Welcome to 1984

[Molly]

"I think [Obama] is being--let's be generous--he's being disingenuous, but he's an intelligent man.  He knows.  He knew from the beginning that the reforms he's introduced...are going to cost a fortune.  They are not going to be honest and open about the cost because that would have killed it.  However, the President has established a commission to reduce the deficit.  We now have 8 trillion dollars in debt.  CBO has said that even without health care, we'll add another 9 trillion in a decade, you add in health care it's another 2 and a half trillion.  He knows that if you don't do anything about it, we're going over a cliff.  So he's appointed a commission.  It reports after the election,-- remember-- after the election.  And, I predict that the major recommendation is going to be a national sales tax.  There's no other way to produce the revenue they're going to need.  It's a river of revenue, the Europeans have it, we are going to have it.  


People do not understand that the insurance companies are not going to be the 'predators' of before because they are going to become the lapdogs, the agents, the extension of the federal government.  Under the rules written into this new legislation, they are going to be the collectors of national health insurance.  The reason that all those left wing house members who said we won't support this unless you have a public option and why they all caved in is because the administration finally explained to them and got it through their thick heads that you don't need a public option.  The insurance companies are going to become utilities; they are the public option.  The rules that they are going to be administering will all come from the federal government.  They are going to collect the premiums, and the government in Washington will control how they insure, who they insure, and how much it will cost."

--Charles Krauthammer



"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait till it's free."

--Tea Party sign




"He's raised taxes by 500 billion dollars [in the health care bill]."

--Mitt Romney

[Molly]

Judge Andrew Napolitano - Health Care Bill Passed by Congress UNCONSTITUTIONAL - Part 1 of 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x864iA-Imkw

[Molly]

'Global warming': time to get angry
Blogs Home » News » Environment » James Delingpole
James Delingpole

Heroic, monotesticular UKIP MEP Nigel Farage was bumped off the BBC Question Time panel at the last minute last week. Shame. That particular edition was broadcast from Middlesbrough and it would have been fascinating to hear the audience's response to the choice things he was planning to say about the closure of their local steelworks.

Here is how he describes it in a letter:

Sir

Corus' steelworks at Redcar, near Middlesbrough, "Teesside Cast Products", is to be closed ("mothballed" is the euphemism). It is Britain's last great steelworks and an essential national resource. Without it, we are at the world's mercy.

Corus is owned by Tata Steel of India.   Recently, Tata received "EU-carbon-credits" worth up to £1bn, ostensibly so that steel-production at Redcar would not be crippled by the EU's "carbon-emissions-trading-scheme". By closing the plant at Redcar – and not making any "carbon-emissions" – Tata walks off with £1bn of taxpayers' money, which it will invest in its steel-factories in India, where there is no "carbon-emissions-trading-scheme".

There's more.  The EU's "emissions-trading-scheme" (ETS) is modelled on instructions from the "International Panel on Climate-Change" (IPCC) of the United Nations Organisation. The Chairman of the IPCC is one Dr Rajendra K.Pachauri, a former railway-engineer, who obtained this post by virtue of his being Chairman of the "Tata Energy-Research Institute" – set up by Tata Steel.

UKIP's leader in the EU's "parliament", Nigel Farage, revealed these data in a speech at Strasbourg, on 10th February, and was due to appear in the BBC's "Question-Time" programme, from Middlesbrough, on 18th February, where the closure of the Redcar-plant was inevitably discussed.  Almost at the last minute, his invitation to join the "Question-Time" panel was cancelled, without explanation.

An article, on the subject, by Neil Hamilton, which was due to appear in this week's Sunday Express, has also been "pulled".

Yours etc

The Corus scandal has been covered before, of course, by Booker, North et al. What bothers me, though, is how remarkably little traction it has had in the MSM. The sums of taxpayers money being squandered are stupendous; the pointlessness of the exercise beyond all reason; yet somehow – a bit like the fact that thanks to EU regulations on landfill waste disposal we're now all supposed to put up with having our stinking, rat-infested trash collected just once a fortnight – it's being treated as yet another of those government impositions about which we're merely supposed to shrug our shoulders and tamely accept as just another of those things.

The mighty Booker reported on another example of this at the weekend. Gordon Brown has secretly blown another £60 million of taxpayer's money the nation can ill-afford to spend on "buying carbon credits from the Third World for the use of government buildings and other official purposes – so that our civil servants can continue to benefit from the CO2 emissions needed to keep their offices warm and lit."

To acquaint yourself with the full grisly details read it here. Alternatively, just torture yourself gently by reading the conclusion:

Thus we pay billions of dollars to the Asian countries for the right to continue emitting CO2 and other greenhouse gases here in the West, including the £60 million contributed by British taxpayers to keep our civil servants warm. As a result we enrich a small number of people in China and India, including Maurice Strong, who now lives in exile in Beijing, having been caught out in 2005 for illicitly receiving $1 million from Saddam Hussein in the "Oil for Food" scandal. He played a key part in setting up China's carbon exchange, to buy and sell the CDM credits administered by the UNFCCC – of which Strong himself was the chief architect.

The net result of all this trading and jiggery-pokery is that, after billions of pounds and dollars have changed hands, with a hefty commission for those bankers and other carbon traders along the way, there is no reduction in greenhouse gas emissions whatever. But at least our political class can continue to work in warm offices and fly righteously round the world on our behalf – while the rest of us foot the bill.

Meanwhile our prospective next prime minister David Cameron has come up with a whizzo new scheme to make our inflated electricity bills even more painful than before:

He said: " We need to apply gentle social pressure on people to bring down their energy use.

"So just as they're doing in California, we will make each energy bill come with an illustration of how much energy people's neighbours are using in comparison to their own usage, inspiring them to consume less in competition."

The Booker is right. With honorable exceptions – such as UKIP and, on the environment at least, the BNP – our political class seem to have absolutely no understanding of the grotesque injustices being inflicted on their electorate in the name of the non-existent threat of "Climate Change."

What will it take, I wonder, for these imbeciles to wake up and smell the coffee? Will a hung Parliament do? Or will it have to be bloody revolution?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100027173/global-warming-time-to-get-angry/

[Molly]

Push for UK break from European Union
Published: Monday | April 12, 2010
THE EDITOR, Sir:

MANY JAMAICANS will have heard of the European Union (EU). What they will not be aware of is the fact that this political project, which is trying to turn itself into a United States of Europe, with one central government (in Brussels, Belgium), prevents Britain from trading freely with Commonwealth countries.

As a Jamaican now resident in England (but currently spending a few days with family in St Mary) I am very concerned about this, and about the steady destruction of Britain's sovereignty with many laws affecting the United Kingdom (UK) now made in Brussels, not Westminster.

Many people in the UK now want the country to leave the EU, while continuing to trade with it, and to regain its right to self-government. As a result, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) is growing in strength. One of its central policies, along with independence, is the establishment of a Commonwealth Free Trade Area, reconnecting Britain's global trading links.

I am proud to tell you that I am standing as UKIP's parliamentary candidate for Southampton Test, Hampshire, in the general election on May 6.

I find it deeply ironic that, while Jamaica is able to celebrate its independence from British rule every August, a majority of people in Britain now desire independence from a new European empire.

I am, etc.,

PEARLINE HINGSTON


Southampton SO15 7RN

Hampshire, England


http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20100412/letters/letters5.html

Posted: April 2, 2010 01:15 PM

 
    :coffee2:
 

To Heed President Obama's Call to Strengthen the EU, :mshock: Britain Must First Have a Referendum on Whether to Stay in at All

On his last visit to Britain, President Obama made it clear that he wanted to see Britain play its part in keeping the EU strong. But Britain has a problem with Europe and like Obama, most Americans don't get it. To some extent, this ambiguity goes to the heart of the ambiguity about the EU itself. What is it? Is it a colourless supranational body or an evolving twenty-first century global power?

Sometimes the European Union even behaves like it's trying to keep people confused. Its moves towards an EU defence force over the last decade have been halting. And its decision to appoint a president and foreign policy chief and then give the jobs to two small-time politicians who nobody had heard of before, was confusing.

In short, its behavior leaves many observers asking: how important is it really?

The true reason for the confusion is that us Europeans can't agree what we want the EU to be. If you picture the age-old dispute between the US federal government and the states, then imagine that the states each speak a different language, have their own histories sometimes stretching back thousands of years, and have frequently fought bloody wars - not least two which became the biggest two global conflicts of our planet's history - then you begin to get some idea of the challenge of European integration.

There are a band of heady Euro enthusiasts who see the current make-up of the EU as an imperfect stepping stone to a harmonious union, cooperating on ever more issues and pooling ever more sovereignty. Most countries who have joined in the last thirty years such as Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Poland, see membership as a badge of political maturity and a guarantor of future stability.

Then there are a band of 'Eurosceptics', who see the EU in terms roughly equivalent to how campaigners for states' rights see the federal government - as a threat to their country's national identity and pride. This is particularly true in Britain, the country I know best.

So what are the prospects for the President's call for a Britain which helps keep the EU strong?

On any measure, the answer does not look good. Over the last decade here, the political landscape has moved in a more Eurosceptic direction. Ten years ago, the ruling Labour party were considering joining the Euro, and the opposition Conservatives were split between Europhiles (as Euro-enthusiasts are called) and Eurosceptics. Now, there is no prospect of Britain joining the Euro in the medium-term, the Conservatives are both relatively united around euroscepticism and ahead in the polls, and more people are voting for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) - a party which campaigns for Britain to leave the EU -than ever before. In a few newspapers, the words 'EU', 'euro', and 'European' are practically insults.

Why? Part of the problem is that the debate on the pros and cons of EU membership has long been hamstrung by myths, misinformation, and mendacity.  :mblush:And without a healthy flow of facts and evidence, debate on this vital issue has become polluted with credulousness.

On one hand, europhiles barely acknowledge such extraordinary wastefulness as the European Parliament moving from Brussels to work in Strasbourg for one week every single month. On the other, UKIP disingenuously claims that 75% of British legislation comes from the EU. They do not say where they get the figure, but academic studies show that the figure was about 15% in the early nineties and has been closer to 9% since.

If Britain is to heed the President's call any time soon, it will need a bit of straight talk about Europe.

One way of doing this would be with a referendum on whether to stay in the EU. This is not on the agenda, but there is actually a good case for it.

Firstly, more Brits want to leave than ever before. Over the last fourteen years, the number wanting to loosen the UK's ties to the EU rose to over 50%. In a smaller survey for the BBC last year, a full 84% agreed that Britain should vote before transferring any more power to the EU.

Secondly, ever more Brits see the big parties' insistence on denying people a referendum as an arrogant denial of an important shift in public opinion. This, some argue, is why so many people vote for the anti-EU party UKIP in 2004.

Thirdly, there has only ever been one referendum on the issue in 1975, so nobody born after 1957 has ever had their say. And even those who voted to stay in 1975 did not realise what the subsequent cost in regulations on British business would be.

Nor is it hard to see the case which each party could make to its members on the benefits of a referendum. Labour can argue that focus on this issue would expose Tory splits and policy obfuscation on Europe, and their losing Eurosceptic ground to UKIP. The Conservatives can argue that the swing to Euroscpeticism could work to their benefit as Labour are associated with the ever less popular spectre of the EU in the public mind. UKIP will just be happy to have their referendum.

Europhile opponents of a referendum often argue that a Eurosceptic press would misrepresent the Europhile case. But if they believe that the facts and argument are on their side, this, surely, is an argument for more engagement, not less.

But perhaps most of all, a referendum would help Britain to have a better debate about Europe. There are good and bad arguments on both sides. The current lackluster debate allows myths and credulousness to dominate the argument. A referendum would expose them to proper scrutiny, sort the weak arguments from the strong, clear the air, and enable the country to decide what it wants to tell President Obama next time he asks what the UK is going to do to strengthen the EU's voice in the world.

Azeem Ibrahim is Research Scholar at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Board Member of the Institute of Social Policy Understanding and the Chairman and CEO of Ibrahim Associates.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/azeem-ibrahim/to-heed-president-obamas_b_522647.html

[Molly]

April 09, 2010
The Coming British Non-Election
By Peter C Glover


A British election is set for May 6. So, will socialist Labour win a fourth term? Or will the Tory chap with a wind turbine on his house blow away the current bunch? And what difference will it all make in the grander U.N.-sponsored global "I want to work with children and achieve world peace" scheme?


The Obama-esque question for Brits is surely "Are you ready for 'change'?" The simple answer is "No, not at all." Small chance when all three parties are Europhile shades of greenie liberals. 


Should our erstwhile allies across the pond be so minded as to get excited about possible "change" in the U.K., with "Cameron Conservatives" ousting Gordon Brown's three-term Labourite socialists, then cool it. Musical chairs among like-minded children never made an impact on grown-up life, and musical chairs with political pygmies has much the same effect. Unless, of course, you are the one left out in the cold. But enough of Al Gore (with the "vanishing Arctic" having expanded in size by over 27 percent since 2007, he's on thin ice as it is).


If my U.S. friends want the inside straight on David Cameron's understanding of conservatism, they might like to know that his first significant act as the new Conservative Party leader was...to distance himself from all things Thatcherite (spine, intellect, hand-bagging, you get the picture). Which is, in effect, to distance oneself from core conservatism itself -- Thatcherism, as Thatcher herself states it, being merely the ability to communicate core conservative values in a popular way. 


Cameron then made the environment the top of his agenda -- and duly changed the Party logo from a fiery torch (leading the way) to a (static) green tree, to make the point. Next, he made renewable energy central to his government's policy (he's consistent -- windy eco-rhetoric is high on his agenda) -- even though hydrocarbon fuels, as any knowledgeable energy insider will tell you, make up 87 percent of the world's energy mix and will continue to do for the next fifty years, even with a 50 percent rise in energy demand over that period. This, no matter what politicians may say. Next up, Mr. Cameron laid out his conservative credentials, stating (watch my lips), "No tax cuts". 


So thrilled was the British populace with Cameron's policy of "no-change" from Labour's own policies then that even while New Labour was imploding at the polls, Cameron's Conservatives made little political headway. However, since then, Mr. Cameron has moved his policies -- and his popularity -- in the Right direction. Downgrading his environmental ambitions, he offered, among other traditionally conservative commitments, the possibility of tax cuts. Immediately, Cameron's Conservatives moved into poll position, so to speak, but given his obvious predilection for "flip-flopping" over political hurdles, not by much before a still lukewarm British public. 


So now a clear winner at the next election seems unlikely, with a "hung Parliament" in the offing in May. (NB. Though a "hung Parliament" is precisely what many liberals would like to see, unfortunately, the liberals banned swinging gibbets in the 1960s -- and you can't have it both ways.)


For years now, U.K. commentators and politicians alike have been watching the decline in numbers voting, citing a "lack of interest in politics" as the reason. But it is not that Brits are uninterested in politics at all. Rather, it is that they are fed up that politicians no longer "represent" their views and are willing to toe the party line and make no fuss about the arrogation of sovereign powers to Brussels.


So why don't more vote for (as I do) for the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), which has vowed to take Britain out of Europe? Well, the fact is that the UKIP started from such a recent and low base -- while increasing their share of the vote at every election -- that many believe that it would be a "wasted vote," and so they vote for a major party on other issues, or they don't vote at all.


It is no surprise that socialist Labourite "centralizers" are happy to submit to centralizing EU socialist rule. And a vote for the Lib Dims is traditionally, as every Brit knows, a vote for the "don't knows" -- except on Europe membership, which, perversely, they do know that they are for. But Europe has always split the modern Conservative Party. Many genuine conservatives know well enough that the EU is an anti-democratic, wholly unaccountable, corrupt, monolithic tyranny. But many Cameron-style, liberal, "modernizer" conservatives do not.


Thus the Conservative Party division over Europe has been papered over, either with defectors (like me) sheltering under the UKIP banner, or plain keeping "shtoom" for the sake of "public unity." Last year, David Cameron ditched a "watch my lips" commitment to holding a Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty (an EU Constitution by another name), reversing a pledge to hold it and revealing that he has no spine for a fight over EU membership -- particularly one he was likely to lose.


But ask Brits which of the 27 EU Commissioners they voted for, or how many Brits voted in the EU President...er, what's 'is name? And the answer is...er, none. So there it is. Britain remains stuck in the centralizing, socialist, de-democratizing mire that is the unelected Eurocracy. Not much point, then, in voting to stop the mass invasion of U.K. shores by European economic immigrants, when the EU has taken away real power over border controls. So why bother voting for any of the three major parties?


And just for good measure, if U.S. conservatives are under the misapprehension that David Cameron will in the future ally with them on a litany of issues, impelled by his grasp of conservative ideology, then think again. Just this week, Cameron has informed the Obama administration that he will side with them (read: join in bullying Israel) on Palestinian issues. And he shares Obama's green, if ludicrously crass, energy and environment objectives. So when you read about the British election and the Conservative vs. Labour vs. Liberal Democrats fight over coming weeks, just think of it as a kind of EU-sponsored "musical chairs." 


In short, the coming British election is a total crock, being a "regional" affair only between shades of socializing liberals within an anti-democratic European Super-State. Worse still, in Britain, democracy -- real democracy -- is no longer even in play. 


The most significant shortcoming of the fledgling super-state is that it is not, will not be, and indeed cannot be, democratic. Europe ... is a classic utopian project, a monument to the vanity of intellectuals, a programme whose inevitable destiny is failure; only the scale of the final damage is in doubt.
- Margaret Thatcher, Strategies for a Changing World


Peter C Glover is co-author of Energy and Climate Wars: How naive politicians, green ideologues and media elites are undermining the truth about energy and climate, to be published by Continuum, September, 2010.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/the_coming_british_nonelection.html

[Molly]

**THE MOST IMPORTANT ACADEMIC ARTICLE YOU WILL EVER READ**



New world order strategist: thirty years ago Richard N. Gardner proposed a "piecemeal" approach to world government. The internationalist insiders have followed his blueprint ever since.
--2004

There have always been individuals who prefer to exercise the substance, rather than enjoy the pageantry, of power. Richard N. Gardner is one of them. Almost unknown to the American public at large, Richard Gardner is arguably one of the most influential men alive--an academic, lawyer, banker, economist and all-around internationalist political insider who for decades has been near the apex of the American and internationalist establishment. Gardner is the intellectual godfather of the modern new world order, an academic counterpart to the David Rockefellers who finance and the Henry Kissingers who lend political support to the accelerating drive for global government.

Thirty years ago, in April 1974, Richard N. Gardner penned an article for the Council on Foreign Relations  journal Foreign Affairs, wherein he laid out a coherent, sweeping program for successfully setting up world government. That Richard Gardner's program is still being followed, with considerable success, three decades later, is testament to his cunning as a global strategist; that Gardner himself continues to be a guiding light, so to speak, for Democrat and Republican administrations alike--including the current one--is evidence of his enduring clout among the internationalist set in the United Nations, Congress, the State Department, and elsewhere in the corridors of global power in the United States and Europe.


Even by the ratified standards of the American Eastern Establishment, Gardner's resume is extraordinary. He holds a B.A. in economics from Harvard University, a J.D. from Yale Law School and a Ph.D. in economics from Oxford, where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar. His Oxford thesis is regarded as the "classic" study of Anglo-American diplomacy in the Bretton Woods conference   of 1944 and in the creation of the GATT trade agreement. He is a member of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission Trilateral Commission

Gardner serves on the International Capital Markets Advisory Committee of the New York Stock Exchange   and sits on the boards of two major international banking institutions.

Gardner has long been closely affiliated with the United Nations, including a six-year stint as a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN General Assembly in the 1960s. In 1992 he was a special adviser to the United Nations at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro . More recently, he has been involved in a UN project involving dialogue with the Chinese Institute of international Studies, the Chinese counterpart of the Council on Foreign Relations.

No less impressive is Gardner's record as an insider in domestic politics. Beginning in 1961, when Gardner left Columbia University to become President John F. Kennedy's deputy assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs, Gardner has served in nearly every presidential administration up to the present day. He was a member of President Richard Nixon's Commission on International Trade and Investment Policy, and served as President Jimmy Carter's ambassador to Italy and President Bill Clinton's ambassador to Spain. He is now a member of President George W. Bush's Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiations as well as of the State Department's Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy.

The House of World Order

Richard Gardner began writing about world government in the early 1960s. His first book on the subject, In Pursuit of World Order, originally published in 1962, foreshadowed Gardner's later program for world order. Wrote Harlan Cleveland, President Kennedy's assistant secretary of state, in a laudatory  foreword to a later edition of the book: "A decent world order will only be built brick by brick. Those who wish to help build it, and not merely to talk about building it, will concentrate on the next brick--on how it can be fashioned, where it belongs, how it will fit, when it should be added to the structure.... Richard Gardner ... has helped fashion most of [these bricks] during the past four years as part of the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations. He understands the process of international institution-building as clearly and deeply as any American of our time."

It was the "brick by brick" approach that obviously inspired Gardner to lay out, a decade later, a comprehensive strategy for world order in an influential article in Foreign Affairs entitled "The Hard Road to World Order." The significance of this article cannot be overstated; it lays bare, in plain if somewhat academic prose, the strategy for global control that internationalist insiders have followed with slavish  dedication ever since. Gardner's article is both a strategic summary and a digest of recommended tactics, crucial reading for anyone wishing to make sense out of the multipronged and apparently haphazard internationalist assault on American sovereignty.

"The 'house of world order'," Gardner recommended, "will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault." This would entail the "decentralized, disorderly and pragmatic process of inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis, as the necessity for cooperation is perceived by the relevant nations. Such institutions of limited jurisdiction will have a better chance of doing what must be done to make a 'rule of law' possible among nations." Calling for "strengthened international institutions at the global and regional levels," Gardner repudiated the older formula of "building up a few ambitious central institutions of universal membership and general jurisdiction," such as the United Nations itself.

Gardner's program is based on strategic deception--except that the deception is deployed against the American public, not an enemy military force. By building world order one piece at a time, akin to assembling the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, Gardner and his associates hope to create an illusion of incompetence and disorder--a "booming, buzzing confusion"--to confuse would-be opponents of world government. Even those perceiving the intent behind individual programs can nonetheless be kept from recognizing the overall design, or from recognizing that so many seemingly disparate globalist programs could possibly be connected as part of a coherent strategy.

World Economic Control

As to the tactical details, Gardner's article laid out a number of ambitious policy objectives, most of which remain front-burner priorities for the internationalist insiders. First on the list, Gardner recommended reform of the international monetary system, strengthening the International Monetary Fund with "power to back its decisions by meaningful multilateral sanctions, such as ... the withholding of multilateral and bilateral credits and reserve facilities from recalcitrant deficit countries." The global financial organization was created at the Bretton Woods conference in New Hampshire  in 1944. It has indeed been strengthened into an oppressive international creditor and debt collection agency with the power to insist upon stringent terms of "conditionality" for extension of credit, terms that often include constitutional reforms and higher taxation of citizenries of debtor nations. As any Argentine citizen can attest, the IMF
now enjoys the leverage to wreck the economies of entire countries, as it did to Argentina after the latter's default on debts owed in December 2001. The resulting economic collapse was the worst crisis ever experienced in a nation already well acquainted with the ravages of hyperinflation and currency instability.

Gardner's second recommendation was to "rewrite the ground rules for the conduct of international trade," including "seeking new rules in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to cover a whole range of hitherto unregulated nontariff barriers." These new trade regulations, Gardner effused, "will subject countries to an unprecedented degree of international surveillance over up to now sacrosanct   'domestic' policies."

This plank of Gardner's program is being very actively fitted in place, and with unprecedented success (if progress towards such an outcome as world government can be so styled) both regionally and globally. At the global level, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was completely rewritten and re-ratified in the mid-1990s, and the resulting organization--the World Trade Organization or WTO--was given a broad range of powers to compel member states, including the United States, to accept its rulings on trade policies and disputes. The Bush administration, in fact, recently experienced the business end of the World Trade Organization when, under threat of WTO-mandated trade sanctions levied against the U.S., the administration lifted steel tariffs.

Regionally, the internationalists have had even more success creating transnational trade regimes. The most far-reaching of these, the European Union
which began life back in the late 1950s as the Common Market, has been built into a continental superstate complete with a European parliament and currency, as well as a nearly complete constitution. In the Americas, meanwhile, the North American Free Trade Agreement (Trade pact signed by Canada, the U.S., and Mexico in 1992, which took effect in 1994. Inspired by the success of the European Community in reducing trade barriers among its members ) has unequally yoked the United States to both Canada and Mexico, and the planned Free Trade Area of the Americas (The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) would extend a NAFTA-type arrangement to the entire Western Hemisphere (except Cuba) and possess more powers than NAFTA.) The FTAA if put into effect, would wreak even more havoc than NAFTA, creating a massive outflux of jobs and factories from the U.S. and leading, over time, to a complete subordination of American government to a continental government authority--akin to what the once independent nations of Europe have experienced within the EU. Trade, in other words , has become one of the most important pretexts for international government, as Gardner clearly anticipated 30 years ago.

"Global Commons"

Another key element of Gardner's 1974 program is "continued strengthening of the new global and regional agencies charged with protecting the world's environment." This would include "international agencies ... given broader powers to promulgate   and revise standards limiting air and ocean pollution." Since 1992, when the UN-sponsored international environmental conference at Rio de Janeiro begat Agenda 21, a massive blueprint for a 21st-century international environmental regime, global environmentalists have been on the offensive. (And remember that Gardner was at the summit as a special adviser to ensure the success of this particular plank.) Five years later the UN adopted the Kyoto Protocol, a massive, sovereignty-sapping treaty imposing international pollution emissions standards and other environmentally motivated controls on government and industry worldwide. The United States has so far refused to sign the treaty, but the current Bush administration is trying to implement the Kyoto standards anyway--no doubt with the encouragement of pro-world government insiders sympathetic with the political aims of global environmentalism

"In the 1974 Law of the Sea Conference and beyond," predicted Gardner, "there should eventually emerge a new international regime governing the world's oceans." What's more, he expected that "the regulatory responsibilities of the new oceans agency are likely to exceed those of any existing international organization." Giving the United Nations ultimate jurisdiction over the so-called "global commons"--which includes most prominently the oceans but is also intended to mean the atmosphere, the electromagnetic spectrum  , and even circumjacent  outer space--is a very high priority item for the internationalist set. The Law of the Sea Treaty was completed in 1982, but the United States refused to sign it, citing apprehensions about sovereignty. President Clinton later signed a retooled version of the treaty but was rebuffed by the Senate, led by Senator Jesse Helms (R-N C.), which refused to ratify it.

Now the treaty is under review yet again by the Senate, with Senator Lugar (R-Ind.), a staunch internationalist, pushing for speedy ratification. Fortunately for those anxious to preserve American independence, the treaty's progress has been slowed by negative publicity and critical testimony at Senate hearings.

J. William Middendorf, former secretary of the navy, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee
on April 8 that the Law of the Sea Treaty represented nothing less than "a turning point for the U.S. in the history of international relations." Referring to the international regulatory authorities and compulsory jurisdiction brought into existence by the treaty, Middendorf said that the Law of the Sea Convention "presents the U.S. with a stark choice. On the one hand, the U.S. may enter into this treaty and proceed on a path that cedes U.S. sovereignty to executive and quasi-judicial international authority with compulsory powers or reject the treaty and stick to the tried and true international system where relations are established between and among sovereign states."

Among potentially fatal pitfalls of this treaty, Middendorf identified, in addition to loss of sovereignty per se, "unnecessary limitations on the exploitation of resources" (meaning seabed and other marine resources, access to which will be strictly controlled and parceled out by the UN), "a step in the direction of international taxing authority," and "unnecessary risks to national security."

Given the revolutionary nature of the Law of the Sea Treaty, it's no wonder that Gardner promoted it as a critical component of the New World Order assembly line. Nevertheless, this treaty may come up for a vote in the full Senate later this year, with another huge chunk of American sovereignty hanging in the balance.

Monopoly on Arms

"The Hard Road to World Order" also anticipated a growing involvement of the United Nations in military matters, both in expanding its disarmament drive to include "conventional weapons" and in enlarging its misnamed   "peacekeeping operations." Disarmament remains a pet conceit of the internationalist coterie, for reasons laid out in the early '60s in the U.S. government's "Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World," introduced at the 16th UN General Assembly and printed by the U.S. State Department under the title Freedom From War. The program envisaged disarming all nations to such an extent that, eventually, "no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force." Gardner praised this program and referred to it extensively in his book In Pursuit of World Order. To this day, efforts to strip the United States of its nuclear weapons proceed apace with instruments such as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT ), which the United States has made a policy of observing despite not having ratified it.

In what is being set forth as a new test case of the global disarmament regime, the nation of Libya has recently submitted to a comprehensive regime of inspection and disarmament. Not that disarming Qaddafi is a bad thing; of greater concern is the precedent being established that failure to submit unconditionally to international weapons inspections will lead to invasion and subjugation '
The systematic conquest of the prostrate   peoples of the Middle East will eventually be replicated elsewhere, as an emboldened global regime insists on holding the American government--and American citizens--to the same standard of other UN tributary nations. Already, the United Nations is aggressively promoting "microdisarmament"--that is, the confiscation of weapons from civilian hands--as well as the eradication of any military weapons, like land mines, that it deems distasteful.

As for peacekeeping, the UN's record in recent years scarcely needs comment. From Somalia to the Balkans to Sierra Leone to Afghanistan, United Nations peacekeepers have become nearly ubiquitous enforcers of world order out of the barrel of a gun. In Iraq as well, the push is on to place the United Nations in charge of occupying forces there--just as it was the United Nations under whose authority the original Gulf War, and its 12-year aftermath of bombing raids and crippling sanctions, was carried out.

Throat and Hope

All of these developments were plotted out, in essence, in Richard Gardner's seminal article three decades ago. Unfortunately, the strategy of piecemeal buildup, of "booming, buzzing confusion," has worked all too well, as Gardner himself predicted it would: "The case-by-case approach can produce some remarkable concessions of 'sovereignty' that could not be achieved on an across-the-board basis," he wrote. Yet informed Americans who oppose world government should take comfort in the fact that the internationalist insiders have had to resort to Gardner's "piecemeal" strategy in the first place. If the insiders could have accomplished overtly and instantly what they are now piecing together through stealth and patient gradualism they surely would have done so. They've had to proceed slowly and cautiously on their "Hard Road to World Order," and their slowness and caution shows that they fear awakening the American people if they try to do too much too fast.

However, if Americans are to halt the engineered slide into world government, they will have to recognize that it is happening not by chance but as a result of a brilliantly conceived and consistently executed strategy calculated to confuse the opposition. And thanks to Richard Gardner, one of its chief architects, it's still an open secret after all these years.


http://www.thefreelibrary.com/New+world+order+strategist:+thirty+years+ago+Richard+N.+Gardner...-a0116525587

[Molly]

A chip that makes your pc look like it's backing up in slow motion?  I'm shocked and surprised! :mshock: :gangel:


The world's fastest silicon-based microchip has been demonstrated by scientists in the US.

The prototype operates at speeds up to 500 gigahertz (GHz), more than 100 times faster than desktop PC chips.

To break the world record, the researchers from IBM and the Georgia Institute of Technology had to super-cool the chip with liquid helium.

..........

This temperature is just above absolute zero, the theoretical minimum temperature possible. When cooled, the chips were able to perform half a trillion calculations every second, a speed of 500 GHz.

By comparison, a powerful desktop PC is capable of about five billion calculations per second.

"A decade ago we couldn't even envisage being able to run at these speeds," said Professor Ahlgren.

Next generation

At room temperature the experimental chips still managed to outperform standard silicon chips, running at about 350 billion calculations per second.

However, the researchers say they can push them even further.

"We observe effects in these devices at cryogenic temperatures which potentially make them faster than simple theory would suggest," said Professor John Cressler of the Georgia Institute of Technology.

The team believes it is possible to make chips run at 1,000 Ghz, or one Terahertz, at room temperature.

"Understanding the basic physics of these advanced transistors arms us with knowledge that could make the next generation of silicon-based integrated circuits even better," said Professor Cressler.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5099584.stm

[WhiteWings]

When cooled, the chips were able to perform half a trillion calculations every second, a speed of 500 GHz.

Ghz isn't a synonym for calculations/speed. It's just part of the equation. Because the article seems to use the term interchangeble I still don't know what they really mean.
But still very good speed  :winkgrin:

[Molly]

But still very good speed  

What will they do with the world's fastest chip?
Will they log all your nicknames from 'bunny' to 'skip'?
Will they cross-reference you with each purchase and tip?
Oh, what will they do with the world's fastest chip? :dontknow:




SIN BINS FOR WORST FAMILIES

THOUSANDS of the worst families in England are to be put in "sin bins" in a bid to change their bad behaviour, Ed Balls announced yesterday.


The Children's Secretary set out £400million plans to put 20,000 problem families under 24-hour CCTV super-vision in their own homes.

They will be monitored to ensure that children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals.

Private security guards will also be sent round to carry out home checks, while parents will be given help to combat drug and alcohol addiction.

Around 2,000 families have gone through these Family Intervention Projects so far.

But ministers want to target 20,000 more in the next two years, with each costing between £5,000 and £20,000 – a potential total bill of £400million.

Ministers hope the move will reduce the number of youngsters who get drawn into crime because of their chaotic family lives, as portrayed in Channel 4 comedy drama Shameless.

Sin bin projects operate in half of council areas already but Mr Balls wants every local authority to fund them.

He said: "This is pretty tough and non-negotiable support for families to get to the root of the problem. There should be Family Intervention Projects in every local authority area because every area has families that need support."

But Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: "This is all much too little, much too late.

"This Government has been in power for more than a decade during which time anti-social behaviour, family breakdown and problems like alcohol abuse and truancy have just got worse and worse."


Mr Balls also said responsible parents who make sure their children behave in school will get new rights to complain about those who allow their children to disrupt lessons.

Pupils and their families will have to sign behaviour contracts known as Home School Agreements before the start of every year, which will set out parents' duties to ensure children behave and do their homework.

The updated Youth Crime Action Plan also called for a crackdown on violent girl gangs as well as drug and alcohol abuse among young women.

But a decision to give ministers new powers to intervene with failing local authority Youth Offending Teams was criticised by council leaders.

Les Lawrence, of the Local Government Association, said they did "crucial" work and such intervention was "completely unnecessary".


http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/115736/Sin-bins-for-worst-families



And you thought 'religion' was bad? :mblush:

[WhiteWings]

But still very good speed 

What will they do with the world's fastest chip?

Be assured there will be a use for it.
The PC you are using right now. No matter how outdated is vastly superior to anything the Pentagon and NASA had during the first space mission. My fist PC had 8Kb of memory (1982 IIRC) My current PC has a million times more. Totally unbelieveble at that time.
I truely believe that kind of computing power can be beneficial. For medical science for example. But, unfortunately, I also truely believe it will be used for less positive things.....

[Paul Hazelwood]

What will they do with the world's fastest chip?

Lots of things.  At some point the speed of the chip that is in the computer your using to post on this forum was the worlds fastest chip. 

The fact that you own a computer at all has help support the effort to make a faster one.

[Molly]

What will they do with the world's fastest chip?

Lots of things.  At some point the speed of the chip that is in the computer your using to post on this forum was the worlds fastest chip.  

The fact that you own a computer at all has help support the effort to make a faster one.

That was really a rhetorical question.

But this isn't:  Why am I using such outdated technology while they announce a chip that is 100 times faster?  What happened to the chip that was 2 times faster?  And the one that was 3 times faster?  and the one that was 4 times faster?  Where are those chips?  How old is this technology I'm using anyway?  50 years?  60 years? 70 years? 100 years?  They told me it was the best technology available.

Would someone please show me the world's fastest chip?
There is many a slip between the cup and the lip.

[WhiteWings]

Between the cup and the lip is lots of stuff that only exists in labs, on road maps.
Plus advertising blah blah. They can't keep silent if Intel speaks about light based technology.

[Molly]

Between the cup and the lip is lots of stuff that only exists in labs, on road maps.
Plus advertising blah blah. They can't keep silent if Intel speaks about light based technology.

Only exists in labs?  You mean it's not being used for anything?

Maybe this poem will land in a chip.
And make it to Mars on the back of a ship.

[Paul Hazelwood]

What will they do with the world's fastest chip?

Lots of things.  At some point the speed of the chip that is in the computer your using to post on this forum was the worlds fastest chip.  

The fact that you own a computer at all has help support the effort to make a faster one.

That was really a rhetorical question.

But this isn't:  Why am I using such outdated technology while they announce a chip that is 100 times faster?  What happened to the chip that was 2 times faster?  And the one that was 3 times faster?  and the one that was 4 times faster?  Where are those chips?  How old is this technology I'm using anyway?  50 years?  60 years? 70 years? 100 years?  They told me it was the best technology available.

Would someone please show me the world's fastest chip?
Between the cup and the lip is many a slip.

If you want to spend the money, you could probably buy each chip as it is developed.   If you'd like to fund an R&D project and give someone a few million, I'm sure they'd give you the first one.

If you do not have that much money, then your going to get the one that has been put into mass production.  
If you do not have that much money, then you will get the budget one or a used one.

If you do not have that much money, then you'll do without or rely on someone giving you one.

Simple.

[Molly]

It's all about money?  :dontknow:

You mean if I had enough money I wouldn't have to use 100 year old technology?

Then who has the money for the world's fastest chip?
Someone must have it, hence my little quip.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Between the cup and the lip is lots of stuff that only exists in labs, on road maps.
Plus advertising blah blah. They can't keep silent if Intel speaks about light based technology.

Only exists in labs?  You mean it's not being used for anything?

Some things are not practical for everyday use.  There might be a chip that performs a certain function that was used as a test product for something that gets put into mass production.   There may be a chip that only tests new materials for making chips that have no practical use other than seeing how hot something can get before it fails and what is needed to keep it cool enough to function.

Nothing wrong with that, it is often how R&D ends up into something you can use on your desk at work.

Yep, it may end up in a guided missle too.  

[Paul Hazelwood]

It's all about money?  :dontknow:

You mean if I had enough money I wouldn't have to use 100 year old technology?

Then who has the money for the world's fastest chip?
Someone must have it, hence my little quip.

Why isn't it about money?  Do you think you deserve one for free?

[Molly]

So it's all about money and nothing's for free
A chip isn't funny when it's hidden from me
Do you really think you could ever deserve
All the things that God gave so few people, said he?

[Paul Hazelwood]

So it's all about money and nothing's for free
A chip isn't funny when it's hidden from me
Do you really think you could ever deserve
All the things that God gave so few people, said he?

Start a company to make chips with glee
then you can show the world you can give everything away for free.

[Molly]

But somebody has the money and they are using a chip that is 100 times faster than this one, give or take, for what?

And where did they get that money for free
Elementary, dear Watson, from you and from me

[Paul Hazelwood]

But somebody has the money and they are using a chip that is 100 times faster than this one, give or take, for what?

And where did they get that money for free
Elementary, dear Watson, from you and from me

To do things faster,  if you do not like that, then go get a slower computer.  I could come up with some really slow ones that makes yours 100 times faster. 

If my money has went into better technology, I am fine with that. 

I like the fact that if I have the money I can go get something faster than I have now.   Since I do not right now, I enjoy what I have.

[WhiteWings]

You mean if I had enough money I wouldn't have to use 100 year old technology?

So you think in 1910 someone was surfing on the internet with the same type of PC you have right now?

[Molly]

You mean if I had enough money I wouldn't have to use 100 year old technology?

So you think in 1910 someone was surfing on the internet with the same type of PC you have right now?

I do know that the computer you were using circa 1982 was counting to a million on its fingers before it executed an instruction--to slow it down.  By 1910, they had invented just about everything we got to use in the 20th century, maybe with some exceptions like the microprocessor, but they tend to keep such discoveries hidden from the general public so it's hard to know.  I love the simultaneous independent inventions, though.



The computer chip, or integrated circuit, was developed in the late 1950s by two researchers who were working independently of one another. Jack Kilby (1923– ) developed a chip at Texas Instruments in 1958, and Robert Noyce (1927–1990) invented a similar device at Fairchild Semiconductor in 1959. The computer chip is an electronic device made of a very small piece of silicon (a nonmetallic element that, next to oxygen, is the most abundant element in the Earth's crust), which is usually less than one-quarter inch, or one centimeter, square. A computer microprocessor is a single chip that holds all of the computer's logic and arithmetic. It is responsible for interpreting and executing instructions given by a computer program (software). The microprocessor can be thought of as the brain of the computer's operating system.

http://www.enotes.com/history-fact-finder/science-invention/when-was-first-computer-chip-developed

[WhiteWings]

Molly, I'm not denying electronics exists for a long time. It's that I don't believe that the CPU that's now in my PC existed 100 years ago. When the US fought the Germans in WW2 they used what they got. I don't think they secretly had stealth jests/bombers and cruise missiles.

I do know that the computer you were using circa 1982 was counting to a million on its fingers before it executed an instruction--to slow it down.

And since then the CPUs stayed the same speed but the loop got decreased to say 10,000?

1968
A two-ton, three-foot high, 21-foot diameter, IBM-assembled Instrument Unit guides the Apollo 8 astronauts in the first manned circumlunar flight. IBM computers in Houston monitor almost every phase of the mission, including the heartbeats of the astronauts. The computers, five System/360 Model 75s at the Manned Spacecraft Center, work in real-time — so fast there is virtually no time between receiving and solving an Apollo computing problem.

NASA delves deeper into theoretical space exploration, becoming the first customer to receive an IBM System/360 Model 91.

The computer, the fastest, most powerful ever put into user operation, is used for deep space simulations.


http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/space/space_chronology2.html
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_PP2075.html

I would guess it's about 386 speed.That said it's true that consumer PCs might lag 20 years behind the fastest computers around. But that's not secrecy. That's economics. Currently NASA is building a super computer with everyday components.
1024 Intel Itanium CPUs. Nothing stops you from buying those CPUs too. Well perhaps the cost of $4500 each.
I just checked my bankaccount and decided to stick to my humble quad core PC  :winkgrin: