Tuesday, April 26, 2011
“If you compare it with the revolution in Egypt and Tunisia, the people there feel the joy of the revolution because it is a product of their own actions. In the Libyan country, I think this kind of joy is not felt by the people,” Abu Sohayb told Press TV's Rattansi and Ridley (R & R) program in regards with Western intervention in Libya following the people's revolution against Muammar Gaddafi.
“When someone else is involved with the revolution other than the Libyan people, I think it is no longer crystal clear, and it spoils the revolution,” He added.
Abu Sohayb also voiced his sympathy towards Libyans who have fled the country following the intervention.
“I feel sad for them, because the main reasons for the Western intervention in Libya should be to help these kinds of people. When I see my people leaving and becoming refugees in Tunisia, I feel very sad for them and their families,” Abu Sohayb went on to say.
Over 16,000 refugees have crossed from Libya and entered Tunisia, reports say.
The humanitarian situation in the city of Misratah with the population of over one million has been reported as alarming with many people in dire need of food, water and medical supplies.
Dozens of civilians have also been killed in Libya since the Western military alliance launched its attacks on the North African country.
'Nowhere else in the world on 9/11 was a community under an evacuation order and nowhere else were emergency authorities told to prepare for a mass casualty incident involving a hijacked airliner.'—Max Fraser, filmmaker
|Written by John F. McManus|
|Thursday, 21 April 2011 07:32|
The centuries-long drive to create a totalitarian world government hasn’t been derailed. Because of widespread opposition, however, the route chosen to accomplish the goal has taken numerous twists and turns.
The most devilishly effective method being currently employed to carry out the totalitarian scheme doesn’t call for military action or a series of sudden national coups d’etat. Instead, veteran promoters of the drive are using a “piecemeal” approach aimed at destroying personal freedom and transferring national sovereignty to the United Nations. This process brings to mind the oft-repeated poser: “How does one eat an elephant?” Answer: “One bite at a time!”
Four years later, another professor and occasional State Department veteran named Richard N. Gardner boldly suggested the same strategy in his article “The Hard Road to World Order.” Published in the April 1974 issue of Foreign Affairs, the journal of the world-government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations, Gardner lamented that a single leap into world government, which he preferred, wasn’t attainable. So he urged “an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece.” And he pointedly advocated a “piecemeal” transfer of power to such international organizations as the UN’s International Monetary Fund, the UN’s World Bank, the UN-led World Food Conference, the UN-led Population Conference, even a United Nations military arm.
The end sought by these two internationalist heavyweights — and many other likeminded globalists — would result in forced redistribution of the world’s wealth, termination of basic freedoms (religion, speech, publishing, property rights, etc.), and complete regimentation of all human activity right down to the local level.
It’s no surprise, therefore, to discover that the “piecemeal” process aiming toward this megalomaniacal goal appears in the UN’s Agenda 21. This enormous document emerged from the highly publicized 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero, Brazil. Its 1,100 pages supply a detailed program for social engineering on such a massive scale that it would, if fully implemented, accomplish complete regimentation of all life on the planet during the 21st Century. Hence the name Agenda 21.
Rio Hosted the Birth of Agenda 21
Attorney David Sitarz, one of the major editors of the massive Agenda 21 document, minced no words in telling the world its overall purpose. His revealing summary appeared in its early pages:
Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by every person on earth.... It calls for specific changes in the activities of all people.... Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced — a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.
If a major enthusiast for Agenda 21 admits that this comprehensive document calls for the total regimentation of all life on Planet Earth, shouldn’t people take notice? Sitarz continued:
There are specific actions which are intended to be undertaken by multinational corporations and entrepreneurs, by financial institutions, by high-end companies and indigenous people, by workers and labor unions, by farmers and consumers, by students and schools, by governments and legislators, by scientists, by women, by children — in short by every person on earth.
“Every person on earth”? Yes indeed. What Sitarz wrote led The New American magazine’s William Jasper to conclude that Agenda 21’s “tyrannical implications are so stunningly transparent that it seems impossible that any nation not overtly communist could endorse it.” Yet, most nations have endorsed it and have been implementing its recommendations — piece by piece — while the far-reaching totalitarian goal remains in the shadows.
Piecemeal Implementation of Agenda 21 Through ICLEI
ICLEI’s website openly admits that its Local Agenda 21 Model Communities Program will “aid local governments in implementing Chapter 28 of Agenda 21, the global action plan for sustainable development.” Former Clinton administration adviser J. Gary Lawrence later worried that there might be some who discover that the ICLEI effort constitutes “an attack on the power of the nation-state.” At a seminar in England, he told a British audience,
The segment of our society who fear “one-world government” and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedoms might be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined [in our effort.] So, we’ll call our processes something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management, smart growth.
Veteran “sustainable development” opponent Tom DeWeese, the leader of the Virginia-based American Policy Center, notes that the Sustainable Development plan contained in the Agenda 21 plan is being advanced under an array of deceptively labeled initiatives such as:
… cap and trade, global warming, population control, gun control, open borders and illegal immigration, higher taxes, higher gasoline prices, refusal to drill for oil and natural gas, education restructuring, international IDs, health supplement control, food control, farming “reform,” control of private property, etc.
While pointing out that ICLEI is already functioning in other countries, DeWeese has published a list of 544 U.S. communities (cities, towns, counties) where ICLEI is hard at work while being financed by local tax revenues. Just as the term “global warming” has lately been replaced by the increasingly mocked “climate change,” ICLEI has adopted a newer name, “ICLEI — Local Governments for Sustainability.” The hope is that the four-word addition to its title will overcome whatever fear might be generated by discovery of the word “International” in its full name. Yet ICLEI’s website actually bares its internationalist goal: “Connect cities and local governments to the United Nations and other international bodies.” Each would then “help their countries implement multilateral environmental agreements,” such as those produced at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. That means Agenda 21.
Americans Awakening to the Threat
The city of Edmond, Oklahoma, has also pulled out of ICLEI. In Maine, the state’s Department of Transportation cancelled plans for the “Gateway Project,” a plan to create unnecessary linkages among 20 communities. Some opponents of the Maine project expressed their belief that the idea stemmed from the overall Agenda 21 planning.
While some Americans now realize that Agenda 21 and its numerous stepchildren pose a danger to their communities and their nation, many more must be made aware. Far more than considerations about the cost and control associated with involvement, the more important overall threat posed by Agenda 21 is loss of independence at the community, county, state, and national levels. The designs of the globalists who are working to seize control of the world — piecemeal, step-by-step, bite by bite, or however else the process can be described — must be blocked. Our nation has always benefited from its diverse communities and independent-thinking citizens bound together loosely under the U.S. and state constitutions.
Let’s keep it that way!
(First published as "Agenda 21 and Its ICLEI Stepchild" in the May, 2011 issue of the Bulletin of The John Birch Society; reposted here with permission.)
President Obama's compromise with Congressional Republicans to reduce the deficit is “a rotten deal” that “hits the poor and the middle class the hardest,” The Nationmagazine said in a May 2nd editorial.
The president may have called for “shared sacrifice”to reduce the budget by $4 trillion over the next 12 years but for every $1 raised by closing tax loopholes for the wealthy, he proposes $2 in spending cuts, the liberal magazine says.
And “Two-thirds of those cuts would come from education, health and other social programs while one-third would come from the military budget,” the magazine editorialized.
“The president's vision of 'shared sacrifice,' in other words, hits the poor and the middle class hardest. Meanwhile, wealthy Americans and the military are asked to sacrifice less, even though it was unfunded tax cuts and wars that got us a deficit in the first place,” the editorial continued.
To avoid a government shutdown, the president agreed to a 2011 budget compromise that cut spending by $38 billion, “the majority of which will come from the departments of education, labor and health,” The Nation pointed out.
The magazine concluded Mr. Obama's “balanced approach” “conceded too much too early to the deficit hawks and austerity pushers.” Where he “needed to reset the debate,” instead “he split the difference.”
In a similar vein, former Labor Secy. Robert Reich wrote on his blog the president “is losing the war of ideas because he won't tell the American public the truth: That we need more government spending now---not less---in order to get out of the gravitational pull of the Great Recession.”
That's because “the increasingly lopsided distribution of income and wealth has robbed the vast working middle class of the purchasing power they need to keep the economy going at full capacity,” Reich explained.
Early in the last century, enlightened industrialists raised workers' salaries so they could buy the goods they were manufacturing. Today, corporations show zero loyalty to their workers. They do not cut productive workers in for a share of the profits. Working Americans, Reich says, are earning on average “only about $280 more a year than 30 years ago, adjusted for inflation. That's less than a 1 percent gain over more than a third of a century.”
Worse, corporations whose employees made them great in the first place quit the country to find cheaper labor overseas. And many of the new jobs being created in recent months are bottom-of-the-barrel, minimum wage work.
“Real hourly wages continue to fall,” Reich says, because “with unemployment so high, most people have no bargaining power and will take whatever they can get.”
At the same time ever more families are sliding into poverty, signing up for food stamps, and lining up at church soup kitchens, “Wall Street profits soared to $426.5 billion last quarter,” Reich says.
Since Corporate America is largely responsible for the Great Recession by starving its workers of the purchasing power they need to put punch back into the economy, you might think companies would plow some of their lush profits back into the work force. You might think the oil companies would share some of their fabulous profits with motorists. But no such luck.
Worse, the corporate types and their Republican allies in Congress want to stop federal and state governments from paying their workers fairly and creating needed public service jobs. Instead, they want to lay off loyal employees. They want to bust the unions. They move whole factories overseas. They abandon cities and counties, robbing them of their industrial base. They relocate offshore to evade taxes. They even outsource help-line jobs to low-paid workers in India. And if they can, they will privatize Social Security and gut Medicare.
This is capitalism without a heart, without a conscience.
Yet if the private sector will not live up to its responsibilities, who would deny government the role of employer of last resort and the trainer of last resort?
Right now, not tomorrow, the U.S. needs to provide a job for every person who wants to work. Right now, the U.S. has got to mobilize and upgrade a vast network of vocational training facilities---in trade schools, union halls, community colleges and, yes, corporations---to train millions of workers in skilled trades. Right now, the U.S. needs to create millions of jobs in day care centers, hospitals, the building trades and for work on all phases of infrastructure---from replacing sewer and water pipes, to creating solar, sea, and wind power plants, to refurbishing run-down housing and beautifying deteriorating communities.
Tragically, Mr. Obama is virtually blind to the needs of the American people. He is smitten with the imperial vision. Americans have been electing presidents who, upon taking office, act like kings, and kill like tyrants, and he is no exception. Americans want jobs at home, not wars abroad. They want money for local schools, not for foreign bases. They want peace and prosperity. At the least, Democrats need a new standard-bearer in 2012. Americans need a Green Revolution. President Obama talks a great game. But his promises before an election are broken after he's elected. And his foreign policy of wars and assassinations is cruel and contemptible. It's time for a change!
Sherwood Ross worked as a reporter for the Chicago Daily News and as a columnist for wire services. To comment or contribute to his Anti-War News Service contact him at email@example.com
The European single currency hit $1.4653 in morning trade, the highest point since mid-December 2009, as many dealers returned from a long holiday weekend. It later stood at $1.4619, compared with $1.4572 late in New York on Monday.
The dollar meanwhile tumbled to an all-time low point of 0.8745 Swiss francs.
Investors moved to adjust positions ahead of the US Federal Reserve's two-day policy meeting, which was to open later on Tuesday, dealers said.
Traders are also eagerly awaiting Thursday's publication of US gross domestic product (GDP) data for the first three months of 2011.
"The US dollar continues to remain under pressure ahead of this week's key FOMC rate meeting tomorrow and first quarter GDP figures, which are due on Thursday," said CMC Markets analyst Michael Hewson.
Markets are keenly awaiting Fed chairman Ben Bernanke's first news conference on Wednesday after the meeting. It will be the first by any Fed chief, in contrast with regular news conferences held by European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet.
April 26 (Bloomberg) -- Residential real estate prices dropped in February by the most in more than a year, a sign the U.S. housing market is struggling to stabilize.
The S&P/Case-Shiller index of property values in 20 cities fell 3.3 percent from February 2010, the biggest year-over-year decrease since November 2009, the group said today in New York. The decline matched the median forecast in a Bloomberg News survey.
Increases in foreclosures are adding to a growing inventory of unsold homes, which may further depress prices and dissuade potential buyers anticipating even cheaper dwellings. Declining property values also limit construction and restrain consumer spending as homeowners have less equity to borrow against.