Wednesday, September 8, 2010

41 words inside S 510

by Steve Green

First, a reminder: "food safety" under S 510 is a red herring. But it is worse. S 510 would significantly undermine the safety of food.

So, if not "food safety," what is S 510 about then? Corporate global governance.

The WTO.

41 words in the bill.

The international bankers and corporations have made profound moves against the US economy and the democratic rights of citizens - from the bailout to Citizens United - but the WTO portion of S 510 appears to be their ultimate corporate jewel - a single sentence - buried under section after section on contaminated food within hundreds of pages of the bill.

That one sentence appears to be not only the keystone piece for the many substantial threats within the bill itself but would undo the country.

For the WTO sentence arranges for the transfer over of US sovereign power to international banking and corporate interests.

S 510 would end the Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994, which put US sovereignty and US law under perfect protection.

S 510 says:


Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.

Given the power and financial interests backing the bill, it is understandable that journalists have not covered the reality of S 510 but instead have written stories on rotten eggs and contaminated meat that divert the country away from the bill itself. The stories become corporate marketing for the bill, without anyone understanding what is in it. For the public, after being frightened and then angered by the horrors of corporate food system, is led to believe that S 510 will "go after" the corporations, with media leaving them unaware the bill was written by corporate lawyers.

P.Sainath in a searing interview on the failure of journalism, calls what they are doing "stenography to the powerful."

The companies have gotten journalists to put out a Brer Rabbit message for them: "Please, oh, please, don't throw us into the briar patch (of S 510!)" But just as Brer Rabbit fooled the fox and being thrown into the briar patch was being thrown into his element, S 510 through the WTO sentence would give the corporations opening to their element as well - global corporate control.

For S 510 would arrange the transfer of US sovereign power to international banking and corporate interests.

Those behind it are aware of the immense service provided them by corporate media.

“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto determination practiced in past centuries.“– David Rockefeller, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.

The food safety bills were designed by Monsanto.

While that alone should be warning enough - given its deadly history with Agent Orange, PCBs, pesticides, and genetically engineered seeds, its corruption of governments, its history of lies about its products, and most especially its harm to farmers - those entities backing the bill provide another reason for concern since they represent forces recently involved in deconstructing the US economy.

S 510 is backed by Winrock International, which itself is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (which is donating millions to Monsanto), the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Rockefeller Foundation, the DOE, USAID, the US Department of State, the USDA, the World Bank, the FAO, SYSCO and the Tides Foundation. ... Winrock International also has long-standing ties with Monsanto ....

Just how exactly would a tie into the WTO and international agreements impact the US?

From What's new in Bill C-36?
by Dee Nicholson, National Health Federation of Canada
(Though written about Canada's C-36, the following would apply to S 510.)

... The clause on foreign authority controls, however, is where the rubber meets the road.

Notwithstanding the dastardly, rights-chewing actions of what is absolutely a rogue agency that does not even enforce the Food and Drugs Act, the biggest threat within Bill C-36 remains this.... and YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THE RED HERRING GAME THAT IS BEING PLAYED HERE... THIS IS NOT A CLEAN SPORT....

1. C-36's "subject to the dictates of foreign authorities" (read, "our international [contractual] obligations") clauses [and the single WTO sentence in S 510] open the door for ANY of our trade groups to force changes in our health care laws. These include the WTO/WHO, NAFTA, and most injuriously, CETA, which is currently being negotiated.

2. CETA is the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union. Note: ECONOMIC AND TRADE. That means that anything economic, including making US responsible for the debts of others as they have done with the Greek bailout, to match the policies of the EU.... AND, including adopting THEIR FOOD STANDARDS FOR THE SAKE OF "FREE TRADE".

3. While many activists around the world have been focused on fighting off the dreaded "Codex Alimentarius" global standards for food (which would seriously destroy our ability overall to produce healthy and sufficient food, as well as to remediate with proper nutritional supplementation, to the favor of pharmaceutical globocorps, and the Monsantos of this world) the European Union has almost identical standards enforced already. We call their rulebook "Codex's Evil Twin", and it has been in place for years. CETA is capable of forcing harmonization with the EU guidelines, long before Codex Alimentarius comes into effect.


5. In essence, what we are seeing is THE END OF DEMOCRACY IN CANADA [and the US] AND AROUND THE WORLD. Since democracy is defined as rule by majority concensus, and your vote cannot be counted by a foreign committee, and since international obligations trump domestic law, and Canada [and the US] has only one vote at these tables versus many others, NO MATTER WHAT CANADIANS WANT, IT CAN BE OVERTURNED BY SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL.

6. Quoth Stephen Harper at the closing press conference of the G20 meeting, when asked about what sort of effects these agreements might have on how Canada governs its economy: " I know some people don't like it, and it is a loss of sovereignty [emphasis his], but it's a fact of life."

So more than anything else they have ever wanted, have ever sought, the corporations and banks are 41 words, a single sentence, in S 510. Perhaps they would like the US under the WTO before they crash the economy or it collapses for it would give them the connection to international agreements that would allow them

to set up a global corporate economy,

to put us under a single global currency,

to control all resources and energy here,

to tap into "premises ID" for animal disease traceability (also under S 510) so they could take US farmland as collateral on the debt,

to impose any debt on us and any means they wish for it to be paid,

to enforce mandatory (untested) vaccination already voted into place by pharmaceutical CEOs at the WHO meeting in Geneva last year,

to harmonize immediately with Codex Alimentarius (already in place in Europe, expected to kill millions just from preventable heart disease and billions overall,
to give OIE power to slaughter millions of normal animals here so they can insert GE-animals,

to impose international agreements under the aegis of reducing global warming but in actuality as a means to steal resources world wide,

to impose international taxes, etc. etc.

That lynchpin WTO sentence is a booby trap. Without the country even being aware it is there - a country that across the political spectrum strongly opposes the WTO - that sentence in S 510 would drop the US out of constitutional sovereignty, turn its powers over to foreign interests, and end the US as a sovereign nation.

The US entered the WTO under pressure from BIll Clinton, closely tied to Monsanto, Tysons and Walmart, major corporations within the WTO. Clinton only succeeded by promising the US could leave anytime it wished. And the US was reassured because the Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994 put US sovereignty and US law under perfect protection.

According to the Act, if there is a conflict between U.S. and any of the Uruguay Round agreements, U.S. law will take precedence regardless when U.S. law is enacted.

§ 3512 (a) states: "No provision of any of the Uruguay Round Agreements, nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, that is inconsistent with any law of the United States shall have effect." Specifically, implementing the WTO agreements shall not be construed to "amend or modify any law of the United States, including any law relating to (i) the protection of human, animal, or plant life or health, (ii) the protection of the environment, or (iii) worker safety", or to "limit any authority conferred under any law of the United States, including section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974."

Now Hiilary Clinton has brought the WTO back into the picture, more fully but entirely unseen.

She proposed a powerful centralized "food safety" agency as part of her presidential platform, while her campaign advisor was CEO of Burson Marsteller which represents Monsanto, with her friend Rosa DeLauro, whose husband polled for Clinton and works for Monsanto, introducing one of the first and largest bills, and as she herself has been working to corporatize agriculture on behalf of WTO companies behind closed doors in India.

She has not pointed out the 41 words in the "food safety" bill, nor warned that this would be the final step into the WTO. But unless people are fully aware of that sentence, that final step would be a blind step and a giant fall into corporate control by the WTO.

Bill Clinton would have lured the US partly into the WTO and Hillary Clinton, breaking his promises, would by deceit have finished the job. [The awareness of the Clintons bookending of WTO entry, is in no way to say that Republicans and Democrats have not all been party to the WTO push before, and now for this bill, or to miss that Obama put Monsanto in charge at the FDA "food safety" division from where it is expected to run any agency that the bill would set up if it were to pass.]

Anti-WTO, anti-NAFTA/CAFTA/GATT groups across the country, were misled by corporate media and reacting to their fears of rotten eggs and contaminated meat (as others have been misled by fear of Muslims and WMDs, into wars now destroying the US and other countries, and serving only corporate purposes). Groups opposed to the WTO have missed that S 510 tricks them into it by a single sentence which would entirely end the protection of US sovereignty and US law.

Here is but one of the international agreements to which the US would be subject:

From the WHO 2005 declaration: (excerpted) “Under special pandemic plans enacted around the world including the USA, in 2005, national governments are to be dissolved in the event of a pandemic emergency and replaced by special crisis committees, which take charge of the health and security infrastructure of a country, and which are answerable to the WHO and EU in Europe and to the WHO and UN in North America.

Please note in Kissinger's quote below (who would even imagine UN troops in the US?), the uncanny similarity to the WHO agreement:

“Today America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by the World Government.” - Henry Kissinger, 1991 Bilderberg Conference.

And as to people being "told" of threats or the "promulgating" threats, the CDC lied about the cases of H1N1 here which sold millions of untested vaccines, and the EU parliament has exposed that last year's pandemic was faked.

The Rockefellers, with a history of support for totalitarianism, of covert use of mandatory vaccines, of connection to Monsanto in control of seeds (thus over the world's food supply), of association in the wreck of the US economy, are involved now with S 510 and its potential to force the US under global corporate control.

Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it. -David Rockefeller

“We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the new world order.” - David Rockefeller

No comments:

Post a Comment