(c) 2006 pbsblog.com all rights reserved. (protected by law and invisible alligators).
THIS WEBSITE IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY CONNECTED TO THE
FAMOUS TV NETWORK "PBS". THEY WOULD HATE THIS PLACE.
   


home   .  movies: 1  2  3  4  5 .  audio 1  .  reading  .  cartoons 
 
pbsBlog.com

it's a good place to stuff your head
October 11, 2006
The Front Page ... Continued
Geri Wood, SPP Secretary, told Jerome R. Corsi that the working groups did not want to be “distracted by answering calls from the public.”

What incredible arrogance!

There is now a North American Competitiveness Council whose advisory board involves representatives from corporations including Wal-Mart, Chevron, General Motors, Lockheed Martin, and others. The NACC met in Washington in mid-August, but we have almost no information because again what was said was kept out of public view and this time we have (so far) no whistleblowers.

There is also a North American Energy Security Initiative, a North American Steel Trade Committee, an Automotive Partnership Council of North America, and a North American Aviation Trilateral, among other transnational bureaucracies formed under the SPP umbrella. Work is underway towards North American Emergency Management and towards Smart, Secure Borders (now there’s a phrase apt to make Orwell spin in his grave!).

There is also the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC), or NAFTA Superhighway, construction on which is scheduled to begin in 2007 by public-private partnerships (a foreign corporation, Spain’s Cintra, has already signed a contract). This system, which will parallel I-35 running north from Mexico all the way to Canada, with a branch extending I-69 also going to Canada through Port Huron, Mich. TTC-35 will consist of six lanes for passenger cars, four for trucks, a rails system, lines for telecommunications, oil and natural gas pipelines, etc. Its size across has been estimated at four football fields; construction will result in the taking of over 500,000 acres of land from farmers and ranchers in Texas alone through eminent domain. This puts last year’s roundly (and rightly) condemned Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London, Conn. in a new light!

There are, finally, the expected incursions into education which have been going on roughly during what we may come to call the SPP era. Students everywhere, at all levels from elementary school to colleges and universities, are being encouraged to think globally—to think of themselves as “world citizens,” which means supporting regionalism and downplaying loyalty to their own nations. Last year a group of students from ten universities spread across the U.S., Canada and Mexico met for a simulated “model Parliament,” the organizers declaring: “A North American Parliament is born.” The universities included Harvard and Robert Pastor’s home base American University, as well as Simon Fraser University and Universite de Montreal representing Canada and Monterrey University and Ecole nationale d’administration publique representing Mexico. The event, sponsored by the Canada-based North American Forum on Integration (NAFI), yet another think tank promoting deep integration, was held in the Mexican Senate last May. Pastor is on the NAFI board of directors.

The superelite has indeed been busy of late! Also meeting in September, this time in Miami (Sept. 15) was the Miami Herald Americas Conference. Attendees of this confab included more business and governmental elites from Latin and South America. They focused on “free trade agreements, open democracies and security.” One attendee in particular is worth noting: Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, our El Presidente’s brother, who gave the keynote address. Gov. Bush hailed our El Presidente as the “chief Latin Americanist” in Washington. He further let the cat out of the bag by urging Congress to pass “fast track” trade promotion legislation this fall that would authorize President Bush to reopen negotiations on the stalled Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), the superelite’s long-term goal for the Western hemisphere.

The superelite had originally hoped to implement their FTAA by 2005, but didn’t count on the level of grass roots opposition either here or by influential South American leaders such as Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Chavez’s economics are wrong and I don’t think he correctly identifies his enemy—it isn’t President Bush personally or even “American hegemony,” but rather the emerging New International Economic Order which is transnational and globalist. As a populist, however, his instincts are sound. He understands that an FTAA would benefit the superelite—many of them based in America—at the expense of his people. To elites like Florida’s Gov. Bush, this is just capitalism: “I believe in entrepreneurial capitalism from the top of my head to the tip of my toes.” When superelite domination of national economies is equated with free market “capitalism” and no one with visibility questions it, should we wonder when the Hugo Chavezes of the world move “leftward”?

It may be useful to examine a brilliant article by Christopher S. Bentley’s entitled “Immigration & Integration,” from the July 24 issue of The New American. Bentley outlined in very clear fashion how “free trade” rhetoric is taking us into regional government and will proceed from there to world government. “Free trade” is a core tool of the emerging New World Order, currently building transnational corporatist “capitalism” that (given the collectivist ethos being ruthlessly promoted in schools at all levels) they expect will evolve naturally and easily into global socialism with the superelite wielding absolute power.

Bentley outlines the process occurs in five steps, or phases.

First, the superelite creates a free trade area. This lowers barriers to the trade of goods and services among member nations, while quietly instituting a raft of political and bureaucratic controls. This was done in Europe in the late 1940s. In North America, think NAFTA / CAFTA.

Second, it creates a customs union, which adds a common external trade policy and expands the bureaucracy to implement it. Think of that common “security perimeter” planned for North America.

Third, it creates a common market, which ends restrictions on migration and allows labor and capital to move freely across increasingly meaningless national borders of member states. “This,” Bentley wrote, “is exactly what is behind the Bush Administration’s fanatical zeal to implement its guest worker / amnesty program.” Indeed, the Bush regime’s immigration policy—or lack of—makes perfect sense if we simply accede that Bush is committed philosophically to a borderless, globalized world.

Fourth, it develops the foregoing into an economic union—which requires a fully harmonized regulatory structure, a common currency, a common tax policy and a common fiscal policy. Robert Pastor and others have advocated replacing the dollar and the peso with a common North American currency that would be called the amero.

The fifth and final phase, political union, follows almost naturally, given that since Keynes the idea of an economy—national or global—not regulated to the teeth by bureaucrats hasn’t been on anyone’s radar. Political union develops out of the system of public-private partnerships, yielding a symbiosis between international bankers, other corporations, and the governmental-bureaucratic establishment.

The EU is practically to this point, its Parliament able to implement significant elements of the EU Constitution despite member nations like France and the Netherlands getting cold feet last year.

These phases are, in the last analysis, not separable but part of a single guided process. The SPP working groups and attendees of meetings like this North American Forum are taking us in the same direction as Europe at breakneck speed. NAFTA’s Chapter 11 tribunals actually begin laying in place the final phase of the process by reviewing U.S. court decisions. If you have an internationalized legal process, then as enforcement mechanisms fall into placce you are on your way to political union under a regional, hegemonic authority.

Thus what has taken the superelite took over 50 years to accomplish in Europe could be done in North America in about half the time. Not helping matters is the American sheeple’s indifference to what doesn’t affect them directly and immediately. We will still have a geographical entity known as the U.S. Much of our political infrastructure will doubtless remain essentially intact. The sheeple will doubtless continue to have their sports contests every Saturday and the latest Survivor on prime time. The globalists, after all, want the masses to stay entertained, and they probably don’t care how the sheeple entertain themselves so long as the economy keeps humming. But they will have complete control over everything of real importance, being able to overrule whatever court decisions or Congressional legislation they decide contravenes official globalist policy. Our Constitution will be history. To be sure, we barely have a Constitution now. But at least our national elites must pay lip service to Constitutional government.

When transnational committees of unelected bureaucrats begin overruling our laws and precedents—or if elected officials bow to globalism on their own (as Calif. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has done with NAFTA regulations on occasion)—we will know that Constitutional government is dead in America. The superelite will then be free to do as they please, which will probably be to begin integrating North America and Europe into a larger union. Other groups around the world are working towards integrating other regions including the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Africa, and elsewhere.

The nation-state, under attack from many libertarians as well as globalists, will be extinct in another decade or so if all this comes to pass. Many libertarians, unfortunately, are hostile to the idea of a world based on any principles other than economic abstractions. While defending the rights of short-term thinking consumers to buy cheap Chinese crud in Wal-Mart or the supposed rights of employers to hire illegal aliens to give Americans cheap lettuce, they are playing into the hands of individual liberty’s enemies—who, one can be sure, are employing long-term thinking. Bubbles of frenetic free market activity are being allowed, e.g., corporations to pursue cheap labor, consumers to buy cheap goods, as a means to the desired end: a globalized, integrated, centralized world.

I have great oceanfront property in Nebraska to sell to anyone who thinks this is leading to a stateless, anarchocapitalist paradise!

© 2006 Steven Yates - All Rights Reserved

He is the author of Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (1994), Worldviews: Christian Theism Versus Modern Materialism (2005), around two dozen philosophical articles and reviews in refereed journals and anthologies, and over a hundred articles on the World Wide Web. He lives in Greenville, South Carolina, where he writes a weekly column for the Times Examiner and is at work on a book length version of his popular series to be entitled The Real Matrix (hopefully!) to be completed this summer.

E-Mail: freeyourmindinsc@yahoo.com.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Yates/steven23.htm
Continued from front page:
"Quietly, Quietly..."
WND can find no specific congressional legislation authorizing the SPP working groups nor any congressional committees taking charge of oversight.

Many SPP working groups appear to be working toward achieving specific objectives as defined by a May 2005 Council on Foreign Relations task force report, which presented a blueprint for expanding the SPP agreement into a North American union that would merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a new governmental form.

Phyllis Schlafly, the woman best known for nearly single-handedly leading the opposition that killed the Equal Rights Amendment, sees a sinister and sweeping agenda behind the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

"Is the real push behind guest-worker proposals the Bush goal to expand NAFTA into the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, which he signed at Waco, Texas, last year and reaffirmed at Cancun, Mexico, this year?" she asks. "Bush is a globalist at heart and wants to carry out his father's oft-repeated ambition of a 'new world order.'"

She accuses the president and others behind the effort of wanting to obliterate U.S. borders in an effort to increase the Mexican population transfer and lower wages for the benefit of U.S. corporate interests.

"Bush meant what he said, at Waco, Texas, in March 2005, when he announced his plan to convert the United States into a 'Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America' by erasing our borders with Canada and Mexico," she said. "Bush's guest-worker proposal would turn the United States into a boardinghouse for the world's poor, enable employers to import an unlimited number of 'willing workers' at foreign wage levels, and wipe out what's left of the U.S. middle class. Bush lives in a house well protected by a fence and security guards and he associates with rich people who live in gated communities. Yet, for five years, he has refused to protect the property and children of ordinary Arizona citizens from trespassers and criminals."

That's unusually harsh criticism of a Republican president from one of Ronald Reagan's most loyal supporters.

At least one of the nation's daily newspapers has officially weighed in opposition to the mysterious plans for closer cooperation in security, commerce and immigration between the three North American nations.

Recently, the Pittsburgh Tribune Review questioned the unchallenged momentum toward merger.

"Will Americans trade their dead presidents for Ameros?" the newspaper asked in an editorial last month.

The paper chided efforts at replacing the U.S. and Canadian dollars and Mexican peso with "the amero" – a knockoff of the euro – along with the building of "a looming NAFTA-like superstate." Citing the meeting between the three national leaders at Baylor University in Waco, Texas, in March 2005, the editorial warned: "Canadians, Mexicans and Americans who value the sovereignty of their respective countries should be concerned."

The Tribune Review editorial saw synergy between the plans of the national leaders and the ambitious agenda of the Council on Foreign Relations – seen by many as a kind of secretive, shadow government of the elite. The CFR issued a bold report in the spring of 2005, shortly after the joint announcements in Waco by Bush and his counterparts.

"The Council on Foreign Relations published a report in May – "Building a North American Community" – calling for, among other things, redefining the borders of the three nations, creating a super-regional governance board and the North American Paramilitary Group to ensure that Congress does not interfere with whatever the trilateral union feels like doing," said the paper. "Must the Bush administration happily sacrifice every shred of American sovereignty for the greater good of the New World Order?"

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52063

Continued from front page:
"New World Disorder"...


Continued from front page:
Sayonara to Checks and Balances?


The MCA comprehensively assaults two ideas: The idea of checking executive power by laws. And the idea of a separate branch of government ensuring those limits are respected. These are the basic tools of accountability. The MCA frontally attacks both of these -- although only time will tell whether it succeeds.

How does the Military Commissions Act assail checks and balances? Consider the key issues of detention and torture.

There are two ways in which you -- citizen or non-citizen, resident of Topeka or Timbuktu -- can become an "unlawful enemy combatant."

The first way is if you engage "in hostilities" or "purposefully and materially support" hostilities. This sounds reasonable enough until you realize that no-one has the slightest clue what it means to "purposefully and materially support" hostilities. Do you need to intend to aid the hostilities? Or is it enough to intend to give the support? Would purposely giving to a charity that then gave money to Hamas count, even if you knew nothing about the Hamas? What about writing an editorial that gave "aid and comfort" to the enemy -- say, by criticizing the Administration's Iraq policy?

The second way is -- if it's even possible -- more dangerous: You are designated an enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal -- the Potemkin proceedings jerry-rigged at Guantánamo -- or you are designated by "another competent tribunal" created by the Defense Secretary.

It's the latter that catches in the throat, because the MCA does not define what Rumsfeld's "competent tribunal" must look like. Rummy himself with the always-fair-and-impartial Addington? Five Syrian torturers (like the ones to whom the U.S. sent the hapless Canadian Maher Arar)? A bunch of guys who flip coins for your liberty? Sure, why not? The MCA doesn't stop the executive from using any of these, provided Rumsfeld gave them power and hence made them "competent."
At least for non-citizens, moreover, that would be that: For the first time in U.S. history, an Act of Congress singles out a group of persons--non-citizens--and deprives them of any right to challenge their detention wherever they are picked up. No non-citizen would, the MCA seems to say, be able to challenge this detention. And while citizens are certainly entitled to a hearing, the Government will fight tooth and nail to make sure this hearing doesn't allow any effective inquiry into the facts on which a detention is based. So no judicial review -- and no accountability.

continued at:
http://www.alternet.org/rights/42345/


Mind Control and the New World Order by Al Neal   
·    ·    ·    ·    ·    ·    ·    ·    ·    ·    ·    ·    ·    ·
2 hr 2 min

If you know anyone who is too hard-headed to listen and won't
believe that we are in a sh*t load of trouble, then you might
try getting them to watch this. 

Al Neal does a major job spinning some folks head around as you'll see in this episode of The Prophecy Club.  For me, I am gratefully happy to be able to skip the religiosity in the beginning and zoom forward to when the speaker is introduced.  From that point on, it's pretty darned interesting.  He keeps building and building the evidence until by the end, you feel like running out into the streets screaming your head off.  As he is addressing a group of religious folks, they can be amongst the most stubborn and difficult to convince.  Mr. Neal is pretty cool as he is able to get their attention from the get go and never looks back.  He begins by talking about advertising's subliminal messages, and then dark symbology across the country with particular attention to corporate buildings and government connections to them.  Then he lays it down, in no uncertain terms. We are screwed.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid7953120016941996867&qmindcontrolduration%3Along
 
 
 
TOP


BACK