New World Order University Forum

The Foreign Response

As Secretary Paulson announced the TARP bailout plan, the world economy appeared to freeze. Construction projects around the world were cancelled, world shipping declined to record low levels, foreign banks announced losses, Iceland went into bankruptcy. All eyes turned to Communist China for demand stimulus to keep the game going, but China shut down 67,000 factories after the Olympics and refused to purchase commodities on the world market. China acted in its own interest and decoupled from the global financial system. China expressed no willingness to contribute to a global bailout fund. Instead China sponsored a regional meeting to better organize the Asian trading bloc in accordance with the guidelines for world takeover under the Club of Rome planning documents. Did someone tip off China that the United States was about to enter a financial crisis? Who is Henry Paulson really working for, Communist China, Wall Street, or the United States?

The foreign response has two aspects, proposals for a return to nationalist ideas of support for national industries and proposals for an enlarged global financial system. Nations are now considering bailouts of their favored industries that have been weakened from global free trade agreements and competition from foreign imports. The free trade agreements prevent them from doing the normal thing, imposing tariffs on foreign goods entering the country to preserve their favored national industries. The irony of these protectionist trends is that they are generally going to be used to protect multinational corporations who suddenly seem to have a more “national” identity. No leader on the world stage seems able to identify as problematic the competitive policies of multinational corporations or even to imagine how much better off the world would be if these global behemoths were broken up and regulated. But it is exactly this competition that has led to the disappearance of entire industries in the United States, the decline of the U.S. auto industry, and the sagging fortunes of various national industries around the world under an open borders trade policy.

Some national leaders are New World Order globalists first and nationalists second, and others are nationalists first and globalists second. The pervasiveness of New World Order propaganda seems to have locked otherwise presumably well-intentioned leaders into split personalities, unable to see the evils of globalism and yet nostalgic for national well-being. Globalists such as Blair, Bush, Brown, Clinton, Obama, and the UN Communists are pushing for new global mechanisms to preserve global control over nations, while some European leaders appear to have suddenly developed a national conscience. As time goes by, all national leaders will be pressured to reveal their true loyalties. As nations and industries approach bankruptcy, the price of relief may be a greater commitment to globalist policies.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy appears to have awakened from his globalist hypnotism and recognized that France’s economy is teetering on the brink of collapse. Sarkozy announced that his government and a state-owned lender will raise 6 billion euros ($7.6 billion) to create a sovereign fund aimed at protecting and developing the country’s strategic companies.

The creation of the fund is aimed at implementing Sarkozy’s plan, announced last month, of protecting strategic French companies from “foreign predators” and helping them survive the global financial crisis. The turmoil has wiped out about 45 percent of the value of the benchmark CAC 40 index, choked bank lending, and left businesses struggling to find financing.

“I won’t let foreign funds get bargains thanks to the current levels of the stock market,” Sarkozy said. “I won’t let French industry move out.”

How is Sarkozy going to protect French companies without undoing globalism? The same concern is behind the proposed bailout of the U.S. automakers. Congress finds itself with a more nationalistic attitude in a permanent global framework that is designed to undermine industries worldwide. Congress seems to believe that GM and Ford are American companies, even though these automakers operate in many countries and sought bailout funds from other countries. Are our members of Congress fair weather globalists, only supporting globalism in the good times? None of them wants to dismantle the treaties that led to the competitive situation under which U.S. automakers lost market share and entire U.S. industries have relocated abroad. No one can undo the damage globalism causes without undoing global treaties that force countries to endure foreign competition.

Michael Chossudovsky’s article at Global Research describes the next stage of the economic crisis, the purchase of bankrupt but viable businesses by the remaining large banks and foreigners with capital. Any big bank that survives the present crisis will certainly have an opportunity to get bigger. The presumed advantage for any big banks that survive the recession is so great that Chossudovsky believes the financial insiders are deliberately driving down stock prices and forcing companies into collapse so that the big guys can swoop in and pick up the pieces they want. Any well-capitalized entity can expect to profit from the global financial crisis. This has all been done before, but Chossudovsky’s article falls short of providing convincing evidence that this economic crisis was planned.

The Global Research article “The Death of the American Empire” by Tanya Cariina Hsu offers a brief history explaining how Wall Street insiders have made a killing on government-supported bailouts in the past.

However, the end of this article is slightly misleading. The Islamic banking practices are not a good model for reform, although they are being sold to American leaders as a model for reform–by Harvard University, among other organizations. Joy Brighton of Act! for America explains how Islamic banks finance jihad through funds set aside for charity in the article “Shariah-Compliant Finance: Jihad with Money”. Americans must beware of any forthcoming proposals to adopt Islamic banking practices as fair and humane solutions to the present banking crisis.

William Enghdahl’s article on the Citigroup bailout details the scope of the crisis: the Treasury cannot purchase the bad mortgages with the funds that remain from the original $700 billion package. Its new strategy is to guarantee to absorb 90 percent of Citigroup’s future losses. The irony of this latest bailout is that Citi was considered to be a strong bank, capable of absorbing the failed Wachovia bank, just a few weeks ago. It seems obvious that the Treasury and the Federal Reserve are desperately throwing money at the crisis as a temporary patch-up strategy.

Kathleen Pender has a nice article on where the bailout money has been allocated, “Government Bailout Hits $8.5 Trillion.” The tremendous amount of cash infused into troubled banks completely dwarfs the total value of the companies involved. Is the government afraid to just buy up failing companies cheaply? No one seems to want the government managing or owning the banks, and yet the cost of the bailout is so high one wonders what taxpayers are getting for their investment? Isn’t the amount of the bailout excessive? The bailout is excessive when compared with the debt obligations of the banks, but it is not when compared with the worldwide mortgage derivatives amount of $500 trillion. These derivatives may be entirely worthless and may never find a market.

Judi McLeod offers details of the bailout of foreign banks damaged by the U.S. debt:

“But almost without any notice the Federal Reserve on October 29 provided $120 billion to the central banks of Brazil, Mexico, Korea and Singapore. Where was the debate over that? Where was the coverage of that? But it gets worse. Before the provision of the $120 billion, the Federal Reserve on September 24 had provided $30 billion to the central banks of Australia, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Incredibly, this was on top of $247 billion that the Federal Reserve had already provided to the European Central Bank and the central banks of Japan, England, Switzerland, and Canada. In total, Bernanke says the Federal Reserve has extended almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from U.S. taxpayers.”

It seems obvious that these payments were reparations to foreign banks to prevent all-out global economic war against the United States. In the same article McLeod reports that President Bush pledged further support for the UN Millenium Task Force goals, including a tax levied upon the U.S. by the UN and the carbon credits tax scam. The globalists are united in their commitment to global Communism as well as preservation of their friendly banks.

Wayne Madsen points out that Citigroup took over Lehman Brothers’ assets after Lehman entered bankruptcy. Still at issue are multibillion dollar loans to Lehman from Japanese banks. The Japanese may never recover these loans from the Lehman shell in bankruptcy, and the scandal may topple the Japanese government.

Although Wall Street firms have suffered massive losses and some individual nations are attempting to organize against the continued power of U.S. gangster capitalism, the U.S. insiders seem to be clever at transferring assets and liabilities to preserve their fortunes and their ability to continue to loot foreign nations.

Vladimir Putin blamed the United States for the global crash and is obviously leading an anti-U.S. coalition that includes Venezuela, Iran, and China. This coalition promises to become stronger in the future and will be the central focus of the global political struggle in the next era.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown called for a New Global Financial Order that would accelerate the adoption of trade treaties and increase the role of the International Monetary Fund in offering credit to failing nations. Pakistan, Hungary, Ukraine, and Iceland are going under IMF control. It remains to be seen how much money individual nations are willing to contribute to a strengthened IMF in view of its record of destroying economies and the present accelerating slide toward national bankruptcies.

Mike Hewitt in “Wealth of Nations” at SafeHaven compares the assets and liabilities of nations around the world as of November 2008. China and the Gulf oil states have emerged from this crisis as the nations with the greatest savings. Russia, Singapore, Australia, the state of Alaska, Germany, Japan, and Norway are also in fairly good shape. The United States has now become the nation with the largest debt. As the United States economy weakens, the nations with capital reserves will become the financial power centers of the globe. They will finance the purchase of distressed assets by the monopoly capitalists who are left standing. Their asset pools will be used to support their favored nations and companies. China and the Arab states are the new power centers, and they will make the initiatives that define the next stage of the New World Order. However, all the oil-producing nations face the prospect of oil falling below its current price, around $40 per barrel, due to the worldwide glut of oil. Some of the Arab states, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela will have a problem balancing their budgets as oil prices continue to fall, and some of these states will also slide toward bankruptcy.

Conclusion: The nations of the world will be caught between supporting more globalism and trying to help their national economies. Their ability to aid their national economies is limited by binding multilateral agreements. The global financial crisis is strengthening the anti-U.S. axis of Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and China as nations around the world resent the spread of bad debt by the United States and take measures to prevent further contamination from U.S. financial products. Latin America is now coming under the influence of this coalition.

Free Trade Does Not Promote Economic Growth

The conventional wisdom is that free trade appears to have benefited Communist China, India, Brazil, and perhaps a few other emerging market nations. But Dan Rodrik reports on a study by Maury Obstfeld, November 19, 2008, titled “International Finance and Economic Growth,” that there has been no net economic growth from free trade agreements.

“Despite an abundance of cross-section, panel, and event studies, there is strikingly little convincing documentation of direct positive impacts of financial opening on the economic welfare levels or growth rates of developing countries. The econometric difficulties are similar to those that bedevil the literature on trade openness and growth, though if anything, they are more severe in the context of international finance. There is also little systematic evidence that financial opening raises welfare indirectly by promoting collateral reforms of economic institutions or policies. At the same time, opening the financial account does appear to raise the frequency and severity of economic crises. Nonetheless, developing countries continue to move in the direction of further financial openness.”

The article “Why Did Financial Globalization Disappoint,” by Dani Rodrick and Arvind Subramanian, March 2008, further explains why free trade agreements do not stimulate economic growth. The fastest-growing economies do not rely on foreign investment.

Multinational corporations are not carriers of democracy or any positive social value. Corporations destroy the authority structures and cultures of emerging market economies and prevent small-scale capitalism from flourishing in capitalist countries. Socialism is not a model for any positive social value or for economic growth. The Roosevelt model of deficit spending, high taxes, and overinvestment in public education and social services did not correct the Great Depression but prolonged it. This model cannot be applied around the globe or economies will stagnate and implode. Socialism cannot be maintained economically without capitalist economic growth, and the global controllers want monopoly capitalism to be that form of capitalism. The social programs designed to solve social problems never actually solve social problems because the Left is committed to a “mass society” and mass brainwashing model that destroys genuine societies and genuine human values. The Left’s desire for big government socialism is a false desire, implanted by brainwashing techniques. No one has an inherent desire for big government, high taxes, or “social” programs designed to provide a false solution to the Left’s program of destruction of genuine societies. The combination of socialism and gangster capitalism ruling the world is the worst possible state of affairs.

Small-scale capitalism creates all the jobs that are created in the United States. If we could break up and curb the multinationals and prevent mergers and takeovers that keep the big fish big, and if the government would stop subsidizing big agriculture, big pharma, big oil, big anything, the competition of small-scale capitalism should produce wealth and help us escape from the crisis globalism has caused. Smallness, community-centeredness, and genuine social and cultural diversity are the solution to the evils of globalism, as long as such movements do not fall under the control of Marxist multiculturalism.

Conclusion: Free trade agreements do not promote economic growth. They destroy entire industries and increase unemployment in the developed nations. They enslave and dislocate populations in the developing economies. These agreements benefit only large corporations and the Communist parasites who manipulate them.

What Will Be the Outcome of the Crisis?

In financial crises the Federal Reserve is supposed to step in to provide liquidity, and it requires special legislation for the Treasury to become involved. Why is the U.S. government cooperating with the Federal Reserve banks to designate bailout funds for global corporations? There is evidence of a “secret legal arrangement” by which the United States has surrendered its sovereignty as a nation to the Federal Reserve banks. For an introduction to this history see http://www.apfn.net/Doc-100_bankruptcy.htm. What appears to us to be criminal is entirely legal under the terms of the U.S. agreement with the Federal Reserve. This particular document is merely the starting point of a long trail of agreements the public generally does not know about. Global treaties have tied the United States government into supporting UN and IMF policies as well as NAFTA policies. The U.S. government is not really a free agent as it is under the control of UN mandates and the globalist free-trade treaty structure. There is presently no constituency that favors undoing these agreements, and there is no constituency advocating a serious reform of the financial system. Therefore, the outcome of the crisis will be under the control of the two groups that caused the crisis, the capitalist gangsters and the Communists.

The global capitalists are in temporary retreat and retrenching due to this crisis, but we should not assume that these behemoths are going to disappear. A company such as Toyota, for example, projects that its corporate profits will fall next year from $15 billion to $5 billion. Toyota may lay off employees and cut spending at the margin, but Toyota is not going out of business. Instead the companies with strong balance sheets and large market share will survive, and they will be in the position to take over assets of weaker companies. In this way the dynamic of the crisis will make the strong companies stronger.

We should not assume that the disappearance or restructuring of Wall Street firms means an end to predatory capitalist globalism. New firms can easily arise to take the place of the fallen firms. Notice the lack of reform proposals at present, and notice that no one has been indicted for crimes. How can a better future emerge from the same system that caused the crisis?

The U.S. Treasury is taking on massive new debt burdens. This calls into question the ability of the U.S. government to raise revenue (taxes) to cover this debt. The United States has become the nation with the largest debt. At a certain point, the logic of the situation is that the debt should overwhelm the ability of the U.S. Treasury to issue bonds as no one will believe that the government can raise the money to back the bond payments. Standard & Poor¹s has already warned that the U.S. AAA debt rating is in danger. Many savvy economic observers have predicted a sudden reversal in interest rates as the bond bubble crashes from the excess of new debt and loss of faith in the government.

Will the U.S. government go bankrupt? The best-case scenario for the survival of the U.S. government is a measured increase in deficit spending to shore up sectors of the economy that are crucial to its function. But this measured and targeted response is not what is happening. Instead, the Federal Reserve is acting independently, and with more control, to bail out its favored banks, and the Democrats are committed to a general stimulus package and infrastructure investment.

This gamble is sometimes called a war between inflation and deflation, but this is not exactly what is happening now. While it is true that stocks, real estate, and commodities have declined significantly in price (cash is king), producer prices have not yet fallen into negative territory. There is still producer price inflation. We are yet a ways from a truly deflationary spiral, and on this hangs much of the hope for “reflation.”

If this were a “normal” recession, artificial demand stimulus through deficit spending should work to stabilize falling economic growth rates and support prices near present levels. But this is not a normal recession. It is a global financial crisis caused by the United States’ adoption of UN Communist policies and the packaging of debt derivatives by predatory Wall Street firms.

Richard C. Cook in “Status Report on the Collapse of the U.S. Economy” has this to say:

“What is really taking place, however, is that the producing economy of working men and women is being crushed by the overall debt burden on households, businesses, and governments that could reach $70 trillion by 2010. The financial system, including mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is bankrupt, as the debts it is based on cannot be repaid.

“This is because the producing economy of people who work for a living simply can no longer generate enough purchasing power for people either to pay their debts or allow them to purchase what is being sold in the marketplace. In turn it is the debt burden and the loss of societal purchasing power that are crashing the stock market. Thus the collapse of the financial economy has started to destroy the producing economy as well.”

A central point of our economic analysis is the decoupling of the financial economy from the real economy. The financial economy needs to be drastically shrunk and reformed for any genuine economy of common interests to emerge from this crisis.

If Cook is correct and the economy is collapsing, we should expect the value of the dollar to collapse, more businesses to go bankrupt, more mortgage and loan defaults, constantly declining prices and wages and rents, and economic misery leading to social destabilization. That is what the FEMA concentration camps are for. See our stories on the FEMA camps on this site for further information.

If the economic decline is severe and creates large numbers of new poor, governments will need to respond to civil unrest with greater population control methods. As this trend continues, NWOU expects to see more initiatives aimed at global depopulation, including the government takeover of the health care system in the United States so that health care can be rationed and the government can decide who dies. This depopulation plan has been the plan for the New World Order from the last century. Ted Turner and Jacques Cousteau are among its chief spokesmen, along with many environmental economists. Planned Parenthood is its chief agent.

Many observers expect the United States to “limp along” under more socialist control over Wall Street, with rising debt levels supported by the success of the bailouts and the willingness of Americans to assume new credit obligations. However, the statistics are daunting. The U.S. government has now $12 trillion in official debt. Consumers and businesses have around $44 trillion in debt. Worldwide derivative debt amounts to $500 trillion. America’s gross domestic product (GDP) is about $13 trillion per year, and shrinking. The world GDP is about $50 trillion per year, and shrinking. The unfunded mandates of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are nearly $99 trillion. Socialism cannot produce anything, and the gang of socialists in the new administration include many Wall Street insiders with corrupt connections.

Conclusion: With such staggering debt liabilities and a strategy of increasing debt to solve the debt crisis, it seems that the best-case scenario, a slow recovery under good economic discipline, is not possible. Responsible men of good faith are not in positions of power. The government is governing against the people. The problem of too much credit cannot be permanently solved by more credit.

The False Recovery Scenario

The most likely policy initiatives that we will see in the coming months will be extraordinary money creation (inflating the money supply). We are already seeing trillions of new dollars flood into the economy. This will probably cause the stock market and some economic indicators to rise and give the illusion of economic health during early 2009. This will cause many commentators to proclaim that we are coming out of the current recession. People will think that government intervention worked. However, government intervention pushes the problem into the future and causes near-term inflation and currency devaluation.

The conventional wisdom of savvy economic observers is that the flood of new money must devalue the dollar and must create inflation in the future. Hence these observers focus on the refuge of gold as an inflation hedge. However, the central banks of the world are able to control the price of gold, as they are able to control the price of just about any commodity. Sharp observers are also predicting a new currency to replace the dollar, as well as rapid alternating cycles of deflation and inflation.

The Federal Reserve will not be powerless to affect changes in the economy. Axel Merk in “Monetizing the Debt” explains the alternative possible actions open to the Federal Reserve. Despite the official Fed mandate to control inflation, the actual policy of the Fed has always been to prevent deflation and maintain inflation so that debt issuers can be bailed out by new creditors, thereby further stimulating inflation. Monetizing the debt means that the Fed accepts bank securities in exchange for its cash, which the bank can use to issue new loans. The next step in the crisis will be for the Fed to buy Treasury bonds, which pours money into the Treasury to make up for the Treasury’s bailout spending. The Fed can also require banks to buy Treasury bills as part of the Fed’s acceptance of bank debt. This requirement freezes the ability of the bank to issue new loans and is called mopping up the liquidity. The Fed can also buy Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debt and thereby drive the cost of mortgage borrowing lower. The Fed can also raise interest rates, which would break the back of the present bond market bubble and leave purchasers of debt holding devalued assets.

At present the big sound banks are sitting on excess capital reserves (not making new loans). Eventually that excess bank capital should go into bond investments or real estate loans or bank acquisitions. Merk predicts a lower dollar as a result of low interest rates. The problem with reinflation is, it leaves us to face the same scenario again in a few years. The problem of currency devaluation is, it acts as a hidden tax on present dollar-holders, including foreign dollar-holders.

Regardless of the eventual economic outcome, one thing is certain: the favored wealthy will prosper and the honest citizen will lose. Robert Prechter has written, “Government action (unless it is aimed at destruction) always causes the opposite of its stated effect. If taxpayers ultimately have to shoulder the burden for all the bad mortgage debt, those who are on the edge of being able to make their mortgage payments will be forced over the edge, causing more missed mortgage payments and more foreclosures.

“There is never any need for a law granting privilege except when the goal is to reward the undeserving and to punish the innocent. If the goal were otherwise, there would be no need for a statutory law, because the natural laws of economics, when unencumbered, serve to reward the deserving and punish the imprudent and the guilty. Populists loudly challenge this idea, but they are wrong.”

All government transfer payments are designed to punish the deserving and reward the undeserving. They also serve to enhance the power of the politicians who do the transferring. Both parties are guilty of transferring massive amounts of taxpayer money to the undeserving. Our question is, why aren’t millions of people marching in Washington, D.C. to protest this thievery?

Perhaps the answer is, because people generally believe that the economic manipulators will save us from a worst-case scenario. Another possible answer is, because people are mainly looking at how they can survive or profit from the crisis. Actually, the manipulators have put us in a worst-case scenario. They have put the economy on a credit basis rather than a cash basis and have suckered investors of all types with constantly changing policies that make planning for the future all but impossible. We can also blame the corporations for their endless manipulative mass advertising campaigns designed to turn everyone into indebted consumers.

Should we be rooting for a collapse of Wall Street and the global financial system? Yes, we should be applauding the failure of these firms, and we should be trying to repeal free trade agreements and the other treaties that created the EU, the UN, and other global political arrangements. But we have to face the fact that we are weak, divided, passive, and ignorant, and we are up against ruthless and corrupt manipulators who have enlisted large segments of the population into supporting them.

If the U.S. economy does not collapse into depression and massive debt repudiation, the present system may stumble along with a greater degree of government control attempting to manage the already-existing socialist mandates with more socialism. Left-wing economists such as Joseph Stieglitz and Paul Krugman embrace this scenario. It is a peculiarity of the Left that they never object to deficit spending or believe that massive unfunded liabilities will be problematic. The Left survives by irresponsible spending of other people’s money. NWOU is hard pressed to explain why Leftist economists are blind in one eye. One is forced to conclude that they assume their socialist politics first and write their economics to fit. It is unfortunate that weasels such as Krugman and Stieglitz enjoy a favorable press. They are globalist apologists who are leading us into global tyranny. The idea that socialism constitutes progress is naive Romantic idealism, and the idea that monopoly capital should be free to move anywhere on the globe is the worst form of cruel Darwinism. When monopoly capital cooperates with socialism, the result can only be a global tyranny, destruction of all human value. That is exactly what the global controllers have in mind.

Conclusion: Now independent of national identity and without any moral base, big capitalism has more in common with the Communist Chinese exploiters and murderers than it has with any community of well-meaning people. Beware of false promises and false signs of recovery. The best thing we can do individually is to decouple ourselves from this dishonest system and find our way to a more honest economy, a turn from globalism to localism.

The Global Communist Agenda

The Communists are slobbering with joy over the present crisis. They believe that their day has come, particularly with the election of Barack Obama. Now emboldened, the global Left has put forth their Communist program and believes that capitalism has now proven its failure. The article “Obama Prepares to Usher in China-Dominated New Global Order” at America’s Survival offers the following insights: Goldman Sachs has not only sponsored the development of Communist China, it has also financially supported the UN global education and global leaders programs that have been taken into the U.S. education system to brainwash young students into believing they are citizens of the world and should become activist change-agents. These programs also sponsor Chinese students’ education in the United States. Obama, like Bush, has pledged to cooperate with the Communists in the UN to institute a global tax in support of the Millennium Development Task Force goals. Creating a stronger World Bank is part of this program, and the carbon tax scheme is part of this Communist directive. This will be sold to the public as stabilizing the global financial system. Obama’s recent appointees Susan Rice, Paul Volker, and Hillary Clinton are supporters of this UN program. The UN will establish regional “colleges” to monitor all cross-border cash flows.

General Assembly president Miguel D’Escoto, former foreign minister for Communist Nicaragua, will be managing this global Communist takeover. A group called Managing Global Insecurity will seek to blame the global economic crisis on nationalism, not globalism, to deflect criticism and analysis of what went wrong and to blunt nationalistic initiatives from frightened leaders, particularly in Europe. We can expect further green initiatives and depopulation policies as the Communists at the UN and in the Obama administration tighten their grip over nations and businesses mired in recession and dealing with bankruptcy.

What Should We Hope For?

What one hopes for depends on which class one belongs to. The big corporations are hoping to outlast the crisis and eventually increase market share. The global technocrats are hoping for a restoration of the pre-crisis system so that they can profit from infrastructure projects. The real estate investors are hoping for new loans and new buyers to bail out their present investments. The Wall Street bankers are hoping for continued bailouts and low interest rates to restore their profitability. The socialist bureaucrats are hoping for continued funding of their niches. The global Communists are hoping for more mandated funding under global taxation schemes. The nationalists are hoping to preserve some of their industries. The China-Russia-Iran-Venezuela axis is hoping for a withdrawal of U.S. military power around the globe and the bankruptcy of the U.S. Treasury. Workers are hoping to keep their jobs. Politicians are hoping the scandals are suppressed so that they can keep their positions. We are hoping that global capitalism and socialism collapse from the negative consequences of their own bad ideas, and we are in search of an honest man who will lead us out of the age of global corruption with genuine reform based on moral obligations. Supporting the old corrupt values of Wall Street and global socialism will not lead us to a better future.

Tags: Barack Obama, carbon tax, Communist China, Federal Reserve banks, gangster capitalism, global economic crisis, Gordon Brown, Henry Paulson, Miguel D'Escoto, Millennium Development Task Force, new world order, Nicolas Sarkozy, shariah banking, TARP bailout, Vladimir Putin

This entry was posted by Director on Wednesday, December 17th, 2008 at 6:41 am and is filed under Global Economy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.