Daily Archives: May 2, 2007

NY Police Report Bomb to Frame Activist as Terrorist

Prison Planet | Apr 28, 2007

mafia_pig

This officer makes equal attempts to intimidate and ridicule Rudkowski.

“By the time the government finds out, you’ll be in the hole thirty days” 9/11 Truther is Told By Officer Who Admits to False Accusation of Having a Bomb

Two persons identifying themselves as New York police officers interrupted a 9/11 Truth demonstration on a public sidewalk in front of the new WTC 7 Building to intimidate free speech, stating “Larry [Silverstein] doesn’t want to hear it,” before accusing We Are Change founder Luke Rudkowski of having a bomb and that his cell phone was “a gun.”

The officer was apparently responding to refusals to stop filming their faces as police attempted to impede free speech on behalf of Larry Silverstein, making slanderous and knowingly false accusations including:

“I think he’s got a bomb in his bag. Saw wires coming out. Think he’s got a bomb in there.”

The police officer carried on during the encounter, saying “A terrorist act– I guess they go away for about 30 days.”

Rudkowski tells him he is not a terrorist and that he is an American citizen. The officer responds, ” You’re right. But by the time the government figures it out, you’ll be in the hole for 30 days .”

[Youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYc2qQQfOXs]

The officer made the statements on camera with a notable smirk, and made no attempt to distance himself or other witnesses from any physical danger (as he would have done had he actually believed the activist had a bomb). The officer went on to give away his criminal behavior, still on tape, despite ongoing demands he and the other officer made that the cameras be shut off.

Alex Jones commented, “We have New York police on tape threatening to frame someone for terrorism in a nonchalant fashion. How bad would it have gotten if there were no cameras around? If they’ll talk like this on camera , heaven help us.”

People are arrested every day for joking about bombs or making other bomb references , even if it is clearly not meant to be serious.

Gun Control Isn’t Crime Control

ABC News | Apr 26, 2007

Stricter Gun Control Laws Wouldn’t Have Prevented Va. Tech Tragedy

This past Tuesday the governor of Virginia announced he would close the loophole that allowed Seung-Hui Cho to buy the guns he used to kill 32 people — and himself — on the Virginia Tech campus. OK, it’s a good idea to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable. But be careful about how far the calls for gun control go, because the idea that gun control laws lower gun crime is a myth.

After the 1997 shooting of 16 kids in Dunblane, England, the United Kingdom passed one of the strictest gun-control laws in the world, banning its citizens from owning almost all types of handguns. Britain seemed to get safer by the minute, as 162,000 newly-illegal firearms were forked over to British officials by law-abiding citizens.

But this didn’t decrease the amount of gun-related crime in the U.K. In fact, gun-related crime has nearly doubled in the U.K. since the ban was enacted.

Might stricter gun laws result in more gun crime? It seems counterintuitive but makes sense if we consider one simple fact: Criminals don’t obey the law. Strict gun laws, like the ban in Britain, probably only affect the actions of people who wouldn’t commit crimes in the first place.

England’s ban didn’t magically cause all British handguns to disappear. Officials estimate that more than 250,000 illegal weapons are still in circulation in the country. Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these weapons now have a much easier job, and the incidence of gun-related crime has risen. As the saying goes, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

It’s true that if gun control laws had been stricter in Virginia, Seung-Hui Cho would have had a more difficult time getting ahold of the weapons he used to gun down innocent students and teachers. But it’s foolish to assume that stricter gun laws will prevent maniacs like Cho from committing heinous crimes. A deranged criminal will find a way to get his hands on a gun. Or a bomb.

The sad truth is that if gun laws had been less strict in Virginia, there is a possibility that the tragedy at Virginia Tech could have claimed fewer lives.

In January 2006, a bill was proposed in the Virginia State Assembly that would have forced Virginia Tech to change its current policy and allow students and faculty members to legally carry weapons on campus. Teenage college students carrying guns makes me nervous, but shouldn’t adults be able to decide if they want to arm themselves — just in case? When the bill was defeated, a Virginia Tech spokesman cheered the action, saying, “This will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.”

However, one gun rights advocate lamented the bill’s failure with chilling accuracy: “You never know when evil will pop up.”

Brain differences found in vets with Gulf War syndrome

AFP | May 1, 2007

gulf_war_brain_shrink

A computer image mapping parts of the brain. Some soldiers suffering from Gulf War syndrome have significantly smaller brain volumes than returning veterans who did not get as sick, according to a study released Tuesday. (AFP/File)

Some soldiers suffering from Gulf War syndrome have significantly smaller brain volumes than returning veterans who did not get as sick, according to a study released Tuesday.

Researchers found that two areas of the brain used for thinking and memory were significantly smaller in soldiers suffering from more than five symptoms (such as joint pain, fatigue, forgetfulness, headaches, rashes, nausea and difficulty concentrating) of Gulf War syndrome.

The study involved soldiers who were exposed to chemical weapons when a munitions depot in Khamsiyah, Iraq was blown up during the first Gulf War.

It is not extensive enough to determine whether their brains were actually damaged as a result of the exposure, said study author Roberta White of the Boston University School of Public Health.

“There are physical differences in their central nervous system,” White told AFP.

“Yes, it’s a difference but whether it’s causative or not, I don’t know. It could be a preexisting difference or it could be a change that came about during the exposure.”

White, who presented the data as a poster at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, said she plans to expand the study in order to see if she can prove the exposure damaged the veterans’ brains.

“There is a lot of evidence starting to accumulate to see there are nervous system effects of Gulf War service,” she said, adding that previous studies have shown that exposure to these types of chemicals can damage the brain.

White has been studying veterans of the Gulf War since they first came home complaining of odd illnesses in 1991.

This latest study examined the brain scans of 36 veterans: half reported more than five symptoms while half had five or fewer symptoms.

She found the overall cortex was an average of five percent smaller in those with more symptoms while the rostral anterior cingulate gyrus was six percent smaller.

Those with more symptoms also performed an average of 12 to 15 percent lower on tests of learning and memory and performance worsened as the brain volume decreased.

The soldiers studied were functioning despite their symptoms and did not suffer from severe neurological problems, White said.

While brain damage is very difficult to reverse, identifying that the damage exists can help in tailoring treatments to help veterans manage their symptoms, she added.

Murdoch’s Dow Jones Bid May Reshape News Industry

New York Sun | May 2, 2007

A former managing editor of the Wall Street Journal, Norman Pearlstine, who is now a senior telecommunications and media advisor at the Carlyle Group, said shareholders might make the case that the board has a fiduciary responsibility to entertain the offer.

News and entertainment titan Rupert Murdoch’s bid to buy Dow Jones & Co. is likely to be the opening shot in a round of negotiations that could reshape not only New York’s press market but also the rest of the news industry.

Mr. Murdoch’s $60-a-share bid to snatch up Dow Jones, which owns the Wall Street Journal, so far exceeded the $37.12 at which the stock opened the day that many analysts concluded it would be a difficult offer to turn down.

But yesterday, after initially saying it was evaluating the offer, Dow Jones issued a statement saying the Bancroft family, which has 64.2% voting control of the company’s shares, would oppose the bid with more than 50% of the company’s voting shares. The statement said the Dow Jones board would “factor this information into its evaluation” of the offer.

The statement did not expand on whether the Bancrofts would entertain a higher bid from Mr. Murdoch’s News Corp. or from another entity. The family has resisted buyout offers in the past, choosing instead to keep the company independent, but Mr. Murdoch’s bid was viewed as unique, in part because of the premium over the current share price.

For Mr. Murdoch, the acquisition would be a boon. Owning the Wall Street Journal, the Dow Jones News Service, MarketWatch.com, and Barron’s would instantaneously boost his planned business television station. Dow Jones currently has a relationship with CNBC that runs through 2012, but Mr. Murdoch did not seem concerned with that when asked about it during an interview on Fox News yesterday. If he succeeds in his purchase and launches his television station, he could put up a serious competitor to that cable business news station.

A former managing editor of the Wall Street Journal, Norman Pearlstine, who is now a senior telecommunications and media advisor at the Carlyle Group, said shareholders might make the case that the board has a fiduciary responsibility to entertain the offer.

“It’s a very aggressive offer that I think is designed to get the attention of the board,” said Mr. Pearlstine, who stressed that he was not speaking on behalf of the Carlyle Group. “I think Murdoch, with his coming business news channel and the other properties, maybe sees things that either wouldn’t be apparent to other people or that other people couldn’t capitalize on.”

If Mr. Murdoch succeeds, News Corp. would own the second-largest newspaper in America in terms of circulation — the Wall Street Journal — and the fifth largest — the New York Post, which has been aggressively expanding its national audience. It would also own the top-rated all-news cable network, Fox News Channel. The Post and the Journal both are based in Manhattan and have right-of-center editorial pages.

Brain shrink linked to Gulf War syndrome

New Scientist | May 1, 2007

If you are in the US military, stop kidding yourself. You are not fighting for America or “freedom” or “democarcy” or anything like that. You are cannon fodder for the New World Order corporations’ agenda for world domination and that is it. War is a racket, and very profitable for those who set them up, provoke them and perpetuate them. The globalists will use you up and toss you away like dirty toilet paper because they enjoy using human beings as pawns on what they call “The Grand Chessboard”. If you see it any other way, you are living in an illusion.

PW

People suffering “Gulf War syndrome” have a 5% reduction in brain size, a small study suggests.

The anatomical differences between veterans of the first Gulf War in 1991 who report multiple health problems – such as fatigue, skin rash and nausea – and other healthier colleagues, were revealed during brain scans.

Those with symptoms of the controversially named Gulf War syndrome (GWS) have 5% less cortical brain matter than healthier counterparts. The researchers say that the finding provides hard biological evidence to support claims that some veterans of the war suffered real neurological damage, perhaps as a result of nerve gas or other toxins.

Roberta White of the Boston University School of Public Health in Massachusetts, US, and colleagues studied 18 Gulf War veterans who reported more than five health problems such as joint pain, fatigue, skin rash, headaches and nausea.

The researchers conducted brain scans on these subjects – using magnetic resonance imaging technology – as well as 18 control counterparts, who served in the same war but reported only a few of the symptoms.

Memory loss

The scans revealed that the overall brain cortex of the veterans with GWS was about 5% smaller on average than that of the healthier veterans. The cortex includes the outermost and top layer of the brain, including the grey matter, and controls complex functions such as language.

It also includes a specific part of the brain thought to be involved in memory processing and learning, known as the rostral anterior cingulate gyrus, which was about 6% smaller in the ill veterans, on average.

Subjects were also asked to complete a cognitive test that involved memorising a list of 16 words and recalling those words 20 minutes later. Veterans with GWS performed about 15% worse in the test than the healthier control group.

“I think these findings are really important,” says White, who presented the results at the American Academy of Neurology annual meeting in Boston this week.

She says that when you combine these findings with others, such as the greater incidence of brain tumours and movement disorders such as ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) among those deployed in the war, “it’s pretty clear that something has happened to central nervous system function and structure of Gulf War veterans and that we’re just getting to the point where were finally seeing what these effects were.”

Pointing the finger

White’s team hopes to review information from the study participants and the government to estimate the level of exposure the subjects might have had to the nerve gas sarin and other toxins. A cocktail of toxins could perhaps have produced GWS, though some experts still debate whether this is a unique illness.

Epidemiologist Robert Haley at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, US, says that the brain differences highlighted by the new study do not explain what could have caused GWS.

“It doesn’t point to one cause, but it is compatible with what we know about sarin exposure,” says Haley, who was not involved in the study. He notes that researchers saw similar reductions in brain volume in Tokyo commuters exposed to sarin gas released in the subway system in 1995.

Haley, who spearheaded early efforts to understand GWS, notes that previous studies have found other biological differences in the brains of veterans of the 1991 war.

Damaged nerves

Specifically, a technique called magnetic resonance spectroscopy found lower levels of a molecule called N-acetylaspartate (NAA), which indicates healthy nerve function, in the brains of symptomatic Gulf War veterans. All this, he says, adds further weight to the argument that GWS is a real illness.

White acknowledges that her new study does not prove that the reduced brain volume was caused by exposure to chemicals in the war. “This could be a pre-existing vulnerability or an exposure-outcome relationship,” she says.

But Haley notes that the veterans did not show cognitive abnormalities before entering the war. “They weren’t a bunch of people with faulty memory,” he explains, since they had to pass certain standard military tests.

Mental disorders persist among Gulf War veterans

politics.co.uk | May 1,  2007

A new study from the USA has found that deployment in the Gulf War was associated with increased levels of mental disorders, psychological symptoms, and a lower quality of life – beginning during the war and persisting at a lower rate 10 years later.

Around 700,000 US military personnel were deployed to the Middle East during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. These veterans reported greater psychological symptoms immediately after the war than veterans who were not sent to the Gulf.

The National Health Survey of Gulf War Era Veterans and Their Families was a study designed to collect information at several time points to assess the prevalence of medical and psychological conditions in both deployed and non-deployed veterans.

Postal and telephone surveys were conducted among 15,000 deployed veterans and 15,000 non-deployed veterans, beginning in 1995.

The current study, published in the May issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry, evaluated a sub-set of these veterans, using face-to-face psychological examinations conducted between 1998 and 2001. Mental disorders were diagnosed using structural clinical interviews, and standard questionnaires assessed psychological symptoms and quality of life.

Both the deployed and the non-deployed veteran groups were 78% male. The deployed group were nearly 2 years younger than the non-deployed group, were more likely to be African-American, had lower levels of education and were less likely to be married or officers.

It was found that the prevalence of onset of mental disorders at the time of the war was significantly higher among deployed compared with non-deployed veterans.

In particular, deployed veterans had an increased incidence of depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and non-PTSD anxiety disorders.

10 years later, these cases of depression and non-PTSD anxiety disorders remained significantly more prevalent among deployed compared with non-deployed veterans. PTSD was over 3 times more prevalent among deployed veterans.

Depression was less likely to improve among deployed than non-deployed veterans, although the levels of antidepressant use, and the severity of depression in the 2 groups were similar.

Depressed deployed veterans were nearly twice as likely as depressed non-deployed veterans to have additional mental disorders at the time of the war, which could explain the reduced likelihood that depression would improve in the deployed veterans group. Lower levels of education in the deployed group may also have contributed to their continued depression compared with the non-deployed group.

The authors of the study comment that the findings indicate that deployment had a range of adverse effects on both health-related and non-health-related quality of life 10 years later.

The results also suggest that pre-existing mental disorders represent an individual vulnerability factor for the development of mental disorders during war deployment.

Although continued depression in deployed veterans appeared partially resistant to improvement despite comparable levels of medication in the 2 groups, the authors conclude that anxiety disorders might possibly improve further with greater use of medication.

Overall, the findings point to the need for adequate follow-up mental healthcare for veterans with persistent mental illnesses following major military deployments.

Framework for Advancing Transatlantic Economic Integration Between the US and the EU

White House News | April 30, 2007

bush_merkel

Here is the official document straight from the Whitehouse pit of absolute corruption. As the EU has demonstrated, economic integration precedes political integration and a gigantic centralized bureaucratic dictatorship. Like the North American Union, this is another incremental step towards neofeudal corporate global dictatorship set into motion by our treasonous leaders without any representation of or consultation with the American people. It is the globalist political boot stomping on your face telling you, “This is how it is slave! You will follow our orders from now on!”. This is how they do it step by step, towards a Trilateral Global Union that will completely destroy America, our Constitution and Bill of Rights through stealth and deception, just like everything else they have done. The outcome will be a global currency (transitioning to a cashless system of credits), a global tax, a global government, a microchipped (RFID) population, a global army and a one-world religion.

However, more and more people are waking up to this scam with films like Loose Change, Freedom to Fascism, Terror Storm and The Great Global Warming Swindle gaining in popularity. I foresee a time in the next year or two where the majority on both sides of the Atlantic will finally realize they have been conned, had the wool pulled over their eyes and are no longer willing to go along to get along. The people are getting more and more angry and outraged as time goes on and they are directing their anger more and more specifically toward the real enemies of humanity, the aristocratic global elite who have been plotting all of this for the past century.

We will start to see the people of various countries unifying aggressively against the New World Order itself, refusing to obey and starting to dismantle its systems of control. This is no time for pessimism, cynicism or fear. We have to push forward against this juggernaut and pull it down. Keep up the momentum!

PW

2007 U.S.-EU Summit

We, leaders of the United States of America and the European Union (EU):

Believing that deeper transatlantic economic integration and growth will benefit our citizens and the competitiveness of our economies, will have global benefits, will facilitate market access for third countries and will encourage other countries to adopt the transatlantic economic model of respect for property rights, openness to investment, transparency and predictability in regulation, and the value of free markets;

Affirming our shared commitment to increase the transparency and efficiency of our economic cooperation and to accelerate the reduction of barriers to international trade and investment;

Desiring to improve the effectiveness of existing economic cooperation and to elevate and accelerate existing work to achieve tangible progress;

Recognizing that the transatlantic economy remains at the forefront of globalization, and that the United States and the European Union are each other’s most important economic partners, reflecting historical ties as well as a wide range of common fundamental values, such as the importance of free enterprise, rule of law, property rights, free trade, and competition, and the protection of health, safety and the environment for our citizens and workers;

Reaffirming our commitment to the 2005 U.S.-EU Summit Declaration on Enhancing Transatlantic Economic Integration and Growth, in which we resolved to pursue a forward-looking agenda to enhance transatlantic economic integration and growth, and our commitments from the June 2006 Summit to redouble our efforts to reduce barriers to transatlantic trade and investment and our pledge to keep our investment regimes open and to build on existing investment flows to boost growth and create jobs in the transatlantic economy;

Recognizing further that we have established a wide range of joint work in the areas of regulatory cooperation, financial markets, trade and transport security, innovation and technological development, intellectual property rights, energy, investment, competition, services, and government procurement;

Welcoming the launch of a study funded by the European Commission to identify existing barriers to trade and investment and estimate the benefits of removing such barriers.

Have reached the following shared understandings:

Section I Purposes

We seek to strengthen transatlantic economic integration, with the goal of improving competitiveness and the lives of our people. To that end, this Framework reaffirms a multi-year program of cooperation that emphasizes results and provides accountability.

Section II
Fostering Cooperation and Reducing Regulatory Burdens

In light of our shared commitment to removing barriers to transatlantic commerce; to rationalizing, reforming, and, where appropriate, reducing regulations to empower the private sector; to achieving more effective, systematic and transparent regulatory cooperation to reduce costs associated with regulation to consumers and producers; to removing unnecessary differences between our regulations to foster economic integration; to reinforce the existing transatlantic dialogue structures in regulatory cooperation both by intensifying our sector-by-sector EU-U.S. regulatory cooperation and our dialogue between the U.S. Office of Management and Budget and European Commission services on methodological issues: we resolve to achieve the goals set out in Annex 1 in a timely manner.

Section III
Lighthouse Priority Projects

We have identified in Annex 2 priority growth projects, selected from the existing work program and other programs within the existing transatlantic dialogue, that will significantly enhance transatlantic economic integration, and we resolve to achieve progress on these projects within six to eight months of the effective date of this Framework, and at latest by the time of the 2008 EU-U.S. Summit. We resolve that future priorities are to be reflected by updating the Lighthouse Priority Projects identified in Annex 2.

Section IV
Transatlantic Economic Council

The Transatlantic Economic Council is hereby established, to be co-chaired, on the U.S. side, by a U.S. Cabinet-level official in the Executive Office of the President (currently Allan Hubbard) and on the EU side by a Member of the European Commission (currently Vice President Guenter Verheugen), collaborating closely with the EU Presidency. The Council is to:

Oversee the efforts outlined in this Framework, with the goal of accelerating progress;

Guide work between U.S.-EU Summits with a focus on achieving results, including setting goals for achieving the purposes of this Framework, developing metrics, setting deadlines and targets, and monitoring progress;

Adopt a work program, drawn initially from the existing work program under the 2005 U.S.-EC Economic Initiative, with the goal of achieving the objectives of this Framework, and shall adapt this work program and otherwise organize its activities in the manner best suited to achieving those objectives;

Review at least semi-annually its progress in achieving the objectives of this Framework;

Facilitate joint action under this Framework to advance its purposes;

Review ongoing U.S.-EU economic engagement in order to maximize progress in existing transatlantic dialogues with a view to consider phasing out technical dialogues that have completed their work or are otherwise no longer necessary;

Meet at least once a year at such time as the co-chairs decide;

Oversee preparation of annual reports to the U.S.-EU Summit leaders on goals, metrics for meeting those goals, deadlines, achievements, and areas where more progress is needed;

Facilitate closer cooperation between the United States and European Union and our legislators and stakeholders;

Convene a group comprised of individuals experienced in transatlantic issues drawing in particular from the heads of existing transatlantic dialogues to provide input and guidance to the U.S.-EU Summit on priorities for pursuing transatlantic economic integration; and

11. Include representatives of other governmental entities as the Council determines to be appropriate.

Section V
Work Program of Cooperation

We resolve to work to promote transatlantic economic integration in the following areas: intellectual property rights, investment, secure trade, financial markets, and innovation as set forth in the attached Annexes 2-7.

Signed at Washington, D.C., on this thirtieth day of April, 2007, in three originals.

FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

George W. Bush
President

FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION:

Angela Merkel
President of the European Council

José Manuel Barroso
President of the European Commission

Annex 1
Fostering Cooperation and Reducing Regulatory Burdens

Take the following steps to reduce barriers to transatlantic economic integration posed by new regulations by reinforcing the existing transatlantic dialogue structures:

Pursue development of a methodological framework to help ensure the comparability of impact assessments, particularly risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis;

Appoint heads of regulatory authorities as permanent members of the U.S. – EU High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Forum to report on any risks or benefits from significant differences in regulatory approaches identified in the sectoral dialogues or the European Commission Secretariat General (EC)-U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) dialogue called for under the 2005 U.S.-EU Economic Initiative, recognizing that the Financial Markets Regulatory Dialogue will continue its own, separate, work program described in Annex 6, and updating the Council on its progress as appropriate.

Reinforce the existing transatlantic dialogue on regulatory cooperation by cooperating to improve regulation, specifically through cooperation between OMB and the EC to:

Taking into account, among other things, the impact assessment considerations in place, evaluate progress regarding this cooperation, and consider a more formal basis to enhance this cooperation;
Intensify their dialogue focusing on issues of methodology;

Hold regular and active exchanges on the overall framework of our regulatory co-operation and on methodological issues which may arise in individual cases;

Review the application of their respective regulatory impact analysis guidelines so that the regulatory impacts on trade and investment are considered, as appropriate; and Share forward planning schedules.

Take the following steps to reduce barriers to transatlantic economic integration posed by regulations in specific sectors by intensifying sector-by-sector regulatory cooperation, including through enhanced EC-OMB cooperation, including the following:

Encourage further cooperation in the areas of agriculture, sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures, and food safety; Promote the application of the 2002 U.S.-EU Guidelines for Regulatory Cooperation and Transparency for specific sectoral pilot projects to be determined in consultation with stakeholders. We agree to discuss additional pilot projects on a case-by-case basis for exploring improved US-EU regulatory cooperation.

Pursue implementation of the Roadmap for Regulatory Cooperation, including the following priority projects to be pursued in 2007 and 2008:

Collaborating on cosmetics regulations, in particular with a view to reducing the need for animal tests by cooperating on alternative testing methods;

Seeking final agreement between U.S. and EU regulators on shifting resources away from implementation of the Medical Device Annex of the Mutual Recognition Agreement between the United States and the European Community to a more productive bilateral collaboration on medical devices;

Promoting administrative simplification in the application of regulation of medicinal products;

Addressing common concerns in the automotive sector in the area of road safety and fuel economy in order to avoid or reduce barriers to transatlantic trade;

Expanding cooperation on OECD activities relating to risk assessment, Good Laboratory Practices and the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals, study templates, information technology for data submissions, as well as on alternative test methods (QSAR), test methods and risks of manufactured nanomaterials; and

Initiating an exchange on conformity assessment procedures for the safety of electrical equipment.
Annex 2 Lighthouse Priority Projects

Intellectual Property Rights. Develop procedures for the exchange of information relating to goods suspected of infringing intellectual property rights, the exchange of customs officials, and the organisation of joint technical assistance and/or enforcement missions and seek progress in the harmonisation of the different patent regimes.
Secure trade. Develop common and accepted standards to maximize security, safety and facilitation of international trade supply chain that could lead to mutual recognition of programs for economic operators. Begin to exchange information on validation results associated with the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism and Authorized Economic Operator programs in order to avoid the duplication of controls and to reduce business costs by avoiding divergent control requirements, as appropriate.

Financial Markets. Promote and seek to ensure conditions for the U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and International Financial Reporting Standards to be recognized in both jurisdictions without the need for reconciliation by 2009 or possibly sooner.

Innovation and Technology.

Conduct a high-level conference on innovation in health-related industries and a workshop on best practices in innovation policies;

Develop a joint framework for cooperation on identification and development of best practices for Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technologies and develop a work plan to promote the interoperability of electronic health record systems;

Develop a science-based work plan for EU-U.S. collaboration on innovative and eco-efficient biobased products;
Establish a joint research infrastructure for mouse functional genomics (following a joint meeting in 2007 in Belgium);

Sponsor joint workshops or conferences to foster the exchange of information on nanotechnology in areas of mutual interest.

Investment. Establish a regular dialogue to address obstacles to investment

Annex 3
Intellectual Property Rights

In order to enhance recognition and enforcement of intellectual property rights, we resolve to:

Cooperate on improving the efficiency and the effectiveness of the patent system at the global level to promote innovation, employment, and competitiveness, and seek progress in the harmonisation of the different patent regimes;

Implement the EU-U.S. Action Strategy on Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement, including stepping up joint efforts in all areas, in particular:

Continue to advance a constructive discussion of enforcement at the WTO TRIPS Council and to explore other possible vehicles for advancing international cooperation on IPR enforcement among countries sharing common interests in this area;

Strengthen customs cooperation, including exchange of information relating to goods suspected of infringing intellectual property rights and statistics on the seizures of such goods, as well as programs to exchange officials and best practices;

Work jointly to improve the IPR protection and enforcement in China and Russia, increase cooperation in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East, including the extension of the IPR networks to these regions;

Expand joint technical assistance initiatives in Asia and Latin America, including the organization of work shops, seminars and on-site training; and

Improve public-private coordination and cooperation on anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy education, public awareness and business practices.

Annex 4
Investment

In order to reduce barriers to transatlantic trade and investment, keep investment regimes open, and build on existing investment flows to boost growth and create jobs, we resolve to:

Continue close co-operation in the OECD with regard to studying and fostering policy reforms that are conducive to attracting investment;

Engage in regular discussions of laws, policies and practices that could impact investments in the EU and the United States;

Develop work to prevent, eliminate or reduce the impact from investment barriers, with special attention being given to small and medium-sized enterprises.

Annex 5
Secure Trade

As common standards and mutual recognition of standards where possible in trade partnership programs can strengthen security of the supply chain against terrorist exploitation or commercial fraud, such as counterfeiting while improving efficiency by eliminating redundant reviews, we resolve to:

Work together to improve international enforcement in the fight against fraud and illegal spam and spyware in view of the enactment of the Undertaking Spam, Spyware and Fraud Enforcement With Enforcers Beyond Borders Act of 2006 (US SAFE WEB Act) in the United States and adoption of the EU Consumer Protection Regulation.

Establish a pilot project to study the similarities and differences in requirements for the U.S. and EU’s respective trade partnership programs with the goal of developing a roadmap to facilitate mutual recognition of those operators that are authorized as secure on the basis of mutually acceptable security standards and requirements; and

Strive to ensure that any mutually recognized trade partnership programs provide comparable benefits to the other Party’s recognized operators.

Annex 6
Financial Markets

In light of the considerable differences that exist between financial market structure and regulation on both sides of the Atlantic, and given the consolidation underway globally and transatlantically in this sector, we resolve to take steps, towards the convergence, equivalence or mutual recognition, where appropriate, of regulatory standards based on high quality principles. In particular, we resolve to maintain the existing informal Financial Markets Regulatory Dialogue and focus on the following areas:

Strengthen cooperation to promote smooth implementation of the Basel II framework for banks, notably to address transitional issues and minimize differences of implementation between the EU and United States; Promote conditions for the U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and International Financial Reporting Standards to be recognized in both jurisdictions without the need for reconciliation by 2009 or possibly sooner; Fully support roadmap discussions between the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and the European Commission in the area of auditor oversight;

Advance convergence in the area of reinsurance regulation;

Work on greater regulatory convergence towards highest quality and most effective regulation and, where appropriate, mutual recognition in the fields of securities regulation; and

Increase cooperation between EU and U.S. financial regulators.

Annex 7
Innovation and Technology

Acknowledging the importance of research and innovation to promoting competitiveness and improving qualify of life, we resolve to:

Conduct an exchange of innovation experts to discuss best practices;

B. Exchange views on policy options for emerging technologies, or new technological applications, in particular in the field of nanotechnology, cloning or biotechnologies;

Explore possibility to launch common research actions paving the way to a level playing field for nanotechnology-based products in the globalised market, namely co- and pre-normative research;

Reinforce cooperation on eAccessibility, including continued EC participation in the U.S. Access Board process of standards revision, ensuring U.S. participation in the European standards-making process on public procurements on eAccessibility, and considering wider cooperation to improve the accessibility and mobility in the built environment;

Work together on interoperability of electronic health record systems;

Exchange best practices on all dimensions related to RFID;

Develop a framework of regulation and payment policies that promote innovation;

Exchange knowledge and experience on the use of information and communication technologies to improve traffic safety;

Launch our Standards Dialogue as an overarching framework to discuss specific standards-related issues; and Collaborate on innovation indicators and how data helps policymakers understand what drives innovation and its affects on economic performance.