President John F. Kennedy is certainly underrated in his intellect. He could speak eloquently and he delievered a passionate vision on a myriad of issues. JFK wasn't perfect, but he did do many legitimate things. Later on his Presidency, Kennedy took concrete steps in opposing the agenda of the military industrial complex. This occured especially in 1963, which was revolutionary in that time. The establishment left (one person was a professor I had in college who was a liberal, but respected Eisenhower's foreign policy more than JFK's foreign policy. She implied JFK as been aloof, which is silly) and the establishment right hate him since he wasn't a brainwashed person following political paradigm. The record is that after the Bay of Pigs error, President John F. Kennedy fired CIA Director Allen Dulles and others for their Bay of Pigs debacle (Bundy admitted his msitake). In 1962, he faced the Cuban Missile Crisis. He ordered a blockade to stop the crisis and prevent more Soviet missiles from coming into Cuba. Kennedy wanted peace, so he issued secret channels with Nikita Khrushchev to get rid of Soviet missiles from Cuba (while the USA covertly got rid of their missiles from Turkey). John F. Kennedy opposed many of the Generals like Curtis Le May since many of them desired an unilateral invasion of Cuba, which is wrong since that act could cause a conflict among the USA and the then USSR. Attorney General Kennedy worked with Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dorbrynin to solve the problem since the military was putting pressure on Kennedy to strike Cuba. In his memoirs, Khrushchev recalled a further, chilling sentence from Robert Kennedy’s appeal to Dobrynin: “If the situation continues much longer, the President is not sure that the military will not overthrow him and seize power.” Khrushchev wanted to give the President help. As 1963 came about, both Kennedy and Khrushchev desired constructive peace efforts. They both supported a joint USA/Soviet march to the Moon. On November 12, 1963, JFK issued his National Security Action Memorandum 271, ordering NASA to implement his “September 20 proposal for broader cooperation between the United States and the USSR in outer space, including cooperation in lunar landing programs.” They wanted a more peaceful planet as Kennedy rejected a Pax Americana plan of enforcement of American weapons of war in the world. This is opposition to the military industrial complex as they are dependent on the Pax Americana ideal (as said in his American University Address speech. Khrushchev and the Soviets loved the speech). Kennedy in July 25, 1963 signed with the Soviets a partial Nuclear test pan treaty. Kennedy negotitated the Test Ban Treaty without consulting the Joints Chiefs of Staff since they opposed it. Kennedy took on Big Steel since Big Steel did price fixing in violation of their agreement between U.S. Steel and the United Steelworkers's union. In a head-on confrontation with the ruling elite of Big Steel, JFK ordered the Defense Department to switch huge military contracts away from the major steel companies to the smaller, more loyal contractors that had not defied him. Some in the establishment hated JFK for these acts. Kennedy talked with Castro in trying to find a better relation with America. He issued the top secret order on October 11, 1963 to begin withdrawing the U.S. military from Vietnam. In National Security Action memorandum 263, he ordered that 1,000 U.S. military personnel be withdrawn from Vietnam by the end of 1963, and that the bulk of U.S. personnel be taken out by the end of 1965. Defense Robert McNamara was told by the President that he wanted helicopters gone from Vietnam too. With his assassination, the Vietnam war escalated causing about 58,000 Americans to die and over 3 million Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians to die. John F. Kennedy unlike LBJ was for Third World nationalism. He supported the newly independent countries of Africa in the early 1960's and the President Sukarno of Indonesia. Sukarno wanted to be neutral and he coined the phrase of Third World, but the CIA wanted him dead. Under Eisenhower's Presidency, the CIA tried to kill and overthrow Sukarno, but they failed. Sukarno visited the White House in 1961 with the support of JFK. The CIA didn't like this. President John F. Kennedy wanted to work Sukarno and agreed to meet Indonesia in the Spring of 1964. If this occured, Kennedy would overtly show his support of Third World nationalism. Since JFK was murder, LBJ allowed the CIA to overthrow Sukarno in a purge of suspected Communists. More than 500,000 to 1 million Indonesians died from the event. Kennedy wanted to see an end of the contrived Cold War and extend his thinking into new areans. Quakers told JFK to harbor peace and give a food surplus to China. Kennedy said that he should follow the words of Jesus, but the China Lobby in Washington would resist him. In the fall of 1963 (or a year later), he gave wheat to the Russian since they had a severe grain shortage. His critics were saying that he was funding his enemies, yet it isn't evil to give legitimate aid to those starving or in need of legitimate supplies. So, President John F. Kennedy was a more eloquent advocate for peace than his critics proclaim. LBJ will never be JFK. JFK not LBJ proposed a war on poverty, civil rights legislation, a decrease of military involvement in Vietnam, housing legislation, etc. LBJ passed much of Kennedy's legitimate proposals dealing with Voting rights and Civil rights. Certainly, Kennedy realized that he didn't fear death and that true peace wouldn't be accomplished in his lifetime. Yet, there is nothing unrealistic and far reaching to promote the real tenets of a more peaceful world (that exists with nationalism, negotiations, strength, and peace). God is the Truth and we have every right to improve our course in life to project the creed of justice.
The New York Times calls the campaign helping women after abortion "propaganda." They are liars on that point like usually. The NY Times act like pro-life people aren't allowed to advertise a website and condemn abortion. Susan Dominus wrote her March 26 New York Times article called, "In Subway Ads on Abortion, a Pretense of Neutrality." She attacked recent ads for abortionchangesyou.com. That is a website in which anybody touched by abortion can anonymously share their feelings and learn that they are not alone. Dominus began her story by noting the innocuous nature of the advertisement, but turns on the Web site after revealing its association with Project Rachel, a Catholic initiative. Dominus talked about the adverstisemnt and disaparaged all pro-lifers. She said that anti-abortion strategies go and it's oblique, which is a far cry from a brick in the window or a death threat to a member of Congress. This liar forgotten that for years pro-life people have been assaulted and murdered by pro-abortion extremists. Dominus omits that information typically. Michaeline Fredenburg, founder of the site, told Dominus, "We feel it's really important for women and their families to have a safe place to experience their own range of emotions, apart from the controversy and debate" surrounding abortion. Dominus lies and calls the effort to help women who suffered from the tradegy of abortion as propaganda masquerading as therapy. She's a liar since pro-life people have successfully healed women who were the victims of abortion among decades in American society. Dominus forgot that abortion on demand isn't about promotion women's right. It's about suppressing the rights of unborn human beings from recieving the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Dominus hypocritically tries to say that we Pro-Lifers are using slick tactics, but we are not. We use the overt tactic of having concern for human beings, while respecting life in all of its stages. Dominus omits that the pro-abortion Doula Project and Exhale link to the abortion provider Planned Parenthood on their sites. She omits that women on the abortionchangesyou website have free speech in showing women who regret (or not) of their abortions. We know what abortion is. Abortion is eugenics and it's murder.
An eco-extremists wants freedom to be gone in order to fight "global warming." He only wants a few people with authority to run the Earth. This person wants population reduction in a radical fashion. He is a renowed environmentist. He wants this policy to offset climage change and has called for a more authoritative world. He wants freedom to be submerged under what he sees as the devastating effects of global warming. The person is a futurist named James Lovelock. He wants to put democracy on hold for environmental purposes. He believes in the New Age Gaita hypothesis or that the Earth is one big living organism called Gaia. Lovelock doesn't trust the distorted climate data sent out by the UN affiliated climate scientists. “Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the Holy Ghost of science. I’m not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It’s the one thing you do not ever do. You’ve got to have standards.” he states in the interview. He said that he has little faith in renewable energies, carbon trading, or cap and tax schemes (in his interview with the New Scientist, he called them verging on a gigantic scam). He's right on the cap and trade issue since big industries will benefit grealty from a cap and trade system. Wind farms can take up too much space to energy huge energy. The Optimum Population Trust is another UK-based public policy group that want radical decline of the human population (into a "sustainable" level). Lovelock became a patron of the thinktank in 2009. In a statement released by the trust to mark the appointment, Lovelock called on the environmental movement as a whole to “recognise the truth and speak out” on the link between rising human numbers and global warming. Lovelock said that: "...Those who fail to see that population growth and climate change are two sides of the same coin are either ignorant or hiding from the truth. These two huge environmental problems are inseparable and to discuss one while ignoring the other is irrational..." So, he wants to use anti-population deception as a means to promote environmental extremism. This is nothing new. Roger Martin is the chair of OPT and he said of Lovelock's appointment as fine. The OPT wants depopulation and tie it to carbon emissions. The OPT have have as patrons controversial primatologist and environmentalist Jane Goodall, who thinks that caging chimps and other apes is better for them than letting them live free in the wild; Professor Aubrey Manning, president of the UK’s Wildlife Trusts; and Sir Crispin Tickell, the ex-diplomat credited with the “greening” of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. The OPT have a patron named Sir David Attenborough (who is a BBC wildlife broadcaster and film maker), who called for a one child policy in Britain. This occurs in China and it's one of the OPT's main initiatives. Jonathan Porritt is the former chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission as well. Porritt is one of the Prime Minister Gordon Brown's leading green advisers, who has stated that Britain's population must be cut in half from 60 million to 30 million if it is to build a sustainable society. We have exhaustively exposed the nonsense behind the Earth's current population levels are exceeding sustainable levels and are contributing to devastating climate change. Yet, Lovelock and his ilk at the OPT remain in positions of influence. Lovelock follows the dangerous policy of geoengineering the planet in the name of controlling the climate. In 2007, he proposed laying vast swathes of pipes under the world's oceans in the order to pump water form the bottom of the seas (rich in nutrients) but mostly dead to the top. The idea was that action would make algae to breed, absord more carbon and release more dimethyl sulphide into the atmosphere. This chemical of dimethyl sulphid is known to seed sunlight reflecting clouds. Lovelock wants to try and block out the sun, which is the source of all life on this planet. Lovelock is apart of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. This organization supports the global warming movement. They want to reduce carbon emissions by 80%. This can risk the lowering of the global economy and living standards. This group is even more vehement than the national governments in its advocacy of the man-made cause of global warming. He calls for such drastic CO2 cuts to be made in the short term, not even by the usual target date of 2050. Lovelock falsely believes that we have overpopulation in the Earth and carbon emissions risk our modern civilization. He believes that rising sea levels with make our Earth risk of death of species and man. Thse extremists like Lovelock, the Royal Society, and the OPT aren't alone in their views. John P. Holdren co-authored the 1977 book called "Ecoscience." In it, she supports mass sterilization, one child policies, and a Planetary Regime with the power of life and death. Holdren supported extreme geoengineering projects to try to cool the Earth. This plan calls for shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. This is similar to spraying chemtrails in the air. Leading NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen agrees with Holdren's view that industrial civilization should be destroyed to save the planet. The same talking points raised by the OPT and James Lovelock have been re-iterated again and again by public policy groups and environmentalists, as well as the most influential scientists in the US government. The evils of sterilization and depopulation are popularized and embraced by extremists like they have been over 100 years ago. The environmental extremists are embracing near eugenics and this isn't surprising since the elite endorse eugenics. You don't exterminate people under fear mongering tactics. There is climate change, but not permanent man-made global warming. The agreement formd the TEC or the Transatlantic Economic Council or the TEC as a permanent body. Trade policy analyst named Daniella Markheim compared the TEC to the now defunct SPP (or the Security and Prosperity Partnership) of North America. The SPP and the TEC address property rights protections and enforcement, effective inspections and data sharing on food safety, border measures affecting trade, and other economic plus security concerns. She also added, “Both of these are forums that enable the U.S. and its significant trade partners to find new avenues to improve the flow of commerce and promote greater coherence and consistency in trade rules and regulations.” A Canada-EU free trade agreement would deepen transatlantic economic integration and advance plans for a common market in the region. 2011 could be a year when negotiations could be signed into a Canada EU CETA deal. NAFTA could be revived and expanded in a trilateral accord. This causes a liberalizing trade in goods, services, investment, and procurement. These interlocking superstates are a foundation of world governance like the EU. Some even desire a North American Union being made incrementally. NAFTA merged with the SPP agenda plus the TEC (including Canada EU CETA) forms the basis for the Transatlantic Union.
There is the Transaltantic agenda. Canada wants to expand its trade horizons. The CETA is currently being negoitated with the EU or the European Union. This appeals to be based on the flawed NAFTA model. Many view it as an opportunity to decrease its trade reliance on the U.S., but it could serve to accelerate the corporate takeover of the uSA. The deal would exceed NAFTA in its scope. The third round of negoitations are scheduled for April 19-23 in Ottowa. There are still lingering conerns about its lack of transparancy. A Canada-EU-CETA could be used to expand NAFTA, strengthen U.S.-E.U. economic relations and further advance the transatlantic agenda. Some believe that the recent Canada U.S. Agreement on Government Procurement is an important step in providing protection for future bilateral trade relations, but in the process it opens up provincial and municipal contracts to foreign corporations. Maude Barlow and Stuart Trew of the Council of Canadians criticized the Conservative government for giving up too much and receiving too little. In an collaborative article they emphasized that, “The provinces have been loath to sign the WTO’s Government Procurement Agreement and did not agree to include subnational procurement in NAFTA because they could lose too much say in how public money is spent without getting any new access to the U.S. market...” They believe that the Canadian leader Harper wanted to have free trade talks with Europe to restructure Canada's economy to reduce the role of our communities in setting spending priorities (in the Buy American controversy). EU is using the proposed CETA with Canada in order for them to gain access to procurement and services (in areas of health, energy, water, and other sectors).
The Canada-U.S. Buy American deal is an extension of NAFTA and has set a precedent which could further reinforce EU demands. The Internet law columnist Michael Gesit wrote in mid-December 2009 that the EU had proposed negiotated an intellectual property chapter which could reshape Canadian copyright law. Geist wrote that: "...While the leaked document may only represent the starting European position, there is little doubt there will be enormous pressure on Canadian negotiators to cave on the IP provision in return for ‘gains’ in other areas.” This ties into Canada's participating in the ACTA or the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement negoitations that includes the E.U., and other nations. Geist believes that the Canada-EU CETA acknowledged that combined with the ACTA, the 2 agreements would undertake a significant rewrite of its law. Geist wrote that: "...The notion of a ‘made-in-Canada’ approach – already under threat from ACTA – would be lost entirely, replaced by a made-in-Washington-and-Brussels law.." The U.S. and the EU singled out Canada for criticism on intellectual property and are pressing for copyright along with other reforms. Conceding to such demands could severly compromise Canadian interests. People are disagreeing with the scope and process of Canada EU trade negotitions. These talks are in secret and there is little disclosure on them by the Canadian government or the media. Groups like the Council of Canadians want transparency on these activities. They wants comprehensive impact assessment, protection for public services and procurement, along with the exclusion of any investment chapter. There are fears that a Canada-EU CETA could include provisions such as NAFTA’s Chapter 11, which gives corporations the power to challenge governmental laws and regulations that restrict their profits. Peter Julian (a NDP International trade critic) criticized Canadian negotiators for using the obsolete and harmful NAFTA template. Julian wants a fair trade model not a NAFTA style agreement. A Canada/EU CETA agreement would promote transatlantic ties and could later include the U.S. as well as Mexico. In 2007, the U.S.-EU reached a deal on a new Transatlantic economic partnership in an effort to work towards eliminating trade barriers increasing investment and streamlining harmonization on regulatiosn.
By Timothy
