EDITORIAL - Dr. Jerome R. Corsi

Last week, noted columnist for the Jerusalem Post Caroline Glick wrote a commentary entitled,

Glick's column could well mark a watershed moment in Israel's history - the moment Israel decided the nation could no longer rely upon the security umbrella of the United States for its national security.

If this is the case, Barack Obama will have managed in the time of less than two years to have destroyed one of the most lasting post-World War II security alliances that has lasted between the United States and Israel since the state of Israel was founded in 1948.

Not even Jimmy Carter, despite his obvious and continuing disdain for Israel, managed to do this much damage to U.S. relations with Israel in four years in the White House.

These developments begin to fulfill what I predicted when I wrote last year "Why Israel Can't Wait: The Coming War Between Israel and Iran."

The chances that Israel will launch a pre-emptive military attack on Iran increase dramatically to the extent that Israel feels abandoned by the United States.

In the final analysis, when Israeli intelligence confirms for the Israeli government that Iran has the capability to develop a deliverable nuclear weapon, Israel can be expected to exert its right for self defense and launch a pre-emptive military attack on Iran, regardless of consequences.

Obama pressures Israel to abandon nuclear weapons

One of Glick's key arguments is the obvious hypocrisy in the Obama administration's push to get Israel to abandon nuclear weapons while putting in place no reasonable foreign policy strategy that has any chance whatsoever of stopping Iran on its rapid and determined march toward nuclear weapons.

At the UN's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference that opened last week, Glick observed the Obama administration, with a little prodding from Egypt, agreed that instead of focusing on Iran, the conference would adopt Iran's chosen agenda and attack Israel for its nuclear arsenal.

Glick wrote that in "diplomatese," the call for a "Middle East nuclear-free zone," is nothing more than "a well-accepted euphemism for stripping Israel of its nuclear capability while turning a blind eye to Iranian, Syrian and other Islamic nuclear weapons programs."

She noted that Israel's nuclear arsenal has not led to a regional arms race for four decades.

"Israel's neighbors fully recognize that the purpose of Israel's nuclear arsenal is to guarantee Israel's survival, and consequently it only threatens those who would attack the Jewish state with the intention of annihilating it."

But by agreeing to push for Israel to abandon nuclear weapons, Glick noted the Obama administration "has now joined the rank of fools who claim that nuclear weapons in the hands of states like the U.S. and Israel are as problematic as nuclear weapons in the hands of states like Iran and North Korea."

Why Israel can't wait

Glick stated her conclusion clearly: "The U.S. abdication of its responsibility as the leader of the free world to prevent the most dangerous regimes from acquiring the most dangerous weapons means that the responsibility for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons has fallen on Israel's shoulders."

Glick envisions a four-front war against Israel, involving not only Iran, but also Iran's two surrogate-terrorist organizations of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza, as well as Syria.

Nor is Glick confident of success.

She advises Israel's leaders to realize that the side that initiates the conflict will be the side that controls the battle space, even though she acknowledges there is a real possibility the Obama administration will refuse to resupply Israel with vital weapons systems in the course of war, while the UN will roundly condemn Israel's attack.

"This means that Israel must launch a preemptive strike against Hezbollah's missiles and missile launchers, Syria's missiles, artillery and launchers, and Hamas's missiles and launchers."

Glick further suggests Israel may not be limited in weapons choice simply to attack Iran by an air force jet fighter attack, though she does not specify further.

"These are dangerous times," she concludes. "Iran, which seeks to position itself as a regional superpower, has been emboldened by the Obama administration 's abdication of U.S. global leadership. Only Israel can prevent Iran from endangering the world. But time is of the essence." Source: www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=174946

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In little noticed remarks during the town hall meeting when he visited Mumbai last November, President Obama once again embraced globalism, while evidence is mounting that globalism means prolonged unemployment in the United States as the U.S. middle class slips into poverty.

"So I do think that one of the challenges that we're going to be facing in the United States is at a time when we're still recovering from this [economic] crisis, how do we respond to the challenges of globalism?" Obama asked in Mumbai.

He answered it by suggesting the United States is headed toward a diminished economic future. This was his next sentence: "Because the fact of the matter is, that for most of my lifetime - I'll turn 50 next year - for most of my lifetime, the United States was such a dominant economic power, we were such a large market, our industry, our technology, our manufacturing was so significant that we always met the rest of the world economically on our terms."

Then came the clincher: "And now, because of the incredible rise of India and China and Brazil and other countries, the United States remains the largest economic and the largest market but there's real competition out there."

Call For The Audit Of The Federal Reserve

End The Federal Reserve Now!

TheEconomicCollapseBlogcom listed in November 20 reasons why globalism means economic hard times for the United States:

#1 American workers are being merged into a global labor pool where they must directly compete for jobs with workers on the other side of the globe that make less than ten percent of what an average American worker makes. Jobs flowing away from areas where labor is expensive to areas where labor is cheaper are unlikely to return.

#2 Globalization has caused the U.S. trade deficit to absolutely explode. In 1985, the U.S. trade deficit with China was 6 million dollars for the entire year. In the month of August alone, the U.S. trade deficit with China was over 28 billion dollars.

#3 Today, the United States spends approximately $3.90 on Chinese goods for every $1 that China spends on goods from the United States. This represents a massive transfer of wealth from the American people to China.

#4 According to a new study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute, if the U.S. trade deficit with China continues to increase at its current rate, the U.S. economy will lose over half a million jobs this year alone.

#5 The United States has lost approximately 42,400 factories since 2001.

#6 The United States has lost a staggering 32 percent of its manufacturing jobs since the year 2000.

#7 Even high technology industries are leaving America. Manufacturing employment in the U.S. computer industry is actually lower in 2010 than it was in 1975.

#8 In 1959, manufacturing represented 28 percent of all U.S. economic output. In 2008, it represented only 11.5 percent.

#9 As of the end of 2009, less than 12 million Americans worked in manufacturing. The last time that less than 12 million Americans were employed in manufacturing was in 1941.

#10 With so much manufacturing leaving the United States, is it any wonder why people can't find jobs? The "official" unemployment rate in the United States has been at nine and a half percent or above for 14 consecutive months.

#11 Today, there are at least 1.5 million "99ers" - those Americans that have completely exhausted all 99 weeks of unemployment benefits and that still do not have jobs.

#12 Our dependence on foreign oil also represents an absolutely shocking transfer of wealth from the American people to the oil exporters of the Middle East. Back in 1980, the United States imported approximately 37 percent of the oil that we use. Now we import nearly 60 percent of the oil that we use.

#13 Energy imports account for about approximately one-fourth of the U.S. trade deficit.

#14 In states such as Mississippi, people spend approximately 6.35 percent of their incomes just on gasoline, according to a recent report by the National Resources Defense Council.

#15 Americans end up paying to support American workers one way or another. Either they buy American-made products and services that provide jobs for American workers, or they pay to support unemployed American workers on welfare. Today, over 42 million Americans are on food stamps. A record number of Americans are receiving long-term unemployment benefits. One way or another, Americans are going to pay to take care of American workers.

#16 The U.S. trade deficit is running about 40 or 50 billion dollars a month in 2010. The United States spends 40 to 50 billion more on goods and services from the rest of the world each month than they spend on goods and services from us. That means that by the end of the year, approximately half a trillion dollars (or more) of our wealth will have left the United States for good.

#17 All of this wealth leaving the United States is having a huge impact on the standard of living of average Americans. Ten years ago, the United States was ranked number one in average wealth per adult. In 2010, the United States has fallen to seventh.

#18 It is now just a matter of time until India is going to pass us as an economic power. In fact, the economy of India is projected to become larger than the U.S. economy by the year 2050.

#19 It is now being projected that China will soon dwarf us as an economic power. One prominent economist now says that the Chinese economy will be three times larger than the U.S. economy by the year 2040. According to one recent study, China could become the global leader in patent filings by next year.

#20 China has been accumulating a gigantic mountain of dollars from all of the wealth we have been sending them each month, and they have been lending massive amounts of money back to us. Over the past few decades, the communist Chinese have been able to accumulate approximately $2.5 trillion in foreign currency reserves, and the U.S. government now owes them close to 900 billion dollars. We constantly have to send top government officials over there to beg them to continue to lend us money. This is a direct threat not only to our financial system, but also to our national security.

Judging from Obama's comments in Mumbai, he is well aware globalism means a diminished economic prospect for the USA, but still embraces it.

"This will keep America on its toes," Obama told a town hall meeting in India. "America is going to have to compete. There is going to be a tug-of-war within the U.S. between those who see globalization as a threat and those who accept we live in an open integrated world which has challenges and opportunities."

Source:http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/barack-obama-we-must-embrace-globalism-and-the-emerging-one-world-economy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Professor Recommends Global Population Control to Save Earth - Are People the Problem to World's Economic Future?

Borrowing from Malthusian population alarmist Paul Ehrlich's title, a public policy professor writing in the January/February 2010 issue of the Council on Foreign Relations' Foreign Affairs magazine, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65735/jack-a-goldstone/the-new-population-bomb warning about "The New Population Bomb: The Four Megatrends that Will Change the World."

Jack A. Goldstone, a professor at the George Mason School of Public Policy begins by warning that by 2050 the world's population will "have stabilized at 9.15 billion people, up from today's global population of 6.83 billion.

Rather than seeing people as the potential to develop the world economically, Goldstone adopts a typically Malthusian perspective from the political left in which people are the problem and government population control is the solution.

Predictably, Goldstone recommends a variety of globalist solutions involving managing the world's population, including the typically endorsed population control measures that involve "killing babies to save the planet."

Goldstone's ruminations might be dismissed except that his university resumé lists him as a consultant to the U.S. Department of State, the FBI and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Call For The Audit Of The Federal Reserve

End The Federal Reserve Now!

Goldstone summarizes his four megatrends as follows:

1. The relative demographic weight of the world's developed countries will drop by 25 percent;

2. The developed countries' labor forces will substantially age and decline, constraining economic growth in the developed world and raising demand for immigrant workers;

3. Most of the world's expected population growth will increasingly be concentrated in today's poorest, youngest, and most heavily Muslim countries, which have a dangerous lack of quality education, capital, and employment opportunities; and

4. For the first time in history, most of the world's population will become urbanized , with the largest urban centers being in the world's poorest countries, where policing, sanitation, and health care are often scarce.

In analyzing these megatrends, a phrase also borrowed, but this time from futurist John Naisbitt, Goldstone made a number of alarming pronouncements.

"The World Bank has predicted that by 2030 the number of middle-class people in the developing world will be 1.2 billion - a rise of 200 percent since 2005," he noted. "This means that the developing world's middle class alone will be larger than the total populations of Europe, Japan, and the United States combined. From now on, therefore, the main driver of global economic expansion will be the economic growth of newly industrialized countries, such as Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, and Turkey."

Worried that the populations of developed countries are aging, with the resulting problems of a diminished labor force and an increased pool requiring medical care and pension support, Goldstone wrote that "just as aging developed countries will have proportionately fewer workers, innovators, and consumerist young households, a large proportion of those countries' remaining economic growth will have to be diverted to pay for the medical care bills and pensions of their growing elderly populations."

Observing that 2010 will be the first time in history that a majority of the world's peoples live in cities rather than the countryside, Goldstone predicts that by 2050, more than 70 percent of the world's population will be urbanized.

He worries that more heavily urbanized countries "are especially prone to experience Dickensian poverty and anarchic violence."

The growth of Muslim populations is a concern to Goldstone because "many Muslims live in poor communities vulnerable to radical appeals and many see the West as antagonistic and militaristic."

What are Goldstone's solutions?

Basically, he recommends government intervention, more economic globalism and population control, arguing that policymakers "must adapt today's global governance institutions to the new realities of the aging of the industrialized world, the concentration of the world's economic and population growth in developing countries, and the increase in international immigration."

Among the specific policy recommendations Goldstone advances are the following:

- Developed countries should encourage immigration to get workers;

- Older residents of developed countries should take their retirements along the southern coast of the Mediterranean or in Latin America or Africa, to reduce the strain on their home countries' entitlement programs;

- The G-8 should give way as a policy-making global institution to the G-20 in recognition of the growing economic power of Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, and Turkey.

"The strategic and economic policies of the twentieth century are obsolete," he wrote, "and it is time to find new ones."

Goldstone's post-American perspective is a clear prejudice that guides his analysis.

Nowhere is there any discussion of the importance of American constitutional freedoms or the need to preserve the U.S. economy for U.S. workers and retirees.

Almost implicitly, Goldstone assumes concerns for national sovereignty are irrelevant in a discussion involving global demographic trends.

Equally implicit is Goldstone's assumption that a transfer of wealth to the Third World is not only unavoidable but also beneficial. Resource: http://policy.gmu.edu/tabid/86/default.aspx?uid=28

End The Federal Reserve Now!

___________________________________________

We Support Responsible Email Compliance: This email cannot be considered spam as long as we include: Contact information & remove instructions. This message is being sent to you in compliance with the current Federal legislation for commercial e-mail (H.R.4176 - SECTION 101Paragraph (e)(1)(A)) AND Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th U.S. Congress.  Not responsible for typographical errors. Further transmissions to you may be stopped at no cost to you by replying back with the word "REMOVE" in the subject line of the E-mail which was sent. Contact Information: 6789 Quail Hill Parkway, Suite 306 Irvine, CA 92603