As OPEN BORDERS moves from Europe to Africa with Africa now in the sights of global Wall Street and Foreign Economic Zone development-----we will see the same population dynamics play out against African citizens. We talked about Middle-East Muslim nations being taken by Foreign Economic Zones and the Syrian War was just the latest in MOVING FORWARD.
It is interesting that Libya's Qaddafi was trying to do a few decades ago in bringing Africa into one union before he was killed----what global Wall Street is doing now. Obama's several years in office had this as a goal so building societal structures for Foreign Economic Zones have taken several African nations. Who controls all these structures? Global Wall Street even if it looks like a 1% and their 2% African are made rich. Obama will be to Africa what Clinton was to Asia and Latin America in expanding global Wall Street and its wealth and power.
TIME MAGAZINE has always been right wing conservative global corporate----so this is the bias on articles. Here TIME is trying to sell OMIDYAR as being good to the poor with what is the same United Nations ONE WORLD ONE WAGE BASIC INCOME ---this is KENYA. Africa is different economically than Asia or Latin America in that it has no global economy tied to the MERCHANTS OF VENICE. Global Wall Street is using OMIDYAR --to provide to Kenyans what will be needed if any local PRODUCT CONSUMPTION is to occur----an income source. We cannot have global Wall Street come in and simply enslave Kenyans in global corporate factories with no ability to participate in consumption---that would be COLONIALISM. So Kenyans will be brought to Foreign Economic Zone global corporate campus and global factories thinking they are guaranteed a steady income when that BASIC INCOME will fall to that of Malaysian, Vietnamese, Chinese, Taiwan, Singaporean-----$3-6 a day.
Bill Gates did the same thing in building his global PHARMA and biomedical corporation pretending it was about helping AFRICANS-----don't worry, the billion or so invested by A GATES OR OMIDYAR is recovered in global product distribution is just a few weeks.
'An angel investor committed to press freedom and opposed to government surveillance is every journalist’s dream even though it sounds too good to be true. There are serious grounds for questioning the credibility of Greenwald and his newest patron, whose business venture Omidyar Network is closely connected with NSA contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, Edward Snowden’s erstwhile employer'.
The Billionaire Founder of eBay Plans to Give Thousands of Kenyans Free Income for 12 Years
Rob Wile
Feb 13, 2017
Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire co-founder of eBay, plans to donate approximately $500,000 to fund a project in Kenya that will give thousands of people a guaranteed regular income.
The program, called, GiveDirectly is being hailed as the most ambitious experiment yet in the concept of universal basic income, or UBI. It will make cash transfers to more than 26,000 people in 200 villages in Kenya, with about 6,000 of those people receiving a long-term basic income for 12 years. The payments of $0.75 per day amount to 50% of typical adult income in rural Kenya.
The concept of a universal basic income has been gaining traction around the world as a way to equitably increase quality of life in a world where labor markets are being disrupted. The policy was recently the subject of a nationwide referendum in Switzerland--it didn't pass—and it's also being discussed in European countries, Canada, and the city of Oakland, to name a few.
The basic idea: Give people a strings-free weekly, monthly or yearly stipend, enough so that their basic needs are taken care of, whether they work or not.
"Cash transfer programs can potentially help to address bigger issues facing our society, such as rising income volatility, lack of secure benefits, social instability, and the changing nature of work," reps for the Omidyar Network wrote in a Medium post.
"Concerns around these themes have recently sparked growing attention to a particular form of cash transfer: the idea of universal basic income (UBI) — a transfer that would be regular, long-term, a meaningful amount, and available to everyone."
The Omidyar Network, which functions as both a charity and social impact investment firm, emphasizes that the program is still very much an experiment, as there is very little empirical evidence on how and when UBI could best be used.
"Even though we know that cash transfers in developing countries help reduce poverty and improve outcomes for families, these have not been tested on a long-term basis or with a universal beneficiary pool."
The Network says GiveDirectly will begin releasing results about "how people behave when they have confidence in long-term, 'no-strings-attached' income in the next few years.
In the meantime, the Network will look to support additional studies on UBI.
_______________________________________
The US no longer has a civilian military---well, it has one that is very very DOWNSIZED-----US is global mercenary military corporations so it no longer would be part of NATO---NATO is a union of national civilian military and the US is one of a FEW IN THE WORLD with a global privatized mercenary military. This is why Trump would not need to be tied to NATO. Who started NATO? FDR and Eleanor----
Are global military corporations MULTI-NATIONAL? YES. So, Trump is looking to Republican base and saying I ENDED US TIES WITH NATO......what Trump will do with our global military corporations is more of the same------multi-national boards already exist in many cases---what we will see from Trump these several years is consolidation of what is a massive global military corporation complex into super-sized ONE WORLD EMPIRE with other NATO nations being pushed to end their CIVILIAN MILITARY STRUCTURES to join this privatized ONE WORLD military.
Since America will no longer be a sovereign nation---it is not allowed to have its own civilian military-----each US city as FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE will bring in global military and security corporations ---AS IN BALTIMORE-----and these will be aligned to ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE global mercenary force.
This is why Bush always said NATO was obsolete-----it is the global privatized mercenary corporations that will take world civilian forces as well.
It's also why most NATO members started building their own military complex
Apr.2, 2016
5:07 pm ET 5:07 pm ET
By Ashley Parker
Donald Trump Says NATO is ‘Obsolete,’ UN is ‘Political Game’
Donald J. Trump during a campaign stop in Racine, Wis., on Saturday.Credit Hilary Swift for The New York TimesUpdated, 7:29 p.m. | RACINE, Wis. — Donald J. Trump on Saturday went further than ever before in his criticism of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, telling a crowd here that he would be fine if NATO broke up.
Mr. Trump had previously questioned the need for the organization, and on Saturday he reiterated his criticism that other NATO countries were “not paying their fair share” in comparison with the United States.
“That means we are protecting them, giving them military protection and other things, and they’re ripping off the United States. And you know what we do? Nothing,” Mr. Trump said at a subdued rally here on the outskirts of Milwaukee. “Either they have to pay up for past deficiencies or they have to get out.”
“And if it breaks up NATO, it breaks up NATO,” he concluded.
The role of the United States in NATO has become a point of contention here between Mr. Trump and his chief rival, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, as the candidates battle to win the state’s 42 delegates in Tuesday’s primary. Mr. Cruz has criticized Mr. Trump’s comments on NATO, saying that the United States needed to support the organization’s fight against terrorism and to counterbalance Russia’s influence.
On Saturday, as he did in an interview with The New York Times last week, Mr. Trump painted the organization as old and out of date.
“It was really designed for the Soviet Union, which doesn’t exist anymore,” Mr. Trump said. “It wasn’t designed for terrorism.”
Later, at an event in Wausau, Wis., Mr. Trump seemed to acknowledge the controversy his initial remarks about NATO had prompted.
“I said here’s the problem with NATO: it’s obsolete,” Mr. Trump said, recounting his comments. “Big statement to make when you don’t know that much about it, but I learn quickly.”
In the Times interview, Mr. Trump also said he was open to allowing Japan and South Korea to build their own nuclear arsenals rather than relying on the United States for protection. The United States has been wary of nuclear proliferation in the Asia Pacific region, and President Obama on Friday rebuked Mr. Trump for his comments, saying he worried the real estate billionaire “doesn’t know much about foreign policy or nuclear policy or the Korean Peninsula or the world generally.”
Mr. Trump responded Saturday, saying at his first event, “I didn’t say anything about letting Japan go nuclear.” But, he continued, “We have to let them take care of themselves and if that means they have to some day get nuclear weapons — in all fairness folks, I don’t really like this — eventually they’re going to want to get them anyway.”
At his second event, he returned to the question of a nuclear Japan, arguing both sides of the issue in almost the same sentence.
“I would rather have them not arm, but I’m not going to continue to lose this tremendous amount of money,” Mr. Trump said. “And frankly, the case could be made, that let them protect themselves against North Korea. They’d probably wipe them out pretty quick.”
A fight between Japan and North Korea, he added, would be “a terrible thing,” but he framed the scenario in financial terms.
“Good luck, folks, enjoy yourself,” he said. “If they fight, that would be terrible, right? But if they do, they do. We can’t be the policemen to the world and have $19 trillion in debt, going up to $21 trillion and we’re sitting on a bubble that’s going to explode and we’re going to all end up you know where.”
In Wausau, Mr. Trump also turned his attention to the United Nations, warning that it could meet a fate similar to NATO under a Trump administration. “By the way, United Nations — same thing, smaller numbers,” he said, seeming to call for a pared-down version of the intergovernmental organization.
“Where do you ever see the United Nations?” Mr. Trump continued. “Do they ever settle anything? It’s just like a political game. The United Nations — I mean the money we spend on the United Nations.”
_________________________________________
FDR era created that status of FTZ -----it was what grew our US national economy and emphasis on healthy, stable local community economies to that of global markets and consolidated monopoly corporations. We talk about a transition of these FTZ status for US cities during the CLINTON/BUSH era as different in that CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA used EXECUTIVE ORDER and the FEDERALISM ACT to PRETEND to allow US cities under FTZ to operate anyway they wanted----ergo the massive frauds, corruptions, ending of civil rights and public justice.
At the same time Bush/Obama worked hard to create reasons to move from a civilian policing and security structure ---our local police and fire departments to that of GLOBAL FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE surveillance and security structures......this is when HOMELAND SECURITY CAPTURED ALL OF AMERICA.
WE THE PEOPLE may not understand why a US FED and US Treasury can act with IMPUNITY in ignoring all US Rule of Law especially in our US cities ----and this is it----FTZ have been designated as operating outside US jurisdiction. These policies never existed during FDR ----they slowly were added over decades-----what is happening NOW is a President Trump seeing only this FTZ structure so our local, state, and national military, security agencies----will be more heavily funded and infrastructure built under Trump---this is what we mean by AUTHORITARIAN AND MILITARISTIC-----inside the US. The funding that has gone to DOD ---military will now be diverted to large extent to grow internal Foreign Economic Zones while during CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA all that funding went to build these military and security structures in overseas FTZ.
'Administration of the U.S. FTZ system is overseen by the Secretaries of Commerce and the
Treasury, who constitute the U.S. FTZ Board. The Board is responsible for the establishment of
zones, the authorization of specific production activity, and the general oversight of zones. It also
appoints an Executive Secretary, who oversees
the Board’s staff. Homeland Security’s Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) directly oversees FTZs. It activates the zones and secures and
controls dutiable merchandise moving into and out of them. CBP oversight also includes both
protection of U.S. tariff revenue and protection from illegal activity through screening, targeting,
and inspections'.
If we look at the goals of MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA GLOBAL WALL STREET POLS-------whenever they say they are doing something for the 99% POSING SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE----they never will be ------here we see where Congress is shifting to bringing US labor and wage policies in line with those overseas----ergo all that talk about $15 an hour----BASIC INCOME-----------------------and talking about our Federal DOD agencies and policies----yes, these surveillance and militarized policing will grow no matter how many times a Mayor and city council say-----COMMUNITY POLICING COMMUNITY POLICING COMMUNITY POLICING-------
'Broader considerations
relating to the world zone network include (5)
the effectiveness of trade zones worldwide as a
tool for economic development; and (6) trade zones worldwide and worker rights'.
U.S. Foreign-Trade Zones: Background and
Issues for Congress
Mary Jane Bolle
Specialist in Internatio
nal Trade and Finance
Brock R. Williams
Analyst in International Trade and Finance
November 12, 2013
Summary
U.S. foreign-trade zones (FTZs) are geographic areas declared to be outside the normal customs
territory of the United States. This means that, for foreign merchandise entering FTZs and re-
exported as different products, customs procedures
are streamlined and tariffs do not apply. For
products intended for U.S. consumption, full customs procedures are applied and duties are
payable when they exit the FTZ.
In 1934, in the midst of the Great Depression, Congress passed the U.S. Foreign-Trade Zones
Act. It was designed to expedite and encourage international trade while promoting domestic
activity and investment. The U.S. FTZ program offers
a variety of customs benefits to businesses
which combine foreign and domestic merchandise in FTZs. Similar types of “zones” exist in 135
countries, employing about 66 million workers worldwide. Though some aspects differ, all have
streamlined customs procedures and no duties applicable on components and raw materials
combined in zones and then exported. Use of the zones can facilitate cooperative international
production for a substantial share of the global supply chain.
U.S. FTZs can affect the competitiveness of U.S. companies by allowing savings through (1) duty
reduction on “inverted tariff structures” (where tariffs are higher on imported components than on
finished products); (2) customs and inventory efficiencies; and (3) duty exemption on goods
exported from, or consumed, scrapped, or destroyed in, a zone. Though difficult to achieve, other
possible alternatives, such as broad-based tariff
reductions through multilateral negotiations, and
overall customs reform might provide some of the same competitive advantages as zone use in a
more efficient manner, while also ensuring that all importers have equal access.
Zone activity represents a significant share of U.S. trade. In 2012, over 13% of foreign goods
entered the United States through FTZs or bonded warehouses—72% of them as crude oil. Most
shipments arriving through FTZs were consumed in the United States; the rest were exported.
Crude oil byproducts such as gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, kerosene, and petrochemicals dominate
FTZ output. Other key products include autos, consumer electronics, and machinery. U.S. zone
activity occurs primarily in FTZ manufacturing operations.
Administration of the U.S. FTZ system is overseen by the Secretaries of Commerce and the
Treasury, who constitute the U.S. FTZ Board. The Board is responsible for the establishment of
zones, the authorization of specific production activity, and the general oversight of zones. It also
appoints an Executive Secretary, who oversees
the Board’s staff. Homeland Security’s Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) directly oversees FTZs. It activates the zones and secures and
controls dutiable merchandise moving into and out of them. CBP oversight also includes both
protection of U.S. tariff revenue and protection from illegal activity through screening, targeting,
and inspections.
In 2012, the U.S. FTZ Board issued new regulations. They focused primarily on streamlining the
application procedures and shortening, generally from a year to four months, the time for FTZ
approval for manufacturing.
Congressional Interest
Congress has demonstrated a continuing interest in U.S. Foreign Trade Zones (FTZs), as they (1)
may help to maintain U.S. employment opportunities and the competitiveness of U.S. producers;
U.S. Foreign-Trade Zones: Background and Issues for Congress
Congressional Research Service
(2) encompass a portion of U.S. trade; and (3) affect U.S. tariff revenue. U.S. FTZs account for
less than one-half of 1% of all world zone workers and a small share of the U.S. workforce.
However, most of this employment is in manufacturing, which has lost a significant share of its
workers over the past several decades. Today, every state has at least one FTZ, and many have
numerous manufacturing operations.
Current issues for Congress relating to the U.S. FTZ program may include (1) whether U.S. FTZs
encourage a misallocation of U.S. resources; (2) data availability issues; (3) security concerns;
and (4) the U.S. employment and global competi
tiveness impact of FTZs.
Broader considerations
relating to the world zone network include (5)
the effectiveness of trade zones worldwide as a
tool for economic development; and (6) trade zones worldwide and worker rights.
___________________
We discussed how Gabbard is simply team global Wall Street Clinton neo-liberal being made to look like she FEELS THE BERN----but Bernie is now an old world JEWISH MERCHANT OF VENICE JACOBIN SOCIALIST pretending to be helping the masses---99%. Why would an authoritarian hyper TYPE A---ALPHA MALE like Trump appoint what is made to seem a left social Democrat as DOD? The answer is-----all the power of the DOD is now in the hands of global private military and Trump's attention will be on US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones and Gabbard's job is making US city citizens think all these SMART CITY TECHNOLOGY GROWTH is about good stuff for consumers and not growing AUTHORITARIANISM.
Gabbard is sent into Syria and just like that they are now ready to send in World Bank IMF and build Foreign Economic Zones in Syria ---what is left of citizens in Syria will be enslaved in global labor pool.
While global mercenary military corporations overseas do their own thing----it is a face of a women being called 'left social Democrat' who will install Trump's and global Wall Street's surveillance and policing structures----LOOK SHE LOOKS NICE ALL THESE POLICIES MUST BE OK!
After meeting, Gabbard vows to work with Trump
By Jessie Hellmann - 11/21/16 02:15 PM EST 4,766
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) vowed to work with Donald Trump on the issues that matter to the American people, following a meeting between the two Monday at Trump Tower.
She did not, however, comment on whether she would join his administration.
Gabbard and Trump met in New York City to discuss U.S. policy in Syria, she said in a statement, though some have speculated she is under consideration to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. "President-elect Trump asked me to meet with him about our current policies regarding Syria, our fight against terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and [the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria], as well as other foreign policy challenges we face," Gabbard said.
"I felt it important to take the opportunity to meet with the President-elect now before the drumbeats of war that neocons have been beating drag us into an escalation of the war to overthrow the Syrian government—a war which has already cost hundreds of thousands of lives and forced millions of refugees to flee their homes in search of safety for themselves and their families."
Gabbard said that while the "rules of political expediency" would suggest she not take a meeting with the president-elect, she refuses to "play politics" with American and Syrian lives.
“I will continue to seek common ground to deliver results that best serve all Americans, as I have tried to do during my time in Congress," she said.
She added that while she will not hesitate to express any disagreement with Trump, she believes they can come together on some issues.
"We cannot allow continued divisiveness to destroy our country," she said.
Gabbard told Trump she opposes a no-fly or safe zone in Syria, calling it "disastrous" for the Syrian people and the U.S.
Trump and Gabbard have “a lot of common ground” and both understand “the country very well,” Kellyanne Conway told reporters on Monday afternoon.
The top Trump aide pointed out that Gabbard “went against her party quite boldly early on,” by endorsing Sen. Bernie Sanders, leaving her post at the Democratic National Committee to endorse the Vermont independent's presidential bid earlier this year.
“There’s a recognition that there’s a big country out there with lots of voters that feel disaffected from their party, the Democrats,” Conway added.
Gabbard was a staunch Sanders supporter, but said she would support Hillary Clinton after she clinched the Democratic nomination.
_________________________________________
So Trump will be a REAGAN-----pump all kinds of military spending on HOMELAND SECURITY super-weapons ----grow Obama's arsenal of new nuclear and hydrogen bomb capacity-----AND BRING THAT GLOBAL MILITARIZED POLICING TO OUR US CITIES JUST AS OBAMA DID.
'Speaking on the deck of the decommissioned USS Iowa, the Republican frontrunner said, “We’re going to make our military so big, so strong and so great, so powerful that we’re never going to have to use it. We’re going to have a president who is respected by Putin, respected by Iran.”'
'In this real world, this modern world where terrorism is such an enormous part of national security concerns, it is painfully important that anyone who seeks to run the country understand this. An inability to grasp this reality is perhaps why a tough-talking businessman is not well suited to step into the West Wing.
Trump claimed to have learned more at a military high school than people learn in the actual military. I beg to differ'.
I wrote 4 years ago to my immigrant friends that Obama and Clinton neo-liberal immigrant policies made to sound LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE were not meant to help immigrants--that these policies were temporary and that the next President would be that far-right authoritarian militaristic character that would get more and more harsh on not only immigrants but all 99% as they try to engage their rights. Immigrants will not be deported as much as they will see American cities become as harsh as Asian and Latin American----Foreign Economic Zones. Trump will be playing the far-right military making everyone angry----that was why he was installed----
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY ELECTION FRAUDS MUST END!
The Problem With Donald Trump’s Plans For The Military
By Brian Adam Jones
on September 16, 2015
Trump: “We’re going to make our military ... so powerful that we’re never going to have to use it.”Responding to Donald Trump’s words on veterans and war is a formidable challenge. Much of what he’s had to say thus far in the presidential race lacks experience, reason, or logic.
How exactly does one respond substantively to things like what Trump said of John McCain: “He is not a war hero. He is a war hero because he was captured, I like people that weren’t captured, OK? I hate to tell you.”
Or here’s Trump on his experience at a military high school: according to a forthcoming book, Trump “always felt that I was in the military.” and received “more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military.”
But the latest Trump quote going around has little to do with his opinion of McCain or his views on his own experiences. The latest episode surrounds how Donald Trump would run the American military if he were to be elected commander-in-chief.
Speaking on the deck of the decommissioned USS Iowa, the Republican frontrunner said, “We’re going to make our military so big, so strong and so great, so powerful that we’re never going to have to use it. We’re going to have a president who is respected by Putin, respected by Iran.”
It’s not the first time Trump has delivered such a line. At a speech in Mobile, Alabama, in July, Trump said, “You know the thing I’ll be great at that people aren’t thinking? And I do very well at it. Military. I am the toughest guy. I will rebuild our military. It will be so strong, and so powerful, and so great. It will be so powerful and so great that we’ll never have to use it. Nobody’s going to mess with us, folks. Nobody.”
At first glance, it’s easy to dismiss this line as another glossing over of the complex military, foreign policy, and other policy discussions that politicians are supposed to be experts with. Thus far through the campaign season, Trump has occasionally come across like a student who neglected to read the book, but is still convinced he can ace the test.
The obvious problem, of course, is that the United States already has the most powerful military in the world by a long shot. The U.S. currently spends more on military and defense than the next seven top countries in the world combined. We spend roughly three times more on defense spending than China, and roughly six times more on defense spending than Russia, the two countries that Trump claims he as president would stand up to.
When Trump says he would rebuild our military to make it the best in the world, what exactly does he think is wrong with it? Who does he think has a stronger military right now?
But there’s a bigger problem, a philosophical problem. Trump’s military philosophy perhaps gives us insight into his background as a businessman. In his world, every party is a rational actor. Deals get made over dollars and cents; interests and preferences are apparent and communicated.
In this world, Trump would be right. Why would anyone go to war with a country with a military the size of the United States? In a conventional war, they would get trounced. Of course, people who study international relations know this. That’s why modern democratic societies don’t fight one another. Democratic societies behave rationally, and the weaker party would never commit to a war that it would lose.
The issue with Trump’s line is that in the real world, there are irrational actors. Wars are fought with both parties seeking asymmetrical advantages. The 9/11 hijackers didn’t compare their might to that of the U.S. military before planning their attack, nor does the rest of al Qaeda, nor does the Islamic State, nor does the Taliban. Terrorism itself becomes an rational act for groups that are so small and so radical that they could never advance their agenda without resorting to violence and fear.
In this real world, this modern world where terrorism is such an enormous part of national security concerns, it is painfully important that anyone who seeks to run the country understand this. An inability to grasp this reality is perhaps why a tough-talking businessman is not well suited to step into the West Wing.
Trump claimed to have learned more at a military high school than people learn in the actual military. I beg to differ.
___________________________________________
'Violent protests by locals over land acquisition for zones have also deterred investors'.
Here we see Rwanda's citizens being shoved off their land as Asian citizens and Latin American citizens before them in building Foreign Economic Zones globally. That is what US cities and its decay and injustice have as a goal as well. Kenya is being fooled with A NEW INNOVATIVE BASIC INCOME in an effort to bring Kenyan citizens peacefully into global corporate campus global factory rule-------
If you don't see why our US cities are hotbeds of injustice then you haven't been following the building of Foreign Economic Zones overseas....our international labor union leaders know this----they know citizens end enslaved----American workers and their families don't want to go there! GET RID OF GLOBAL WALL STREET POLS AND PLAYERS.
WHAT???????? GLOBAL WALL STREET COMES TO AFRICA AND BUYS ALL AFRICAN BUSINESSES -----controls all African economics? Who would have thought! Don't worry that 1% of African citizens are getting REALLY RICH----'
Africa in the news: Anheuser-Busch buys South Africa's SABMiller...
://www.brookings.edu/.../africa-in-the-news-anheuser.../
Oct 16, 2015 ... This week, the government of Kenya announced that policies around its new special economic zones (SEZs) will enter into full effect by the first ... ''
Africa in the news: Anheuser-Busch buys South Africa’s SABMiller, Kenya announces SEZ implementation plan, and US sends noncombat troops to Cameroon
Amadou Sy Friday, October 16, 2015
Africa in focus
South Africa’s SABMiller accepts offer from Belgian beer company Anheuser-Busch InBev
On Tuesday, Anheuser-Busch InBev made a $104 billion proposal for the acquisition of rival brewing company, South Africa’s SABMiller. Directly behind AB InBev, SABMiller, which is known for producing the beer brands Fosters, Miller, Grolsch, and Peroni, is the second-largest multinational brewing company in the world, with annual revenues of $22 billion. This merger, if approved by regulators, creates a company with the potential of generating $70 billion a year.
As the maker of Budweiser, AB InBev depends on its home markets in North America and Europe for product sales. However, sales have been declining in both of these regions due to intense competition with the emergence of increasingly popular craft beer brands. Since SABMiller manages operations in 75 foreign countries—15 of which are in Africa—could potentially bring the diversification AB InBev is looking for. With a SABMiller merger, AB InBev can enter the rapidly growing African market—where SABMiller earns 29 percent of its profits—with a particular gateway to over $7 billion in South African revenue. Critics of the deal warn that, with this merger, one in every three beers in the world will be produced by the same company. In fact, because both companies are so large, regulators and analysts estimate that SABMiller could be forced to sell nearly 30 percent of its company shares in order to avoid the repercussions of breaking antitrust laws.
AB InBev has also recently announced that it plans to sell $55 billion worth of bonds to help fund the deal. This would be the world’s largest corporate bond sale since Verizon’s $49 billion acquisition of Vodafone in 2013.
____________________________________________
Kelly as Homeland Security under Trump with bipartisan support moves civilian control of our internal policing to the military......no matter how many times a retired general says he is retired -----his entire life was global military conduct which everyone in the world was nothing like US citizens having rights -----protections-----the military is not a democratic institution and this is why we are getting from police---JUST DO WHAT WE SAY.
. 'But it’s not just about immigrants. It’s about immigrants being used to normalize the militarization within the borders, going around what’s known as the Posse Comitatus Act'.
We have spoken to this term POLITICAL CORRECTNESS and identified its use tied to CLINTON-----and one of his staff and left social Democrats shouted back then this term and its usage was designed to make people hate all of the civil rights, labor rights, women's rights, rights of disabled won with EQUAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT TO CONSTITUTION. Below we see the timing is such. It appears that Kelly will use this far-right wing Clinton neo-liberal ideal to break down all 1960s era gains----CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ignored enforcement of these rights these few decades but we will see in our US cities the absence of what we see as ALL CITIZENS WITH RIGHTS. That is MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE----Americans have no more rights inside America as any global citizen.
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
The term had only scattered usage before the early 1990s, usually as an ironic self-description, but entered more mainstream usage in the United States when it was the subject of a series of articles in The New York Times Commentators on the left have said that conservatives pushed the term in order to divert attention from more substantive matters of discrimination and as part of a broader culture war against liberalism
All talk on Kelly speaks to the border Wall but his greatest obligation in Homeland Security is the border known as US PORTS. This is where US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones are located and it is where US sovereignty is compromised by that FTZ----Kelly will be acting as a military leader protecting global corporate interests as our military has been doing for decades so we are being saturated with boots on the ground focused on global Wall Street and corporate rights and protections.
It appears Kelly is a fine military leader-----it is the MOVING FORWARD to our US cities been militarily occupied that brings concerns.
'Right. Well, I mean, I think it’s remarkably worrying. I mean, so, to put my academic hat on, the commander-in-chief power is given to the president of the United States not, as many people think, to magnify his war-making power; it was done because the framers were worried about military running civilian government, so that we would have civilian control, because the military generals, think what you might about how necessary they are, they are not—that’s not a democratic institution. They are not responsive to democratic politics or democratic accountability. There’s a separate system of justice. They don’t have the same obligations to things like transparency and deliberation. So I think that it’s very worrying'.
We can see Kelly's ties to Columbia and its continuous internal wars and this is what I was shouting to our immigrant citizens -----these policies will bring what immigrants left their nations' to come to America to escape.
Vowing to "Stop Political Correctness," Gen. John Kelly to Head Department of Homeland SecurityStoryDecember 13, 2016
Guests
Roberto Lovato
independent journalist working out of the San Francisco Writers’ Grotto. He writes on immigration, national security and the drug war.
Baher Azmy
legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been representing Guantánamo detainees since 2002.
Donald Trump has officially announced he will nominate retired four-star Marine General John Kelly to be secretary of homeland security. Kelly was formerly the head of United States Southern Command, where he oversaw the military jail at Guantánamo. Kelly becomes the third general tapped by Trump for a top position so far. We speak to Baher Azmy of the Center for Constitutional Rights and Roberto Lovato, who has looked closely at Kelly’s stances on border security and Latin America.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman. Donald Trump has officially announced he’ll nominate retired four-star Marine General John Kelly to be secretary of homeland security. Kelly was formerly the head of United States Southern Command, where he oversaw the military jail at Guantánamo. Kelly becomes the third general tapped by Trump for a top position so far. While the head of United States Southern Command, Kelly promoted the Alliance for Prosperity, a program that provides hundreds of millions of dollars in police and military funding to Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala. Kelly has also repeatedly called the U.S.-Mexico border a threat to national security, leading many to worry he’ll escalate the militarization of the border and U.S. immigration policy overall.
To talk more about Kelly’s nomination, we’re joined by two guests. In Los Angeles, Roberto Lovato is with us, independent journalist working out of the San Francisco Writers’ Grotto. And here, we’re joined by Baher Azmy, who is legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been representing Guantánamo prisoners since 2002.
We welcome you both back to Democracy Now! Roberto, let’s begin with you. What is your understanding of General Kelly’s record?
ROBERTO LOVATO: [inaudible], Amy and everybody. General Kelly is a 40-year veteran of the Marines. And he, I think, embodies the military values that have been instilled, not just in the Marines, Air Force, Army, but also within the "homeland" itself. I think that you have somebody who is very clear in terms of what his mission is as a general and that it’s a communications function more than anything else, oddly enough. And he has this one quote, where he talks—this op-ed in the Miami Herald, where he says, "Colombia showed us the way." He sees Colombia as an example of how to instill peace and bring prosperity into a country, where--I don’t know if anybody knows anything about Colombia, but there’s like 7 million people displaced, a massive paramilitary and death squad operation, and massive impunity on the part of the policing and security, and the fusion of military with police functions.
I mean, one of the good things about, I think, Kelly is that he makes obvious the militarization of not just immigration, but of U.S. society, since before Obama and Bush even. I mean, Homeland Security’s budget has gone from like $4.3 billion to now $34 billion. Look at Standing Rock. People didn’t—a lot of people didn’t realize, but there were Border Patrol agents, heavily armed Border Patrol agents, at Standing Rock. "What was the Border Patrol doing at Standing Rock?" is the question. And so, I think Major Kelly makes that really clear, in a way that Barack Obama, and telling us in the cadences of Martin Luther King that homeland security was a good thing, doesn’t do so. Again, responding with fear is kind of useless, when you have the most militarized Cabinet in U.S. history, right?
AMY GOODMAN: Well--
ROBERTO LOVATO: With Kelly, it’s three people. So, it doesn’t help us to respond with fear. I think we need to be clear. And the beauty, I guess, if there’s to be some beauty in this, is that it’s very clear what your government is doing with your tax dollars.
AMY GOODMAN: General Kelly said, responding to his nomination, "The American people voted in this election to stop terrorism, take back sovereignty at our borders, and put a stop to political correctness that for too long has dictated our approach to national security." Roberto, your response?
ROBERTO LOVATO: I would just look at what happened under Obama with Occupy, with Black Lives Matter and Standing Rock. The role of Homeland Security is very clear as far as Occupy and Black Lives Matter. There was massive surveillance and other, probably, sorts of interventions that we’re going to find out as those papers get released, although now, you know, we have reached the point where the privacy of the population has been diminished, while the privacy and secrecy of the government has been expanded to record-breaking levels.
So, that said, I think that when Kelly talks like that, you have—you know, you always have foreign wars and domestic suppression being Siamese twins. And so, having such a militarized Cabinet, I think you have—they’re getting ready to do what many people fear, is that, you know, it can’t happen here, as Upton Sinclair said. It’s happening here, Amy. And it’s happening through the back door of, say, for example, immigration, where a lot of people thought that Homeland Security was primarily about repressing immigrants. I have written about this. I’ve dedicated a big part of my adult life to writing about immigration. But it’s not just about immigrants. It’s about immigrants being used to normalize the militarization within the borders, going around what’s known as the Posse Comitatus Act. And so, again, you know, it’s disturbing, but responding with fear isn’t going to help, and responding with clarity is.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to bring in Baher Azmy. You have long been dealing with Guantánamo, representing prisoners there since 2002. What is General Kelly’s position?
BAHER AZMY: Well, just in general, Amy, I think to have someone in charge of the largest civilian agency in the United States who not only defended, but further distorted, one of the most grotesque extralegal practices in American history, in Guantánamo, is really, frankly, chilling. And what’s more, during his time there, it’s fairly well documented on record that he attempted to undermine, indeed, his officials in Guantánamo, sabotage President Obama’s efforts to transfer detainees.
AMY GOODMAN: What evidence do you have of it?
BAHER AZMY: Well, there’s a very compelling Reuters report that demonstrates sort of open hostility to State Department efforts to match detainees with foreign countries. In a case involving one of our own clients, a long-term hunger striker, a foreign delegation was interested in meeting with him, and his—our client. His officials said that our client hadn’t released his—hadn’t consented to release his medical records. That was a lie. He was also in charge during a hunger strike, a mass hunger strike, in 2013, and he responded brutally, through mass force-feedings, solitary confinement, to punish detainees. And he called these mass hunger strikes—changed the term. He called them long-term, nonreligious fasting, mapping perfectly, with a kind of Orwellian cast of mind, in Guantánamo that he would want to internalize inside the United States.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think the fact that he lost his son in Afghanistan in 2010, making General Kelly the highest-ranking military officer to lose a son or daughter in Iraq or Afghanistan, has had an impact on his policies?
BAHER AZMY: Some of the reporting suggests that it has and that a lot of Defense Department officials felt that way in terms of the population there. So, there’s a way of running national policy from—based on personal experience. As sad as that may have been, that shouldn’t interfere with a mandate from the president and his obligation to treat detainees humanely.
AMY GOODMAN: Overall, your response to the fact that Kelly is the third general named to Trump’s Cabinet—others, Flynn heading NSA and "Mad Dog" Mattis as defense secretary—and then, overall, the Trump picks so far?
BAHER AZMY: Right. Well, I mean, I think it’s remarkably worrying. I mean, so, to put my academic hat on, the commander-in-chief power is given to the president of the United States not, as many people think, to magnify his war-making power; it was done because the framers were worried about military running civilian government, so that we would have civilian control, because the military generals, think what you might about how necessary they are, they are not—that’s not a democratic institution. They are not responsive to democratic politics or democratic accountability. There’s a separate system of justice. They don’t have the same obligations to things like transparency and deliberation. So I think that it’s very worrying.
And in particular, his statement—I hadn’t realized that he wants to end political correctness in national security policy—is just a really worrying kind of dog whistle to the alt-right, who wants more torture and more profiling. But torture is not problematic because it’s politically incorrect; it’s problematic because it’s illegal and immoral. Registration and surveillance of Muslims is not problematic because it’s politically incorrect; it’s illegal and immoral. And so that he would think that this is a problem in national practice is incredibly concerning.
AMY GOODMAN: And the possibility that Kris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state, though he was considered for Homeland Security, could be his deputy?
BAHER AZMY: Even more worrying. Kris Kobach is the architect, or the sort of intellectual godfather, of numerous laws designed to exclude and criminalize immigrants. He was the author of SB 1070, a number of other laws. And I think what’s worrying is--
AMY GOODMAN: Five seconds.
BAHER AZMY: —he would basically empower—nationalize Arpaio’s policy, if at the federal government.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to have to leave it there. Baher Azmy of CCR and Roberto Lovato, thanks so much for joining us.
It is interesting that Libya's Qaddafi was trying to do a few decades ago in bringing Africa into one union before he was killed----what global Wall Street is doing now. Obama's several years in office had this as a goal so building societal structures for Foreign Economic Zones have taken several African nations. Who controls all these structures? Global Wall Street even if it looks like a 1% and their 2% African are made rich. Obama will be to Africa what Clinton was to Asia and Latin America in expanding global Wall Street and its wealth and power.
TIME MAGAZINE has always been right wing conservative global corporate----so this is the bias on articles. Here TIME is trying to sell OMIDYAR as being good to the poor with what is the same United Nations ONE WORLD ONE WAGE BASIC INCOME ---this is KENYA. Africa is different economically than Asia or Latin America in that it has no global economy tied to the MERCHANTS OF VENICE. Global Wall Street is using OMIDYAR --to provide to Kenyans what will be needed if any local PRODUCT CONSUMPTION is to occur----an income source. We cannot have global Wall Street come in and simply enslave Kenyans in global corporate factories with no ability to participate in consumption---that would be COLONIALISM. So Kenyans will be brought to Foreign Economic Zone global corporate campus and global factories thinking they are guaranteed a steady income when that BASIC INCOME will fall to that of Malaysian, Vietnamese, Chinese, Taiwan, Singaporean-----$3-6 a day.
Bill Gates did the same thing in building his global PHARMA and biomedical corporation pretending it was about helping AFRICANS-----don't worry, the billion or so invested by A GATES OR OMIDYAR is recovered in global product distribution is just a few weeks.
'An angel investor committed to press freedom and opposed to government surveillance is every journalist’s dream even though it sounds too good to be true. There are serious grounds for questioning the credibility of Greenwald and his newest patron, whose business venture Omidyar Network is closely connected with NSA contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, Edward Snowden’s erstwhile employer'.
The Billionaire Founder of eBay Plans to Give Thousands of Kenyans Free Income for 12 Years
Rob Wile
Feb 13, 2017
Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire co-founder of eBay, plans to donate approximately $500,000 to fund a project in Kenya that will give thousands of people a guaranteed regular income.
The program, called, GiveDirectly is being hailed as the most ambitious experiment yet in the concept of universal basic income, or UBI. It will make cash transfers to more than 26,000 people in 200 villages in Kenya, with about 6,000 of those people receiving a long-term basic income for 12 years. The payments of $0.75 per day amount to 50% of typical adult income in rural Kenya.
The concept of a universal basic income has been gaining traction around the world as a way to equitably increase quality of life in a world where labor markets are being disrupted. The policy was recently the subject of a nationwide referendum in Switzerland--it didn't pass—and it's also being discussed in European countries, Canada, and the city of Oakland, to name a few.
The basic idea: Give people a strings-free weekly, monthly or yearly stipend, enough so that their basic needs are taken care of, whether they work or not.
"Cash transfer programs can potentially help to address bigger issues facing our society, such as rising income volatility, lack of secure benefits, social instability, and the changing nature of work," reps for the Omidyar Network wrote in a Medium post.
"Concerns around these themes have recently sparked growing attention to a particular form of cash transfer: the idea of universal basic income (UBI) — a transfer that would be regular, long-term, a meaningful amount, and available to everyone."
The Omidyar Network, which functions as both a charity and social impact investment firm, emphasizes that the program is still very much an experiment, as there is very little empirical evidence on how and when UBI could best be used.
"Even though we know that cash transfers in developing countries help reduce poverty and improve outcomes for families, these have not been tested on a long-term basis or with a universal beneficiary pool."
The Network says GiveDirectly will begin releasing results about "how people behave when they have confidence in long-term, 'no-strings-attached' income in the next few years.
In the meantime, the Network will look to support additional studies on UBI.
_______________________________________
The US no longer has a civilian military---well, it has one that is very very DOWNSIZED-----US is global mercenary military corporations so it no longer would be part of NATO---NATO is a union of national civilian military and the US is one of a FEW IN THE WORLD with a global privatized mercenary military. This is why Trump would not need to be tied to NATO. Who started NATO? FDR and Eleanor----
Are global military corporations MULTI-NATIONAL? YES. So, Trump is looking to Republican base and saying I ENDED US TIES WITH NATO......what Trump will do with our global military corporations is more of the same------multi-national boards already exist in many cases---what we will see from Trump these several years is consolidation of what is a massive global military corporation complex into super-sized ONE WORLD EMPIRE with other NATO nations being pushed to end their CIVILIAN MILITARY STRUCTURES to join this privatized ONE WORLD military.
Since America will no longer be a sovereign nation---it is not allowed to have its own civilian military-----each US city as FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE will bring in global military and security corporations ---AS IN BALTIMORE-----and these will be aligned to ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE global mercenary force.
This is why Bush always said NATO was obsolete-----it is the global privatized mercenary corporations that will take world civilian forces as well.
It's also why most NATO members started building their own military complex
Apr.2, 2016
5:07 pm ET 5:07 pm ET
By Ashley Parker
Donald Trump Says NATO is ‘Obsolete,’ UN is ‘Political Game’
Donald J. Trump during a campaign stop in Racine, Wis., on Saturday.Credit Hilary Swift for The New York TimesUpdated, 7:29 p.m. | RACINE, Wis. — Donald J. Trump on Saturday went further than ever before in his criticism of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, telling a crowd here that he would be fine if NATO broke up.
Mr. Trump had previously questioned the need for the organization, and on Saturday he reiterated his criticism that other NATO countries were “not paying their fair share” in comparison with the United States.
“That means we are protecting them, giving them military protection and other things, and they’re ripping off the United States. And you know what we do? Nothing,” Mr. Trump said at a subdued rally here on the outskirts of Milwaukee. “Either they have to pay up for past deficiencies or they have to get out.”
“And if it breaks up NATO, it breaks up NATO,” he concluded.
The role of the United States in NATO has become a point of contention here between Mr. Trump and his chief rival, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, as the candidates battle to win the state’s 42 delegates in Tuesday’s primary. Mr. Cruz has criticized Mr. Trump’s comments on NATO, saying that the United States needed to support the organization’s fight against terrorism and to counterbalance Russia’s influence.
On Saturday, as he did in an interview with The New York Times last week, Mr. Trump painted the organization as old and out of date.
“It was really designed for the Soviet Union, which doesn’t exist anymore,” Mr. Trump said. “It wasn’t designed for terrorism.”
Later, at an event in Wausau, Wis., Mr. Trump seemed to acknowledge the controversy his initial remarks about NATO had prompted.
“I said here’s the problem with NATO: it’s obsolete,” Mr. Trump said, recounting his comments. “Big statement to make when you don’t know that much about it, but I learn quickly.”
In the Times interview, Mr. Trump also said he was open to allowing Japan and South Korea to build their own nuclear arsenals rather than relying on the United States for protection. The United States has been wary of nuclear proliferation in the Asia Pacific region, and President Obama on Friday rebuked Mr. Trump for his comments, saying he worried the real estate billionaire “doesn’t know much about foreign policy or nuclear policy or the Korean Peninsula or the world generally.”
Mr. Trump responded Saturday, saying at his first event, “I didn’t say anything about letting Japan go nuclear.” But, he continued, “We have to let them take care of themselves and if that means they have to some day get nuclear weapons — in all fairness folks, I don’t really like this — eventually they’re going to want to get them anyway.”
At his second event, he returned to the question of a nuclear Japan, arguing both sides of the issue in almost the same sentence.
“I would rather have them not arm, but I’m not going to continue to lose this tremendous amount of money,” Mr. Trump said. “And frankly, the case could be made, that let them protect themselves against North Korea. They’d probably wipe them out pretty quick.”
A fight between Japan and North Korea, he added, would be “a terrible thing,” but he framed the scenario in financial terms.
“Good luck, folks, enjoy yourself,” he said. “If they fight, that would be terrible, right? But if they do, they do. We can’t be the policemen to the world and have $19 trillion in debt, going up to $21 trillion and we’re sitting on a bubble that’s going to explode and we’re going to all end up you know where.”
In Wausau, Mr. Trump also turned his attention to the United Nations, warning that it could meet a fate similar to NATO under a Trump administration. “By the way, United Nations — same thing, smaller numbers,” he said, seeming to call for a pared-down version of the intergovernmental organization.
“Where do you ever see the United Nations?” Mr. Trump continued. “Do they ever settle anything? It’s just like a political game. The United Nations — I mean the money we spend on the United Nations.”
_________________________________________
FDR era created that status of FTZ -----it was what grew our US national economy and emphasis on healthy, stable local community economies to that of global markets and consolidated monopoly corporations. We talk about a transition of these FTZ status for US cities during the CLINTON/BUSH era as different in that CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA used EXECUTIVE ORDER and the FEDERALISM ACT to PRETEND to allow US cities under FTZ to operate anyway they wanted----ergo the massive frauds, corruptions, ending of civil rights and public justice.
At the same time Bush/Obama worked hard to create reasons to move from a civilian policing and security structure ---our local police and fire departments to that of GLOBAL FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE surveillance and security structures......this is when HOMELAND SECURITY CAPTURED ALL OF AMERICA.
WE THE PEOPLE may not understand why a US FED and US Treasury can act with IMPUNITY in ignoring all US Rule of Law especially in our US cities ----and this is it----FTZ have been designated as operating outside US jurisdiction. These policies never existed during FDR ----they slowly were added over decades-----what is happening NOW is a President Trump seeing only this FTZ structure so our local, state, and national military, security agencies----will be more heavily funded and infrastructure built under Trump---this is what we mean by AUTHORITARIAN AND MILITARISTIC-----inside the US. The funding that has gone to DOD ---military will now be diverted to large extent to grow internal Foreign Economic Zones while during CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA all that funding went to build these military and security structures in overseas FTZ.
'Administration of the U.S. FTZ system is overseen by the Secretaries of Commerce and the
Treasury, who constitute the U.S. FTZ Board. The Board is responsible for the establishment of
zones, the authorization of specific production activity, and the general oversight of zones. It also
appoints an Executive Secretary, who oversees
the Board’s staff. Homeland Security’s Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) directly oversees FTZs. It activates the zones and secures and
controls dutiable merchandise moving into and out of them. CBP oversight also includes both
protection of U.S. tariff revenue and protection from illegal activity through screening, targeting,
and inspections'.
If we look at the goals of MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA GLOBAL WALL STREET POLS-------whenever they say they are doing something for the 99% POSING SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE----they never will be ------here we see where Congress is shifting to bringing US labor and wage policies in line with those overseas----ergo all that talk about $15 an hour----BASIC INCOME-----------------------and talking about our Federal DOD agencies and policies----yes, these surveillance and militarized policing will grow no matter how many times a Mayor and city council say-----COMMUNITY POLICING COMMUNITY POLICING COMMUNITY POLICING-------
'Broader considerations
relating to the world zone network include (5)
the effectiveness of trade zones worldwide as a
tool for economic development; and (6) trade zones worldwide and worker rights'.
U.S. Foreign-Trade Zones: Background and
Issues for Congress
Mary Jane Bolle
Specialist in Internatio
nal Trade and Finance
Brock R. Williams
Analyst in International Trade and Finance
November 12, 2013
Summary
U.S. foreign-trade zones (FTZs) are geographic areas declared to be outside the normal customs
territory of the United States. This means that, for foreign merchandise entering FTZs and re-
exported as different products, customs procedures
are streamlined and tariffs do not apply. For
products intended for U.S. consumption, full customs procedures are applied and duties are
payable when they exit the FTZ.
In 1934, in the midst of the Great Depression, Congress passed the U.S. Foreign-Trade Zones
Act. It was designed to expedite and encourage international trade while promoting domestic
activity and investment. The U.S. FTZ program offers
a variety of customs benefits to businesses
which combine foreign and domestic merchandise in FTZs. Similar types of “zones” exist in 135
countries, employing about 66 million workers worldwide. Though some aspects differ, all have
streamlined customs procedures and no duties applicable on components and raw materials
combined in zones and then exported. Use of the zones can facilitate cooperative international
production for a substantial share of the global supply chain.
U.S. FTZs can affect the competitiveness of U.S. companies by allowing savings through (1) duty
reduction on “inverted tariff structures” (where tariffs are higher on imported components than on
finished products); (2) customs and inventory efficiencies; and (3) duty exemption on goods
exported from, or consumed, scrapped, or destroyed in, a zone. Though difficult to achieve, other
possible alternatives, such as broad-based tariff
reductions through multilateral negotiations, and
overall customs reform might provide some of the same competitive advantages as zone use in a
more efficient manner, while also ensuring that all importers have equal access.
Zone activity represents a significant share of U.S. trade. In 2012, over 13% of foreign goods
entered the United States through FTZs or bonded warehouses—72% of them as crude oil. Most
shipments arriving through FTZs were consumed in the United States; the rest were exported.
Crude oil byproducts such as gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, kerosene, and petrochemicals dominate
FTZ output. Other key products include autos, consumer electronics, and machinery. U.S. zone
activity occurs primarily in FTZ manufacturing operations.
Administration of the U.S. FTZ system is overseen by the Secretaries of Commerce and the
Treasury, who constitute the U.S. FTZ Board. The Board is responsible for the establishment of
zones, the authorization of specific production activity, and the general oversight of zones. It also
appoints an Executive Secretary, who oversees
the Board’s staff. Homeland Security’s Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) directly oversees FTZs. It activates the zones and secures and
controls dutiable merchandise moving into and out of them. CBP oversight also includes both
protection of U.S. tariff revenue and protection from illegal activity through screening, targeting,
and inspections.
In 2012, the U.S. FTZ Board issued new regulations. They focused primarily on streamlining the
application procedures and shortening, generally from a year to four months, the time for FTZ
approval for manufacturing.
Congressional Interest
Congress has demonstrated a continuing interest in U.S. Foreign Trade Zones (FTZs), as they (1)
may help to maintain U.S. employment opportunities and the competitiveness of U.S. producers;
U.S. Foreign-Trade Zones: Background and Issues for Congress
Congressional Research Service
(2) encompass a portion of U.S. trade; and (3) affect U.S. tariff revenue. U.S. FTZs account for
less than one-half of 1% of all world zone workers and a small share of the U.S. workforce.
However, most of this employment is in manufacturing, which has lost a significant share of its
workers over the past several decades. Today, every state has at least one FTZ, and many have
numerous manufacturing operations.
Current issues for Congress relating to the U.S. FTZ program may include (1) whether U.S. FTZs
encourage a misallocation of U.S. resources; (2) data availability issues; (3) security concerns;
and (4) the U.S. employment and global competi
tiveness impact of FTZs.
Broader considerations
relating to the world zone network include (5)
the effectiveness of trade zones worldwide as a
tool for economic development; and (6) trade zones worldwide and worker rights.
___________________
We discussed how Gabbard is simply team global Wall Street Clinton neo-liberal being made to look like she FEELS THE BERN----but Bernie is now an old world JEWISH MERCHANT OF VENICE JACOBIN SOCIALIST pretending to be helping the masses---99%. Why would an authoritarian hyper TYPE A---ALPHA MALE like Trump appoint what is made to seem a left social Democrat as DOD? The answer is-----all the power of the DOD is now in the hands of global private military and Trump's attention will be on US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones and Gabbard's job is making US city citizens think all these SMART CITY TECHNOLOGY GROWTH is about good stuff for consumers and not growing AUTHORITARIANISM.
Gabbard is sent into Syria and just like that they are now ready to send in World Bank IMF and build Foreign Economic Zones in Syria ---what is left of citizens in Syria will be enslaved in global labor pool.
While global mercenary military corporations overseas do their own thing----it is a face of a women being called 'left social Democrat' who will install Trump's and global Wall Street's surveillance and policing structures----LOOK SHE LOOKS NICE ALL THESE POLICIES MUST BE OK!
After meeting, Gabbard vows to work with Trump
By Jessie Hellmann - 11/21/16 02:15 PM EST 4,766
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) vowed to work with Donald Trump on the issues that matter to the American people, following a meeting between the two Monday at Trump Tower.
She did not, however, comment on whether she would join his administration.
Gabbard and Trump met in New York City to discuss U.S. policy in Syria, she said in a statement, though some have speculated she is under consideration to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. "President-elect Trump asked me to meet with him about our current policies regarding Syria, our fight against terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and [the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria], as well as other foreign policy challenges we face," Gabbard said.
"I felt it important to take the opportunity to meet with the President-elect now before the drumbeats of war that neocons have been beating drag us into an escalation of the war to overthrow the Syrian government—a war which has already cost hundreds of thousands of lives and forced millions of refugees to flee their homes in search of safety for themselves and their families."
Gabbard said that while the "rules of political expediency" would suggest she not take a meeting with the president-elect, she refuses to "play politics" with American and Syrian lives.
“I will continue to seek common ground to deliver results that best serve all Americans, as I have tried to do during my time in Congress," she said.
She added that while she will not hesitate to express any disagreement with Trump, she believes they can come together on some issues.
"We cannot allow continued divisiveness to destroy our country," she said.
Gabbard told Trump she opposes a no-fly or safe zone in Syria, calling it "disastrous" for the Syrian people and the U.S.
Trump and Gabbard have “a lot of common ground” and both understand “the country very well,” Kellyanne Conway told reporters on Monday afternoon.
The top Trump aide pointed out that Gabbard “went against her party quite boldly early on,” by endorsing Sen. Bernie Sanders, leaving her post at the Democratic National Committee to endorse the Vermont independent's presidential bid earlier this year.
“There’s a recognition that there’s a big country out there with lots of voters that feel disaffected from their party, the Democrats,” Conway added.
Gabbard was a staunch Sanders supporter, but said she would support Hillary Clinton after she clinched the Democratic nomination.
_________________________________________
So Trump will be a REAGAN-----pump all kinds of military spending on HOMELAND SECURITY super-weapons ----grow Obama's arsenal of new nuclear and hydrogen bomb capacity-----AND BRING THAT GLOBAL MILITARIZED POLICING TO OUR US CITIES JUST AS OBAMA DID.
'Speaking on the deck of the decommissioned USS Iowa, the Republican frontrunner said, “We’re going to make our military so big, so strong and so great, so powerful that we’re never going to have to use it. We’re going to have a president who is respected by Putin, respected by Iran.”'
'In this real world, this modern world where terrorism is such an enormous part of national security concerns, it is painfully important that anyone who seeks to run the country understand this. An inability to grasp this reality is perhaps why a tough-talking businessman is not well suited to step into the West Wing.
Trump claimed to have learned more at a military high school than people learn in the actual military. I beg to differ'.
I wrote 4 years ago to my immigrant friends that Obama and Clinton neo-liberal immigrant policies made to sound LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE were not meant to help immigrants--that these policies were temporary and that the next President would be that far-right authoritarian militaristic character that would get more and more harsh on not only immigrants but all 99% as they try to engage their rights. Immigrants will not be deported as much as they will see American cities become as harsh as Asian and Latin American----Foreign Economic Zones. Trump will be playing the far-right military making everyone angry----that was why he was installed----
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY ELECTION FRAUDS MUST END!
The Problem With Donald Trump’s Plans For The Military
By Brian Adam Jones
on September 16, 2015
Trump: “We’re going to make our military ... so powerful that we’re never going to have to use it.”Responding to Donald Trump’s words on veterans and war is a formidable challenge. Much of what he’s had to say thus far in the presidential race lacks experience, reason, or logic.
How exactly does one respond substantively to things like what Trump said of John McCain: “He is not a war hero. He is a war hero because he was captured, I like people that weren’t captured, OK? I hate to tell you.”
Or here’s Trump on his experience at a military high school: according to a forthcoming book, Trump “always felt that I was in the military.” and received “more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military.”
But the latest Trump quote going around has little to do with his opinion of McCain or his views on his own experiences. The latest episode surrounds how Donald Trump would run the American military if he were to be elected commander-in-chief.
Speaking on the deck of the decommissioned USS Iowa, the Republican frontrunner said, “We’re going to make our military so big, so strong and so great, so powerful that we’re never going to have to use it. We’re going to have a president who is respected by Putin, respected by Iran.”
It’s not the first time Trump has delivered such a line. At a speech in Mobile, Alabama, in July, Trump said, “You know the thing I’ll be great at that people aren’t thinking? And I do very well at it. Military. I am the toughest guy. I will rebuild our military. It will be so strong, and so powerful, and so great. It will be so powerful and so great that we’ll never have to use it. Nobody’s going to mess with us, folks. Nobody.”
At first glance, it’s easy to dismiss this line as another glossing over of the complex military, foreign policy, and other policy discussions that politicians are supposed to be experts with. Thus far through the campaign season, Trump has occasionally come across like a student who neglected to read the book, but is still convinced he can ace the test.
The obvious problem, of course, is that the United States already has the most powerful military in the world by a long shot. The U.S. currently spends more on military and defense than the next seven top countries in the world combined. We spend roughly three times more on defense spending than China, and roughly six times more on defense spending than Russia, the two countries that Trump claims he as president would stand up to.
When Trump says he would rebuild our military to make it the best in the world, what exactly does he think is wrong with it? Who does he think has a stronger military right now?
But there’s a bigger problem, a philosophical problem. Trump’s military philosophy perhaps gives us insight into his background as a businessman. In his world, every party is a rational actor. Deals get made over dollars and cents; interests and preferences are apparent and communicated.
In this world, Trump would be right. Why would anyone go to war with a country with a military the size of the United States? In a conventional war, they would get trounced. Of course, people who study international relations know this. That’s why modern democratic societies don’t fight one another. Democratic societies behave rationally, and the weaker party would never commit to a war that it would lose.
The issue with Trump’s line is that in the real world, there are irrational actors. Wars are fought with both parties seeking asymmetrical advantages. The 9/11 hijackers didn’t compare their might to that of the U.S. military before planning their attack, nor does the rest of al Qaeda, nor does the Islamic State, nor does the Taliban. Terrorism itself becomes an rational act for groups that are so small and so radical that they could never advance their agenda without resorting to violence and fear.
In this real world, this modern world where terrorism is such an enormous part of national security concerns, it is painfully important that anyone who seeks to run the country understand this. An inability to grasp this reality is perhaps why a tough-talking businessman is not well suited to step into the West Wing.
Trump claimed to have learned more at a military high school than people learn in the actual military. I beg to differ.
___________________________________________
'Violent protests by locals over land acquisition for zones have also deterred investors'.
Here we see Rwanda's citizens being shoved off their land as Asian citizens and Latin American citizens before them in building Foreign Economic Zones globally. That is what US cities and its decay and injustice have as a goal as well. Kenya is being fooled with A NEW INNOVATIVE BASIC INCOME in an effort to bring Kenyan citizens peacefully into global corporate campus global factory rule-------
If you don't see why our US cities are hotbeds of injustice then you haven't been following the building of Foreign Economic Zones overseas....our international labor union leaders know this----they know citizens end enslaved----American workers and their families don't want to go there! GET RID OF GLOBAL WALL STREET POLS AND PLAYERS.
WHAT???????? GLOBAL WALL STREET COMES TO AFRICA AND BUYS ALL AFRICAN BUSINESSES -----controls all African economics? Who would have thought! Don't worry that 1% of African citizens are getting REALLY RICH----'
Africa in the news: Anheuser-Busch buys South Africa's SABMiller...
://www.brookings.edu/.../africa-in-the-news-anheuser.../
Oct 16, 2015 ... This week, the government of Kenya announced that policies around its new special economic zones (SEZs) will enter into full effect by the first ... ''
Africa in the news: Anheuser-Busch buys South Africa’s SABMiller, Kenya announces SEZ implementation plan, and US sends noncombat troops to Cameroon
Amadou Sy Friday, October 16, 2015
Africa in focus
South Africa’s SABMiller accepts offer from Belgian beer company Anheuser-Busch InBev
On Tuesday, Anheuser-Busch InBev made a $104 billion proposal for the acquisition of rival brewing company, South Africa’s SABMiller. Directly behind AB InBev, SABMiller, which is known for producing the beer brands Fosters, Miller, Grolsch, and Peroni, is the second-largest multinational brewing company in the world, with annual revenues of $22 billion. This merger, if approved by regulators, creates a company with the potential of generating $70 billion a year.
As the maker of Budweiser, AB InBev depends on its home markets in North America and Europe for product sales. However, sales have been declining in both of these regions due to intense competition with the emergence of increasingly popular craft beer brands. Since SABMiller manages operations in 75 foreign countries—15 of which are in Africa—could potentially bring the diversification AB InBev is looking for. With a SABMiller merger, AB InBev can enter the rapidly growing African market—where SABMiller earns 29 percent of its profits—with a particular gateway to over $7 billion in South African revenue. Critics of the deal warn that, with this merger, one in every three beers in the world will be produced by the same company. In fact, because both companies are so large, regulators and analysts estimate that SABMiller could be forced to sell nearly 30 percent of its company shares in order to avoid the repercussions of breaking antitrust laws.
AB InBev has also recently announced that it plans to sell $55 billion worth of bonds to help fund the deal. This would be the world’s largest corporate bond sale since Verizon’s $49 billion acquisition of Vodafone in 2013.
____________________________________________
Kelly as Homeland Security under Trump with bipartisan support moves civilian control of our internal policing to the military......no matter how many times a retired general says he is retired -----his entire life was global military conduct which everyone in the world was nothing like US citizens having rights -----protections-----the military is not a democratic institution and this is why we are getting from police---JUST DO WHAT WE SAY.
. 'But it’s not just about immigrants. It’s about immigrants being used to normalize the militarization within the borders, going around what’s known as the Posse Comitatus Act'.
We have spoken to this term POLITICAL CORRECTNESS and identified its use tied to CLINTON-----and one of his staff and left social Democrats shouted back then this term and its usage was designed to make people hate all of the civil rights, labor rights, women's rights, rights of disabled won with EQUAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT TO CONSTITUTION. Below we see the timing is such. It appears that Kelly will use this far-right wing Clinton neo-liberal ideal to break down all 1960s era gains----CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ignored enforcement of these rights these few decades but we will see in our US cities the absence of what we see as ALL CITIZENS WITH RIGHTS. That is MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE----Americans have no more rights inside America as any global citizen.
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
The term had only scattered usage before the early 1990s, usually as an ironic self-description, but entered more mainstream usage in the United States when it was the subject of a series of articles in The New York Times Commentators on the left have said that conservatives pushed the term in order to divert attention from more substantive matters of discrimination and as part of a broader culture war against liberalism
All talk on Kelly speaks to the border Wall but his greatest obligation in Homeland Security is the border known as US PORTS. This is where US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones are located and it is where US sovereignty is compromised by that FTZ----Kelly will be acting as a military leader protecting global corporate interests as our military has been doing for decades so we are being saturated with boots on the ground focused on global Wall Street and corporate rights and protections.
It appears Kelly is a fine military leader-----it is the MOVING FORWARD to our US cities been militarily occupied that brings concerns.
'Right. Well, I mean, I think it’s remarkably worrying. I mean, so, to put my academic hat on, the commander-in-chief power is given to the president of the United States not, as many people think, to magnify his war-making power; it was done because the framers were worried about military running civilian government, so that we would have civilian control, because the military generals, think what you might about how necessary they are, they are not—that’s not a democratic institution. They are not responsive to democratic politics or democratic accountability. There’s a separate system of justice. They don’t have the same obligations to things like transparency and deliberation. So I think that it’s very worrying'.
We can see Kelly's ties to Columbia and its continuous internal wars and this is what I was shouting to our immigrant citizens -----these policies will bring what immigrants left their nations' to come to America to escape.
Vowing to "Stop Political Correctness," Gen. John Kelly to Head Department of Homeland SecurityStoryDecember 13, 2016
Guests
Roberto Lovato
independent journalist working out of the San Francisco Writers’ Grotto. He writes on immigration, national security and the drug war.
Baher Azmy
legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been representing Guantánamo detainees since 2002.
Donald Trump has officially announced he will nominate retired four-star Marine General John Kelly to be secretary of homeland security. Kelly was formerly the head of United States Southern Command, where he oversaw the military jail at Guantánamo. Kelly becomes the third general tapped by Trump for a top position so far. We speak to Baher Azmy of the Center for Constitutional Rights and Roberto Lovato, who has looked closely at Kelly’s stances on border security and Latin America.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman. Donald Trump has officially announced he’ll nominate retired four-star Marine General John Kelly to be secretary of homeland security. Kelly was formerly the head of United States Southern Command, where he oversaw the military jail at Guantánamo. Kelly becomes the third general tapped by Trump for a top position so far. While the head of United States Southern Command, Kelly promoted the Alliance for Prosperity, a program that provides hundreds of millions of dollars in police and military funding to Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala. Kelly has also repeatedly called the U.S.-Mexico border a threat to national security, leading many to worry he’ll escalate the militarization of the border and U.S. immigration policy overall.
To talk more about Kelly’s nomination, we’re joined by two guests. In Los Angeles, Roberto Lovato is with us, independent journalist working out of the San Francisco Writers’ Grotto. And here, we’re joined by Baher Azmy, who is legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been representing Guantánamo prisoners since 2002.
We welcome you both back to Democracy Now! Roberto, let’s begin with you. What is your understanding of General Kelly’s record?
ROBERTO LOVATO: [inaudible], Amy and everybody. General Kelly is a 40-year veteran of the Marines. And he, I think, embodies the military values that have been instilled, not just in the Marines, Air Force, Army, but also within the "homeland" itself. I think that you have somebody who is very clear in terms of what his mission is as a general and that it’s a communications function more than anything else, oddly enough. And he has this one quote, where he talks—this op-ed in the Miami Herald, where he says, "Colombia showed us the way." He sees Colombia as an example of how to instill peace and bring prosperity into a country, where--I don’t know if anybody knows anything about Colombia, but there’s like 7 million people displaced, a massive paramilitary and death squad operation, and massive impunity on the part of the policing and security, and the fusion of military with police functions.
I mean, one of the good things about, I think, Kelly is that he makes obvious the militarization of not just immigration, but of U.S. society, since before Obama and Bush even. I mean, Homeland Security’s budget has gone from like $4.3 billion to now $34 billion. Look at Standing Rock. People didn’t—a lot of people didn’t realize, but there were Border Patrol agents, heavily armed Border Patrol agents, at Standing Rock. "What was the Border Patrol doing at Standing Rock?" is the question. And so, I think Major Kelly makes that really clear, in a way that Barack Obama, and telling us in the cadences of Martin Luther King that homeland security was a good thing, doesn’t do so. Again, responding with fear is kind of useless, when you have the most militarized Cabinet in U.S. history, right?
AMY GOODMAN: Well--
ROBERTO LOVATO: With Kelly, it’s three people. So, it doesn’t help us to respond with fear. I think we need to be clear. And the beauty, I guess, if there’s to be some beauty in this, is that it’s very clear what your government is doing with your tax dollars.
AMY GOODMAN: General Kelly said, responding to his nomination, "The American people voted in this election to stop terrorism, take back sovereignty at our borders, and put a stop to political correctness that for too long has dictated our approach to national security." Roberto, your response?
ROBERTO LOVATO: I would just look at what happened under Obama with Occupy, with Black Lives Matter and Standing Rock. The role of Homeland Security is very clear as far as Occupy and Black Lives Matter. There was massive surveillance and other, probably, sorts of interventions that we’re going to find out as those papers get released, although now, you know, we have reached the point where the privacy of the population has been diminished, while the privacy and secrecy of the government has been expanded to record-breaking levels.
So, that said, I think that when Kelly talks like that, you have—you know, you always have foreign wars and domestic suppression being Siamese twins. And so, having such a militarized Cabinet, I think you have—they’re getting ready to do what many people fear, is that, you know, it can’t happen here, as Upton Sinclair said. It’s happening here, Amy. And it’s happening through the back door of, say, for example, immigration, where a lot of people thought that Homeland Security was primarily about repressing immigrants. I have written about this. I’ve dedicated a big part of my adult life to writing about immigration. But it’s not just about immigrants. It’s about immigrants being used to normalize the militarization within the borders, going around what’s known as the Posse Comitatus Act. And so, again, you know, it’s disturbing, but responding with fear isn’t going to help, and responding with clarity is.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to bring in Baher Azmy. You have long been dealing with Guantánamo, representing prisoners there since 2002. What is General Kelly’s position?
BAHER AZMY: Well, just in general, Amy, I think to have someone in charge of the largest civilian agency in the United States who not only defended, but further distorted, one of the most grotesque extralegal practices in American history, in Guantánamo, is really, frankly, chilling. And what’s more, during his time there, it’s fairly well documented on record that he attempted to undermine, indeed, his officials in Guantánamo, sabotage President Obama’s efforts to transfer detainees.
AMY GOODMAN: What evidence do you have of it?
BAHER AZMY: Well, there’s a very compelling Reuters report that demonstrates sort of open hostility to State Department efforts to match detainees with foreign countries. In a case involving one of our own clients, a long-term hunger striker, a foreign delegation was interested in meeting with him, and his—our client. His officials said that our client hadn’t released his—hadn’t consented to release his medical records. That was a lie. He was also in charge during a hunger strike, a mass hunger strike, in 2013, and he responded brutally, through mass force-feedings, solitary confinement, to punish detainees. And he called these mass hunger strikes—changed the term. He called them long-term, nonreligious fasting, mapping perfectly, with a kind of Orwellian cast of mind, in Guantánamo that he would want to internalize inside the United States.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think the fact that he lost his son in Afghanistan in 2010, making General Kelly the highest-ranking military officer to lose a son or daughter in Iraq or Afghanistan, has had an impact on his policies?
BAHER AZMY: Some of the reporting suggests that it has and that a lot of Defense Department officials felt that way in terms of the population there. So, there’s a way of running national policy from—based on personal experience. As sad as that may have been, that shouldn’t interfere with a mandate from the president and his obligation to treat detainees humanely.
AMY GOODMAN: Overall, your response to the fact that Kelly is the third general named to Trump’s Cabinet—others, Flynn heading NSA and "Mad Dog" Mattis as defense secretary—and then, overall, the Trump picks so far?
BAHER AZMY: Right. Well, I mean, I think it’s remarkably worrying. I mean, so, to put my academic hat on, the commander-in-chief power is given to the president of the United States not, as many people think, to magnify his war-making power; it was done because the framers were worried about military running civilian government, so that we would have civilian control, because the military generals, think what you might about how necessary they are, they are not—that’s not a democratic institution. They are not responsive to democratic politics or democratic accountability. There’s a separate system of justice. They don’t have the same obligations to things like transparency and deliberation. So I think that it’s very worrying.
And in particular, his statement—I hadn’t realized that he wants to end political correctness in national security policy—is just a really worrying kind of dog whistle to the alt-right, who wants more torture and more profiling. But torture is not problematic because it’s politically incorrect; it’s problematic because it’s illegal and immoral. Registration and surveillance of Muslims is not problematic because it’s politically incorrect; it’s illegal and immoral. And so that he would think that this is a problem in national practice is incredibly concerning.
AMY GOODMAN: And the possibility that Kris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state, though he was considered for Homeland Security, could be his deputy?
BAHER AZMY: Even more worrying. Kris Kobach is the architect, or the sort of intellectual godfather, of numerous laws designed to exclude and criminalize immigrants. He was the author of SB 1070, a number of other laws. And I think what’s worrying is--
AMY GOODMAN: Five seconds.
BAHER AZMY: —he would basically empower—nationalize Arpaio’s policy, if at the federal government.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to have to leave it there. Baher Azmy of CCR and Roberto Lovato, thanks so much for joining us.
RSS Feed
