't.  Individuals need to take responsibility for their actions, but big rich banks can count on having the government to fall back on.  That seems to be the lesson here.

Oh, by the way, one of the main reasons people fall behind on their house payments, besides losing their jobs due to corporate downsizing, is falling into debt and out of work due to serious illness or injury and consequent serious medical debts, even with insurance.  But we are not going there, people, we can't afford to do anything about that, no way--we got rich bankers to bail out--they're more important than you common folk, dontcha know?

Congress capped the income and bonus payments to the top five executives in companies that accept a certain level of federal help, but you can bet there are loopholes in that provision.  They also kept in most of Paulson's original bid for dictatorial powers, saying that he could only be challenged legally if Constitutional grounds are involved.

What the bill does not admit is that home prices in this country are seriously inflated, and need to come down to reflect reality.  The other thing this bill does not admit is that there are going to be more economic crises after this one, and the government has just used its last ammunition.  In fact, as I write this, the headlines tell me the Down Joe average is, yep, down seriously, and that more economies around the world are in trouble.

Whatever comes next, we as a nation are now too strapped to do anything about it.  Make sure you're stocked up on food and have a way to cook it, and get set for some real fun.

October 7, 2008

(Excerpted from full article)

The Amero: North American Common Currency?

Like the bail out, Americans will be manipulated to accept even more increasingly extreme solutions to future, successive fiscal panic events.

American could soon gain painful first experience- the same pain it has often induced in countries like Argentina, Mexico, Germany and Brazil... hyper-inflation.  As a part of a 'relief package', the new “Amero”, a new scam, will be presented as a pre-packaged panacea or 'rescue' by our saviours- the bankers.

If you've been following the developments regarding NAFTA(North American Free Trade Agreement) then you would already know something about the possible nature of this new currency- coming to a ATM machine near you and it will likely be a done deal by the time it reaches the public announcement stage which means that American would have to literally accept it at face value.

As the US dollar continues to fail and continues to collapse in the face of massive infusion of liquidity, more talk will begin to appear about a possible North American common currency, the Amero, as a solution. The US and Canadian dollars, along with the Mexican Peso, will be phased out and replaced by a common North American currency, which, of course, would eliminate the U.S. Constitution in the process.  

This may postpone, but not stop the eventual collapse of the dollar and the worlds consumer society. The dollar which will become basically worthless after the exchange for the Amero and will have little international value, and thus not be transferable to Swiss Francs, Pound Sterling or to the Euro.

And thanks to the garbage legislation like the Bail Out Bill and the US Patriot Acts, which included currency controls and banking and secrecy laws aimed at non existent terrorists, few Americans will be able escape the effects by opening up accounts offshore denominated in Swiss Francs or Euros before the announcement of the Amero.

But the core problem with our money begins and ends with our own, privately owned banking cartel known as the US Federal Reserve Bank. If you understand who owns the Fed, you will know that US dollars are essentially printed by the same private banking institutions who print the Euro. The Amero is about expanding this bank’s operation out to Mexico and Canada, essentially allowing the European Central Banks(and their US Federal Reserve "franchise") to gain complete control over the entire money supply of North America. The Amero will simply bring us one step closer to a global currency... and one step closer to a global government.

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/BANKERS-SAY-Learn-to-Love-by-Patrick-Henningsen-081006-534.html

As Congress passed Marxist legislation, aka the bailout, last week, United States' citizens, generally against such means, sat and watched as the last vestiges of colonial and early Federalist Republican ideals fell away. The Constitution can now be regarded as just another document in the long line of historicity, and historians in the near and distant future will pour upon virgin paper their thoughts, ideas, and theories about the collapse of yet another Democracy, speculating how it is such modes of government come to fruition at different points throughout the annals of time.

Ironically, the falling of those last vestiges were noticeably unnoticed by the thundering sound of foreign economies beginning to suffer the same problems as those that surfaced in the past few years in the United States and which culminated within the last two weeks. Perhaps U.S. lawmakers should take note on how they've unprecedentedly erred in judgment in doing as the Europeans do: walk down the Socialist path in bailing out their financial system(s).

With billions of dollars being pumped into the world market, be prepared for a long bout with inflation. Especially when there is talk of cutting interest rates:

The crisis engulfing Europe and its markets has fueled talk of coordinated interest-rate cuts from the world's leading central banks, possibly as early as Monday.

Analysts said they wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and the Bank of England instigate the first joint action on interest rates since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the U.S.

Another interesting angle is the article's reference to European individualism. That is, "[T]he EU is liable to be exposed as a fair weather construction, lacking the means of swift response and the hold over its citizens' loyalties to survive really adverse conditions," said Stephen Lewis, an analyst at Monument Securities. In a world where a United States presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama, travels to Europe in hopes of uniting both hemispheres into one world order, individualism is still the mode by which individual nations traverse the earth.

I think we're seeing the same disposition towards individualism and protectionism in North America as well. During the presidential primary season earlier this year, brief discussion came up regarding the 1990's legislation, NAFTA and the U.S.'s possible repeal of the law. Barack Hussein Obama, to his credit, mentions giving tax breaks to companies who keep their operations in the United States, rather than fleeing to Asia, where the cost of operations is much cheaper. While such talk is intermittently brief, and used mostly as a ploy for garnering votes, the rational and factual reasoning behind such talk remains true and that is for a nation to keep its own interests at the forefront of both domestic and foreign relations. Sound, basic economics dictates that a government must spend less than it takes in, that exportation of its products worldwide undergirds the national domestic economy, and that light means of protectionism is necessary to keep the nation's internal economic infrastructure sound for both the present and the future.

In returning to the article, EU spokesman Johannes Laitenberger said of the economic crisis hitting Europe, "This is a very serious situation and one that needs to be addressed ... but it's true that there is not one single magic bullet that will solve this." On the contrary, there is. And as simplistic as it might seem, a little pain now will prevent sustained and deepened pain the future. The single magic bullet? Let the market correct itself; the government must keep its hands out of the situation it got us into in the first place.

http://podcast.thisamericanlife.org/podcast/365.mp3

.

_____________________________________________

Thanks for checking out my posting. Check out the latest at http://mrobvious.wordpress.com
No scraping please….

_____________________________________________

In an exclusive interview, Noam Chomksy weighs in on the financial collapse, the election and the power of U.S. propaganda.

Part Two of Subrata Ghoshroy's exclusive interview with Noam Chomksy takes on the United State's capacity for revisionist history and propaganda, from Ronald Reagan's supposed commitment to free markets, to American terrorist actions in Latin America in the 1980s, to the bankrupt rationale for Clinton's intervention in Bosnia. Chomsky also elaborates on MIT's role in developing computer technology in the service of the military industrial complex -- which he discussed in Part One. Finally, he puts the current financial crisis into global context -- and weighs in on the presidential election, explaining why, like any other race in which two pro-business parties dominate everything-- is "not a serious election."

(Read Part One here.

NC: The New York Times had an article by its economic correspondent in its magazine section a couple weeks ago about Obama's economic programs. He talked about Reagan as the model of passionate commitment to free markets and reduction of the role of the state, and so on … Where are these people? Reagan was the most protectionist president in post-war American history. In fact, more protectionist than all others combined. He virtually doubled protective barriers. He brought in the Pentagon to develop the "factory of the future" to teach backward American management how to catch up on the Japanese lead in production. SEMATECH ("Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology") was formed. If it weren't for Reagan's protectionism and calling in of state power, we would not have a steel industry, or an automobile industry, or a semi-conductor industry or whatever they protected. They reindustrialized America by protectionism and state intervention. All of this is washed away by propaganda as though it never happened.

It is very interesting to look at a place like MIT, which was right at the center of these developments. My department -- you're teaching a course in the Military Industrial Complex -- my department is an example of it. I came here in the mid-50's. I don't know the difference between a radio and a tape recorder, but I was in the electronics lab. I was perhaps the one person who refused to get clearance on principle. Not that it made any difference; everything was open anyway.

The electronics lab, along with the closely connected Lincoln labs, was just developing the basis of the modern high- tech economy. In those days, the computer was the size of this set of offices.

By the time they finally got computers down to the size of a marketable main frame, some of the directors of the project pulled out and formed DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation), the first main frame producer. IBM was in there, at the government's expense, learning how to move from punch cards to electronic computers. By the early l960's IBM was capable of producing its own computers, but no one could buy them. They were too expensive. So they were bought by the National Security Agency. Bell Labs did develop transistors. That is about the only example you can think of a significant part of the high-tech system which came out of private enterprise. But that is a joke too! They worked on technology. Their transistor producer was Western Electric, who could not sell them on the market; they were too expensive. So the government bought about 100 percent of advanced transistors. Finally, of course, all of this gets to the point where you can market them privately. It was not until the 1980's after 30 years of development essentially in the state sector that these things became marketable commodities and Bill Gates could get rich.

The Internet was the same thing. I was here when they were starting to work on the Internet. It was not until 1995 that it was privatized, after 30 years. If you look at the funding at MIT, in the 1950s and 1960's it was almost entirely Pentagon. For a very simple reason, the cutting edge of the economy was electronics based. A good cover for developing an electronics-based economy was the Pentagon. You sort of frighten people into thinking the Russians are coming, so they pay their taxes and their children and grandchildren have computers.

Through the 70's and 80's funding has been shifting to NIH (National Institutes of Health). Why? Because the cutting edge of the economy is becoming biology-based. So, therefore, the state sector is shifting its priorities to developing biology-based industries. All of this is going on with accolades to the Free Market. You don't know whether to laugh or cry.

The point is, to get back to the new international economic order: It was a serious proposal that was immediately kicked out the window and UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) was reduced to a data collecting agency with no policy initiatives. The new information order was destroyed, along with UNESCO. Neo-liberal programs were rammed down the throats of the poor. (Although the rich did not accept them -- and to the extent that they do accept them, it is harmful to them too.) This went along with the great shift to the liberalization of finance. It was a disaster in the making all along; serious economists have been pointing out since the early 70's that the freeing up of financial capital flows is just a disaster in the making, with in fact periodic crises. Also, Reagan the great free marketer carried out one of the biggest bailouts in American history when he bailed out (and virtually nationalized) a major bank.

SG: This was the Latin American crisis? Brazil?

NC: This was before that. This was Continental Illinois. Later they had the savings and loan crisis; Citibank was overexposed in Latin America. The federal government has to continually step in to insure that the financial institutions that it is letting run wild survive.

SG: Do you see any special characteristics to (the current) crisis?

NC: This is apparently considerably worse, for one thing, because no one seems to understand what is really going on. There was clearly a housing bubble and some of the better, more serious economists began writing about it a couple of years ago. So Dean Baker, for example, has been regularly pointing out that housing prices are completely unsustainable.

SG: Greenspan was saying it was a "froth," not a "bubble."

NC: Greenspan was saying, "Don't worry about it". It is the Greenspan crisis. It has turned into a crisis for the entire credit industry. And a major one.

I don't think that the banks and the hedge funds even understand the instruments that they are using, but they are very delicate and they could crash. I presume that the financial institutions are strong enough to be able to weather it somehow, but no one really knows. Just like no one knows whether China, Japan and Dubai and Singapore will continue to keep what, from their point of view, are poor investments in the U.S. economy -- treasury securities, or whether they will diversify. If they diversify, what happens to the U.S. economy? The U.S. has become a low production/high consumption economy. What happens if the Chinese, the Japanese and Dubai stop funding the American consumers? A lot of things could happen, but unlike poor countries, U.S. does not really have to pay its debts. There are a lot of ways to avoid doing so, but these are real hammer blows to the international economy, the kind that are not understood. The bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, was described pretty well by Martin Wolf, the economic correspondent for the Financial Times. He says it is outrageous, a case of the public taking the risks and being forced to pay for the foolishness and incompetence of the private management of the market institutions. The public takes the risks and pays for the costs.

SG: So, the public debt goes up dramatically.

NC: Yes, enormously; liabilities from these takeovers are, I forget the number, but it is a substantial proportion of the national debt … I think, it is something like one-third of the deficit, the public debt. It is huge. That is the public debt, that's my grandchildren, you know. It is permitting financial institutions to run wild without regulation. So, if you allow unregulated capital, of course you will have corruption and disaster.

Read Adam Smith. He points out if you see two business men talking in the corner, they are probably arranging a conspiracy against the public. That's their job. It is not that they are bad people. That is just what they are supposed to do. Just like a corporation is not evil to try to maximize profit. If managers are not trying to maximize profit, they are breaking the law. They are not supposed to be ethical institutions; they are supposed to be operating in the interests of their shareholders.

SG: Because of the integrated nature of the global economy, are there others who would want to keep the American economy vibrant?

NC: Sure. That's why China buys U.S. treasury securities. They want to keep America spending.

SG: So, in a way that may be stabilizing.

NC: It is stabilizing, but it is a very uncertain kind of stability. They might decide to devote their resources to increase purchasing power inside China, for example, instead of inside the U.S. It is conceivable, which would mean a big shift in the international economy.

SG: If China makes a precipitous decision to do something -- for example, there is one fund, a sovereign fund; it is $200 billion dollars -- if they pull money out, will there be military threats from the U.S.?

NC: But what do the military threats mean from the U.S.? Of course, the U.S. outspends the rest of the world in military spending and is more technologically advanced. But what are they going to do? Are they going to bomb Beijing? I mean, they can't even control Afghanistan. Sure, they have a huge military, but I doubt that the U.S. will use it as a weapon. U.S. capacity to undermine governments by military threats has been declining in recent years.

Take Latin America, a region where the U.S. has regularly overthrown governments through military coups and so on. In the last ten years it has been very hard. The U.S. sponsored a military coup in Venezuela, but could not pull it off, had to back down, partly because the coup was immediately overthrown by popular uprising, and partly because of the uproar in Latin America, which said it would not tolerate this any longer. If you look at the history, this is quite a change. The U.S. and France did effectively carry out a military coup in Haiti and threw out the government, but Haiti is a desperate country. It was the richest colony in the world and the source of much of France's wealth, but it has been tortured by France and then the U.S. for 200 years. Now it barely survives. Overthrowing the government of Haiti was not that difficult a task.

SG: So, do you see a decline in the military ability of the U.S.?

NC: There is a very serious decline in the ability of the U.S. to undermine and overthrow governments. South America, for the first time since the European conquest 500 years ago, is moving, uneasily, but noticeably, in the direction of independence and gaining sovereignty. The U.S. is unable to do much about it. One of the main military bases for the United States until recently was Paraguay. The U.S. just lost Paraguay, with the recent election of a liberation theology priest. That was one of the few remaining U.S. military bases in South America.

In Central America, which was devastated by Reaganite terrorist wars, nevertheless, there are beginnings of a recovery. In Honduras, which was the center of the whole U.S. terrorist apparatus, President Zelaya has been moving towards alliances with Venezuela. There is not much that the U.S. can do about it. It's trying -- the training of Latin American officers has risen very sharply.

… In fact, if you look at U.S. aid to Latin America, the percentage of military aid, as compared to economic aid, is far higher now than at the peak of the Cold War. I think that the U.S. is trying to rebuild some kind of military capacity to deal with its loss of control over Latin America. It used to be able to overthrow governments easily or destroy a country back in the l980's, but now it is harder.

SG: [Daniel] Ortega was the second government leader to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia. I don't know if it was a good thing to do.

NC: Ortega is not one of my favorite characters. But it is a symbolic indication of the degree of independence. What is happening in Honduras is more significant. Honduras was a classic banana republic run by the U.S. during Reagan's terrorist wars in Central America. Honduras was the main base, not only for the Contra war, for support for the terrorist wars in El Salvador and Guatemala and so on. It was a regional war, remember.

SG: Isn't that where Negroponte was?

NC: That is where Negroponte was; he was the chief terrorist commander of the l980's. Literally, he was running the Contra war from Honduran bases, but also lying steadily about atrocities inside Honduras to make sure that congressional money flowed to Honduras for various wars in the region. John Negroponte, one of leading terrorist commanders of the modern period, was soon appointed the counterterrorism czar, with nobody raising an eyebrow.

The imperial mentality is something wondrous to behold. Here is one of the leading contemporary terrorists being appointed to be in charge of counterterrorism. Try to find a comment about it. If the U.S. carries out terrorism, it did not happen. But the point is, the U.S.'s capacity to carry out these activities has declined. So when Honduras is straying from its subservient role, that is pretty striking.

So I don't think that U.S. will use military force against China. For one thing, it is so much bigger. It is also a platform for production by U.S.-based corporations. It is commonly said that industrial production in the U.S. has declined. That is very misleading. If you take U.S. manufacturing industry and consider its share in global manufacturing, it probably hasn't changed. It's just that it is doing its production overseas. But, from the point of view of the CEO of Dell, what does it matter where they do their manufacturing? McKinsey, the big financial analysis house, did a study a year or two ago which was reported in the Wall Street Journal. They made an interesting calculation. They said, suppose that you analyze the U.S. trade deficit by considering the U.S., not as a place on a map, but in terms of the people who own the country (the corporate sector). If, say Dell, is bringing computers it makes in China into the U.S., we call those domestic production, not imports, which it is from the point of view of Dell management. It turns out that most of the trade deficit disappears.

So, if you take a realistic look at the international economy, from the point of view of the people who own this country, they are not in wonderful shape, but it is nowhere near as bad as the statistics look when you look at GDP. Other measures too are misleading. Take, say NAFTA, you hear from economists and government officials that NAFTA has sharply increased trade between the U.S. and Mexico. Well, a lot of that is fiction. Take the old Soviet Union; suppose that parts were produced in Leningrad and sent to Warsaw for assembly and then sent back to Moscow to sell. We did not call that trade because it was it was interactions internal to a command economy. Now take NAFTA. Suppose General Motors produces parts in Indiana, sends them to Northern Mexico for assembly and sells the cars in Los Angeles. Those are interactions internal to a command economy. But we call it trade, in both directions. That's just fraud.

There are not good statistics on this, because corporations don't tell you their secrets, but probably half of the so-called trade between U.S. and Mexico is internal transactions of this kind. An honest, realistic look at how the international economy functions would give a very different picture from what you read in the business pages or sometimes the economics journals.

SG: One question on the elections: If Obama wins, will that bring any changes in U.S. foreign policy?

NC: The prior question is whether he will win; my assumption all along is that McCain will probably win. Now that he has picked Sarah Palin as his vice president, I think those probabilities have increased, for reasons that are understood by party managers and have been expressed very well by McCain's campaign manager. He said the election is not about issues, it is about character and personality, and so on. Meaning, it is not a serious election. That is the way U.S. elections are run. Issues are marginalized. They don't talk about them and the media coverage is about Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons or Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter.

McCain is supposed to be a specialist on national security issues. Why? Suppose that some Russian pilot was shot down bombing heavily populated areas in Kabul and tortured by Reagan's freedom fighters in the l980's. Well, we might feel sorry for him, but does that make him an expert on National Security? But McCain is an expert on national security because he was shot down bombing heavily populated urban areas in Hanoi and he was tortured by the Vietnamese. Well, we feel sorry for him, but he is no expert on National Security. But you can't say that. These elections are run by the public relations industry. The intellectual community goes along. Issues are marginalized. The focus is on personalities, on Jeremiah Wright's sermons, Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter, or whatever it may be. In that terrain, the Republicans have a big advantage. They also have a formidable slander and vilification machine which has yet to go into full operation. They can appeal to latent racism, as they are already doing. They can construct a class issue. Obama is the elite Harvard liberal; McCain is the down to earth ordinary American, and it so happens that he is one of the richest people in the Senate. Same thing they pulled for Bush. You have to vote for Bush because he is the kind of guy you would like to meet in a bar and have a beer with; he wants to go back to his Ranch in Texas and cut brush. In reality he was a spoiled fraternity boy who went to an elite university and joined a secret society where the future rulers of the world are trained, and was able to succeed in politics because his family had wealthy friends. I am convinced, personally, that Bush was trained to mispronounce words to say things like "mis-underestimate" or "nu-cu-ler", so liberal intellectuals would make jokes about it; then the Republican propaganda machine could say see these elitist liberals who run the world are making fun of us ordinary guys who did not go to Harvard (but he did go to Yale, but forget it).

These are games run by the public relations industry, which is a huge industry. It spends enormous resources manipulating attitudes and opinions. They design and control elections so that public in effect is marginalized. They keep away from issues for a very good reason. We know a lot about American public opinion. It is a very heavily polled country, mainly because business wants to keep its finger on the public pulse. So there is a ton of information, valid information. On a host of major issues, domestic and international, both political parties are well to the right of the population. So therefore, you don't want to talk about issues, not if you want to keep the business parties in power. Further, the population is aware of this, but the press won't publish it; 80 percent of the population says the country is run by a few big interests, looking out for themselves, not the benefit of the people, By about 3 to one, people object to the fact that issues are not at the center of the campaigns. They want issues to be discussed, not personalities. Party managers know that, but they won't go along with it; it is too dangerous. They have got to make sure that the two factions of the business party, Republicans and Democrats, stay in power. So you don't deal with public concerns.

SG: Some on the Left and in the progressive community say that Obama's campaign is a historic opportunity

NC: I prefer that Obama be elected without any illusions. He is a centrist Democrat who will very likely back away from the more extreme, crazed elements of the Bush programs, but will go pretty much to the center. After all, what is traditional U.S. policy? So people were outraged by the Bush doctrine of preventive war? What was the Clinton doctrine? It was official. The Clinton doctrine was explicit, it was literally more extreme: The U.S. has the right to use force unilaterally to protect markets and access to raw materials without even the pretexts that Bush insisted on. Clinton said it quietly in a message to Congress. He was not brazen; he was not waving his fist in their face. We could pretend it was not there. Why did they bomb Serbia? It can't be reported here because it conflicts with the image of America's nobility and Serb villainy. We know from the highest levels of the Clinton administration, but it can't be reported.

Strobe Talbott, the highest Clinton administration official in charge of Eastern European affairs, wrote a forward to a book by his associate John Norris, in which he says, if you want to understand the thinking at highest levels of the Clinton Administration during the Kosovo war, this is the book that you have to read. Norris speaks with full acquaintance of the Clinton administration at top level. What does Norris say? He says that the bombing had nothing to do with concern with Kosovar Albanians. It was because Serbia was not carrying out the required social and economic reforms. In other words, it was the last holdout in Europe to the Clintonite neo-liberal policies. That is straight from the top level of the Clinton administration. You won't find a word about it in the press or in the intellectual journals because it conflicts with the party line.

This is a very free country, but also a much disciplined country. Intellectuals keep to the party line. They don't depart very far. Even though they are free to and they won't be punished for it. This is the most important information that has come out about the bombing of Serbia. Try to find it.

The same is true of Iran, the major upcoming foreign policy issue. The mere fact that the U.S. and its collaborators happen to be opposed by most of the world and by the majority of the American population cannot be published. Nobody knows it. Going back to the election, it is the same story, major issues of concern to the population have to be marginalized. It must stay focused on personalities; on character; on qualities. Everything we hear about McCain is that he is a war hero and so on. Even liberal critics, like James Carroll in the Boston Globe, says of this noble character that people who opposed the Vietnam war have to go to McCain to apologize. Why do we have to go to McCain to apologize? In Russia, did people who opposed the invasion of Afghanistan go to some pilot who was shot down to apologize? American and western intellectuals can't understand this, can't comprehend this. We can't do anything wrong; we only make mistakes.

Take Obama. I think that the talk about the surge is mostly false, but let's suppose it were true. Suppose that the U.S. surge had succeeded in cutting down violence in Iraq. What would that mean? That would mean that Bush was almost as successful as Putin was in Chechnya. The Russians destroyed the place, there were massacres, but It is quiet, it is rebuilding. The New York Times says there is a building boom, there is electricity. Do we praise Putin for that? No! We condemn him for that. The fact that they were able to pacify a country, you don't praise them for that. On the other hand, if the U.S. were able to achieve anything like that in Iraq, it would lead to accolades and praise. And Obama would be silenced. After all, he had no principled criticism of the war. His only criticism was that it was pointless, silly, or waste of money.

SG: Or, that it was a distraction from the war in Afghanistan, which has become the standard line. It gives the Democrats a chance to be for a war.

NC: It is kind of interesting, As the pretexts for the Iraq war are collapsing, weapons of mass destruction, promoting democracy, all of that, and it becomes harder to stand up to Iraqi opinion and even the Iraqi government which is pressing for withdrawal. As all of that is happening, there is a little honesty beginning to creep in about the real reasons for the war. Washington Post editors had a very interesting comment when Obama made his speech saying that Afghanistan is the top priority. They said, "He is making a terrible mistake; the priority is Iraq because Iraq is the country where the oil resources are, which is at the center of the Middle East's energy producing region." So, Iraq must be the top priority. Finally, they are telling the real reasons for the war -- after lying about it since 2003. Okay, no weapons of mass destruction, no promoting democracy, no liberation; we want to maintain control over energy resources. That's why we invaded. Sure.

SG: And Afghanistan?

NC: You can have a low intensity war going on for 30 years where you send predator drones to bomb madrassas in Pakistan and kill dozens of people. Who cares?

Subrata Ghoshroy is a research associate in the Science, Technology and Society program at MIT. He directs a project to promote nuclear stability in South Asia.

The only one telling it like it is... in such crazy times.

Check his site at http://www.michaelsavage.com

as well as his daily radio show.

.

_____________________________________________

Thanks for checking out my posting. Check out the latest at http://mrobvious.wordpress.com
No scraping please….

_____________________________________________

Who voted for and against the bailout?

Need to get a list of the fers and agins.

In the House

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml

and the day before in the Senate

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00213

Here's the story in general.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081004/financial_meltdown.html

Congressional Hearings?  Buehler... Anyone?

.

_____________________________________________

Thanks for checking out my posting. Check out the latest at http://mrobvious.wordpress.com
No scraping please….

_____________________________________________

“For the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country”-men for becoming a little aware of how badly they are being manipulated. Officials in government, corporations and media, along with illegals, who caused this destruction, should plan on running for their very lives. Government officials who refuse to comply with the Constitution and desires of the People have no legitimate power, they are Criminals, Rogues, Usurpers and Traitors.

It is now urgent that we vote politicians out of office who ignore demands of more than 75% to 90% of the people by unconstitutionally giving hundreds of billions of dollars to their corporate paymasters as follows:

1. Unconstitutionally allowing illegals to invade and remain for corporate profits, but at great cost to Americans in lost jobs, blood and treasure.

2. Unconstitutionally voting for so called Free Trade deals like NAFTA to eliminate American jobs for corporate profits.

3. Voting for 10 visa and other immigration programs to replace American workers.

4. Now voting for a 700 billion dollar bailout for both foreign and domestic corporations responsible for the meltdown. This is in addition to a much larger amount of credit being given by the Private Federal Reserve Bank without fanfare. All of this without Constitutional authority, while ignoring the demands and welfare of almost 100% of the people. Hundreds of Economists say this cash infusion will reward the greedy who caused and profited from the meltdown while prolonging it with additional losses for the people. The Senate in its arrogance just added another 150 billion dollars to the bailout bill which included a lot of pork.

5. The only possible result is massive inflation resulting in worthless money, economic collapse and extreme suffering by the people. This is a perfect plan for the left, leading to a communist takeover.

6. This could not occur without the treasonous exercise of unconstitutional authority and expenditures by government officials.

This is the end game, where traitors take what they have not already stolen using the privately owned and unconstitutional Federal Reserve Bank, with support of corrupt rogue officials in Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches at all levels of government who refuse to obey our constitution and laws. A few specifics of this Tyranny and high Treason are as follows:

* Without actions by the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Bank this meltdown would have been impossible; it is privately owned by corporate elites using unconstitutional Federal Reserve Notes as currency to steal our assets and impoverish us.

* The unconstitutional Federal Reserve Bank enabled and extended the Great Depression using deflation and their private owners bought what they wanted for next to nothing, and they are doing it again, but now they are using inflation..

* This Criminal Conspiracy (RICO) of government, corporate and media has reduced the value of our unconstitutional money to the point where it now requires more than three times as many dollars to buy gold currency as it did in 2000, which effectively raised our cost of living and is reducing value of our pensions, savings and investments to zero.

* Our Military and Police must refuse any orders from the rogue officials to deny citizens their Constitutional Rights or they may provoke a civil war and be tried as war criminals.

* This destruction of our economy is caused by unconstitutional actions by government and the private Federal Reserve Bank. It is a failure of unconstitutional government socialism (fascism and communism), not free enterprise and capitalism.

* Bailout of corrupt bankers and investors will be at great cost, unconstitutional and devastating to the people. A bailout would do nothing either for Money and Interbank Markets that are close to a systemic meltdown. Again, corporate elites take the profits and their employees in Congress shift losses to the people. Read Nouriel Roubini.

* Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and everyone in real estate caused the meltdown and made millions. They were empowered by the private Federal Reserve Bank and unconstitutional laws to fund toxic mortgages and to donate millions to politicians. Banks were forced to accept a large percentage of unqualified loans. Our government paid ACORN and others millions to teach unqualified people, including illegals, how to game the system for mortgages and to commit massive voter fraud. This was not Capitalism, it was fraud, and another example of the failure of Socialism.

* Stockholders in Fannie and Freddie lost everything, but our government protected the 376 Billion Dollar investment by China, with our money.

* Ron Paul, the only one in congress who understands Economics said; Congress should reject this bailout because it is an immoral theft from taxpayers, it is unconstitutional and bad Economic policy. It is also money down a rat hole and will only make the dollar crisis that much worse The true crisis is the pending collapse of the fiat dollar system. Ron Paul’s comments appear to be shared by every Economist in the country who is not associated with the criminals.

* Much of what the Federal Government does is simply unconstitutional and the average citizen has no access to justice, none. We must regain control of Congress so we can impeach and prosecute the criminals in all branches and levels of government.

* The wealthy, everywhere in the world know what is going on and they are buying gold and silver bars and coins so fast that there is a serious shortage.

Our government has unconstitutionally allowed Millions of Americans to be either murdered, killed, raped, robbed or molested by illegals so corporations could profit from cheap labor, mortgage scams and theft. The obvious objective is the continuing reduction in our standard of living to the point where Americans live and die homeless, hungry and in pain as slaves in the North American Union ruled by a Corporate New World Order.

The traitors can only take my country over my dead body, and the bodies of millions of other patriots, American citizens are the most heavily armed and trained in the world. But, our objective is to defeat the traitors with the rule of law as long as we have sovereignty, before the people really feel the pain from the loss of everything and react with uncontrolled rage and bloodshed.

Our own history and experience is proof that the solution to our problems is simple; comply with dictates of our Constitution.

After reading this, if you think my use of “Criminal, Usurper, Rogue and Traitor” are not proper descriptive terms for most politicians, then you are a brainwashed fool.

This was only meant as an outline so you could see the big picture, those who desire the brutal truth in great documented detail should read recent articles by these experts: Alan Stang, Devvy Kidd, David Stoddard, John Slagel, Michael Cutler, Greg Evensen, Jim Schwiesow, Dennis Cuddy, Frosty Wooldridge, Dave Daubenmire, Tom DeWeese, Jon Ryter, Deanna Springola, Lynn Stuter, Berit Kjos, Betty Freauf, Cliff Kincaid, Chuck Baldwin, Edwin Vieira, CJ Graham, Joan Veon, Patrick Wood, Laurie Roth, Michael Shaw, Niki Raapana, Dennis Cuddy, et al.

© 2008 Andrew Wallace - All Rights Reserved

PoKaMa

Jeff Faux*(en La Jornada del 03 de octubre de 2008)

Repensar el TLCAN después del colapso de Wall Street

Al competir por los votos de los obreros durante las elecciones primarias del Partido Demócrata en la primavera pasada, Barack Obama y Hillary Clinton prometieron renegociar el Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN) con el fin de sumar mecanismos de protección para los trabajadores y el medio ambiente. La idea fue de inmediato considerada por las clases políticas de Estados Unidos, México y Canadá como retórica excesiva de campaña que pronto se olvidaría. Después, en efecto, pareció que tanto Obama como Clinton se retractaban de lo que habían dicho.

Sin embargo, como el colapso de los mercados financieros estadunidenses va a debilitar los supuestos en que se han basado las relaciones económicas entre Estados Unidos y México desde la entrada en vigor del TLCAN, el resultado puede ser una oportunidad no sólo para corregir las asperezas del tratado, sino para reformular la economía de América del Norte y funcione para la gran mayoría de ciudadanos de los tres países, no sólo para las elites que originalmente lo negociaron.

El TLCAN fue el prototipo para la red de acuerdos económicos neoliberales que ahora cerca al planeta; con el eufemismo “libre comercio” socavó la capacidad de los habitantes de cada nación para decidir sus propias políticas sobre la inversión, la propiedad intelectual, las finanzas, las adquisiciones y otros instrumentos de desarrollo económico. En esencia, el TLCAN es la “Constitución” que rige la economía de esta parte del continente, fomentando la posición negociadora de un solo tipo de participante del mercado: el inversionista corporativo multinacional.

Por lo tanto, no debería sorprendernos que el ingreso y la riqueza se hayan trasladado de la clase trabajadora a la clase inversionista en la región. En las tres naciones los salarios reales (ajustados de acuerdo con la inflación) se han rezagado respecto al incremento de la productividad laboral, y la diferencia ha ido a parar a los bolsillos de quienes administran y son dueños de las empresas corporativas.

La promesa de que el TLCAN generaría altos niveles de prosperidad sostenida para los mexicanos comunes fue, por supuesto, una ilusión. Pero el impacto político y social ha sido amortiguado por el continuo crecimiento económico estadunidense, que permite que las elites mexicanas exporten una parte de su pobreza y desempleo a ese país. La situación beneficia a los ricos y poderosos de ambos lados de la frontera. Las elites mexicanas se deshacen de trabajadores frustrados y con deseos de superación, que podrían causar problemas políticos en casa; al mismo tiempo, sacan provecho de las abundantes remesas de divisas que llegan a la economía mexicana. Los empresarios estadunidenses se benefician con una oferta nueva de mano de obra barata.

Pero el crecimiento mismo de Estados Unidos durante los 20 años pasados descansó en una ilusión; es decir, podrían continuar eternamente comprando al resto del mundo más de lo que le estaban vendiendo y financiar el déficit comercial por medio de préstamos del extranjero con bajas tasas de interés. Quienes proporcionaban estos créditos estaban dispuestos a reciclarlos porque confiaban en la integridad de las instituciones de Wall Street, en la capacidad de sus administradores y en la estabilidad del dólar estadunidense. Esta confianza ha disminuido de manera considerable, si no es que se ha hecho añicos.

Incluso si el rescate de 700 mil millones de dólares de Wall Street lograra apaciguar los mercados crediticios, la economía de Estados Unidos entrará a un largo periodo de reducción de gastos. Se necesitará una década o más para que el mercado inmobiliario se recobre lo suficiente y los consumidores de nuevo hagan uso de él, elevando los precios con el fin de financiar su gasto de consumo. Las tasas de interés serán más altas. Los muy endeudados consumidores estadunidenses, que han visto sus recibos de nómina estancados por dos décadas, ahora se verán forzados a vivir de acuerdo con sus medios, a ahorrar más y a gastar menos, sobre todo en importaciones, que serán más caras debido a un dólar débil. Para cerrar el déficit comercial, Estados Unidos tendrá que exportar más, pero como tantas industrias ya se han ido al extranjero, los estadunidenses se verán obligados a competir con base en salarios más bajos. Los costos del rescate, del imperio militar y los apoyos a los deteriorados sistemas de salud, educación y de pensiones significarán impuestos más altos, reducción de los servicios gubernamentales y la caída de los estándares de vida de la familia estadunidense promedio. Entre otras consecuencias, es probable que la hostilidad hacia la inmigración continúe afianzándose, cerrando así esta válvula de seguridad que hasta ahora atenuaba las tensiones sociales en México.

La era en la que el crecimiento de la economía de Estados Unidos, alimentada por la deuda, podía continuar ocultando el incumplimiento de las promesas del TLCAN ha terminado. Sin embargo, la integración de la parte norte del continente americano no puede revertirse. Hay demasiados vínculos económicos, financieros y personales entre las tres naciones para separarlas. Así que es hora de empezar desde cero.

Es posible imaginar una perspectiva diferente de la economía de América del Norte. Una en la que los derechos humanos, la estabilidad comunitaria y la justicia económica tengan prioridad sobre los derechos del capital a oprimir a los tres países en nombre de la rentabilidad privada. Pero es imposible imaginar que estos valores sean negociados por la misma clase de elites transfronterizas que nos llevaron al TLCAN.

Ya hace tiempo que en los tres países existe resistencia contra el TLCAN entre pequeños agricultores, gremios laboraales, ambientalistas y ciudadanos comunes indignados por la desintegración social y la inequidad que fomentó la integración económica. Pero a diferencia de las asociaciones políticas entre las elites de esta parte del continente, la resistencia en cada una de estas naciones está aislada, no funciona y no ha creado alianzas políticas transfronterizas serias. De este modo, por ejemplo, cuando los agricultores mexicanos se manifestaron en favor de una revisión del capítulo agrícola del TLCAN, los embajadores de Estados Unidos y de Canadá los trataron con desprecio. Si los agricultores hubieran sido apoyados por sindicatos y ecologistas estadunidenses y canadienses, hubiera sido más difícil que el gobierno mexicano desoyera sus demandas.

Construir una alianza política transfronteriza de izquierda no será fácil, sobre todo porque muchos grupos antiTLCAN de los tres países han expuesto sus razones con argumentos nacionalistas. Pero, mientras los cimientos económicos de la constitución neoliberal de la economía de América del Norte continúen desmoronándose, puede existir una oportunidad para que un movimiento popular desafíe a la clase corporativa con una perspectiva diferente y más atractiva sobre el futuro regional.

* Economista, fundador y miembro distinguido del Instituto de Economía Política en Washington, DC. La Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México (UACM) ha publicado en español recientemente su libro La guerra global de clases.

Traducción: Pilar Castro Gómez

-------

Lo que sigue es de 2006 pero muchos no lo sabemos:

Legisladores y grupos de la sociedad civil de la región de Amėrica del Norte, hacen un llamado para detener la Alianza para la Seguridad y la Prosperidad y reemplazar el TLCAN

Ottawa.- Legisladores y redes de la sociedad civil de Canadá, Estados Unidos y Mėxico, anunciaron en conferencia de prensa, que llevarán a cabo un plan colectivo para detener la actual integración entre los tres países y reemplazar el TLCAN con un modelo de comercio centrado en las personas.

« Debemos reformular los tratados de libre comercio en América del Norte para asegurar la elevación de los estándares de vida en toda la población, » declaró la diputada estadounidense Marcy Kaptur, (Demócrata por Ohio).

Los grupos se reunieron en Ottawa el 5 de junio de 2006, para continuar el trabajo iniciado en el Primer Foro Trinacional que se llevó a cabo en Washington en mayo de 2006.

En el Segundo Foro Norteamericano coincidieron legisladores progresistas y representantes de las redes de la sociedad civil, de la Red Mexicana de Acción Frente al Libre Comercio (RMALC), la organización canadiense Fronteras Comunes, la Red Quebequense de Integración continental (RQIC), y la Alianza para el Comercio Responsable de los Estados Unidos.

« El TLCAN ha agravado la pobreza en todo el continente », declaró Pierre-Yves Serinet de la RQIC.

De acuerdo con Peter Julian del Nuevo Pardido Democrático Canadiense, “no hay duda de que bajo el TLCAN, la mayor parte de los canadienses están más pobres. Hemos luchado para hacer ajustes, pero ahora queda claro que el TLCAN debe ser reemplazado. No está funcionando para la gran mayoría de los habitants de América del Norte. Ha fallado desde sus fundamentos».

En anticipación de la « Cumbre de los Tres Amigos » que se llevará a cabo en Ottawa en marzo del 2007, el nuevo grupo de legisladores formará un Secretariado para promover cambios legislativos en los tres países, para reemplazar el TLCAN. Ello creará nuevas oportunidades de participación de la sociedad civil en los asuntos de la integración continental.

Rosario Quispes de la RMALC describe la Alianza para la Seguridad y Prosperidad , como « una versión más equivocada y peligrosa del TLCAN ».

« Necesitamos trabajar juntos para detener la Alianza para la Seguridad y la Prosperidad, porque las negociaciones han sido anidemocráticas, sin ninguna transparencia con la población, y han dejado a los directores de los corporativos transnacionales las decisiones que corresponden sólo a los pueblos de la región », afirmó el Dip. Víctor Suárez Carrera, del Partido de la Revolución Democrática de México.

Los grupos de la sociedad civil reconocen y apoyan estos esfuerzos de legisladores de los tres países, que a diferencia de los presidentes de la región, sí están tomando en cuenta a la sociedad en sus decisiones. «Queremos trabajar con la sociedad civil para desarrollar un nuevo modelo de integración que asegure la prosperidad de todos los habitantes de la región », afirmó Pierre Paquette, diputado del Bloque Quebequense MP. (fuente)

-------

Más información sobre el tema aquí

---

Videos relacionados:

En Contexto de Canal 52 de Telemundo en Los Ángelescon, Ruben González Luengas, algo que no vemos en la tv mexicana:

El Embajador Gustavo Iruegas encargado de Relaciones Exteriores del Gobierno Legítimo desenmascara al ASPAN y los peligros que implica:

Una charla con ciudadanos para entender como los gobiernos vende patrias han implementado estas políticas que sólo han dejado beneficios para la élites:

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-5227819127667018692&hl=es&fs=true]

Aquí un video donde Carmen aristegui entrevista a Andrés Rozental, un hombre que apoya esta alianza que perjudica a México, vean los ejemplos que pone, son entre iguales, mientras México no es un país que este a la par de USA por lo que puede perder más soberanía de la que ya hemos perdido. Veamos como defiende al TLC diciendo que ha sido exitoso ¿exitoso para quién? La situación de los Mexicanos ha empeorado, no se puede decir que el TLC ha tenido exito con tantos pobres que ha dejado. Y sí, es la creación de un Estado Supranacional, aunque el señor lo niegue:

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=7933954741262151022&hl=es&fs=true]

Les recomiendo ver estos videos aquí y estos otros videos aquí es muy importante conocer lo más posible este tema, no lo tomen a la ligera, es el futuro de sus hijos y sus nietos.

Bomvaso is always in one of my hands. It's devised of Tamarindo, sugar, and spicy-ness. I love it. GET IT NOW. You'll either love it or hate it. If you love it let me know so we can talk about it.

While the specifics of the agreement haven’t been discussed, Canadian and European officials could begin negotiating as soon as October 17, just three days after Canada’s federal election.

Canada’s Trade Minister, Michael Fortier and his staff have been in talks with EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson and European government officials for the past two months. Recently a senior EU official involved said the talks aimed at starting “deep economic integration negotiations,” reported the Globe and Mail.

If the deal goes ahead, Canada would be the first developed country outside the EU to have the kind of access to those markets normally reserved for EU members.

“Its one of the best things we could do, the best thing we could do for our country,” said Jason Langrish, executive director of the Canada Europe Roundtable, a group working to promote Canada-Europe trade.

While critics of NAFTA, the free trade agreement Canada already has with the U.S., may denounce the agreement as only furthering the interests of large corporations, Langrish said that opposition will likely be less than there was to NAFTA.

“This is a very good way for us to offset our relationship with the U.S.”

Langrish said deeper integration with the EU would give Canadian exporters running into trouble with American protectionism another option. He said Canada often comes to the trade table with the U.S. with a weak hand because American officials know Canada has nowhere else to go.

He adds that we would be dealing with an economic block that has the same social and cultural values as Canada, such as state-funded healthcare.

Langrish also said it would give Canada a technological leg-up because we would get Europe’s green technology.

That could include tidal energy and wind technology, as well as public transport.

read more | digg story

First of all, all this 'the sky is falling' fear-mongering is chapter one of the Bush 101 playbook, and they are using that for all it is worth to make us think we have to give them a Trillion bucks to cover their corrupt losses. Second of all, you ARE doing something, REPRESENTATIVE FRANK, when you LISTEN to the American people! The American people see all this for what it is, that much of our government has become corrupt 'trading partners' with Wall Street. The Senate has shown that it is synonymous with Wall Street. This second vote was a defining moment for America. Would the House of Representatives 'represent' Main Street or Wall Street? The bribe passed and The House chose also to represent Wall Street, ignoring the loud and angry protests of American citizens.

The passing of this bill by Congress isn' t just a bad move...it is an abomination. It is nothing short of theft from the American people.  As George Noory from Coast to Coast Overnight put it, "It is a crime of Biblical proportions against the American people." It is a huge lie that ANYTHING about this bill is in the interest of Main Street. The exception being a sneaky trick of adding the appealing, totally unrelated issue of requiring health insurance companies to cover mental illness at parity with physical illness. We need this, and 'they' know we need this... so they include this 'bone' (an issue bribe as oppossed to monetary) if the House will approve their TRILLION dollar bail out.

This bail out 'version 2.0' is 100 Billion dollars MORE than the version 1.0 (I thought versions were supposed to get better, not astronomically worse!). It's shamefully crammed with pork barrel spending and earmarks that serve the elite wealthy and not Main Street hardworking Americans who need any additional amount like that to go directly to them in some fashion. There were so many pork barrel bribes added to this 'rescue package', like $200,000 included for a company that makes 'wooden arrows' for children's toy bow and arrows (some CEO buddy of a congressman must have lost a couple hundred grand on a bad investment!) And if that isn't bad enough... You won't believe this:  This new version even EXTENDS the tax cuts for the rich that were set to expire!! It is not a 'rescue package'... IT IS NOT AT ALL ABOUT RESCUING MAIN STREET.

Before the vote, I made calls to Representatives in California making it clear that they must vote down this bribe, or do otherwise at their career peril. I was told they are being overwhelmed with our phone calls.  That was music to my ears I have to say. Do you think most of the calls, or even a significant number of them were telling the Representatives to vote in favor of this bail out? No. This hopefully will serve as a watershed moment for many, making it clear that we have lost control of our government. Wall Street is pulling the strings, not We the People as our forefathers intended.

But I sense there is a mighty revolution brewing, and this corrupt bail out bribe is waking up a lot of Americans who are deciding they aren't going to hit the snooze alarm anymore. When you wake up and realize you are in a hole, what is the LAST thing you want to do? Keep digging deeper. Yet, with the passing of this bribe, that is exactly what is happening.  And the sick irony is that Congress is making Main Street do all the paying AND all the digging!! That's not right, LOL! And it won't even BEGIN to solve the crisis we are in.

The only way to begin to solve the crisis we are in is to stop this corruption between our government and Wall Street. It's OK if things get more difficult for a while! The expression 'No Pain, No Gain' perfectly applies here. We have a very sick, METH-HEAD economic model in America that can only be saved through a forced rehab. And rehab is worth the pain we will experience recovering. The danger, especially now with the passing of this bill, is our 'BREAKING BAD' meth economy may at some point in the short term move beyond the ability to rehabilitate.

Este no fue la única situación desafortunada que vivió el Marsella, algunos de sus hinchas se enfrentaron con la policía porque éstos le querían quitar una pancarta de una calavera y los insultos racistas de los hinchas contra el defensor nigeriano Taye Taiwo. Sin lugar a dudas, los jugadores del Olympique querrán borrar de sus memorias este viaje desafortunado.

Visto en: Elgráfico.com

"No me aferraré al 2012", dice AMLO en Universidad del Sur de California

Si no nos han desgastado, veremos; o si hay alguien mejor posicionado, lo voy a apoyar, dijo el político.

Los Ángeles. El ex candidato presidencial de izquierda mexicano Andrés Manuel López Obrador recibió loas en un evento universitario en Los Ángeles, California, donde aseguró que no se encaprichará para ser candidato en 2012 y seguirá su movimiento pacífico por "un México libre de mafias".

"Si para el 2012 no nos han desgastado, no nos han destruido políticamente hablando, veremos si hay entonces posibilidades. Si en su momento hay otro compañero mejor posicionado no me voy a encaprichar, lo voy a apoyar", dijo el político.

López Obrador fue aplaudido por una audiencia conformada por un centenar de personas entre estudiantes, periodistas e integrantes de organizaciones sociales mexicanas en Los Ángeles convocados por la Universidad del Sur de California.

"Nuestro movimiento pacífico continúa; estoy visitando semanalmente todos los municipios de México, porque si alguna lección nos dejó el fraude de 2006 fue que tenemos que organizarnos. Ésa es la única fórmula para combatir a una mafia tan poderosa como la que tenemos en México", aseguró.

López Obrador, del Partido de la Revolución Democrática (PRD), que denunció la realización de un fraude tras perder en 2006 por un estrecho margen la elección presidencial frente a Felipe Calderón, actual presidente mexicano por el derechista Partido de Acción Nacional (PAN), enfatizó en que por ahora lo más importante "es seguir luchando por un México sin mafia y sin impunidad, por la desigualdad y contra la corrupción".

Ante las preguntas sobre el tema de la inmigración en Estados Unidos y la violación de derechos humanos a miles de mexicanos que viven en la clandestinidad, consultadas por representantes campesinos y líderes de la comunidad hispana en California, López Obrador expresó su solidaridad y lamentó que los gobiernos de México "no hagan nada por sus compatriotas que trabajan aquí".

"Estoy en contra de las deportaciones, estoy en contra de la división de familias a quienes se les está violando derechos universales con esas redadas policiales", dijo Obrador, y opinó que una de las acciones a tomar desde México para respaldar a los mexicanos que trabajan en Estados Unidos sería una revisión detallada del Tratado de Libre Comercio (TLC).

López Obrador acudió al evento junto al cineasta Luis Mandoki, que empezó a promocionar su documental sobre las controvertidas elecciones mexicanas Fraude 2006, reciente ganador de un premio especial en el festival Latino de Los Angeles y que se estrenará en Estados Unidos el 10 de octubre.

---

Entrevista en radio a AMLO

Parte 1

Parte 2

Parte 3

Parte 4

Why I do not support Barack Obama:
A disaffected American's Litany of Grievances against the Obama/Biden campaign and the so-called Left in America

Change We Can Believe In
(Barack Obama’s Campaign Slogan)

If voting changed anything, it would be illegal.
(Emma Goldman)

I saw Obama speak at a rally in early 2008 in Oakland, California. I remember the feeling of excitement I had before the rally---it was hard not be excited, after everything I had heard about this man. People said that he offered change; that he was the torchbearer for the agenda of hope and progress America so sorely needed after the past eight years of systematic mismanagement, aggression, and misery. After all, this was the man Ralph Nader once described as “the first liberal evangelist in a long time” to crop up in the American political scene.

With a buildup like that, perhaps I should have been prepared for the inevitable disappointment. Obama was a mediocre speaker, with plenty of trite platitudes but little substance. When he did bother to address the issues his suggested reforms seemed cautious as best, certainly nothing like the gospel of change I was led to believe Obama supported. I left the rally feeling somewhat disillusioned.

Almost a year later, that disillusionment has grown only more acute. Having looked further into Obama’s policies, I can definitely say that I cannot support him. Despite the media’s portrayal as left-wing candidate, he does not advance anything resembling a “liberal” agenda. And despite his own campaign’s rallying cry he does not represent “change”, but rather a continuation of the same status quo that has ground this once great country down to its present sorry state.

Why don’t I support Barack Obama? Allow me to list the reasons:

"Universal" Healthcare? Think Again

I am writing this as a completely uninsured American. I have no health insurance whatsoever, and I cannot afford health insurance. If I get into an accident, contract a disease, or in any way require medical treatment I have no way of paying for it. I also don't know anybody who could help me pay for medical treatment---I am completely on my own when it comes to health issues. As such I take health care reform very seriously.

I would support a candidate who endorses a system of single-payer health care---that is, a system of truly universal health care where every citizen of the United States in enrolled in a public plan that is funded by the state. This is the kind of plan they have in Canada and in many European countries. Because every single citizen is covered by default, it can truly be said to be a system of universal coverage.

This is not the kind of system Obama is proposing, even though he bills his plan as "universal health care". Obama's health care plan is still based on individuals having to cover health care costs themselves. It is more accurately described as a system of "(Supposedly) Affordable Health Care" not "universal coverage". Although his plan represents an improvement over the current system, it is actually not guaranteed that everyone will be able to afford coverage. My guess is that even if his reforms go through, they won't make coverage universal for everyone. And as it is, his reforms are not going to contain healthcare costs. As Robert Laszweski, a noted healthcare specialist notes,

The Obama/Clinton cost containment proposals are only incremental cost containment proposals that are layered over $100 billion of upfront spending to cover tens of millions of more people—far too little cost containment for the new massive injection of money, almost overnight, into the health care system.

Both Clinton and Obama offer us a long list of good cost containment ideas—most of which they share with McCain. Most have been underway in the market for many years with limited success. Undoubtedly, a government infusion of resources or requirements aimed at a more efficient system would have a positive impact but it is hard to see how they would be enough fundamentally alter things and bring the system under real control.

More likely, a $100 billion infusion of new health care spending by an Obama or Clinton plan would actually increase the rate of health care inflation.

I don't want Obama's healthcare plan. I want a single-payer plan. And I'm not alone. A majority of Americans want the same thing. And so do a majority of American physicians. So why is it that a plan the majority of the American public supports is not being offered by either Obama or McCain? Can either of them really be said to legitimately represent the people's interests?

The only legislation which promotes a single-payer healthcare system in the US is HR 676. Neither Obama nor McCain has come out in support of this bill. In fact, the only candidate from the Democratic or Republican Party who supported HR 676 and single-payer healthcare was Dennis Kucinich.

A Militant Foreign Policy

Looking past Obama’s rhetoric about engaging foreign leaders, we see that he supports a very similar policy to McCain and Bush. He supports increased funding to the oversized, wasteful military budget. The current US defense budget currently exceeds the rest of the world's defense budgets combined, yet somehow we can't even seem to win the wars we have started during the past eight years. It is clear the conflicts we are engaged will not simply be won by throwing more money at the defense department; what's needed is a fundamental reassment of our strategy and our priorities. The solution is not to be found in more funding, and it's certainly not be found by stiring up more trouble across the globe.

Yet Obama has laid out a very militaristic foreign policy agenda, publicly, in Foreign Affairs. He supports a long-term military presence in Iraq. Despite initially voting against the war he has nevertheless voted in favor of funding the war after the fact, voting in more than $300 billion of war appropriation bills during his time in the Senate. And we all know how he feels about Pakistan. He also voted to endorse Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her complicity with the failed policies of the Bush administration. Moreover, he has chosen Joe Biden as his running mate, a militarist who was pushing for war in Iraq long before the Bush administration declared it. As chair of the Senate foreign relations committee, Biden also silenced any voices who spoke out in opposition to the war. Yet Obama/Biden is still portrayed by the Left as the “anti-war” ticket. The truth of the matter is that there is no anti-war ticket from either the Democrats or the Republicans.

Obama’s appeasement of the all-powerful Israeli lobby and its mouthpiece, AIPAC, is another area in which Obama represents the status quo. For decades now billions of US dollars have been poured into the region supporting the most reactionary right-wing hawks of the Israeli government. Obama is so beholden to the AIPAC lobby that Jimmy Carter was not allowed to speak at the Democratic National Convention for fear that he might mention the plight of the Palestinians. Obama/Biden have made it clear they support contined occupation, apartheid, and genocide in Palestine. Aside from being ethically obtuse, this policy is also a strategic failure since it ensures we will continue to have a strained relationship with the Middle Eastern, South Asian and Muslim worlds.

Short-Sighted, Lackluster Energy Policy

Obama’s history on energy policy contradicts his rhetoric about seeking clean alternatives. He supported the horrendous Bush-Cheney Energy bill in 2005, which was a major setback for environmental standards across the nation. He also has a long history of supporting ethanol, an extremely polluting, inefficient and costly alternative fuel. Obama also has declared his support for pollution-heavy coal power and has now stated that he supports offshore drilling. Also, rather than seeking a long time solution to our energy problems, Obama has stated that he will open the emergency petroleum reserves, a short-sighted quick fix we will surely regret when an actual emergency occurs. Obama also supports nuclear power, but apparently can’t be bothered to ensure adequate safety measures in nuclear plants in his own home state.

Civil Rights---Or Lack Thereof

It’s well known that Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act, and that more recently he has voted in favor of the FISA bill granting telecom companies immunity despite their role in the illegal surveillance of countless Americans. Both measures ensure that the government will continue to snoop on millions of people without any warrant or other authorization. Obama's actions, which are clearly against the civil liberties of all Americans, speak much louder than his words.

Pro-NAFTA

Although he pledged to renegotiate and reform NAFTA---an unjust and inefficient economic agreement that has resulted in the exploitation of millions of workers across the Americas---Obama has apparently changed his mind.

The Public Betrayal of Reverend Jeremiah Wright

Despite having married Barack and Michelle Obama, baptizing their children, and acting as a spiritual adviser to Barack for decades, Obama had no trouble cutting Reverend Wright loose at the first sign of trouble. What does that say about his character? If Obama is not willing to stand by somebody who stood by him for so long, can we really trust him?

I should also add that nobody with any knowledge of American history could have decried the Reverend’s comments as being out of place. 9/11 was a case of chickens coming home roost---we supplied Osama bin Laden and the Taliban with funds and training, played a dangerous game of real politik in the Middle East for decades. The foreign policy decisions we made were the direct causes of the 9/11 tragedy, and Wright should be commended for speaking the truth.

The Appointment of Joe “Credit Card Whore” Biden

Last but certainly not least, Obama’s choice of Joe Biden as his Vice President undermines anything Obama has to say about “change”, since few people represent the corrupt status quo more eminently than Biden. This man’s ties to the credit card companies are a slimy example of everything that’s wrong with Washington. His son, Hunter Biden, was paid to the tune of $100,000 by credit card giant MBNA for the hard work his father was doing fighting for the credit companies’ rights to gouge ordinary Americans. Not only that, but the same son was given a prestigious position as the Senior Vice President of MBNA immediately after graduating from Yale. The Biden family is truly the epitome of political and corporate nepotism in America. Yet Obama sees no irony in appointing this Washington sleezeball as his vice president, even after he attacked McCain for supporting the same bill as Biden did. But then perhaps Obama is worried that exposing Biden’s cozy relationship with corporations will in turn cast attention on Obama’s own handouts from Corporate America; handouts he received after stating he would not receive them.

Biden’s extremely hawkish stance on foreign affairs, which is akin to that of many Republicans, has already been discussed in the section on the militant foreign policy of the Obama/Biden ticket.

Conclusion

It should be obvious from my critique of Obama that I am not a supporter of McCain or any other  Republican. It should probably be equally obvious that I was not a supporter of any of the mainstream Democratic candidates. I loathed Hillary’s policies and personality even more than I dislike Obama’s plan of action. In my opinion only Democrat who truly offered any kind of progressive change was Dennis Kucinich.

The problem, as I see it, is that there is simply no such thing as a viable progressive politics in the United States. Both Democrats and Republicans endorse policy plans that are shockingly similar when it comes to foreign policy, energy policy, health coverage, defense spending, and corporate welfare. Much of the problem, I believe, strems from the two party system. Increasingly this looks less like a two party system more like a one party system with two heads: the puppet on the left and the puppet on the right, with the puppeteer being the military-industrial complex.

In looking at the Political Compass breakdown of the 2008 election, it is quite telling to note that nearly all of the candidates are in a single quadrant. What is considered “left wing” in America would often be considered “centrist” or even “center-right” in many other countries across the world.

As progressives we cannot be afraid to endorse candidates who fall outside the mainstream. In this case, it is only non-mainstream candidates who support a progressive agenda. If the system itself is rotten to the core, we stand nothing to gain by supporting it.

(Image c/o Fogster and Wikimedia Commons)

1. Naftas krājumus izsmeļ ātrāk, nekā prognozēts - ieguve krītas par apmēram 6-9% gadā.
2. Visa mūsdienu industriālā civilizācija balstās uz naftu. Ja tās sāk trūkt, civilizācija kļūst nestabila.
3. ASV ar saviem 5% pasaules iedzīvotāju patērē 25% visas iegūtās naftas. Secinājums - lai situāciju pasaulē uzlabotu, jāsagrauj pieprasījums ASV, sagraujot to ekonomiku.
4. Pie ASV ekonomikas sagraušanas piestrādā jau visu Buša prezidentūras laiku, ļaujot vaļu dažādiem varai pietuvinātiem spekulantiem. Viņi sev jau ir nodrošinājuši privātas drošības salas dažās Latīņamerikas diktatūrās.
5. Bušs pabeigs ekonomikas sagraušanu, un vietā nāks Obama, melnais prezidents. Cilvēki savā naivumā pataisīs viņu par grēkāzi, un secinājums, ko tie zemapziņā izdarīs, būs - melnie neko nespēj.
6. Savārītos sūdus būs jāizstrēbj mums, parastajiem cilvēkiem un ne tikai ASV.

Avots:

http://mikeruppert.blogspot.com/2008/09/what-really-happened-today_29.html

On the second day, I added color correction to most of the clips since everything was transparent, something needed to stand out.  By adding the color correction, some colors were accentuated. I also spent time synchronizing the video to the audio where it was necessary, and applied transitions.

Finally, the third day, I used Media 3 to create an explosive effect at the end of the introduction.  We added extra sequence of the dancers on the 3rd verse of the song, the credits at the end of the video. Although, I used Final Cut Pro 2 to bring the volume on two interviews, I needed the expertise of Engineered Kamilo Kratc to help me adjust the audio on those two brief moments.  I exported the sequence to create a Quick Time movie clip using the Best Quality settings and then used Toast 9 Titanium to burn the Quick Time movie clip as a DVD movie and also as Data for uploads.

Here is the result of the video:

• Home
• Global Warming
• Water Depletion
• Energy Security
• Aboriginal Rights
• Social Damage
• Military Links

http://www.tarsandswatch.org/message-canada-s-political-leaders-stop-ducking-obama-s-nafta-challenge

Click the above link to send a message in just a few short seconds.

As Canadian civil society organizations, we hereby call upon Canada’s political leaders during this general election campaign to respond clearly and unequivocally to US presidential candidate Barack Obama’s challenge to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). While some of Canada’s leaders have spoken out for and against renegotiation, it’s high time that all federal political parties declared their positions and plans concerning the renegotiation of NAFTA within the current election campaign.

Senator Obama issued this challenge during the US primary race, declaring that NAFTA is not functioning well for the majority of working people and the environment in the US. As a result, the platform of the Democratic party convention promises “to work with Canada and Mexico to amend the North American Free Trade Agreement so that it works for all three” countries.

For Canada, there are plenty of good reasons for renegotiating NAFTA after almost 15 years. Chief among them is the energy chapter which includes the “proportionality clause” that compels Canada to continue exporting this country’s oil and natural gas resources to the United States, even if these exports result in domestic shortages here at home.
Canada has less than 13 years of conventional oil reserves and only 8.9 years of natural gas supplies available at current rates of production. Any decision by a Canadian province or federal government to cut back on oil and gas exports for the sake of conservation, greenhouse gas emission reductions, the creation of jobs in the petrochemical industry or diversion of petroleum to eastern provinces could be forbidden by NAFTA’s proportional sharing obligations.

The proportionality clause would compel Canada to continue its oil and natural gas sales to the US at the same rate as they were exported over the previous three years. Currently this means that Canada would be obliged to make two-thirds of our domestic oil production and 63% of our natural gas production available for export to the U.S.

Not only is Canada’s energy security at risk, but so are this country’s freshwater resources. Today, there are rapidly growing water shortages emerging in the Southwest, Midwest, and Southeast states of the US. By 2015, almost a quarter of America’s medium sized cities and nearly one-fifth of its largest cities are expected to be facing serious water shortages. If one or more Canadian provinces turn on the tap to export freshwater to the US, the proportionality clause will automatically be activated, guaranteeing a continuous, uninterrupted flow.

Moreover, NAFTA’s investment chapter gives corporations the right to sue governments in all three countries for alleged violation of these rules through unelected trade tribunals, thereby giving them the powers to ratchet down unwanted policies and regulations adopted by democratically elected legislatures. Since NAFTA was signed, corporations have used NAFTA Chapter 11 in over 50 cases, demanding hundreds millions of dollars in public money as compensation for lost profits. Through this mechanism, corporations have successfully challenged federal bans on toxic gasoline additives and the export of hazardous wastes, while posing a threat to British Columbia’s ban on bulk water exports. Indeed, the number of claims continues to grow, including challenges against Newfoundland’s local economic development policies, by multinational oil giant Exxon-Mobil. In short, NAFTA's investment rules need to be renegotiated to eliminate this deeply flawed dispute process.

Finally, we maintain along with our allies in the US and Mexico that trade regimes like NAFTA must be designed to protect workers and the environment. As it stands now, NAFTA functions in such a way as to foster a race to the bottom for both workers and the environment in all three countries. In the current economic crisis, these flaws in NAFTA will only serve to further depress wages and cause the loss of more good