"global governance" is the agenda at this month's G-20 meeting

[emazur]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/2009-09-07-G20-bankers-pay-profits_N.htm

"The G-20 has shown once again that governments from around the world can come together to agree on the global governance the new global economy needs," U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/05/AR2009090502327.html

The Group of 20 also pushed ahead with plans to reform the financial system, including taking tougher action against tax havens and giving developing countries a greater say in global governance.

If you read the full text of this NPR article, you'll probably think Ron Paul's fears of national security being used as an excuse to refuse a Fed audit are justified.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112829960&ps=cprs

"The crisis has underscored that advanced industrial economies on their own cannot deal with or solve all the global problems, and you need the emerging countries at the table as well," Froman says. "The G-20 has been very effective in mobilizing concerted action, and it does reflect a different approach to global governance."

This one is quite thorough:
"Is the G-20 Summit a Step Toward a New Global Economic Order?"
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2009/09_g20_bradford_linn.aspx

The global crisis has moved the United States, along with the rest of the world, toward a new global economic order, with the G-20 summit as one of the principal manifestations of the new global governance system. Of course, movement toward this new economic arrangement and progress toward reformed global governance are not inevitable. It will take a clear and sustained commitment to a new set of values and strong leadership, especially from President Obama and the United States, to ensure that the G-20 summit is not a short-lived exception to what had been a long-standing stalemate in global governance reform. The effectiveness of the G-20 in addressing the global economic crisis could lay the foundation for a new global order and provide the impetus for the many other necessary global governance reforms. Whether or not this happens will depend to a significant extent on the direction chosen by President Obama.

Great changes in the economic and political balance among countries, global threats and an antiquated global governance system confront the world community today. With the economic crisis as an immediate driver and a new U.S. president, the G-20 summit format has the potential to make a real shift in the global economic order in which a new set of values underpin the way countries and people cooperate across borders. To the extent that President Obama has articulated his vision of the global order and America’s role in it, we believe he is headed in the direction that stresses common interests in a global society, the need for multilateral action and understanding for alternative approaches to economic and political development. This is very promising. The effectiveness of the G-20 in addressing the global economic crisis could lay the foundation for a new global order and provide the impetus for the many other necessary global governance reforms.

Koreans are getting in on the act
http://www.timesoftheinternet.com/112182.html

Lee: G20 process should be permanent

SEOUL, Sept. 20 (UPI) -- The Group of 20 summit process should be institutionalized and made permanent to fight global economic problems, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak says.

Lee, whose country is pushing to host a future G20 summit after this month's meeting in Pittsburgh, wrote in article for the University of Toronto's G8 Research Center that leaders should look at how effective the group has been at addressing the crisis posed by the economic crisis and consider building on it, the South Korean news agency Yonhap reported Sunday.

"At the fourth G20 summit, the leaders should seriously consider the institutionalization of the G20 process as a means to strengthen global governance," Lee said. "I hope that the G20 leaders recognize the need to properly prepare exit strategies for future implementation in a timely manner when the global recovery takes a firm hold."

I'm sure I could find more if I looked, but this should give you a pretty good idea of the agenda. Wikipedia says: The next G20 summit is due to take place at Pittsburgh's David L. Lawrence Convention Center on September 24–25, 2009

[emazur]

bump

[pcosmar]

Thanks for the links,
This is more confirmation of the REAL issues.
While everyone is bickering back and forth over "R" and "D", this crap will be pushed through. I suspect it will happen anyway.
It is time to prepare the resistance.

[Bruno]

thanks for the articles!

Expect to hear more of this language floated by the media, as they prepare the masses for it.

[Deborah K]

This is more important than anything else right now.

[emazur]

I'll stoke the fires a bit. The plan seems to be to get all the big players to agree that global governance is beneficial and "necessary", while at the same time promising the less influential countries that they will have a seat at the table in reshaping the world order.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/09/g20_report.html

Every country today has a vital interest in creating a stronger positive feedback loop of more broadly shared participation in the benefits of global economic integration among and within countries.
...
Beginning at their meeting in Pittsburgh, G-20 leaders should assemble the procedural machinery necessary to produce a blueprint for comprehensive institutional renovation of the global economy by next autumn.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091005/nichols

A muscular letter to President Obama--signed by more than fifty groups, including the Change to Win labor federation, Friends of the Earth, Public Citizen, USAction and religious groups--argues that "remedying the current crisis, avoiding future crises and achieving economic justice and stability will require a new approach to domestic and global economic governance."

http://allafrica.com/stories/200909210579.html

Ahead of this week's summit of the G20 group of nations in Pittsburgh in the United States, South African planning minister Trevor Manuel says if Africa is to have a greater say in global governance, it must be better organized and demonstrate greater qualities of regional economic development.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-09/21/content_8713297.htm

The president, along with his delegation, will be voicing China's positions, concerns and solutions on urgent global issues, such as reshaping the global governance on climate change, nuclear security and the financial recession.

[Indy Vidual]

Do any of these articles bother to define global governance?

[emazur]

Do any of these articles bother to define global governance?

This is from the Brookings article - note how "sovereignty" has been stricken from the list:
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2009/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2009/09_g20_bradford_linn/pb170_table1.gif

[sevin]

Too many people are turned off by the phrase "New World Order" so now it's "Global Governance." I wonder what they'll come up with next.

[Indy Vidual]

This is from the Brookings article - not how "sovereignty" has been stricken from the list:
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2009/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2009/09_g20_bradford_linn/pb170_table1.gif

Thanks for the details.
"Soft power" :eek:
Is "soft power" similar to a "kinder, gentler" invasion of other countries?

[emazur]

Thanks for the details.
"Soft power" :eek:
Is "soft power" similar to a "kinder, gentler" invasion of other countries?

Maybe something like this?

"Socialism means equality of income or nothing ... under socialism you will not be allowed to be poor. You will be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught and employed - whether you like it or not. If it is discovered that you have not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you are permitted to live you will have to live well."

George Bernard Shaw

[max]

Thanks for the details.
"Soft power" :eek:
Is "soft power" similar to a "kinder, gentler" invasion of other countries?

Hard power would be bombing and invading Iran...then installing a puppet.

Soft power is funding an "opposition group/CIA front" to destabilize the government and then it gets overthrown by a puppet

[David A. Gay, Sr.]

Wow. we're really up against evil.

[pcosmar]

Wow. we're really up against evil.

Of the worst kind. :(

[Deborah K]

Bump

[kahless]

Too many people are turned off by the phrase "New World Order" so now it's "Global Governance." I wonder what they'll come up with next.

^^ This.

[moostraks]

Too many people are turned off by the phrase "New World Order" so now it's "Global Governance." I wonder what they'll come up with next.

hmm...how about transnational cooperative?

Drops all that icky globalist mindthink while still retaining the essence of the agenda. Makes one think in terms of a partnership while they squish the little guys and strip them of their rights and national identity.

Anyone else got one?

Bonus points if msm picks up and runs with the verbiage!!! :p

[Sandman33]

The thing about any ORDER...is that people have to take it.

[Andrew-Austin]

This is from the Brookings article - note how "sovereignty" has been stricken from the list:
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2009/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2009/09_g20_bradford_linn/pb170_table1.gif

This doesn't seem to convey anything meaningful unless your a politician, its just rhetoric. lol good plan, I see you big wigs have everything covered.

[Harris4LarouchePAC]

Again, I find it hilarious people call Lyndon Larouche "insane" when hes been talking about the British moving for this shit for a very very long time. And has warned about the economic downturn since 1970.

Why would PM Gordon Brown say this? Why would Prince Charles say the shit he says? Why are WE THE UNITED STATES TRYING TO ESTABLISH A BRITISH-MODELED HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, THE SAME NATION WE DECLARED INDEPENDENCE FROM!?

We had the revolutionary war, they attacked us in 1812, we beat them yet again. They caused the civil war, they started WWI, they created hitler and and financed the Nazi party thus starting WWII, they killed JFK for resisting a war in asia, they killed him, they got their war with LBJ. They started the Cold War, they got us into Iraq after the British-Saudi led 9/11 attacks.

When the hell will people wake up and understand the British have never, and will never, be looking out for the interests of the American people. They are our traditional enemy and have been for centuries now. Wake the **** up.

[Deborah K]

Again, I find it hilarious people call Lyndon Larouche "insane" when hes been talking about the British moving for this shit for a very very long time. And has warned about the economic downturn since 1970.

Why would PM Gordon Brown say this? Why would Prince Charles say the shit he says? Why are WE THE UNITED STATES TRYING TO ESTABLISH A BRITISH-MODELED HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, THE SAME NATION WE DECLARED INDEPENDENCE FROM!?

We had the revolutionary war, they attacked us in 1812, we beat them yet again. They caused the civil war, they started WWI, they created hitler and and financed the Nazi party thus starting WWII, they killed JFK for resisting a war in asia, they killed him, they got their war with LBJ. They started the Cold War, they got us into Iraq after the British-Saudi led 9/11 attacks.

When the hell will people wake up and understand the British have never, and will never, be looking out for the interests of the American people. They are our traditional enemy and have been for centuries now. Wake the **** up.

Wait a minute! What about Daniel Hannon?

[TCE]

Wait a minute! What about Daniel Hannon?

He is a European Parliament member representing Britain, he has no power in the British House of Commons.

[Deborah K]

He is a European Parliament member representing Britain, he has no power in the British House of Commons.

Yes, but he's British. And a fine Brit at that, if you ask me. :D

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

It is better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep
- Italian proverb

[Sandman33]

Again, I find it hilarious people call Lyndon Larouche "insane" when hes been talking about the British moving for this shit for a very very long time. And has warned about the economic downturn since 1970.

Why would PM Gordon Brown say this? Why would Prince Charles say the shit he says? Why are WE THE UNITED STATES TRYING TO ESTABLISH A BRITISH-MODELED HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, THE SAME NATION WE DECLARED INDEPENDENCE FROM!?

We had the revolutionary war, they attacked us in 1812, we beat them yet again. They caused the civil war, they started WWI, they created hitler and and financed the Nazi party thus starting WWII, they killed JFK for resisting a war in asia, they killed him, they got their war with LBJ. They started the Cold War, they got us into Iraq after the British-Saudi led 9/11 attacks.

When the hell will people wake up and understand the British have never, and will never, be looking out for the interests of the American people. They are our traditional enemy and have been for centuries now. Wake the **** up.

We LOST the battle of 1812. That war was only meant to break us financially so that congress would renew the charter for the Rothschild based central bank or "fed"

Once they broke us financially we renewed the charter and once again the foreign Jew money changers had controll over our currency and our country. It wasn't untill thee election of Andrew Jackson, he kicked out the foreign bankers and restored an honest monetary system....and then we lost it again to the SAME people in 1913 with the inception of the FED.

[emazur]

More and more are getting in on the act...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/24/2694804.htm

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has used a lunch at the prestigious Foreign Policy Forum in New York to call for a reinvigoration of world bodies like the UN and the International Monetary Fund, saying their rules and membership have become dysfunctional.

"This is very much the framework within which Australia sees the future of the G20, which I have already described as the driving centre of the existing institutions of global governance and the best vehicle for their reform into the future," he said.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=32181&Cr=general+assembly&Cr1=

23 September 2009 – French President Nicolas Sarkozy issued a warning at the General Assembly today that time is running out to reform global governance for politics, economics and the environment to address crises on multiple fronts.

With the world facing challenges posed by poverty, recession, global warming and nuclear proliferation, among others, “we have already waited too long,” Mr. Sarkozy said at the 192-member Assembly’s annual high-level debate.

“The most developed countries cannot govern mankind on their own,” he said. “Whole countries cannot be left out, nor billions of people who now aspire to play their part on the world stage.”

Also in urgent need of restructuring are the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank in the face of the current economic turmoil, with voting rights being equally distributed among nations, he emphasized. Additionally, the international monetary system must be transformed to include more than just one currency as the world becomes increasingly more multipolar, both politically and economically.

the only "bright" spot here is that the Germans are saying global governance can wait for later
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090923-705297.html

BERLIN (Dow Jones)--The Group of 20 industrialized and developing nations summit in Pittsburgh this weekend must focus on how to implement financial market regulations, rather than talking about a new system of global governance, the German government said Wednesday.

Government spokesman Ulrich Wilhelm said U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown's proposal for G20 leaders to focus on forming a new system of governance is a more long-term project.


"EU President Barroso: Europe will push its values at G-20 summit"
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0923/p09s01-coop.html

Brussels - The crisis that we face is not just an economic crisis. It is a crisis for the values of our societies.

At the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh this week, world leaders must respond by demonstrating our commitment to a greener, more ethical, more equitable, and better-balanced world economy.

This "new globalization" requires global governance, based on universal human values and reflecting the reality of economic interdependence. The G-20 gives us the chance to shape globalization. The chance to develop a sustainable model to replace the one brought to its knees by the failure of financial markets.

[silverhawks]

Yes, but he's British. And a fine Brit at that, if you ask me. :D

Deb,

I'm English, I like Hannan, but I tend to partway agree with Harris; though I think that the imperialistic powers that still inhabit Britain have nothing to do with protecting the British.

Since coming to America, and learning about the American civic order, I have come to see it as IMMENSELY superior to the British system, despite its surface similarities.

No 'right' in Britain is inalienable, every one is subject to alteration by laws, which are alterable by the decisions of Parliament. Every 'right' in the current system descends from the sovereign - there are no sovereign individuals in Britain; no citizens, only "subjects".

I would assert that the inhabitants of the British Isles have NO TRUE RIGHTS, only a set of legal privileges that can, and HAVE been rescinded by government, since over the past ten years every single civil right has been actively revoked - the British people are in deep, DEEP denial if they do not acknowledge this fact.

This has led me to decide that the UK can keep the divine right of kings, I'll take the Bill of Rights and individual sovereignty ANY DAY. It boggles my mind to see many Americans openly admiring our royal family, when what they should realise is that they are EQUAL to these people.

No schoolkid in Britain is taught about the Revolutionary War - America to the English is a castoff colony, a reject, not a vast improvement over their own civic system. We certainly aren't taught about things like this, an account written by Thomas Jefferson:


"If M. de Meunier proposes to mention the facts of cruelty of which he spoke yesterday, these facts are:

1) the death of upwards of eleven thousand American prisoners in one prison ship (the Jersey), and in the space of three years.

2) General Howe's permitting our prisoners, taken at the battle of Germantown, and placed under a guard in the yard of the State-House of Philadelphia, to be so long without food furnished them that many perished with hunger. Where the bodies lay, it was seen that they had eaten all the grass around them within their reach, after they had lost the power of rising, or moving from their place."

That's only a small example of how the British Empire treated American prisoners during the Revolutionary War, when conversely Washington gave strict orders to treat English prisoners well. Aside from this, they deported them to the East Indies, or forcibly conscripted them into the British military, to fight against their own families. Not surprisingly, we aren't told about any of this - we're only told the British Empire spread education and wealth to the world, that it was the golden age society that gave us the basis of what we have today...so with that in mind, I have to wonder: exactly what kind of country did I grow up in? I can't exactly say for sure.

I left Britain 10 years ago as New Labour got in, and I have seen the progressive whole destruction of whatever patriotic values it had left, while politicians and royalty stay fat and happy; I've seen thousands of new laws enacted to criminalise the entire population; and I've seen a French President endorsing Tony Blair to become President of Europe. As an Englishman, that rings EVERY alarm bell to me as to something extremely strange going on in European politics.

And as an Englishman, I have to wonder why a Queen would ever knight Presidents and Fed Chairmen, since the only reason to do so is to celebrate and reward their service to the Crown.

I'm in complete agreement with Jefferson's suggestion; the best thing that could possibly happen at this point is for a wall to be built in the middle of the Atlantic, and the "eternal wars of Europe" and the powers that drive them can stay on that side.

[Deborah K]

Deb,

I'm English, I like Hannan, but I tend to partway agree with Harris; though I think that the imperialistic powers that still inhabit Britain have nothing to do with protecting the British.

Since coming to America, and learning about the American civic order, I have come to see it as IMMENSELY superior to the British system, despite its surface similarities.

No 'right' in Britain is inalienable, every one is subject to alteration by laws, which are alterable by the decisions of Parliament. Every 'right' in the current system descends from the sovereign - there are no sovereign individuals in Britain; no citizens, only "subjects".

I would assert that the inhabitants of the British Isles have NO TRUE RIGHTS, only a set of legal privileges that can, and HAVE been rescinded by government, since over the past ten years every single civil right has been actively revoked - the British people are in deep, DEEP denial if they do not acknowledge this fact.

This has led me to decide that the UK can keep the divine right of kings, I'll take the Bill of Rights and individual sovereignty ANY DAY. It boggles my mind to see many Americans openly admiring our royal family, when what they should realise is that they are EQUAL to these people.

No schoolkid in Britain is taught about the Revolutionary War - America to the English is a castoff colony, a reject, not a vast improvement over their own civic system. We certainly aren't taught about things like this, an account written by Thomas Jefferson:



That's only a small example of how the British Empire treated American prisoners during the Revolutionary War, when conversely Washington gave strict orders to treat English prisoners well. Aside from this, they deported them to the East Indies, or forcibly conscripted them into the British military, to fight against their own families. Not surprisingly, we aren't told about any of this - we're only told the British Empire spread education and wealth to the world, that it was the golden age society that gave us the basis of what we have today...so with that in mind, I have to wonder: exactly what kind of country did I grow up in? I can't exactly say for sure.

I left Britain 10 years ago as New Labour got in, and I have seen the progressive destruction of whatever patriotic values it had left, while politicians and royalty stay fat and happy; I've seen thousands of new laws enacted to criminalise the entire population; and I've seen a French President endorsing Tony Blair to become President of Europe. As an Englishman, that rings EVERY alarm bell to me as to something extremely strange going on in European politics.

And as an Englishman, I have to wonder why a Queen would ever knight Presidents and Fed Chairmen, since the only reason to do so is to celebrate and reward their service to the Crown.

I'm in complete agreement with Jefferson's suggestion; the best thing that could possibly happen at this point is for a wall to be built in the middle of the Atlantic, and the "eternal wars of Europe" and the powers that drive them can stay on that side.

Bravo!!! Well stated! And please don't misunderstand me. I would never contend that G.B. is better of than America. I know better. And I understand that they don't have our best interests at heart. I do wish the British would listen to Hannan though. He makes a lot of sense. Hell for that matter, I wish more Americans would heed his warnings lest we end up like them.

[RonneJJones]

Do any of these articles bother to define global governance?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance


Governance is not Government, especially not a Republican form of Government...and their form of governance means supra-national bodies of unelected individuals meeting in secret to create laws and regulations that you have to comply with, with no opportunity of redress.

[YumYum]

We LOST the battle of 1812. That war was only meant to break us financially so that congress would renew the charter for the Rothschild based central bank or "fed"

Once they broke us financially we renewed the charter and once again the foreign Jew money changers had controll over our currency and our country. It wasn't untill thee election of Andrew Jackson, he kicked out the foreign bankers and restored an honest monetary system....and then we lost it again to the SAME people in 1913 with the inception of the FED.

When Zionism was formed in the 1890's, they started the Populist movement and they went after the millionare goyims in this country by screaming "Monopolies!" "Wicked Trusts!" They pushed the anti-trust laws to take the banking away from the goyim, thus setting the stage for the Zionist Federal Reserve to be in control. Very crafty, those Zionists.

[silverhawks]

Bravo!!! Well stated! And please don't misunderstand me. I would never contend that G.B. is better of than America. I know better. And I understand that they don't have our best interests at heart. I do wish the British would listen to Hannan though. He makes a lot of sense. Hell for that matter, I wish more Americans would heed his warnings lest we end up like them.

From your mouth to God's ears, Deb. But the more I come to look on it, the more I see the country that I grew up in - the REAL country, not the state - as being utterly subsumed into a socialist, rapidly-becoming-fascist, European empire, and a lot of people there (including some of my family members) think its a GREAT idea; they don't understand the concept of freedom, only "democracy" and disturbingly, "post-democracy". When the final transformation of the EU occurs, they will be the good little party members of the European super-state.

I really hope I'm wrong, but Hannan and the people that would listen to him appear to be in the vast minority compared to those who are utterly dependent on the state via welfare checks and benefits to survive. These people are blissfully AWARE of their condition, and do not see anything wrong with it. As far as they are concerned, the government can do whatever it likes, as long as it keeps the checks coming.

At least here, there is a solid core of people dedicated to self-reliance, independence, and peaceful reform towards an ideal of freedom; we can already see the beginnings of a Constitutional revival that has gained so much momentum that I don't think it can be stopped. Back in the UK, I don't see anything like that core at all, or any movement that will be able to gather enough support to enact any actual meaningful reforms, other than to usher in successive generations continually looking to the government for a handout or solutions.

Instead, various gaggles of idiots are willingly placing chains of servitude on themselves in exchange for safety and security, refusing to stand up and speak in the name of their own sovereignty, and in doing so, have become utterly undeserving of freedom. As it is, I've become reconciled to the complete destruction of the country I was born in; I wouldn't be surprised to see a total breakup of the UK within my lifetime.

[Deborah K]

I'm so sorry Silverhawks. :(

[Dianne]

I don't think this is a "warning" anymore. I suspect the deal was sealed a long time ago; kept well hidden from the sheeple. When you look at all the dictators in that one room, including ours'; it puts chills up and down your spine.

[heavenlyboy34]

:eek:!!! ZOMG!!