You are on page 1of 14

Economic Trade

Trade as real people realize ought to be fair and reciprocal. Yet, this isn't the case in every
circumstance. There are tariffs or taxes on imported goods in trade and quotas or a blank slate to
allow a certain amount of goods in a country in a restrictive way. Quotas and tariffs therefore are
protectionist tools that most free marketers don't like at all. Taking quotas and tariffs to the
extreme of course will cause an economic breakdown that can limit or cripple real trade in the
world. Tuotas and tariffs utilized in a legitimate fashion are fine. There is nothing wrong with fair
trade, but trade in the world has been unfair. We should look out for humans. Adam Smith (as
expressed in his "The Wealth of Nations") desiring solely for a profit is very limiting in terms of
human development. Greed is not good. A desire for self improvement, development,
compassion, and strength are great aims to live for instead of perpetual greed. Even the New
Testament is accurate to point out the following quotation:

"...Butthey that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and
hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the
root of all evil." (1 Timothy 6:9-10). A laissez faire economic philosophy only enriches
the rich at the expense of the poor. The extreme version of this economic philosophy has
contributed to the growth of the evil British East India Company (including the bogus
left/right paradigm). There is no need for the extremes of unrestricted "greed is good"
capitalism nor the totally atheistic Karl Marx Communism. So, you can still have
individual freedoms with the government having an active role to promote the general
welfare of its citizens as well.

Friedrich List was the German economist that opposed radical free trade system. List
believed that the American System of the national economy is a great way to enhance
human progress. List said that you need labor to produce since as Dr. Martin Luther King
eloquently said that there is always dignity in labor. List disagreed with Adam Smith's
views on economics and trade in his own words: "...His system, considered as a
whole, is so confused and distracted, as if the principal aim of his books were not to
enlighten nations, but to confuse them for the benefit of his own country...." It's not a
secret that Adam Smith desired to promote the British hegemony. There were the Tory
merchant families that fought on the British side of the Revolutionary War. Their
descendants among the Tories would promote "free trade" laissez faire economics from
the late 1700's to our time in late 2010. You have to have some regulation to prevent
corruption among corporate powers. That is why in the United States of America, we use
the government to interfere in the private sector, regulate the economy, promoted
industry, built infrastructure, etc. as a part of its Constitutional duty to promote the
general welfare. Senator Thaddeus Stevens & Henry Clay opposed the free trade of the
British Empire. Without some duties and regulations, you can have poisons in all of the
imports sent into America and exports shipped out of America. Today, the Council on
Foreign Relations is a conduit of corporate power that loves to enact free trade deals
globally. Some of these deals not only violate labor & environmental rights, but some of
them violate the national sovereignties of countries including America.

Extreme free trade has made negative consequences in the economic field. People from
across the political spectrum have mentioned this. Free trade taken to the extreme has
attacked the concepts of nationalism and borders under the guise of trade. Simply, you
have to have a good production of labor among citizens to grow the nation's
prosperity. A strong manufacturing base is essential and a sole service industry is
a threat to a stable, economic system. Recently, Democrats and some Republicans
(who falsely try to portray themselves as "nationalists" and trying to place America
first) go along with free trade agreements. The Republican hypocrites are worse
since they claim to respect sovereignty, but they accept free trade agreements that
allow multinational trade organizations and global financial conglomerates to violate
sovereignty to govern political policies in some instances. Even Karl Marx (some of his
ideas influence people today) falsely accepted free trade unconditionally as a means to
break up old nationalities and get rids of the bourgeoisie (what he deemed as small
businessmen). Of President Woodrow Wilson's League of nations wanted global free
trade to eliminate all economic barriers to have a equality of trade (The League of
Nations tried to have aggressive military enforcement, yet it had a weak power
base to enforce its rules. America's Senate didn't support the League of Nations).
This is why it isn't a secret that proponents of the new world order system want people
to reject nationalism in favor of internationalism (which is nothing more than the
bankers' monopoly system). You can weaken a nation's vitality by leaving them
distracted by anti-intellectualism, extended military action, and allow corrupt
politicians to rein in society. If I know this, the elite realizes this and uses evils like
war, bigotry, and cultural degeneracy to maintain their power base among the common
people (while the super rich are receiving record bonuses and record tax breaks
never witnessed in human history). Banker funded wars creates more free trade
(because wars destroys nations. These destroyed nations are forced to depend on the
free flowing trade of other nations to reconstruct their bombed out infrastructure).
Swiss business journalist and author Gian Trepp said that: “War, a place where
moneymen can gather, because money is stronger than nationalism. Even during the war
the moneymen of different nations needed to keep in touch because when the war
stops, you have to rebuild and you need free trade.” Nationalism is hated by globalists
and this is why they advocate global governance (as found in a most recent 2010
publication called "Global Governance 2025: At a Critical Juncture"). In America, we
have the agenda of North American integration. In 1980, this was discussed by Dr.
Mordechai E. Kreinin, Professor of Economics, along with Michael G. Plummer, an
economics professor at Johns Hopkins University. Kreinin still wanted internationalism
via free trade. NAFTA was heavily promoted by the Council on Foreign Relations and it
was a free trade deal. In accordance with the exponents of internationalism, officials
began negotiating the NAFTA in 1986 when Reagan was President. NAFTA was formally
signed on December 17, 1992 under President George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime
Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas.

On July 18, 1993 Henry Kissinger (CFR, TC) allegedly wrote in The Los Angeles Times about
NAFTA, “What Congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement but the
architecture of a new international system…a first step toward a new world
order.”Congressional bribery just for NAFTA, known as “pork barrel promises” totaled $50
billion, paid by the U.S. taxpayers. NAFTA cost the Democrats control of the House and
Senate in 1994. NAFTA caused wages to decrease in Mexico by 29%. By 1997, due to
NAFTA, U.S. job losses amounted to about 394,835, mostly women, Blacks and Hispanics.
The figure increased to 600,000 by January 1, 1999. Even the AFL-CIO opposed NAFTA. By
the year 2000, the internationalist Al Gore feigned support of NAFTA to get the AFL-CIO's
endorsement. Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law on December 8, 1993. NAFTA got rid of
tariffs and most non-tariff prohibitions between the 3 nations of America, Mexico, and
Canada. NAFTA promised to reduce trade deficits, but it increased them. In 1993, we had a
$1.6 billion surplus in our trade with Mexico but by 2007, we had a $74.8 billion deficit. In
1994 we had an $8.1 billion yearly deficit with Canada, probably due to our oil importation
despite our own adequate oil supply. NAFTA cost 525,000 US jobs between 1994 and 2002.
Some figures state the total of jobs lost at 766,000, primarily among the non-college-
educated population – the producers in the manufacturing segment. Mexico, as a US trading
partner, is too poor, to be an export market for American goods. Only 32 families in Mexico
control the vast majority of wealth in Mexico has is made up about 90 million people. Even
the deceiver and Knight of Malta Pat Buchanan was right to oppose NAFTA. NAFTA is
supported by Democrats and Republicans (like George W. Bush being puppets of the big
banks and corporations). NAFTA weakened U.S. and Canadian environmental laws. Mexico
have had inflated currency policies and peso crashed. Economic populists like John Perkins in
his book called "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" exposed how nations are victims of
international banking cabal loans. GATT and the WTO gutted environmental, labor, and
human rights. The WTO acts as a world police man in enforcement free trade whose
headquarters is in Geneva, Switzerland. The WTO was devised “to advance the interests of
private agribusiness companies.” It is not accountable to any nation’s laws. The WTO may
impose disciplinary penalties or other measure on member countries that violate their
regulations. The WTO may also force countries to accept genetically modified crops. The
WTO is a product of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Seventy-five
GATT members and the European Communities founded the WTO on January 1,
1995 as a result of Uruguay Round of trade liberalization talks, held in del Este,
Uruguay, in September 1986, and concluded in Marrakech, Morocco, in April
1994. Free trade leads into cheap imports instead of nation-states legitimately
trading with each other. CFR, TC, Bilderberg, and PNAC member Robert B. Zoellick is the
current head of the World Bank. He helped to create the NAFTA deal. So, it isn't a secret
that NAFTA is one big reason why we have a financial crisis in the first place via
deindustrialization. NAFTA caused Mexico to have their currency almost ruined and it caused
us America to struggle and stave off foreclosures nationwide. Even Rep. Gene Taylor (a
Mississippi Democrat) in March of 2010 led a small group of 28 lawmakers to send legislation
that would make President Barack Obama to end participation in NAFTA. President Barack
Obama in his campaign expressed opposition to NAFTA, but now he is negotiation with
officials from South Korea, Panama, and Colombia to create trade deals with those nations.
In March 2010, U.S. officials also began trade negotiations with Australia, New Zealand,
Singapore, Chile, Peru, Vietnam and Brunei in what would be the Asia-Pacific regional free-
trade agreement. Ian Fletcher says, “Free trade is inexorably bleeding our economy
and preventing it from returning to true health. Nobody in the Obama
administration wants to talk about the economics of free trade, because as soon
as one seriously scrutinizes this doctrine, one begins to discover that free trade
may be the biggest myth in American economics." (Free Trade Doesn’t Work,
What Should Replace It and Why by Ian Fletcher). Ian Fletcher like many economist
populists doesn’t want total free trade neither a totally closed economy, but rational
protectionism (that understand that we need trade without economic
exploitation).
Our national sovereignty ought to be maintained against the schemes of internationalists,
globalists, elitists, monopolists and corporatists.

The North American Perimeter is promoted by the establishment. There are reports
going around about Canada and America secretly negotiating a security and trade deal.
This deal could be signed as early as January 2011. The proposed agreement would
form a security perimeter. This is instituted as a means to better secure North America
and stimulate trade. The SPP or the Security and Prosperity Partnership along with the
other U.S./Canada initiatives have allowed the 2 countries to incrementally move
towards creating a common security perimeter. The goal of a Canada/U.S. security
perimeter is an old ideal. There have been bilateral actions over many years that
promoted this agenda. Back in 2006, the renewal of NORAD added maritime warning
missions to its existing duties. This was an effort to address new and emerging
continental threats. The U.S. and Canada's military of course signed the Civil Assistance
Plan in 2008. This plan promoted the plan that both nations would support each other
during an emergency. The Shiprider program has become permanent in 2009. It allowed
law enforcement officials from both nations to operate together in shared waterways to
combat criminal activity. Many other joint projects have facilitated the move toward a
common security perimeter. In July of 2010, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews and U.S.
Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano announced new cooperative
initiatives to combat threats and expedite travel and trade. Some of the SPP's security
priorities have been incorporated into the proposed Canada-U.S. perimeter agreement.
CTV news obtained a draft copy of the U.S./Canada deal. It shows that both nations:
"...intend to pursue a perimeter approach to security, working together within, at, and
away from the borders of our two countries in a way that supports economic
competitiveness, job creation and prosperity, and in a partnership to enhance our
security and accelerate the legitimate flow of people and goods between our two
countries.” The proposed agreement handles border management issues like integrated
cargo security strategy (a joint approach to port and border security and screening as
well as cross border sharing of information between law enforcement agencies). CTV
report that there is a Canada-U.S. deal called Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision
Beyond the Border Working Group. If a common security perimeter existed, it could
force Canada to harmonize its immigration and refugee policies with the U.S. This can
violate national sovereignty. America can control parts of Canada in the event of a
terrorist attack or any threat to North America. The Council of Canadians exposed the
SPP strongly and they rejected the notion of forming a continental security perimeter as
being unnecessary and invasive. A Press Release acknowledged that, “Since 2001,
U.S. security demands of its two neighbours persistently intruded on the privacy and
real security needs of the public.” It went on to say, “harmonization efforts have violated
civil liberties while not improving trade flows between Canada and the United States in
the slightest.” Stuart Trew, trade campaigner with the Council of Canadians stated,
“We've gone down this road before -- it was called the Security and Prosperity
Partnership -- and North Americans rejected it.” He also added, “Canada has armed and
secured itself to the teeth to satisfy the U.S. but no new perimeter plan can bring the
U.S. economy back to life. That's the real reason trade is down across the border.” The
Council of Canadians want the Harper government to give parliament and the public to
see and debate the New Border Vision before Canada signs anything. The plan by
conservatives in Canada may be a hard sell since of the opposition (some believe that
they may use the fear card in order to promote globalization). Canada wants to host the
North American Foreign Ministers Meeting on December 13.

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said that the gathering was a big forum for
identifying trilateral priorities and ways we can work together as partners in North
America. He went on to say, “It also represents an opportunity to engage in bilateral
discussions with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Secretary of Foreign
Affairs Patricia Espinosa.” The trilateral meeting will address issues such as, “the state of
the economy and North American prosperity, international security, energy and climate
change, the health and safety of citizens, and matters concerning the western
hemisphere as a whole.” The proposed Canada-U.S. security perimeter deal could also
be on the agenda. In March, the U.S. and Mexico also announced similar plans for a
New Border Vision. There was the recent G20 Summit. It was held in South Korea.
Mexican President Felipe Calderon met with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
The Embassy of Mexico in Canada website mentioned that: "...on the importance of the
next North America Leaders’ Summit, to be held in Canada at the beginning of year
2011. They underlined their shared will to promote regional cooperation in fields like
competitiveness, security and environment, among others.” There are no leaders
summits this year. President Calderon did make numerous trips to America and Canada
in order to strengthen NAFTA ties. Other key elements of the SPP also continued under
the radar via various bilateral initiatives and further advance North American integration.
It's been reported that the proposed Canada-U.S. trade and security agreement could be
announced in January. A leaders summit might come in early 2011. This could be used
as a means or opportunity to unveil a continental security perimeter that includes both
the northern and southern borders (in many ways could represent the coronation of the
North American Union).

President Barack Obama and Congress want to negotiate tax cuts for the wealthy. The
Obama administration have had closed door talks with congressional leaders of both
parties. The discussion was about the extension of the Bush tax cuts. There have been
reports that a deal could exist with the Republicans getting their tax cuts for the wealthy
(without the $250,000 money limit or the $1 million limit as proposed by Senate
Democrats). The Wall Street Journal viewed the talks as a means to promote the
temporarily extending current tax rates for all income levels. The New York Times said
that this compromise can allow some concessions on the unemployment compensation
deal. What is coming is a windfall for the wealthy whose estimated value is $700 billion
over 10 years, or $70 billion a year if the extension is for a shorter period of time. This
handout to the financial aristocracy may be packaged with a revival of extended
unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless, which the Obama administration and
the Democratic congressional leadership allowed to expire on November 30. There is a
social necessity to give the unemployed extended benefits. The Labor Department said
that new claims for unemployment benefits jumped about 26,000 last week. It's not in
the total of 456,000. New jobless claims have been averaging 450,000 a week throughout
2010. This was well above the level of 400,000 that U.S. economists cite as indicating a
stable, rather than a contracting labor market. 800,000 workers are in risk of lacking
benefits. The White House Council of Economic Advisers released a report warning that
if Congress does not act to restore the extended benefits, a total of 2 million workers will
lose coverage by the end of December and a total of 7 million workers will be cut off by
November 2011. The result will be a further slowdown in the US economy and the loss
of another 800,000 jobs. The House of Representatives is about to be mostly
Republicans. The House now forced a vote in yesterday afternoon on a bill to extend the
Bush tax cuts for the 98% of families with incomes below the $250,000 mark. The bill
narrowly survived a procedural vote in the morning. It passed 213 to 203. Nearly 30
conservative Democrats voted against it. These Democrats are silly since most
Americans agree with middle class tax cuts and they are no different than the
Republicans. The bill was adopted later in the day by the larger margin of 234 to 188.
Nancy Pelosi tied the tax vote to the expiration of unemployment benefits. She criticized
the Republicans since the $700 billion in wealthy tax cuts since these tax cuts are more
expensive than the unemployment benefits costing only $18 billion. Pelosi’s deputy,
outgoing Majority Whip Steny Hoyer, chimed in: “I believe that passing unemployment
insurance is a moral imperative, not a political deal.” Both parties could work together to
extend tax cuts for the wealthy. There are closed door talks. Pro-austerity and pro-Wall
Street bailout figures Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Budget Director Jacob
Lew are in talks. Max Baucus was in the talks as well. He is the finance committee and
co-architect of the 2001 Bush tax cuts. Congressman Chris Van Hollen, a key aide to
Pelosi, represented House Democrats, while the Republicans were represented by
Senator Jon Kyl, the minority whip, and Congressman Dave Camp, who will head the
tax-writing Ways and Means Committee in the incoming Congress. Some Republicans
want to block any legislation in the lame duck session of Congress until the Senate took
up bill to extend all the Bush tax cuts and fund government operation all over the rest of
the fiscal year (as agreed by 42 Republicans Senators signing a joint letter). 42 out of 100
Senators are a minority of Senators. This isn't bipartisan rhetoric at all. This is an
ultimatum. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Jim DeMint of South Carolina
lie and said that taxes can't be raised in a recession. Taxes were raised on the wealthy in
the Great Depression and some of the greatest economic boon in history existed
afterwards. Some Republicans act aggressive while some Democrats acted in cowardice.
The deal is that the 2 parties have minimal differences. They represent the elite that want
tax cuts for the rich and privileges for the upper middle class (while Democrat put up the
image that they are for the working people and the unemployed). Now, Democrats are
supporting the bipartisan commission that was appointed by Barack Obama to lower the
federal budget deficit. Even Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois (or the lone Senate liberal
on the panel) agreed with an increase in the age of eligibility for Social Security to 69 by
2075. Everyone knows that Ken Conrad (or the Senate Democrat from North Dakota)
agreed with the chairman's report since he spoke of austerity for years.

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse,
intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over
governments . . ."

-President James Madison

There is a paradigm about economic and political issues too. Anarcho-capitalism has been
promoted by those within the Austrian school. They promote an extreme version of a free market
system. This system believes that corporations can do no wrong and they can basically do nearly
anything they want without restrictions. These corporations include entities like Monsanto, Wal-
Mart, BP, etc. So, there should be some government interference. People don't want a toxic
waste dump next to their homes. People don't want a factory near their homes in many instances.
There are zoning laws for this. I don't want a factory dumping waste near a residential area. We
have environmental laws preventing pollutions of resources. No one wants a company to mislabel
products like a product is only 5 lbs. when it's 6 lbs. There are weights and measures laws for
this. There are other parts of government intervention. This is a part of the Constitution. The 10
Amendment allows powers to the state and local government. Yet, new laws can be made to
benefit the welfare of the people though. That's a part of the Constitution too. The mega
corporations regularly get corporate welfare that is contrary to any free market. The GOPers and
moderate Democrats are hypocrites for talking about welfare is evil to be given to the poor (when
it's not evil to help the poor), but they give billions of dollars of handouts to GE, Raytheon,
Boeing, Xe, Monsanto, etc. If corporate welfare was gone, mega corporations could fall apart. If
there were no restrictions, the robber baron Rockefeller like companies could create more
monopolies. The Big L Libertarians said that the government has no right to split companies up,
but you have a system where competition is limited in the world. The Rockefellers promote the
Austrian views. This is Glen Beck won't talk about how Progressivism was a real grassroots
movement that helped people back then and it was co-opted by the Rockefellers (and the elite).
Economic laws, paid vacations, 40 hour workweek, safety regulations, etc, were all progressive
views. These are legitimate things. The Rockefellers, Carnegies, Harrimans, Fords etc, knew
their robber baron days were numbered so they co-opted Progressivism. Now the establishment
Progressivism (as opposed to independent liberals) is all about racial divisiveness, eugenics,
abortions, and corporate feminism (instead of regular feminism that just wants equality between
men and women). It's now about breaking up the family, and having everyone as part of either a
corporate borg or State borg, depending on the flavor of the phony communism/fascism bankster
paradigm. Like some Progressive being infiltrated in 1910, the Tea Party movement is being
infiltrated by Republicans in 2010. You have to have some government interference (without total
government control over every aspect of our lives) in order to prevent big corporations from doing
whatever they want to do. Communism is an authoritarian state that prevents individual liberties
and dictates the quantity of goods produced. Fascism is where the industry is the government
that restricts individual liberties as well. They are part of the phony left/right paradigm. This
paradigm divides people while the big banks control people's lives in a centralized system. Free
trade is used by the corporatists to rule the right paradigm in thinking. Free trade allows mega
corporations to finance unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats like in the WTO. Free trade has
increased sweat shops in the Third World to crank out good to flood First world markets (to make
the First world difficulty to compete in the world). Free trade made domestic production to shut
down, jobs to be shipped overseas, and there are rust belts. People have no choice in many
instances to either work in a service job like Wal-Mart or for the state or federal government. I do
believe in some economic protection.

The Rockefeller family funded Strauss and reactionary movements that harmed the
economies of the Third World nations. One example is that the Rockefellers
supported the University of Chicago’s school to promote laissez faire economics.
This philosophy was one contributing factor on why the 1929 stock market and the
subsequent Great Depression came about. The free trade agreements have been
supported David Rockefeller including the World Trade Organization and the World
Bank. These trade deals privatization and cuts in social spending. These policies
have been promoted by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich A. Hayek. Both men were
funded by the Rockefeller Family. Von Mises toured America in 1926. They
promoted the flawed Austrian School of Economics. Von Hayek’s “The Road to
Serfdom” book promoted an attack on the concept of the nation-state. How can
Republicans love the USA and some of them support a man that abhors national
sovereignty. Hayek tutored David Rockefeller personally in economics. Hayek
wanted a supra-national authority or a world federation made up of the financial elite.
This is a new world order system 101. Von Hayek’s Mount Pelerin Society. The
Chicago school inspired the bad policies in Pinochet’s fascist Chile, where dissident
people were murdered by death squads.

You have to have the government (that is electable, held accountable, and is transparent) to
enforce protectionist rules like tariffs, port authorities, customs, etc. Mega corporations being
allowed to do whatever they want and being uninterrupted will allow people to be economic
bondage. The only people allowed to vote in mega-corporations are the multi-millionaires who
serve on their boards, which make a de-facto ruling class. To have liberty, corporations,
government, science, and religion shouldn't have tyrannical power over the people. Of course,
the government is corrupt now since the corporate elite (with those of secret society
memberships, etc.) run it. If you don't regulate the government in the right way, then you will
increase the risk of having fascism.

People realize of the compromise that Barack Obama made with the Republicans on
finances. President Barack Obama wants to maintain unemployment benefits for 13
months, while tax cuts for the rich will remain temporarily for 2 years. There are tax cuts
for the middle class and some tax credits that I agree. They have agreed with cutting the
payroll tax, which is a regressive tax or harms the poor more than the rich. He has been
criticized by the left for compromising core convictions. Barack Obama says that he has
no choice, but to allow tax cuts for the rich to remain (which can add billions of dollars to
the deficit). Cutting the estate tax won’t translate into immediate economic growth at all.
There are corporate tax cuts too. Permanently extended tax cuts for the top tax rates is
infeasible in a recession. This agreement has plenty of errors in it. Cutting the payroll tax
by 2 percent is fine, but there are complicated matters to it. The payroll tax funds Social
Security and Medicare. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said back in January
2009 wrote that cutting employees’ payroll tax will cause more tax home pay for
workers. While, cutting employers’ payroll taxes with only put money in corporate
coffers without immediate financial growth. The money will sit while sales are weak and
factories aren’t working in full capacity. The CBO or the Congressional Budget Office
says that suspending payroll taxes is not a cost effective method in stimulating business
spending. Standard economic analysis suggests that over the long run, a permanent
reduction in the employer payroll tax would increase wages, as competition forced
employers to pass on the benefits of the tax cut to their workers. But a two-month holiday
on the employer share of the payroll tax would not have that effect. Although, using
payroll taxes is better than a tax cut for the wealthy. Foods stamps, employment benefits,
infrastructure, aid to states, etc. are more stimulating than a cut in payroll taxes according
to chief economist Mark Zandi for Moody. A payroll tax cut is of course more simulative
than just tax cuts or tax rebates. Some believe that the one year cut in Social Security
payroll taxes will result in a tax increase for the bottom 40 percent of US households
when balanced against the expiration of the current Making Work Pay tax credit. The
Washington Post’s Ezra Klein said that having work share programs, direct aid to states,
a jobs tax credit, expanding food stamps, etc. can be a better option than a payroll tax
holiday. So, a comprehensive economic solution is better than just obsessing with just tax
cuts. The Republicans seek to cloak corporatism under the banner or guise of “free
markets” or “free enterprise.”

These cloaks are nothing more than tactics by the GOP to promote basically welfare for
the rich. Some Tea Party people are hypocrites for claiming to love the Constitution, but
hate it when they disagree with it (like the 14th Amendment, the General Welfare clause
of Article I, Section, and certain federal laws passed by Congress). Supply side, trickle
down economic don’t work to benefit the people, especially the poor. Many
progressives refuse to support the tax deal that President Barack Obama supported
with some Republicans (who rejected a bill to spend money to help 9/11 victims).
Even the money that Americans promised to help Haiti has been held up by the
Party of NO. President Barack Obama is following in this mode in other to gain
support from independents long term to win the 2012 election (along with being
desperate to pass something before tax cuts go up among all income groups). While
this is going on, the Economic Commission hypocritically wants to cut Social
Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. This commission wants no taxes even for
corporate profits earned overseas, cut the high end income tax rate by 1/3, have new
taxes on consumer items, and remove tax credits that mostly benefit the working
class people. When we have redistribution of income in favor of the wealthy plus the
record slashes of non-military public spending, then it’s a problem here.

The Wiki leaks scandals proved the corruption in the Western governments worldwide. Its
founder named Julian Assange said that the world must know about the corruption in the modern
world, which is a throwback to the Dark Ages. Some release of the documents form Wiki leaks
are called by the establishment as controversial. These document show that the U.S. government
uses duplicity in enacting its policies in the world. It's not a part of our government representing
true idealism, but a corporate dominated government that represents ineptitude. There is hostility
to Wiki leaks even from Europe. The American media has been complicit in promoting the evils of
imperialism and other forms of social injustice. The Wiki leaks showed many truths about the
coverage that the media does on what's really going on in the world. Some American politicians
want Assange to be executed. The U.S. Congress called Assange a traitor to America when
Assange is an Australian citizen. He isn't an American citizen at all. The people who support that
charge against Assange obviously didn't realize this. Even Mike Huckabee (with links to the CNP
and the CFR) wants Julian Assange to be executed. He's supposed to be a Baptist preacher and
even Mike is wrong to promote that wicked action. No real man of God would call on the U.S.
government to murder an Australian citizen. The US government was able to get British Prime
Minister Brown to “fix” the official Chilcot Investigation into how former Prime Minister Tony Blair
manipulated and lied to the British government into being mercenaries for the US invasion of Iraq.
One of the “diplomatic” cables released has UK Defense Ministry official Jon Day promising the
United States government that Prime Minister Brown’s government has “put measures in place to
protect your interests.” Other cables said that the U.S. government threatened Spanish Prime
Minister Zapatero, ordering him to stop his criticisms of the Iraq war or else. Joe Lieberman from
Connecticut threatens Amazon to oust Wiki Leaks content from their hosting service. This is
against the First Amendment of course. The U.S. government and the compliant, token American
mainstream media say that there is nothing new in these thousands of document. Yet, they want
to shut down Wiki leaks and its founder. The documents are damaging. Assange is hiding out in
the world. He fears CIA and Mossad assassination. The Swedish government accuses Assange
of sexual misconduct on a woman that he steadfastly denies. 2 women put charges on him. If
these allegations are true, then he should be prosecuted. Yet, this doesn't mean that this Western
Empire agenda is justifiable at all. Wiki Leaks released a US classified document signed by
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that explicitly orders US diplomats to spy on UN Security council
officials and on the Secretary General of the United Nations. The cable is now in the public
record. No one challenges its authenticity. Yet, today the Obama regime, precisely White House
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, declared that Hillary had never ordered or even asked US officials
to spy on UN officials. As Antiwar.com asked: Who do you believe the printed word with Hillary’s
signature or the White House? We shouldn't trust a corrupt government unconditionally at all.

Secret Societies and the Illuminati are linked. Some of the elite support a global currency.
Even the IMF report called Reserve Accumulation and International Monetary Stability
(in April 13) called for a global currency named the “bancor." FDR opposed it. The
Fabian Socialist John Maynard Keynes supported the bancor. In September 1, 2010, Dr.
Alessandro Sassoli was interviewed by Coin Update about his idea to have a global
currency (as beginning in 1996. This project is form the UFWC or the United Future
World Currency organization). Sassoli said in the interview that: "...The world is
evolving very fast. Maybe in just eight years time, it might be possible to introduce a new
super-national currency like the UFWC by 2018.” This is the same date (2018) for the
global currency (the “Phoenix”) projected by The Economist in its January 9, 1988
edition, so the timetable is on track. On the same day (September 1) as the Sassoli
interview, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon remarked: “There is such a thing as the
global public good. And for that very reason, we need to think about the issues of global
governance needed to manage them.” He also talked about the need for “global economic
management” and global disarmament. Days ago, China bought 18 percent of General
Motors. This was done and it was bought with the interest our government is paying them
on our debt to them (and with the cash that Americans are paying them to buy cheap,
frequently forced labor products). Even Mark Steyn disagreed with Thomas Friedman on
calling China's management reasonable. There are great Chinese leaders in the world, but
the Communist Chinese leaders are dictators. CFR chairman David Rockefeller called the
dictator Chairman Mao as doing a legitimate progress at whatever price of the Chinese
Revolution. This is in spite of the well known fact that Mao brutally tortured and killed
tens of millions of innocent Chinese human beings. The TSA immoral pat down is police
state-like in its cosmology. It's easy to see that Cecil Rhodes was a student of Ruskin's
from Oxford University in the 1870's. In that time, Wilhelm Wundt created the first
laboratory in experimental psychology at the University of Leipzig. Wundt's grandfather
was the Iluminati member Kirchenrat Karl Kasimir Wundt (whose code name was
Raphael. This is according to the “Illuminati Provincial Report” from Utica dated
September 1782). A grandson of an Illuminati member doesn't mean that he will agree
with their agenda. Yet, the “Father of Progressive Education,” John Dewey, was a co-
author and signer of the first Humanist Manifesto (1933), and Dewey’s mentor, G.
Stanley Hall, was the first of Wilhelm Wundt’s American students. The Humanist
Manifesto followed similar views of Adam Weishaupt's agenda. It promoted the do what
thou wilt philosophy. Each wanted mainstream religion to be suppress and the near
worship of the human intellect (or Reason). The secular humanism from the Humanist
Manifesto is commonly taught in public schools for at least the past half of century. Even
before Cecil Rhodes attended Oxford and Wundt set up his laboratory in Leipzig, there
was Albert Pike. Pike like Weishaupt was a Freemason and rejected conservative
religion. Pike believed in the liberty of thought (there is nothing wrong with the liberty of
thought as long as it's not used for evil). Pike supported this view in his 1871 Morals and
Dogma book where he wrote that: "...Everything scientific and grand in the dreams of
the Illuminati, Jacob Boehme, Swedenborg, Saint-Martin, and others, is borrowed
from the Kabalah…. Liberty of thought… universal Fraternity! A new doctrine, a
new religion….” Pike praised Lucifer as the light bearer like Alice Bailey. Bailey
supported the agenda of the Illuminati. She viewed the Illuminati as enlightened people
that are enlightened by Lucifer (This is found in her book called A Treatise on the Seven
Rays: Esoteric Psychology. She once supported Lucifer Publishing). Bailey wanted a new
world order where the points of light related to service just like ex-President &
Bonesman George H. W. Bush promoted later in his Presidency.

Globalization is one big instrument that the elite use to control most of global trade.
The World Trade Organization and other groups organize and promote it. Just like
war reap huge profits at the expense of people dying, radical globalization has done
the same. So, many folks are kept under wraps about how the WTO and others use
globalization & privatization (causing war profiteering) to harm the world. Oil is
one major reason for the war on terror in the first place. Iran has the world’s third
largest known oil reserves and Iraq has the fourth largest. The oil industry gave
money to the Bush campaign to cause him to be elected back in the year of 2000.
Even the production sharing agreements or PSAs protect the oil fields in Iraq.
Under the new oil law--written into the Iraqi constitution--those 17 that have been
developed or discovered in Iraq will be under the control of the Iraqi national oil
company, a cabal puppet agency which agrees to PSAs at the drop of a bribe.
Foreign companies have more than half control over all Iraqi oil fields. More than
150 companies from the U.S. have been awarded contracts for post-war Iraq. This
totals to more than $50 billion at least. The war on terror has caused the creation of
the MEFTA or the Middle East Free Trade Coalition. This coalition has members
from Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Bechtel, and Halliburton (these companies are link
with the elite that made huge war profiteering in Iraq). MEFTA is a part of the free
trade agenda and these agreements are set to be completed by 2013. Even the IMF
and the World Bank force suffering nations to lay off workers, cut wages, and force
them to pay debts to them without making other payments. Today, we have the
following evils:

-The poisoning of our foods and water supplies via fluoride, aspartame, GMO
foods, etc.
-The Army monitoring places nationwide and the police being militarized.
Army unites are trained to arrest American dissident. Robert Gates wants
to see more ways that the National Guard can handle dissent or crises in
America.

-The U.S. infrastructure is increasingly privatized.

-There is more fear mongering about nuclear, biological, and other terrorist
attacks.

The good news is that people are waking up every day and we can inform,
protect, and assist people that are around us.

*Fundamentally, it is great to have individual liberty and basic political & religious
freedoms to develop society. I don’t agree with censorship of the Internet (under the
guise of trying to attack Wiki leaks). In the final analysis, the neither state nor
private markets are omnipotent. They are institutions that should be regulated in
what they can and can’t do.

By Timothy