- By Editorial Digest
- Published 09/27/2012
Romney knew his first job at Bain was to propel an evil company that was on the brink of failure. He knew Monsanto’s previous reputation and about all the litigation. Romney also knew he would be rewarded financially in the biggest way if he could pull the whole thing off, and he did. Romney changed Monsanto’s image over the years, from a scandal ridden chemical giant to a seemingly “prestigious” Agri-business firm. (http://dprogram.net)
Fresh out of Harvard in 1977, Romney basically lead Monsanto down an unethical but highly lucrative path, helping sweep the PCB and dioxin scandals under the rug, since that negative public perception was crippling the company. Romney and Bain recommended to Monsanto that they focus the business on genetically engineered crops and RoundUp, the massively profitable weed killer. Monsanto finished developing and patenting the glyphosate molecule and has marketed Roundup ever since. (http://naturalsociety.com)
But it wasn’t a “pretty” road to this infamous success for Romney. Monsanto was still bombarded with an onslaught of litigation throughout Romney’s years at Bain, including a $180 million settlement covering the claims of over 50,000 troops that got cancer from hiking over and through Agent Orange in the burned up jungles of Vietnam. Agent Orange is on record to have contaminated a total of 10 million Vietnamese and American people, including children and babies. This was by far the largest chemical warfare operation in human history up until now, when Monsanto’s RoundUp laced GMO vegetables like corn and soy have begun a cancer inducing genocide which could easily surpass the damage done in the Vietnam jungles just 50 years ago. (http://naturalsociety.com)
Romney would later use his Monsanto “payback money” and power to become the “private equity king,” mowing down companies and robbing workers of their retirement savings. (http://dprogram.net) This is how Romney created jobs back then, and GMO is how he will create jobs and promote disease if he wins the presidency of the United States. Big Pharma, of course, is behind it all, because when people eat GM vegetables and get cancer, Big Pharma and the chemo scam make billions, if not trillions.
Romney has already chosen his biotech partners in crime
- By Editorial Digest
- Published 09/25/2012
Folks in St. Louis woke up to disturbing news this morning. If they hadn’t got the memo, their city was apparently used as a secret Army experimentation laboratory during the 50s and 60s where citizens were intentionally, but unknowingly, infected with harmful biological agents.
In an exclusive KSDK.com investigation, sociologist Lisa Martino-Taylor’s research revealed the truth behind what took place in St. Louis and other cities where the Army conducted chemical experimentation on unsuspecting citizens.
“By making hundreds of Freedom of Information Act requests, she uncovered once-classified documents that confirm the spraying of zinc cadmium sulfide,” reports KSDK’s Leisa Zigler. The report glosses over similar experiments conducted in Corpus Christi, Texas in the 60s where the Army used planes to drop chemicals onto the population, but Martino-Taylor’s research shows citizens of St. Louis were targeted via “chemical sprayers on building and station wagons.”
“Martino-Taylor says the greatest concentration was centered on the Pruitt-Igoe housing complex, just northwest of downtown St. Louis in the Carr Square neighborhood. It was home to 10,000 low income people. An estimated 70 percent she says were children under the age of 12,” Zigler states.
The National Academies Press issued a Toxicologic Assessment of the Army’s Zinc Cadmium Sulfide Dispersion Tests in 1977, saying that repeated exposure to zinc cadmium sulfide could potentially cause “kidney and bone toxicity and lung cancer.”
Martino-Taylor’s research falls directly in line with research Infowars has conducted in the past.
Last year, we covered a 1977 Senate hearing on Health and Scientific Research confirming “that 239 populated areas had been contaminated with biological agents between 1949 and 1969, including San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Key West, Panama City, Minneapolis, and St. Louis.”
Indeed, the classified testing of chemicals on human populations by our own government is extensive and well documented.
In 2010, the US government had to issue an apology after it was revealed that 700 people in Guatemala were intentionally infected with sexually transmitted diseases in the 40s.
Kathleen Sebelius and Hilary Clinton issued this joint statement: “The sexually transmitted disease inoculation study conducted from 1946-1948 in Guatemala was clearly unethical…Although these events occurred more than 64 years ago, we are outraged that such reprehensible research could have occurred under the guise of public health. We deeply regret that it happened, and we apologize to all the individuals who were affected by such abhorrent research practices.”
The government’s stated purpose for the experiment was to determine whether syphilis could be prevented by penicillin, although nothing of particular importance was ever gained from the study.
The government also frequently makes it a point to conduct biological testing in subways and other public areas that might expose otherwise healthy people to dangerous chemicals.
“[One] example involved light bulbs containing Bacillus globigii that were dropped in the New York Subway by government scientists and allowed to contaminate the air. Similar tests were also conducted in the Chicago subway system, but when people started falling ill the connection with the tests was fudged because the government refused to keep track of the health effects of the released substance,” Paul Watson wrote.
As recent as May, the DHS used the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority’s Boston subway system to release a “dead” bacteria called B-subtilis under the pretense of testing its biological sensors.
These are just a few of the countless examples in which the government has covertly used the masses as guinea pigs for seemingly trivial experimentation.
- By Editorial Digest
- Published 06/9/2012
Remember Building 7 is a non-partisan campaign led by 9/11 family members to raise awareness of the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 through television and other forms of advertising, and to shift public opinion such that the New York City Council and Manhattan District Attorney will be compelled to open an investigation into Building 7′s destruction.
The campaign started in the fall of 2010, raising $100,000 in small donations to purchase commercial time on cable television throughout the New York Metropolitan Area. The first TV ad, which featured four 9/11 family members, ran 580 times from Novmber 2 through December 5, reaching an estimated one million unique viewers an average of 8 times each.
A new ad was released online in March 2011, this time featuring four 9/11 family members, two engineers and two architects. The campaign again succeeded in raising $100,000 to purchase more television commercial time for June 2011, reaching another one million unique viewers. For the 10th Anniversary of 9/11, Remember Building 7 is striving to raise $1 million between Labor Day and September 11 for a major fall campaign that will include TV, print and out-of-home advertising and expand to a handful of other US cities.
The Remember Building 7 campaign is cosponsored by several groups, led by the NYC Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN), which is a non-partisan organization of 9/11 family members, first responders and survivors, and by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of more than 1,500 architectural and engineering professionals who have put their professional reputations on the line to publicly challenge the official explanation of Building 7’s destruction.
The campaign changed its name from BuildingWhat? to Remember Building 7 with the release of the second ad in March 2011.
Gideon Rachman’s 2008 article titled ‘And now for a world government’ and, more recently, Scientific American- editor Gary Stix’s piece Effective World Government Will be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe, illustrate a widespread and dangerous misconception. It also demonstrates the cunning of one world- propagandists in the crafting of their arguments. In Rachman’s article we are shown typical Palaeolithic artistry: horses, warriors, deer and, portrayed on the very same rocky surface, a globe. It is almost admirable were it not so deviously cunning, to bundle within a single image the primitive with the “modern” and by doing so, considering the latter as the logical conclusion of the former. Rachman explains:
‘For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government.’
This statement may be considered as the basic assumption out of which a lot of these globalists’ musings emanate. Point of departure is always the human journey, that once upon a time began with cave-scribbling tribes scattered aimlessly on the planet surface, in the course of time crystallizing into sophisticated city-states, in turn evolving into even more sophisticated nation-states- and finally, approaching present-day, culminating into one world-state, eclipsing all of the above.
It sounds logical, treacherously logical. As we take a closer look at this line of reasoning however, we immediately encounter difficulties. The logic as it turns out, is not so logical after all- and besides, without long term historical precedent. History is certainly littered with tyrants and their attempts to bring about overarching supranational states. And without exception, their enterprises eventually failed, forcing freedom loving people throughout history to build firewalls against tyranny, at the same time compelling the elite to refocus their eyes on more modest ambitions.
That the implementation of a one world government is not some magical or mysterious suggestion that can only be understood by an arduous reading between the lines, as some naive debunkers have suggested, has been disproven by the fact that the aim of global government has been spelled out for us word for word by overeager transnationalists and the think tanks they tend to assemble in. Like any governmental decree, the implementation of an actual world state to replace the nation-state of old requires a theoretical legitimization. The people designated to clear the theoretical brushes, so to speak, have been picked from the marble halls of academia. In this article I will shed some light on some of these.
Professor Saul Mendlovitz, founder and co-director of an international think tank ominously called the World Order Models Project (WOMP) has since 1968 attempted to formulate an answer to the question what world government should look like. The World Policy Institute gives a description of the project by stating that “this was one of the first truly global think tanks, with partners and contributors in India, China, Africa and Europe.”
Mendlovitz, as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, received his first funding for the project from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Rockefeller Foundation. As Daniel Taylor points out in his excellent 2007 article on the World Order Models Project:
“Saul H. Mendlovitz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, directed the project. Richard A. Falk, also a member of the CFR, contributed academic work. The goals of the WOMP, according to Mendlovitz, were to “…go beyond the nation-state system…to use a much broader range of potential actors, including world institutions, transnational actors, international organization, functional activities, regional arrangements, the nation-state, subnational movements, local communities, and individuals.”
Taylor goes on to write that “The long term goals of WOMP (2011-2013), as Mendlovitz states, is to establish “…a global tax scheme to establish and maintain a basic needs regime for global society… a complete and general disarmament with alternative security system in place…”
Richard Falk, the CFR member mentioned by Daniel Taylor, has openly written about WOMP’s endeavors throughout the last half of the 20th century, claiming world government is not one of them. In his Global Constitutionalism and World Order Falk writes:
“Contrary to many outside critics, the Models Project has never identified itself with the advocacy of world government or world federalism (…). And yet, more than anyone in his generation, Mendlovitz (…) has kept alive the notion that a global constitutional order is theoretically necessary and historically inevitable.”
The notion that Mendlovitz is not an advocate of world government, as Falk suggests, contrasts sharply with statements made by Mendlovitz himself at his acceptance speech at the award ceremony of the 1990 UNESCO ‘Prize for Peace Education.’ Mendlovitz, as co-Director of the World Order Models Project (WOMP) stated (page 36):
“it is my personal belief (not shared by all members of WOMP) that there is an overwhelming surge in the direction of global polity and that a world state is emerging. Indeed, some of the policy elite are beginning to discuss a single world central bank and a single currency.”
All this is not science, of course. Rather, it is an attempt to scientifically legitimize a move toward world government. It is not a new concept, the idea that the large emerges from the small, rising in the steadiest of lines upward in time. This idea accommodates our most intimate fancies about time, evolution and progression. The mind, after all, tends to construct scientific parameters around the immeasurable unpredictability of the universe hoping to encapsulate infinity. It also watches nature and then, one on one, projects it onto political systems. The problem is that once these counterfeit scientists have calculated their way towards world government, and propagate its inevitableness, the sociopaths move in to seize control.
Two years after Mendlovitz’s speech, two term President of the European Commission Jacques Delors gave a speech to the Royal Institute of International Affairs titled ‘The European Community and the New World Order’. Invoking the famous New World Order-speech of George Bush senior, Delors took it a step further, speaking of “world government”, “transferring sovereignty” and a “worldwide single market”.
In his speech, Delors advocates the destruction of sovereignty of all nation-states as a remedy. Furthermore, he states this to be neseccary in order to prevent “human rights violations”:
“International apathy about human rights violations will not be able to hide behind pretext of immutable, inviolable national sovereignty much longer.”
As it turns out, also in this respect Jacques Delors has proven himself a prophet- as the borders are eroding worldwide while the central banks consolidate power. After he elaborates further on the fact that globalisation is often counteracted by grass roots movements, attempting to preserve national sovereignty, Delors throws up his arms in feigned indignation:
“I would add- and I will not go into detail- that economic integration, unless it is backed by a strong political will, will not in itself produce stronger international institutions or help create world government.”
Here we see that all transnational institutions have global government in mind- or better: they have all been erected with the aim of establishing it.
In 2003, University of Chicago’s Alexander Wendt witch-crafted a philosophical monstrosity under the header “Why a World State is Inevitable: teleology and the logic of anarchy”. Carefully avoiding any moral implications clinging to his manuscript, Wendt argues the case for world government as the necessary and inevitable end result of the current merging of nation-states into ever-larger bodies of influence.
“(…) this article argues that a global monopoly on the legitimate use of violence- a world state- is inevitable.”
Wendt invokes many of the major philosophers in order to add credibility and substance to the concept of the inevitability of a world state emerging out of the ruins of national sovereignty. After parading big names to invigorate his “big idea”, the author finally departs from a neo-Darwinian predisposition and the self-organizing principles included in it. In the struggle of nation-states, Wendt concludes, there can be no other outcome than the formation of a world state to settle all scores. He forgets to mention that neo-Darwinism can just as easily be applied to the idea that life organizes itself into more complexity as it evolves. But Wendt pays no heed: he raises his finger in foreboding: the greatest threat on the path to world government, he states, is national sovereignty. Wendt:
“Rather than go down with the ship of national sovereignty, states should try to “get the best deal” they can in the emerging global constitution.”
After identifying the main enemy to world dictatorship, he then proposes to co-opt the natural drive towards auto-determination in order to bring about his desired world state.
“Nationalist struggles for recognition are by no means over, and more new states- “more anarchy”- may yet be created. But while further fragmentation is in one sense a step back, it is also a precondition for moving forward, since it is only when difference is recognized that a larger identity can be stable. (…) Far from suppressing nationalism, a world state will only be possible if it embraces it.”
Everyone dedicated to fight the push for world dictatorship should wash their ears well with this statement. For the New World Order will pull out all the stops, including flirtations with national sovereignty, courting true libertarianism and align itself with any and every grassroots movement springing up out of the soil. The anti-venom is education, education and some more education. Anything too much centralized leaves itself wide open to infiltration.
Self-education that is. As we know, all institutionalized schooling has for many decades now been infiltrated by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). At a meeting in 2009, Mr. Olabiyi Babalola Joseph Yai, Chair of UNESCO’s executive board, admitted the organization was created to “think global governance”:
“You will recall, dear colleagues, that I said, before Mr Ban Ki Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, that UNESCO’s role is to think global governance. That is why the Organization was founded. We come to the rescue of the system especially when the economic machine runs out of steam, as it clearly has today. It is thus a matter of urgency to set up a long-term working group on global governance. I hope that a State or group of States will seize on this worthy proposal, and that the Organization, as of this session, will give it the attention it warrants.”
At her installment as Secretary-General of UNESCO in October 2010, Irina Bokova stated:
“I am convinced of the need for global governance, founded on universal ethics, in order to take up these common challenges.”
In a 1968 publication by Louis Francois for UNESCO, the author elaborates on the need for a worldwide education-system as opposed to the old, discarded one which still recognized sovereignty of the nation-state (page 18):
“We are witnessing the establishment of a new world order based upon the system of the United Nations”, Francois explains.
He links a growing world population as one of the main obstacles to be overcome in the quest for a global educational system (page 25):
“(…) not only is the population of the world increasing; it is also growing younger (…). So the first obstacle to be overcome by education is that of quantity. The first problem to be solved by a ministry of education is that of accommodating and teaching these rapidly increasing multitudes of young people.”
On page 32 the author arrives at the logical destination of his train of thought:
“Educational expansion is hard put to it to keep up with the huge growth of population.”
In order to effectively guide the population toward slavery, the number of people should be reduced lest its effectiveness wear off.
“Wherever we look“, says Francois on page 36, “education is striving to forestall the demographic explosion.”
All these statements do not fall out of the clear blue sky. UNESCO’s founder, Vice President of the Eugenics Society and foremost transhumanist Julian Huxley explained why global governance is crucial in his UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy:
“Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”
Another “founding father” of the scientific dictatorship, Sir Bertrand Russell once explained:
“Every government that has been in control of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen …”
With a sharp sense of foresight when it comes to media matters, Francois describes the future of education and what its ground principles are on which this future should be founded (page 80):
“Promoting the recognition of the fact that, if the countries of the world are still divided by their interests and their political convictions, they are, day by day, growing more closely interdependent in matters of economics, science, technology and culture. Promoting awareness of the fact that nations must cooperate, that is to say work together for their common good within international organizations.”
“To sum up”, the author concludes on page 98, “UNESCO serves as a catalyst for dynamic ideas. Well placed to hear of what is happening in the world, sensitive to the nation’s needs, UNESCO is aware of the very first stirring of ideas, follows their development and can, at the proper time, co-ordinate, harmonize and finally impose them in their full force.”
It would almost be amusing, this notion that UNESCO is merely picking up on ideas, if it were not so horribly cynical in the end. The calculated and synchronized move toward a brave new world is not a bottom-up thing, somehow evolving naturally from the grass roots; it is a top-down system, posing as grass roots, crafted to brainwash as large an audience as it can through the use of mass media, schooling systems and other available instruments of propaganda.
In 1974, the Director-General of UNESCO, Rene Maheu, stressed the importance of gathering all media, irrespective of its medium, under the great wing of UNESCO and the globalists. At a banquet of the International Coordinating Council of the Man and the Biosphere Programme in Williamsburg, USA, Maheu starts out by giving some insight in UNESCO’s long-term vision for mankind (page 2):
“The rationale behind the MAB (Man and the Biosphere) programme is to ensure that the physical, biological and other environmental requirements of man are placed in the hands of each of us (present) and remain under our overall control.”
Explaining to his listening audience that the earth will disintegrate if not for “a collective effort planned, organized and executed by the international community acting in concert”, the Director-General goes on to state:
“I believe that we have now reached the point in world affairs where we must have a systematic reorganization of international relations on all levels.”
He of course favors the UN as the proper body to do the reorganizing, gives it its proper name (page 4):
“I wish to reiterate my firm conviction- together with my hope- that a new world order- political, monetary, economic and social- should now be established.”
Precisely ten years after Louis Francois outlined the plans for a new world order, a meeting of “consultants” was organized at UNESCO Headquarters discussing “the free and balanced flow of information in a new communication order.”
The participants were carefully selected (page 1):
“Fifteen consultants and observers from university and professional circles and representatives of international journalists’ organizations attended this meeting. The main purpose of the meeting was to review briefly the origins of the concept of a free and balanced flow of information, to analyze the current state of discussions and the components of a new world order, together with its legal, technological and socio-economic implications, and to maker suggestions and recommendations for future action by UNESCO and other international organizations.”
One of the aims described in the document, was (page 2): “Preparing and carrying out “pilot programmes” of education incorporating these principles.” Regarding the before mentioned “legal implications”, one of the proposals was to “draw up regulations relating to international mass communications (page 3).”
There is nothing like a strong choke hold to force your subjects into submission. When the status of the journalist in this new world order was discussed, the participants agreed that they would first have to “assess the feasibility of establishing an international code of ethics which would be adopted by journalists possessing a “universal” sense of mission, that is to say transcending their national origin in the defense of peace and fraternity (page 3).” After we strip off the Orwellian euphemisms, this code of ethics clearly equals a strangling oath of obedience.
Among the many disturbing recommendations made by the panel, such as setting up “an international fund for the purpose of renting news transmission channels”, the need was expressed “to set up a “World Press Council” to help ensure the truthfulness and objectivity of information, in the event of it proving impossible to devise and adapt an “international code of ethics (page 6)”’.
A transnational body, in other words, that will decide whether a news item is truthful or not. While the going was good, the participants also called for (page 4) “seminars for professionals in order to make them understand the need to broaden the concerns of those who, in the mass communication process, have the responsibility for selecting information, in other words, those who act as information filters (Gate-Keepers).”
At a 1983 UNESCO conference, there seemed to be an even greater consensus on the strategies that should be implemented in order to reach a new world order- and it appears that those in attendance had a swell time debating semantics (page 16):
“The participants regarded the new world order as a recognized concept, developing but irreversible, which would be established stage by stage.(…) The establishment of a new world communication order appeared to one participant as a participation, a world response to the communications revolution, whereas another emphasized the importance of the word “new” in describing the concept.”
Bordering on the ridiculous, this exchange between globalists is nevertheless significant for it occurred long before papa Bush delivered his famous ‘new world order’ speech before the US congress in 1991. It became part of the nomenclature long before that within the seclusion of key globalist meetings. On page 10 some participants of the conference declared that “the effort to establish a new world information and communication order in stages could not be separated from the effort to promote a new international economic order.”
Or, if I may add, a scientific world order. Just recently I covered statements made by professor of physics at California State University and American representative to the UN, Roger Dittmann, who in 2004 wrote that all policies related to Agenda 21 should be pursued with the aim of worldwide population reduction and population control: “The Big Die Off”, as the professor calls it.
In his presentation Sustainable Development, the New International Scientific Order, and UN Reform Dittmann outright calls for a new “International Scientific Order” to make sure the entire scientific community will be made ready to implement worldwide population reduction objectives. Dittmann:
“Not only do people require organization about their (multiple) identities (including professional, scholarly, and scientific), they need international, even supranational affiliation, facing a common adversary.”
This common adversary-remark neatly ties in with the Club of Rome’s 1993 The First Global Revolution in which the authors state:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
As the theoreticians pancake hypothesis upon hypothesis to prove their position, namely that a world state is inevitable, a closer inspection of their work reveals it is a false understanding, manufactured by a biased predisposition: both time and space have stunningly little regard for our fancies, phasing- as they do- in and out of our grasp as quickly as you can say ‘fallacy’. History, it seems, does not support their arguments.
After the Roman Empire had collapsed, other, smaller kingdoms emerged out of its ruins. This applies to the Greeks, the Babylonians, and almost every other system with imperial designs. The Egyptian kingdom, once a vast and powerful culture, grew to be just a shadow of its former self at the beginning of our calendar. Charlemagne established the great Frankish empire only to unwittingly lay the groundwork for the establishing of sovereign states in the centuries to come, like Germany and France. We have only to study history in order to counter the mythology of a gradual evolution towards a one world system. There is no evidence supporting an historic, chronological pattern of progression from the small to the great. More often than not it is the other way around, for excessive power always provokes resistance.
- By Editorial Digest
- Published 05/22/2012
The US financial system and, probably, the financial system of Europe, like the police, no longer serves a useful social purpose.
In the US the police have proven themselves to be a greater
threat to public safety than private sector criminals. I just googled “police
brutality” and up came 183,000,000 results.
The cost to society of the private financial system is even
higher. Writing in CounterPunch (May 18), Rob Urie reports that two years ago
Andrew Haldane, executive Director for Financial Stability at the Bank of
England (the UK’s version of the Federal Reserve) said that the financial
crisis, now four years old, will in the end cost the world economy between $60
trillion and $200 trillion in lost GDP. If Urie’s report is correct, this is an
astonishing admission from a member of the ruling elite.
Try to get your mind around these figures. The US GDP, the
largest in the world, is about 15 trillion. What Haldane is telling us is that
the financial crisis will end up costing the world lost real income between 4
and 13 times the size of the current Gross Domestic Product of the United
States. This could turn out to be an optimistic forecast.
Even if Urie’s report, or Haldane’s calculation, is incorrect, the obvious large economic loss from the financial crisis is still unprecedented. The enormous cost of the financial crisis has one single source--financial deregulation. Financial deregulation is likely to prove to be the mistake that destroys Western civilization. While we quake in our boots from fear of “Muslim terrorists,” it is financial deregulation that is destroying us, with help from jobs offshoring. Keep in mind that Haldane is a member of the ruling elite, not a critic of the system like myself, Gerald Celente, Michael Hudson, Pam Martins, and Nomi Prins. (This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of critics.)
Financial deregulation has had dangerous and adverse consequences. Deregulation permitted financial concentration that produced “banks too big to fail,” thus requiring the general public to absorb the costs of the banks’ mistakes and reckless gambling.
Deregulation permitted banks to leverage a small amount of capital with enormous debt in order to maximize return on equity, thereby maximizing the instability of the financial system and the cost to society of the banks’ bad bets.
Deregulation allowed financial institutions to sweep aside the position limits on speculators and to dominate commodity markets, turning them into a gambling casino and driving up the prices of energy and food.
Deregulation permits financial institutions to sell naked
shorts, which means to sell a company’s stock or gold and silver bullion that
the seller does not possess into the market in order to drive down the price.
The informed reader can add more items to this list.
The dollar in its role as world reserve currency is the source of Washington’s power. It allows Washington to control the international payments system and to exclude from the financial system those countries that do not do Washington’s bidding. It allows Washington to print money with which to pay its bills and to purchase the cooperation of foreign governments or to fund opposition within those countries whose governments Washington is unable to purchase, such as Iran, Russia, and China. If the dollar was not the world reserve currency and actually reflected its true depreciated value from the mounting US debt and running of the printing press, Washington’s power would be dramatically curtailed.
The US dollar has come close to its demise several times recently. In 2011 the dollar’s value fall as low as 72 Swiss cents. Investors seeking safety for the value of their money flooded into Swiss francs, pushing the value of the franc so high that Switzerland’s exports began to suffer. The Swiss government responded to the inflow of dollars and euros seeking refuge in the franc by declaring that it would in the future print new francs to offset the inflows of foreign currency in order to prevent the rise in the value of the franc. In other words, currency flight from the US and Europe forced the Swiss to inflate in order to prevent the continuous rise in the exchange value of the Swiss currency.
Prior to the sovereign debt crisis in Europe, the dollar was also faced with a run-up in the value of the euro as foreign central banks and OPEC members shifted their reserves into euros from dollars. The euro was on its way to becoming an alternative reserve currency. However, Goldman Sachs, whose former employees dominate the US Treasury and financial regulatory agencies and also the European Central Bank and governments of Italy and, indirectly, Greece, helped the Greek government to disguise its true deficit, thus deceiving the private European banks who were purchasing the bonds of the Greek government. Once the European sovereign debt crisis was launched, Washington had an interest in keeping it going, as it sends holders of euros fleeing into “safe” dollars, thus boosting the exchange value of the dollar, despite the enormous rise in Washington’s own debt and the doubling of the US money supply.
Last year gold and silver were rapidly rising in price (measured in US dollars), with gold hitting $1,900 an ounce and on its way to $2,000 when suddenly short sales began dominating the bullion markets. The naked shorts of gold and silver bullion succeeded in driving the price of gold down $350 per ounce from its peak. Many informed observers believe that the reason Washington has not prosecuted the banksters for their known financial crimes is that the banksters serve as an auxiliary to Washington by protecting the value of the dollar by shorting bullion and rival currencies.
Will a dollar bubble become the largest bubble in economic history?
When the dollar goes, interest rates will escalate, and bond
prices will collapse. Everyone who sought safety in US Treasuries will be wiped
Recently Bill Moyers interviewed Simon Johnson, formerly chief economist of the International Monetary Fund and currently professor at MIT. It turns out that deregulation, which abolished the separation of investment banks from commercial banks, permitted Jamie Dimon’s JPMorganChase to gamble with federally insured deposits. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31356.htm Despite this, Moyers reports that Republicans remain determined to kill the weak Dodd-Frank law and restore full deregulation.
Simon Johnson says: “I think it [deregulation] is a recipe for disaster.” The problem is, Johnson says, that correct economic policy is blocked by the enormous donations banks make to political campaigns. This means Wall Street’s attitudes and faulty risk models will result in an even bigger financial crisis than the one from which we are still suffering. And it will happen prior to recovery from the current crisis.
Johnson warns that the Republicans will distract everyone from the real crisis by concocting another “crisis” over the debt ceiling.
Johnson says that “a few people, particularly in and around the financial system, have become too powerful. They were allowed to take a lot of risk, and they did massive damage to the economy -- more than eight million jobs lost. We're still struggling to get back anywhere close to employment levels where we were before 2008. And they've done massive damage to the budget. This damage to the budget is long lasting; it undermines the budget when we need it to be stronger because the society is aging. We need to support Social Security and support Medicare on a fair basis. We need to restore and rebuild revenue, revenue that was absolutely devastated by the financial crisis. People need to understand the link between what the banks did and the budget. And too many people fail to do that.”
Consequently, Johnson says, the banksters continue to receive mega-benefits while imposing enormous social costs on society.
Few Americans and no Washington policymakers understand the dire situation. They are too busy hyping a non-existent recovery and the next war. Statistician John Williams reports that when correctly measured as a cost of living indicator, which the CPI no longer is, the current inflation rate in the US is 5 to 7 percentage points higher than the officially reported rate, as every consumer knows. The unemployment rate falls because, and only because, people unable to find jobs drop out of the labor force and are no longer counted as unemployed. Every informed person knows that the official inflation and unemployment rates are fictions; yet, the presstitute media continue to report the rates with a straight face as fact.
The way the government has rigged the measure of unemployment, it is possible for the US to have a zero rate of unemployment and not a single person employed or in the work force.
The way the government has the measure of inflation rigged, it is possible for your living standing to fall while the government reports that you are better off.
Financial deregulation raises the returns from speculative schemes above the returns from productive activity. The highly leveraged debt and derivatives that gave us the financial crisis have nothing to do with financing businesses. The banks are not only risking their customers’ deposits on gambling bets but also jeopardizing the country’s financial stability and economic future.
With an eye on the approaching dollar crisis, which will wreck the international financial system, the presidents of China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, and the prime minister of India met last month to discuss forming a new bank that would shield their economies and commerce from mistakes made by Washington and the European Union. The five countries, known as the BRICS, intend to settle their trade with one another in their own currencies and cease relying on the dollar. The fact that Russia, the two Asian giants, and the largest economies in Africa and South America are leaving the dollar’s orbit sends a powerful message of lack of confidence in Washington’s handling of financial matters.
It is ironic that the outcome of financial deregulation in the US is the opposite of what its free market advocates promised. In place of highly competitive financial firms that live or die by their wits alone without government intervention, we have unprecedented financial concentration. Massive banks, “too big to fail,” now send their multi-trillion dollar losses to Washington to be paid by heavily indebted US taxpayers whose real incomes have not risen in 20 years. The banksters take home fortunes in annual bonuses for their success in socializing the “free market” banks’ losses and privatizing profits to the point of not even paying income taxes.
In the US free market economists unleashed avarice and permitted it to run amuck. Will the disastrous consequences discredit capitalism to the extent that the Soviet collapse discredited socialism?
Will Western civilization itself survive the financial tsunami that deregulated Wall Street has produced?
Ironic, isn’t it, that the United States, the home of the “indispensable people,” stands before us as the likely candidate whose government will be responsible for the collapse of the West.
Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
MonaVie offers its Distributors a home based business opportunity unequalled in the network markeing, and the ability for everyone who is involved with the Monavie Business Opportunity the chance to build financial freedom and help others do the same as well!
MonaVie believes that empowering people like you can bring happiness and security into reach. Whether you’re ready to make a small change to improve your circumstances, improve the health of your loved ones, or significantly transform your life, MonaVie is the opportunity to make your mark in the surging health and wellness industry you’ve been looking for.
Our independent distributors are out-of-the-box entrepreneurs with fantastic products, a fully staffed sales and marketing team, a friendly customer support team, and a distinguished research and development team.
You have the chance to decide what success means to you, and MonaVie has the tools and solutions to help. You’ll be proud to offer exceptional products with antioxidant power and exciting weight management solutions.
Monavie Business Opportunity
Bank failure, stock market crash, mass business closures, 25 percent unemployment, trade wars, runaway inflation, multiple currency collapses, the Great Depression, World War ii. All of it began with a little-known bank in a small country in the heart of Europe.
That is history. And it is happening again.
A similar epoch-changing event may be about to occur in Europe.
Last week it was revealed that Franco-Belgian banking giant Dexia was virtually locked out of debt markets and in desperate need of cash. Depositors began a run on the bank—withdrawing over €300 million on Tuesday alone. Investors bailed too, sending the bank’s share price plummeting into the penny stock range. On Thursday, its stock was suspended from trading while governments decided what to do.
The announcement sent Belgian and French politicians into a conniption fit. These same authorities spent billions bailing out the bank in 2008. It was supposed to be fixed.
Making matters worse: Dexia passed not one, but two European bank “stress tests” (the latest in July) with flying colors.
So if you can’t trust the banks (because they cook their books), and you can’t trust the experts and authorities overseeing them (because they are either liars or incompetent), who can you trust?
That summarizes the problem at the heart of Europe’s banking crisis: broken trust. If the meltdown of ‘08 taught us anything, it’s that confidence and trust is what banks can least afford to lose in a crisis.
Unfortunately, Dexia is far from alone. It is just the most visible time bomb waiting to implode.
On Friday, ratings agency S&P downgraded 12 banks in the United Kingdom and nine in Portugal, including UK government-owned banking behemoths Lloyds and the Royal Bank of Scotland.
The threat to the economy is so great that the UK government announced it would start another round of quantitative easing (QE) to prop up the economy. Seventy-five billion pounds will be electronically digitized and given to troubled banks.
This is Zimbabwe policy. After the panic is over, who will want pounds, when they are simply created out of thin air? Value is determined by its rarity and non-counterfeitability. By repeatedly announcing additional rounds of QE, the Bank of England risks destroying both. The pound will get punished. Add another zero to the cost of a loaf of bread.
Bank of England governor Mervyn King justified his action by saying that this is the most serious financial crisis the world has ever seen, at least since the 1930s, “if not ever.”
The “deterioration in the outlook” means more “quantitative easing” was justified, he said.
In other words, the risk to destroying the pound was outweighed by the risk of the immediate economic collapse. So the pound will be devalued—further destabilizing the international currency system.
Europe is a powder keg sitting on top of nitroglycerin, suspended by spider threads over a furnace. And the furnace is flaring.
If authorities “cannot address this in a credible way, I believe, perhaps within two to three weeks we will have a meltdown … across the European banking system,” warns International Monetary Fund (imf) adviser Robert Shapiro (emphasis mine). “We’re not just talking about a small Belgian bank, we are talking about the largest banks in the world, the largest banks in Germany, the largest banks in France, that will spread, that will spread to the United States, that will spread to the United Kingdom … it will spread everywhere because the global financial system is so interconnected.”
Two to three weeks of normalcy may be all this world has left. “All those banks are counterparties to every significant bank in the United States and Britain, and in Japan, and around the world,” warns the imf adviser. “This would be a crisis, that would be, in my view, more serious than the crisis in 2008.”
More serious than 2008? Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, IndyMac Bank, Countrywide, Wachovia, Merrill Lynch, Washington Mutual, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac—the list goes on—all went bankrupt or became nationalized. How do you get more serious than that?
Realize: In 2008, the banking system was insolvent. Three years later, the banking system is still insolvent, but now because of the massive bailouts, sovereign governments are verging on insolvency too.
Yesterday, after emergency marathon negotiations, French, Belgian and Luxembourg politicians agreed to put their taxpayers on the hook for 211 billion more euros to prop up Dexia. But how much more debt can these countries take before they are the credit risk? Will this bailout be the last? Moody’s rating agency immediately put Belgium’s credit rating on review for downgrade. France’s won’t be far behind.
But if the Europeans are barely able to keep a handle on their banks, who will bail out Greece? What about Spain and Italy? Who will pay for the war in Libya?
“We are on the brink of structures failing, spiraling the financial world into such a bleak scene comparable with the 1930s and the Second World War are valid,” warns former Chase Manhattan analyst Julian Philips. “The recovery prospects are more than dim. There’s far too much debt for the developed world to repay, so more debt will cripple it.”
Events seem to be spiraling out of control. On Monday, British Prime Minister David Cameron begged European leaders to take a “big bazooka”-type approach to heading off collapse.
Specifically, Cameron wants Germany to take “collective responsibility” for Europe. A single market with a single government is needed, he says. “[Y]ou have to do the whole thing. … Time is short, the situation is precarious.”
More ominous words could hardly be spoken. Time is short. The situation is precarious. But backing Germany to take control of Europe is about the most shortsighted and condemning statement a British politician could make. Echoes of Chamberlain abound.
As Gerald Flurry recently wrote, the current economic crisis could be “the very event” that gives Germany the empire that has always eluded it.
In March, a written statement to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security by Justice Department official Todd Hinnen confirmed that the administration had used Section 215, the so-called "business records" section of the Act "to obtain driver's license records, hotel records, car rental records, apartment leasing records, credit card records, and the like."
Further confirmation of Wyden's charges came from an unlikely source: a White House nominee for a top counterterrorism position.
Last week Wired reported that Matthew Olsen, the administration's pick to head the National Counterterrorism Center "acknowledged that 'some of the pleadings and opinions related to the Patriot Act' to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that approves snooping warrants 'are classified'."
If confirmed, Olsen will replace Michael E. Leiter, the Bushist embed who told the Senate last year during hearings into 2009's aborted plot to bring down Northwest Airlines Flight 253 over Detroit on Christmas Day: "I will tell you, that when people come to the country and they are on the watch list, it is because we have generally made the choice that we want them here in the country for some reason or another."
What those reasons are for wanting a terrorist to board a packed airliner were not spelled out to Senate nor were they explored by corporate media. This raises an inevitable question: what else is the administration concealing from the American people?
White House Stonewall
Back in May, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Justice Department "demanding the release of a secret legal memo used to justify FBI access to Americans' telephone records without any legal process or oversight."
So far, the administration has refused to release the memos.
According to the civil liberties' watchdogs, a report last year by the DOJ's own Inspector General "revealed how the FBI, in defending its past violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), had come up with a new legal argument to justify secret, unchecked access to private telephone records."
"The Obama administration," The Washington Post reports, has continued "to resist the efforts of two Democratic senators to learn more about the government's interpretation of domestic surveillance law, stating that 'it is not reasonably possible' to identify the number of Americans whose communications may have been monitored under the statute."
In a letter to Wyden and Senator Mark Udall (D-CO), Kathleen Turner, the director of legislative affairs for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), claimed that a "joint oversight team" has not uncovered evidence "of any intentional or willful attempts to violate or circumvent the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or FISA, which was amended in 2008."
Turner went on to say that "with respect to FAA" [FISA Amendments Act of 2008, the statute that "legalized" Bushist surveillance programs and handed retroactive immunity to spying telecoms like AT&T], "you [Wyden] asked whether any significant interpretations of the FAA are currently classified. As you are aware, opinions of the FISA Court usually contain extensive discussions of particularly sources, methods and operations and are therefore classified."
Throwing the onus back on political grifters in the House and Senate, Turner wrote: "Even though not publicly available, by law any opinion containing a significant legal interpretation is provided to the congressional intelligence committees."
With circular logic Turner claims that because "FISA Court opinions are so closely tied to the facts of the application under review that they cannot be made public in any meaningful form without compromising the sensitive sources and methods at issue."
At best, her statement is disingenuous. After all, it is precisely that secret interpretation of the law made by the White House Office of Legal Counsel that Wyden and others, including EFF, the Electronic Privacy Information Network (EPIC) and journalists are demanding the administration clarify.
Justice Department Shields NSA's Private Partners
The FBI isn't the only agency shielded by the Justice Department under cover of bogus "state secrets" assertions by the Obama administration.
On July 13, EPIC reported that a U.S. District Court Judge issued an opinion in their lawsuit (EPIC v. NSA), "and accepted the NSA's claim" that it can "neither confirm nor deny" that the agency "had entered into a relationship with Google following the China hacking incident in January 2010."
The privacy watchdogs sought documents under FOIA "because such an agreement could reveal that the NSA is developing technical standards that would enable greater surveillance of Internet users."
According to EPIC, the administration's "Glomar response" to "neither confirm nor deny" a covert relationship amongst giant media corporations such as Google and secret state agencies "is a controversial legal doctrine that allows agencies to conceal the existence of records that might otherwise be subject to public disclosure."
This issue is hardly irrelevant to internet users. CNET News reported last week that "Google's Street View cars collected the locations of millions of laptops, cell phones, and other Wi-Fi devices around the world, a practice that raises novel privacy concerns."
And given the government's penchant to vacuum-up so-called "transactional data" without benefit of a warrant, would media giants such as Google, high-tech behemoths such as Apple or Microsoft, beholden to the federal government for regulatory perks, resist efforts by the feds demanding they cough-up users' locational data?
Investigative journalist Declan McCullagh found that the cars "were supposed to collect the locations of Wi-Fi access points. But Google also recorded the street addresses and unique identifiers of computers and other devices using those wireless networks and then made the data publicly available through Google.com until a few weeks ago."
According to CNET, "the French data protection authority, known as the Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) recently contacted CNET and said its investigation confirmed that Street View cars collected these unique hardware IDs. In March, CNIL's probe resulted in a fine of 100,000 euros, about $143,000."
On Friday, CNET reported that Microsoft too, is in on the geolocation spy game.
Declan McCullagh wrote that "Microsoft has collected the locations of millions of laptops, cell phones, and other Wi-Fi devices around the world and makes them available on the Web."
A security researcher confirmed that the "vast database available through Live.com publishes the precise geographical location, which can point to a street address and sometimes even a corner of a building, of Android phones, Apple devices, and other Wi-Fi enabled gadgets."
Such information in the hands of government snoops would prove invaluable when it comes to waging War On Terror 2.0, the so-called "cyber war." Which is why the administration is fighting tooth and nail to keep this information from the public.
On the cyber front, EPIC is suing the White House to obtain the top secret National Security Presidential Directive that sets out the "NSA's cyber security authority," and is seeking clarification from the agency about so-called internet vulnerability assessments, "the Director's classified views on how the NSA's practices impact Internet privacy, and the NSA's 'Perfect Citizen' program."
As Antifascist Calling previously reported, "Perfect Citizen" is a $100 million privacy-killing program under development by the agency and defense giant Raytheon. Published reports informed us that the program will rely on a suite of sensors deployed in computer networks and that proprietary software will persistently monitor whichever system they are plugged into.
While little has been revealed about how Perfect Citizen will work, it was called by a corporate insider the cyber equivalent of "Big Brother," according to an email obtained last year by The Wall Street Journal.
New Report Highlights "Transparency" Fraud
The refusal by the White House to divulge information that impact Americans' civil liberties and privacy rights, along with their expansion of repressive national security and surveillance programs launched by the Bush regime, underscores the fraudulent nature of Obama's so-called "transparency administration."
A new report published by the American Civil Liberties Union, Drastic Measures Required: Congress needs to Overhaul U.S. Secrecy Laws and Increase Oversight of the Secret Security Establishment, documents how "out-of-control secrecy is a serious disease that is hurting American democracy."
Authors Jay Stanley and former FBI undercover agent turned whistleblower, Michael German, write that "we are now living in an age of government secrecy run amok."
According to the report, "reality has not always lived up to the rhetoric" of the Obama regime. Since the administration took office, the White House:
• Embraced the Bush administration's tactic of using overbroad "state secrets" claims to block lawsuits challenging government misconduct.
• Fought a court order to release photos depicting the abuse of detainees held in U.S. custody and supported legislation to exempt these photos from FOIA retroactively. Worse, the legislation gave the Secretary of Defense sweeping authority to withhold any visual images depicting the government's "treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained" by U.S. forces, no matter how egregious the conduct depicted or how compelling the public's interest in disclosure.
• Threatened to veto legislation designed to reform congressional notification procedures for covert actions.
• Aggressively pursued whistleblowers who reported waste, fraud and abuse in national security programs with criminal prosecutions to a greater degree than any previous presidential administration.
• Refused to declassify information about how the government uses its authority under section 215 of the Patriot Act to collect information about Americans not relevant to terrorism or espionage investigations. (Mike German and John Stanley, Drastic Measures Required, Washington, D.C., The American Civil Liberties Union, July 2011, pp. 7-8)
Amongst other findings in the report we learn that more than 2.4 million personnel, "official" denizens of the secret state which include the 16 agencies of the so-called "Intelligence Community" and outsourced private contractors hold top secret and above security clearances.
Although the Government Accountability Office (GAO) disclosed that the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2010 "required required the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to calculate and report the aggregate number of security clearances for all government employees and contractors to Congress by February 2011," as of this writing "the DNI has so far failed to produce this data."
Last year, The Washington Post's "Top Secret America" series revealed that "some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States," and that "the privatization of national security" has been made possible by a "nine-year 'gusher' of money."
The Post's reporting on America's security outsourcing mania echoed critical investigations by other journalists, including those by Tim Shorrock, who has reported extensively on intelligence privatization in his essential book Spies For Hire and by James Bamford in The Shadow Factory, which explored how NSA was turned loose on the American people.
In a follow-up piece last December, investigative journalists Dana Priest and William M. Arkin described how "the United States is assembling a vast domestic intelligence apparatus to collect information about Americans, using the FBI, local police, state homeland security offices and military criminal investigators."
"The government's goal," Priest and Arkin wrote, "is to have every state and local law enforcement agency in the country feed information to Washington to buttress the work of the FBI, which is in charge of terrorism investigations in the United States."
As the Post reported, "technologies and techniques honed for use on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan have migrated into the hands of law enforcement agencies in America."
This is a pernicious development. As I reported three years ago, one such program were efforts by the Department of Homeland Security, partnering-up with the Pentagon, to train America's fleet of top secret surveillance satellites on the American people.
That program, since killed by DHS, the National Applications Office, would have provided state and local authorities access to geospatial intelligence gleaned from military spy satellites and would have done so with no congressional oversight or privacy controls in place and would have handed over this sensitive data to selected law enforcement partners.
Local Police Control Ceded to the FBI
Along with intrusive techniques and highly-classified programs, Priest and Arkin wrote that the FBI has built "a database with the names and certain personal information, such as employment history, of thousands of U.S. citizens and residents whom a local police officer or a fellow citizen believed to be acting suspiciously."
What constitutes "suspicious behavior" of course, is in the eye of the beholder, and can constitute anything from taking photographs on a public street to organizing and participating in protests against America's endless wars.
Just recently, the San Francisco Bay Guardian revealed that local cops "assigned to the FBI's terrorism task force can ignore local police orders and California privacy laws to spy on people without any evidence of a crime."
Investigative journalist Sarah Phelan discovered that even after a "carefully crafted" set of rules on intelligence gathering had been in place "since police spying scandals of the 1990s," were "bypassed without the knowledge or consent of the S.F. Police Commission."
John Crew, a police practices expert with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California told the Bay Guardian that the 2007 Memorandum of Understanding by S.F. cops and the FBI means that "Police Commission policies do not apply" and that it "allows San Francisco police to circumvent local intelligence-gathering policies and follow more permissive federal rules."
Despite serious concerns over the Bureau's long-standing practice of spying on political dissidents and its "War On Terror" racial profiling policies, in a follow-up piece the Bay Guardian reported that Police Commission President Thomas Mazzucco, a former federal prosecutor, seemed "more concerned about defending federal practices and officials ... than worrying about the role and authority of the civilian oversight body he now represents."
The ACLU's Crew noted that when the FBI came to the SFPD with a new MOU, "there was no review by the City Attorney, and no notice to the police commission."
"Now, we didn't know about that MOU because it was kept secret at the insistence of the FBI for four years," Crew told Sarah Phelan. Crew also noted that "when ACLU and ALC [Asian Law Caucus] met with the SFPD in 2010, they were suddenly told that the police department couldn't talk about these issues without FBI permission.
"That set off a warning sign," Crew observed, "noting that in early April, when the ACLU and ALC finally got the MOU released, their worst suspicions were confirmed."
"There was no public discussion of transforming the SFPD into a national intelligence gathering association," ALC attorney Veena Dubal told the Bay Guardian. "The problem is that the FBI changed the deal, and the SFPD signed it, without telling anyone."
Neither the Bay Guardian nor the ACLU of Northern California have released the 2007 Memorandum of Understanding. However, the secrecy-shredding web site Public Intelligence has posted a sample MOU that makes for interesting reading indeed.
According to the document, local police agencies who participate in JTTFs will adhere to loose rules covered by the "Attorney General's Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations." As Antifascist Calling reported last month, those rules will soon be loosened even further by "constitutional scholar" Barack Obama's Justice Department.
But here's the kicker; local police participating in JTTFs will be subject to rules crafted in Washington. State and municipal policies which sought to limit out-of-control spying on local activists by notorious police "Red Squads," are annulled in favor of "guidance on investigative matters handled by the JTTF" that "will be issued by the Attorney General and the FBI."
Such "guidance" we're told governs everything from "the Use of Confidential Informants" to "Guidelines Regarding Disclosure to the Director of Central Intelligence and Homeland Security Officials of Foreign Intelligence Acquired in the Course of a Criminal Investigation."
In other words, police participating in JTTFs become the CIA's eyes on the ground!
We are informed that "in order to comply with Presidential Directives, the policy and program management of the JTTFs is the responsibility of FBI Headquarters (FBIHQ)." As readers are well aware, more often than not those "Presidential Directives" arrive with built-in poison pills in the form of top secret annexes concealed from the public.
Such questions are not academic exercises.
More than three years ago, author and researcher Peter Dale Scott wrote in CounterPunch that "Congressman Peter DeFazio, a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, told the House that he and the rest of his Committee had been barred from reviewing parts of National Security Presidential Directive 51, the White House supersecret plans to implement so-called 'Continuity of Government' in the event of a mass terror attack or natural disaster."
"The story," Scott wrote, "ignored by the mainstream press, involved more than the usual tussle between the legislative and executive branches of the U.S. Government. What was at stake was a contest between Congress's constitutional powers of oversight, and a set of policy plans that could be used to suspend or modify the constitution."
Should something go wrong, the onus for civil or criminal penalties resulting from lawsuits for illegal acts by JTTF officers rests solely with local taxpayers who may have to foot the bill. This is clearly spelled out: "The Participating Agency acknowledges that financial and civil liability, if any and in accordance with applicable law, for the acts and omissions of each employee detailed to the JTTF remains vested with his or her employing agency."
Got that? You violate someone's rights and then get caught, well, tough luck chumps.
Intelligence Spending, No End in Sight
While the administration and their troglodytic Republican allies in Congress are planning massive cuts in social spending as a result of a manufactured "deficit crisis," the President's fiscal year 2012 budget proposes a five-year freeze for "all discretionary spending outside of security."
Indeed, according to the Associated Press, the Defense Department will reap a windfall some $727.4 billion and DHS $44.3 billion. But these numbers only tell part of the story.
Back in March, Secrecy News disclosed that figures provided by ODNI and the Secretary of Defense "document the steady rise of the total U.S. intelligence budget from $63.5 billion in FY2007 up to last year's total of $80.1 billion."
Americans are told they face "hard choices" when it comes to America's fiscal house of cards and that they--and they alone--not the capitalist thieves who destroyed the economy, must shoulder the burden.
But as economist Michael Hudson warned last week in a Global Research article, the American people are "being led to economic slaughter."
Hudson writes that "whenever one finds government officials and the media repeating an economic error as an incessant mantra, there always is a special interest at work. The financial sector in particular seeks to wrong-foot voters into believing that the economy will be plunged into crisis if Wall Street does not get its way--usually by freeing it from taxes and deregulating it."
However, when it comes to the secret state and the corporate interests they serve, regulators, in the form of congressional oversight or the public, seeking answers about illegal government programs, need not apply.
After all, as ODNI securocrat Kathleen Turner told the Senate, "the questions you pose ... are difficult to answer in an unclassified letter."
And so it goes...
Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Fairhope Police Officer Trent Scott is true SCUM!
An Alabama police officer allegedly hospitalized an elderly man who called 911 to report an accident across the street from his house while his wife watched the entire beating from her wheelchair.
The Courthouse News Service reported that 84-year-old Dorsey Henderson of Fairhope, Alabama called 911 after investigating the car accident and discovering that the driver of the vehicle was severely intoxicated.
Henderson told the driver of the car he was under citizens arrest and needed to wait near his car until police arrived.
When Officer Trent Scott arrived on the scene, Henderson attempted to inform him of the driver's belligerent behavior and that the driver had been placed under citizens arrest. The officer allegedly told Henderson there was "no such thing as citizen's arrest in Alabama," and to "get out of the way, old man."
After Henderson tried to explain that he was only trying to help, Officer Scott placed him in an arm bar and slammed him face first into the ground, breaking his nose and eyeglasses. Henderson's wife, Dorris, watched from a wheelchair at the front window of her house, telling a 911 dispatcher that the officer was "beating the hell out of my husband."
At no point did Scott place Henderson under arrest or charge him with any crime, but kept Henderson handcuffed in the backseat of his police cruiser.
Roughly ten minutes later, Scott sent an ambulance that had arrived away, telling the paramedics that the elderly man "doesn't need an ambulance."
A superior office who later arrived on the scene ordered the ambulance to return and Henderson was taken to the hospital, where he doctors said he suffered a broken nose, multiple contusions and a torn rotator cuff.
As of May 16, 2011, Scott was still employed by the Fairhope Police Department.
PROSECUTE TRENT SCOTT
- By Editorial Digest
- Published 04/13/2011
Whatever your opinions and beliefs are about the war against Gaddafi, if you believe that popular consent, the social contract, and checks and balances in government are good ideas that should not be erased from history then you can not be a supporter of President Obama, other Western leaders, NATO, and the United Nations because they exercised arbitrary power and manipulated global public sympathy to advance their agenda in Libya.
There is no question that Gaddafi had to be overthrown, but it is not right for international coalitions to do the job of the Libyan people. The West would have reacted with indignation and scorn if the Libyan people had reached out to Russia or China or Iran to liberate them from their tyrant. It doesn’t make it right just because the West is doing the overthrowing.
If Obama, Sarkozy, Harper, and Cameron were Putin, Ahmadinejad, Jintao, and Chavez you wouldn’t hear so-called humanitarians like Samantha Power preaching about human rights and genocide in Libya. Instead, there would be talk of Chinese imperialism, Islamic fascism, Russian aggression, and a Communist coup.
If NATO’s cause was as noble and pure as they like the Western public to believe then they would have crafted words to address our logical and rational side instead of using emotion-based propaganda to get us to support their mission to oust another dictator in the world. So-called international humanitarians and UN liberators who want to get rid of every tyrant they hate are the biggest tyrants in the world.
What the war in Libya shows is that the U.S. constitution is treated like a piece of paper by the White House, CIA, Pentagon, and Congress. The American people have no voice in their government. Neither do the Canadian people, the British people, and the people of every other nation whose troops are currently fighting in Libya, Afghanistan, and other “humanitarian” wars which are unjust and criminal.
Former Congressman Paul Findley, co-founder of the Council for the National Interests, says in his article ‘Obama’s Fateful Abuse of War Powers’ that President Obama is in violation of the law and the United States constitution. Findley writes:
From the start, Obama proceeded in a cavalier, almost casual manner. In announcing war measures in Libya, he mentioned neither Congress nor the U.S. Constitution. He did not even return to Washington from a visit in South America to make the announcement. He acted as if war-making is a routine privilege a president may undertake entirely at his option, like shaving or adjusting his necktie, without even a wink or nod toward the people’s branch of government. To this day Congress has not authorized acts of war in Libya.
Obama acted like a king but he too is a slave to higher-ups who pull his strings, and who have spent decades designing and implementing a new world order system under which people are treated as slaves, police have unlimited power to arrest and repress protests, and countries that resist like Iran are demonized, invaded, and conquered.
Many of us are not blind to these facts. Our countries have been subverted from within, and our national government institutions no longer represent the interests of the people, but, instead, the interests of a small global class of corporate looters, and financial thieves who preach free-market economics but in practice they are fascist monopolists and authoritarians.
The war against Libya followed the pattern of previous NATO-led wars. It was not accident that Obama didn’t consult members of Congress. The message he wanted to sent to the American people is that Congress is not as necessary as it used to be, and that the President can act like a tyrant and a king towards other nations if they are led by tyrants and kings, too.
Thomas Jefferson said, “Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery.”
We will all become permanent slaves to the new world order system if we do not collectively fight back, and bring the criminal banks and corporations and the politicians who defend them to justice. We cannot reclaim our nations through federal elections, not in Canada, or England, or the United States of America. Congress and Parliament are routinely misled, deceived, ignored, and prevented from entering important discussions involving major national commitments such as a war or trade agreements with regional partners. For all intents and purposes, democratic self-governance is dead in the West, at least in their current form. Congress and Parliament are viewed as defunct national bodies by the transnational elites who have designed a new global authoritarian system behind closed doors, without the knowledge and consent of the people and their representatives.
This new global authoritarian system, disguised behind vague academic language like “global governance,” is here to stay so as long as we do not resist it with our minds, our pens, our voices, and our feet.
U.S.-Canada security and trade integration will move along regardless of which party wins in the upcoming Canadian federal election. As Dana Gabriel writes:
In Canada, whether it’s the Conservative or Liberal party holding the reigns of power and in the U.S., a Democrat or Republican in the White House, deep North American integration continues unabated.
It is not acceptable that in matters of war, security, and trade the people of America, Canada, and Europe have no say. If we do not resist the transnational thieves who masquerade as “elites”, there will be an authoritarian North American Union, whether it is called by that name or not by our so-called elected leaders. It will follow the example of the European Union which has failed as a transnational body because it is tyrannical, and highly unpopular with the citizenry in Europe.
The struggle to reverse the slide into transnational despotism and prevent Third World-like conditions from becoming permanent in our countries will be a hard and long one, and require many sacrifices. But what choice do we have? Live as slaves? That is not how I want to live. It is a basic truth of history that no people can vote out a tyrant, or vote out a tyrannical system. It can’t be done in Iran, and Libya, and it can’t be done in America, Canada, and Europe. Non-violent civil disobedience is one of the tactics we can use to create genuine, democratic, and long lasting changes for the good. Freedom can’t be won at the ballot box. It never has and it never will. Freedom can only be won on the streets of our cities, and in the minds of our neighbours. We will defeat the totalitarian plans of the transnational tyrants who like to think of themselves as global humanitarians and enlightened elites through education and peaceful collective action, not voting.
If we fail to reject and reverse our governments’ push towards a corrupt and despotic world state then that would be a slap in the face to all the brave and honorable fighters and soldiers who thought they were fighting for freedom in World War II, World War I, the Vietnam War, and all the other wars in the last century. The United Nations was built on their blood and sacrifice, so it is only right that we honor their memory, sacrifice for freedom as they did, and make the “free world” really free.