OWS Call for “Global Governance”

OWS Call for “Global Governance” Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com October 19, 2011 Prior to the worldwide OWS-inspired protests on October 15, a group of prominent leftists “issued a manifesto that includes a strong call for global democracy and, in particular, democratic rule over the international financial system,” reports UNPA Campaign. UNPA is short for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, “a global network of parliamentarians and non-governmental organizations advocating citizen’s representation at the United Nations,” according to their 1. website.

UNPA is likely a project launched indirectly by the CIA and the folks who brought the world numerous color revolutions resulting in military dictatorship (as it did in Egypt) and “humanitarian” bloodbaths (like NATO’s operation in Libya).

While primary contributions to UNPA’s work come from campaign participants, the organization also receives money from the Ford Foundation.

Since the 1950s, the Ford Foundation has worked closely with the CIA to fund and control leftist cultural and political activities.

“The CIA uses philanthropic foundations as the most effective conduit to channel large sums of money to Agency projects without alerting the recipients to their source. From the early 1950s to the present the CIA’s intrusion into the foundation field was and is huge,” writes James Petras.

Ana Sofia Suarez and Shimri Zameret, writing for The Guardian on October 14, characterized the UNPA supported manifesto as “a vision for a new global governance” and “a movement for global democracy.”

Instead of calling for abolishing globalist networks such as the IMF, the WTO, multinational banks, the G8/G20, the European Central Bank and the UN security council, the manifesto calls for “democratizing” them.

1. “Undemocratic international institutions are our global Mubarak, our global Assad, our global Gaddafi,” the document declares. “Like Mubarak and Assad, these institutions must not be allowed to run people’s lives without their consent. We are all born equal, rich or poor, woman or man. Every African and Asian is equal to every European and American. Our global institutions must reflect this, or be overturned.”

Supporters of the text, including Naomi Klein, Vandana Shiva, Michael Hardt, Noam Chomsky, and Eduardo Galeano, say “our global institutions” must be democratized or overturned. They accept that “more than ever before, global forces shape people’s lives” and “citizens of the world must get control over the decisions that influence them in all levels – from global to local. That is global democracy. That is what we demand today.”

It should be noted that the manifesto was not produced by the Ford Foundation funded UNPA and the CIA, but its enthusiastic reception by the organization is highly suspicious.

As the video below demonstrates, the call for “global democracy” – a term now interchangeable with “global governance” – was accepted by at least some of the OWS people in Los Angeles.

UNITED FOR GLOBAL DEMOCRACY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex7u9Wj8toQ OWS supporters in the United States should not be calling for “global democracy” – in other words, surrendering national sovereignty for globalist micromanaged mob rule – but should be calling instead for the end of the Federal Reserve, a return to honest money not controlled by the global elite and the international bankers, and the reinstitution of a constitutionally limited republic as originally envisioned by the founders.

If the larger OWS accepts “global federalism” it will be accepting the agenda outlined by the very global elite responsible for the Federal Reserve, the IMF, the WTO, global markets, multinational banks, the G8/G20, the European Central Bank and the UN security council criticized in the manifesto published in the establishment newspaper, The Guardian .

The OWS represents both a threat and opportunity for the globalists. It is imperative that they compromise the movement and sell it on a bait-and-switch version of global totalitarianism masquerading as change – the same brand offered by the Goldman Sachs crony Obama – under the guise of “democracy.”

State Department Agitator Advising ‘Occupy’ Movement Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com Wednesday, October 19, 2011 Ahmed Maher helped lead Egypt’s “Arab Spring” that resulted in military dictatorship A US government-backed pioneer of the so-called “Arab Spring” in Egypt that eventually resulted in a military dictatorship is now “advising” the Occupy Wall Street protesters in both Washington DC and New York, in another sign that the movement has been subverted by the establishment.US State Department-funded activist Ahmed Maher “is now giving advice to a new group of protesters: the

Occupy Wall Street movement,” reports Wired News.

Maher has been “corresponding for weeks” with OWS activists, offering them “practical advice from a successful Egyptian revolutionary,” according to the report.

If Wired defines replacing a 30 year tyrant with a military dictatorship under which Egyptians enjoy even less freedoms as a “successful” revolution then Maher’s involvement in the ‘Occupy’ movement should be viewed with the utmost suspicion.

As Egyptian activist Kareem Amer writes, “Egypt’s Arab Spring has led not to democracy—but to another cruel dictatorship,” under which “The military is killing minorities and imprisoning dissidents.”

Of course, you won’t have heard that little fact very often on mainstream television networks because the “Arab Spring” was advertised as an organic mass uprising. The reality that it was largely a geopolitical maneuver controlled by the United States, Britain and Israel aimed at overthrowing both rogue states and tyrants who had outlived their usefulness to the globalists doesn’t fit with the fairytale.Case in point – Ahmed Maher – one of the leading revolutionaries in Egypt and now using his expertise to “advise” the OWS demonstrators, is a pawn for the US State Department.

“This of course isn’t Maher’s first trip to the United States,” writes Tony Cartalucci. “Years before the Egyptian revolution, the United States was quietly preparing a global army of youth cannon fodder to fuel region wide conflagrations throughout the world, both politically and literally. Maher’s April 6 organization had been in New York City for the US State Department’s first “Alliance for Youth Movements Summit” in 2008. His group then traveled to Serbia to train under the US-funded “CANVAS” organization before returning to Egypt in 2010 with US International Crisis Group (ICG) operative Mohamed ElBaradei to spend the next year building up for the “Arab Spring.”

As part of his role in leading the revolt against Mubarak, Maher fraternized with the likes of Zbigniew Brzezinski and George Soros through their involvement in the ICG. Maher is the perfect candidate to firm up the ‘Occupy’ movement’s uncertain demands. He soon fell out of favor with many of his fellow activists in Egypt after they described him as acting like a “dictator” and preventing anyone else from exercising influence within the ‘April 6? organization.

Given the fact that Maher is a US State Department-funded agitator who has been used to subvert and control protest movements in the middle east, his involvement in the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations should set alarm bells ringing.

This represents another clear signal that the establishment is intent on ensuring that the OWS movement is subverted, and that the protesters are led astray and influenced into advocating false solutions while focusing their rage against the wrong targets.

Let’s just hope that we don’t see a repeat of the outcome of the “revolution” in Egypt – tanks on the streets and a military dictatorship worse than anything which preceded it.

Who Is to Blame: Washington Or Wall Street?

Washington’s Blog Wednesday, October 19, 2011 Poll: Conservatives Blame Washington, While Liberals Blame Wall Street A new poll by The Hill shows that voters assign blame for the financial crisis depending on party: In the minds of likely voters, Washington, not Wall Street, is primarily to blame for the financial crisis and the subsequent recession.

The Hill poll found that only one in three likely voters blames Wall Street for the country’s financial troubles, whereas more than half — 56 percent — blame Washington.

The split on the question of apportioning blame for the nation’s economic travails corresponds closely with voters’ political ideologies: More than 7 in 10 conservatives blamed Washington for the recession, while more than 5 in 10 liberals blamed Wall Street.

But self-identified centrists, importantly, appear to be siding with the right on economic issues, with nearly half blaming Washington for the recession.

The difference also reflected voters’ views of Obama: Among those who “strongly” or “somewhat” approve of the president, most blamed Wall Street, while those who “strongly” or “somewhat” disapprove of the president blamed Washington.

Interestingly, those who described themselves as “not sure” about Obama nonetheless blamed Wall Street over Washington by a more than two-to-one margin, 55 percent to 23 percent.

The poll – conducted for The Hill by Pulse Opinion Research – asked the question of who is “more to blame for America’s recent financial crisis and recession”, Washington or Wall Street?

But as shown below, that is the wrong question.

Who Is Really To Blame … Wall Street Or Washington?

So who is really to blame … Wall Street or Washington?

The answer – which can only be seen if we take of our partisan blinders long enough to look around – isboth. But because both mainstream parties benefit from the fake left-right dog-and-pony show – because it keeps Americans from realizing that Wall Street and Washington are working together to screw the 99% – there are many loud voices on both sides trying to keep

us from taking off our blinders.

As Matt Taibbi pointed out yesterday: Take, for instance, the matter of the Too-Big-To-Fail banks …. These gigantic institutions have put millions of ordinary people out of their homes thanks to a massive fraud scheme for which they were not punished, owing to their enormous influence with government and their capture of the regulators.

This is an issue for the traditional “left” because it’s a classic instance of overweening corporate power — but it’s an issue for the traditional “right” because these same institutions are also the biggest welfare bums of all time, de facto wards of the state who sucked trillions of dollars of public treasure from the pockets of patriotic taxpayers from coast to coast.

Both traditional constituencies want these companies off the public teat and back swimming on their own in the cruel seas of the free market, where they will inevitably be drowned in their corruption and greed, if they don’t reform immediately. This is a major implicit complaint of the OWS protests and it should absolutely strike a nerve with Tea Partiers, many of whom were talking about some of the same things when they burst onto the scene a few years ago.

The banks know this. They know they have no “natural” constituency among voters, which is why they spend such fantastic amounts of energy courting the mainstream press and such huge sums lobbying politicians on both sides of the aisle.Indeed, it is really the malignant symbiotic relationship between Big Government and Big Corporations(what Mussolini called “fascism”, numerous economists have called “socialism”, and others have called “crony capitalism”) which is the problem: Both liberals and conservatives hate the malignant, symbiotic relationship between big government and big corporations: Conservatives tend to view big government with suspicion, and think that government should be held accountable and reined in.

Liberals tend to view big corporations with suspicion, and think that theyshould be held accountable and reined in.

Conservatives hate big unfettered government and liberals hate big unchecked corporations, so both hate legislation which encourages the federal government to reward big corporations at the expense of small businesses.

Most Americans – whether they are conservative or liberal – are disgusted that virtually all of the politicians are bought and paid for. No wonder people of all stripes have lost all trust in our government.

And everyone hates government-enabled fraud. The big banks, of course, committed massive

fraud. But the auditors, rating agencies and regulators also all committed fraud, which helped blow the bubble and sowed the seeds of the inevitable crash.

Indeed: Both liberals and conservatives are angry that the feds are propping up the giant banks – while letting small banks fail by the hundreds – even though that is horrible for the economy and Main Street.

The Dodd-Frank financial legislation wasn’t a compromise where things landed somewhere in the middle between liberal and conservatives ideas. Instead, it enshrines big government propping up the big banks … more or less permanently.

Many liberals and conservatives look at the government’s approach to the financial crisis as socialism for the rich and free market capitalism for the little guy. No wonder both liberals and conservatives hate it.

And it’s not just the big banks. Americans are angry that the federal government under both Bush and Obama have handed giant defense contractors like Blackwater and Halliburton no-bid contracts. [And Solyndra and other solar companies]. They are mad that – instead of cracking down on BP – the government has acted like BP’s p.r. spokesman-in-chief and sugar daddy.

They are peeved that companies like Monsanto are able to sell genetically modified foods without any disclosure, and that small farmers are getting sued when Monsanto crops drift onto their fields.

They are mad that Obama promised “change” – i.e. standing up to Wall Street and the other powers-that-be – but is just delivering more of the same.

They are furious that there is no separation between government and a handful of favored giant corporations. [Indeed, Ben Bernanke has handed out more presents than Santa Claus to McDonald's Harley-Davidson, hedge funds and others.] In other words, Americans are angry that we’ve gone from capitalism to oligarchy.

As I noted Sunday: The corrupt, giant banks would never have gotten so big and powerful on their own. In a free market, the leaner banks with sounder business models would be growing, while the giants who made reckless speculative gambles would have gone bust. See this, this and this.

It is the Federal Reserve, Treasury and Congress who have repeatedly bailed out the big banks, ensured they make money at taxpayer expense,exempted them from standard accounting practices and the criminal and fraud laws which govern the little guy, encouraged insane amounts of leverage, and enabled the too big to fail banks – through “moral hazard” – to become even more reckless.

Indeed, the government made them big in the first place. As I noted in 2009: As MIT economics professor and former IMF chief economist Simon Johnson points out today, the official White House position is that: (1) The government created the mega-giants, and they are not the product of free market competition (3) Giant banks are good for the economy And given that the 12 Federal Reserve banks are private – see this, this, thisand this- the giant banks have a huge amount of influence on what the Fed does. Indeed, the money-center banks in New York control the New York Fed, the most powerful Fed bank. Indeed, Jamie Dimon – the head of JP Morgan Chase – is a Director of the New York Fed. Any attempt by the left to say that the free market is all bad and the government is all good is naive and counter-productive.

And any attempt by the right to say that we should leave the giant banks alone because that’s the free market are wrong.

The [corrupt, captured government "regulators"] and the giant banks are part of a single malignant, symbiotic relationship.

Indeed, while most Americans are in favor of free market capitalism, we don’t have capitalism at the moment. Instead, we have socialism, fascism or crony capitalism, where the government allows a handful of companies to succeed by propping them up, covering up their fraud and handing them guaranteed profits … but allows everyone else to struggle.

For these reasons, a better poll question might be: Do you know that the unholy alliance between Big Government and Big Government has destroyed the American economy and political system, or are you stuck in some partisan fog of ignorance and blaming one side or the other?

The Big Wall Street Banks Are Already Trying To Buy The 2012 Election The American Dream Wednesday, October 19, 2011 We are never going to restore legitimacy to our political system until we get the money out of politics. Typically, in federal elections the candidate that raises the most money wins about 90 percent of the time. In 2008, Barack Obama raised almost twice as much money as John McCain

did. 3 of the top 7 donors to Obama’s campaign were big Wall Street banks (Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup).Now Wall Street is doing it again. The big Wall Street banks are already trying to buy the 2012 election.

So who do they want to win in 2012?

Based on contribution patterns so far, the overwhelming favorite of the Wall Street banks to win in 2012 is Mitt Romney.

The big Wall Street banks have given to Romney as pile of money that is more than 4 times larger than they have given to anyone else. Even though most Republicans really don’t want him, if history is any indication this means that Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee for president in 2012.

Posted below are numbers from a recent analysis done by the Center for Responsive Politics.

These numbers reflect monetary donations to presidential candidates by employees of these big Wall Street banks (and their wives) between January and September 2011.

As you can see, somehow Mitt Romney is at the top of each list by a wide margin. Clearly there is a “consensus” (some would call it a conspiracy) among the Wall Street elite that Romney is the man for the job.

When you want to find out what is really going on in American politics, just follow the money. If Mitt Romney does not win the Republican nomination, it is going to be a massive upset. History tells us that it is incredibly difficult to overcome the kind of monetary advantage that Romney is piling up.

Once again, the following numbers were put together by the Center for Responsive Politics. As you can see, Wall Street is once again trying to buy an election, and they very clearly want Mitt Romney to win the Republican nomination….

Goldman Sachs Mitt Romney: $352,200 Barack Obama: $49,124 Tim Pawlenty: $25,000 Jon Huntsman: $6,750 Rick Perry: $5,500 Ron Paul: $2,500 Morgan Stanley Mitt Romney: $184,800 Tim Pawlenty: $41,715 Barack Obama: $28,225 Rick Perry: $20,750

Jon Huntsman: $9,750 Newt Gingrich: $1,000 Ron Paul: $1,000 Herman Cain: $500 Bank of America Mitt Romney: $112,500 Barack Obama: $46,699 Tim Pawlenty: $12,750 Jon Huntsman: $4,250 Ron Paul: $3,451 Rick Perry: $2,600 Thad McCotter: $2,000 Herman Cain: $750 Michele Bachmann: $500 Newt Gingrich: $250 JPMorgan Chase Mitt Romney: $107,250 Barack Obama: $38,039 Rick Perry: $27,050 Tim Pawlenty: $16,750 Jon Huntsman: $7,500 Ron Paul: $5,451 Citigroup Mitt Romney: $56,550 Barack Obama: $36,887 Tim Pawlenty: $5,300 Rick Perry: $3,000 Herman Cain: $1,465 Michele Bachmann: $1,000 Ron Paul: $702 As you can see, no other Republican candidate even comes close to Romney at any of these big Wall Street banks.

In fact, of the candidates that are left in the Republican race, Mitt Romney has raised 13 times as much Wall Street money as anyone else has.

The following are the overall donation numbers from employees of the big Wall Street banks and their wives‌.

Mitt Romney: $813,300 Barack Obama: $198,874 Tim Pawlenty: $101,515 Rick Perry: $58,900 Jon Huntsman: $28,250 Ron Paul: $13,104 Herman Cain: $2,715 Michelle Bachmann: $1,500 Newt Gingrich: $1,250 These numbers paint a very disturbing picture. Even though Romney’s poll numbers are in the mid to low 20s most of the time, employees of the big Wall Street banks gave him $813,300 during the first 9 months of this year and they only gave $105,719 to the rest of the Republican candidates combined.

Hopefully the American people will wake up and will think for themselves.

But we have seen this story play out time after time after time before.

The candidate with the most money almost always wins. The establishment is almost always able to pick the candidates that they want, and the rest of us are often left with trying to choose between “the lesser of two evils”.

A while back, Dylan Ratigan absolutely lost in on air during a panel discussion on MSNBC. This epic rant about money in politics is not something that you will often see in the mainstream media, and it contains a lot of truth….Dylan Ratigan (rightfully) loses it on air VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIcqb9hHQ3E Ratigan is right about this issue. We do have a bought Congress. We also have a bought president.

If Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination and the general election in 2012, we will have yet another bought president.

Until we get the money out of politics, we will continue to have a situation where it seems like nothing ever changes no matter who we send to Washington D.C. The way that election laws are written right now, the big Wall Street banks and the ultra-wealthy are able to have a much greater say in who gets elected than the rest of us do.

It is fundamentally wrong and it has turned our political process into a giant farce. Instead of being “elected”, most of the time our politicians are “selected” for us by the establishment.

Please share this information with as many people as you can. The American people need to understand how things really work in the political world. Perhaps if they begin to understand how our candidates are “bought”, then perhaps they will start demanding real change.