cj#730> Truth in Media on globalism (fwd)


Richard Moore

Dear cj,

Here's a piece you might find interesting.

Bob is analyzing events in terms of their system-changing consequences, a=
he exposes official rhetoric as being a distraction from the real core
issues.  This is a methodology he and I share, and it is no surprise we
sometimes find each other's articles informative - even though we remain
divided by some ideological chasms.


Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997
Sender: Bob Djurdjevic <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Vote the "fast track" bill down! (TiM GW Bulletin, 97/11-4,

RKM wrote:
>You didn't describe what the fast-track proposal is actually about.

I plead guilty of US-centric myopia... Sorry.  I forgot to consider that
many international readers of the TiM Bulletins are non as inundated with
the "fast track" news within their daily broadcasts and articles as we ar=

In short, the proposed "fast track" legislation would give the President
new powers to negoatiate trade issues which Congress must approve or reje=
without amendments.  Coming on the heels of the new "line item veto" whic=
Congress has already given Clinton, it means expanded powers of the
executive branch of the government, and a decline in that vested in elect=
Reps and Senators.

Bob Djurdjevic

Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997
Sender: Bob Djurdjevic <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Vote the "fast track" bill down! (TiM GW Bulletin, 97/11-4,


 Truth in Media's GLOBAL WATCH Bulletin 97/11-4   7-Nov-97



PHOENIX, Nov. 7 - Giving Bill Clinton more power is like condemning a sex
offender to serve his sentence in a harem.  Or locking up a child moleste=
in a school.  Yet, that's precisely what the "fast track" legislation wou=
do, if the House were to pass it today.

Sensing his bid for more power may be in trouble, given that even the Hou=
Minority Leader, Richard Gephardt (D-MO) opposes it, Clinton cut short hi=
trip to Houston on Nov. 5 to lobby the wavering Dems.

Meanwhile, one of Wall Street's dons, David Rockefeller, the scion of
"fathers of globalism," made an unusual move for a man who prefers to pul=
the strings from behind the scene.  He went to lobby for Clinton openly a=
publicly.  A sign of eleventh hour desperation?

In a letter to the New York Times, written and published today (Nov. 7 -
did he hand-deliver it after midnight right to the printing presses?!),
Rockefeller hailed the export opportunities which free trade offers for
Americans.  Thanks to agreements like NAFTA, exports have gone from 4% in
1975, to "8.2% of a much larger gross domestic product," he said.

But it's what your mother didn't tell you that can hurt you the most.

What Rockefeller didn't tell us is how many JOBS America has also exporte=
thanks to "free trade" deals like NAFTA.  Remember Ross Perot's warning
about "the great sucking sound" of jobs leaving America?  Well, it's
happened.  And it's happening.  From the citrus industry in Florida, to t=
textile workers in Kentucky, to the auto industry in Michigan, to the
flower growers in California... the "great sucking sounds" are becoming
ever louder.

Which is why even Democrats, like Gephardt, have turned against the
globalist puppet-President, like Clinton.

Another thing Rockefeller didn't tell us is that, since NAFTA was passed =
1993, our trade with Mexico went from a surplus of about $5 billion in
1992, to a deficit of $10 billion - in just the first eight months of thi=
year!  Our global trade gap has been running at an annual rate of $114
billion this year, ahead of last year's record $111 billion deficit.

For anyone other than tone-deaf globalists, that's a sucking sound of
millions of American jobs leaving the country.

Nor did Rockefeller even bother to say "thank you" to the U.S. taxpayers,
whose money Clinton, Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole extorted in early 1995 wh=
the peso collapsed, in a bipartisan Wall Street bailout.  Over $20 billio=
of U.S. taxpayers' money was used to prop up Wall Street banks' bad loans
to Mexico, including Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan.

(Now Clinton has just done an encore in a bailout of Indonesia, another
globalist "darling" country).

But Rockefeller did warn us that, "if we turn our backs on the challenge =
global competition, we will pay the consequences: higher prices and fewer
choices for consumers and less secure, lower paying jobs for our workers.=

Really?  Rockefeller's empathy for the American worker is touching.

But how much "less secure" can a job be than no job at all?

How much lower can a "low paying job" get than no wage at all, or the
unemployment insurance checks?

As for  the benefits of lower prices to consumers, workers are also
consumers.  Where are they going to get the money to buy these cheap impo=

Oh, I get it!  At the Chase Manhattan bank, right?  But will Chase be
willing to lend it to people with a bad credit due to layoffs?

Guess that's the point at which the globalist economic math falls down.  =
does the obfuscation that "free trade" is good for America.  Not
necessarily.  But it is undoubtedly good for America's elite.  Witness
Rockefeller's going to bat for Clinton, trying to bail out the man who
helped bail him out in 1995.  You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

Meanwhile, no one is scratching the U.S. taxpayers' backs.  And those who
pretend to do it, like Clinton, end up taking the strips off our backs.
Which is why the House should vote the "fast track" down.  Let's put the
"sex offenders" where they belong - behind bars, not in a harem.

Bob Djurdjevic
Phoenix, Arizona
e-mail: •••@••.•••


Posted by Richard K. Moore - •••@••.••• -  PO Box 26, Wexford, Irelan=
         www.iol.ie/~rkmoore/cyberjournal                   (USA Citizen)
  * Non-commercial republication encouraged - Please include this sig *

To leave cyberjournal, simply send (from the account at which you're
        To: •••@••.•••
        Subject: (ignored)
        unsub cyberjournal