Archive for the ‘Wikileaks’ Category
As early as January of 2005, high-ranking officials were discussing the best way to sell the idea of North American “integration” to the public and policymakers while getting around national constitutions. The prospect of creating a monetary unit to replace national currencies was a hot topic as well.
Some details of the schemes were exposed in a secret 2005 U.S. embassy cable from Ottawa signed by then-Ambassador Paul Cellucci. The document was released by WikiLeaks on April 28. But so far, it has barely attracted any attention in the United States, Canada, or Mexico beyond a few mentions in some liberty-minded Internet forums.
Numerous topics are discussed in the leaked document — borders, currency, labor, regulation, and more. How to push the integration agenda features particularly prominently.
Under the subject line “Placing a new North American Initiative in its economic policy context,” American diplomatic personnel in Canada said they believed an “incremental” path toward North American integration would probably gain the most support from policymakers. Apparently Canadian economists agreed.
The cable also touts the supposed benefits of merging the three countries and even mentions what elements to “stress” in future “efforts to promote further integration.” It lists what it claims is a summary of the “consensus” among Canadian economists about the issues, too.
Merging the United States, Canada, and Mexico
Integration is a little-used term employed mainly by policy wonks. But while it may sound relatively harmless, it generally describes a very serious phenomenon when used in a geopolitical context — the gradual merging of separate countries under a regional authority.
Similar processes are already well underway in Europe, Africa, and South America. And according to critics, the results — essentially abolishing national sovereignty in favor of supranational, unaccountable governance — have been an unmitigated disaster. But the U.S. government doesn’t think so.
In North America, integration has been proceeding rapidly for years. The New American magazine was among the first to report on the efforts to erect what critics have called a “North American Union,” encompassing Canada, the United States, and Mexico. But more recently, the topic has received more attention.
After the creation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) — similar in many ways to the European Common Market that preceded the political union in Europe — the integration scheme has only accelerated. And the bipartisan efforts have been going on for years.
Under President George W. Bush, integration occurred through the little-known “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.” And with the Obama administration, the process, now virtually out in the open, is only accelerating.
Back in 2005, the cable released recently by WikiLeaks explained how it would be done. And looking back, the document was right on the mark.
The best way forward, according to the cable, is via gradual steps. “An incremental and pragmatic package of tasks for a new North American Initiative (NAI) will likely gain the most support among Canadian policymakers,” the cable states in its summary.
“Our research leads us to conclude that such a package should tackle both ‘security’ and ‘prosperity’ goals,” the document claims, using the two key words that have been emphasized at every step along the way. “This fits the recommendations of Canadian economists who have assessed the options for continental integration.”
Toward the end, the cable offers more advice on how to advance the integration agenda by tailoring the narrative. “When advocating [the North American Initiative to integrate the three countries], it would be better to highlight specific gains to individual firms, industries or travelers, and especially consumers,” the cable states, noting that it’s harder to “estimate the benefits” on a national or continental scale.
In a section headlined “North American Integration: What We Know,” the cable offers nothing but praise for the merging of the continent’s once-sovereign nations that had already been achieved.
“Past integration (not just NAFTA but also many bilateral and unilateral steps) has increased trade, economic growth, and productivity,” it claims, despite the fact that countless economists disagree. Of course, true free-trade advocates also correctly point out that the thousands of pages of regulations making up the agreements should hardly be considered examples of genuine free trade.
So-called “security,” the other big integration selling point, is featured prominently in the document as well. “A stronger continental ‘security perimeter’ can strengthen economic performance,“ the cable states. “It could also facilitate future steps toward trilateral economic integration, such as a common external tariff or a customs union.”
And law enforcement “cooperation” is good too, the embassy and the U.S. ambassador claim matter-of-factly.
“Cooperative measures on the ‘security’ side, a critical focus of current bilateral efforts, can deliver substantial, early, and widespread economic benefits,” the cable alleges, offering no evidence to substantiate the assertions.
“Security and law enforcement within North America have evolved rapidly since 9/11,” it continues. “Collaboration to improve these processes could yield efficiency improvements which would automatically be spread widely across the economy, leading to general gains in trade, productivity, and incomes.”
The Alleged “Consensus”
According to the document, “many” economists agree with the scheme. The cable says they support the principle of “more ambitious integration goals” such as a customs union, a single market, and even a continental currency to replace the dollar. On top of that, they supposedly believe such a union should involve all three major North American countries — the United States, Mexico, and Canada.
The cable cautions, however, that “most” of the economists believe the gradual approach is “most appropriate” — for now, at least. And all of them apparently agree that such an approach “helps pave the way to these goals if and when North Americans choose to pursue them.”
The embassy cable also included a summary of what it calls the “professional consensus” among Canadian economists on various issues related to integration.
“At this time, an ‘incremental’ approach to integration is probably better than a ‘big deal’ approach,” the document states under the “process” subheading, supposedly referring to the economists’ opinions. “However, governments should focus on choosing their objectives, and not on choosing a process.”
Next in the cable is the question of “border vs. perimeter,” as the formerly secret document puts it. “Even with zero tariffs, our land borders have strong commercial effects,” the embassy said. However, “some” of the effects — such as law enforcement and “data gathering” — are described as “positive.”
“Canada and the United States already share a security perimeter to some degree; it is just a question of how strong we want to make it,” the 2005 document notes. Apparently Canadians’ main reason for seeking a perimeter approach to security and borders, as opposed to a border between the two nations, is to avoid the “risk” that “discretionary” U.S. decisions to stop terror or disease might impede commerce. And evidently, the nations’ rulers did decide to make the perimeter stronger.
As The New American reported in February, U.S. President Barack Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper met in Washington, D.C., to hammer out a deal on solidifying the common “perimeter” around the two countries. Also part of the agreement, which conspicuously bypassed both countries’ legislatures, was a diminished role for the nations’ shared border. The development of a biometric system to track North Americans was agreed to as well, as were numerous other controversial measures.
In terms of labor markets, the so-called “consensus” among the unidentified Canadian economists is also — surprise! — the pursuit of even more integration. “Many Canadian economists point to labor markets — both within and among countries — as the factor market [sic] where more liberalization would deliver the greatest economic benefits for all three countries,” the document states.
Next, the cable release by WikiLeaks highlights another startling proposition about how to achieve an end-run around the Canadian Constitution. “Inter-provincial differences [in regulation] are important here, since Canada’s federal government does not have the benefit of a U.S.-style ‘interstate commerce’ clause,” the document states. “While much of the problem is domestic in nature, an international initiative could help to catalyze change.”
Yes, the U.S. embassy referred to the wildly abused and misapplied “commerce clause” as a “benefit” that Canada lacks. And it actually suggested, hiding behind unnamed “economists,” that the constitutional “problem” could be minimized by foisting an “international initiative” on the Canadian people.
The cable also claims the “economists” support a customs union, a feature developed in the European Union once the integration process was well established. “A common external tariff, or a customs union which eliminated NAFTA’s rules of origin (ROO), is economically desirable,” it states.
And finally, the document summarizes the “consensus” on the subject of a currency union. It said the supposed economists were “split” on the issues of returning to fixed exchange rates or even abolishing Canada’s fiat dollar and replacing it with American Federal Reserve fiat currency.
The cable gives the final word on the topic of a currency union to the Canadian central bank boss. He is quoted as saying that “monetary union is an issue that should be considered once we have made more progress towards establishing a single market.”
The scheme to merge North America into a political unit with its own legislature and currency is largely the brainchild of the world government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations. But though documents leaked earlier this year revealed that governments were trying to keep the process under wraps, integration is now proceeding out in the open for the most part.
Where the campaign will eventually end remains to be seen. But if North American Union advocates get their way, the U.S. Constitution and its Mexican and Canadian counterparts could soon be rendered irrelevant. After that, plugging the regional units into a global system would be a relatively simple matter, critics and supporters both argue.
In support of the WikiLeaks documents, there’s this Task Report from The Council On Foreign Relations:
Building a North American Community
Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in association with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales.
North America is vulnerable on several fronts: the region faces terrorist and criminal security threats, increased economic competition from abroad, and uneven economic development at home. In response to these challenges, a trinational, Independent Task Force on the Future of North America has developed a roadmap to promote North American security and advance the well-being of citizens of all three countries.
When the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States met in Texas recently they underscored the deep ties and shared principles of the three countries. The Council-sponsored Task Force applauds the announced “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” but proposes a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 and specific recommendations on how to achieve it.
In an interview with the Times, Assange said: “We don’t want the bank to suffer unless it’s called for. But if its management is operating in a responsive way there will be resignations.”
New York Times scribe Andrew Ross Sorkin, for his part, says it’s not Wall Street executives who are worried about WikiLeaks’ next bombshell, it’s Wall Street regulators.
If WikiLeaks reveals truly damaging information, Wall Street regulators may in a particularly awkward situation: they’ll end up being scooped by an organization that has been branded as a terrorist group.
I really wish people would stop being stupid.
There is no “scoop” here.
There is only intentional and willful blindness.
Indeed, Spencer Bachus has made clear exactly what Washington’s agenda has been for the last two decades - SERVICE the banks:
Bachus, who is poised to oversee the implementation of the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory overhaul, made the comment in an interview with The Birmingham News.
“In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks,” he said.
What the hell else is there to know? Oh yeah, Bachus “clarified” his remarks later on, but the point stands. And for those who think Bwarney Frank has done something different: He is lying.
Simply put, there were lots of things that could have been done in 2008 or 2009 – and done today. But any of them that actually cause banks to recognize the true value (or rather, lack thereof) of their alleged “assets” would cause them to have to be broken up and resolved immediately.
Further, any legitimate investigation of what happened would lead to the inescapable conclusion that fraud was and is in fact the business model of these institutions. That which becomes close to exposure and could lead to indictment or collapse becomes legislated or extorted around, just as it did in 2008 with TARP and just as it did in 2009 with “mark to fantasty” forced down the throat of FASB by Kanjorski.
There’s no “scoop” here. One need only open one’s eyes to see massive and outrageous scams and frauds top to bottom. Do mortgage-backed securities actually have mortgages in them, or was that a multi-trillion dollar scam? Were all those CDOs and such honestly created, or did banks intentionally misrepresent who bespoke what and for what purpose? Where did the over $150 billion valuation write-down go that Bank of America took when it got a $15 TAF loan – and where did all the other 90% write-downs go on the other bank balance sheets? We know where they didn’t go – they were never accounted for in any earnings report and yet auditors and examiners passed on these financial statements, capital ratios and current financial condition on multiple occasions, fully-aware of The Fed’s “valuation marks” on these securities.
The schemes and games have been – and still are – “in your face.” Our failure as a nation in regulation and governance is a failure to look, not a failure of ability to see. The evidence is quite literally right under their – and our noses. There is no scoop here – there is, instead, willful and intentional blindness that has, and continues to, screw the public and promote a claim of “economic recovery” that is in fact fraudulently false.
Huffington Post, of course, loves to lean left.
But we do not find truth in left or right.
We only find truth when we seek it and take off the partisan blinders.
And that, my friends, exposes that Barney Frank, who explicitly admits to liking servicing men, is in fact one of the chief men on his knees in front of the banksters performing that precise obscene act.
Just like, and in concert with, Spencer Bachus.
Interpol Issues International Arrest Warrant For Julian Assange For “Sex Crimes”
Per BreakingNews.com, Interpol has just issued an international arrest warrant for Julian Assange. The offense listed: SEX CRIMES. And somehow Interpol does not have access to the Internet and is unable to pull an image of the wanted criminal. Unclear if Ben Bernanke will follow suit in the same Sex Crime category for repeated involuntary fornication with the world’s middle class. In other news, we are now taking odds on a dramatic, globally televized slow speed chase on a California highway in Julian Assange’s future?
As we said earlier today, the previous Wikileak dumps didn’t elicit any action by world leaders other than some words of condemnation. Even this latest one merely garnered some harsh rhetoric and hand-wringing. It wasn’t until Julian Assange said he had information that would damage a ‘big bank’ (later turning out to be Bank of America), that suddenly governments (including ours) got serious. Wikileaks came under the biggest denial of service attack in history and now Interpol has issued an arrest warrant.
Guess this should serve as fair warning: don’t piss off the banks. Do you need any more proof that banks own the government and the government serves the banks, not We The People?
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange isn’t some well-meaning, anti-war protestor leaking documents in hopes of ending an unpopular war. He’s waging cyberwar on the United States and the global world order.
Mr. Assange and his fellow hackers are terrorists and should be prosecuted as such.
Why now? Well gee, it wasn’t Iraq, and it certainly wasn’t the claim that soldiers fired on poor harmless unarmed civilians! Why that latter video turned out to display a very nice RPG across the shoulder of one of those so-called “peace-loving” civilians when examined under a somewhat-critical eye.
No, what got FauxNews all wired up was this:
If we don’t deal quickly and decisively with what is a cyberattack on America, we can expect WikiLeaks 2.0 and Pvt. Manning copycats to do this kind of thing over and over again and again. In fact, Mr. Assange has already announced plans to ‘bring down major bank’ by leaking information about its accounts and practices.
Oh I see.
Is the target of the Wikileaks “Big Bank” exposé going to be Bank of America?
As the Huffington Post points out, Julian Assange talked about BofA last year in an interview with Computer World, claiming “he had acquired a large cache of information from Bank of America.”
He specified that he has 5GB of material on the company.
Now let’s think about this. What has Bank of America done that could implicate it in this regard? Oh hell, who knows.
But it is rather interesting that all these screams about prosecuting the Wikileaks folks suddenly started to gain currency and stridency when the leaks turned from the fact that Iran isn’t liked by anyone (big shock) to the possible exposition of improper conduct – knowing improper conduct – by one or more of the big US Banks.
Exposing diplomatic cables is probably bad and might be criminal. Lying about why our soldiers engaged some bad guys by implications was bad too. I was pissed, and even more-so when the truth was right there in the video they published, but they either didn’t bother mentioning it or worse, had a slant on the “reporting” they were doing.
But while that raised a furor over here, now, suddenly, we have people threatening prosecution or worse, and WikiLeaks site is under high-volume cyber-attack.
They’re targeting a bank’s conduct.
Should I be surprised?