[Vision2020] Globalization & US Sovereignty:North American UnionLike European Union?

[lfalen]

Ted 
On the whole a good statement. On Mrs Clinton, she is wrong on both issues.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: "Ted Moffett" starbliss at gmail.com
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:39:17 -0700
To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Globalization & US Sovereignty:North American UnionLike European Union?

> Roger et.al.
> 
> An issue such as the growing power of multinational corporations in the age
> of increasing economic globalization is one reason I try to avoid the "left
> wing" "right wing" labels that can oversimplify and stereotype complex
> political/economic issues.  And certainly we see "conservatives" who usually
> tend to support free markets and free enterprise, and opposing "left wing"
> state regulation of capitalism, becoming critical when the captains of
> international capitalism erode national sovereignty in the pursuit of
> international "freedom" of markets, money and labor. Many on the "left" of
> course are also big critics of multinational corporate power, though the
> focus of the left is not as much on the patriotic issues of national
> sovereignty of the USA, and more on exploitation of labor everywhere
> (including the USA), human rights violations, corporations dodging US
> environmental regulations to pollute in other nations when they move
> factories, thus exporting pollution, etc.
> 
> But both the "right" and the "left" in the USA are tending to join together
> on this issue to monitor and temper multinational corporate power. Witness
> the "right" wing focus on stopping "illegal" immigration, an issue on which
> President Bush appears to slant toward what some call the "liberal" side...
> Could this be because Bush sides with capitalism, in need of cheap immigrant
> labor, even if it does erode what some on the "right" see as a threat to
> national sovereignty and our way of life?
> 
> From this point of view, why do we have 160,000 troops in Iraq, to stop
> terrorists, when our borders are so open that terrorists can just walk
> across?  Why hasn't Bush given more attention to guarding our borders?  Has
> terrorism been a ruse to move our military into the Middle East to guard the
> oil resources and protect vulnerable regimes (such as in Saudi Arabia,
> which, though a human rights denying dictatorship, linked to massive funding
> for terrorist groups, and harboring Wahhabist extremists, receives US
> military aid and backing, as long as they control their massive oil reserves
> to insure access), while our border with Mexico is left open for cheap labor
> to flow, despite the risk of terrorists entering?
> 
> This is one issue that has been hurting the Republican Party, given the
> "right wing" focus on US border security that they perceive being ignored by
> Bush et. al.
> 
> I am not advocating an anti-immigrant position, but just trying to expose
> what seem like glaring contradictions in policy as we wage a "war on
> terrorism."
> 
> We are in a new age of economic global organization that breaks down the
> stereotypical views of who is "left wing" or "right wing."  President Bill
> Clinton, usually viewed as "left," promoted multinational corporate power.
> While former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan (who
> received thousands of "liberal" votes in error in Palm Beach County in
> Florida in Gore v. Bush 2000, due to the famed "butterfly ballot," "...the
> mistakes cost Gore somewhere between 2000 and 3000
> votes."(8)<http://election2000.stanford.edu/acluamicus.html#N_8_>
>     http://election2000.stanford.edu/acluamicus.html
> 
> which alone gave Bush the White House), usually viewed as "right," has been
> a major critic of the negative impacts on national sovereignty and the
> working class in the USA, of the multinational corporate agenda represented
> by the WTO, GATT and NAFTA.
> 
> So Buchanan is a critic of capitalism and Clinton a promoter of
> capitalism...
> 
> Hillary Clinton, though she has "left" agendas such as universal health care
> and more education funding, also buys into the multinational corporate
> agenda, though she would not put it in these words.
> 
> Republican libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul is no fool on this
> issue... Though I disagree with much of Paul's agenda, he clearly stands for
> protecting US sovereignty and the US Constitution, ahead of the profit
> interests of the multinational corporations, who, I think it is fair to
> state, even if they are US based multinational corporations, do not always
> have respect for the US Constitution or US domestic interests at heart.
> 
> Ted Moffett
> 
> On 10/8/07, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> >
> > Careful here Ted. You are buying into a far right wing position. You could
> > be in danger of being labeled a right winger. The Trilateral Commission has
> > long been the bogeyman for such group as the John Birch Society. While there
> > is some truth to their position, it should still be taken with a grain of
> > salt. I believe that the US should not give up any sovranty on any issue to
> > the United Nations and that Congress, not the the Executive branch should
> > have the final say on treaties. The UN is primarily useful as a debating
> > forum and the discussion of ideas that can then be taken to their respective
> > members. It should not have governing authority.
> > Roger
> > -----Original message-----
> > From: "Ted Moffett" starbliss at gmail.com
> > Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:39:18 -0700
> > To: Vision2020 vision2020 at moscow.com
> > Subject: [Vision2020] Globalization & US Sovereignty:North American
> > UnionLike European Union?
> >
> > > *All:*
> > > **
> > > *The article referenced below makes the case, with documentation, to put
> > it
> > > bluntly, that we are pawns in the chess game played by the richest and
> > most
> > > powerful players in the global economic system... Though there may be
> > > exaggeration of the extent of control of the economic elites, there is
> > no
> > > doubt this trend is a major factor controlling the domestic agenda of
> > many
> > > nations.  The increasing globalization of national economies linked to a
> > > class of super rich and powerful individuals invested heavily in the
> > largest
> > > multinational corporations have a degree of power that weakens the
> > > egalitarian ideals of participatory national democracies who assume they
> > > control their domestic agendas.*
> > > **
> > > *Quick summary of the article's conclusion:*
> > >
> > > The credo of The August Review is "Follow the money, follow the power."
> > In
> > > this view, the United States has literally been hijacked by less than
> > 300
> > > greedy and self-serving global elitists who have little more than
> > contempt
> > > for the citizens of the countries they would seek to dominate. According
> > to
> > > Trilateralist Richard Gardner's viewpoint, this incremental takeover
> > (rather
> > > than a frontal approach) has been wildly successful:
> > > **
> > >
> > http://www.augustreview.com/issues/general/toward_a_north_american_union_200608181/?gclid=CJvYzqSi-44CFReQgQodchpexQ
> > >
> > > A partial excerpt from this article:
> > > **
> > > *The Best Government that Money Can Buy *
> > >
> > > Modern day globalization was launched with the creation of the
> > Trilateral
> > > Commission in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Its
> > > membership consisted of just over 300 powerful elitists from North
> > America,
> > > Europe and Japan. The clearly stated goal of the Trilateral Commission
> > was
> > > to foster a "New International Economic Order" that would supplant the
> > > historical economic order.
> > >
> > > In spite of its non-political rhetoric, The Trilateral Commission
> > > nonetheless established a headlock on the Executive Branch of the U.S.
> > > government with the election of James Earl Carter in 1976. Hand-picked
> > as a
> > > presidential candidate by Brzezinski, Carter was personally tutored in
> > > globalist philosophy and foreign policy by Brzezinski himself.
> > Subsequently,
> > > when Carter was sworn in as President, he appointed no less than
> > one-third
> > > of the U.S. members of the Commission to his Cabinet and other
> > high-level
> > > posts in his Administration. Such was the genesis of the Trilateral
> > > Commission's domination of the Executive Branch that continues to the
> > > present day.
> > >
> > > With the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, Trilateral Commission member
> > > George H.W. Bush was introduced to the White House as vice-president.
> > > Through Bush's influence, Reagan continued to select key appointments
> > from
> > > the ranks of the Trilateral Commission.
> > >
> > > In 1988, George H.W. Bush began his four-year term as President. He was
> > > followed by fellow Trilateral Commission member William Jefferson
> > Clinton,
> > > who served for 8 years as President and appointed fourteen fellow
> > Trilateral
> > > members to his Administration.
> > >
> > > The election of George W. Bush in 2000 should be no surprise. Although
> > Bush
> > > was not a member of the Trilateral Commission, his vice-president Dick
> > > Cheney *is*. In addition, Dick Cheney's wife, Lynne, is also a member of
> > the
> > > Commission in her own right.
> > >
> > > The Hegemony <javascript:void(0)> of the Trilateral Commission over the
> > > Executive Branch of the U.S. government is unmistakable. Critics argue
> > that
> > > this scenario is merely circumstantial, that the most qualified
> > political
> > > "talent" quite naturally tends to belong to groups like the Trilateral
> > > Commission in the first place. Under examination, such explanations are
> > > quite hollow.
> > >
> > > Why would the Trilateral Commission seek to dominate the Executive
> > Branch?
> > > Quite simply - Power! That is, power to get things done directly which
> > would
> > > have been impossible to accomplish through the only moderately
> > successful
> > > lobbying efforts of the past; power to use the government as a bully
> > > platform to modify political behavior throughout the world.
> > >
> > > Of course, the obvious corollary to this hegemony is that the influence
> > and
> > > impact of the citizenry is virtually eliminated.
> > >
> > > *Modern Day "World Order" Strategy*
> > >
> > > After its founding in 1973, Trilateral Commission members wasted no time
> > in
> > > launching their globalist strategy. But, what was that strategy?
> > >
> > > Richard Gardner was an original member of the Trilateral Commission, and
> > one
> > > of the prominent architects of the New International Economic Order. In
> > > 1974, his article "The Hard Road to World Order" appeared in Foreign
> > Affairs
> > > magazine, published by the Council on Foreign Relations. With obvious
> > > disdain for anyone holding nationalistic political views, Gardner
> > > proclaimed,
> > >
> > >  *"In short, the 'house of world order' would have to be built from the
> > > bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great
> > 'booming,
> > > buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality,
> > but
> > > an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will
> > > accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."*1
> > [emphasis
> > > added]
> > >
> > > In Gardner's view, using treaties and trade agreements (such as General
> > > Agreement on Trade and Tariffs or GATT <javascript:void(0)>) would bind
> > and
> > > supercede constitutional law piece by piece, which is exactly what has
> > > happened. In addition, Gardner highly esteemed the role of the United
> > > Nations as a third-party legal body that could be used to erode the
> > national
> > > sovereignty of individual nations.
> > >
> > > Gardner concluded that "the case-by-case approach can produce some
> > > remarkable concessions of 'sovereignty' that could not be achieved on an
> > > across-the-board basis"2
> > >
> > > Thus, the end result of such a process is that the U.S. would eventually
> > > capitulate its sovereignty to the newly proposed world order. It is not
> > > specifically mentioned who would control this new order, but it is quite
> > > obvious that the only 'players' around are Gardner and his Trilateral
> > > cronies.
> > >
> > > It should again be noted that the formation of the Trilateral Commission
> > by
> > > Rockefeller and Brzezinski was a response to the general frustration
> > that
> > > globalism was going nowhere with the status quo prior to 1973. The
> > "frontal
> > > assault " had failed, and a new approach was needed. It is a typical
> > mindset
> > > of the global elite to view any roadblock as an opportunity to stage an
> > > "end-run" to get around it. Gardner confirms this frustration:
> > >
> > >  *"Certainly the gap has never loomed larger between the objectives and
> > the
> > > capacities of the international organizations that were supposed to get
> > > mankind on the road to world order. We are witnessing an outbreak of
> > > shortsighted nationalism that seems oblivious to the economic, political
> > and
> > > moral implications of interdependence. Yet never has there been such
> > > widespread recognition by the world's intellectual leadership of the
> > > necessity for cooperation and planning on a truly global basis, beyond
> > > country, beyond region, especially beyond social system."*3
> > >
> > > The "world's intellectual leadership" apparently refers to academics
> > such as
> > > Gardner and Brzezinski. Outside of the Trilateral Commission and the
> > > CFR<javascript:void(0)>,
> > > the vast majority of academic thought at the time was opposed to such
> > > notions as mentioned above.
> > >
> > > *Laying the Groundwork: Fast Track <javascript:void(0)> Authority *
> > >
> > > In Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, authority is granted
> > to
> > > Congress "*To regulate
> > > commerce<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause>with foreign
> > > nations
> > > *." An end-run around this insurmountable obstacle would be to convince
> > > Congress to voluntarily turn over this power to the President. With such
> > > authority in hand, the President could freely negotiate treaties and
> > other
> > > trade agreements with foreign nations, and then simply present them to
> > > Congress for a straight up or down vote, with no amendments possible.
> > This
> > > again points out elite disdain for a Congress that is elected to be
> > > representative "of the people, by the people and for the people."
> > >
> > > So, the first "Fast Track" legislation was passed by Congress in 1974,
> > just
> > > one year after the founding of the Trilateral Commission. It was the
> > same
> > > year that Nelson Rockefeller was confirmed as Vice President under
> > President
> > > Gerald Ford, neither of whom were elected by the U.S. public. As
> > > Vice-President, Rockefeller was seated as the president of the U.S.
> > Senate.
> > >
> > > According to Public Citizen, the bottom line of Fast Track is that...
> > >
> > >  *"...the White House signs and enters into trade deals before Congress
> > ever
> > > votes on them. Fast Track also sets the parameters for congressional
> > debate
> > > on any trade measure the President submits, requiring a vote within a
> > > certain time with no amendments and only 20 hours of debate."4*
> > >
> > > When an agreement is about to be given to Congress, high-powered
> > lobbyists
> > > and political hammer-heads are called in to manipulate congressional
> > > hold-outs into voting for the legislation. (*See CAFTA
> > > <javascript:void(0)>Lobbying Efforts) With only 20 hours of debate
> > > allowed, there is little
> > > opportunity for public involvement.
> > >
> > > **Congress clearly understood the risk of giving up this power to the
> > > President, as evidenced by the fact that they put an automatic
> > expiration
> > > date on it. Since the expiration of the original Fast Track, there been
> > a
> > > very contentious trail of Fast Track renewal efforts. In 1996, President
> > > Clinton utterly failed to re-secure Fast Track after a bitter debate in
> > > Congress. After another contentious struggle in 2001/2002, President
> > Bush
> > > was able to renew Fast Track for himself in the Trade Act of 2002, just
> > in
> > > time to negotiate the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and
> > > insure its passage in 2005.
> > >
> > > It is startling to realize that since 1974, Fast Track has *not* been
> > used
> > > in the majority of trade agreements. Under the Clinton presidency, for
> > > instance, some 300 separate trade agreements were negotiated and passed
> > > normally by Congress, but only *two* of them were submitted under Fast
> > > Track: NAFTA and the GATT Uruguay Round <javascript:void(0)>. In fact,
> > from
> > > 1974 to 1992, there were only three instances of Fast Track in action:
> > GATT
> > > Tokyo Round, U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement and the Canada-U.S. Free
> > Trade
> > > Agreement. Thus, NAFTA was only the *fourth* invocation of Fast Track.
> > >
> > > Why the selectivity? Does it suggest a very narrow agenda? Most
> > certainly.
> > > These trade and legal bamboozles didn't stand a ghost of a chance to be
> > > passed without it, and the global elite knew it. Fast Track was created
> > as a
> > > very specific legislative tool to accomplish a very specific executive
> > task
> > > -- namely, to "fast track" the creation of the "New International
> > Economic
> > > Order" envisioned by the Trilateral Commission in 1973!
> > >
> > > Article Six of the U.S. Constitution states that "all Treaties made, or
> > > which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be
> > the
> > > supreme Law of the Land and the Judges in every State shall be bound
> > > thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
> > Contrary
> > > notwithstanding." Because international treaties supersede national law,
> > > Fast Track has allowed an enormous restructuring of U.S. law without
> > > resorting to a Constitutional convention (Ed. note: Both Henry Kissinger
> > and
> > > Zbigniew Brzezinski called for a constitutional convention as early as
> > 1972,
> > > which could clearly be viewed as a failed "frontal assault"). As a
> > result,
> > > national sovereignty of the United States has been severely compromised
> > -
> > > even if some Congressmen and Senators are aware of this, the general
> > public
> > > is still generally ignorant.
> > >
> > > *North American Free Trade Agreement*
> > > NAFTA was negotiated under the executive leadership of Republican
> > President
> > > George H.W. Bush. Carla Hills is widely credited as being the primary
> > > architect and negotiator of NAFTA. Both Bush and Hills were members of
> > the
> > > Trilateral Commission!
> > >
> > >
> > > With Bush's first presidential term drawing to a close and Bush desiring
> > > political credit for NAFTA, an "initialing" ceremony of NAFTA was staged
> > (so
> > > Bush could take credit for NAFTA) in October, 1992. Although very
> > official
> > > looking, most Americans did not understand the difference between
> > initialing
> > > and signing; at the time, Fast Track was not implemented and Bush did
> > not
> > > have the authority to actually sign such a trade agreement.
> > >
> > > Bush subsequently LOST <javascript:void(0)> a publicly contentious
> > > presidential race to democrat William Jefferson Clinton, but they were
> > > hardly polar opposites on the issue of Free Trade and NAFTA: The reason?
> > > Clinton was *also* a seasoned member of the Trilateral Commission.
> > >
> > > Immediately after inauguration, Clinton became the champion of NAFTA and
> > > orchestrated its passage with a massive Executive Branch effort.
> > >
> > > *Some Unexpected Resistance to NAFTA*
> > >
> > > Prior to the 1992 election, there was a fly in the elite's ointment --
> > > namely, presidential candidate and billionaire Ross Perot, founder and
> > > chairman of Electronic Data Systems (EDS). Perot was politically
> > > independent, vehemently anti-NAFTA and chose to make it a major campaign
> > > issue in 1991. In the end, the global elite would have to spend huge
> > sums of
> > > money to overcome the negative publicity that Perot gave to NAFTA.
> > >
> > > At the time, some political analysts believed that Perot, being a
> > > billionaire, was somehow put up to this task by the same elitists who
> > were
> > > pushing NAFTA. Presumably, it would accumulate all the anti-globalists
> > in
> > > one tidy group, thus allowing the elitists to determine who their true
> > > enemies really were. It's moot today whether he was sincere or not, but
> > it
> > > did have that outcome, and Perot became a lightning rod for the whole
> > issue
> > > of free trade.
> > >
> > > Perot hit the nail squarely on the head in one of his nationally
> > televised
> > > campaign speeches:
> > >
> > >  *"If you're paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you
> > can
> > > move your factory south of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor,
> > hire
> > > young -- let's assume you've been in business for a long time and you've
> > got
> > > a mature workforce - pay a dollar an hour for your labor, have no health
> > > care - that's the most expensive single element in making a car - have
> > no
> > > environmental controls, no pollution controls, and no retirement, and
> > you
> > > didn't care about anything but making money, there will be a giant
> > sucking
> > > sound going south..."5 *[emphasis added]
> > >
> > > Perot's message struck a nerve with millions of Americans, but it was
> > > unfortunately cut short when he entered into public campaign debates
> > with
> > > fellow candidate Al Gore. Simply put, Gore ate Perot's lunch, not so
> > much on
> > > the issues themselves, but on having superior debating skills. As
> > organized
> > > as Perot was, he was no match for a politically and globally seasoned
> > > politician like Al Gore.
> > >
> > > *The Spin Machine gears up*
> > >
> > > To counter the public relations damage done by Perot, all the stops were
> > > pulled out as the NAFTA vote drew near. As proxy for the global elite,
> > the
> > > President unleashed the biggest and most expensive spin machine the
> > country
> > > had ever seen.
> > >
> > > Former Chrysler chairman Lee Iacocca was enlisted for a multi-million
> > dollar
> > > nationwide ad campaign that praised the benefits of NAFTA. The mantra,
> > > carried consistently throughout the many spin events: "Exports. Better
> > Jobs.
> > > Better Wages", all of which have turned out to be empty promises
> > >
> > > Bill Clinton invited three former presidents to the White House to stand
> > > with him in praise and affirmation NAFTA. This was the first time in U.S
> > .
> > > history that four presidents had ever appeared together. Of the four,
> > three
> > > were members of the Trilateral Commission: Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter
> > and
> > > George H.W. Bush. Gerald Ford was not a Commissioner, but was
> > nevertheless a
> > > confirmed globalist insider. After Ford's accession to the presidency in
> > > 1974, he promptly nominated Nelson Rockefeller (David Rockefeller's
> > oldest
> > > brother) to fill the Vice Presidency that Ford had just vacated.
> > >
> > > The academic community was enlisted when, according to Harper's Magazine
> > > publisher John MacArthur,
> > >
> > >  *...there was a pro-NAFTA petition, organized and written my MIT's
> > Rudiger
> > > Dornbusch, addressed to President Clinton and signed by all twelve
> > living
> > > Nobel laureates in economics, and exercise in academic logrolling that
> > was
> > > expertly converted by Bill Daley and the A-Team into PR gold on the
> > front
> > > page of The New York Times on September 14. 'Dear Mr. President,' wrote
> > the
> > > 283 signatories..."6*
> > >
> > > **
> > >
> > > Lastly, prominent Trilateral Commission members themselves took to the
> > press
> > > to promote NAFTA. For instance, on May 13, 1993, Commissioners Henry
> > > Kissinger and Cyrus Vance wrote a joint op-ed that stated:
> > >
> > >  *"[NAFTA] would be the most constructive measure the United States
> > would
> > > have undertaken in our hemisphere in this century."7*
> > >
> > > Two months later, Kissinger went further,
> > >
> > >  *"It will represent the most creative step toward a new world order
> > taken
> > > by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War, and the first
> > step
> > > toward an even larger vision of a free-trade zone for the entire Western
> > > Hemisphere." [NAFTA] is not a conventional trade agreement, but the
> > > architecture
> > > of a new international system."*8 [emphasis added]
> > >
> > > It is hardly fanciful to think that Kissinger's hype sounds quite
> > similar to
> > > the Trilateral Commission's original goal of creating a *New
> > International
> > > Economic Order*.
> > >
> > > *On January 1, 1994, NAFTA became law: Under Fast Track procedures, the
> > > house had passed it by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting
> > in
> > > favor) and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61-38. *
> > >
> > > *-----*
> > >
> > > *Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett*
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
>