THE DEATH OF THE ECONOMY

THE BLUE FROGS

compiled by Dee Finney

The radio show came to an end and I was just relaxing in the chair, when there was a knock on the door. It turned out to be the same man who had just been on the radio.

I told him I had just been listening to his show and how much I had enjoyed it.

He thanked me and sat down in a comfortable living room chair to talk to me and my husband.

Another knock came at the door, and a very large woman arrived with a huge ice chest full of food and cold drinks and she brought all her kids with her - they were of all ages including several infants.

She said she had come for the party.

I hadn't been told about a party.  Other people started arriving and I got very upset.  I had been told nothing about a party and I hadn't made any preparations for one, hadn't cleaned the house, washed my hair, put on nice clothes ... nothing.  I was very upset to be treated in such a way by whoever had planned this party, so I got up from my chair and left the house.

As I walked down the porch steps, one of the women's daughters followed me out the door and deliberately dropped two babies down the steps in front of me.  Both babies fell on their heads, and one baby's head snapped it's neck and it's face turned blue for a moment but then rolled over it appeared okay again.

That made me even more upset how they treated the children.  I then saw a larger baby and it couldn't hold its head up and the head just lolled around when it looked old enough to crawl and maybe even walk. I wondered if that baby had been dropped on its head too.

I felt very distressed.

Out in the yard, I crossed a short bridge over a narrow creek and entered the yard of the house of the large woman, figuring if she was at my house, I'd sit in her quiet house - out of the ruckus that was going on at my house.

When I entered her house, I was so grossed out, I didn't know if I could stand being there.

There were little blue frogs, green frogs, slugs, and snails all over the floor and I couldn't walk at all without stepping on the little creatures.

These are Blue Poison Dart Frogs

In the middle of the hallway sat a small man in a canvas folding chair. He looked right at me and said, "The blue frogs mean, "The Death of the Economy."

I looked at him and said, "They remind me of reptilians."

He looked back at me and said, "You aren't supposed to know about the reptilians, but since you mentioned it, I can tell you. The reptilians are in charge of this world and are taking over."

Just then a couple of really tall men came into the room and the short man stopped talking. He couldn't talk in front of them.

I wanted to know what the tall men wanted in that house and whether they were up to no good, but they seemed to be trying to separate the blue frogs from the green frogs.  It didn't seem to matter much, there were so many  of them and they were in every room.

The large woman and her kids returned home and she told me that since I had come to her home, she would have to feed me there.

I didn't really want to eat in her house because the blue frogs were in everything and a little one even flipped into my right eye momentarily and fell out again.

I was really disgusted and decided to go back to my own home again which didn't have any blue frogs in it on the other side of the little bridge.

From the bridge I looked back towards where the little man had been seated and the little man was gone, but on the chair itself was his name printed -   NARRATOR.

Then in the air, I saw the dates:

October   2
October   3
October   4
October   5
October   6
October   7
October   8
October   9
October 10
October 11
October 12
October 13
October 14
October 15

Editor's Note:  The blue frogs are 'poison dart blue frogs'.
 

Has Blair got frogs on the mind?

Nothing particularly odd about that. Either he was doing it to win a bet or more likely, as any father will instantly confirm, because it was a present from one of his children - presumably whichever has the most well developed sense of humour.

But wait, what's this. The very same tie made another appearance on the day the prime minister was returned to Downing Street for his dreamt of historic third election victory.

Is this superstition, does the blue frog have magical powers, is there some hidden symbolism?

The most famous, or infamous, blue frog is the unsurprisingly named blue poison arrow frog found only in a remote area of the South American rain forest.

It is known as highly territorial, aggressive and, needless to say, poisonous to its enemies.

Or is there a more mundane explanation? Almost certainly.

Logical Reasoning and Limits to the Scientific Method
The scientific method is a rational, logical thought process that is used to figure out facts (the raw data) and sometimes truths (the actual meaning). All of the answers must be able to be proven.

• Inability to Measure the very Distant Past.
  Things deteriorate and some processes might not be observable to us as changing and therefore fully measurable. Some examples are:
   
  • Processes that have a long life cycle.
     
  • The activity curve of some processes will affect what we observe at different times.
    In their earlier stages, some processes change along an exponential line, but as they get older, the activity starts to decay along an almost flat line. This will not be observable as a change in the later stages if you can only observe a small period of its final stages.
     
• Senses. Our ability to recognize data to measure is limited by our senses. We assume that only what we can see, touch, hear, smell, taste and quantify are the whole set of collectable data.
   
• What is Known. Our experiments are limited by what we know and what we believe is knowable. After all, from the outset we are only measuring what is observable and what we think is possible.
   
• Technological Abilities. This affects our ability to make more precise tests and gather specimens that might be evidence.
   
• Measurement of the Physical Universe. Our ability to measure and interpret what we measure is limited by our instrumentation (which we use to extend the limits of our senses).
   
• Instrument Limitations. Our instrumentation is basically an enhancement of our senses. We therefore do not know what else is measurable and how to gather the data. Taking this into perspective, if everyone was blind and only blue frogs from a few square miles of the Amazon rain forest could see, we would be missing a large part of our world because we do not know that we are lacking something and we cannot deduce that this sense exists because we have not been able to hypothesize that it exists from things that are available to us. We could not guess the existence of color or of sight. Even now, knowing about color, it would be difficult for you to envision a brand new color. Anything you thought about would be an existing color.
   
• Corroborating Evidence. Until we know most of the facts and how things really work, we are not even sure what else could be corroborating evidence.
   
• False Assumptions. We assume that everything can be measured. We assume that we ought to be able to measure God if he exists. We assume that the scientific method is fool proof. We assume that our senses and instrumentation are adequate. We assume that we have the technology and the ability to solve these issues.
   
• The Human Factor. Despite the scientific obligation to be loyal only to the facts, the reality is that politics and prejudice do override our thought processes. This is why universities are not funding research on a young earth. They are there to foster learning. They are not a church for evolutionists.
   
• Scope. How can you tell that a law is universal when you have not traveled to all points in space and time, and you have not seen all scenarios under which it reacts. Such declarations are presumptuous.
   
• Circular Reasoning. Using an unproven idea to prove itself or using an unproven idea as fact in another unproven idea. Circular reasoning (also called "reasoning in a circle") is the basis of two evolutionary concepts: "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest."
  
  Tautology. A "tautology" means the useless repetition of an idea in different words, or a statement that is true because it includes all possibilities. ("Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not.") So tautologous thinking is a related way to describe some of the logical flaws in circular reasoning.
  
  These last two points show problems with logic and reasoning.

Ultimately this method is based on our limited knowledge about what is proof, what is provable and how a fact can be verified.
Instead of endless philosophical discussions to prove a point, experiment becomes the final arbitrator of truth, a successful approach. The issue becomes a bit sticky when discussing origins. How do we test the theory of evolution? We do not have the luxury of having a miniature universe with aeons of time in the corner of a laboratory. So this leaves both evolutionists and creationists in the same boat. No absolute way to objectively test their assertions. No eyewitnesses. Both are left to propose a model and then compare it with nature for consistency.

Types of Evidence. In conducting experiments and gathering data and formulating proofs, there are several types of evidence available. Some are more trustworthy than others because they are more objective and less open to personal interpretation. These are the major types of evidence:

 Eyewitness. Testimony from someone or something that was actually there when an event occurred. This may seem to be the most reliable evidence, but sometimes under highly emotional state and depending on the length of time from the incidence to the recording of the testimony, the truth may not be as accurate.

For example, if your eyewitness is human, people age and forget things and in cases of trauma, your mind may protect you from the facts. But something impartial and unemotional may record some of the facts but not all of the truth.

For example, a video camera could show all the visual and audio effects, but they cannot record feelings and motives or previous history.
» Material Witness. A person who may have information relevant for solving a case.
 

 Hearsay Evidence. A potential eyewitness who cannot be cross-examined. Hearsay evidence consists of statements made out of court by someone who is not present to testify under oath. The problem with this type of witness is that people can lie or misinterpret the meaning of a message.

For example, in considering ancient writings or descriptions about a topic - one cannot rule out the fact that these could be scientific observations, mythology, novels, stories for entertainment or religion, or if the account of the fact was influenced by popular culture or beliefs. Or if the interpretation of the artifacts is influenced by our desires, culture and beliefs.

 Anecdotal.

A type of hearsay evidence. These are facts you can guess by examining stories passed down from various people. These may not be eyewitness accounts. However, this does not tell you if the stories are based in reality or if it was crafted for entertainment or other purposes. Sometimes a true event is interpreted based on the people's religious beliefs or fears or knowledge of the world around them. These conclusions will often enter the stories as facts, but they are only the people's interpretation of the event. However, you can get certain information.
• Similarities in stories from widely separated cultures could suggest that the story originated from one source to which they both had contact sometime in the past. This does not mean that the stories were real events. It only means that they may have one common origin.
• Scientific observations that do not change perceptibly over the centuries, could give you a relative measurement of the amount of change or the cycle of the phenomena. For example, comets and other astronomical events.

 Testimonial Evidence. This is anecdotal evidence by an eyewitness or a recommendation because of personal experience. Currently most celebrity testimonals are not based on any experience but based on the reputation or public appeal of the presenter.

 Documentary Evidence. The eyewitness is a document in written or printed form. This document must be authenticated or have a trustworthy origin and chain of custody. Most legal documents are authenticated by signatures and eyewitnesses to the transaction. Anecdotal evidence may once have been documentary evidence for the ancient people. So the problem with this type of evidence is time. The more time has elapsed, the less confidence exists in their authenticity and veracity.

The Torah and the Bible are treated as anecdotal documentary evidence that are useful for cultural amusement but not statements of fact. Because modern man chooses not to believe in God, they choose to believe that these document are false.

 Experimental. With this method one tries to reproduce the facts by creating a similar situation and measuring conditions before the experiment and after. If it succeeds you may have proven that under the conditions of your experiments that certain events can occur. However, although experimental evidence could show that certain actions can produce certain effects, it cannot prove that in the past this situation existed, especially if the situation is highly unlikely and never observable in modern times. If it were possible to conduct all possible experiments to rule out the impossible then we could say with certainty what happened.

Rare natural processes observed in real time could also be counted as an experimental environment that is conducted by nature itself. They have the added testimony that this is a possibility, since it is not an artificial environment set up in a laboratory.
Demonstrative Evidence. This type of experimental evidence illustrates a point through charts, graphs, maps, illustrations and reenactments. It tends to simplify complicated situations or illustrate and assist verbal testimony.

 Circumstantial. Examining what remains after the fact. The interpretation of facts based on the physical evidence found after the incidence has happened and the original participants are gone. There is a danger that we could use current thinking and understanding to interpret the data. This is because the interpretation of circumstantial data is based on assumptions, common sense and all known experimental data.

 Common Sense. At first this may seem to be emotionally based and possibly limited by our knowledge and flawed interpretations. But it is not a private interpretation. Common sense therefore, is helpful as an arbiter over all the forensic and experimental evidence because it is based on years of experience shared by every one. Whatever gives the expert witness the right to speak about complicated scientific evidence, also gives every man the right to speak about common everyday occurrences.

 Expert Witness. Experts sometimes utilize hearsay and routinely express opinions. Through training and experience, they are better qualified to form an opinion. However, their knowledge is limited by the limits of science and their own capabilities. They are at best interpreting forensic and circumstantial evidence.

 Scientific (Forensic, Direct, Real, Physical). This is the equivalent of a scientific eyewitness. It is based on the examination of physical evidence left behind. Based on our ability to measure certain materials and knowledge about its rate of change under certain conditions, or statistical information on its frequency of occurrence. we can make very good guesses about what is most likely to have occurred. But it still involves some degree of circumstantial evidence evaluation because we must still interpret the meaning of the scientific facts.

 Mathematical. Calculations that show the impossibility of events in the past conforming to current observations.

 Statistical. This can probably be viewed as "mathematical" forensic evidence. Given all the data, the calculations are based on how likely an event will occur. DNA is statistical forensic evidence. The flaw is, we may not have all the data. But from experience (common sense) we may infer that given certain sets of facts that are based on common everyday occurrences, that only a rare unlikely event could change the conclusion.

FROM: http://teachinghearts.com/dre09creationnotes.html

NOTE:  I didn't type this one until 7-8-09 - it corroborates the rest of the page.

5-26-07 - DREAM - I was in my New Berlin house and I looked out the window to the north and saw a huge bear dragging another huge dead bear across the yard.  The live bear had already started eating the dead bear in the back.

I ran to the door and got my kids inside, then I saw that the neighbors were having a picnic in the yard with their little kids so I yelled at them to get into their house because there was a killer bear loose right on the other side of the house.

They looked at me like I was nuts and just kept playing and eating like nothing was going on.

My husband had a big important business meeting at the house.  The man was already at the door - an older, balding round faced man with a grey suit.

My husband was in the bathroom and I heard the toilet flush, but I wasn't dressed for company, so I hid in the closet and held the door shut so nobody could open it.

Then I realized the door had a lock with a skeleton key on the inside and I slowly but silently locked the door with me inside.

I needed to find something decent to wear and it came to me that I knew why the bears were in the rampage was because I was wearing a bear coat.

So I took the bear coat off, but I still didn't know what to wear.

the some kids came to the door and could look right in through the window and see me and I didn't want them to see me so I crouched down into the corner in a pile of clothes just out of their sight.

At the same time, I heard a noise outside the window and a panel came off the wall to the outside.

There sat a little boy about age two, dismantling the building one screw at a time.   

But there was room to get past him, so I stepped outside and found myself on a city sidewalk and there was a man walking by, looking up into the sky and crying out -  "Jesus is coming,. Jesus is coming!"  and I had to chuckle to myself because I knew he wasn't.

Some other people came along and I said to them, "I don't know what's more painful - to believe something is going to happen and it doesn't, or to know something is coming and nobody believes you!?"

I then ran past them and ran back into the building so I could find a safe place to hide.

There was an open door so I ran inside and found myself in an apartment that had a bed with a pile of brown blankets on it - all messed up.

As I looked at it, the blankets morphed into a big brown bear and started to rise up alarmingly.

I ran back to the door and there was a big brown bear laying on the floor right in front of me.

I decided I couldn't run anymore, so I said to myself, "I'll just have to beat you down right where you are!

I grabbed a rolled newspaper from the floor and started beating the bear with the newspaper until he lay flat.

I then looked up and there was a big newspaper painted on the wall.

In one column, the headline said,  VICTOR and I laughed at the coincidence, then I looked at the column next to it and it said, "The ET raise taxes to the taxpayers!"

I knew that was bad for me too.

As I woke up, I heard Dr. Phil say in my right ear, "GET UP!" and immediately I heard a loud noise behind the wall at the head of the bed.  I thought it was the back door slamming but something wasn't familiar about the sound.  I wonder what fell by itself.

I then saw a bear and something stomped it flat as a pancake.  I saw an elephant and something stomped it flat as a pancake.

I then saw a red man and something stomped it flat as a pancake..

But I couldn't figure out how ETs could raise taxes.

Is the U.S. Talking Itself Into a Recession?

12-10-2007

Denise Holtby, Reed Construction Data

In the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis, many are calling the U.S. economy a house of cards on the verge of toppling. In a conversation with CanaData economist Alex Carrick, however, I was reminded that every economy risks collapse, but in general, because everyone has a vested interest in keeping the cards upright, a crash is unlikely.

Worry over the subprime crisis and the possibility of recession prompted the White House to announce a plan last week to help struggling subprime mortgage borrowers keep their homes in the wake of escalating mortgage rates.

While the plan calls for a five-year interest rate freeze, there are two catches. The plan is voluntary for mortgage lenders and only those homeowners not currently in arrears are eligible to participate. Borrowers who were coaxed into borrowing against the equity in their homes by “teaser” rates and lax credit terms and have since fallen behind on their mortgages will not see any relief.

The announcement does not force mortgage lenders to offer interest-relief to borrowers either, but the Federal government is promising to take regulatory steps to make the mortgage industry “more transparent, reliable, and fair.”

But do moves such as this one — and all of the anxiety currently building over the state of the economy — risk making recession a “self-fulfilling prophecy”? It could.

According to Mr. Carrick, even though the U.S. economy still has a lot of momentum, doom-and-gloom news on the financial front risks pushing the U.S. economy into recession, even though employment numbers are strong, the stock markets are down only slightly and consumer confidence has been only mildly affected by all of the hand-wringing.

(For more about Mr. Carrick’s take on the avoidability of a U.S. recession, check out this article “Recession in the U.S. is Avoidable”.)

In an article entitled “What halts home price deflation? Fear of losing a bargain” Mr. Carrick foresees the housing market stabilizing in 2008, as does the National Association of Realtors. This outlook means that the housing market should no longer be a drag on the U.S. economy as 2008 progresses.

If the Fed lowers its federal funds rate by 25 or 50 basis points in January and the holiday shopping season turns out to be a healthy one, then it’s safe to say that rumors of the “death” of the economy are highly exaggerated.

McCain's Economy Platform:
Big Tax Cuts, With Caveats

WASHINGTON -- Imagining how John McCain, the Navy war hero, would play the role of commander in chief has been easy. Imagining how John McCain, the policy maverick, would lead as chief executive of the U.S. economy has been tougher.

In a wide-ranging interview last week, Sen. McCain offered the most-detailed account to date of his thinking on economic issues.

The all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee cast himself as a defender of the Bush tax cuts he voted against, but added caveats to a "no new taxes" vow he made on a Sunday television talk show two weeks ago.

On Social Security, the Arizona senator says he still backs a system of private retirement accounts that President Bush pushed unsuccessfully, and disowned details of a Social Security proposal on his campaign Web site.

Sen. McCain said the Federal Reserve should cut interest rates now to bolster the economy, but added that as president, he couldn't be so explicit on monetary policy. "Presidents have to be careful so they're not perceived as putting undue political pressure on the Fed," he said. "So I would certainly be more careful than I am today."

With the U.S. economy softening, he said he might have "a couple of fireside chats with the American people because of what we see in the [consumer] confidence barometers." But he added that the most potent economic stimulus would be to assure Americans that taxes won't go up in the future and to "call for a meaningful -- and I mean meaningful -- approach to simplifying the tax code so that it's fairer and flatter."

Those who know him well expect that a McCain presidency would be hard to categorize -- a conservative populist who acts by instinct rather than economic ideology. For businesses, that could make him hard to predict; for opponents, hard to pin down. In his 25 years in Congress, the Arizona senator has defined himself on economic issues more by his adversaries than by overarching economic principle.

"Sometimes he sees excesses in government and sometimes he sees excesses in the corporate world, and both make him sick," says John Raidt, a longtime McCain policy aide.

As chairman or senior Republican member of the Senate Commerce Committee -- which oversees old-line industries such as railroads as well as businesses such as the Internet -- he has squeezed broadcasters to hand back valuable airwaves and cable companies to let consumers pay for individual channels, rather than having to buy an expensive bundle. Despite these fights, media industries now are among his biggest campaign contributors, realizing that even if he loses the presidency, he'll still have a big say in their businesses as a lawmaker.

But his congressional assignments haven't forced him to wrestle with broader issues of tax, monetary and Social Security policy.

Retirees' Nest Egg

A centerpiece of a McCain presidential bid in 2000 was a plan to divert a portion of Social Security payroll taxes to fund private accounts, much as President Bush proposed unsuccessfully. Under the plan, workers could manage the money in stocks and bonds themselves to build a nest egg and, at retirement, also receive reduced Social Security payments from the government. Proponents say the combination of the nest egg and government payouts could give a retiree more than the current system, but opponents say the change would undermine the Social Security system.

Sen. McCain's 2008 presidential campaign Web site takes a different view, proposing "supplementing" the existing full Social Security system with personally managed accounts. Such accounts wouldn't substitute for guaranteed payments, and they wouldn't be financed by diverting a portion of Social Security payroll taxes.

Mr. McCain's chief economic aide, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former head of the Congressional Budget Office, says economic circumstances forced changes concerning Social Security policy. Vast budget surpluses projected in 2000 evaporated with a recession, the Bush tax cuts and the cost of responding to Sept. 11.

As a result, the McCain campaign says the candidate intends to keep Social Security solvent by reducing the growth in benefits over the coming decades to match projected growth in payroll tax revenues. Among the options are extending the retirement age to 68 and reducing cost-of-living adjustments, but the campaign hasn't made any final decisions.

"You can't keep promises made to retirees," says Mr. Holtz-Eakin, referring to the level of benefits the government is supposed to pay future retirees. "But you can pay future retirees more than current retirees."

Asked about the apparent change in position in the interview, Sen. McCain said he hadn't made one. "I'm totally in favor of personal savings accounts," he says. When reminded that his Web site says something different, he says he will change the Web site. (As of Sunday night, he hadn't.) "As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it -- along the lines that President Bush proposed."

Sen. McCain says that as president he would start negotiations with Democrats to fix Social Security. The program's trustees say by 2041, projected tax revenues will cover only three-fourths of currently promised benefits.

On the Democratic side, the two contenders have been far from clear what they would do also. Sen. Barack Obama has said he would raise the ceiling on wages subject to the Social Security payroll tax to boost revenue, but he hasn't specified the size of the tax increase. Sen. Clinton calls for personal investment accounts on top of existing Social Security, similar to what the McCain campaign Web site suggests, but she hasn't laid out how she would fix the program's looming insolvency.

Fine Line on Taxes

On taxes, Sen. McCain is walking a fine line between courting keep-taxes-low Republicans while insisting he is the candidate of fiscal discipline. Two weeks ago, ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked him on "This Week" if he were a "'read my lips' candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?" referring to a pledge made by President George H.W. Bush, which he later broke. "No new taxes," Sen. McCain responded. "But under circumstances would you increase taxes?" Mr. Stephanopoulos continued. "No," Sen. McCain answered.

Asked in The Wall Street Journal interview to clarify, Sen. McCain softened that stance. "I'm not making a 'read my lips' statement, in that I will not raise taxes," he says. "But I'm not saying I can envision a scenario where I would, OK?"

Behind the scenes, his campaign is searching for ways to pay for Sen. McCain's tax proposals. In addition to extending the Bush tax cuts, the 71-year-old candidate would slash the corporate income-tax rate from 35% to 25% at a cost to the Treasury of $100 billion a year, estimates Mr. Holtz-Eakin.

In all, his tax-cutting proposals could cost about $400 billion a year, according to estimates of the impact of different tax cuts by CBO and the McCain campaign. The cost will make it difficult for him to achieve his goal of balancing the budget by the end of his first term.

To pay for the cut in corporate tax rates, Sen. McCain is considering eliminating some corporate tax breaks listed by a bipartisan tax reform panel appointed by President Bush, who ignored its report. The panel outlined different ways to change the tax code to spur U.S. competitiveness.

Among the candidates for elimination are a 2004 break for manufacturers -- written so broadly that it includes computer software makers, construction firms and architects -- a low-income housing credit, and tax breaks for life-insurance companies, credit unions and exporters. Undoing those breaks would raise a maximum of around $45 billion a year, still leaving a big hole.

"There could be a fairer, flatter tax proposal that I might embrace, that you might look at the minutiae of it and say, well, that's going to increase somebody's taxes," he says. "But they eliminate the inequities, the complexities, and all of the things that characterize our tax code today."

Sen. McCain began to prepare himself for campaigning on economics late in 2005 when Mr. Holtz-Eakin and conservative Kevin Hassett, a veteran of the 2000 McCain campaign, started sending him four-page weekly briefing papers on tax reform, trade and other issues. Sen. McCain also consults with business and political leaders including Cisco Systems Inc. Chief Executive John Chambers; former Republican Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, a deficit hawk; and former Republican vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp, who hails from the deficits-don't-matter side of the party.

Sen. McCain rarely makes a public appearance without supporters with strong business or economic pedigrees, such as former Hewlett-Packard chief Carly Fiorina or Mr. Kemp. At town-hall meetings earlier in the campaign, he sometimes turned over economic questions to them.

As a presidential candidate, Sen. McCain has faced hostility from the political right because he voted against two rounds of Bush tax cuts. "I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportional amount that went to the wealthiest Americans," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press" in January. He also said the tax cuts weren't matched by spending restraints, as he had wanted.

Now, given the worsening economic situation, he says it's important to fight to extend the tax cuts, which are set to expire in 2010.

While other candidates were scrambling in January to put together stimulus plans to boost flagging consumer spending, he proposed long-term tax cuts which could take years to come into law. "In the shorter term, if you somehow told American businesses and families, 'Look, you're not going to experience a tax increase in 2010,' I think that's a pretty good short-term measure," he says.

Sen. McCain also favors making corporate tax credits for research-and-development permanent and eliminating the alternative minimum tax. The AMT was designed years ago to keep the wealthy from using deductions to avoid paying taxes altogether, but, unless altered, will ensnare a growing number of middle-class taxpayers.

To show he can control spending, Sen. McCain cites his long record as a spending hawk, who battles sweetheart deals between the Pentagon and defense contractors, as well as projects that lawmakers of both parties cram into appropriations bills -- "earmarks," in budget lingo.

Congressional earmarks total $18 billion a year, according to the Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington, D.C., research group -- and each has a member of Congress who will ferociously fight to keep that spending going. Mr. Holtz-Eakin, the McCain adviser, says that earmarks actually cost $60 billion a year, counting programs that started in earlier years and get funded year after year.

Another source of spending cuts eyed by the McCain campaign is a White House hit list of underperforming or redundant programs. But again, the numbers are relatively small -- $18 billion annually -- compared to the cost of Sen. McCain's tax plans, and the programs include housing loans, education grants, and water projects popular with Congress.

The uncertainty involved in estimating the future costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also could make it hard for him to make his budget targets. The CBO estimates spending on the wars at about $145 billion this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.

Sen. McCain's admirers say that by running for president as a spending hawk, he will tilt the politics of Washington in favor of spending restraint, in the same way George W. Bush's promotion of tax cuts during the 2000 campaign helped him build momentum for his plan. "If he proposes [a balanced budget] and doesn't get it, that doesn't mean it won't have a positive effect of having a lower series of deficits that there otherwise would be," says Barry Anderson, a former senior budget officer during Republican and Democratic presidencies.

Taking On Industry

Another question is how Sen. McCain would regulate business. He has fought with the drug industry to allow the importation of pharmaceuticals from Canada and permit the government to negotiate over drug pricing; tangled with broadcasters to force them to hand over transmission channels so they can be used by police and fire departments and other users; and taken on the airline industry over a consumer-rights bill, among other slugfests.

But some lobbyists in industries he has targeted are sanguine, figuring Sen. McCain won't focus much on issues such as drug importation once he has a bigger stage. One member of Sen. McCain's health-care task force, which endorsed drug importation, was a former McCain aide, Sonya Sotak, who lobbies against drug importation in her day job as an Eli Lilly lobbyist. "I don't impose my professional views on the senator," she says.

During his years at the Commerce Committee, Sen. McCain became the focus of lobbying from the telecommunications and health-care industries, given his focus on those fields. Now, health professionals, lobbyists, and individuals in the computer, television and movie industries are among his largest industry contributors, says the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

The law firm of Philadelphia-based Blank Rome LLP, which lobbies for cable company Comcast Corp. and drug company Abbott Laboratories, among others, is among Sen. McCain's largest contributors. The firm's employees have donated $188,000 to him, according to the center.

"My desire to support McCain has nothing to do with any client of my law firm," says David Girard diCarlo, the firm's chairman. Former Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, who backs Sen. Clinton, is a senior official at Blank Rome, which has raised $113,000 for the Democratic presidential candidate.

Climate Change

Sen. McCain's biggest regulatory effort is likely to come in the field of climate change. Along with independent Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who was then a Democrat, Sen. McCain introduced the earliest version of a cap-and-trade system in 2003, and the pair have refined their ideas since. Under their plan, the government sets emissions goals. Companies that can't meet their targets must buy permits to produce carbon dioxide, either from companies that produce less CO2 than they are permitted, or from the government.

The system may require a large regulatory apparatus. In the latest McCain-Lieberman version, the government would auction off carbon-emission permits. According to Harvard economist Robert Stavins, such sales could raise $50 billion to $100 billion a year.

An Energy Department analysis says Sen. McCain's plan raises energy prices so much that it would reduce economic growth.

"I hear this interesting argument that somehow this would cost more money to our economy," says Sen. McCain. But, "I am absolutely convinced that innovation, technology, and using the entrepreneurship of America will come up with technologies which will save money, be a boon to our economy, and clean up our environment." He's unlikely to get much argument on this from his Democratic opponents; Sens. Obama and Clinton co-sponsored Sen. McCain's legislation.

Write to Bob Davis at bob.davis@wsj.com

A: If they have a 401(k), then they are going to see those taxes deferred, and they're going to pay ordinary income when they finally cash out. So, that's a phony argument. You know, as I travel around the country, what I'm absolutely convinced of is that people recognize that if only 1% of the population is doing well, when we've got wage and incomes for the average worker actually going down during a period of economic expansion, much less economic recession, that something's being mismanaged. And they want a different approach. And that's what we're going to be offering them. John McCain is essentially offering four more years of the same policies that got us into this rut that we're in now.

• Create a Credit Card Rating System to Improve Disclosure:Provide consumers an easily identifiable 1-star to 5-star ranking of credit cards, based on the card's features. Credit card companies will be required to display the rating on all application and contract materials.
• Establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights to Protect Consumers:Obama will create a Credit Card Bill of Rights to protect consumers. The Obama plan will:
  • Ban Unilateral Changes
  • Apply Interest Rate Increases Only to Future Debt
  • Prohibit Interest on Fees
  • Prohibit "Universal Defaults"
  • Require Prompt and Fair Crediting of Cardholder Payments
• Cap Outlandish Interest Rates on Payday Loans and Improve Disclosure:Obama supports extending a 36% interest cap to all Americans. Obama will require lenders to provide clear and simplified information about loan fees, payments and penalties, and he'll require them to provide this information during the application process.

• Ensure More Accountability in the Subprime Mortgage Industry:Obama introduced comprehensive legislation over a year ago to protect consumers against abusive lending practices. Obama's STOP FRAUD Act provides the first federal definition of mortgage fraud, increases funding for law enforcement, and creates new criminal penalties for mortgage fraud.
• Create a Universal Mortgage Credit:Obama will create a 10% universal mortgage credit to provide tax relief to homeowners who do not itemize. This credit will provide an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners, the majority of whom earn less than $50,000 per year.
• Mandate Accurate Loan Disclosure: Obama will create a Homeowner Obligation Made Explicit (HOME) score, which will provide potential borrowers with a simplified, standardized borrower metric (similar to APR) for home mortgages. The HOME score will allow individuals to easily compare various mortgage products and understand the full cost of the loan.

Obama did vote against--and Clinton voted for--an amendment that would have placed a 30% cap on the interest rate that could be charged on any extension of credit. The amendment failed by a vote of 74 to 24 in 2005. When the amendment came up for a vote, Obama was standing next to Sen. Paul Sarbanes, D-MD, the senior Democrat on the banking committee and the leader of those opposing the landmark bill, which would make it harder for Americans to get rid of debt.

As for whether the 30% cap was too high, that's certainly a matter of opinion. Sen. Mark Dayton of Minnesota, sponsor of the amendment, said on the Senate floor that such a cap "is still consumer abuse" but is much better than rates of more than 300%, which he said were being charged by some loan operations in the country.

A: We account for every single dollar that we propose. This is one of the things that's happened during the course of this campaign, that there's a set of assertions made b Clinton and her husband, that are not factually accurate. Part of what the people are looking for right now is somebody who's going to solve problems and not resort to the same typical politics that we've seen in Washington. That is something that I hear all across the country. So when Clinton says I wasn't opposed to the war from the start or says it's a fairytale that I opposed the war, that is simply not true. Clinton asserts that I said that the Republicans had better economic policies since 1980. That is not the case. The viewers are concerned about is who's actually going to help the get health care, how are they going to get their kids going to college, and that's the kind of campaign I've tried to run.

CLINTON: I regretted voting for the bankruptcy bill and I was happy that it didn't get into law. By 2005, there was another run at a bankruptcy reform, motivated by the credit card companies and the other big lenders. I opposed that bill. There was a particular amendment that is very telling. It was an amendment to prohibit credit card companies from charging more than 30% interest. It was one of the biggest lobbyist victories on that very bad bill that the bankruptcy bill represented.

A: Over the last seven years, what we've seen is an economy that's out of balance because of the policies of George Bush and the Republicans in Congress. Not only do we have fiscal problems, but we've got growing inequality. People are working harder for less and they're seeing costs go up. So what I want to do is get the long-term fundamentals right. That means that we are investing in education & infrastructure, structuring fair trade deals, and also ending the war in Iraq. That is money that can be applied at home for critical issues.

Q: So a priority to balance the federal budget, or not?

A: We are not going to be able to dig ourselves out of that hole in 1 or 2 years. But if we can get on a path of sustained growth, end the war in Iraq, end some of the special interest loopholes and earmarks that have been clogging up the system, then I think we can return to a path of a balanced budget.

A: We have legislation that says that if, in fact, they are manipulating their currency--and I think there's no dispute that they are--that we need to take strong action. It's in the Banking Committee. I will say that it's actually a blunt tool. I'd prefer not doing this legislatively. The problem is we've had a president that has shown no leadership on it. So when I am in the White House, I will meet directly with the Chinese leadership and indicate we have to restore balance. And, by the way, we have to mobilize our allies, such as the European Union, to have that conversation with us. This is an imbalance that is not good for any economy over time. It's not sustainable, the trade imbalances that we have.

DODD: Yes, but we also need more liquidity in the market. It has seized up. You can't get a mortgage in America today.

OBAMA: We do need more liquidity, but we're going to have to not only help home owners who are going to be losing their homes as a consequence of this; we're going to have to make sure that we've got the kinds of tough regulation when it comes to financial instruments to make sure that people who have saved and are trying to get their own home for the first time are not hoodwinked out of it. And, unfortunately, the reason that we haven't had tougher regulation in part goes back to the issue of lobbying. This is where special interests have been driving the agenda. We have not had the kinds of consumer protections that are in place. That's why, when we have this debate about lobbying, we have to remind ourselves it has very real consequences.

The result is the most precarious budget situation we have seen in years. We now have an annual budget deficit of almost $300 billion, not counting more than $180 billion we borrow every year from the Social Security Trust Fund.

It is not the debt that is most troubling. The bulk of the debt is a direct result of the President's tax cuts, 47.4% of which went to the top 5% income bracket.

We can eliminate tax credits that have outlived their usefulness & close loopholes that let corporations get away without paying taxes. We can restore a law that was in place during the Clinton presidency--called Paygo--that prohibits money from leaving the treasury without some way of compensating for the lost revenue.

Proponents recommend voting YES because:

My amendment says we are going to take about $18 billion as a strong signal from the Congress that we want to support effective programs and we want the taxpayer dollars spent in a responsible way. My amendment doesn't take all of the $88 billion for the programs found by PART, realizing there may be points in time when another program is not meeting its goals and needs more money. So that flexibility is allowed in this particular amendment. It doesn't target any specific program. Almost worse than being rated ineffective, we have programs out there that have made absolutely no effort at all to measure their results. I believe these are the worst offenders. In the following years, I hope Congress will look at those programs to create accountability.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

The effect of this amendment will simply be to cut domestic discretionary spending $18 billion. Understand the programs that have been identified in the PART program are results not proven. Here are programs affected: Border Patrol, Coast Guard search and rescue, high-intensity drug trafficking areas, LIHEAP, rural education, child abuse prevention, and treatment. If there is a problem in those programs, they ought to be fixed. We ought not to be cutting Border Patrol, Coast Guard search and rescue, high-intensity drug trafficking areas, LIHEAP, rural education, and the rest. I urge a "no" vote.

The CBC is focused on economic empowerment issues including:
• New Markets and Small and Minority Business Development. The CBC will seek to increase opportunities for minority and small and disadvantaged businesses by expanding contracting opportunities in the public and private sectors, increasing access to capital, creating tax incentives for capital improvements, removing outdated and restrictive regulatory barriers, and streamlining and enhancing procurement tools to encourage minority and small business utilization.
• Trade and Global Economic Empowerment. The CBC will work to ensure that the benefits of the dynamic global marketplace extend to minority businesses, and Africa and developing countries. To this end, the CBC will propose and support trade and investment initiatives designed to bridge the global digital divide, create jobs, improve infrastructure, promote sustainable development, and raise living and work standards for people of color around the globe. Moreover, the CBC will work to ensure that America’s international trade agenda and priorities also meet these goals.
• Increasing Affordable Housing Opportunities. The CBC’s goal is to increase the nation’s homeownership rates. Home ownership is one of the best wealth creation vehicles for minority families. We will work with lending institutions and community organizations to ensure that minorities are afforded every opportunity to realize the dream of owning a home.

Sen. DODD: Today we are facing a crisis in the mortgage markets on a scale that has not been seen since the Great Depression: over 2 million homeowners face foreclosure at a loss of over $160 billion in hard-earned home equity; over one out of every 5 subprime loans is currently delinquent. These high default rates have frozen the subprime and jumbo mortgage markets and infected the capital markets to the point where central banks around the world have had to inject liquidity into the system to avoid the crisis from spreading to other segments of the market.

One of the fundamental causes of this serious crisis is abusive and predatory subprime mortgage lending. The Homeownership Preservation and Protection Act of 2007 is designed to protect American homeowners from these practices, and prevent this disaster from happening again. The legislation will:

• realign the interests of the mortgage industry with borrowers to insure the availability of mortgage capital on fair terms both for the creation and sustainability of homeownership;
• establish new lending standards to ensure that loans are affordable and fair, and
• provide for adequate remedies to make sure the standards are met; and create a transparent set of rules for the mortgage industry so that capital can safely return to the market without bad lending practices driving out the good.

In the coming months, the housing crisis is going to get worse. We will need to continue to press lenders and servicers to provide real relief for homeowners threatened with foreclosure.

• Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 - refinance mortgages originally financed through a qualified subprime loan.
• Makes FY2008 appropriations for emergency needs of states and local governments to redevelop abandoned and foreclosed homes; and the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation for foreclosure mitigation activities.
• Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2008 - Authorizes a bankruptcy plan for individuals with regular income to provide for payment of such claim for a period of up to 30 years. Creates a principal residence homestead exemption for debtors over 55 years of age.
• Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act of 2008 - Amends the Truth in Lending Act to set forth additional disclosure requirements governing any extensions of credit (not only mortgages) secured by the dwelling of a consumer.

There is a power so organized, so subtle, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it -- Woodrow Wilson


 

There are 13 leaves on the left olive branch with 13 berries. 13 stripes on the middle shield. 13 arrows on the right.  13 stars above the eagles head. 13 letters in the "E Pluribus Unum" on the ribbon. 13 letters in Annuit Coeptis. There are 13 blocks top to bottom on the pyramid.
Fritz Springmeir in his The 13 Bloodlines says these 13 blocks represent the 13 Illuminati family's. 

In the circles at the end of the hexagram points it even spells the word Mason. 

The Roman Numerals at the bottom of the Pyramid: MDCCLXXVI

The Illuminati is a secret organization founded on the principles of abolished religion, elimination of national borders, abolition of private property, civil rights, and the establishment of one elite ruling class over the entire world, also known as The New World Order : http://www.greatdreams.com/nwo.htm . The Illuminati intend to rule the world and thus achieve and Illuminated state of mind like a kingdom of god on earth with us, the rest of mankind, to be their sheep.

As mentioned the Illuminati has been around for many thousands of years. This is not any average secret society, this society is the largest and has its seed in every prosperous nation on earth. The conspiracy is more like a tale from a cave painting than anything. In the beginning Man was meant for slave labor to serve a reptilian race called the Anunnaki. These Anunnaka are thought to be the giants god cast down from heaven. This reptilian race attempted to exhibit control on man through secret societies. It is thought that these Anunnaki live on through thirteen wealthy families that hold the reigns of government in their hands.  These families are kept hidden and are all over the world.

The Illuminati is like a Pyramid. There are many levels, no one knows what the level above them knows.

The Illuminati plan to literally rule the world, with one king believed to have divine powers. This king may well be the false Messiah mentioned in the Bible. Promising to make the world better only to take power as the world dictator. Under this King the New World Order will take place. The New World Order is a Socialist World Government. When this government takes hold will become the slave race we were supposed to be.

How do the Illuminati mean achieve this frightening goal?

On one of the highest hilltops in Elbert County, Georgia stands a huge granite monument. Engraved in eight different languages on the four giant stones that support the common capstone are 10 Guides, or commandments. That monument is alternately referred to as The Georgia Guidestones, or the American Stonehenge. Though relatively unknown to most people, it is an important link to the Occult Hierarchy that dominates the world in which we live.


 

FROM: http://www.cfr.org/publication/15621/alden.html

WE ARE ALREADY HEAVILY INTO A GLOBAL ECONOMIC STRATEGY WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT!

10.06.2008

2008 EU-U.S. Summit Declaration

We, the leaders of the European Union and United States of America, met today in Brdo, Slovenia to further strengthen our strategic partnership. We view this Summit, and the fact that it is being hosted by Slovenia in its role as Presidency of the Council of the EU, as symbolic of our endeavour to realise a free, democratic and united Europe. The process of unifying Europe is one of the outstanding historical legacies of our partnership over the past half century.

The strategic partnership between the EU and the U.S. is firmly anchored in our common values and increasingly serves as a platform from which we can act in partnership to meet the most serious global challenges and to advance our shared values, freedom and prosperity around the globe. We seek a world based on international law, democracy, the rule of law and human rights, and strengthened by broad and sustainable market-based economic growth. The bond between the EU and the U.S. has proven its resilience through times of difficulty, and we continue to demonstrate global leadership and effective transatlantic co-operation in the face of the most pressing challenges of our day:

• Promoting international peace, stability, democracy, human rights, international criminal justice, the rule of law and good governance;
• Working together in conflict prevention and post-conflict reconstruction;
• Fighting the scourge of terrorism while protecting the fundamental freedoms on which our democratic societies are built;
• Encouraging the world’s fast-growing economic powers to assume their responsibilities in the global rules-based system;
• Fostering an open, competitive and innovative transatlantic economy, through free  movement of goods, persons, services and capital, while working together towards a prompt, balanced and ambitious agreement in the WTO Doha Round that creates new market access and strengthens growth in both developed and developing nations;
• Combating climate change, promoting energy security and efficiency, helping developing nations lift themselves out of poverty, and fighting the most crippling infectious diseases.

An effective response to these challenges requires transatlantic unity of purpose and effective multilateral approaches. We stand stronger when we stand together especially in meeting new global challenges.

Global Security, Peace, Human Rights and Democracy

In this decisive year for the Western Balkans, we underline the importance of the European and transatlantic perspective as an essential element in promoting stability and economic progress for the whole region. We welcome the commitment of the EU to extend membership to all the countries of the Western Balkans, as soon as necessary conditions are met. We also welcome NATO’s recent decisions to extend its membership into the Western Balkans.

We welcome progress made by Croatia, Serbia, Albania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro in the processes of EU and NATO integration. We welcome the signature of the Stabilization and Association Agreement and of the EU Interim Agreement with Serbia as a confirmation of its commitment to a European perspective and an important step on the country's path towards the EU.  We welcome the commitment of all political forces in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to remain united behind the national consensus to actively pursue Euro-Atlantic integration. We welcome the forthcoming signature of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with Bosnia and Herzegovina and urge the Bosnian leaders to remain committed to a sustainable reform process.

We will continue to support the stability and security of Kosovo and its regional integration, and will assist Kosovo in its economic and institutional development We note that the Kosovo authorities are committed to the objective of a stable, democratic and multi-ethnic society. We commend NATO’s contributions to Kosovo as well as those of the OSCE.  We will co-operate on completing a smooth transition from UNMIK to EULEX responsibility for the rule of law and its full deployment throughout all of Kosovo, which is essential for the stability of Kosovo. The EU welcomes U.S. participation in the EULEX mission.

We welcome the recent steps forward toward Peace in the Middle East, and will pursue complementary efforts to support the Parties’ efforts to reach a political agreement by the end of 2008, as foreseen at the Annapolis Conference. We are determined to support the subsequent implementation of that agreement, and call again on Israel and the Palestinians to implement their Roadmap obligations in full. The EU and the U.S. are doing important work in the area of Palestinian capacity-building to pave the way for a future democratic Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbours. We underline the importance of continued broad and constructive involvement by Arab partners and commend the Arab League’s Peace Initiative and its goal of promoting a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. We call on donors, especially those in the region to follow through on and, if possible increase, their pledges and deliver assistance to the Palestinian Authority.

We welcome the election of Michel Suleiman as President of Lebanon. We look forward to the full implementation of the Doha agreement and a full resumption of the functioning of all democratic institutions of the state of Lebanon. We reaffirm our joint commitment to the sovereignty and independence of Lebanon, and our support for its government. We call on all concerned parties, including Syria, to comply with UN Security Council Resolutions 1559, 1701, 1757, and other relevant resolutions, including full cooperation with the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.  We reject the use of violence as a means to achieve political ends, and we reiterate our support for the extension of the full authority of the Government of Lebanon throughout Lebanese territory.

We expect Iran to comply with its international obligations concerning its nuclear activities, including the full and verifiable suspension of enrichment and full cooperation with the IAEA. Iran must fully restore confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme through implementation of the Additional Protocol. Iran must provide to the IAEA full disclosure of  any weapons-related work and allow the IAEA to verify that any such work has ceased.  We affirm the dual track strategy on this issue which was reinforced by the incentives package and reiterate our belief that a mutually satisfactory, negotiated solution remains open to Iran. At the same time, we will fully and effectively implement UN Security Council Resolutions 1737, 1747, 1803 and other pertinent resolutions and we are ready to supplement those sanctions with additional measures. We will continue to work together, including through the Financial Action Task Force, to take steps to ensure Iranian banks cannot abuse the international banking system to support proliferation and terrorism. We call upon the Government of Iran to cooperate in the fight against terrorism. We reiterate our concern about Iran's regional policies, especially its continued support for terrorist organisations, and call on Iran to play a responsible and constructive role in the region. We also underline our continued concern about the deterioration of the human rights situation in Iran, especially those of human rights defenders, women and minorities.

We welcome the meetings of the Neighbouring Countries of Iraq and of the International Compact with Iraq, and acknowledge the value and importance of these ongoing processes, which remain essential to achieve security and prosperity in Iraq and in the region as a whole. We encourage the countries in the region to increase engagement with Iraq by opening diplomatic missions in Baghdad, exchanging senior-level visits, and making progress on bilateral debt negotiations. We welcome the more extensive role played by the UN/UNAMI in Iraq in line with UNSCR 1770. We will continue to work jointly in support of the Government of Iraq’s efforts to hold provincial elections as part of its efforts towards national reconciliation and in promoting peace, stability, and security for the benefit of all Iraqis. We encourage all political actors in Iraq to do their utmost to bring an end to violence. We will work with Iraq to hasten its ability to join the WTO. The EU's substantial assistance in Iraq, including more high-level contacts with the Iraqi government, is complemented by negotiating an EU/Iraq Trade and Cooperation Agreement for which we look forward to a rapid conclusion.

We share a long-term commitment towards the stabilisation and development of a democratic Afghanistan.  We appreciate NATO’s work in leading the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, and will work closely to ensure the success of the mission of UN Special Representative Kai Eide. We are enhancing our strategic cooperation on assisting Afghanistan, including expanding the size and scope of our justice and police reform assistance and counter-narcotics efforts. We look forward to reaffirming our long-term commitment to Afghanistan's development at the June 12 Paris Support Conference. We call on the Afghan Government to further invigorate its efforts to improve governance and human rights, including media freedom, and fight corruption, drug production, and drug trafficking, and we call on our international partners to maintain their generosity.

We welcome the recent progress made in Pakistan towards a lasting democratic transition.  We are committed to supporting the new democratically elected government in tackling the many challenges it faces, not least the threat from violent extremism.

We stand ready to work together with Russia on major regional and global issues of mutual concern as we recognise the important and constructive role that Russia should play on the international stage. We encourage Russia to meet its international commitments on human rights and democratic development, including in the Council of Europe and the OSCE.  We also encourage Russia’s engagement in a productive and transparent dialogue aiming at beneficial cooperation, in order to promote democratic values and freedoms. 

We offer our deepest condolences to the people of China for the earthquake victims in Sichuan.  Recognising China's growing role as an engaged member of the international community, we will continue our constructive engagement and  will encourage China to assume a greater role in helping to tackle issues of global concern, such as the international financial and trading system, climate change, sustainable development and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We also encourage greater regional integration as a means for promoting prosperity and stability in East Asia. We are concerned about the recent unrest in Tibet and urge all sides to refrain from further violence. We welcome China’s recent decision to hold talks with the Dalai Lama’s representatives.  We encourage both parties to move forward with a substantive, constructive and results-oriented dialogue at an early date.  We urge China to take substantive steps to allow its citizens to enjoy internationally recognized human rights. We encourage China to address its poor human rights record.

We offer our deepest condolences and reiterate our concern for the Burmese victims of Cyclone Nargis and our commitment to assist them as they recover from this tragedy. We call on the Burmese authorities to meet their commitments to grant access to foreign aid workers to the cyclone affected areas. We confirm our intention to continue our substantial humanitarian aid to the people affected by the disaster, in particular through the combined efforts of the UN, ASEAN, international and local agencies, and NGOs. Separately, we remain deeply concerned at continued repression in Burma/Myanmar as well as the lack of progress toward national reconciliation and a credible transition to legitimate civilian government. We reiterate our support to the Good Offices Mission of the UN Secretary General, and will continue to pressure the Burmese authorities, including implementing targeted sanctions, to embark on an inclusive dialogue with all stakeholders in the country, including Aung San Suu Kyi and other democratic and ethnic minority representatives. We are deeply troubled by the Burmese regime's extension of Aung San Suu Kyi's house arrest on 27 May  and call upon the regime to release her and all political prisoners.

We commend the continued efforts of Ukraine, Georgia and the Republic of Moldova to meet European standards, we welcome their aspirations and we commit to help these countries achieve  their reform goals as soon as possible. We note that NATO leaders sent a clear message in Bucharest that Georgia and Ukraine will become members of NATO. We are ready to work with all appropriate parties to promote resolution of the conflicts in the region. We reiterate our commitment to the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognised borders, and call on all parties, in particular on Russia,  to support these principles. We welcome the Georgian President’s recent peace initiatives on Abkhazia, as well as the recent direct talks between the parties, hoping that they will contribute to a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

In Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan we will continue to promote democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights. With regard to Belarus, we will continue to hold Belarusian officials responsible for human rights abuses. We call on the Belarusian authorities to release unconditionally and immediately all remaining political prisoners. We condemn the use of coercive measures taken against diplomatic missions in Belarus.

We will continue to act together in order to stabilise Sudan, Somalia and the Great Lakes region of Africa. We will coordinate our efforts to support African Union capacity-building including financial accountability and the development of the African Standby Force. We note the EU commitment to maintain its peacekeeping efforts in eastern Chad in line with commitments and deadlines contained in UNSCR 1778 and commit to work together to increase pressure on Darfur rebels and the Government of Sudan, including through the implementation of sanctions with the goal of accelerating the deployment of the UN/African Union Hybrid Mission in Darfur and promoting the peace process mediated by the UN and AU Special Envoys and in full compliance with UNSCR 1593 and UNSCR 1769.  We will continue to support the full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement as the bedrock of long-term stability and the way forward for democracy in Sudan.

We call on the government of Zimbabwe immediately to cease the state-sponsored violence and intimidation against its people that has occurred since the 29 March presidential and parliamentary elections and which is so hostile to the tenets of democracy and human rights, and we strongly back the efforts of African leaders to bring about an expeditious resolution to this crisis.  We urge the United Nations Secretary-General to send a team immediately to monitor human rights and to deter further abuses. The announced second round of presidential elections on 27 June presents the opportunity for the Zimbabwean people to express freely and democratically their will, opening the way for delivering political stability to the country. A free and fair presidential runoff is critical to the resolution of the ongoing crisis.

We will continue to work together and in collaboration with partners in Latin America and the Caribbean, to spread the benefits of democracy in the Western Hemisphere; to promote economic opportunity and social development; to uphold democratic institutions and human rights; and to enhance security. We encourage democratic processes in the countries of the region consistent with the Inter-American Democratic Charter. We welcome Cuba's signing of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and urge the government to ratify the Covenant and demonstrate its commitment by unconditionally releasing all political prisoners. We will work together to support human rights, democratic values and an active civil society and the continued exercise of freedom of expression throughout the region. We condemn the taking of hostages in any circumstances whatsoever and call on illegal armed groups to release all hostages.

We will continue acting jointly bilaterally and multilaterally to promote democracy, safeguard peace and human rights and in this regard encourage all governments to promote and protect their citizens' human rights. We have co-sponsored a Declaration in the United Nations General Assembly to highlight the plight of prisoners of conscience throughout the world in honour of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We will continue to work cooperatively to promote democratic governance around the world and are prepared to encourage multilateral initiatives such as the Community of Democracies.

We are committed to support effective multilateralism, based on a stronger and more efficient United Nations. We will work to strengthen the United Nations so that it can better fulfil the goals and objectives set forth in its mandate with transparency and accountability.  We will work together to ensure that the multilateral system takes action to protect the freedoms of individuals, and will hold all regimes that fail to protect the human rights of their people accountable. We will support in the UN more effective peacekeeping, disarmament, and delivery of development assistance, and   food  assistance.

We recognise the need for further cooperation to tackle international terrorism, particularly through an active role for the U.S., the EU and Member States in multilateral counter terrorism efforts at the UN.  We stand ready to work for an effective implementation of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. We will continue to work together to reach international consensus towards an agreement on a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that enhances global efforts to combat terrorism and strengthens the existing international legal framework for counter-terrorism. We call for full implementation of UNSC counter-terrorism Resolutions 1267, 1373 and 1540 and support the work of the respective UNSC Committees. We will redouble our efforts to ensure that the UNSCR 1267 Consolidated List accurately reflects facts on the ground, including through proposals of new listings. We agreed to expand our cooperation on counter- terrorism finance including preventing misuses of charities and bulk cash smuggling to finance terrorism, and increase information sharing.

We will seek to deepen our ties in our common fight against terrorism. We will ensure that efforts to combat terrorism comply with our obligations under international law, in particular international human rights law, refugee law and humanitarian law. We will take steps to ensure that members of designated terrorist groups do not misuse the law. We agree that the fight against international terrorism raises important legal questions. We have continued and deepened our dialogue on international law principles, relevant to our common fight against terrorism. Our dialogue contributes to a better mutual understanding of our respective legal frameworks and helps us work together more effectively.

We look forward to the imminent ratification and entry into force of the EU-U.S. Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance Agreements, which are important tools for enhancing fully judicial co-operation and for better tackling organised crime and terrorist offences.

We will work together to combat the global threats posed by transnational organised crime, grand scale corruption, and terrorism. We recognise that transnational criminal syndicates, high level corruption, and terrorist networks destabilise societies by undermining the rule of law and impeding efforts to promote freedom and democracy. We look forward to strengthening international cooperation and working jointly to provide capacity to combat these global threats.  We also call for full implementation of the UN Convention Against Corruption, the UN Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime and its complementary protocols, as well as other UN instruments and resolutions to fight organised crime, corruption, and terrorism.

We recognise that the fight against transnational crime and terrorism requires the ability to share personal data for law enforcement purposes while fully protecting the fundamental rights and civil liberties of our citizens, in particular their privacy and personal data protection, by maintaining necessary standards of personal data protection. Our ongoing discussions within the High Level Contact Group (HLCG) on EU and U.S. frameworks for the protection of personal data have allowed us to identify a number of significant commonalities in our approaches based upon our shared values.  The best way to ensure these interests are met is through a binding international agreement that addresses all the issues identified in the HLCG report. Our challenge moving forward will be to translate insights into greater collaboration in all aspects of law enforcement cooperation.

We will continue to work together to strengthen and universalise relevant disarmament and non-proliferation treaties and regimes. We agree to continue and further develop our cooperation in promoting strict implementation of and compliance with relevant treaties, agreements and commitments on non-proliferation.  We will cooperate as appropriate in programmes aiming at raising awareness and at improving national capacity to prevent and counter the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) threat, including by combating the financing of proliferation and the threat of nuclear terrorism.  We will continue our joint efforts to better coordinate multilateral capacity building and third country assistance on non-proliferation, in particular drawing on our joint support for United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 and the decision by the Security Council to extend the important work of this universal effort through UNSCRs 1673 (2006) and 1810 (2008). We call for geographical expansion of the G8 Global Partnership against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction.  We will address together the challenges posed by non-compliance with regimes restricting the use or proliferation of WMD, and continue our productive dialogue on verification and compliance, established at the 2005 Summit, with a view to identifying opportunities for joint initiatives.  We will continue to develop our cooperation in combating nuclear terrorism, in particular through the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism in which all EU Member States are partners. 

We recognise the need for further cooperation on preventing and fighting international piracy, especially in the framework of the UN.

The security challenges we face call for enhanced cooperation on crisis management. We recognise that modern crisis management requires a comprehensive approach. We can improve our response to crises through close collaboration on all aspects of crisis management, consistent with and building upon cooperation with the UN, other nations, NATO, and other multilateral organisations as appropriate, with a particular view to enhancing transatlantic cooperation in civilian aspects of crisis management and conflict prevention through our agreed Work Plan. We recognise the contribution that a strong EU role in crisis management can bring to the world and support closer EU-NATO relations to better address a wide range of issues of common interest relating to crisis management.

We will support and work together actively in a spirit of mutual respect and cooperation to advance international criminal justice and accountability for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

Recognising the serious threat presented by cocaine production and trafficking, we endorse intensified cooperation on intelligence sharing and interdiction in this field, and we commit in particular to facilitate an exchange of information and a coordination of assistance efforts to address drug trafficking from Latin America, especially to West Africa.

Transatlantic Partnership

The transatlantic economy represents the most significant bilateral economic relationship in the world and has in recent years continued to grow even stronger. The Framework for Advancing Transatlantic Economic Integration which we signed at the April 2007 Summit has succeeded in achieving closer transatlantic economic integration and growth by promoting regulatory cooperation, capital markets integration, investment, and innovation, and by promoting the protection of intellectual property rights and facilitating secure trade.  We welcome the work of the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) which we are determined to make an effective forum for advancing concrete solutions to obstacles in EU/U.S. trade and investment relations. To fulfill the TEC's mandate of creating a barrier-free transatlantic market, it is essential that both sides follow through on their commitments as outlined in the Progress Report to the Summit.

Collaboration between our regulators is critical to further integrating our economies and supports our shared interest in advancing global prosperity. We expect that improvements to our respective regulatory processes will benefit stakeholders and help diminish unnecessary regulatory divergences. In this respect, we will continue our efforts via the High Level Regulatory Cooperation Forum and the European Commission - U.S. Office of Management and Budget dialogue to address methodological issues regarding regulatory impact assessment and risk analysis.

We also share a commitment to an open global investment environment because open investment policies are fundamental to transatlantic and global economic growth and prosperity. We welcome the TEC’s endorsement of the importance of open investment, and will resist protectionist sentiment at home and oppose protectionism abroad. We are committed to continuing to strengthen the EU-U.S. Investment Dialogue, which should continue to facilitate transatlantic investment and to develop common approaches to global investment issues.

We will advance our shared objective of effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights.  Toward this end we will work together with other trading partners to seek to conclude a strong Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) by the end of the year.

The first-stage EU-U.S. Air Transport Agreement, which was provisionally applied as of 30 March, inaugurates a new era in transatlantic aviation. We welcome the start on 15 May in Slovenia of the second stage of negotiations aimed at further liberalisation of the transatlantic aviation market.

We look forward to a new EU-US Aviation Safety Agreement, which will establish a deeper safety-regulatory partnership across the Atlantic and further improve safety in and between our air transport systems. We call on both sides to accelerate their work to allow for the signature of the agreement by the end of June.

We adhere to the fundamental goal of free and secure movement of goods across the Atlantic through multi-layered and risk based security measures. We welcome the recent adoption of a roadmap towards mutual recognition of our respective trade partnership programmes in 2009 and the recent exchanges of customs officers.

We reaffirm our commitment to strengthen the capacities of the EU and U.S. economies for innovation by working to promote the importance and potential benefits of greater transatlantic cooperation on innovation activities.

We acknowledge that all EU and U.S. citizens should benefit from secure visa-free travel between our two continents. Since our last Summit, we have made significant efforts to this end.  We will work together to enhance the security of visa-free travel and the U.S. remains committed to expand its Visa Waiver Programme (VWP) to all EU Member States as soon as possible, including bringing additional EU Member States into the VWP this year. 

Global challenges

Free and fair trade and open investment regimes are the cornerstones of global economic growth. We remain committed to achieving a prompt, ambitious and balanced outcome in the WTO Doha Development Agenda that creates new market access and economic opportunities, that promote development and alleviate poverty. We call on all WTO members to make meaningful contributions that are necessary to advance the negotiations, achieve a breakthrough on modalities in the next few weeks,  and conclude an agreement as a matter of urgency.

We acknowledge the current difficult conditions in the international financial system. We will take appropriate individual and collective steps to address systemic risks and restore investor confidence. Through multilateral fora and bilateral cooperation, we will work collectively to underpin stability in the international financial system. This includes strengthening prudential oversight, improving risk and liquidity management, enhancing transparency, and fostering international cooperation between supervisors and central banks.

In the sphere of development cooperation, we reaffirm our commitment to contribute decisively to the Millennium Development Goals of the Millennium Declaration agreed to at the 2000 Summit and other development targets we have agreed to in other international fora. We will reinvigorate our efforts to meet these goals and in particular to respect our commitment on increased aid for Africa taken at Gleneagles in 2005, more than doubling official development assistance to Africa by 2010 compared to 2004. We will also renew our efforts to improve the quality and effectiveness of assistance in accordance with the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. We are committed to a successful outcome at the 3rd High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, to be held in Accra next September.

Building on the extensive work of the EU and the U.S. on African development, including President Bush’s recent trip to Africa, the recently adopted EU-Africa Strategy and Action Plan, and G8 efforts, we pledge our commitment to help realise Africa’s development potential; combat infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS and malaria; foster human rights, democracy, and good governance; and cultivate investment, entrepreneurship, and economic growth.

We share a strong interest in supporting global health. We will continue to support partner countries as they work to achieve the health-related goals of the Millennium Declaration. We are accountable for progress in delivering on our promises to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, TB, polio and other diseases. We will join together to combat neglected tropical diseases. We will work together to support efforts in partner countries to strengthen their health systems and in particular to improve availability of appropriately trained health workers. We will work, under the auspices of the World Health Organization, on a non-binding voluntary "Code of Practice" for health worker recruitment that supports health systems without creating policies that encourage discrimination in the recruitment and hiring of health workers based on national origin. We will also work to mobilise additional support from our private sectors for these efforts.

Recognising that education is the foundation of a successful society and a growing economy, we will work in partnership with developing countries to improve access to and quality of education. We will promote a holistic approach, balancing support to the different levels and types of education and coherent with the country context. We are committed to addressing the global shortfall of effective teachers through support for teacher training, recruitment, retention and capacity development.

We are conscious of the need for all countries, including major economies, to take responsibility for addressing the interconnected challenges of climate change, energy security and efficiency.

We are committed in the context of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to securing agreement by the end of 2009 to enable the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention through long-term cooperative action, now, up to and beyond 2012. The EU and the U.S. will pursue the search for global agreement on tackling climate change through the Major Economies Meetings and the G8, feeding into the international negotiations under the auspices of the UNFCCC, in accordance with our respective policies.

We will also continue our co-operation on climate change policies and other environmental issues through the EU-U.S. High-Level Dialogue on Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development, focussing on issues such as promoting market-based domestic policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, facilitating trade and investment in new clean technologies, reducing air pollution and waste, combating illegal logging, and stemming the loss of biodiversity.

We will continue to co-operate on energy through our annual Strategic Energy Review, including implementing our joint action plan on biofuels, supporting the newly-launched International Partnership on Energy Efficiency Cooperation, and strengthening the International Energy Agency. We will continue to intensify our science and technology cooperation on energy and climate change in agreed priority areas, such as sustainable production and use of biofuels, clean and renewable energy sources, carbon capture and storage, hydrogen fuel cells, climate change impacts, and options for improving access to transatlantic research funding opportunities.

On energy security, we underline the importance of increasing competition in energy markets and promoting market-based solutions to diversify the development and transit of energy resources to the global market, including full implementation of the G8 St. Petersburg principles. We will work together with Ukraine to increase the transparency and efficiency of its energy markets and support international efforts to rehabilitate and modernise its transit networks. We will facilitate regional co-operation on energy with the countries of the Black Sea, the Caspian Basin and Central Asia and Iraq, and encourage the development of multiple pipelines, such as the Nabucco and Turkey-Greece-Italy projects, to supply additional natural gas to Europe from diversified sources.

FROM: http://www.eu2008.si/en/News_and_Documents/Press_Releases/June/0610EU_USA_Declaration.html

REPTILIAN DATABASE ON THIS SITE

ILLUMINATI DATABASE ON THIS SITE

BILDERBERG DATABASE ON THIS SITE

BOHEMIAN GROVE DATABASE ON THIS SITE

NEW WORLD ORDER DATABASE ON THIS SITE

DREAMS OF THE GREAT EARTHCHANGES - MAIN INDEX