Emerging global elite to use new global media to educate 'global citizens'

Emerging global elite to use new global media to educate 'global citizens'

Information Liberation
Article posted Feb 21 2009, 11:19 AM

The following is based on a report by Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media.

Elite members of the World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, Switzerland, recently considered a proposal for a new global television network to usher in a state of “global governance.” The concept strikes some as authoritarian, even totalitarian. But the parent company of Fox News was one of the sponsors of this year's gathering. ShareThis

The media proposal, which was included in “The Global Agenda 2009” report, is to create “a new global network” with “the capacity to connect the world, bridging cultures and peoples, and telling us who we are and what we mean to each other.” Several prominent U.S. media figures signed on to the alarming and controversial proposal.

Isn’t it nice that we might have a TV network telling us “who we are?” And “what we mean to each other?” Perhaps we will learn that we are global citizens. Perhaps a global leader of some sort will tell us that. Who might that be?

This proposal doesn’t come from a fringe organization. The WEF is an exclusive club of very rich and powerful people from around the world. It describes itself as “an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world by engaging leaders in partnerships to shape global, regional and industry agendas.”

This year’s conference featured speeches by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Chinese Premier We Jiabao. Many U.S. corporations, including some getting Wall Street bailout money, were sponsors. News Corporation, the parent of Fox News, was a “strategic partner” of the event.

Valerie Jarrett, Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Relations and Public Liaison, represented the Obama Administration at this year’s event and called leaders from all nations to “seize gladly” the duties of collaborating and boldly embrace “a new era of global financial responsibility.”

But the WEF also envisions cooperation and collaboration in global media ventures. It asks, “How can we save journalism to help it save the world?” Clearly, this is advocacy journalism on a global scale.

Indeed, the list of “Recommendations” says it is imperative to start “Communicating a global agenda, and motivating and mobilizing people to support it…”

Is this journalism? Or is it brainwashing and propaganda?

It says that “a genuine, global voice” is needed that shares a “fundamental commitment” to being an international media voice, and makes mention of “the media voices we think of as international” coming from London (the BBC), Qatar (Al-Jazeera) or Atlanta (CNN).

BBC is known for its anti-American programming, Al-Jazeera for its pro-terrorist slant, and CNN for its left-wing and pro-Democratic bias.

It will take “innovative public-private funding” to bring this new network into being, apparently meaning that the taxpayers in the U.S. will have to be soaked in order to help bring this about. But no price tag is put on the venture and no objection was apparently raised to government funding of such a network on a global basis. An “overview” statement does, however, decry “censorship and self-censorship.”

Elsewhere in the report (page 31) the idea of “international taxation” is proposed for “global action” of various kinds. Perhaps this is a vehicle for raising revenue for the new “global voice.”

The media proposal was developed by one of several “Global Agenda Councils” under the auspices of the WEF. The new TV network proposal was issued under the supervision of Pat Mitchell, the president of the Paley Center for Media and former President and Chief Executive Officer of the Public Broadcasting Service. She was the chair of the Global Agenda Council on the Future of Media.

Other members of the Council on the Future of Media were Betsy Morgan of the left-wing Huffington Post (former general manager of CBSNews.com); Rui Chenggang of China Central Television, an official political propaganda arm of the communist regime; and Zafar Siddiqi of CNBC Arabiya, a subsidiary of General Electric which is described as a 24-hour Arabic language financial and business information channel.

There is no indication in the published report that the Huffington Post executive raised any objection to working hand-in-glove with the communist propaganda channel. Is the Chinese media model a precedent for the new “global network?”

The conference was covered by media organizations such as CNBC, CNN, Bloomberg, Forbes and Fox, but no coverage that we could find was devoted to the proposal for a government-financed global media network. Talk about self-censorship!

John J. DeGioia, President of Georgetown University and the “Rapporteur of the Global Agenda Councils focusing on Society and Values,” summarized the work of Mitchell’s panel. He says (page 46) that, “We believe that this new moment also calls for a new media platform, across all media channels, a global non-profit ‘CNN’ providing a new form of independent journalism to inform, illuminate and deepen knowledge about issues that improve the state of the world.”

According to DeGioia’s biography, he walks the walk and is dedicated to helping “prepare young people for leadership roles in the global community.” His bio adds, “He is a member of the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO and Chair of its Education Committee and he represents Georgetown at the World Economic Forum and on the Council on Foreign Relations.”

The media council took advantage of what a description of its work said was an “enormous opportunity” to “redefine the media and its roles in a global, interconnected society.”

Under the title of “Recommendations” (page 182), the Council on the Future of Media declares that “The Council is championing a new global, independent news and information service whose role is to inform, educate and improve the state of the world?one that would take advantage of all platforms of content delivery from mobile to satellite and online to create a new global network.”

It goes on, “In a world where there are calls for global governance as a response to a global financial crisis, where scientific research, capital flows and production chains are globalized, the media and the communities in which we imagine ourselves remain fiercely localized.” Hence, a global network will work against “localized” or national-based systems and convince people to go “global” with their outlook and solutions. In other words, the new network will help undermine old-fashioned notions of national sovereignty and patriotism.

There are 22 members (page 183) of the Council on the Future of Media. In addition to Mitchell and Morgan, American members include:

* Alex S. Jones, former media reporter for the New York Times and now Director, Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
* Susan King, former Washington correspondent for ABC News and now Director, Journalism Initiative, Special Initiatives and Strategy, Carnegie Corporation of New York.
* John Lavine, Dean, Medill School of Journalism Northwestern University.
* Nicholas Lemann, former Washington Post reporter and now Dean, School of Journalism, Columbia University.
* David Nordfors, Director, Innovation Journalism and Senior Research Scholar, Stanford Center for Innovations in Learning, Stanford University.
* Monroe Price, Director, Centre for Global Communications Studies, Annenberg School for Communication, the University of Pennsylvania.
* Orville H. Schell, Director, Center on US-China Relations, Asia Society.

There doesn’t appear to be one identifiable conservative member on the list. Of course, everyone on the list is a certified objective media proessional, neither liberal nor conservative. Just ask them.

Mexico's Fox touts EU-like integration for the Americas or North American Union (NAU)

Mexico's Fox touts EU-like integration for the Americas or North American Union (NAU)

By Elaine Ayala

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox was in San Antonio Friday, delivering a wide-ranging address about U.S.-Mexico relations that touched on trade, the drug war, comprehensive immigration reform and the United States' “mammoth” financial crisis that has spread worldwide.

Fox also delivered a message of hope — hope that someday Canada, the United States and Mexico, indeed the rest of Latin America, would function like the European Union.

“It's an extremely successful model,” said Fox, whose wife, Marta Sahagún, accompanied him. “My vision is to speed up the process of further integration.”

Fox was in town to address the Congressional Hispanic Leadership Institute's Future Leaders Conference, held at the UTSA Main Campus. He received four rousing standing ovations from the crowd, many of them student business majors.

The event was hosted by the University of Texas at San Antonio's College of Business.

Fox acknowledged the difficulty of establishing a European Union-like structure in the Americas, given those who'd oppose it. But Fox said, “Hope is back again,” referring to the new U.S. president and the United States' “capacity to fight for ideals.”

“The border between Mexico and the United States is not as fluid, stable or open as the border with Canada,” Fox said. “This certainly is because there is a huge difference in the levels of development.”

Fox hailed the success of the North American Free Trade Alliance even as a student in the audience questioned its societal impact and inability to create jobs for Mexican citizens.

“It has happened,” Fox said of Mexico's job creation. Before NAFTA, annual “per capita income was $3,500. Today it is $8,500, three-fold growth.”

Fox also spoke of Mexico's war against drug cartels and its impact on “perhaps the most dynamic border in the world.” He reiterated comments made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this week, in which she said “insatiable” U.S. drug consumption drives the war.

Indeed, Fox conceded that more of his own citizens are engaging in drug use as cartels look for new markets.

And while he lamented how the terror attacks of 9-11 quashed potential plans for comprehensive immigration reform, supported by then-President George W. Bush, Fox expressed hope that President Barrack Obama would take up the charge.

Hannity, Morris Agree with "Conspiracy People" About New World Order

Hannity, Morris Agree with "Conspiracy People" About New World Order

Kurt Nimmo
Information Liberation
Article posted Apr 01 2009, 5:55 PM

In the video here, the former Clintonite Dick Morris, who is now a darling of Fox News, tells Sean Hannity the globalists will put the “American economy under international regulation” and “those people who have been yelling, oh, the UN is going to take over… they’ve been crazy, but now they’re right.”

“Those conspiracy people,” Sean Hannity interjects, “had suggested that for years… you’re not wrong.

It’s the “international regulation of the financial institutions” we have to worry about, warns Dick Morris. It will happen under “IMF control... Remember, the IMF is run by the Europeans and backed by Americans.”

It’s too bad Mr. Morris didn’t give us the rest of the story. The IMF is a loan sharking operation created by the bankers under the Bretton Woods scheme and its primary purpose to date has been to get third world nations into hock so they can be more effectively looted. It is now poised, as Morris eludes, to embark on a far more ambitious bankster scam — to initiate something called “global quantitative easing" by printing billions of dollars worth of a global "super-currency,” deceptively billed as a way to address the economic crisis manufactured by the global elite.

“Alistair Darling and senior figures in the US Treasury have been encouraging the Fund to issue hundreds of billions of dollars worth of so-called Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) in the coming months as part of its campaign to prevent the recession from turning into a global depression,” the Telegraph reported on March 16.



SDRs are now based on four currencies — the US dollar, the Japanese yen, the euro and the British pound. They are used largely as a unit of account by the IMF and other international organizations.

Read between the lines and you get to the bottom of the real reason for the issuance of SDRs — to push for a world currency. Recall a few days ago Zhou Xiaochuan, China’s central bank’s governor, calling for the IMF to forge a new world reserve currency.

China demands a settlement system between the SDRs and other currencies so that they can be used in international trade and financial transactions. The IMF would manage these SDRs and they would gradually replace existing reserve currencies.

As envisioned by our rulers, a world “super-currency” will ultimately require a world government. Morris blames the Europeans for this and he is only partially right — it is a scam long ago devised by international bankers primarily based in Europe and Britain and backed, as Morris admits, by the American financial elite.

The issuance of paper SDRs “would please the plutocratic international bankers” to no end, writes Robert Bradshaw, and this “move would allow them a golden opportunity to print fiat paper money in huge quantities to flood the world. We can be sure that the fat cats [the bankers] would love to have a new paper world currency in their greedy little hands. Since they already control the IMF and most world central banks, such a new global currency would definitely fit into their plans for world rule.”

It is hardly surprising that SDRs and world currency will be on the agenda at the G20 this week. The globalist George Soros has urged Obama to push the SDR agenda and has warned that if a world currency is not established and the global economy collapses (as planned) the United States “shall cease to be the dominant financial power” and “China is liable to come up ahead.” Soros is merely running a time-tested shell game in an effort to get the U.S. to pony up for what will ultimately be its demise, again as planned. China is the model to be used for our totalitarian future.

Dick Morris and the disinfo operative Sean Hannity may indeed be alarmed by this obvious push for world government. It is interesting to note that Hannity has only lately come around to the existence of the New World Order — formerly in the realm of crazy conspiracy theories — now that Obama is in the White House and the Democrats in control of Congress. Hannity and Morris are simply reading from a provided script.

Point is, the New World Order wants you to know what they have in mind for you. It tickles them to give you a preview of things to come now that the New Savior is in office and enjoying high popularity — a one world government with a high-tech control grid overlay designed to usher in a brave new world of hellish serfdom and eventually the dream of our eugenicist rulers: a mass culling of the herd who are considered little more than useless eaters.

THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY

THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY

"A stunning film. It should be seen as widely as possible, in cinemas, bars, clubs, at meetings and, of course, through the internet. I'm sure the film will continue to be a source of debate and political education for many years. Maybe until the war criminals have been brought to trial." - Ken Loach

"In the White House, they weren't thinking of 9/11 as an attack, but as a gift!" - Robert Steele, former CIA agent

While Massimo Mazzucco’s first political documentary, GLOBAL DECEIT (2006), focused on the long list of inconsistencies in the official version of the 9/11 attacks, THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY explores the historical, philosophical and economic background that suggests a matrix for such events that is much closer to home than the so-called "Islamic terrorism".

The film provides solid evidence for the true reasons behind the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, whose unfolding is described in chilling detail in a document called "Project for the New American Century", published in the year 2,000, that seems to have served as the actual blueprint for such dramatic events.


This film is astonishing, it goes in detail through the untold history of The Project for the New American Century with tons of archival footage and connects it right into the present. This film exposes how every major war in US history was based on a complete fraud with video of insiders themselves admitting it. This film shows how the first film theaters in the US were used over a hundred years ago to broadcast propaganda to rile the American people into the Spanish-American War. This film shows the white papers of the oil company Unocal which called for the creation of a pipeline through Afghanistan and how their exact needs were fulfilled through the US invasion of Afghanistan. This film shows how Halliburton under their "cost plus" exclusive contract with the US Government went on a mad dash spending spree akin to something out of the movie Brewster's Millions, yet instead of blowing $30 million they blew through BILLIONS by literally burning millions of dollars worth of hundred thousand dollar cars and trucks if they had so much as a flat tire. I have seen a ton of films, this film contains a massive amount of incredible footage I have never seen before anywhere, it is an historical documentary which exposes all the lies of the past so that you can understand the present. This film is a must see. - Information Liberation

Security and Prosperity Partnership: Militarized NAFTA

Security and Prosperity Partnership: Militarized NAFTA

Posting originally appeared on http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/2-security-and-prosperity-partnership-militarized-nafta/

Sources:
Center for International Policy, May 30, 2007
Title: “‘Deep Integration’—the Anti-Democratic Expansion of NAFTA”
Author: Laura Carlsen

Global Research, July 19, 2007
Title: “The Militarization and Annexation of North America”
Author: Stephen Lendman

Global Research, August 2, 2007
Title: “North American Union: The SPP is a ‘hostile takeover’ of democratic government and an end to the Rule of Law”
Author: Constance Fogal

Student Researchers: Rebecca Newsome and Andrea Lochtefeld

Faculty Evaluator: Ron Lopez, PhD

Leaders of Canada, the US, and Mexico have been meeting to secretly expand the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with “deep integration” of a more militarized tri-national Homeland Security force. Taking shape under the radar of the respective governments and without public knowledge or consideration, the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP)—headquartered in Washington—aims to integrate the three nations into a single political, economic, and security bloc.

The SPP was launched at a meeting of Presidents George W. Bush and Vicente Fox, and Prime Minister Paul Martin, in Waco, Texas, on March 31, 2005. The official US web page describes the SPP as “. . . a White House-led initiative among the United States and Canada and Mexico to increase security and to enhance prosperity . . .” The SPP is not a law, or a treaty, or even a signed agreement. All these would require public debate and participation of Congress.

The SPP was born in the “war on terror” era and reflects an inordinate emphasis on US security as interpreted by the Department of Homeland Security. Its accords mandate border actions, military and police training, modernization of equipment, and adoption of new technologies, all under the logic of the US counter-terrorism campaign. Head of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, along with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Finance Carlos Gutierrez, are the three officials charged with attending SPP ministerial conferences.

Measures to coordinate security have pressured Mexico to militarize its southern border. US military elements already operate inside Mexico and the DEA and the FBI have initiated training programs for the Mexican Army (now involved in the drug war), federal and state police, and intelligence units. Stephen Lendman states that a Pentagon briefing paper hinted at a US invasion if the country became destabilized or the government faced the threat of being overthrown because of “widespread economic and social chaos” that would jeopardize US investments, access to oil, overall trade, and would create great numbers of immigrants heading north.

Canada’s influential Department of National Defence; its new Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier; and Defense Minister Gordon O’Connor are on board as well. They’re committed to ramping up the nation’s military spending and linking with America’s “war on terror.”

The SPP created the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) that serves as an official tri-national SPP working group. The group is composed of representatives of thirty giant North American companies, including General Electric, Ford Motors, General Motors, Wal-Mart, Lockheed-Martin, Merck, and Chevron.

NACC’s recommendations centered on “private sector involvement” being “a key step to enhancing North America’s competitive position in global markets and is the driving force behind innovation and growth.” The NACC stressed the importance of establishing policies for maximum profits.

The US-guided agenda prioritizes corporate-friendly access to resources, especially Canadian and Mexican oil and water. The NACC’s policy states that “the prosperity of the United States relies heavily on a secure supply of imported energy.” US energy security is seen as a top priority encouraging Canada and Mexico to allow privatization of state-run enterprises like Mexico’s nationalized oil company, PEMEX. In January 2008, Halliburton signed a $683 million contract with PEMEX to drill fifty-eight new test holes in Chiapas and Tabasco and take over maintenance of pipelines. This is the latest of $2 billion in contracts Halliburton has received from PEMEX during Fox’s and current Mexican president Felipe Calderone’s administrations, which the opposition warns has become the public front for US monopoly capital privatization.1 US policy seeks to insure America gets unlimited access to Canada water as well.

Connie Fogal of Canadian Action Party says, “The SPP is the hostile takeover of the apparatus of democratic government . . . a coup d’etat over the government operations of Canada, US and Mexico.”

Citation

1. “Mexican Farmers Protest NAFTA Hardships,” People’s Weekly World, February 7, 2008.

UPDATE BY STEPHEN LENDMAN

A fourth SPP summit was held in New Orleans from April 22 to 24, 2008. George Bush, Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon attended. Protesters held what they called a “people’s summit.” They were in the streets and held workshops to inform people how destructive SPP is, strengthen networking and organizational ties against it, maintain online information about their activities, promote efforts and build added support, and affirm their determination to continue resisting a hugely repressive corporate-sponsored agenda.

Opponents call the “Partnership” NAFTA on steroids. Business-friendly opposition also exists. The prominent Coalition to Block the North American Union (NAU) is backed by the Conservative Caucus, which has a “NAU War Room,” a “headquarters of the national campaign to expose and halt America’s absorption into a North American Union with Canada and Mexico.” It opposes building “a massive, continental ‘NAFTA Superhighway.’”

This coalition has congressional allies, and on January 2007, Rep. Virgil Goode and six co-sponsors introduced House Concurrent Resolution 40, which expresses “the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in (building a NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a NAU with Mexico and Canada.”

The April summit reaffirmed SPP’s intentions—to create a borderless North America, dissolve national sovereignty, put corporate giants in control, and assure big US companies most of it. It’s also to create fortress-North America by militarizing the continent under US command.

SPP maintains a website. Its “key accomplishments” since August 2007 are updated as of April 22, 2008. The information is too detailed for this update, but can be accessed from the following link: http://www.spp.gov/pdf/key_accomplishments_since_august_2007.pdf.

The website lists principles agreed to; bilateral deals struck; negotiations concluded; study assessments released; agreements on the “Free Flow of Information”; law enforcement activities; efforts related to intellectual property, border and long-haul trucking enforcement; import licensing procedures; food and product safety issues; energy issues (with special focus on oil); infrastructure development; emergency management; and much more. It’s all laid out in deceptively understated tones to hide its continental aim—to enable enhanced corporate exploitation with as little public knowledge as possible.

Militarization includes the US Northern Command (NORTHCOM), established in October 2002, which has air, land, and sea responsibility for the continent regardless of Posse Comitatus limitations that no longer apply or sovereign borders that are easily erased. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) also have large roles. So does the FBI, CIA, all US spy agencies, militarized state and local police, National Guard forces, and paramilitary mercenaries like Blackwater USA.

They’re headed anywhere on the continent with license to operate as freely as in Iraq and New Orleans post-Katrina. They’ll be able to turn hemispheric streets into versions of Baghdad and make them unfit to live on if things come to that.

Consider other militarizing developments as well. On February 14, 2008, the US and Canada agreed to allow American troops inside Canada. Canadians were told nothing of this agreement, which was drafted in 2002. Neither was it discussed in Congress or in the Canadian House of Commons. The agreement establishes “bilateral integration” of military command structures in areas of immigration, law enforcement, intelligence, or whatever else the Pentagon or Washington wishes. Overall, it’s part of the “war on terror” and militarizing the continent to make it “safer” for business and being prepared for any civilian opposition.

Mexico is also being targeted, with a “Plan Mexico” that was announced in October 2007. It’s a Mexican and Central American security plan called the Merida Initiative, supported by $1.4 billion in allocated aid. Congress will soon vote on this initiative, likely well before this is published. It’s a “regional security cooperation initiative” similar to Plan Colombia and presented as an effort to fight drug trafficking.

In fact, the Merida Initiative is part of SPP’s militarization of Mexico and gives Washington more control of the country. Most of the aid goes to Mexico’s military and police forces, with a major portion earmarked for US defense contractors for equipment, training, and maintenance. The touchy issue of deploying US troops will be avoided by instead employing private US security forces, i.e., Blackwater and DynCorp.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org, Mondays from 11 am to 1 pm CT.

Over One Million Iraqi Deaths Caused by US Occupation

Over One Million Iraqi Deaths Caused by US Occupation

Originally posted at http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/1-over-one-million-iraqi-deaths-caused-by-us-occupation/
Sources:
After Downing Street, July 6, 2007
Title: “Is the United States Killing 10,000 Iraqis Every Month? Or Is It More?”
Author: Michael Schwartz

AlterNet, September 17, 2007
Title: “Iraq death toll rivals Rwanda genocide, Cambodian killing fields”
Author: Joshua Holland

Reuters (via AlterNet), January 7, 2008
Title: “Iraq conflict has killed a million, says survey”
Author: Luke Baker

Inter Press Service, March 3, 2008
Title: “Iraq: Not our country to Return to”
Authors: Maki al-Nazzal and Dahr Jamail

Student Researchers: Danielle Stanton, Tim LeDonne, and Kat Pat Crespán
Faculty Evaluator: Heidi LaMoreaux, PhD

Over one million Iraqis have met violent deaths as a result of the 2003 invasion, according to a study conducted by the prestigious British polling group, Opinion Research Business (ORB). These numbers suggest that the invasion and occupation of Iraq rivals the mass killings of the last century—the human toll exceeds the 800,000 to 900,000 believed killed in the Rwandan genocide in 1994, and is approaching the number (1.7 million) who died in Cambodia’s infamous “Killing Fields” during the Khmer Rouge era of the 1970s.

ORB’s research covered fifteen of Iraq’s eighteen provinces. Those not covered include two of Iraq’s more volatile regions—Kerbala and Anbar—and the northern province of Arbil, where local authorities refused them a permit to work. In face-to-face interviews with 2,414 adults, the poll found that more than one in five respondents had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict, as opposed to natural cause.

Authors Joshua Holland and Michael Schwartz point out that the dominant narrative on Iraq—that most of the violence against Iraqis is being perpetrated by Iraqis themselves and is not our responsibility—is ill conceived. Interviewers from the Lancet report of October 2006 (Censored 2006, #2) asked Iraqi respondents how their loved ones died. Of deaths for which families were certain of the perpetrator, 56 percent were attributable to US forces or their allies. Schwartz suggests that if a low pro rata share of half the unattributed deaths were caused by US forces, a total of approximately 80 percent of Iraqi deaths are directly US perpetrated.

Even with the lower confirmed figures, by the end of 2006, an average of 5,000 Iraqis had been killed every month by US forces since the beginning of the occupation. However, the rate of fatalities in 2006 was twice as high as the overall average, meaning that the American average in 2006 was well over 10,000 per month, or over 300 Iraqis every day. With the surge that began in 2007, the current figure is likely even higher.

Schwartz points out that the logic to this carnage lies in a statistic released by the US military and reported by the Brookings Institute: for the first four years of the occupation the American military sent over 1,000 patrols each day into hostile neighborhoods, looking to capture or kill “insurgents” and “terrorists.” (Since February 2007, the number has increased to nearly 5,000 patrols a day, if we include the Iraqi troops participating in the American surge.) Each patrol invades an average of thirty Iraqi homes a day, with the mission to interrogate, arrest, or kill suspects. In this context, any fighting age man is not just a suspect, but a potentially lethal adversary. Our soldiers are told not to take any chances (see Story #9).

According to US military statistics, again reported by the Brookings Institute, these patrols currently result in just under 3,000 firefights every month, or just under an average of one hundred per day (not counting the additional twenty-five or so involving our Iraqi allies). Thousands of patrols result in thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths and unconscionably brutal detentions.

Iraqis’ attempts to escape the violence have resulted in a refugee crisis of mammoth proportion. According to the United Nations Refugee Agency and the International Organization for Migration, in 2007 almost 5 million Iraqis had been displaced by violence in their country, the vast majority of which had fled since 2003. Over 2.4 million vacated their homes for safer areas within Iraq, up to 1.5 million were living in Syria, and over 1 million refugees were inhabiting Jordan, Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, and Gulf States. Iraq’s refugees, increasing by an average of almost 100,000 every month, have no legal work options in most host states and provinces and are increasingly desperate.1

Yet more Iraqis continue to flee their homes than the numbers returning, despite official claims to the contrary. Thousands fleeing say security is as bad as ever, and that to return would be to accept death. Most of those who return are subsequently displaced again.

Maki al-Nazzal and Dahr Jamail quote an Iraqi engineer now working at a restaurant in Damascus, “Return to Iraq? There is no Iraq to return to, my friend. Iraq only exists in our dreams and memories.”

Another interviewee told the authors, “The US military say Fallujah is safe now while over 800 men are detained there under the worst conditions. . . . At least 750 out of the 800 detainees are not resistance fighters, but people who refused to collaborate with occupation forces and their tails.” (Iraqis who collaborate with occupation forces are commonly referred to as “tails of the Americans.”)

Another refugee from Baghdad said, “I took my family back home in January. The first night we arrived, Americans raided our house and kept us all in one room while their snipers used our rooftop to shoot at people. I decided to come back here [Damascus] the next morning after a horrifying night that we will never forget.”

Citation

1. “The Iraqi Displacement Crisis,” Refugees International, March 3, 2008.

UPDATE BY MICHAEL SCHWARTZ

The mortality statistics cited in “Is the United States Killing 10,000 Iraqis Every Month?” were based on another article suitable for Project Censored recognition, a scientific investigation of deaths caused by the war in Iraq. The original article, published in Lancet in 2006, received some dismissive coverage when it was released, and then disappeared from view as the mainstream media returned to reporting biased estimates that placed Iraqi casualties at about one-tenth the Lancet estimates. The corporate media blackout of the original study extended to my article as well, and has continued unabated, though the Lancet article has withstood several waves of criticism, while being confirmed and updated by other studies (Censored 2006, #2).

By early 2008, the best estimate, based on extrapolations and replications of the Lancet study, was that 1.2 million Iraqis had died as a consequence of the war. This figure has not, to my knowledge, been reported in any mass media outlet in the United States.

The blackout of the casualty figures was matched by a similar blackout of other main evidence in my article: that the Bush administration military strategy in Iraq assures vast property destruction and lethality on a daily basis. Rules of engagement that require the approximately one thousand US patrols each day to respond to any hostile act with overwhelming firepower—small arms, artillery, and air power—guarantee that large numbers of civilians will suffer and die. But the mainstream media refuses to cover this mayhem, even after the Winter Soldier meetings in March 2008 featured over one hundred Iraq veterans who testified to their own participation in what they call “atrocity producing situations.” (see Story #9)

The effectiveness of the media blackout is vividly illustrated by an Associated Press poll conducted in February 2007, which asked a representative sample of US residents how many Iraqis had died as a result of the war. The average respondent thought the number was under 10,000, about 2 percent of the actual total at that time. This remarkable mass ignorance, like so many other elements of the Iraq War story, received no coverage in the mass media, not even by the Associated Press, which commissioned the study.

The Iraq Veterans Against the War has made the brutality of the occupation their special activist province. The slaughter of the Iraqi people is the foundation of their demand for immediate and full withdrawal of US troops, and the subject of their historic Winter Soldier meetings in Baltimore. Though there was no mainstream US media coverage of this event, the live streaming on Pacifica Radio and on the IVAW website reached a huge audience—including a vast number of active duty soldiers—with vivid descriptions of atrocities committed by the US war machine. A growing number of independent news sites now feature regular coverage of this aspect of the war, including Democracy Now!, Tom Dispatch, Dahr Jamail’s MidEast Dispatches, Informed Comment, Antiwar.com, and ZNet.

UPDATE BY MAKI AL-NAZZAL AND DAHR JAMAIL

The promotion of US general David Petraeus to head CENTCOM, and General Raymond Odierno to replace Petraeus as commanding general of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, provoked a lot of anger amongst Iraqis in both Syria and Jordan. The two generals who convinced US and international society of improvement in Iraq do not seem to have succeeded in convincing Iraqi refugees of their success.

“Just like the Bush Administration decorated Paul Bremer (former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority), they are rewarding others who participated in the destruction to Iraq,” stated Muhammad Shamil, an Iraqi journalist who fled Iraq to Syria in 2006. “What they call violence was concentrated in some parts of Iraq, but now spread to be all over the country, thanks to US war heroes. People are getting killed, evicted or detained by the thousands, from Basra (South) to Mosul (North).”

Other Iraqi refugees seem to have changed attitudes regarding their hopes to return. Compared to when this story was published in March 2008, the refugee crisis continues to deepen. This is exacerbated by the fact that most Iraqis have no intention of returning home. Instead, they are looking for permanent residence in other countries.

“I decided to stop dreaming of going back home and find myself a new home anywhere in the world if I could,” said thirty-two-year-old Maha Numan in Syria, “I have been a refugee for three years now living on the dream of return, but I decided to stop dreaming. I have lost faith in all leaders of the world after the surges of Basra, Sadr City and now Mosul. This seems to be endless and one has to work harder on finding a safe haven for one’s family.”

Iraqis in Syria know a lot more of the news about their country than most journalists. At an Internet café in Damascus, each of them calls his hometown and reports the happenings of the day to other Iraqi refugees. News of ongoing violence across much of Iraq convinces them to remain abroad.

“There were four various explosions in Fallujah today,” said Salam Adel, who worked as a translator for US forces in Fallujah in 2005. “And they say it is safe to go back! Damn them, go back for what? For roadside bombs or car bombs?”

It has been important, politically, for the Bush administration to claim that the situation in Iraq is improving. This claim has been assisted by a complicit corporate media. However, the 1.5 million Iraqis in Syria, and over 750,000 in Jordan, will tell you differently. Otherwise, they would not remain outside of Iraq.

To obtain updated information on the refugee crisis, see http://www.irinnews.org/IRIN-ME.aspx, http://www.iraqredcrescent .org/, http://www.refugeesinternational.org/section/waystohelp, http://www.unhcr.org/iraq.html, and http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/.

To obtain updated information on the number of deaths in Iraq see http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html

American Policy Center President warns Canadians in Ottawa that Bush administration's SPP is modelled from World War

Public/Private Partnerships agenda in SPP are a leaf out of Benito Mussolini Fascist Italy, and Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany

Edited by Peter Tremblay
Tom DeWeese

Tom DeWeese, President of the American Policy Center (APC), a grassroots activist organization located in suburban Washington, DC spoke on Monday, August 20 at a news conference in Ottawa, Canada. He focused on concerns about the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).

The news conference was sponsored by the Coalition to Block The North American Union, of which APC is a founding member. Other leaders of the Coalition include Howard Phillips (Conservative Caucus, that is against the neo-conservatives of the U.S. President George W. Bush administration), Phyllis Schlafly (Eagle Forum), Jerome Corsi (Author), and more than 50 organizations.

The Coalition is concerned that efforts to create the SPP will lead to the establishment of a North American Union along the lines of the European Union (EU). In spite of the propaganda, the EU is a substantively anti-democratic political economic entity, that has stripped away substantive control by members of European nations. The EU undermines democratic control among citizenry over the public policy directions of their own societies, in favour of a clique of Big Business interests.

While the Bush Administration continues to deny that SPP activity is anything more than a "dialogue" with Mexico and Canada over trade issues, Congressman Virgil Goode of Virginia has introduced H. Con. Res. 40 opposing the establishment of a North American Union. In July, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation introduced by Duncan Hunter (R-CA) to cut off funding for SPP talks on transportation issues. The house vote was a bipartisan 362-63. The vote was generated from fears that the talks would lead to open border policies allowing illegal immigrants to continue to flood the United States.

U.S. President Bush was in Canada on August 20-21, meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Harper and Mexican President Calderon for more talks on the SPP. The meetings were held in Montebello, Canada behind a 25-mile security buffer enforced by Canadian security forces and the U.S. Army. No anti-SPP meetings, demonstrations or "dialogues" are to be allowed inside the security buffer. Canadian groups participated in anti-SPP protests.

Below are Tom DeWeese’s illuminating remarks at the news conference, held at the Ottawa Marriot, 10:00 AM Monday morning, 20 August 2007:

It’s not just the three governments and their agencies putting together the Security and Prosperity Partnership. Private corporations are also a strong force driving the policy.

They are working together with the governments in what are commonly referred to as Public/Private Partnerships.

Libertarians and so-called Free Traders promote these partnerships as a means to incorporate free market solutions to government. In this manner, they claim that such "private enterprise" limits the size and power of government and reduces its cost.

In fact, a project as massive as the SPP would be nearly impossible to implement purely through government edict.

So Public/Private Partnerships are becoming the fastest growing process to impose such policy. In the US, state legislatures are passing laws which call for the implementation of PPPs. The Canadian Parliament is doing the same.

NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA and the SPP institutionalize PPPs as the accepted way to implement policy.

BEWARE. These bonds between government and private international corporations are a double-edged sword. They come armed with government’s power to tax, the government’s power to enforce policy and the government’s power to enforce eminent domain.

At the same time, the private corporations use their wealth and extensive advertising budgets to entrench the policy into our national conscience.

Further, participating corporations can control the types of products offered on the market.

For example, when the proponents of a political or economic agenda such as sustainable development seek to enforce their will on the market, they simply create PPPs with government and business to control things like development, food consumption or energy use.

Banks and mortgage companies in the partnership can enforce policy by forcing borrowers to comply as a stipulation for the loan.

Government grants can enrich private corporations as the companies produce mandated products –- free of development risks.

Private developers which have entered into a Public/Private Partnership with local government, for example, can now obtain the power of eminent domain to build on land not open to competitors.

The fact is, current use of eminent domain by local communities in partnership with private developers simply considers all property to be the common land of the State, to be used as it sees fit for some undefined community good.

The government gains the higher taxes created by the new development. The developer gets the revenue from the work.

The immediate losers, of course, are the property owners. But other citizens are losers too. Communities give up control of their infrastructure. Voters lose control of their government.

Private companies are now systematically buying up water treatment plants in communities, in effect, gaining control of the water supply. And they are buying control of the U.S. highway systems through PPPs with state departments of transportation.

Because of a public/private partnership, one million Texans are about to lose their land for the Trans-Texas Corridor, a highway that couldn’t be built without the power of eminent domain.

Foreign companies are being met with open arms by local, and federal officials who see a way to use private corporations and their massive bank accounts to fund projects.

As the Associated Press reported July 15, 2006, "On a single day in June (2006) an Australian-Spanish partnership paid $3.6 billion to lease the Indiana Toll Road. An Australian company bought a 99 year lease on Virginia’s Pocahontas Parkway, and Texas officials decided to let a Spanish-American partnership build and run a toll road for 50 years."

In fact, that Spanish-American partnership in Texas and its lease with the Texas Department of Transportation to build and run the Trans Texas Corridor contains a "no-compete" clause which prohibits anyone, including the Texas government from building new highways or expanding exiting ones which might run in competition with the TCC.

That is not free enterprise.

With inside information from its own Public/Private Partnership, Kansas City Southern Railroad (KCSR) has been able to grow overnight from a two-bit belt around Kansas City to controlling a 2,600-mile artery from Lazaro Cardenas to Kansas City, straight up the Trans Texas Corridor. KCSR has obtained the rail rights up the corridor. It is now a government-sanctioned monopoly.

Protected from competition, the railroad will set the costs and the shipping rules. And it will get very rich, no matter the quality of service. All because of whom its owner knows. That is not free enterprise.

At an April, 2007 meeting in Calgary, Canada, as part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, government officials, business leaders and academics met to discuss redistributing Canada’s water to Mexico and the U.S. Southwest.

Canada has water, lots of it, and the public/private partnerships of the SPP are swarming on it like locusts as they seek to drain it out of Canada’s rivers and lakes and ship it to potential profit centres south of the Canadian border.

NAFTA describes water as a "good" and stipulates that "No party may adopt or maintain any prohibition or restriction on the exportation or sale of exports or any good destined for the territory of any other party."

In a leaked document of the minutes from the 2004 meeting of the Task Force on the Future of North American (a pre-cursor of the SPP), it said, "No item, not Canadian water, not Mexican oil, not American anti-dumping laws is off the table."

For that reason, it is understood that once Canada starts exporting fresh water to the US, it would be impossible to turn off the tap.

Now the case for selling Canadian water is being presented more forcefully in the media by SPP proponents, journalists, businesses strategists and investors seeking profits from this lucrative market.

The Trans-Texas Corridor will provide water pipelines for the shipping and PPPs will buy up the rights and dispose of the water as they see fit.

Canadians are suddenly feeling the raw power of the lethal combination of government and private industry working in concert to dictate policy. The people of Canada will soon understand that they will have little say in the matter.

Private companies operating in the free market lack one thing government has – the power of coercion.

The free market operates with you making the decisions based on personal choice. Under Public/Private Partnerships the choices are decided for you in meetings behind closed doors.

Meanwhile, private companies that are not part of a PPP are unable to compete with those who are. They are shut out of competition from the establishment of economic development zones which provide the chosen elite with reduced real estate taxes and financial aid.

Companies which find themselves outside of the elite status of the PPP suddenly run into regulatory difficulties to get their own projects completed. It’s not just a coincidence?

PPPs are one of the reasons many people find they can no longer fight city hall. The private companies gain the power of government to do as they please – and the governments earn the independence of the companies, no longer needing to answer to voters. It’s the perfect partnership. But it’s not freedom.

Such a process allows the private companies to be little more than government-sanctioned monopolies, answerable to no one. Their power is awesome and near absolute. Some call such policy corporatism. Another term would be corporate fascism.

Ultimately, corporatism does not trust the marketplace to do what the elites want.

Thus the alignment of corporations and government is done at the expense of ordinary people – the exact opposite of free markets controlled by consumers.

This then is the future offered by the Security and Prosperity Partnership – corporate fascism and all-powerful government. It’s not prosperity. It’s not security. And it’s not freedom.
The The Canadian

Bush administration's North American Union SPP plan reveals a totalitarian agenda

by Paul Chen

At a recent News Conference in Canada which was convened by the Coalition to Block the North American Union, Tom DeWeese who is President of the American Policy Center, eloquently presented, the essential fascism of the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).

The U.S. Bush Administration and its allies, are seeking to create a fascist state, in a very clever way, through "Public-Private Partnerships" or PPPs that Mr. DeWeese identified.

The SPP, is basically an ominous "merger" of the largest corporations in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with the governments of these societies, further backed with U.S. military and comprehensive police enforcement. The so-called Montebello summit of North American leaders, was a mere dress rehearsal of a clique of well-documented Neo-Nazi interests that seek to create a fascist state. In the Neo Nazi sponsored NAU, the people will have what American colonists referred to as "taxation without representation",with added oppression.

You can look up the political backgrounds of both Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President George Bush, and you will discover well-reported associations with far right organizations and interests.

Let me present to you what kind of society that SPP architects are apparently seeking to consolidate and to further advance. Imagine, for a moment, a society in which the phone company you use to make your calls, the McDonald's down the street, the Walmart a half-kilometre away, your favourite newspaper, the Television news that you watch, the police and military, the politicians, and the supermarket up the street, and government agencies are all the same entity. Yep, that's what the SPP is all about.
NAU is a Police State

SPP architects seek to use the War on Terrorism to create the "NAU" as a Police State.


The SPP is a negotiation convocation between the most rich and powerful corporations and government, to combine themselves into the most people-oppressive entity that the world has ever seen. The Bush administration, seeks to use the pretext of the “War on Terrorism” to merge corporate and government power, in a climate of fear, which, in turn, is being executed by a clique of greed-driven elites.

SPP elites participants hope to "end politics" in a “North American Union” (NAU). The NAU will be managed by a One Party State, parallel to the Communist Party, which runs the People's Republic of China, and reminiscent of the National Socialist Party of Nazi Germany. Corporate elites will not need to waste money trying to lobby politicians on legislation, because corporations and government will be speak, and act as one force.



The planned 'social structure' of the NAU would ressemble Orwellian social structures described in the book entitled Nineteen Eighty Four. The One Party State would replace democracy in the NAU.

In the envisioned NAU, people will work when they are told to work, and be paid what they are given, and speak when they are spoken to. Dissidents, will not be tolerated by the aspiring "One World Government". There will be no place to "run and hide", because all telephones and other communications will be controlled by a unified political-military-industrial complex. Everyone will be tracked by "Big Brother". There will be no such thing as "public healthcare", which will be represented as diverting precious resources away from "victory".

Even food will not be out of the reach of management by Big Brother, through the genetic engineering programmes, and other "social experiments" with the collusion of military and industrial interestsm against humanity.

In the NAU, soaring poverty, as a result of the mass cancellation of social programs and resulting initial soaring crime will be dealt with by the mass rounding up of "trouble makers" in horrific labour camps.

Religious leaders, and others citizens would be forced into becoming informers for "Big Brother", to weed out activists, and other potential "trouble makers" against the "infinite wisdom" of Big Brother.

The public is not invited into the initial steps to form the NAU, because it is the public which will be victimized and subjugated by the SPP's clandestine agenda.

The SPP is the creation of a demonic consciousness which now relies on the Hiterlian technique of the "Big Lie" to cover-up its ultimate goals.

The mass-media have already been largely already assimilated by Big Brother. SPP architects, hope to conquer the internet to help complete their efforts toward creating a fear-inspired totalitarian society.
Orwellian Big Brother entity

SPP architects and seeking to negotiate the total fusion of government, military interests, police law enforcement, and, and large private corporations in the "NAU" which would manifest in the creation of an Orwellian Big Brother entity.


The PPPs which Mr. Tom DeWeese described in the Coalition to Block North American Union news conference on 20 August 2007, in Ottawa, Canada, is the organizational context for the creation of a North American Union (NAU). The planned NAU is to be ruled by an all-powerful "Big Brother", where democracy will cease to operate.

However, the SPP does not appear to stop there.

Imagine a North American Union SPP deliberations, where North America specifically, and the world in general, are being neatly divided up into parcels for various corporate monopolies.

Mr. DeWeese and his colleagues in the Coalition to Block the North American Union, have already well documented various corporations being corruptly awarded millions and billions in dollars of contract.

This kind of fascistic corporate and government collusion, is already in full swing in places like Iraq, with preference being given to corporations with connections to the U.S. Bush administration.

While the Bush administration in public, extols the virtues of liberty, freedom, and "free enterprise", Mr. DeWeese, and other researchers reveal that it is apparent that the SPP agenda is an attempt to re-create Adolf Hitler's "corporatist" Nazi Economic Programme. In the North American Union that SPP architects envision, liberty, freedom, and "free enterprise" will be replaced by "enterprise" which is totally controlled under the social regimentation of fascist-inspired cliques.

Now, further imagine a SPP meeting context where elites behind closed doors are not simply preparing for worst case scenarios, as the public is being lead to believe, but instead are actively planning to instigate and co-ordinate pre-emptive nuclear war to "take over the world".

According to the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) which inspires Mr. Bush, the Bush doctrine, that was practiced in Iraq, like Adolf Hitler's own doctrine of war, pivots on the importance of "pre-emptive" strikes. The Bush doctrine views the idea that "war should be pursued as a last resort" as being a policy for "week minded people".

It would therefore be erroneous to believe that the SPP is anything but a creature of the Bush doctrine. The PNAC intellectuals that inspire the Bush administration, also believe that America must be prepared to use its nuclear arsenal, to enforce "American interests" as defined by a clique of elites.

PNAC intellectuals have been quoted as saying in effect that it is no point that America produces and makea nuclear weapons, if it is not prepared to use them. According to them, "who cares" if billions of people are killed, and the environment destroyed from nuclear fall-out, if that is the "price to pay" for victory.

The mass-media has indeed not reported on the substance of the SPP, because the mass-media organizations are being currently "merged" in the new Big Brother entity, that elites seek to institutionalize through the creation of the NAU, toward a "New World Order".
Detention Centre: Guantanamo Bay


Investigative Journalists who notably include Alex Jones report that Guantanamo Bay like detention centres, are being planned and constructed toward the development of a fascistic North American Union.

If the Canadian, American, and Mexican peoples allow the formal creation of the NAU, the largest corporations, government, the military, and a fascist clique will all speak and act as one voice.

The SPP is a "Council of War", that is designed to "creatively" bring about a "New World Order" under its complete control. In this New World Order, the masses will become virtually slaves to elites, with dissenters being thrown into "detention centres" for "re-education".

Once the corporate-government merger talks are completed, as to which elites will get what in the planned "New World Order", one can expect the NAU to be launched under an instigated terrorist pre-text, where the NAU will presented as an "Emergency Response Council".

This Emergency Response Council would then present itself as having the mandate to restore "Order", and instigate a required military draft to "once and for all" vanquish the Muslims. Dissenters would be viewed to be a threat to that order, and Muslims in North America who "must have caused the massive terrorist attack" (and other "freedom-hating" activists as Mr. Bush and his allies might say), would be placed in "detention" centres like Guantanamo Bay and other such places, reminiscent of the "detention" centres of Nazi Germany.
Click to make a donation-pledge herein

It is apparent that Nazi sympathizers associated with the SPP agenda are following a script, which Nazis are reputed to follow.

Indeed, Richard M. Dolan and others have compared 9/11 World Trade Center "terrorist attack" with the Reichstag Fire, which was started by Nazis, who at that time, blamed "Jewish Communists" in their scapegoating efforts.

The SPP is creating its own incentive to instigate an act of terrorism that it can in turn use to legitimate the pre-emptive Bush doctrine agenda of inspired pre-emptive "War for Commercial Profit".



The Canadian

Voices Of The People: The Council Of Canadians

one of those rare occasions when the voice of the people can be heard loud and clear, thanks to bbc's zeinab badawi in this particular case. notice how she takes a back seat and gives stuart trew all the space and time for him to make his case, your case, virtually uninterrupted.

whether bush & co will take a notice or not, is another matter altogether, but that's what a direct action is all about.

The Council of Canadians:
http://www.canadians.org

Zeinab Badawi:
Read More

Canadian Sovereignty in Jeopardy: the Militarization of North America

Canadian jurisdiction over its Northern territories was redefined, following an April 2002 military agreement between Ottawa and Washington. This agreement allows for the deployment of US troops anywhere in Canada, as well as the stationing of US warships in Canada's territorial waters.


Read More|Digg It!

CFR War Criminal Cheney Denies NAFTA Highway

With his favorable poll numbers at around 10 per cent, does war criminal Cheney really believe that anyone with an IQ over 50 believes anything he says? This is the same man who joked to some of his greedy, hell-bound friends, that the citizens in Wyoming were suspicious of the CFR, as he added to them, with a chuckle, that he indeed belonged.

read more | digg story

North American Union Traitors Include Chertoff, Rice, Bush

Lou Dobbs tonight showcasing the North American Union. Wake up people. This is happening without our knowledge and without consulting us at all. Stand up and fight this.

Harper And The Bush Doctrine In Afghanistan

Prime Minister Stephen Harper speaks about 9/11, and how it relates to the mission in Afghanistan for Canada.

read more | digg story

Author Opposes the NAU

Political elites want to destroy the Middle Class... read this story if you don't believe me.

read more | digg story

Washington House Introduces Anti-NAU Resolution

It seems that some politicians in the United States recognize that the North American Union is a threat to Canadian and United States Sovereignty. Block the NAU.

read more | digg story

BREAKING: Sen. Stevens' home raided

Federal investigators and a grand jury looking into public corruption in Alaska have been asking questions about a 2000 remodeling project at Stevens’ home, particularly the involvement of the oil field services firm Veco.

read more | digg story

Is it happening now?

Here is a small clip of what has been happening at the Administrative level and Bush's real plan.

U.S. Military to be used for Quebec Conference

Here is a story on how the U.S. Military will be administering security at the upcoming Security and Prosperity Partnership in August in Quebec. In the land of the free, we do not have the authority to police and defend our own turf. Well get used to it Canada. Should the Security and Prosperity Partnership (a.k.a. North American Union), this would allow the U.S. to boldly come in, seize control of our natural resources and our freedom.

One part of this "partnership" is designed to ensure the security of the U.S. energy supply. This means that when George W. Bush announced at the State of the Union Address of 2005 that the United States is addicted to foreign oil, and that something had to be done about it, he actually meant that the supply will now come from the tar sands in Alberta. The United States wants us to export nearly 5 million barrels/day to them and them only. We currently produce over 1 million barrels/day. That would mean a 5-fold increase in production at a tremendous environmental and human health cost.

I am calling on all citizens of Canada, Mexico and the U.S. to stand up and fight this sham that is being pulled over everyone's eyes.

LiveLeak.com video pieces on this story.

Threshing Grain: Canada, US, Mexico sign energy science, technology pact

Threshing Grain: Canada, US, Mexico sign energy science, technology pact

North American Union? What is this all about....

So, to prove that I am not just a Conservative basher, I will include this clip on the North American Union or the Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America. This all started with Chretien's Liberal government and continues to this day with our beloved Twig (a.k.a. neo-con Mr. Stephen Harper). The site can be found here. This is very important for us to realize that this is going forward without any consultation with any of us in Canada, the US or Mexico. Most government officials even deny this partnership exists, but thankfully we have Lou Dobbs on CNN tackling this issue head on.

From what I have learned on this, it opens up the borders between our 3 countries and provides trading "corridors" between us. The policies of this new initiatives are set and controlled by Government and the large corporations that are members.

I will post more on this very soon. For now, please enjoy these clips that I have found on this very important topic.