# baddfish's Soapbox



## Piranha Guru (Nov 24, 2005)

This topic is for baddfish to post his political and similar posts so that they are all in one place. You guys whined about it and this is our solution. No trolls or trolling will be tolerated. Let's try for some intelligent discussion.

*No posting unless it is to stimulate/continue discussion on one of baddfish's posts!!!
*

Any offenders will be dealt with based on the nature of the offense. Let's keep it civil and on topic folks!


----------



## Piranha Guru (Nov 24, 2005)

baddfish said:


> I would like to get you going on the second amendment. I don't see how our rights are being infringed on that one. The second amendment was made to protect ourselves, mostly in case of revolution against our government. Honesty I've been waiting for them to tell me I would have to register my mossbergs with the state, but they haven't yet. I will NEVER register my guns with the government, no matter who's in office. That was the trick Hitler used right before rounding up everyone's guns.


well damn...mine are registered
[/quote]


----------



## KrBjostad (Jun 21, 2008)

Boobah said:


> I would like to get you going on the second amendment. I don't see how our rights are being infringed on that one. The second amendment was made to protect ourselves, mostly in case of revolution against our government. Honesty I've been waiting for them to tell me I would have to register my mossbergs with the state, but they haven't yet. I will NEVER register my guns with the government, no matter who's in office. That was the trick Hitler used right before rounding up everyone's guns.


well damn...mine are registered
[/quote]

Really, were you required to? I've looked all over the kansas law but theres nothing that says that I have too. I've always bought my rifles and shotguns at guns shows and none have ever asked my if I wanted to register them, nor did most support the registration of them. I'm not old enough to buy a handgun in kansas (have to be 21) but I know that you have to have a handgun registered to get a conceal and carry license. I don't plan on ever getting one of those though, theres no reason for me to carry any of my arsenal around with me.


----------



## sadboy (Jan 6, 2005)

Gun laws I dislike.....


----------



## VRM (Jan 9, 2007)

[quote name='BioTeAcH' date='Jul 14 2008, 05:05 PM' post='2221010']
[quote name='baddfish' post='2220825' date='Jul 14 2008, 09:30 AM']John F. Kennedy once said[/qoute]

key word here once!!! then a bullet ripped the peanut out of his skull!!! martin luther king also said i had dream key word HAD same ending . moral never talk in past tense as you will end up passed away.


----------



## gvrayman (May 12, 2006)

I thought he said, 'I have a dream...


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Lowporkwa, need i say anything else? I mean seriously man, can you see where im getting at? Just because maybe you and i think we haven't experienced having OUR rights deprived of us, what about those who have? What of their families? How do you think their families feel about whats going on to them? It can and WILL eventually affect US at some point in time. Mark my words man. Its coming!


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

I don't agree with your statements on Gitmo. They are criminals of war, and do not belong in American courts. They are not American citizens and they do not deserve the same due process rights of an American citizen. The whole idea of having these terrorists in American courts its downright scary and dangerous to our troops who risk their lives capturing them. Now, as i'm told, the troops would rather just kill the injured combatants instead of risk capturing them and getting punished for improper techniques or etc etc etc in the courts. The terrorists could effectively sue our troops and win! That is crazy. They deserve military tribunals and thats it.

But regardless of your sentiments on the issue, the new laws passed about that requires everyone in Gitmo get a fair trial, so in that case, more rights are actually being given to citizens, so I don't see your point on that issue.

Government wire and phone tapping. Well it's not something I agree with for sure. Some may say that giving up some freedom for protection is a bad thing, but in this case I also do not agree. We live in a different age than the people that gave those quotes. In this age, if a terrorist or anyone else got their hands on a biological agent, nuclear weapon, etc etc it could spell the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of innocent people. It is just much easier to cause large amounts of destruction now than it was in the past. The government isnt reading everyones emails or listening to everyones phone calls. They are never going to, ever. The American people would never stand for that. Ever. I feel safer knowing that they are out trying to catch these criminals by any means necessary! Why give rights to people that would stop at nothing to kill us?

I just fail to see any significant rights being taken from me. And you do have a point, perhaps it is happening little by little, but I still do not see anything significant being taken away from me or anyone else.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Now. How about 'war Crimes'? Are there any? You bet!!!

US 'killed 47 Afghan civilians'

Medical staff helped a boy injured in Sunday's attack 
A US air strike in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday killed 47 civilians, 39 of them women and children, an Afghan government investigating team says.

Reports at the time said that 20 people were killed in the airstrike in Nangarhar province. The US military said they were militants. 'Yeh right'!









But local people said the dead were wedding party guests. 
Correspondents say the issue of civilian casualties is hugely sensitive in Afghanistan.
President Hamid Karzai has said that no civilian casualty is acceptable.

Demand for trial

Mr Karzai set up a nine-man commission to look into Sunday's incident. 
The commission is headed by Senate deputy speaker, Burhanullah Shinwariwhose constituency is in Nangarhar province. He told the BBC: ''Our investigation found out that 47 civilians (were killed) by the AMERICAN bombing and nine others injured.

I guess since we 'the USA' said they were militants, who are we 'the people' to doubt them?









Concern over Afghan civilian deaths

'There are 39 women and children' among those killed, he said.The eight other people who died were 'between the ages of 14 and 18'. 
A spokeswoman for the US coalition, Lt Rumi Nielson-Green told the AFPnews agency that the force was also investigating the incident andregretted any loss of civilian life. 'We never target non-combatants.We do go to great length to avoid civilian casualties,' she said. 
At the time the US said that those killed were militants involved in previous mortar attacks on a Nato base. 
The incident happened in the remote district of Deh Bala, close to the Afghan border. 
Mirwais Yasini, deputy speaker for the lower house of parliament, alsohas his constituency in Nangarhar. ''We are very sad about the killingsin Deh Bala. People should be compensated,' he told the BBC. 
'These operations widen the gap between the people and the government.' 
He said that those who passed on intelligence to the US military aheadof the air strike should be tried, 'as well as those who carried outthe bombing'. 
Mr Yasini demanded that 'all operations should be conducted in full co-operation with our security forces in the future'. 
'Ashamed'
Correspondents say most civilian deaths in Afghanistan are caused byTaleban fighters and other militants opposed to President Karzai and USand Nato-led forces. On Monday a suicide attack on the Indian embassyin Kabul killed 41 people, most of them civilians.

However, foreign troops have also often killed civilians, leading to an erosion of support for their presence in Afghanistan. 
Last year a US army spokesman said he was 'deeply ashamed' after USmarines killed 19 civilians near Jalalabad in Nangarhar province. 
Only a few months earlier, a Nato spokesman said that civiliancasualties were the main issue for the Nato-led force to resolve. 
'I believe the single thing that we have done wrong and we are strivingextremely hard to improve on is killing innocent civilians,' BrigRichard Nugee said. 
President Karzai has been scathing in his criticism over the deaths ofAfghan civilians, even summoning foreign commanders in May, 2007 totell them 'that the patience of the Afghan people is wearing thin withthe continued killing of innocent civilians'. 
Two days ago, the Red Cross said that at least 250 Afghan civilians hadbeen killed or wounded in insurgent attacks or military action in theprevious six days. It called on all parties to the conflict to avoidcivilian casualties.


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

I challenge you to find a modern war to this scale with fewer civilian deaths.

Sorry baddfish, but its just a fact of war that civilians are going to get killed. What seperates Americans from the terrorists is the americans dont purposely target the civilians, and the americans don't hide behind the civilians, using them as a shield. Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars are spent on technology to make weapons so accurate they can shoot missiles through windows JUST to minimize civilian casualties!? Whereas, the terrorists WANT the americans to kill the civilians.

The terrorists know if they can get enough people like you to be so upset about these losses they will win.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

this is berlin after ww2 sixty years ago. how many civilian casualties do you think this caused? now talk about how we're war criminals who don't care about collateral damage. the bombs of ww2 would be MUCH cheaper than a smart bomb or cruise missile that will take out a specific target. bombs that just fall are more cost effective than bombs that will keep to a target within ten feet. not to mention the monetary and human cost of getting the intel to use those precision weapons.

war is a trade just like any other job. and the average civilian just does not understand what war truly is. it's easy to sit at home and criticize, when you're totally safe and sound at your computer.


----------



## VRM (Jan 9, 2007)

baddfish said:


> Now. How about 'war Crimes'? Are there any? You bet!!!
> 
> US 'killed 47 Afghan civilians'


thats a good start .............sorry i have no remorse for them at all men women ,and children i think we should nuke the whole middle east. that whole part of the world is a thorn in the rest of the worlds side and it will continue to be until it is removed. sorry if i hurt feelings just been scared over the past few decades by the middle east events that never seem to end.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

sonicrx said:


> Now. How about 'war Crimes'? Are there any? You bet!!!
> 
> US 'killed 47 Afghan civilians'


thats a good start .............sorry i have no remorse for them at all men women ,and children i think we should nuke the whole middle east. that whole part of the world is a thorn in the rest of the worlds side and it will continue to be until it is removed. sorry if i hurt feelings just been scared over the past few decades by the middle east events that never seem to end.

[/quote]

that is beyond stupid. the whole entire middle east is useless and genocide is the way to go. people who think like you shouldn't be allowed to vote or procreate.


----------



## VRM (Jan 9, 2007)

mdrs said:


> Now. How about 'war Crimes'? Are there any? You bet!!!
> 
> US 'killed 47 Afghan civilians'


thats a good start .............sorry i have no remorse for them at all men women ,and children i think we should nuke the whole middle east. that whole part of the world is a thorn in the rest of the worlds side and it will continue to be until it is removed. sorry if i hurt feelings just been scared over the past few decades by the middle east events that never seem to end.

[/quote]

that is beyond stupid. the whole entire middle east is useless and genocide is the way to go. people who think like you shouldn't be allowed to vote or procreate.
[/quote]

well i don't vote as it does not matter electoral matters so if you vote shame on you if you think you count or matter. i have a kid,and if you read i say sorry if i hurt feelings it is the way i feel . my right to feel that way i will not be hung and have my feet beat with canes or my tongue cut out for it , or better yet have a bomb strapped to me so i can kill people for the hell of it.wait who does this kind of stuff oh yeah the middle east i forgot. i think i am going to go make another kid and teach him the way of genocide...or better yet you come up with a way to deal with it ... oh yeah your on a fish forum the interweb is seriuos buisness


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

sonicrx said:


> Now. How about 'war Crimes'? Are there any? You bet!!!
> 
> US 'killed 47 Afghan civilians'


thats a good start .............sorry i have no remorse for them at all men women ,and children i think we should nuke the whole middle east. that whole part of the world is a thorn in the rest of the worlds side and it will continue to be until it is removed. sorry if i hurt feelings just been scared over the past few decades by the middle east events that never seem to end.

[/quote]

that is beyond stupid. the whole entire middle east is useless and genocide is the way to go. people who think like you shouldn't be allowed to vote or procreate.
[/quote]

well i don't vote as it does not matter electoral matters so if you vote shame on you if you think you count or matter. i have a kid,and if you read i say sorry if i hurt feelings it is the way i feel . my right to feel that way i will not be hung and have my feet beat with canes or my tongue cut out for it , or better yet have a bomb strapped to me so i can kill people for the hell of it.wait who does this kind of stuff oh yeah the middle east i forgot. i think i am going to go make another kid and teach him the way of genocide...or better yet you come up with a way to deal with it ... oh yeah your on a fish forum the interweb is seriuos buisness








[/quote]

I agree with you as far as 'voting' goes. The government will stick whomever they please into office. Thats NOT the point here. Killing innocent people is. Its VERY wrong. You mention those who have 'comacozi'd' themselves. Its their form of retaliation. Its NOT for the 'hell of it'. Its being tired of being pushed around and taken advantage of. Seeing their people die for the sake of GREED! People need to start believing that there is a HELL.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

sonicrx said:


> Now. How about 'war Crimes'? Are there any? You bet!!!
> 
> US 'killed 47 Afghan civilians'


thats a good start .............sorry i have no remorse for them at all men women ,and children i think we should nuke the whole middle east. that whole part of the world is a thorn in the rest of the worlds side and it will continue to be until it is removed. sorry if i hurt feelings just been scared over the past few decades by the middle east events that never seem to end.

[/quote]

that is beyond stupid. the whole entire middle east is useless and genocide is the way to go. people who think like you shouldn't be allowed to vote or procreate.
[/quote]

well i don't vote as it does not matter electoral matters so if you vote shame on you if you think you count or matter. i have a kid,and if you read i say sorry if i hurt feelings it is the way i feel . my right to feel that way i will not be hung and have my feet beat with canes or my tongue cut out for it , or better yet have a bomb strapped to me so i can kill people for the hell of it.wait who does this kind of stuff oh yeah the middle east i forgot. i think i am going to go make another kid and teach him the way of genocide...or better yet you come up with a way to deal with it ... oh yeah your on a fish forum the interweb is seriuos buisness









[/quote]

that post was ALMOST as articulate as your original one. i didn't say that you had no right to be so completely wrong. you absolutely do. i'm just pointing out that you are, in fact, wrong.


----------



## Bawb2u (May 27, 2004)

baddfish said:


> You mention those who have *'comacozi'd'* themselves.


While I generally disagree with 99.99% of what you post, I think that you may have inadvertantly coined a perfect word to describe the complacency of most of the population of America. The obviously accidental juxtiposition of "coma" and "cozy" for the word Kamikazi (Divine Wind) actually seems to be insightfully designed to describe a populous that, as long as their own needs are fulfilled, doesn't care enough to do more than give lip service to the existence of the larger problems of the world. I will now slip back into my cozy coma.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Bawb2u said:


> You mention those who have *'comacozi'd'* themselves.


While I generally disagree with 99.99% of what you post, I think that you may have inadvertantly coined a perfect word to describe the complacency of most of the population of America. The obviously accidental juxtiposition of "coma" and "cozy" for the word Kamikazi (Divine Wind) actually seems to be insightfully designed to describe a populous that, as long as their own needs are fulfilled, doesn't care enough to do more than give lip service to the existence of the larger problems of the world. I will now slip back into my cozy coma.
[/quote]

Awesome


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

Bawb2u said:


> You mention those who have *'comacozi'd'* themselves.


*While I generally disagree with 99.99% of what you post, I think that you may have inadvertantly coined a perfect word to describe the complacency of most of the population of America. The obviously accidental juxtiposition of "coma" and "cozy" for the word Kamikazi (Divine Wind) actually seems to be insightfully designed to describe a populous that, as long as their own needs are fulfilled, doesn't care enough to do more than give lip service to the existence of the larger problems of the world. I will now slip back into my cozy coma.*
[/quote]






















amazing.


----------



## KrBjostad (Jun 21, 2008)

sonicrx said:


> Now. How about 'war Crimes'? Are there any? You bet!!!
> 
> US 'killed 47 Afghan civilians'


thats a good start .............sorry i have no remorse for them at all men women ,and children i think we should nuke the whole middle east. that whole part of the world is a thorn in the rest of the worlds side and it will continue to be until it is removed. sorry if i hurt feelings just been scared over the past few decades by the middle east events that never seem to end.

[/quote]

that is beyond stupid. the whole entire middle east is useless and genocide is the way to go. people who think like you shouldn't be allowed to vote or procreate.
[/quote]

well i don't vote as it does not matter electoral matters so if you vote shame on you if you think you count or matter. i have a kid,and if you read i say sorry if i hurt feelings it is the way i feel . my right to feel that way i will not be hung and have my feet beat with canes or my tongue cut out for it , or better yet have a bomb strapped to me so i can kill people for the hell of it.wait who does this kind of stuff oh yeah the middle east i forgot. i think i am going to go make another kid and teach him the way of genocide...or better yet you come up with a way to deal with it ... oh yeah your on a fish forum the interweb is seriuos buisness








[/quote]

We could have a chance to throw out the electoral college, but a majority of the population would have to vote. As it is we're not even close. If your gonna side with the people that won't educate themselves on whats going on or try to help your own country or yourself then you should be wary of posting your political positions.

Closed minds should come with closed mouths.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

sonicrx said:


> *Closed minds should come with closed mouths.*


i totally agree.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

ONLY something to think about.

One day I hopped in a taxi, and we took off for the airport. We were
driving in the right lane, when suddenly a black car jumped out of a
parking space right in front of us. My taxi driver slammed on his
brakes, skidded, and missed the other car by just inches! The driver of
the other car whipped his head around and started yelling and cursing at us.

My taxi driver just smiled and waved at the guy. And I mean, he was really
friendly. So I asked, "Why did you just do that? That guy almost
ruined your car and sent us to the hospital!" That is when my taxi
driver taught me what I now call, "The Law of the Garbage Truck."

He explained that many people are like garbage trucks. They run around
full of garbage, full of frustration, full of anger, and full of
disappointment. As their garbage piles up, they need a place to dump it,
and sometimes they'll dump it on you. Don't take it personally.
Just smile, wave, wish them well, and move on. Don't take their garbage
and spread it to other people at work, at home, or on the streets.

The bottom line is that successful people do not let garbage trucks take
over their day. Life's too short to wake up in the morning with regrets,
so... "Love the people who treat you right. Love and PRAY for the ones who
don't." Life is ten percent what you make it and ninety percent how you
take it.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Something else to think about!

Some 140 federal and State Attorneys could prosecute Bush for Murder

by Sherwood Ross

Global Research, July 17, 2008

President Bush "beyond all reasonable doubt" is responsible for all the murders of American troops killed in Iraq and could be prosecuted by any of 140 Federal and State legal authorities, famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi says.

Bugliosi said the president is guilty of "the most serious crime ever committed in American history&#8230;knowingly and deliberately taking this country to war in Iraq under false pretenses," killing 4,000 GIs, seriously wounding 30,000 more, and killing 100,000 Iraqis in the process.

While a federal prosecution by the U.S. Attorney General in Washington, or any of the 93 U.S. attorneys throughout the country "would be the easiest procedure," Bugliosi says, any of the 50 State attorneys-general also "could bring a murder charge against Bush for any soldiers from that state&#8230;who lost their lives fighting Bush's war."

Writing in "The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder"(Vanguard Press), Bugliosi says Bush's lies to the public constituted "overt acts" and their broadcast nationally via the media are a basis for prosecution in every state. Charges could include murder as well as conspiracy to commit murder, the veteran prosecutor said.

In his career in the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office, Bugliosi successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, including 21 murder trials without a single loss, according to a biographical sketch in the book. His most famous trial, the Charles Manson murder case, became the basis of his classic, "Helter Skelter," said to be "the biggest selling true-crime book in publishing history."

"Bush and his gang of criminals were constantly telling Americans that Hussein constituted an imminent threat to the security of this country, but they kept the truth from the American people that their CIA was telling them the exact opposite, that Hussein and Iraq were not an imminent threat to this country," Bugliosi writes.

In his speech of October 7, 2002, in Cincinnati, Bush said "The Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gasses and atomic weapons&#8230;" even though a CIA report dated October 1 gave Bush notice that "the CIA did not consider Hussein an imminent threat to this nation," Bugliosi pointed out.

As Bush did not act in self-defense, he did so with "a criminal state of mind," with "criminal intent," Bugliosi says, thus, "every killing of an American soldier that took place during Bush's war was an 'unlawful killing' and murder."

Bugliosi explains that a person is guilty of a crime under the theory of aiding and abetting if he instigates an act that leads to a crime. Bush's invasion brought into existence the Iraqi opposition and his action caused Iraqis to kill American soldiers&#8230;" Besides, unless Bush intended to have a war without casualties, "which is nonsensical on its face," Bugliosi says, "he did, in fact, specifically intend to have American soldiers killed."

"In my opinion," Bugliosi continues, "there certainly is more than enough evidence against Bush to justify bringing him to trial and letting an American jury decide whether or not he is guilty of murder, and if so, what the appropriate punishment should be." Based on the evidence the author spreads out over 344 pages, he feels convinced "a competent prosecutor could convict Bush of murder."

Bugliosi points out that he convicted Charles Manson of the seven Tate-La Bianca murders even though Manson did not participate in any of the killings, nor was he present at the time. He was able to secure Manson's conviction, he noted, because of the "vicarious liability rule of conspiracy, which provides that each member of a conspiracy is criminally responsible for all crimes committed by his coconspirators or innocent agents of the conspirators to further the object of the conspiracy."

Among the Iraq war conspirators Bugliosi identified are Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Bugliosi said he knew less about former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's culpability but that a prosecutor could make that determination by obtaining documents and grand jury testimony from key people. The same procedure could also be followed in the case of former White House advisor Karl Rove, the attorney wrote.

Bugliosi charged Bush "is a grotesque anomaly and aberration. No president has ever done what he did and it is not likely this nation will see a president do what Bush did for centuries to come, if ever. At least we know that in the previous three centuries there was no one like this monstrous individual."

"I would be more than happy, if requested," Bugliosi continued, "to consult with any prosecutor who decides to prosecute Bush in the preparation of additional cross-examination questions for him to face on the witness stand."

Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based publicist and columnist. He formerly reported for the Chicago Daily News and several wire services and has contributed to national magazines. Reach him at [email protected]

Sherwood Ross is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Sherwood Ross


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Yo! The "MEK" (a terrorist group, in the fullest sense of the word) are our "buddies" now just like Al-Qaeda used to be. Congress just authorized $400,000,000.00 to "destabilize" the government of Iran with the assistance of this group. Remember, when we do it, it's "covert operations". When somebody else does it, it's "terrorism". Like the following article says, MEK was involved in taking American hostages for 444 days back in '79. Most Americans don't know what's going on "behind closed doors" in OUR name. Even when it comes back to "bite us", like 9/11. We're being led to believe that these groups just woke up one morning and decided to attack the most powerful country in the world for no reason.

Acts of War: The war between the United States and Iran is on.

by Scott Ritter

Global Research, July 29, 2008 
truthdig.com

Email this article to a friend
Print this article

American taxpayer dollars are being used, with the permission of Congress, to fund activities that result in Iranians being killed and wounded, and Iranian property destroyed. This wanton violation of a nation's sovereignty would not be tolerated if the tables were turned and Americans were being subjected to Iranian-funded covert actions that took the lives of Americans, on American soil, and destroyed American property and livelihood.

Many Americans remain unaware of what is transpiring abroad in their name. Many of those who are cognizant of these activities are supportive of them, an outgrowth of misguided sentiment which holds Iran accountable for a list of grievances used by the U.S. government to justify the ongoing global war on terror. Iran, we are told, is not just a nation pursuing nuclear weapons, but is the largest state sponsor of terror in the world today.

Much of the information behind this is being promulgated by Israel, which has a vested interest in seeing Iran neutralized as a potential threat. But Israel is joined by another source, even more puzzling in terms of its broad-based acceptance in the world of American journalism: the Mujahadeen-e Khalk, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group sworn to overthrow the theocracy in Tehran. The CIA today provides material support to the actions of the MEK inside Iran.

The recent spate of explosions in Iran, including a particularly devastating "accident" involving a military convoy transporting ammunition in downtown Tehran, appears to be linked to an MEK operation; its agents working inside munitions manufacturing plants deliberately are committing acts of sabotage which lead to such explosions. If CIA money and planning support are behind these actions, the agency's backing constitutes nothing less than an act of war on the part of the United States against Iran.

The MEK traces its roots back to the CIA-orchestrated overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeg. Formed among students and intellectuals, the MEK emerged in the 1960s as a serious threat to the reign of Reza Shah Pahlevi.

Facing brutal repression from the Shah's secret police, the SAVAK, the MEK became expert at blending into Iranian society, forming a cellular organizational structure which made it virtually impossible to eradicate. The MEK membership also became adept at gaining access to positions of sensitivity and authority.

When the Shah was overthrown in 1978, the MEK played a major role and for a while worked hand in glove with the Islamic Revolution in crafting a post-Shah Iran. In 1979 the MEK had a central role in orchestrating the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and holding 55 Americans hostage for 444 days.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

'POWER' to the people!









Jurors' Handbook
A Citizens Guide to Jury Duty.....Yo! This is me Art! These blue words below may not work if you click on them, but just Google "Jury Nullification" when you get a chance. It's a Top Secret Constitutional Right!

Jump to info on Jury Nullification.....YOU HAVE THE POWER!!!!

Did you know that you qualify for another, much more powerful vote than the one which you cast on election day? This opportunity comes when you are selected for jury duty, a position of honor for over 700 years.
The principle of a Common Law Jury or Trial by the Country was first established on June 15, 1215 at Runnymede, England when King John signed the Magna Carta, or Great Charter of our Liberties. It created the basis for our Constitutional, system of Justice.

JURY POWER in the system of checks and balances:
In a Constitutional system of justice, such as ours, there is a judicial body with more power than Congress, the President, or even the Supreme Court. Yes, the trial jury protected under our Constitution has more power than all these government officials.

This is because it has the final veto power over all "acts of the legislature" that may come to be called "laws".

In fact, the power of jury nullification predates our Constitution. In November of 1734, a printer named John Peter Zenger was arrested for seditious libel against his Majesty's government. At that time, a law of the Colony of New York forbid any publication without prior government approval. Freedom of the press was not enjoyed by the early colonialists! Zenger, however, defied this censorship and published articles strongly critical of New York colonial rule.

When brought to trial in August of 1735, Zenger admitted publishing the offending articles, but argued that the truth of the facts stated justified their publication. The judge instructed the jury that truth is not justification for libel. Rather, truth makes the libel more vicious, for public unrest is more likely to follow true, rather than false claims of bad governance. And since the defendant had admitted to the "fact" of publication, only a question of "law" remained.

Then, as now, the judge said the "issue of law" was for the court to determine, and he instructed the jury to find the defendant guilty. It took only ten minutes for the jury to disregard the judge's instructions on the law and find Zenger NOT GUILTY.

That is the power of the jury at work; the power to decide the issues of law under which the defendant is charged, as well as the facts. In our system of checks and balances, the jury is our final check, the people's last safegard against unjust law and tyranny.


----------



## KrBjostad (Jun 21, 2008)

aglets for all!


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

"The main political problem is how to prevent
the police power from becoming tyrannical.
This is the meaning of all the struggles for liberty."
-- Ludwig Von Mises
(1881-1973) Economist and social philosopher
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/L...ises.Quote.3131

"It is, therefore, a fact of law and of practical necessity that
individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and
that of their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized
for what it is: only an auxiliary general deterrent."
-- Peter Alan Kasler
Author
Source: SELF-RELIANCE FOR SELF-PROTECTION (Sonoma, CA, Mesquite Mountain Press, 1991)
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/P...sler.Quote.D902

"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is it's justice; that is it's morality."
-- Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
(1809-1865) French mutualist political philosopher
Source: The General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century, 1851


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

ok baddfish? whats the relevance of those quotes. You support anarchy?


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Not at all man. Just saying it (we) SHOULDN'T be abused.


----------



## mori0174 (Mar 31, 2004)

"It is, therefore, a fact of law and of practical necessity that
individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and
that of their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized
for what it is: only an auxiliary general deterrent."

Posting this quote requires something called 'context'. If he says 'it is therefore', then he has already stated something that he believes to be fact. This quote can easily be taken out of context without the words leading up to the conclusive statement. I know you can't provide this text because you copied and pasted the whole thing, but you should actually read and critically think about your copy and paste posts if you want them to be taken seriously.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Its actually very simple to understand. Its simply like adding sausage to a pizza!


----------



## mori0174 (Mar 31, 2004)

baddfish said:


> Its actually very simple to understand. Its simply like adding sausage to a pizza!


Look up the word 'context' if you cannot understand the point of my post.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

WOW!!! Must be nice!!! Where is THEIR "sacrifice"? Support the troops, huh? What a JOKE!!!

Shell reports 33% rise in profit

Thursday, July 31, 2008
Royal Dutch Shell, Europe's largest oil company, reported a 33 percent increase in second-quarter profit Thursday, helped by a higher oil price even as production declined.
Like smaller rival BP earlier this week, Shell profited from an oil price that almost doubled in the second quarter from the year earlier but a 13 percent drop from a record on July 11 raised some concern among investors about whether oil companies can keep up the pace of earnings growth.

Exxon posts record $11.68 billion profit

CNN
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Exxon Mobil once again reported the largest quarterly profit in U.S. history Thursday, posting net income of $11.68 billion on revenue of $138 billion in the second quarter.
That profit works out to $1,485.55 a second.
That barely beat the previous corporate record of $11.66 billion, also set by Exxon in the fourth quarter of 2007.


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

baddfish said:


> WOW!!! Must be nice!!! Where is THEIR "sacrifice"? Support the troops, huh? What a JOKE!!!
> 
> Shell reports 33% rise in profit
> 
> ...


Have they ever actually said that they support the troops?


----------



## mori0174 (Mar 31, 2004)

While you are looking up 'context' why dont you hit 'capitalism' as well? You wont even have to leave the 'C' section if you are using a paper version.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Subject: Think about it! REALLY. THINK!!!

The OPEC
minister will look you (AMERICA) in the eyes and state:

' We are at war with you
infidels. Have been since

the embargo in the 1970s. You are so arrogant
you

haven't even recognized it. You have more missiles,

bombs, and
technology; so we are fighting with the

best weapon we have and
extracting on a net basis

about $700 billion/year out of your economy. We
will

destroy you! Death to the infidels!

While I am
here I would like to thank you for the

following: Not
developing your 250-300 year supply of oil

shale and tar sands. We know
if you did this, it

would create millions of jobs for US
citizens,

expand your engineering capabilities, and keep
the

wealth in the U.S. instead of sending it to us to

finance our
war against you bastards.

Thanks for limiting defense department
purchases of

oil sands from your neighbors to the north. We
love

it when you confuse your allies.

Thanks for over regulating
every segment of your

economy and thus delaying, by decades,
the

development of alternate fuel technologies.

Thanks for
limiting drilling off your coasts, in

Alaska, and anywhere there is a
bug, bird, fish, or

plant that might be inconvenienced. Better that
your

people suffer! Glad to see our lobbying efforts have

been so
effective.

Corn based Ethanol. Praise Allah for this sham

program!
Perhaps you will destroy yourself from the

inside with theses types of
policies. This is a gift

from Allah, praise his name! We never would
have

thought of this one! This is better than when you

pay your
farmers NOT TO GROW FOOD. Have them use

more energy to create less
energy, and

simultaneously drive food prices through the
roof.

Thank you U.S. Congress!!!!

And finally, we appreciate you
letting us fleece

you without end. You will be glad to know we
have

been accumulating shares in your banks, real estate,

and
publicly held companies. We also finance a good

portion of your debt and
now manipulate your

markets, currency, and economies to our
benefit.

THANK YOU AMERICA ! HAHAHA! What a JOKE! But,,,,, Its ALL true.


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

might want to touch up your copy and pasting next time. ^^^
but very good. way to directly steal other peoples ideas and opinions and views and paste it here as if its your own. very insightful and interesting to read whats not yours


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Never said it was mine.







Just read and learn. READ and LEARN!


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

OK guys...I am getting tired of the constant posts about how baddfish will read something...and then copy it and post it here for others to read. What is wrong with that?

Apparently I am missing something because I didnt realize bullsnake took all the pictures he posts....or created all the gif's he posts. I also didnt realize all the avatars on this site are original pieces of work.

Next time someone wants to bitch and moan about a member copying and pasting something here for the other members....take a good look at your body of work and you better make sure it is all original. If it isnt....you might want to just keep that comment to yourself.

And for those of you that are so offended that he will post an article and not offer an opinion.....get over it. What baddfish is posting is pretty onesided...so it isnt like people cant figure out where he is coming from. If you dont want to read what he posts.....have a ounce of will power and move on to the next thread. I would rather read a post with some substance...no matter who the author....then the same old complaints about what baddfish posts. Personally....I dont get it. If I read the first few lines of a post and it doesnt hold my attention....I move on. If it does...then I will continue to read. It is that simple.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Well! Yet another EXCELLENT source of information about our money system. WTF???. Read the paragraphs below. I may have to buy this book.

EXPLODING THE MYTHS ABOUT MONEY

Our money system is not what we have been led to believe. The creation of money has been 'privatized,' or taken over by a private money cartel. Except for coins, all of our money is now created as loans advanced by private banking institutions - including the private Federal Reserve.

Banks create the principal but not the interest to service their loans. To find the interest, new loans must continually be taken out, expanding the money supply, inflating prices - and robbing you of the value of your money.

Not only is virtually the entire money supply created privately by banks, but a mere handful of very big banks is responsible for a massive investment scheme known as 'derivatives,' which now tallies in at hundreds of trillions of dollars.

The banking system has been contrived so that these big banks always get bailed out by the taxpayers from their risky ventures, but the scheme has reached its mathematical limits. There isn't enough money in the entire global economy to bail out the banks from a massive derivatives default today.

When the investors realize that the 'insurance' against catastrophe that they have purchased in the form of derivatives is worthless, they are liable to jump ship and bring the whole shaky edifice crashing down.

Web of Debt unravels the deceptions in our money scheme and presents a crystal clear picture of the financial abyss towards which we are heading. Then it explores a workable alternative, one that was tested in colonial America and is grounded in the best of American economic thought, including the writings of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. If you care about financial security, your own or the nation's, you should read this book.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

The 'taxi driver' threat!

Just got a heads up from a fellow Internet 'freedom fighter' about this new documentary (Oscar winner for Best Documentary), 'Taxi to the Dark Side'. They have trailers on Youtube. HBO bought the TV rights, as well as the Discovery channel. It will come out next month and should be a must see. It's about a taxi driver who was detained as a suspect in our 'War on Terror' and, five days later, was dead from being tortured.

Oops, not tortured, sorry. 'Intense interrogation techniques' is the politically correct term. Bush is seen talking in the movie about the Geneva Convention's restrictions on torture. One restriction.....there will be no 'outrage on human dignity.' He claims this is very 'vague.' Oh, is it? Is rape an outrage? Is waterboarding? Electric shocks on the genitals? Days of 'sensory deprivation?' He can't be that dumb. You want a good way to determine what torture is? How about being the victim of it......and then answering the question? Is it 'vague' now?

If these methods aren't that serious, Bush should volunteer to experience them. Or, why doesn't someone in our corporate media ask him whether this means that it's okay for our adversaries to use these techniques on our troops if they were to be 'detained.' Or, is it the usual 'we can, but they can't' baloney. This administration claims that by inventing the term 'enemy combatant', they can circumvent international law and use torture as a tool. What if every country invented their own term........'member of an enemy force', 'supporter of an foreign threat', or, just plain 'asshole' (this would cover a wide range of individuals!).

Are we that distracted? We can't 'see' what's happening? A few days ago, after the Russian 'invasion' of Georgia, John McCain said, '....in the 21st Century, no nation should invade another nation.' Bush echoed those sentiments. WHAT?????? We invaded TWO countries in this century (and several others in the last century) and he has the audacity to say this? Why doesn't anybody call him on this? Unbelievable!









When??? Will we wake up???

The rest of the world seems to have a better idea of what's happening than us.

This Time, the World Is Not Buying It

by Paul Craig Roberts

Global Research, August 22, 2008 
Antiwar.com

The success of the Bush Regime's propaganda, lies, and deception with gullible and inattentive Americans since 9/11 has made it difficult for intelligent, aware people to be optimistic about the future of the United States. For almost 8 years the US media has served as Ministry of Propaganda for a war criminal regime. Americans incapable of thinking for themselves, reading between the lines, or accessing foreign media on the Internet have been brainwashed.

As the Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, said, it is easy to deceive a people. You just tell them they have been attacked and wave the flag.

It certainly worked with Americans.

The gullibility and unconcern of the American people has had many victims. There are 1.25 million dead Iraqis. There are 4 million displaced Iraqis. No one knows how many are maimed and orphaned.

Iraq is in ruins, its infrastructure destroyed by American bombs, missiles, and helicopter gunships.

We do not know the death toll in Afghanistan, but even the American puppet regime protests the repeated killings of women and children by US and NATO troops.

We don't know what the death toll would be in Iran if Darth Cheney and the neocons succeed in their plot with Israel to bomb Iran, perhaps with nuclear weapons.

What we do know is that all this murder and destruction has no justification and is evil. It is the work of evil men who have no qualms about lying and deceiving in order to kill innocent people to achieve their undeclared agenda.

That such evil people have control over the United States government and media damns the American public for eternity.

America will never recover from the shame and dishonor heaped upon her by the neoconned Bush Regime.

The success of the neocon propaganda has been so great that the opposition party has not lifted a finger to rein in the Bush Regime's criminal actions. Even Obama, who promises "change" is too intimidated by the neocon's success in brainwashing the American population to do what his supporters hoped he would do and lead us out of the shame in which the neoconned Bush Regime has imprisoned us.

This about sums up the pessimistic state in which I existed prior to the go-ahead given by the Bush Regime to its puppet in Georgia to ethnically cleanse South Ossetia of Russians in order to defuse the separatist movement. The American media, aka, the Ministry of Lies and Deceit, again accommodated the criminal Bush Regime and proclaimed "Russian invasion" to cover up the ethnic cleansing of Russians in South Ossetia by the Georgian military assault.

Only this time, the rest of the world didn't buy it. The many years of lies - 9/11, Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda connections, yellowcake, anthrax attack, Iranian nukes, "the United States doesn't torture," the bombings of weddings, funerals, and children's soccer games, Abu Ghraib, renditions, Guantanamo, various fabricated "terrorist plots," the determined assault on civil liberties - have taken their toll on American credibility. No one outside America any longer believes the US media or the US government.

The rest of the world reported the facts - an assault on Russian civilians by American- and Israeli-trained and -equipped Georgian troops.

The Bush Regime, overcome by hubris, expected Russia to accept this act of American hegemony. But the Russians did not, and the Georgian military was sent fleeing for its life.

The neoconned Republican response to the Russian failure to follow the script and to be intimidated by the "unipower" was so imbecilic that it shattered the brainwashing to which Americans had succumbed.

McCain declared: "In the 21st century nations don't invade other nations." Imagine the laughs Jon Stewart will get out of this on the Daily Show. In the early years of the 21st century the United States has already invaded two countries and has been beating the drums for attacking a third. President Bush, the chief invader of the 21st century, echoed McCain's claim that nations don't invade other nations.

This dissonant claim shocked even brainwashed Americans, as readers' emails reveal. If in the 21st century countries don't invade other countries, what is Bush doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and what are the naval armadas and propaganda arrayed against Iran about?

Have two of the worst warmongers of modern times - Bush and McCain - called off the US/Israeli attack on Iran? If McCain is elected president, is he going to pull US troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan as "nations don't invade other nations," or is President Bush going to beat him to it?

We all know the answer.

The two stooges are astonished that the Americans have taught hegemony to Russians, who were previously operating, naively perhaps, on the basis of good will.

Suddenly the Western Europeans have realized that being allied with the United States is like holding a tiger by the tail. No European country wants to be hurled into war with Russia. Germany, France, and Italy must be thanking God they blocked Georgia's membership in NATO.

The Ukraine, where a sick nationalism has taken hold funded by the neocon National Endowment for Democracy, will be the next conflict between American pretensions and Russia. Russia is being taught by the neocons that freeing the constituent parts of its empire has not resulted in their independence but in their absorption into the American Empire.

Unless enough Americans can overcome their brainwashed state and the rigged Diebold voting machines, turn out the imbecilic Republicans and hold the neoconservatives accountable for their crimes against humanity, a crazed neocon US government will provoke nuclear war with Russia.

The neoconservatives represent the greatest danger ever faced by the United States and the world. Humanity has no greater enemy.

Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Paul Craig Roberts

I guess we need 'smarter' bombs!!!

Yesterday, U.S. led coalition forces killed 76 Afghan civilians. 19 were women, 7 were men and the rest were children under 15 years of age. Maybe, our 'smart' bombs aren't as smart as we think. I suspect that soon, if this keeps happening, Afghanistan will run out of civilians (like Iraq) and everyone that gets killed will be categorized as 'militants, Al Qaeda operatives, Taliban, extremists, foreign fighters, terrorists, insurgents, muhjadeen, jihadists, Islamic radicals, muslim fanatics, etc., etc., etc. Why not throw in 'rabble-rousers and malcontents' for good measure. This way, we won't look so bad when these 'evildoers' (as our fearless president describes those who don't agree with us) get blown to pieces.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Just a question...

I read a quote once.....'Those who know the least, obey the best.' Many Americans have no idea how the world works beyond our borders. Either, economically, politically or culturally. Uninformed and ignorant of history, they can be easily manipulated to believe the unbelievable. Only one in five college students can find Iraq on a world map! And that's AFTER the war started!

In Europe, they joke that 'war is God's way of teaching Americans geography.' Again, I'm not (in any way, shape or form) claiming to have a monopoly on the truth. I just READ! I think I can read better than I can drink beer. THAT'S saying alot! An informed citizenry is the only way we can enjoy a TRUE democracy. One that is beneficial to all of it's citizens instead of a select few. The profit-driven corporate media feeds us a constant flow of useless information. Information we accept as "truth" because of our inability to think independently.

Pre-packaged information and bright imagery can get us to buy products we don't really need. They can get us to pay a dollar or more for a 20 oz. bottle of water!!! Water that, so far, I can drink from the faucet. They must be laughing their asses off! How easily they can get us to believe in a false and artificial realty. In order for our republic to survive, we need to think critically and ask the right questions concerning this government's past and current foreign policy which affects our daily lives. In a free society, one shouldn't fear questioning the motives of our elected leaders. That's the American way!

P.S. To show how well we've been conditioned, while driving back from work, my girl and i drove past this gas station. The price of the gas we buy was $4.19 a gallon. She said, "Look! $4.19 a gallon! I got to fill up here tomorrow." They got us to believe that $4.19 a gallon is cheap. TODAY, it is cheaper when compared to other gas stations. However, our short memory makes us forget that we used to pay $1.56 a gallon back before Cheney (our vice-president) had that secret meeting with oil company executives to discuss national energy policy. Not three months later, gas prices began to skyrocket to the level of today. Chi-ching!!!!

Has America become Fascist?
by Sherwood Ross
http://globalresearch.ca/, August 1, 2008

If it hasn't gone the way of Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany, it sure is teetering on the brink. America is a nation in deepening crisis, a nation whose leaders repeatedly plunge their citizens into, and make them pay for, serial wars abroad, while stealing their liberties at home. USA has become a country that trashes its citizens (New Orleans), tortures its enemies (Abu Ghraib), threatens other nations with nuclear fire (Iran), flouts international treaties (UN Charter Iraq), and spies on (FISA), and intimidates, its critics.

Americans that can clearly see the totalitarian machinations of Vladimir Putin in Russia and Hu Jintao in China are blind to the fascism threatening to envelop them as well.
Webster's defines fascism as 'a totalitarian governmental system led by a dictator and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism, militarism, and often racism.' A comparison of 20th century fascist and communist regimes with President Bush's USA indicates the machinery for a full-blown totalitarian takeover is now in place, even if no coup has occurred.

As Naomi Wolf writes in 'The End of America' (Chelsea Green) the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill's Section 333 allows the president 'to declare martial law and take charge of the National Guard troops without the permission of a governor when 'public order' has been lost' and to 'send the guard into our streets during a public health emergency, terrorist attack or 'other condition.''

The enabling crowbar was the Military Commissions Act of 2006. It gives the president authority to setup his own system for bringing alien combatants to trial while denying them protection of the Geneva Conventions. 'The president and his lawyers now claim the authority to designate any American citizen he chooses as being an 'enemy combatant,'' Wolf writes of power usurpation that characterized the post-World War One epoch in Europe and Asia.

Thus, Congress has empowered Bush just as Germany's Reichstag empowered Hitler, Wolf writes, recalling Hitler's boast, 'Democracy will be overthrown with the tools of democracy.' Hitler's Interior Minister issued Clause 2 that gave police the power to hold people in custody indefinitely and without a court order, powers the U.S. Congress today has conferred upon 'The Decider' in the White House. Mussolini used the less grandiose 'Il Duce' or 'The Leader.'

According to Michael Ratner, director of the Center For Constitutional Rights, New York, 'the president can designate people enemy combatants and detain them for whatever reason he wants...there are no charges and prisoners have no lawyers, no family visits, no court reviews, no rights to anything, and no right to release until the mythical end to the 'war on terror.''

Wolf writes that dictators justify their usurpation of domestic liberties by raising the alarm of 'terrorist' threats. Stalin, for example, used this very term in 1934 when he warned his public of a world-wide conspiracy by capitalists to overthrow the Soviet state. If there have been no mass arrests of native-born

Americans it is only because the president has not chosen to exercise this authority. If you think it can't happen to you, recall that in September of 2003 the Army arrested 36-year-old American-born Muslim chaplain James Yee, a West Point graduate,allegedly for 'espionage and possibly treason'---but more likely for calling for better conditions for Gitmo inmates.Wolf wrote:

'He was blindfolded; his ears were blocked; he was manacled and then put into solitary confinement for 76 days; forbidden mail, television, or anything to read except the Koran. His family was not allowed to visit him. His lawyers were told he would face execution. (But)Within six months, the U.S. government had dropped all criminal charges against Yee.'Yes, just as it has dropped charges against hundreds of Guantanamo prisoners earlier, men labeled by former Defense Secretary Rumsfeldas 'the worst of the worst' but against the overwhelming majority of whom the Bush regime apparently had no case whatever!

The treatment Yee got is typical of those who run afoul of the Bush regime: torture first, trial after if there is a trial. And since his release, Yee has been denied his free speech right to discuss his ordeal---gagged by the Pentagon. Perhaps most incredible, even if a Guantanamo prisoner should be found innocent, the Pentagon says he might not be released anyway. This echoes Stalin's practice of re-arresting Gulag prisoners after they had done their time. At one point, Stalin had eight million souls behind bars, even exceeding President Bush, currently the world's Incarcerator-In-Chief.

Author Wolf says another danger flag is the creation of paramilitary groups, 'aggressive men who have no clear, accountable relationship to the government or the party seeking power. Mussolini had the blackshirts; Hitler the brownshirts; but whatever their dress, they were thugs. Wolf says that Moycock, N.C.-based Blackwater Worldwide stands ready to deploy its unaccountable private army (35,000 men) in the U.S.---in the aftermath of natural disasters, and also in cases of 'national emergency'.

With at least a half billion dollars in government contracts, 'Blackwater is the world's largest private security force, works closely with Halliburton,and is available for action outside the scrutiny of Congress, Wolf writes. The outfit raked in $73 million for patrolling the streets of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. And Blackwater subcontractor Red Tactica, recruits former Chilean commandos, men described by one Chilean sociologist that are 'valued for their expertise in kidnapping, torturing and killing defenseless civilians,' Wolf wrote.

Besides creating such 'security' forces, dictators create secret prisons, as Bush has done, ranging from prison ships in the Indian Ocean to dungeons in Poland, where they can hide them from Red Cross scrutiny, as the CIA has done.'We should worry about the men held at Guantanamo because history shows that stripping prisoners of their rights is intoxicating not only to leaders but to functionaries at every level of society,'Wolf writes.

'Gitmo' is also an interrogation camp, an operation 'that is completely and flatly illegal and outlawed by the Geneva Conventions in 1949, she points out. Stalin also employed torture and in 1937 actually legalized its use in Soviet prisons. When he received his infamous 'albums' with the names of those to be executed and imprisoned, next to some names he often wrote: 'Beat! Beat! Beat!' And only months after taking power, Hitler 'established a network of illegitimate prisons where torture took place' and where guards could murder inmates with 'no chance of being punished, Wolf said. And like Stalin, The Decider has signaled his henchmen beatings are now the American Way.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Bomb's away!

This government's line of thinking must be..."Kill'em all and let God sort them out."

"A United Nations team has found 'convincing evidence' that 90 civilians, including 60 children, were killed in US-led air strikes last week, the body's representative in Afghanistan said Tuesday. The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) human rights team was sent to the western province of Herat after local claims that scores of civilians were killed in Friday's strikes."

People need to realize that there IS a living GOD. And, as the saying goes, PAYBACK IS A BITCH!!!


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Yesterday, in the city (chicago) that bans handguns, we've had a Vietnam veteran shot in the back. Four people were wounded in three separate shootings and two gunman walked into a daycare center (where little children are watched while their parents go to work) and robbed it. Thank God, no children were hurt. That's just yesterday!

Now Texas, like the state of Colorado, will allow teachers to carry concealed weapons in the class. It's a shame that it has gotten to this, but what can you do? A policeman in every classroom? How much will that cost? You can pass laws banning guns all you want (there are over 20,000 of them in the U.S.) and unarmed people will still be killed. At least, let's even the odds. Of course, there is no guarantee that by carrying a gun you will be safe. It will just increase your odds of surviving an armed attack.

I'd take those odds. There are those that say, 'What if you have an accidental gun death in the home'? True. Of course, if you have a gun in the home the chances of an accidental discharge are higher. You just have to be safer....like when you drive a car. Every time you get in a car, you may get in an accident and kill somebody or yourself. EVERY TIME! Or, if you ride a bike, you may get yourself killed. Or a train. Or a plane. Or a skateboard. Or a snowmobile. You name it.

Again, more children die from bicycle accidents than gun accidents every single year since they've kept track. You'd save more children's lives by banning bikes than guns. Isn't that what we want to do....save the lives of children? Supposedly! We've been conditioned to believe that a person who has a gun is an 'evil' person. Not so. Soon, the city of Chicago will be taken to court about it's handgun ban. I can't wait. Some suburbs of Chicago (Evanston, Wilmette and Morton Grove) have already repealed their ban.

Mayor Daley, in Chicago, had the audacity to say he will fight the Supreme Court's recent ruling allowing handguns in the home. He forgets.....he's JUST A MAYOR, NOT A KING! He's Mayor Daley, not King Daley. The highest court in the land has ruled!! Easy for him to keep trying to ban guns. He's surrounded by armed guards everywhere he goes.

Like I've always thought......he should disarm his bodyguards and, if he gets into trouble, DIAL 911 JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO! Rosie O'Donnell has been an anti-gun activist for many years. YET!!!!!! Being very rich, she has employed an armed guard to escort her children to school and back!! Too bad we aren't all as rich as her so we could do the same, huh? Soooo hypocritical. Bang, bang! Or, if you really like guns, BOOM! BOOM!


----------



## Bawb2u (May 27, 2004)

What's the matter. nobody responding in your Soapbox?


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

ill respond to this in the simplest terms.

if guns are made illegal, the only ones who will NOT have them are law abiding citizens.

its illegal to speed, people still speed, its illegal to sell drugs, people still sell drugs, its illegal to drive drunk, people still drive drunk.

the only ones who will be effected by a gun ban are homeowners, and every day law abiding people that would use guns for good or security. and it is a guarantee when guns are outlawed, domestic home invasions dramatically increase. theres proof everywhere this has no good effect on anyone but criminals


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Bawb2u said:


> What's the matter. nobody responding in your *Soapbox*?


Good call, let's merge this one


----------



## KrBjostad (Jun 21, 2008)

wtf is waterboarding? sounds fun!


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Bawb2u said:


> What's the matter. nobody responding in your Soapbox?


Is that you playing the fiddle BooBoo??? Ill bet a paycheck it is!!!







Crash and BURN!!!









Oh, by the way. Dont need your (or anyones) responces BooBoo. Just make sure you READ what i post! Its a learning process but you'll all eventually get there! The liiving GOD is my witness.


----------



## VRM (Jan 9, 2007)

baddfish said:


> What's the matter. nobody responding in your Soapbox?


Is that you playing the fiddle BooBoo??? Ill bet a paycheck it is!!!







Crash and BURN!!!









Oh, by the way. Dont need your (or anyones) responces BooBoo. Just make sure you READ what i post! Its a learning process but you'll all eventually get there! The liiving GOD is my witness.
[/quote]

i will say i am not a fan of guns period,but it should be my right to own one if i wanted to. daley is a strange bird man. a friend of opurs is on the cpd ,and has met him several times. lets just say he is not the standup guy he wants everyone to think he is. as for bawb2u judging by the motion in you emoticon you need to find yourself a girl


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

you frighten me sometimes badd


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

She jumped up as soon as she saw the surgeon come out of the operating room. She said: 'How is my little boy? Is he going to be all right? When can I see him?'

The surgeon said, 'I'm sorry. We did all we could, but your boy didn't make it.'

Sally said, 'Why do little children get cancer? Doesn't God care any more? Where were you, God, when my son needed you?'

The surgeon asked, 'Would you like some time alone with your son? One of the nurses will be out in a few minutes, before he's transported to the university.'

Sally asked the nurse to stay with her while she said good bye to son. She ran her fingers lovingly through his thick red curly hair. 'Would you like a lock of his hair?' the nurse asked. Sally nodded yes. The nurse cut a lock of the boy's hair, put it in a plastic bag and handed it to Sally.

The mother said, 'It was Jimmy's idea to donate his body to the University for Study. He said it might help somebody else. 'I said no at first, but Jimmy said, 'Mom, I won't be using it after I die. Maybe it will help some other little boy spend one more day with his Mom.' She went on, 'My Jimmy had a heart of gold. Always thinking of someone else. Always wanting to help others if he could.'

Sally walked out of Children's Mercy Hospital for the last time, after spending most of the last six months there. She put the bag with Jimmy's belongings on the seat beside her in the car.

The drive home was difficult. It was even harder to enter the empty house. She carried Jimmy's belongings, and the plastic bag with the lock of his hair to her son's room.

She started placing the model cars and other personal things back in his room exactly where he had always kept them She lay down across his bed and, hugging his pillow, cried herself to sleep.

It was around midnight when Sally awoke. Lying beside her on the bed was a folded letter. The letter said:

'Dear Mom,

I know you're going to miss me; but don't think that I will ever forget you, or stop loving you, just 'cause I'm not around to say 'I Love You'. I will always love you, Mom, even more with each day. Someday we will see each other again. Until then, if you want to adopt a little boy so you won't be so lonely, that's okay with me. He can have my room and old stuff to play with. But, if you decide to get a girl instead, she probably wouldn't like the same things us boys do. You'll have to buy her dolls and stuff girls like, you know.

Don't be sad thinking about me. This really is a neat place. Grandma and Grandpa met me as soon as I got here and showed me around some, but it will take a long time to see everything. The angels are so cool. I love to watch them fly. And, you know what? Jesus doesn't look like any of his pictures. Yet, when I saw Him, I knew it was Him. Jesus himself took me to see GOD! And guess what, Mom? I got to sit on God's knee and talk to Him, like I was somebody important. That's when I told Him that I wanted to write you a letter, to tell you good bye and everything. But I already knew that wasn't allowed. Well, you know what Mom?

God handed me some paper and His own personal pen to write you this letter I think Gabriel is the name of the angel who is going to drop this letter off to you. God said for me to give you the answer to one of the questions you asked Him 'where was He when I needed him?' 'God said He was in the same place with me, as when His son Jesus was on the cross. He was right there, as He always is with all His children.

Oh, by the way, Mom, no one else can see what I've written except you. To everyone else this is just a blank piece of paper. Isn't that cool? I have to give God His pen back now He needs it to write some more names in the Book of Life. Tonight I get to sit at the table with Jesus for supper. I'm sure the food will be great.

Oh, I almost forgot to tell you. I don't hurt anymore the cancer is all gone... I'm glad because I couldn't stand that pain anymore and God couldn't stand to see me hurt so much, either. That's when He sent The Angel of Mercy to come get me. The Angel said I was a Special Delivery! How about that?

Signed with Love from God, Jesus & Me.


----------



## boiler149 (Oct 31, 2007)

im speachless


----------



## C0Rey (Jan 7, 2006)

what a piece of complete bullshit.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

C0Rey said:


> what a piece of complete bullshit.


Thanks! GOOOOO McCain!


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

baddfish said:


> what a piece of complete bullshit.


Thanks! GOOOOO McCain!








[/quote]

did you forget to take you medicine this morning?


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

i still dont see the point of the story.
i went to catholic school, i guess by default im catholic though i dont practice anymore..... 
normally those stories that involve jesus or god or whatever have a message.... this one just makes me think of some zombie child who crept in the room at night and left a letter near his grieving mother. 
......


----------



## Guest (Oct 21, 2008)

It was sad, not because of anything other than the fact that I think those of us who lost someone close know how the Mom feels, that devastating "what's next" feeling.

Could have done without the whole heaven thing, but whatever floats your boat.


----------



## C0Rey (Jan 7, 2006)

baddfish said:


> what a piece of complete bullshit.


Thanks! GOOOOO McCain!








[/quote]

wtf?!?


----------



## sadboy (Jan 6, 2005)

It was a very nice story, I read it before...
Makes me sad for all those parents that have to bury their childern.



C0Rey said:


> what a piece of complete bullshit.












It's a moving sad story about giving.
It dosent matter if it's real or not.....


----------



## Doktordet (Sep 22, 2006)

hmmm...


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Didn't mean to waste everyones time. Maybe this will spark an interest!

Thousands of Troops Are Deployed on U.S. Streets Ready to Carry Out "Crowd Control"
Members of Congress were told they could face martial law if they didn't pass the bailout bill. This will not be the last time.
by Naomi Wolf
www.alternet.org, October 8, 2008

Background:

The First Brigade of the Third Infantry Division, three to four thousand soldiers, has been deployed in the United States as of October 1. Their stated mission is the form of crowd control they practiced in Iraq, subduing "unruly individuals," and the management of a national emergency. I am in Seattle and heard from the brother of one of the soldiers that they are engaged in exercises now. Amy Goodman reported that an Army spokesperson confirmed that they will have access to lethal and non lethal crowd control technologies and tanks.

George Bush struck down Posse Comitatus, thus making it legal for military to patrol the U.S. He has also legally established that in the "War on Terror," the U.S. is at war around the globe and thus the whole world is a battlefield. Thus the U.S. is also a battlefield.

He also led change to the 1807 Insurrection Act to give him far broader powers in the event of a loosely defined "insurrection" or many other "conditions" he has the power to identify. The Constitution allows the suspension of habeas corpus -- habeas corpus prevents us from being seized by the state and held without trial -- in the event of an "insurrection."

With his own army force now, his power to call a group of protesters or angry voters "insurgents" staging an "insurrection" is strengthened.
U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman of California said to Congress, captured on C-Span and viewable on YouTube, that individual members of the House were threatened with martial law within a week if they did not pass the bailout bill:

"The only way they can pass this bill is by creating and sustaining a panic atmosphere. Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill on Monday that the sky would fall, the market would drop two or three thousand points the first day and a couple of thousand on the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no."

If this is true and Rep. Sherman is not delusional, I ask you to consider that if they are willing to threaten martial law now, it is foolish to assume they will never use that threat again. It is also foolish to trust in an orderly election process to resolve this threat. And why deploy the First Brigade? One thing the deployment accomplishes is to put teeth into such a threat.

I interviewed Vietnam veteran, retired U.S. Air Force Colonel and patriot David Antoon for clarification:

NW "If the President directed the First Brigade to arrest Congress, what could stop him?"
DA "Nothing. Their only recourse is to cut off funding. The Congress would be at the mercy of military leaders to go to them and ask them not to obey illegal orders."

NW "But these orders are now legal?'"
DA "Correct."

NW "If the President directs the First Brigade to arrest a bunch of voters, what would stop him?"
DA "Nothing. It would end up in courts but the action would have been taken."

NW "If the President directs the First Brigade to kill civilians, what would stop him?"
DA "Nothing."

NW "What would prevent him from sending the First Brigade to arrest the editor of the Washington Post?"
DA "Nothing. He could do what he did in Iraq -- send a tank down a street in Washington and fire a shell into the Washington Post as they did into Al Jazeera, and claim they were firing at something else."

NW"What happens to members of the First Brigade who refuse to take up arms against U.S. citizens?"
DA "They'd probably be treated as deserters as in Iraq: arrested, detained and facing five years in prison. In Iraq a study by Ann Wright shows that deserters -- reservists who refused to go back to Iraq -- got longer sentences than war criminals."

NW"Does Congress have any military of their own?"
DA "No. Congress has no direct control of any military units. The Governors have the National Guard but they report to the President in an emergency that he declares."

NW"Who can arrest the President?"
DA "The Attorney General can arrest the President after he leaves or after impeachment."
[Note: Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi has asserted it is possible for District Attorneys around the country to charge President Bush with murder if they represent districts where one or more military members who have been killed in Iraq formerly resided.]

NW"Given the danger do you advocate impeachment?"
DA "Yes. President Bush struck down Posse Comitatus -- which has prevented, with a penalty of two years in prison, U.S. leaders since after the Civil War from sending military forces into our streets -- with a 'signing statement.' He should be impeached immediately in a bipartisan process to prevent the use of military forces and mercenary forces against U.S. citizens"

NW"Should Americans call on senior leaders in the Military to break publicly with this action and call on their own men and women to disobey these orders?"
DA "Every senior military officer's loyalty should ultimately be to the Constitution. Every officer should publicly break with any illegal order, even from the President."

NW"But if these are now legal. If they say, 'Don't obey the Commander in Chief,' what happens to the military?"
DA "Perhaps they would be arrested and prosecuted as those who refuse to participate in the current illegal war. That's what would be considered a coup."

NW"But it's a coup already."
DA "Yes."

Wopaaaaaa! WUTACUNTRY!!!


----------



## pyrokingbrand (Nov 30, 2004)

I cant wait to see soldiers marching past my window in the morning knowing all the while that i am safer with their protection

and all of my constitutional rights dissolved in the name of security!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YEAH BABY NO RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!WHOOO!!!!!!!!!!

Our beautiful REPUBLIC has been turning into something it was never meant to be.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

When you get a chance, Google "Bank for International Settlements" and you'll find very interesting things! The 2nd quote by Mark Twain is what is happening now......banks were lending when everything was fine. Now, the sh*t hits the fan and none of them want to lend. The last quote was made in 1694 by the founder of the Bank of England......you can see that this "legal" counterfeiting operation by the banking institutions has been going on for centuries. Nice racket, huh?

"In a small Swiss city sits an international organization so obscure and 
secretive.... Control of the institution, the Bank for International 
Settlements, lies with some of the world's most powerful and least visible men: 
the heads of 32 central banks, officials able to shift billions of dollars and 
alter the course of economies at the stroke of a pen."
-- Keith Bradsher
New York Times bureau chief in Detroit (1996-2001) and Hong Kong (2001- )
Source: New York Times, August 5, 1995 
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/K...sher.Quote.B24A

"A banker is a fellow who lends you his umbrella
when the sun is shining 
and wants it back the minute it begins to rain."
-- Mark Twain
[Samuel Langhorne Clemens] (1835-1910)
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/M...wain.Quote.2A6D

"The bank hath benefit
of interest on all moneys
which it creates out of nothing."
-- William Paterson
(1658-1719) Founder of the Bank of England in 1694, the privately owned central bank for the Kingdom of England.
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/W...rson.Quote.2784

Recessions, depressions and our current economic condition is a direct result of allowing foreign for-profit banking institutions to control the value and supply of OUR money.

"... the privilege of creating and issuing money... is the government's 
greatest creative opportunity... [saving] the taxpayers immense sums of 
money..."
-- Abraham Lincoln
(1809-1865) 16th US President
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/A...coln.Quote.B23A

"If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill.
The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The
difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the
money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%.
Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays
nobody but those who contribute in some useful way. It is absurd to say
our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises
to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the People."
-- Thomas A. Edison
(1847-1931) Inventor
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/T...ison.Quote.6991

"A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom."
-- Woodrow Wilson
(1856-1924) 28th US President
1913
Source: in his book, The New Freedom: A Call For the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People, chapter 8
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/W...lson.Quote.57F1

CommonDreams.org is an Internet-based progressive news and grassroots activism organization, founded in 1997. We are a nonprofit, progressive, independent and nonpartisan organization.

Published on Monday, October 20, 2008 by TruthDig.com 
The Idiots Who Rule America
by Chris Hedges

Our oligarchic class is incompetent at governing, managing the economy, coping with natural disasters, educating our young, handling foreign affairs, providing basic services like health care and safeguarding individual rights. That it is still in power, and will remain in power after this election, is a testament to our inability to separate illusion from reality. We still believe in "the experts." They still believe in themselves. They are clustered like flies swarming around John McCain and Barack Obama. It is only when these elites are exposed as incompetent parasites and dethroned that we will have any hope of restoring social, economic and political order.

"Their inability to see the human as anything more than interest driven made it impossible for them to imagine an actively organized pool of disinterest called the public good," said the Canadian philosopher John Ralston Saul, whose books "The Unconscious Civilization" and "Voltaire's Bastards" excoriates our oligarchic elites. "It is as if the Industrial Revolution had caused a severe mental trauma, one that still reaches out and extinguishes the memory of certain people. For them, modern history begins from a big explosion--the Industrial Revolution. This is a standard ideological approach: a star crosses the sky, a meteor explodes, and history begins anew."

Our elites--the ones in Congress, the ones on Wall Street and the ones being produced at prestigious universities and business schools--do not have the capacity to fix our financial mess. Indeed, they will make it worse. They have no concept, thanks to the educations they have received, of the common good. They are stunted, timid and uncreative bureaucrats who are trained to carry out systems management. They see only piecemeal solutions which will satisfy the corporate structure. They are about numbers, profits and personal advancement. They are as able to deny gravely ill people medical coverage to increase company profits as they are able to use taxpayer dollars to peddle costly weapons systems to blood-soaked dictatorships. The human consequences never figure into their balance sheets. The democratic system, they think, is a secondary product of the free market. And they slavishly serve the market.

Andrew Lahde, the Santa Monica, Calif., hedge fund manager who made an 870 percent gain last year by betting on the subprime mortgage collapse, has abruptly shut down his fund, citing the risk of trading with faltering banks. In his farewell letter to his investors he excoriated the elites who run our investment houses, banks and government.

"The low hanging fruit, i.e. idiots whose parents paid for prep school, Yale, and then the Harvard MBA, was there for the taking," he said of our oligarchic class. "These people who were (often) truly not worthy of the education they received (or supposedly received) rose to the top of companies such as AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and all levels of our government. All of this behavior supporting the Aristocracy only ended up making it easier for me to find people stupid enough to take the other side of my trades. God bless America."

"On the issue of the U.S. Government, I would like to make a modest proposal," he went on. "First, I point out the obvious flaws, whereby legislation was repeatedly brought forth to Congress over the past eight years, which would have [reined] in the predatory lending practices of now mostly defunct institutions. These institutions regularly filled the coffers of both parties in return for voting down all of this legislation designed to protect the common citizen. This is an outrage, yet no one seems to know or care about it. Since Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith passed, I would argue that there has been a dearth of worthy philosophers in this country, at least ones focused on improving government."

Democracy is not an outgrowth of free markets. Democracy and capitalism are antagonistic entities. Democracy, like individualism, is not based on personal gain but on self-sacrifice. A functioning democracy must defy the economic interests of elites on behalf of citizens. This is not happening. The corporate managers and government officials trying to fix the economic meltdown are pouring money and resources into the financial sector because they only know how to manage and sustain established systems, not change them. Financial systems, however, are not pure scientific and numerical abstractions that exist independently from human beings.

"When the elite begin to think that money is real, the crash is coming," Saul said in a telephone interview. "That is just a given in history. Because what they've done is pull themselves out of the possibility of looking in the mirror and thinking, this is inflation, speculation, this is fluff. They can't do it. And when you say to them, gosh, this is not real. And they say, oh, you don't understand, you're so old-fashioned, you still think this is about manufacturing. And of course, it's basic economics. And that's what happens every single time.

"The difficulty is you have a collapse, you have a loss of face by the people who are there, and it's not just George Bush, it's very, very deep," Saul said. "What we're talking about is the need to rethink the departments of economics, of political science. Then you have to rethink the whole analytic method of the World Bank. If I'm the secretary of the treasury, and not a guy like [Henry] Paulson, but I mean a sort of normal secretary of the treasury or minister of finance, and I say, OK, we've got a real problem, let's get the senior civil servants in here. Gentlemen, ladies, OK, clearly we have to go in another direction, give me some ideas. Well, those people don't have any other ideas because at this point they're about the fourth generation of what you might call neoconservative globalist managers, unfairly summarized. So they then go to the people who work for them, and you work down; there's no one in there with an alternate approach. I mean they'll have little alternatives, but no basic differences in opinion. And so it's very difficult to turn anything around because they've eliminated all opposing ideas inside. I mean it's the problem of the Soviet Union, right?"

Saul pointed out that the first three aims of the corporatist movement in Germany, Italy and France during the 1920s, those that went on to become part of the Fascist experience, were "to shift power directly to economic and social interest groups, to push entrepreneurial initiative in areas normally reserved for public bodies" and to "obliterate the boundaries between public and private interest--that is, challenge the idea of the public interest."

Sound familiar?

"There are a handful of people who haven't been published in mainstream journals, who haven't been listened to, who have been marginalized in every way," Saul said. "There are a couple of them and you could turn to them. But then who do you give the orders to? And the people you give the orders to, they are not going to understand the orders because it hasn't been a part of their education. So it's a real problem of a good general who suddenly finds that his junior generals and brigadiers and corporals, you want them to do irregular warfare and they only know how to do trenches. And so how the hell do you get them to do this thing which they've never been trained to do? And so you get this kind of disorder, confusion inside, and the danger of what rises up there is populism; we've already had populism in a way, but we could get more populism, more fear and anger."

We may elect representatives to Congress to end the war in Iraq, but the war goes on. We may plead with these representatives to halt Bush's illegal wiretapping but the telecommunications lobbyists make sure it remains in place. We may beg them not to pass the bailout but 850 billion taxpayer dollars are funneled upward to the elites on Wall Street. We may want single-payer, not-for-profit health care but it is not even discussed as a possibility in presidential debates. We, as individuals in this system, are irrelevant.

"I've talked to several Supreme Court justices, several times in several countries," Saul told me, "and I say, look, in your rulings, can you differentiate easily in cases between the social contract and the commercial contract, and to which the answer is, we can no longer differentiate. And that lies at the heart of the problem. You don't have the concept of the other, and of obligation of the individual leading to individualism. You can't have that if the whole legal system has slipped over the last, really, 50 years, increasingly, to a confusion between the social contract and the commercial contract. Because they are two completely different things. The social contract is about the public good, responsible individualism, imagining the other. The commercial contract is a commercial contract. They're not supposed to be confused. They don't actually fit together. The commercial contract only works properly when the social contract works in a democracy."

The working class, which has desperately borrowed money to stay afloat as real wages have dropped, now face years, maybe decades, of stagnant or declining incomes without access to new credit. The national treasury meanwhile is being drained on behalf of speculative commercial interests. The government--the only institution citizens have that is big enough and powerful enough to protect their rights--is becoming weaker, more anemic and less able to help the mass of Americans who are embarking on a period of deprivation and suffering unseen in this country since the 1930s. Consumption, the profligate engine of the U.S. economy, is withering. September retail sales across the U.S. fell 1.2 percent. The decline was almost double the 0.7 percent drop analysts expected from consumers, whose spending represents two-thirds of U.S. economic activity. There were 160,000 jobs lost last month and three-quarters of a million jobs lost this year. The reverberations of the economic meltdown are only beginning.

I do not think George W. Bush or Barack Obama or John McCain or Henry Paulson are fascists. Rather, they are part of a cabal of naive, mediocre and self-deluded capitalists who are steadily weakening political and economic structures to a point where our democracy will become so impotent that it can be blown aside, probably with broad popular support. The only question is how this will happen. Will there be a steady and slow decline as in the late Roman Empire when the Senate ended as a farce? Will we see a powerful right-wing backlash from those outside the mainstream political system, as we did in Yugoslavia, and the rise of a militant Christian fascism? Will there be a national crisis that allows those in power to instantly sweep away all constitutional rights in the name of national security?

I do not know. But I do know that what is coming, as long as our oligarchy remains in charge, will not be good. We will either recover the concept of the public good, and this means a revolt against our bankrupt elite and the dynamiting of the corporatist structure, or we will extinguish our democracy.

Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. 
Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize winner and a former foreign correspondent for The New York Times, is the author of "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America." His column appears Mondays on Truthdig.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

The second quote was made by Congressman McFadden. He attempted to bring charges before Congress against the Federal Reserve. He exposed the influence and power that international bankers had on our government and others. It's in the Congressional Record (I read it). Notice at the end of the quote that he was eventually poisoned at a banquet. This was after he survived two assassination attempts by the gun. He predicted the manipulation of the "free" market. He tried warning the American people of what is happening today in our economy. He claimed that "depressions" will be "engineered" to rob the people of their money and future. Read the third and final quote made during Congressional hearings. Notice the term made by Congressman Fletcher...."artificially controlled financial market..." Should be a real eye-opener.

"Historically, the United States has been a hard money country.
Only [since 1913] has the United States operated on a fiat money system.
During this period, paper money has depreciated over 87%.
During the preceding 140 year period, the hard currency
of the United States had actually maintained its value.
Wholesale prices in 1913... were the same as in 1787."
-- Kenneth Gerbino
former chairman of the American Economic Council
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/K...bino.Quote.B243

"Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are US government institutions.
They are not... they are private credit monopolies which prey upon
the people of the US for the benefit of themselves and their foreign
and domestic swindlers, and rich and predatory money lenders.
The sack of the United States by the Fed is the greatest crime in history.
Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers,
but the truth is the Fed has usurped the government.
It controls everything here and it controls all our foreign relations.
It makes and breaks governments at will."
-- Louis McFadden
(1876-1936) US Congressman (R-PA) (1915-1935), Chairman of House Banking and Currency Committee. Poisoned in 1936.
Source: June 10, 1932 
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/L...dden.Quote.B240

These statements were made during hearings of the House Committee on Banking and Currency, September 30, 1941. Members of the Federal Reserve Board call themselves "Governors." Governor Marriner Eccles was Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board at the time of these hearings:

Congressman Patman: "How did you get the money to buy those two billion dollars worth of Government securities in 1933?"
Governor Eccles: "Out of the right to issue credit money."
Patman: "And there is nothing behind it, is there, except our Government's credit?"
Eccles: "That is what our money system is. If there were no debts in our money system, there wouldn't be any money."
Congressman Fletcher: "Chairman Eccles, when do you think there is a possibility of returning to a free and open market, instead of this pegged and artificially controlled financial market we now have?"
Governor Eccles: "Never, not in your lifetime or mine."
-- Marriner Stoddard Eccles
(1890-1977) US banker, economist, and Chairman of the Federal Reserve (1934-48)
Source: during hearings of the House Committee on Banking and Currency, September 30, 1941.
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/M...cles.Quote.B64E

More GREAT quotes from Thomas Jefferson

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our
liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a
moneyed aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance.
The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored
to the people to whom it properly belongs."
-- Thomas Jefferson
(1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/T...rson.Quote.97DA

"The system of banking [is] a blot left in all our Constitutions,
which, if not covered, will end in their destruction...
I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous
than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to
be paid by posterity... is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
-- Thomas Jefferson
(1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
Source: stated in 1811 when President Jefferson refused to renew the charter for the First Bank of the United States (the 2nd central bank chartered by Congress in 1791)
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/T...rson.Quote.78B4

"I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple.
Were we directed from Washington when to sow,
when to reap, we should soon want bread." 
-- Thomas Jefferson
(1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Thomas.Jefferson


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

What role does racism play in our perspectives?

Ponder the following:

What if the Obamas had paraded five children across the stage at the Democratic convention, including a three month old infant and an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter?

What if John McCain was a former head of the Harvard Law Review?

What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class?

What if McCain had only married once, and Obama was a divorcee?

What if Obama was the candidate who left his first wife after a severe disfiguring car accident, when she no longer measured up to his standards?

What if Obama had met his second wife in a bar and had a long affair while he was still married?

What if Michelle Obama was the wife who not only became addicted to pain killers but also acquired them illegally through her charitable organization?

What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?

What if Obama had been a member of the Keating Five? (The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s).

What if McCain was a charismatic, eloquent speaker?

What if Obama couldn't read from a TelePrompter?

What if Obama was the one who had military experience that included discipline problems and a record of crashing seven planes?

What if Obama was the one who was known to display publicly, on many occasions, a serious anger management problem?

What if Michelle Obama's family had made their money from beer distribution?

What if the Obamas had adopted a white child?

You could easily add to this list. If these questions reflected reality, do you really believe the poll numbers would be as close as they are?

This is what racism does. It covers up, rationalizes and minimizes positive qualities in one candidate and emphasizes negative qualities in another when there is a color difference.

Educational Backgrounds

Barack Obama:

Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a specialization in International Relations.

Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude

Joseph Biden:

University of Delaware - B.A. in History and B.A. in Political Science.

Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

John McCain:

United States Naval Academy - Class rank: 894 of 899

Sarah Palin:

Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester

North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study

University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism

Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester

University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism

Obviously, education isn't everything, but this is about the two highest offices in the land as well as our standing in the world. You make the call.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

wow, i never knew that Mccain was that low ranked in his class, or that Palin was so horribly uneducated.
not surprised about Palin though, figured mccain did better than that though.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

http://www.adn.com/palin/story/516085.html
about palin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
it says the rank. naval academy is a tough school though, so i dont take rank into the equation that much, plus i cant verify that via anything else beyond wiki..... the john mccain site doesnt say what rank he was, which i can read any number of ways.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Cant anyone play nice in the lounge anymore? We used to have some great debates in the past...but they were done with respect. Now it is just a profanity laden bitch fest. Damn people....if you are so undereducated that you can not disagree with someone without being disrespectful...then you should not be wasting your time on this forum....you need to enroll in the nearest community college and expand your vocabulary. The number one rule on this forum is just to respect the other members&#8230;.if you can do that&#8230;you will be fine. Is that really so difficult?

Look&#8230;if you don't like what baddfish writes&#8230;then ignore it and move on...but stop with the constant irrelevant posts.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Thanks Jeff. Appreciate it.









Has ANYONE heard anything about the Amero, the new currency of what will be called the "North American Union", it's going to happen. Just like when they created the European Union and the Euro dollar. A major Chinese newspaper is accusing American corporations of plundering the world's wealth by engineering a global economic downturn. As a result, the dollar will lose much of it's value. The Amero will be created in order to "save" us. It's just another step toward a world government......the "New World Order" mentioned by many in the banking and financial businesses. The Bible describes this as the "system of things". Countries (like Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, etc.) that refuse to cooperate will be labeled as "rogue" nations and attempts will be made (overtly or covertly) to "destabilize" them. Even a world religion will arise that will be diametrically opposed to our Biblical principles. The world's resources (food, water, land and energy) will be concentrated in the hands of the few as transnational corporations dominate every aspect of our lives. There will be much suffering such as the world has never known. Much of this will happen with our consent because of our misguided belief in this "system of things" and our fear of death. It's good to see people getting informed.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

This is what I've been saying for a long time.....the collapse of the dollar. Anyone who has faith in this "system of things" is in for a BIG surprise. What is happening is by design.....they are making it happen in order to usher in the "New World Order". The illusion that we are "free" is just that...an illusion. The banking and financial conglomerates control governments. Especially the U.S. because of it's military might. The U.S. can project power anywhere on the planet and is being used to intimidate any country that fails to submit to it's economic order. Sad to say that it is really too late to do anything about it. I say too late because nobody will care until it's too late. For many years we were warned by those who knew what was happening and we ignored them and labeled them "radicals, left-wingers, communists, conspiracy theorists, etc., etc., etc. Now, the "chickens have come home to roost" (like Malcolm X said). All this is in the book of Revelations.....you just have to look for it.


----------



## VRM (Jan 9, 2007)

baddfish said:


> Thanks Jeff. Appreciate it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yep the amero is the new currency for the northern union canada, u.s. ,and mexico. pretty scary. eventually there will only be one union


----------



## Bawb2u (May 27, 2004)

VRM said:


> [yep the amero is the new currency for the northern union canada, u.s. ,and mexico. pretty scary. eventually there will only be one union


Not true, never was true, never will be true.

Truth about the Amero


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Now i see its just a matter of time! heres a few more quotes to ponder!

William R. Mattox, Jr., Adolf Hitler, Civil Servants' Year Book, Franklin P. Adamsâ€

"In 1950, the average family of four
paid 2% of its earnings to federal taxes.
Today it pays 24%."
-- William R. Mattox, Jr.
Columnist
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/W...ttox.Quote.050E

"Gold is not neccesary. I have no interest in gold. We will build a
solid state, without an ounce of gold behind it. Anyone who sells above
the set prices, let him be marched off to a concentration camp. That's
the bastion of money."
-- Adolf Hitler
(1889-1945) German Nazi Dictator
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/A...tler.Quote.8423

"Capital must protect itself in every way ...Debts must be collected
and loans and mortgages foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a
process of law the common people have lost their homes, they will be
more tractable and more easily governed by the STRONG ARM OF THE LAW
(police) applied by the central power of leading financiers. People
without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. This is well known
among our principle men now engaged in forming an imperialism of
capitalism to govern the world. By dividing the people we can get them
to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance
to us except as TEACHERS OF THE COMMON HERD."

-- Civil Servants' Year Book
January 1934
Source: Civil Servants' Year Book, "The Organizer"
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/C...Book.Quote.51F5

"There are plenty of good five-cent cigars in the country.
The trouble is they cost a quarter.
What this country needs is a good five-cent nickel."
-- Franklin P. Adams
(1881-1960)
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/F...dams.Quote.CDBF


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

A turn for the better!‏









Yo, everybody! Well, it looks like we have a President that doesn't look like any other president we ever had. FINALLY!!! I was watching video clips from around the world showing reactions from people in other countries. It was all good. Especially, in Africa. It appears that maybe the world isn't going to hate America nearly as much as before. This is a giant step in restoring faith in the democratic ideals espoused for so long in this country. I heard that even the Taliban were impressed.

Where was I when this historic event occurred? In a bar, of course! Yup, my friend Francisco was over at my house Tuesday in the late afternoon. We were having a few beers and he was talking about the beauty of being retired. Then he started talking about some of the excellent pool shots he'd been making playing pool at the bar over the last few months in my absence. I think he did it on purpose. He knows how much I like playing pool. While he talked, I started reminiscing. Feelings, long dormant, became aroused.

My mind became imbued with swirling memories of the great pool shots I had performed "back in the day". I began to feel like Superman, again (remember, I was drinking). I became overwhelmed with visions of past glory. I could almost hear the cheers of the crowd that were privileged to witness my feats of expertise at the pool table during that time. Ah, the good ole days! So, when he asked me to go to the bar with him, I agreed. The first time in months.

I did want to stay at home and watch the election results, but they have a TV at the bar and I figured I could knock out two birds with one stone......watch the election results AND shoot pool. So, off we went. Francisco beat me three games in a row. DAMN!!!! I didn't want to play anymore. I did, however, make one great shot.....a shot that has baffled the scientific community for decades. Physicists, to this day, are debating the logistics involved. Mathematicians are having heated discussions trying to determine the logarithms necessary in order for this particular shot to succeed. I'm not even going to describe it or what it entailed. I will only reveal it's name.....the three-bank kick. It happened in the middle of our last game. In that moment, I felt a wave of almost unimaginable emotion. I was BACK!! Back in the saddle. Until, of course, I lost. But, at least, I went down swinging.

I went and sat at the bar as Francisco went on to make fools of those who thought they could beat him. He's good. In fact, he taught me the three-bank kick. Anyway, it was while I was sitting at the bar, wallowing in a sea of despair, that the news came over the TV that Barack had won the election. Oh my God!!! I wasn't expecting it this soon. I was expecting controversy and allegations of fraud for weeks. Apparently, the American people have spoken.....and spoken loud! Obama's speech, after his victory, was brilliant. Francisco actually cried. Not me....my eyes just got watery. No tears, though.

Hey, I gotta maintain my machismo, you know what I'm saying? The bartender, God bless her heart, cried like a baby. She's from Eastern Europe. Czechoslovakia, I believe. Personally, I was stunned. A black President? In the United States? You know what this means? Maybe one day Julio could become President! Obama's victory, at least for me, will take some time to sink in. I'm still scared.

Remember, Bush will still be president for over two more months. Plenty of time for him to screw things up even more. My sigh of relief won't come until Obama gets inaugurated in January. But, hey, let's not rain on this parade. Let's enjoy this for what it is. History in the making. Who would've thought? We have a long and extremely challenging road ahead. It will take time to fix the damage of past years.

The economy, the war, healthcare, Social Security, education, our nation's infrastructure and national security to name a few. The whole world is watching. Hope has been revived. A special type of leadership will be required to heal the woes that afflict us. It will be difficult. There is so much to be done. The change that was voted for, can be a catalyst to improve conditions, not just for us, but for the world. The possibilities are there. Later!


----------



## pyrokingbrand (Nov 30, 2004)

BaddFish what do you think about this?!?!?!?!

http://mobile.reuters.com/mobile/m/FullArt...110?src=RSS-BUS


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

pyrokingbrand said:


> BaddFish what do you think about this?!?!?!?!
> 
> http://mobile.reuters.com/mobile/m/FullArt...110?src=RSS-BUS


Well Pyrokingbrand, this particular article I haven't read. Thanks for sharing it. It confirms, however, what I've been reading about for years. The process known as "globalization" has been around for centuries and has come under different names....."internationalism", for one. More and more, people are being conditioned to accept the term "New World Order".

The best way to expedite this so-called "global society" is to engineer worldwide economic instability through market manipulation and, as a result, create fear and confusion among the world's population in regards to their standard of living and their financial future. Fear can cause people to do what they normally wouldn't.

Those espousing a "more just international order" will claim to have the solution to our problems. THEY will establish the rules. They will eventually gain control of the world's resources (mainly food production, water distribution and access to energy in it's various forms). Who are "they"? Bankers, investment firms and transnational corporations.

These financial entities are using the turmoil we are experiencing to consolidate their power and achieve what they themselves call "full spectrum dominance". Military, economic AND political dominance. They have NO allegiance to any country and recognize NO borders. Their god is money. Their lust is power. Most of the world's "leaders" are, basically, just figureheads who are subservient to those who placed them there.

Nations of the developed West (known as First World nations), who possess an unlimited source of finance (remember, they print money out of thin air) and unimaginable military might, are used to force the few remaining countries outside their sphere of influence to accept our way of life. They claim a monopoly on truth and justice. War can be made to look like peace. Evil can be made to look like good.

We can be made to believe that "freedom and democracy" will prevail if we use the barrel of a gun. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the most sanitized in our history. No one likes to see the pictures of innocent men, women and children being killed in our name. Airstrikes using "smart bombs" destroy whole villages when seeking to kill a handful of "terrorists".

I'm expected to believe that these atrocities are justified so that the "new World Order" can come to fruition. These are, in reality, war crimes. I'm supposed to accept these acts as necessary for my well-being? I'm sorry, I can't. And if I could, I wouldn't. The words in the article have the appearance of moral excellence and virtue but, in actuality, they disguise their true intent. We will hear many more words that appeal to our ears. Let us then open our eyes when determining their validity. Later!









Yo, everybody! I just read the $700 billion we gave for the "rescue" (aka...bailout) package WILL NOT be used to help the troubled mortgage industry as originally planned. The bankers will get the benefit. Why does this not surprise me? Let's see how they'll sugarcoat this one! (i knew it)


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

baddfish said:


> A turn for the better!‏
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And the depth of your intelect comes out. Solid reason to vote. Looks.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Ocellatus2000 said:


> A turn for the better!‏
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And the depth of your intelect comes out. Solid reason to vote. Looks.
[/quote]

Above and beyond. Something you may 'fathom' at some point in your life!







Read it ALL. Not just the little sh*t you're used to reading.


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

The "little sh*t" is the substance at which one gains insight into ones thoughts. Assuming I did not read the whole post was inaccurate as I did. I just like to point out what one actually says. Arguing a direct quote from your own type is a bit silly. You said it my friend.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Its very obvious that by the time you actually get it, it WILL be too late!


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

baddfish said:


> Its very obvious that by the time you actually get it, it WILL be too late!


Typical response. Vague, but effective. Perhaps I'll go read some online literature now and strive to one day be as enlightened as you, sir. Wish me luck.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Dont think its possible. Sorry!


----------



## pyrokingbrand (Nov 30, 2004)

Ocellatus2000 said:


> A turn for the better!â€
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And the depth of your intelect comes out. Solid reason to vote. Looks.
[/quote]

I do not understand why people get so childish when topics that they may disagree with come up. INSTEAD OF CALLING EACH

OTHER NAMES and pulling pieces from posts and purposely misdirecting and misinterpreting the posters comments to benefit your

opinion you really ought to do research and come up with an intelligent argument as to why you believe they are wrong.

This kind of reminds me of all the crap campaign ads put out by both parties during the election run.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Yo, everybody! SHOWTIME On Demand has a documentary about one of my favorite American heroes! The title is "a.k.a. Tommy Chong". From the famous "Cheech and Chong" days! You may know that last year (?) he was arrested for selling bongs online. For those of you still living in the "Dark Ages", bongs are water pipes usually made of glass, that are advertised for tobacco use BUT can be (if so desired) used for one of God's greatest inventions.......marijuana. He was entrapped by the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency). Before the "Patriot" Act, he would've been acquitted. But because the Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on after the "Patriot" Act, he was forced to plea bargain a guilty plea. The Feds threatened to prosecute his wife and son unless he capitulated. At the end, Bush was shown making a speech equating "drug users" with "terrorists". This is an extremely dangerous and far-reaching statement. According to the "Patriot" Act, once a person is labeled a "terrorist" or "enemy combatant", you can be arrested and detained with NO access to legal representation indefinitely! You are a "persona non grata". Forget about due process. No communication with your family is permitted. In fact, believe it or not, if your family makes any attempt to locate you, THEY CAN BE ARRESTED FOR OBSTRUCTION!!!! Yup, folks, in "America". Apparently, since 9/11 and the "War on Terror", bongs are the only "weapons of mass destruction" found by our government.







They immediately responded by imprisoning Chong for endangering the lives of our youth. Check it out, if you can.

Here's a great read!

PAUL B. FARRELL

Warning: King Henry's bailout like Rummy's Iraq Reaganomics hidden in 'sleeper cell' armed with lethal 'financial WMDs'

ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- So you thought Barack Obama's victory signaled the death of Reaganomics? Wrong, wrong: Reaganomics is very much alive. In a subtle, bloodless coup, the Reaganomics ideology magically pulled victory out of the jaws of defeat in the meltdown. The magic happened fast and quietly, in the shadows, while you were in a trance, distracted by the election drama.

Recently Naomi Klein, author of "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism," framed the issue perfectly: "Has the Treasury partially nationalized the private banks, as we have been told? Or is it the other way around?" The question was rhetorical, the answer painfully clear. In a few weeks Wall Street did the old bait and switch, emerging from an economic and market disaster with new powers, in total control of America.

And thanks to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's brilliant bailout coup, Reaganomics is now the new "sleeper cell" quietly hidden inside the Obama White House and America's Treasury, where it will be for a long time to come, armed with what Warren Buffett calls financial weapons of mass destruction, guaranteed to sabotage the new president, taxpayers and the future of America. Listen closely folks: You and your government are and will continue being conned out of trillions.

Better that we should have taken care of ourselves first and cleaned house, not bailed out Wall Street financiers -- let them pay for their sins and feel the pain. Unfortunately, while you were distracted by the election, Wall Street gained control of our Treasury using a Trojan Horse, Hank Paulson, who filled Treasury with Goldman Sachs alums and pulled off one of the greatest inside heists in the history of the world. While you were distracted, Wall Street privatized the U.S. Treasury, got the keys to Fort Knox and will be stealing trillions for years to come, through a secret "sleeper cell," a "virus" installed in the $700 billion Wall Street bailout.

They're laughing: All you got was a heavily discounted paper IOU for you, your kids and generations to pay off. The winners: Paulson, Goldman, Wall Street banks and Reaganomics. The losers: America. Wall Street and its buddies in Washington (all those politicians bankrolled by 41,000 lobbyists) know two things the voters never, never learn: that no matter how incompetent they are -- how greedy, how stupid and how destructive -- America's naive voters will always bail them out of a crisis At the troughKlein further exposed this insanity in a recent Rolling Stone article, "The New Trough: The Wall Street bailout looks a lot like Iraq, a 'free-fraud zone' where private contractors cash in on the mess they helped create."

Paulson's privatization, outsourcing and management of the $700 billion bailout has the exact same Reaganomics ideological, strategic and deceptive footprints that President George W. Bush and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld used to privatize, outsource and mismanage the costly Iraq War blunder. Yes, Paulson is America's new Rumsfeld! The American taxpayer is being royally screwed by the Wall Street bailout giveaway.

According to Klein, they're adding insult to injury, rubbing salt in our wounds: "Many of the banks appear to have no intention of wasting the money on loans." Merrill CEO John Thain said "it's just going to be a cushion." Citigroup CFO Gary Crittenden "hinted that his company would use its share of the cash, $25 billion, to buy up competitors and swell even bigger," giving them the "possibility of taking advantage of opportunities that might otherwise be closed to us." And my old colleagues at Morgan Stanley are "planning to pay themselves $10.7 billion this year, much of it in bonuses."

So screw the taxpayers and Main Street homeowners. Want to know how badly America's taxpayers are getting screwed? Listen as Klein compares the American bailout to the British bailout which was negotiated just five days before Paulson "negotiated" our historic $125 billion deal with nine Wall Street banks: United Kingdom. Prime Minister Gordon Brown negotiated "meaningful guarantees for taxpayers -- voting rights at the banks, seats on their boards, 12% in annual dividend payments to the government, a suspension of dividend payments to shareholders, restrictions on executive bonuses, and a legal requirement that the banks lend money to homeowners and small businesses."

Brown took advantage of his negotiation position of strength. United States. What did the American taxpayers? A bad deal negotiated by a former Wall Street CEO loaded with conflicts of interest: We got "no controlling interest, no voting rights, no seats on the bank boards and just 5% in dividend payouts to the government, while [bank] shareholders continue to collect billions in dividends every quarter. What's more, golden parachutes and bonuses already promised by the banks will still be paid out to executives -- all before taxpayers are paid back.

No wonder it took just one hour for Paulson to convince all nine CEOs to accept his offer, less than seven minutes per bank for one of the sweetest taxpayer giveaways in history. Our pain, Wall Street's gainIt gets even worse: The day after Paulson's nine-bank deal, he announced his selection of Bank of New York Mellon as the "master custodian" coordinating all phases of the Wall Street bank bailout. BNYM's role as "the contractor of contractors" is to the $700 billion bailout what Vice President Dick Cheney's old firm Halliburton was to all the mercenary and private contractor operations in Iraq.

Plus the new president's locked into a three-year contract. BNYM's boss can outsource to friendly Wall Street "subcontractors," handing out billions of taxpayer money with little oversight much as Halliburton did in Iraq. They will "purchase toxic debts from Wall Street, service them and auction them off in the future." BNYM's boss called this plum "the ultimate outsourcing." An opportunity for his bank, because there's "a lot of new business that's going on even in this chaotic marketplace." Main Street's suffering because of Wall Street's "sins," and Wall Street sees our pain as just an "opportunity" for them. That's textbook "disaster capitalism."

So now you know the truth: The Treasury did not nationalize America's banks. The fact is, Wall Street privatized the U.S. Treasury with a $700 billion rescue plan being controlled by the very banks that created the mess. You were distracted by the election, hoping for a savior, while Wall Street was turning defeat into victory using a classic "disaster capitalism" strategy. That's right, Wall Street's Trojan Horse, Hank Paulson, operated quietly inside Treasury, protecting his old Wall Street buddies before they'd go bankrupt.

He pulled the classic "disaster capitalism" stunt relieving the banks of the pain of their "sins." Ironically, that only leads to more "sinning," faster, bigger, sooner. That's classic "moral hazard" and with Wall Street's new "business as usual" attitudes about mergers, bonuses, CEO pay and cash cushions, you just know those Reaganomics "financial WMDs" that Paulson's leaving behind in the bailout funds "sleeper cell" will ultimately trigger an even bigger financial meltdown soon, by 2011.

Yup, this is an excellent article. I've read alot of Naomi Klein's articles and excerpts from her various books. I consider her a real American hero. She is exceptionally smart and is not afraid to tell it like it is. This is a detailed description of what I've been saying for years! The old "bait and switch" routine. Where is the "mainstream" media? The so-called "free press"? They've been bought off, that's what. They're too busy entertaining and distracting us instead of warning us like Ms. Klein. Believe me, the worst is yet to come. These thieves (thieves, actually, being too good a term) are solidifying their control. Their tentacles are reaching into every aspect of our lives. Stretching even into our future. They are using FEAR as a "weapon of mass distraction". Don't think so? Hell, most people have been conditioned to tremble at the thought of a certain individual (you know who I'm talkin' about) wearing a towel on his head, dressed in rags and hiding in a cave somewhere who is going to kill most of us and force the survivors to read the Quran! Come, on!!! They are so scared, they're willing to give up their rights to be "safe" (again, don't think so? Read the Patriot Act. I DARE you!). I'd rather be free than "safe". Remember Patrick Henry? If even one of you don't know who he is, we're in more trouble than I thought. He said, ".....give me liberty or give me death." What happened to people's love of freedom? We need to get informed about what's going on. Thomas Jefferson once said, "A people cannot be both ignorant and free". Naomi Klein (bless her heart) knows exactly what's going on. Notice the title of her book in the article below......"The SHOCK Doctrine: The Rise of DISASTER Capitalism" (capital letters are mine for emphasis). Shock the people with a manufactured disaster and steal their future. Create a climate of perpetual fear. A quivering population can easily be herded one way or the other. Historically, this has been proven to be accurate. We got to get more people to wake up. We won't find the truth if we don't look for it.


----------



## EZmoney (May 13, 2004)

Couple highlights from above article:

"The Treasury did not nationalize America's banks. The fact is, Wall Street privatized the U.S. Treasury with a $700 billion rescue plan being controlled by the very banks that created the mess."

Henry Paulsen "pulled the classic "disaster capitalism" stunt relieving the banks of the pain of their "sins." Ironically, that only leads to more "sinning," "

That was a good read, albeit a long one.


----------



## EZmoney (May 13, 2004)

Well, maybe Capitol Hill is getting wise...

Top salesmen for financial bailout face grilling
Tuesday November 18, 1:45 am ET 
By Jeannine Aversa, AP Economics Writer 
Top salesmen for $700 billion financial bailout set for congressional grilling WASHINGTON (AP) -- The two top salesmen for a $700 billion financial bailout are in for a grilling by Capitol Hill lawmakers just one week after the administration officially ditched the original strategy behind the rescue.Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson are expected to provide greater insights into the shift when they testify Tuesday before the House Financial Services Committee.

Paulson, who is overseeing the bailout program for the Bush administration, changed course and announced last week that the government would not use any of the money to buy rotten mortgages and other bad assets from banks. That had been the centerpiece of the plan when Paulson and Bernanke originally pitched it to lawmakers.

"Our assessment ... is that this is not the most effective way" to use the bailout money, Paulson said at that time.

Instead, Paulson said the department would focus on rolling out a capital injection program to pour $250 billion into banks in return for partial ownership stakes in them.

It would also search for new ways to boost the availability of auto loans, student loans and credit cards, which have been become harder to get due to the credit crisis, he said.

Specifically, the department, along with the Federal Reserve, is exploring using some of the bailout money to bankroll a new loan facility. The aim: helping companies that issue credit cards, make student loans and finance car purchases.

The idea behind the capital injection program is for banks to use the money to rebuild reserves and lend more freely to customers. However, banks do have the leeway to use the money for other things, such as buying other banks or paying dividends to investors. That has touched a nerve with some lawmakers.

Locked-up lending is a prime reason why the United States is suffering through the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. All the fallout from the housing, credit and financial crises have badly hurt the economy, which is almost certainly in recession, analysts say.

In an interview published Tuesday in The Washington Post, Paulson said he was also working on a proposal that would allow the government to take over a wide range of financial institutions -- not just banks -- that are in danger of collapse.

The administration, however, has remained opposed to using some of the bailout money to help troubled U.S. automakers or to provide guarantees for mortgages at risk of falling into foreclosure, another huge source of distress for the economy.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the panel, has been tapped by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to draft an aid package for Detroit. The auto companies are seeking $25 billion for emergency loans.

In a break with the administration stance, Sheila Bair, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., who also will testify Tuesday, recently proposed using $24 billion of the bailout money to help some American households avoid foreclosure.

So far, Treasury Department has pledged $250 billion for banks and has agreed to devote $40 billion to troubled insurer American International Group-- its first slice of funds going to a company other than a bank. That leaves just $60 billion available from Congress' first bailout installment of $350 billion.

Congressional officials said Paulson indicated he is unlikely to tap the remaining $350 billion before the administration leaves office on Jan. 20. That would mean the incoming Obama administration would decide whether and how the money should be spent. The congressional officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to disclose the developments.

AP Special Correspondent David Espo contributed to this report.


----------



## Graffight (Nov 16, 2008)

mdrs said:


> BaddFish what do you think about this?!?!?!?!
> 
> http://mobile.reuters.com/mobile/m/FullArt...110?src=RSS-BUS


Well Pyrokingbrand, this particular article I haven't read. Thanks for sharing it. It confirms, however, what I've been reading about for years. The process known as "globalization" has been around for centuries and has come under different names....."internationalism", for one. More and more, people are being conditioned to accept the term "New World Order".

The best way to expedite this so-called "global society" is to engineer worldwide economic instability through market manipulation and, as a result, create fear and confusion among the world's population in regards to their standard of living and their financial future. Fear can cause people to do what they normally wouldn't.

Those espousing a "more just international order" will claim to have the solution to our problems. THEY will establish the rules. They will eventually gain control of the world's resources (mainly food production, water distribution and access to energy in it's various forms). Who are "they"? Bankers, investment firms and transnational corporations.

These financial entities are using the turmoil we are experiencing to consolidate their power and achieve what they themselves call "full spectrum dominance". Military, economic AND political dominance. They have NO allegiance to any country and recognize NO borders. Their god is money. Their lust is power. Most of the world's "leaders" are, basically, just figureheads who are subservient to those who placed them there.

Nations of the developed West (known as First World nations), who possess an unlimited source of finance (remember, they print money out of thin air) and unimaginable military might, are used to force the few remaining countries outside their sphere of influence to accept our way of life. They claim a monopoly on truth and justice. War can be made to look like peace. Evil can be made to look like good.

We can be made to believe that "freedom and democracy" will prevail if we use the barrel of a gun. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the most sanitized in our history. No one likes to see the pictures of innocent men, women and children being killed in our name. Airstrikes using "smart bombs" destroy whole villages when seeking to kill a handful of "terrorists".

I'm expected to believe that these atrocities are justified so that the "new World Order" can come to fruition. These are, in reality, war crimes. I'm supposed to accept these acts as necessary for my well-being? I'm sorry, I can't. And if I could, I wouldn't. The words in the article have the appearance of moral excellence and virtue but, in actuality, they disguise their true intent. We will hear many more words that appeal to our ears. Let us then open our eyes when determining their validity. Later!









Yo, everybody! I just read the $700 billion we gave for the "rescue" (aka...bailout) package WILL NOT be used to help the troubled mortgage industry as originally planned. The bankers will get the benefit. Why does this not surprise me? Let's see how they'll sugarcoat this one! (i knew it)








[/quote]

geeze man...how many times did you watch Zeitgeist?


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

I agree with you 100% Graffight!


----------



## pyrokingbrand (Nov 30, 2004)

you notice how bernake has that little tiny tiny $hit grin after he finishes answering?


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Nice find Pyroking. ALL there, plain and simple!


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Chemical Trails. Anyone ever here of these? Watch this and all related videos.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Now aint that a FU*KING BEOTCH??? Only a conspiracy right??? Then people wonder where the F*CK all these 'so called' flu's and every other f*cking thing else is coming from. Peolpe need to smell the f*cking coffee already and see the WORST government on earth at its best.


----------



## pyrokingbrand (Nov 30, 2004)

Hey baddfish (any others viewing),

It seems to me that everything occurring economically at the present time is simply a form of panic and destabilization control. I guess what I mean, is that the real facts concerning unemployment, inflation, etc.. are completely skewed by our government so as to create a facade of economic security. (G20 summit, bernanke/paulson televised talks etc..) One month they are saying we are gaining economically and then a month later they state that they were wrong yet there is a silver lining (WTF!). This in turn has the wanted effect of lowering the standard of living for the average American while at the same time its preventing differing forms of panic amongst the populace. Any observations in your area? Things seem OK here aside from people in general not spending as much. (I work in the tourism industry, which is nowhere near what it was even 2 years ago) I guess I am just curious to see and know how other people on the board are being effected economically.

thoughts?

(trying not to derail)

NY TIMES ARTICLE


----------



## ICEE (Feb 3, 2007)

baddfish said:


> Now aint that a FU*KING BEOTCH??? Only a conspiracy right??? Then people wonder where the F*CK all these 'so called' flu's and every other f*cking thing else is coming from. Peolpe need to smell the f*cking coffee already and see the WORST government on earth at its best.


keep preaching it man..


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

pyrokingbrand said:


> Hey baddfish (any others viewing),
> 
> It seems to me that everything occurring economically at the present time is simply a form of panic and destabilization control. I guess what I mean, is that the real facts concerning unemployment, inflation, etc.. are completely skewed by our government so as to create a facade of economic security. (G20 summit, bernanke/paulson televised talks etc..) One month they are saying we are gaining economically and then a month later they state that they were wrong yet there is a silver lining (WTF!). This in turn has the wanted effect of lowering the standard of living for the average American while at the same time its preventing differing forms of panic amongst the populace. Any observations in your area? Things seem OK here aside from people in general not spending as much. (I work in the tourism industry, which is nowhere near what it was even 2 years ago) I guess I am just curious to see and know how other people on the board are being effected economically.
> 
> ...


I kinda agree. The economy is alot worse than they say. The government and corporations like sowing the seeds of confusion and panic. Throw in a little fear of "terrorism" for good measure. With this so-called "globalization", the only way Americans can compete in the world market is to have our standard of living lowered to where we will work for "chump change". Then we can compete with those working for $2 an hour. Save, don't spend unnecessarily :nod:


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Possible gold confiscation under pretense of national security?‏

Gold Confiscation

Saturday, November 29, 2008, 9:34 pm, by Chris Martenson Here's a question I received today, and it is both quite common and legitimate.

Hi Chris, I know you have been a strong physical gold advocate as many on this site have been as well. I can't think of a less risky term to store wealth over the long term. However, although gold confiscation has been mentioned in a few articles on the site, I have yet to see you post any comments or opinions.

The biggest risk I see with gold is the confiscation issue. Everyone will have to decide their own course of action if this comes to pass, but my question to you is this: What evidence do you see for or against the reimplementation of a gold standard and what evidence do you see for or against another round of gold confiscation??

Sincerely, Mike All I can offer here is my opinion, as I certainly do not have any better insights than anybody else. When gold was confiscated in 1933, gold was money. Today it is not. That, in a nutshell, defines why I place the possibility of gold confiscation quite low on my personal list of Things to Worry About. First, here are the reasons I am not terribly worried about gold confiscation:

The current official stockpile of gold in the US stands at 261 million ounces. While there is more in private hands, we also have to consider that the US has almost certainly leased a lot of the official gold out, so it is unlikely that there's a whole lot more than that within our borders at the moment. At the current price of $810/ounce, the total value of all the official gold in the US is $211 billion.$211 billion is barely two-thirds of the amount that was lavished on Citibank over a single 24 hour period last weekend and less than one-sixth the amount of new money created by the Fed since September.

Total debt of the US government stands at nearly 50 times as much as $211 billion.Total credit market debt of the US stands at more than 230 times as much as $211 billion. The case I am making here is that the total amount of gold, at current values, is puny and insignificant compared to either the amount of debt or money creation. And the amount of gold in private hands? An even tinier amount than supposedly exists in the official US stockpiles.

So in the context of current monetary and fiscal policy, gold in the hands of US citizens is not significant enough to merit the distraction and possible legal difficulties that would be required to seize it from law-abiding US citizens. Well in advance of gold being seized, I would expect 401Ks to have their tax rules amended to pass more funds to the government. I would anticipate enhanced seizure and forfeiture rules, directed at larger pools of money and larger assets.

Why? Because that's where the wealth currently resides. And here are the conditions under which I will become more concerned that gold forfeiture and seizure rules might be in the offing:

1. Gold climbs to some meaningful dollar value that both represents a threat to the perceived value of the dollar and represents a meaningful target for seizure. For me that number begins around $5,000/ounce and becomes critical around $10,000/ounce.

2. Some foreign country with a resource we want demands payment in gold. For example, if some oil-producing nation suddenly demands gold in exchange for oil, I would place a very high probability that gold will be seized under the umbrella of "national security."

3. A major bank, playing the short side of the paper gold trade, gets caught, is unable to deliver, and faces insolvency as a result. Here I might also expect the rules to suddenly be changed to protect yet another "too big to fail" institution.

4. A new international standard of currency exchange arises, based in whole or part on gold. In this scenario I could see all gold in the world being declared off-limits for everybody except for official purposes and uses. While reason #4 gives me the most pause, I am counting on two things:

My ability to see this coming from a long way off, and my ability to sell out at a much higher price prior to it happening. But the short version of all this is that gold is not money in today's financial system, and it is a tiny asset compared to other more readily identified and liquid assets. Those, like Argentinian bank accounts in 2001, would presumably become the first targets of a desperate government.

Great question, and thanks for asking!


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Yo, everybody! This is just one of the myriad of concerns I have in regards to the financial sector of our troubled economy. I wonder whether many people are aware of the things our government can "legally" do under the pretense of "national security".

We already know that the rich can be "bailed out". The working stiffs will be left to our own resources. However little we possess. The only real upside to all this is our faith in God. Knowing that the forces working against us will not prevail in the end. In the meantime, we must prepare for our faith to be severely tested.

The Bible predicts a great "falling away" during the Tribulation. People will give up because of their fear of death. Jesus overcame death. How can you harm someone who has no fear of death? Anyway, back to where we were. Pegging the dollar back to the gold standard will never happen again. 1933 was one of the first steps in debauching our currency......1971 was the last.

In 1971, Nixon made a speech saying that the dollar will not be backed by gold "temporarily". The U.S. government needed the capacity to "print money out of thin air" to pay for the Vietnam War. 37 years later, our money is still a symbol of debt backed only by the sweat of our labor. Our real debt is in the TRILLIONS!!! It is a debt owed to filthy rich bankers that is impossible to repay.

In a classic case of "history repeating itself", we are being asked (in effect, TOLD!) to pay for, yet, another war. One that they themselves admit could last "a hundred years". At a cost of $400 billion a year. Somehow, someway this is allowed to happen. With barely a whimper of resistance. My words, which echo the words of those much smarter than me, will not be a catalyst for any substantive change. It's a real uphill battle. The only real "light at the end of the tunnel" is divine in nature.

It's our only chance.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Yo! Quick question. Is "spreading the wealth" wrong? Obama was slammed when he talked to "Joe the Plumber" and used that "evil" socialistic term. Yet, the rich were "bailed" out. Hundreds of billions was used to "spread the wealth" among them. Let's assume "spreading the wealth" is wrong. If it has to be done, wouldn't it be better to "spread" it among the majority of Americans who are in dire straits because of Bush's failed domestic economic policy? Just asking.









And another thing. It's official. We are in a "recession". Of course, we all knew that, but now they're admitting it. Not only that, but we've been in one for a year! What was all that baloney they've been saying during that time? "Oh, we're not, really". "The criteria for a recession has not yet been met". What a bunch of liars! They were hoping to get you to spend money you don't have.

I feel sorry for Obama. He's inherited such a mess. Bush has bankrupted the country while making his buddies filthy rich. It's like when little 2 and 3 year old kids are left alone in the house and they take 15 minutes to trash it. Then it takes you hours to clean it up. Bush has had eight years!!!! What Obama is proposing is to borrow (print more money) anywhere from 500 billion to one trillion dollars to jumpstart the economy. I believe this is our last chance.

If this don't work.....never mind. It's too scary. The only bright light in his plan is that the money will be used to "invest in America". Create jobs. Fix our infrastructure like roads, bridges and dams. Public transportation needs a boost. Especially, since most of us can't afford a new car. Improve the educational system. It's a long term type of thing. BUT!.....how much time do we have? I can hear Bush laughing right now. Jobs. Jobs. Jobs.

Good, well paying jobs are needed. Most of those have gone overseas. Bush claims to have created millions of jobs during his tenure. True. What he failed to say is that those jobs were minimum wage jobs. Who here can buy a home or send their kids to college on minimum wage? HELLO!?! Again, hang tight with your money. Let the rich spend us out of a recession. They got the $$$$. Not us.

A few quotes to 'ponder'.

The worst thing that can happen to a good cause
is not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
(1801-1850) French economist, statesman, and author. He did most of his writing during the years just before -- and immediately following -- the French Revolution of February 1848
Source: The Law, by Frederic Bastiat, 1850
http://liberty-tree.ca/research/TheLaw
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/F...tiat.Quote.093E

"We shall not grow wiser before we learn that
much that we have done was very foolish."
-- Fredrich August von Hayek
(1899-1992), Nobel Laureate of Economic Sciences 1974
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/F...ayek.Quote.57BA

"The most odious of all oppressions are those which mask as justice." (aint that the FU*KING truth)?
-- Justice Robert H. Jackson
(1892-1954), U. S. Supreme Court Justice
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/R...kson.Quote.EFC2


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

If i'm mistaken, aren't you the same one that has been completely against printing money that was not backed up by gold? I remember post after post after post by you saying that printing money 'out of air' is ruining the country. But now that Barack Obama says we need to do this on an even bigger scale, you are OK with it??? Explain this to me baddfish because it looks very hypocrite if you ask me.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Lowporkwa said:


> If i'm mistaken, aren't you the same one that has been completely against printing money that was not backed up by gold? I remember post after post after post by you saying that printing money 'out of air' is ruining the country. (it already has) But now that Barack Obama says we need to do this on an even bigger scale, you are OK with it??? Explain this to me baddfish because it looks very hypocrite if you ask me.


You're ABSOLUTELY right! I believe you missed the beginning of the post.

Let's assume "spreading the wealth" is wrong. IF IT HAS TO BE DONE, again, IF IT HAS TO BE DONE, wouldn't it be better to "spread" it among the majority of Americans who are in dire straits because of Bush's failed domestic economic policy? (because of how Bush FU*KED UP) Or was it right to simply do it for the rich?

You must be rich. Otherwise, VERY narrow minded. Keep 'chasing' that paper. In the end, you wont even be able to wipe your own arse with it!


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

Or you just change your mind when the Messiah says you should, because thats what you just did.

Listen I have to read into it more to say i'm for or against it, I just think its funny how fast you changed your mind on one of your biggest arguments against how the government is run.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Thats right. My mind DID change when they printed all that paper to bail out the RICH. Lets do it for the middle class and the poor now. Got a problem with that?









Here. More 'stuff' your gov gots in store for you!

FEMA Concentration Camps:
Locations and Executive Orders 
Friends of Liberty (undated) 3sep04
[ Below: U.S. Concentration Camps: FEMA and the REX 84 Program - The Awakening News (undated) 3sep04]

See Google Map of Camps by Todd

Mindfully.org note:

It may be easy to find fault with the premise of this article. You may even know of numerous sites that are not used as camps. But the plain fact remains that the USA maintains illegal prisons around the world. It remains a secret only to imbeciles in the US. The rest of the world knows for certain that it's quite real.

The way things are going in the US, it's not a matter of if, but when these underused facilities come online to serve the master - otherwise known as Moloch. Most likely, not many Japanese in the US doubt the premise of this article. And for Jews in Europe during the Holocaust, the article must hit a hard note.

So, what makes you think it can't happen here?

The executive orders below are quite real. The camps exist. Do the math.

Update 31jan2006
Halliburton subsidiary KBR Awarded $385 Million Contract to Build Detention Facilities in USA

Update 11nov2008
Bush Intelligence Policy to Stay Largely Intact Under Obama - Wall Street Journal

There are over 800 prison camps in the United States, all fully operational and ready to receive prisoners. They are all staffed and even surrounded by full-time guards, but they are all empty. These camps are to be operated by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) should Martial Law need to be implemented in the United States and all it would take is a presidential signature on a proclamation and the attorney general's signature on a warrant to which a list of names is attached.

Ask yourself if you really want to be on Ashcroft's list. The Rex 84 Program was established on the reasoning that if a "mass exodus" of illegal aliens crossed the Mexican/US border, they would be quickly rounded up and detained in detention centers by FEMA. Rex 84 allowed many military bases to be closed down and to be turned into prisons.

Operation Cable Splicer and Garden Plot are the two sub programs which will be implemented once the Rex 84 program is initiated for its proper purpose. Garden Plot is the program to control the population. Cable Splicer is the program for an orderly takeover of the state and local governments by the federal government. FEMA is the executive arm of the coming police state and thus will head up all operations. The Presidential Executive Orders already listed on the Federal Register also are part of the legal framework for this operation.

The camps all have railroad facilities as well as roads leading to and from the detention facilities. Many also have an airport nearby. The majority of the camps can house a population of 20,000 prisoners. Currently, the largest of these facilities is just outside of Fairbanks, Alaska. The Alaskan facility is a massive mental health facility and can hold approximately 2 million people.

Now let's review the justification for any actions taken...

Executive Orders associated with FEMA that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:...









So think about it. I understand certain actions must be taken by our government to insure stability in a crisis. My problem is the "Patriot Act". ONLY ONE MAN (the President) can determine whether a "crisis" is dangerous enough to warrant the implementation of Martial Law. There is NO Congressional oversight or power to overrule him. THAT IS NOT GOOD. Do a little research and check it out.









Second quote is very interesting. During the Iran-Contra Hearings, a secret government "program" was unveiled.....Rex 84. Google it and be shocked! Mass arrests, concentration camps and Martial Law.

"Corruption is no stranger to Washington; it is a famous resident."
-- Walter Goodman
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/W...dman.Quote.71E8

"There exists a shadowy government with its own Air Force,
its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and
the ability to pursue its own ideas of national interest,
free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself."
-- Daniel K. Inouye
(1924- ) US Senator, Hawaii-D (1963-present)
Source: at the Iran Contra Hearings, 1986
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/D...ouye.Quote.E438

"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook."
-- Harry S. Truman
(1884-1972), 33rd US President
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/H...uman.Quote.58BC


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

"NONE dare call it Conspiracy"/ Gary Allen

I came across a book by author Gary Allen titled the above subject line. I have spent the last hour reading the first tenth of it. It's hard to stop reading it. It was written in 1971. It is trying to warn the American public against the international financiers and bankers attempts to control whole governments by regulating the value of each of these governments' currency. Including (and, especially) our own.

Keep in mind that the national debt in 1913 (the year the Federal Reserve System was created) was $1 billion. In 1971, when this book was written, it ballooned to $455 billion. What is it now? Over $10 trillion! Many say this is a conservative figure. This author exposes how recessions and depressions are "scientifically created" by the "money powers" of the international banking system. He does it in a way that I, as well as other "lay people" lacking economic expertise, can understand.

By removing the gold standard that backs currencies, they now have the capacity to "print money out of thin air". A worldwide and legal counterfeiting operation. In EVERY single war, over at least the last four centuries, both sides of the conflict were financed by international bankers.

Conspiracy theory? Possible, if not for the quotes by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and many others who warned of what could happen in the future if we were to give control of our money supply to private banks. Thomas Jefferson once wrote a letter to John Adams saying that he believed international bankers were more dangerous to this country than standing armies.

Did he know something most of us don't? Even back then? Think about the last sentence in this excerpt......does the term "globalization" come to mind? The author is warning of the "socialization" of the American economy IN 1971! The current "bailout" of the rich has been called socialism. I'm going to copy and paste a small excerpt from the book. Sometimes it works. Most of the time, it doesn't. Here goes!

Prof. Carroll Quigley of Harvard, Princeton and Georgetown Universities wrote book disclosing international bankers' plan to control the world from behind the political and financial scenes. Quigley revealed plans of billionaires to establish dictatorship of the super-rich disguised as workers' democracies.

J. P. Morgan created artificial panic used as excuse to pass Federal Reserve Act Morgan was instrumental in pushing U. S. into WWI to protect his loans to British government. He financed Socialist groups to create an all-powerful centralized government which international bankers would control at the apex from behind the scenes. After his death, his partners helped finance the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.
And, curiously enough, the Federal Reserve System has never been audited and has firmly resisted all attempts by House Banking Committee Chairman Wright Patman to have it audited. (N. Y. Times, Sept.14, 1967.)

How successful has the Federal Reserve System been? It depends on your point of view. Since Woodrow Wilson took his oath of office, the national debt has risen from $1 billion to $455 billion The total amount of interest paid since then to the international bankers holding that debt is staggering, with interest having become the third largest item in the federal budget. Interest on the national debt is now $22 billion every year, and climbing steeply as inflation pushes up the interest rate on government bonds. Meanwhile, our gold is mortgaged to European central banks, and our silver has all been sold. With economic catastrophe imminent, only a blind disciple of the "accidental theory of history" could believe that all of this has occurred by coincidence.

When the Federal Reserve System was foisted on an unsuspecting American public, there were absolute guarantees that there would be no more boom and bust economic cycles. The men who, behind the scenes, were pushing the central bank concept for the international bankers faithfully promised that from then on there would be only steady growth and perpetual prosperity. However, Congressman Charies A. Lindberg Sr. accurately proclaimed:

"From now on depressions will be scientifically created."

Using a central bank to create alternate periods of inflation and deflation, and thus whipsawing the public for vast profits, had been worked out by the international bankers to an exact science.
Having built the Federal Reserve as a tool to consolidate and control wealth, the international bankers were now ready to make a major killing. Between 1923 and 1929, the Federal Reserve expanded (inflated) the money supply by sixty-two percent. Much of this new money was used to bid the stock market up to dizzying heights.
At the same time that enormous amounts of credit money were being made available, the mass media began to ballyhoo tales of the instant riches to be made in the stock market. According to Ferdinand Lundberg:

"For profits to be made on these funds the public had to be induced to speculate, and it was so induced by misleading newspaper accounts, many of them bought and paid for by the brokers that operated the pools&#8230;"

The House Hearings on Stabilization of the Purchasing Power of the Dollar disclosed evidence in 1928 that the Federal Reserve Board was working closely with the heads of European central banks. The Committee warned that a major crash had been planned in 1927. At a secret luncheon of the Federal Reserve Board and heads of the European central banks, the committee warned, the international bankers were tightening the noose.

Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, came to Washington on February 6, 1929, to confer with Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury. On November 11, 1927, the Wall Street Journal described Mr. Norman as "the currency dictator of Europe." Professor Carroll Quigley notes that Norman, a close confidant of J. P. Morgan, admitted: "I hold the hegemony of the world." Immediately after this mysterious visit, the Federal Reserve Board reversed its easy-money policy and began raising the discount rate. The balloon which had been inflated constantly for nearly seven years was about to be exploded.
On October 24, the feathers hit the fan. Writing in The United States' Unresolved Monetary and Political Problems, William Bryan describes what happened:

"When everything was ready, the New York financiers started calling 24 hour broker call loans. This meant that the stockbrokers and the customers had to dump their stock on the market in order to pay the loans. This naturally collapsed the stock market and brought a banking collapse all over the country because the banks not owned by the oligarchy were heavily involved in broker call claims at this time, and bank runs soon exhausted their coin and currency and they had to close. The Federal Reserve System would not come to their aid, although they were instructed under the law to maintain an elastic currency."

The investing public, including most stock brokers and bankers, took a horrendous blow in the crash, but not the insiders. They were either out of the market or had sold "short" so that they made enormous profits as the Dow Jones plummeted. For those who knew the score, a comment by Paul Warburg had provided the warning to sell. That signal came on March 9, 1929, when the Financial Chronical quoted Warburg as giving this sound advice:

"If orgies of unrestricted speculation are permitted to spread too far . the ultimate collapse is certain &#8230; to bring about a general depression involving the whole country."

Sharpies were later able to buy back these stocks at a ninety percent discount from their former highs.
To think that the scientifically engineered Crash of '29 was an accident or the result of stupidity defies all logic. The international bankers who promoted the inflationary policies and pushed the propaganda which pumped up the stock market represented too many generations of accumulated expertise to have blundered into "the great depression."
Congressman Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, commented:

"It [the depression] was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence&#8230; The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as the rulers of us all."

Although we have not had another depression of the magnitude of that which followed 1929, we have since suffered regular recessions. Each of these has followed a period in which the Federal Reserve tromped down hard on the money accelerator and then slammed on the brakes. Since 1929 the following recessions have been created by such manipulation:

1936-1937 - Stock Prices fell fifty percent;
1948 - Stock prices dropped sixteen percent;
1953 - Stock declined thirteen percent;
1956-1957 - The market dipped thirteen percent;
1957 - Late in the year the market plunged nineteen percent;
1960 - The market was off seventeen percent;
1966 - Stock prices plummeted twenty-five percent;
1970 - The market plunged over twenty-five percent.

Chart 5, based on one appearing in the highly respected financial publication, indicator Digest of June 24, 1969, shows the effects on the Dow-Jones Industrial Average of Federal Reserve policies of expanding or restricting the monetary supply. This is how the stock market is manipulated and how depressions or recessions are scientifically created. H you have inside knowledge as to which way the Federal Reserve policy is going to go, you can make a ton of money.

The members of the Federal Reserve Board are appointed by the President for fourteen year terms. Since these positions control the entire economy of the country they are far more important than cabinet positions, but who has ever heard of any of them except possibly Chairman Arthur Burns? These appointments which should be extensively debated by the Senate are routinely approved. But, here, as in Europe, these men are mere figureheads, put in their positions at the behest of the international bankers who finance the Presidential campaigns of both political parties.

And, Professor Quigley reveals that these international bankers who owned and controlled the Banks of England and France maintained their power even after those banks were theoretically socialized. The American system is slightly different, but the net effect is the same ever increasing debt requiring ever-increasing interest payments, inflation and periodic scientifically created depressions and recessions.
The end result, if the Insiders have their way, will be the dream of Montagu Norman of the Bank of England "that the Hegemony of World Finance should reign supreme over everyone, everywhere, as one whole super-national control mechanism." (Montagu Norman by John Hargrave, Greystone Press, N.Y., 1942.)

I shared an excerpt from the book "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" and, lo and behold, I see these quotes the next day! By the way, the first quote mentions the "CFR". That stands for the Council on Foreign Relations......a powerful, semi-secret and influential group of rich men. In fact, since WWll, most members of every administration with any real power were (and currently are) also members of the CFR. Google it!

1)Shadow gov't 2)Corporate media 3)Democracy?‏

"There is a de facto "secret government" operating nationally and 
internationally and involved in the highest circles of the U.S. government, 
exercising an impact over domestic policies and economics ranging between 
extreme influence to, at times, outright control. This extreme influence to 
outright control naturally includes the Presidency. The de facto "secret 
government," much of whose intellectual-and financial-muscle are to be found in 
the New York office of the CFR, the great tax-free foundations, and certain 
international firms and corporations."
-- Mike Culbert
Source: in Independent-Gazette (Richmond, California, 27 June 1974), in reference to his discussions with Charles Colson (a member of Nixon's cabinet) on the almost total control of U.S. presidents by the outside forces.
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/M...bert.Quote.E43A

"In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder 
interest, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in 
the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers 
in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the 
policy of the daily press. &#8230; They found it was only necessary to purchase the 
control of 25 of the greatest papers. An agreement was reached; the policy of 
the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for 
each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions 
of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national 
and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers."
-- Oscar Callaway
(1872-1947) U.S. Congressman, TX-D (1911-1917)
Source: Congressional Record of February 9, 1917, page 2947, as entered by Representative Oscar Callaway of Texas
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/O...away.Quote.5054

"But we're not a democracy. It's a terrible misunderstanding
and a slander to the idea of democracy to call us that.
In reality, we're a plutocracy: a government by the wealthy."
-- Ramsey Clark
former U.S. Attorney General
Source: interview in The Sun, August 2001
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/R...lark.Quote.503D


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Yo! The following excerpt may be described by some as "paranoid". It gives a little account of the international banking system. It's from the book I am reading at this time....."None Dare Call It Conspiracy". However, when analyzed closely and objectively, a recognizable historical pattern begins to emerge. One that leads me to question the "status quo".

Alot of this information I don't digest as the Gospel truth. I do some web surfing and read everything I can on subjects directly related to the one that peaks my interest at that particular time. Learning more about history helps. For example, this author mentions the term "balance of power". It reminds me of the end of WWll when the victorious Allies negotiated with the Russians the splitting up of Europe.

The U.S. led Allies took control of the western half and the Russians got the eastern half. Through the Marshall Plan, the U.S. invested billions of dollars (hundreds of billions in today's dollars) into rebuilding western Europe in our "image"......the "free market" system. The Russians, we all know, established a communist bloc of nations diametrically opposed to our economic and political system.

The result, this author alleges, is the creation of an "enemy". The Russians being our enemy and us being the Russian's enemy. Both sides frighten their respective populations with possible nuclear annihilation if an armed conflict were to arise. Enough to warrant a massive military buildup. Corporations whose business involves the production of weapons make an astronomical (really, obscene) amount of profits.

This goes on for almost 40 years. Then, we had the "fall" of the Soviet Union in the 80s. Who is going to be our "enemy" now? Like this author said, "...you must create one". Well, for a little while, we alternated between Castro, Qaddafi of Libya, the Ayatollah of Iran, Kim something or other the leader of North Korea. The "danger" these two-bit dictators posed was magnified by the complicit corporate media.

Finally, in the late 80s, we chose one for the long term. A dictator of our own making......Saddam Hussein. In 1991, we went to war with him. At that time it was decided not to overthrow him right then. Why not use him to "stretch" the threat over a longer period of time. After all, we were running out of evil-doers! For the next few years sanctions were imposed on Iraq, there was a lot of tough talk and constant saber-rattling.

Eventually, the perfect enemy evolved. One that could last for several generations. One that WE helped fight the Soviet Union in it's invasion of Afghanistan. One that former President Reagan, during his administration, called "freedom fighters".....Al Qaeda. Over time, all these foreign interventions and defense expenditures brought our economy to the brink.

We are being told that we have to borrow to get out of debt! EXCUSE ME? Can you run that by me again? Borrow to get OUT of debt? Supposedly, that's our solution. Of course, these bankers are eager to lend. Something is wrong. What else can we do? To be honest, I don't know. Pray, I guess. Later.

Here's a 'root' of ALL evil!

Congressman Lindbergh Sr. (father of the great aviator) warned the people in December of 1913, when the Federal Reserve Act was quietly passed, of the impending runaway inflation.

This act (the Federal Reserve Act)
establishes the most gigantic trust on Earth...
When the President signs this act,
the invisible government by the money power,
proven to exist by the Money Trust Investigation,
will be legalized...
The new law will create inflation
whenever the trusts want inflation..."
Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr.
December, 1913

"IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY
WE HAVE IN EFFECT TWO GOVERNMENTS...
We have the duly constituted government...
Then we have an independent,
uncontrolled and uncoordinated government
in the Federal Reserve System,
operating the money powers
reserved to Congress by the Constitution."
- Congressman Wright Patman,
(former) Chairman of the House Banking Committee

........
"Those that create and issue the money and credit
direct the policies of government
and hold in their hands
the destiny of the people."
Reginald McKenna,
(former) president of the Midlands Bank of England.
.......
...


----------



## TobiasRieper (Mar 14, 2008)

wow, do you type this stuff all out or copy and paste?


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

TobiasRieper said:


> wow, do you type this stuff all out or copy and paste?


Copy and paste...at least, I hope he does, as almost all of those can be found verbatim on other sites.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

TobiasRieper said:


> wow, do you type this stuff all out or copy and paste?


You still haven't figured it out yet huh???









Yeah, STAY in Canada!


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Yo! Have we forgotten this sh*t? Have we been dooped? We're supposed to be afraid of some m*ther fu*ker (Osama) living in a cave and wearing a rag? Every time he yells BOO! We jump? C'mon! Some one said that we're supposed to believe in our freedom (Patrick Henry...."I know not what course others may take, but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!!!!!!). NO MATTER WHAT! Don't tell me that you are willing to fight for your freedom and then let somebody SCARE you! What happened? Bush had said that Osama is out there. So we are to give up our freedom because he said so. Oh yeah! Bush will protect us! Lets just give him all the power! Well, now, we have a real President. I ain't scared. I would rather have freedom than safety! WOW!!! Am I a terrorist or insurgent because I love freedom? Am I a "radical". So many times people have told me that they "love" their freedom, yet they are so willing to give it up for "safety". Yeah, let's let the gov't do whatever they want. They'll protect us. Right?









"There is little value in insuring the survival
of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it.
And there is very grave danger that an announced need
for increased security will be seized upon
by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits
of official censorship and concealment."
-- John F. Kennedy
(1917-1963) 35th US President
Source: Address, 27 April 1961
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/J...nedy.Quote.A324

"The high office of the President has been used to foment
a plot to destroy the American's freedom and before I leave office,
I must inform the citizen of this plight."
-- John F. Kennedy
(1917-1963) 35th US President
Source: Columbia University on Nov. 12, 1963, 10 days before his assassination
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/J...nedy.Quote.1A40

"And so, my fellow Americans:
Ask not what your country can do for you --
ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world:
Ask not what America will do for you,
but what together we can do for the freedom of man."
-- John F. Kennedy
(1917-1963) 35th US President
Source: Inaugural address, January 20, 1961
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/J...nedy.Quote.A1F7

Now, you ALL didn't think that i was through with this CHIT did you???


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

The following quotes accurately portray the current money system. This criminal system was intentionally structured to enslave generations upon generations of unwitting Americans beginning on the true "date that will live in infamy".......23 Dec 1913, when Congress relinquished it's authority to print and issue money. That power now resides in the hands of a few VERY rich private (and foreign!) bankers. Some members of this evil consortium call themselves the "Federal Reserve". In the Bible it says, "The borrower will be servant to the lender". You think things are tough now? You ain't seen nothin', yet.









"Sovereignty inheres in the right to issue money. And the American sovereignty belongs by right to the people, and their representatives in Congress have the right to issue money and to determine the value thereof. And 120 million, 120 million suckers have lamentably failed to insist on the observation of this quite decided law. ... Now the point at which embezzlement of the nation's funds on the part of her officers becomes treason can probably be decided only by jurists, and not by hand-picked judges who support illegality."
-- Ezra Pound
(1885-1972) American poet
April 9, 1942
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/E...ound.Quote.4F4D

"Wars in old times were made to get slaves.
The modern implement of imposing slavery is debt."
-- Ezra Pound
(1885-1972) American poet
March 25, 1943
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/E...ound.Quote.8FDE

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together
in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal
system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
-- Frederic Bastiat
(1801-1850) French economist, statesman, and author. He did most of his writing during the years just before -- and immediately following -- the French Revolution of February 1848
Source: "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat (1848)


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

i am so glad this thread was started. only seeing it pop up once in a while for this is far superior to multiple pointless cut and paste quotes.


----------



## KrBjostad (Jun 21, 2008)

mdrs said:


> i am so glad this thread was started. only seeing it pop up once in a while for this is far superior to multiple pointless cut and paste quotes.


x2


----------



## pyrokingbrand (Nov 30, 2004)

KrBjostad said:


> i am so glad this thread was started. only seeing it pop up once in a while for this is far superior to multiple pointless cut and paste quotes.


x2







[/quote]Whats the point of these two posts? Are you guys angry because you realize the situation our country is falling into? Or are you ignorant of the fact? To add to baddfish's comments, Our money system is based upon a fiat currency, which is bound to fail especially because of the abuses, which are now occurring at an expedited rate (bailouts etc...) The inflation problem is my current concern. I think this "Recession" as they are insistently still calling it is just the beginning. We are nowhere near the bottom and that is the real problem right now IMO. LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE. What Does Fiat Money Mean?Currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, despite the fact that it has no intrinsic value and is not backed by reserves. Historically, most currencies were based on physical commodities such as gold or silver, but fiat money is based solely on *faith.*Jim rogers talking about the demise of the dollar....


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

"Commercial banks create checkbook money whenever they grant a loan,
simply by adding new deposit dollars in accounts on their books
in exchange for a borrower's IOU."
-- Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Source: I Bet You Thought, p.19
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/F...York.Quote.2BCB

"The decrease in purchasing power incurred by holders of money
due to inflation imparts gains to the issuers of money..."
-- Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Source: Review, Nov. 1975, p.22 
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/F...ouis.Quote.2BC8

"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value -- zero."
-- Voltaire
[François Marie Arouet] (1694-1778)
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Voltaire.Quote.2BC6

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, November 23, 1933, in a letter to colonel Edward Mandell House

The real truth of the matter is that a financial element in the large centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.

Congressman Louis McFadden, chairman, House Banking and currency Committee, June 10, 1932
Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are U.S. government institutions. They are not ... they are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the U.S. for the benefit of themselves and their foreign and domestic swindlers, and rich and predatory money lenders. The sack of the United States by the Fed is the greatest crime in history. Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers, but the truth is the Fed has usurped the government. It controls everything here and it controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will.

An editorial in the The Union Times during the Civil War - against President Abraham Lincoln's debt-free Greenbacks
If that mischievous financial policy which had its origin in the North American Republic during the late war [Civil War], should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debt. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.

The first quote is by FDR. Who "owns" the gov't? A "financial element".

Second.....Congressman Louis McFadden. He twice survived attempts on his life with a gun. He was finally murdered by being poisoned at a banquet. Why? He warned the people of the "Money Powers" illegal influence on gov't.

Third.....an editorial in a newspaper during the Civil War. You see, during the war, Abraham Lincoln created the "greenback". This was a currency created by Congress (according to Consitutional law) and was DEBT-FREE!!!! THERE IS NO INTEREST THAT MUST BE PAID TO FOREIGN BANKERS!!!! The U.S. could then pay off the debt incurred up until that time. Then it would owe NO ONE!!! The author of this editorial (most likely a supporter of the "financial element" i.e., the "Money Power") warned that it would eventually, if it became permanent, destroy every monarchy on the globe. The first sentence in this quote calls Lincoln's greenback a "mischievous financial policy". I'd bet it's "mischievous"!!! It removes their control! What happened to Abraham Lincoln? I don't think I have to tell you.

Back in the 18th century, just prior to the Revolutionary War, the colonies created the "Colonial Script". A currency backed by goods and services. They prospered. The Bank of England became infuriated and called for the elimination of the Script. The colonists refused. Hence, the war for independence.

In the summer of 1963 (I believe it was June 4th), then president Kennedy signed an executive order saying that the government would renew the policy of hoarding silver and then print a paper called the "silver cerificate" that would be backed by said silver. Initially, the gov't would hoard $4 billion worth of silver and he would print the currency in small denominations ($1, $5, $10 bills). This currency would NOT be a symbol of debt, like the dollar. But would have actual value! OH MY GOD!! A sound monetary policy!!! He would later want to expand on this policy with larger denominations of certificates. Unfortunately, he was assassinated a little over five months afterwards on Nov. 22, 1963. Coincidence, I'm sure. (?)

Another topic!

William Astore | An American Foreign Legion: Is the US Military Now an Imperial Police Force?
http://www.truthout.org/021609K
William Astore, TomDispatch: "A leaner, meaner, higher tech force - that was what George W. Bush and his Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld promised to transform the American military into. Instead, they came close to turning it into a foreign legion. Foreign as in being constantly deployed overseas on imperial errands; foreign as in being ever more reliant on private military contractors; foreign as in being increasingly segregated from the elites that profit most from its actions, yet serve the least in its ranks. Now would be a good time for President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to begin to reclaim that military for its proper purpose: to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Now would be a good time to ask exactly why, and for whom, our troops are currently fighting and dying in the urban jungles of Iraq and the hostile hills of Afghanistan."

There are now, at least, as many "private military contractors" ( nice way of saying mercernaries!) as there are troops in Iraq. Chi-ching!


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Gilbert Keith Chesterton, Ron Paul and Ronald Reagan

"When men have come to the edge of a precipice,
it is the lover of life who has the spirit to leap backwards,
and only the pessimist who continues to believe in progress."
-- Gilbert Keith Chesterton
(1874-1936) British essayist, critic, poet, and novelist
Source: Illustrated London News, Nov 8, 1924
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/G...rton.Quote.9D62

"American voters should understand that Congress will always find a way to spend every last dollar sent to Washington. Remember, politicians get votes by promising everything to everyone, always at the expense of some other invisible taxpayers. &#8230;The federal government cannot maintain a budget surplus any more than an alcoholic can leave a fresh bottle of whiskey untouched in the cupboard."
-- Ron Paul
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Ron.Paul.Quote.404C

"Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business, frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite."
-- Ronald Reagan
(1911-2004) 40th US President
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/R...agan.Quote.40BE


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

We are now 11 TRILLION dollars in dept. Remember, "the BORROWER will be servant to the leader".









"The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it. The process by which banks create money is so simple the mind is repelled. With something so important, a deeper mystery seems only decent."
-- John Kenneth Galbraith
(1908- ) Canadian-born economist, Harvard professor
Source: 'Money: Whence it came, where it went' (1975) 
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/J...aith.Quote.E08D

"The issue which has swept down the centuries
and which will have to be fought sooner or later
is the people versus the banks."
-- Lord Acton
[John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton] (1834-1902), First Baron Acton of Aldenham
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Acton.Quote.B723

"When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain."
-- Napoleon Bonaparte
(1769-1821) French emperor
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/N...arte.Quote.0D4B


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Other serious issues to 'ponder'.









"False flag" is a term used within the CIA to describe an activity whereby our own agents commit acts of terror (of course, they call it "covert operations") within the borders of an "enemy" or "rogue" nation and, when that nation responds, the American public is tricked into believing that we are being threatened or attacked without provocation.

This clever use of fear results in a "helpful wave of national indignation." Especially, if these acts are committed within our own borders. The power elite can then easily justify military action against whatever country is considered the "bogeyman" of that particular time. Over the last few decades, we've had several "bogeymen". I'm sure you remember them. We would alternate them every year or two.

Some were of our own making. Fidel Castro, the Ayatollah of Iran, Kim of North Korea, Moamar Qaddafi of Libya, Saddam Hussein of Iraq and who can forget Noriega? Just to name a few. By magnifying their capacity to "destroy our way of life", it made it much easier to maintain a climate of fear. Most, if not all, were really just two-bit, run-of-the-mill dictators. Currently, we have the best external threat of all time. Osama Bin Laden. He is the best because of his ability to remain "invisible".

As such, he can be used as the "bogeyman" for a much longer period of time. "Operation Northwoods", outlined in the article below, was never implemented. Thanks to Kennedy vetoing the plan. It's very likely he paid for it with his life. Prior to his assassination, Kennedy made a televised speech in Philadelphia (I think it was Philly). He claimed that hidden forces were attempting to manipulate the U.S. government.

He made it clear that he was going to inform the American people about it once he learned more. Ten days later, he was dead. Believe it or not (like it or not), this is all documented fact. Little by little, the pieces of the puzzle are coming together to reveal the true nature of our "system of things".

Although the puppeteers behind [John] Kennedy's assassination have never been officially exposed, some investigators have concluded that he was another victim of the invisible hand of the international corporate/ banking/military cartel. President Eisenhower warned in his 1961 Farewell Address of the encroaching powers of the military-industrial - complex. To that mix [Donald] Gibson [in his book - Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency] would add the oil cartel and the Morgan-Rockefeller banking sector, which were closely aligned. Kennedy took a bold stand against them all.

How he stood up to the CIA and the military was revealed by James Bamford in a book called Body of Secrets, which was featured by ABC News in November 2001, two months after the World Trade Center disaster. The book discussed Kennedy's threat to abolish the CIA's right to conduct covert operations, after he was presented with secret military plans code-named "Operation Northwoods" in 1962.

Drafted by America's top military leaders, these bizarre plans included proposals to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities, in order to create public support for a war against Cuba. Actions contemplated included hijacking planes, assassinating Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, blowing up a U.S. ship, orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities, and causing U.S. military casualties, all for the purpose of tricking the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then-new Communist leader Fidel Castro. The proposal stated, "We could blowup a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and that "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Needless to say, Kennedy was shocked and flatly vetoed the plans. The head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was promptly transferred to another job. The country's youngest President was assassinated the following year. Whether or not Operation Northwoods played a role, it was further evidence of an "invisible government" acting behind the scenes.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Hey! I found the following article very informative and explained in simple terms so that I could understand. The title is:

Total Meltdown and Civil Unrest?

Wall Streets Manipulated Stock Market Rally

by Matthias Chang

The numbers that have been bandied about is beyond the comprehension of the average Joe Six-Packs. I cannot even figure out $500 billion, what more $500 trillion. Ninety per cent of government leaders are also unable to figure out the enormity of the global debt sink-hole.

So, I have accepted the fact that 97 per cent of Americans will just accept whatever explanations and excuses thrown at them by President Obama, Fed Bernanke and Treasury Geithner for bailing out the banks and failing to prevent the implosion of the economy by summer of 2009.

Obama inherited the mess created by war criminal Bush, aided and abetted by Alan Greenspan, Bernanke and Geithner, so he can be excused for there is nothing that he can do at this late hour to change the outcome. But the rest should be lynched!

In the last two years, in several articles, I drew your attention to the fraudulent securities that have been peddled by the global banks and how they have caused the present grid-lock in the global financial system. In essence, these securities - MBS, CDOs, CLOs, etc. were all fraudulent papers. Whatever mortgages underlying these papers, were over-valued and now they have shown to be worth at the most 10 to 20 cents on the dollar.

There have been suggestions that if all these papers were to be shredded and the debts written off, the global banks' balance sheet would be wiped clean of such toxic assets. In the result the economy would restart and the good old days of cheap credit and unrestrained consumption would usher another boom!

This is a fairy tale.

In the old days, when the hoodlums want to kill someone and have him disappear for good, they would tie his legs together and attach the rope to a heavy object or an anchor and throw the poor fellow into the bottom of the lake or sea, never to be seen again. A small weight, say 10 kg is more than enough to drag the body to the bottom!

The current financial system is not unlike the man who has been thrown overboard and being dragged down by the heavy object. The only chance for survival is if the man could somehow loosen the rope and detach the weight from his legs and swim to the surface, if he could hold his breath long enough.

What is this small weight that is dragging the financial system down? And why writing off this particular debt will not save the banks?

Compared to the global derivative market which is valued in the hundreds of trillions, the global stock market by comparison is a midget. But it is this midget that will cause the financial implosion in America and Europe and reverberate across the world.

Let me explain in simple terms.

When the Dow collapsed from the stratospheric high of 14,000 to less than 7,000 recently (though recovered somewhat) and other stock markets also went south in tandem, it was estimated that at the minimum $30 trillion was wiped out.

What are the consequences of such a drastic collapse?

Let me explain in simple terms again.

Take the share price of Citigroup. At the height of the boom, its market capitalization was over $250 billion. Today, it is less than $10 billion.

Let us say that you bought the shares when it was trading at $150. You also borrowed from the bank to purchase the shares. These shares will have to be pledged to the bank as security for the loan. The shares are now trading a few dollars, say $5.

There is just no way that you can repay the loan and or to obtain additional security to "top-up" the value of the security pledged to the bank. Where are you going to get the cash to buy more shares? Shares of other companies that you may own have also collapsed, and their value may not be sufficient to cover the difference. You are dead meat!

The bank is also in deep shits because there is no way that they can recover the loan from selling the shares, which is worth $5.

There is the added problem that companies, whose shares are traded in the stock exchange, are not worth even at current values because their core business and operations were premised on cheap credit and were therefore highly geared! These companies are in debt to their eyeballs!

They are insolvent, bankrupt!

Try as hard, the Fed and the Treasury will not be able to engineer a stock rally back to 14,000 points. And even if they could, it does not follow that the prices of the shares of specific companies would return to its previous high. In the case of Citigroup back to $200 per share!

There is no way in the next 3 to 5 years for companies whose businesses have collapsed to be able to recover fast enough and to be profitable enough to justify a market value of at least 50 per cent of its previous high. In the case of Citigroup, back up to $100.

That is an example in the financial sector.

In the manufacturing sector, an outfit like General Motors will take at least a decade to recover. Then there are those companies which have out-sourced and or re-located overseas. To restart local production again would take time and vast amount of credit. But would they be competitive, given cheaper cost of production elsewhere?

Corporate America is shutting down.

Stimulus and pump priming will not solve this huge problem.

Millions played at this casino using home equity. Pension funds risked your retirement benefits gambling at this casino and lost. Leveraging, 10, 20 or even 30 times was the norm. There is no money left in the kitty!

Quantity easing or printing money will not solve the problem, because a company's value and market capitalization can only be enhanced through actual production of goods and services. But the Western economies in the last twenty years were skewed towards consumption and the availability of cheap credit.

Applying common sense, what was missing was the creation of surplus value, which is the result of efficient production, and savings which in turn provide the essential capital for more production and savings.

Nothing illustrates this problem better than the case of a farmer who stops farming because he had so much cheap credit, that he stopped farming. He could now easily purchase all he needed, and earned five times more gambling in the stock market casino than he would earn from farming. He mortgaged his farm to secure the borrowings. He lived and consumed like the rich and famous!

When the casino collapsed, he could not maintain the lifestyle and had to resort to selling heirlooms to survive.

Until and unless the farmer starts farming and pays off his debts, he would not be able to accumulate sufficient capital to resume what was once a profitable business.

In short, the farmer like all the millions of gamblers who have been ensnared by the global casino, are now in the debt trap and being slowly dragged down to the bottom of the lake!

Therefore, pumping hundreds of billions to the banks will not solve the problem.

You can bet your last dollar that when millions are caught in the debt trap and there is no way out, and they see billions been given to the Wall Street fat cats, lynching parties will be the order of the day!

The Count Down has started.


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)




----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Dont be fooled by euphemisms! This act is FULL of them.

This bill is under "consideration"! "National Emergency Centers"? Gimme a break! I gotta find out what Hitler told the Jews to get them to go to the concentration camps without puttin' up a fight. Must've been just as vague as the language that's in this Act brought before Congress.

On January 22, 2009, the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act (NECEA) [1] was submitted to Congress for consideration. It was introduced by Congressman Alcee L. Hastings of Florida, a man who, in 1989, became only the sixth federal judge in the history of America to be removed from office by the Senate for corruption and perjury.

Even though NECEA has received very little mainstream media coverage, action alerts are making their way across message boards and Internet sites due to Global Research's Michel Chossudovsky [2], who has brought to light both the Act itself as well as the U.S. government's actions leading up to the presentation of NECEA.

The question we must ask ourselves is simple: if NECEA is meant to address natural disasters, then why is the scope of the Act so vague, large and open-ended? The flipside of which is: if NECEA is only meant to address natural disasters, they why isn't NECEA crystal clear on this point?

Instead, we find that the purpose of these military-based emergency centres may be used to "meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security." (This is extremely dangerous terminology) It is when we attempt to understand the pocket of obscurity created by NECEA's vagueness, and while factoring in the readying of the U.S. military's response to the anticipated civil unrest (due to the economic war being waged on all but the 'haves'), that the potentially insidious nature of the centres becomes evident.

21st century internment camps?

On the surface, NECEA proposes to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security in the establishment of six "national emergency centers on military installations," one in each of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regions.

The purpose of these centres is to use existing military infrastructure for several emergency situations or natural disasters that might render individuals and families "dislocated." NECEA further proposes that over the course of the next two years, $360,000,000 is to be appropriated for this initiative. (To whom do you think such construction contracts will be awarded? If you guessed Halliburton, you are right! That's former vice-president Cheney's company who made billions off the Iraq War!)

As already mentioned, primary concern must be given to the following catch-all phrase: that the purpose of these military-based emergency centres may "meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security." In other words, that the purpose is to be determined by the same U.S. government body who, since launching the trailer for the War on Terrorism in 2001, has systematically worked to institutionalize prejudice against civil rights groups and activists, anti-war movements, unions, 'brown' people (you are homogeneous, don't challenge this) and Muslims, while stripping the American citizen of their right to privacy and dissent.

Second, nowhere does NECEA provide clear indication as to which system of justice those inside of the emergency centres would be held. Since they are to be established within the parameters of military bases, the de facto assumption is that those within would be subject to military law. More dangerous perhaps is an all-together different system, removed even from the military one, learned courtesy of Guantanamo and all other secret and illegal US 'security' facilities across the globe.

NECEA does, however, mention that within six months, the "Secretary of Defense shall transfer to the Secretary of Homeland Security administrative [sic] jurisdiction." It would then follow that the definition of 'administrative' jurisdiction here may have nothing to do with legal jurisdiction, and so NECEA makes it possible that those within the emergency centre would, for the duration of their (interred) stay, not be subject to the regular legal system. Once more, Americans may welcome the suspension of habeas corpus.

At a more general level, these centres are "capable of being scaled up or down" and would each be subject to a "24/7 operations watch center [which] shall be in full ready mode." For what, exactly, the watch centre will be ready, is left to our imagination and to be utilised at the discretion of those in power. Nowhere is it mentioned for whom these centres are to be established, or more specifically, who would be kept within these locations.

NECEA begs the following questions: Are these 'emergency centres' only for U.S. Citizens? How does one become eligible? Is it on a first-come, first-served basis? Does one have to be arrested? If the centre is filled to capacity and there is indeed a natural disaster, how will individuals be kept out? If one is inside of the emergency centre, can they simply walk out and leave, or will their freedom of movement be at the discretion of the military? Etc., ad infinitum.

Finally, and if not more insidious, is the reality that nowhere in NECEA is mentioned either the duration of these emergency centres or the efforts that must be undertaken to restore to order and to normal the lives and environment post 'emergency.'

'None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free'

Within the reality presented above and in order to understand the full weight of this silent war on Americans, it is necessary to view it within a greater context. First, there is the unfortunate reality that Obama has time and again stated that his administration will neither investigate, hold to account, nor prosecute the officials responsible for the United States' criminal policies of torture, illegal detention and "extraordinary rendition" (whereby alleged terrorists were kidnapped and sent beyond American borders to foreign countries or secret CIA prisons, where they were tortured).

More importantly, the Bush Administration's disregard for and mockery of international, as well as constitutional, law have not been undone by this new Administration, and there are no clear indications that they will be undone by Obama's campaign of 'change.' In fact, there is strong evidence to the contrary.

In laymen's terms, Obama's letting criminals walk, and in this context, this can only mean the following: that he does not believe they are guilty of a crime, thereby making it clear that Obama himself does not view torture, illegal detention or extraordinary rendition as criminal actions.

Second, that many experts are foreshadowing that the on-going financial disaster being levelled against all-but-the-wealthy is going to lead to great civil unrest within the United States. Rightly, there exists a palpable fear that the 'have-nots' will take seriously their right to bear arms and they will rise against -- not only the government -- but all institutions who continue (at the expense of the 'have-nots') to lie and behave in fraudulent manner. Finally, that the reality that in the fall of 2008, military bodies previously active only on foreign soil became operational within America's borders, with much of their mandate focussed on how to address 'civil unrest.' [3]

To recap, the U.S. has a President who -- until he fully proves otherwise -- seems relatively chill about torture, indefinite detention, extraordinary rendition and the suspension of habeas corpus.

Also, there is a strong foreshadowing of great civil unrest within the US, as well as a now present military contingent trained to deal with civil unrest. Add to this recipe the creation of military-based emergency centres used to "meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security" and one is left with the choice to believe either they are witnessing random unrelated events or layered preparation to further dilute -- and possibly completely suspend -- civil rights.

Naturally, the third option is to view these events as a combination of coincidence and design; no matter from which perspective you choose to approach it, the reality remains that NECEA, as it stands today, is a dangerous Act which threatens what remains of American civil liberties.

Maha Zimmo is a political analyst whose areas of concentration are the Middle East, Islam and the international legal system. She received her Master of Arts from the Department of Law at Carleton University.

Global Research Articles by Maha Zimmo


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

A possible collapse of the U.S. currency???

Just another step toward a "New World Order". Yo, everybody! It's happening before our very eyes! "Hiding" in plain sight! Google "Bank for International Settlements"! See what you find. I dare ya!

In an April 7 article in The London Telegraph titled "The G20 Moves the World a Step Closer to a Global Currency," Ambrose Evans-Pritchard wrote:

"A single clause in Point 19 of the communiqué issued by the G20 leaders amounts to revolution in the global financial order.

"We have agreed to support a general SDR allocation which will inject $250bn (£170bn) into the world economy and increase global liquidity,' it said. SDRs are Special Drawing Rights, a synthetic paper currency issued by the International Monetary Fund that has lain dormant for half a century.

"In effect, the G20 leaders have activated the IMF's power to create money and begin global 'quantitative easing'. In doing so, they are putting a de facto world currency into play. It is outside the control of any sovereign body. Conspiracy theorists will love it."

Indeed they will. The article is subtitled, "The world is a step closer to a global currency, backed by a global central bank, running monetary policy for all humanity." Which naturally raises the question, who or what will serve as this global central bank, cloaked with the power to issue the global currency and police monetary policy for all humanity? When the world's central bankers met in Washington last September, they discussed what body might be in a position to serve in that awesome and fearful role. A former governor of the Bank of England stated:

"[T]he answer might already be staring us in the face, in the form of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).... The IMF tends to couch its warnings about economic problems in very diplomatic language, but the BIS is more independent and much better placed to deal with this if it is given the power to do so."1

And if that vision doesn't alarm conspiracy theorists, it should. The BIS has been called "the most exclusive, secretive, and powerful supranational club in the world." Founded in Basel, Switzerland, in 1930, it has been scandal-ridden from its beginnings. According to Charles Higham in his book Trading with the Enemy, by the late 1930s the BIS had assumed an openly pro-Nazi bias. This was corroborated years later in a BBC Timewatch film titled "Banking with Hitler," broadcast in 1998.2 In 1944, the American government backed a resolution at the Bretton-Woods Conference calling for the liquidation of the BIS, following Czech accusations that it was laundering gold stolen by the Nazis from occupied Europe; but the central bankers succeeded in quietly snuffing out the American resolution.3

Modest beginnings, BIS Office, Hotel Savoy-Univers, Basel

First Annual General Meeting, 1931

In Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (1966), Dr. Carroll Quigley revealed the key role played in global finance by the BIS behind the scenes. Dr. Quigley was Professor of History at Georgetown University, where he was President Bill Clinton's mentor. He was also an insider, groomed by the powerful clique he called "the international bankers." His credibility is heightened by the fact that he actually espoused their goals. He wrote:

"I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. ... _n general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."

Quigley wrote of this international banking network:

"[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations."

The key to their success, said Quigley, was that the international bankers would control and manipulate the money system of a nation while letting it appear to be controlled by the government. The statement echoed an often-quoted one made by the German patriarch of what would become the most powerful banking dynasty in the world. Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild famously said in 1791:

"Allow me to issue and control a nation's currency, and I care not who makes its laws."

Mayer's five sons were sent to the major capitals of Europe - London, Paris, Vienna, Berlin and Naples - with the mission of establishing a banking system that would be outside government control. The economic and political systems of nations would be controlled not by citizens but by bankers, for the benefit of bankers. Eventually, a privately-owned "central bank" was established in nearly every country; and this central banking system has now gained control over the economies of the world. Central banks have the authority to print money in their respective countries, and it is from these banks that governments must borrow money to pay their debts and fund their operations. The result is a global economy in which not only industry but government itself runs on "credit" (or debt) created by a banking monopoly headed by a network of private central banks; and at the top of this network is the BIS, the "central bank of central banks" in Basel.

Behind the Curtain

For many years the BIS kept a very low profile, operating behind the scenes in an abandoned hotel. It was here that decisions were reached to devalue or defend currencies, fix the price of gold, regulate offshore banking, and raise or lower short-term interest rates. In 1977, however, the BIS gave up its anonymity in exchange for more efficient headquarters. The new building has been described as "an eighteen story-high circular skyscraper that rises above the medieval city like some misplaced nuclear reactor." It quickly became known as the "Tower of Basel." Today the BIS has governmental immunity, pays no taxes, and has its own private police force.4 It is, as Mayer Rothschild envisioned, above the law.

The BIS is now composed of 55 member nations, but the club that meets regularly in Basel is a much smaller group; and even within it, there is a hierarchy. In a 1983 article in Harper's Magazine called "Ruling the World of Money," Edward Jay Epstein wrote that where the real business gets done is in "a sort of inner club made up of the half dozen or so powerful central bankers who find themselves more or less in the same monetary boat" - those from Germany, the United States, Switzerland, Italy, Japan and England. Epstein said:

"The prime value, which also seems to demarcate the inner club from the rest of the BIS members, is the firm belief that central banks should act independently of their home governments. . . . A second and closely related belief of the inner club is that politicians should not be trusted to decide the fate of the international monetary system."

In 1974, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision was created by the central bank Governors of the Group of Ten nations (now expanded to twenty). The BIS provides the twelve-member Secretariat for the Committee. The Committee, in turn, sets the rules for banking globally, including capital requirements and reserve controls. In a 2003 article titled "The Bank for International Settlements Calls for Global Currency," Joan Veon wrote:

"The BIS is where all of the world's central banks meet to analyze the global economy and determine what course of action they will take next to put more money in their pockets, since they control the amount of money in circulation and how much interest they are going to charge governments and banks for borrowing from them. . . .

"When you understand that the BIS pulls the strings of the world's monetary system, you then understand that they have the ability to create a financial boom or bust in a country. If that country is not doing what the money lenders want, then all they have to do is sell its currency.







_


----------



## DiPpY eGgS (Mar 6, 2005)

This vid is for Baddfish---Enjoy, bro!


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

A VERY WRONG decision by President Obama!

I was disappointed by Obama for not prosecuting Bush and other former administration officials for their war crimes. Failure to do so will only result in more atrocities, more terror and more unnecessary wars. Can't help but agree with the following:

The following is an excerpt from a talk by Nick Mottern on April 19, 2009, delivered after receiving a Peace and Justice Award from the WESPAC Foundation in White Plains, New York.

I asked (several friends) what they would like me to speak about today, and the consensus was: Tell people why you do peace and justice work. I will get to that in the course of my remarks.

I want to address a fundamental issue facing us right now: President Obama has said that people who have committed torture during the Bush/Cheney years will not be prosecuted. He said: "Nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past - we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future."

I would like to make two points.

First - President Obama is sending the message that there will be no investigations and prosecutions that are "divisive," that is, if they are politically difficult.
Is this a message then to the Yonkers (New York) police, for example, that they will not be prosecuted under federal law if they continue to humiliate and physically abuse people in the black and Hispanic community?

Is Mr. Obama sending a message to certain big bankers who are stealing from us every day in a variety of ways that they are simply too big to be prosecuted?
Is it a message that the legal system that is decimating our black and Hispanic communities with the disproportionate imprisonment of black and Hispanic men will go unchallenged?
My second point is that Mr. Obama's judgment on prosecution of torturers is central to the wars of our time.

Richard Nixon was forced out of office by Watergate; a burglary and cover-up, which was also an attempt to cover up domestic terrorism against his foes and particularly against African-Americans working for economic and social justice. Nixon was disgraced, but he did not go to jail.
But Nixon was not investigated, indicted or disgraced for a set of far greater crimes than Watergate. He and Henry Kissinger, and others, had, in the course of pursuing the Vietnam War, systematically, knowingly and willfully violated the US constitution and international law. International law doesn't get much respect in the US, even though it was forged out of the misery, degradation, sufferings and deaths of millions of people.

Nixon was a war criminal. Kissinger is a war criminal. They were responsible for millions of deaths, including the deaths in Cambodia wrought by our war on that nation which led to the scourge of Pol Pot.
We who were fighting for an end to the Vietnam War made a big mistake when that war stopped. We did not stay in the streets until Nixon, Kissinger and the others were investigated, prosecuted and imprisoned for war crimes.

I volunteered in 1962 to go to Vietnam. I was in the Navy on a ship that had extremely boring duty in the Pacific. I was 21 years old. I was looking for more exciting duty and the mystery, romance and adventure of Asia. I had been an avid reader of Terry and the Pirates comics. I believed our government, that we were fighting Communism and that that was important. And, it was an argument that gave me a righteous reason for what seemed to me high adventure.

Fortunately, I did not see combat in Vietnam. I was not called on to directly kill, nor was I threatened directly with death. But I went to Vietnam prepared to kill. And I did see death. I did see massive corruption. I was there because of a decision by then-President John Kennedy to expand the number of troops in Vietnam. I was there because of lies. I was there because the war crimes of the current Vietnamese leaders and the deceptions of the US had been covered up. I went to Vietnam because of lies and youthful stupidity, but nevertheless I feel a need to do what I can to repent for participating in the atrocity of Vietnam because I shared the same will to power and will for glory that drove our leaders and drove them to lie.

I believe that had Nixon and Kissinger been held accountable for their war crimes, we probably would not be in the wars we are in today. That is because in the very divisive process of investigating and prosecuting Nixon and Kissinger and others, we the American people would have learned something life-changing about ourselves as a people and about our acceptance of war.

Barack Obama is not given the right by our Constitution to be the judge and jury for torturers. I include Bush and Cheney in this category although they committed other war crimes. Mr. Obama and our Congress took oaths to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land. They must be reminded that they must do this job regardless of whether they think it is divisive or not.

If President Obama and the Congress do their jobs of enforcing the law with respect to torture and other Bush and Cheney war crimes, they will begin unraveling the web of deceit that has supported the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

We as Americans will learn things that we must learn to save countless lives here and in countries where we are supporting and waging war.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Now whats this??? You've got to be kidding me.









Well, it looks like we got, yet, something else to fear. Besides Osama Bin Laden, the collapse of the U.S. and global economy, rising crime and healthcare costs. Now we have to worry about something not found in nature....the "newly-discovered" potent form of swine flu virus. When will it end? I'm tellin' you right now, I will NOT take a "vaccine" to "protect" me. I can't trust what "they" say. They've lied to us many, many times. I'll take my chances, thank you very much.

How much can we take? We're in a perpetual state of fear. That's the perfect scenario for the government. People will do what they normally won't do when they're scared to death. Jesus said don't fear him who can destroy the body, but rather, fear him who can destroy BOTH the body AND the soul! You watch what happens in the coming months and years. With everything that's happening, our society will be transformed into something totally alien to what we have previously accepted.

It's gradual. Methodical. Step by step. So as not to arouse suspicion. The devil is alive. One of his greatest tricks is to make us believe he doesn't exist. Our rights are evaporating before our very eyes. Not just Constitutional rights, but basic human rights. When I was a child, I never thought we would be living in a world where we would have to "look over our shoulder" for something we can't see. What do you think that does to the human psyche? Stress, stress, stress. I'm tired of it. Whatever happens....happens.

I refuse to be a "sheep being led to the slaughter". Unless, of course, it is GOD who leads me. GOD, and only GOD, will take me when He wants. Keep a watchful eye and ear on what we are going to be told in the near future. There is a hidden agenda. The "Big Lie" is about to solidify. The foundation of the inevitable battle between good and evil is being set. There is no one blinder than one who has eyes and cannot "see". Or one who has ears and cannot "hear". OR, to have a mind and cannot "think".

If there is one thing we should fear, it's Judgement Day. Throughout recorded history, empires have risen and fallen at the hands of GOD. How many times does GOD have to prove Himself? He has been so patient with us. Like a loving parent. I better stop. Later!!


----------



## His Majesty (Apr 5, 2005)

just a few things

i agree with some what you say. however i do think your being a little too paranoid lol. but everyone to their own

also are you very religous?
you went on about God quite abit. not that it matters, just curious.

i wanted to post something about what i believe on Barack Obama. however im not sure if i should post it here. it is your soapbox. on the other hand i dont want to start a thread about it either


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

:laugh: Well TL. Im not religious. Used to be spiritual but not that much anymore. WISH i was though. Those were the GREAT old days. Me paranoid?







I just see what MOST dont. Thats all. Feel free to post what you like here. As far as Obama, did you see him 'talk' tonight? Poor guy. I feel sorry for him. Wants to tell the truth but KNOWS he cant. What a position to be in huh? I told my old lady, wait about a year or two and watch him age right before your eyes. Wrinkled up in the face and grey hair. Watch and see.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Yo, everybody! The following quotes are so true. After 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security, handed out a pamphlet to the Law Enforcement agencies of every state. It explained ways to detect a "potential terrorist". One of the ways the government could determine if you were a "terrorist" was if you asserted your Constitutional rights when "detained". Another one was if you publicly quoted the Constitution! Only one state (Arizona) refused to be a part of this. WoW!! How fear can make us accept the unacceptable!

"If the author of the Declaration of Independence were to utter such a sentiment today, the Post Office Department could exclude him from the mail, grand juries could indict him for sedition and criminal syndicalism, legislative committees could seize his private papers ... and United States Senators would be clamoring for his deportation that he ... should be sent back to live with the rest of the terrorists."
-- Frank I. Cobb
(1869-1923) American Journalist
Source: New York World
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/F...Cobb.Quote.38D1

"One of the best ways to get yourself a reputation
as a dangerous citizen these days
is to go about repeating the very phrases
which our founding fathers used
in the great struggle for independence."
-- Charles A. Beard
(1874-1948)
1935
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Charles.Beard.Quote


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

SHEEPLE!!!









The Apathy of The General Populous: Unless you have suffered abuse or know someone with personal experience of governmental abuse, you are MOST likely to have difficulty coming to terms with or even acknowledging how totally out of control our government really is.

"Ignoring a tyrant destines one to become a subject 
of the tyrant."

History has shown that populations tend to choose to disbelieve allegations brought against their governments. Governments, by nature of their position of authority have learned that they can literally get away with murder, and their subjects will tend to choose to ignore the facts, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

This psychological blindness, or blinkers reflects a condition we call "The Apathy of The General Populous". The problem people have is that if they acknowledge the facts, their conscience generally demands they act. However, people just want to live their lives free of tyranny.

If they raise their head and speak out, they fear they will be the target of government abuse. Consequentially, people resolve to a state of apathy where they do nothing. One by one their neighbors are consumed by the tyrant, until they too are overtaken by what they choose to ignore.


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

the fact that http://www.libertyforlife.com/ is your source is just freaking pathetic. I mean seriously do you put your tin foil hat on before you go looking at that webpage? It's like the who's who of conspiracy theories...get a new hobby man


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Lowporkwa said:


> the fact that http://www.libertyforlife.com/ is your source is just freaking pathetic. I mean seriously do you put your tin foil hat on before you go looking at that webpage? It's like the who's who of conspiracy theories...get a new hobby man


Sorry laporky. WRONG site. Simply read my LAST post and tell me you're still lost and without a clue. Ill most definately believe you! Its too obvious who the blind are.:nod:

Guess what. I just visited your site. GREAT STUFF! Thanks for the heads up!









Oh. One other thing. Go back to my posts and see who the people making the quotes are, ALL 'conspiracy' theorists huh??? Some of your smartest people. Do your search before showing your LACK of knowledge!


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

economy's creeping back...sure gonna suck for everyone who was banking on the world collapsing


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

baddfish said:


> the fact that http://www.libertyforlife.com/ is your source is just freaking pathetic. I mean seriously do you put your tin foil hat on before you go looking at that webpage? It's like the who's who of conspiracy theories...get a new hobby man


Sorry laporky. WRONG site. Simply read my LAST post and tell me you're still lost and without a clue. Ill most definately believe you! Its too obvious who the blind are.:nod:

Guess what. I just visited your site. GREAT STUFF! Thanks for the heads up!









Oh. One other thing. Go back to my posts and see who the people making the quotes are, ALL 'conspiracy' theorists huh??? Some of your smartest people. Do your search before showing your LACK of knowledge!
[/quote]

Ok well good job lying about your source, considering its the only place on the internet that phrase is found, and its VERBATIM what you copy and pasted, but i'll just ignore that.

And in your supreme intelligence baddfish, please tell me how quotes from before 1950 have absolutely ANYTHING to do with todays society? These quotes are so old and out dated its hilarious. And how many times have I told you that just because someone says something doesn't make it true?

here's a quote...you're insane

Look I said you're insane so now its true omg omg omg look at the quote!!


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Yo! Since March of 1933, we having been living in a perpetual "state of emergency". This is how the executive and legislative branches of government can circumvent Constitutional protections that limit government power against it's people. It has never been officially revoked. That is why "foreign threats" are magnified and war is always the solution. Hitler used the word "emergency" to effectively nullify the German Constitution and give himself extraordinary powers. We all know what happened next. If nothing else, read what Congressman James Beck (in 1933) said on the Congressional Record which includes the statement, "When Congress declares an emergency, THERE IS NO CONSTITUTION....."









State of national emergency
From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search

Regarding what is known as a State of National Emergency, Paula Demers writes: "According to the United States Constitution, Article 1, only Congress shall make federal law. However, since the War and Emergency Powers Act of 1933, every president has usurped lawmaking powers. Their 'laws' are called Executive Orders (EOs). These EOs, not our Constitution, are what is governing America today. The War and Emergency Powers Act enables ... the president to declare a national emergency, and thereby become a dictator."

"Presidents can also carefully choose their words and declare a war on anything, in order to give them dictatorial control. For example, the War on Drugs makes it possible to use federal authorities, such as FBI, FEMA, BATF, and the military against American citizens. A well-known example is Waco. Another example is Hurricane Opal. After Florida was declared a nation emergency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) arrived on the scene and residents were placed under marshal law (restricted to the point of not going outside their door).

When the federal government does this, it is going against the Constitution. The War and Emergency Powers Act is an unconstitutional act on the part of our government, created so that presidents can bypass Congress, and do whatever they choose."[2]

"It also makes it possible to do away with posse comitatus in cases of 'emergency'. Posse comitatus is what protects American citizens from the military being used against them."[3]

Emergency Powers Statutes (Senate Report 93-549): In this 1973 official report, the U.S. Senate admits that the Emergency Powers given to the President (Franklin D. Roosevelt) under the pretense of the National Emergency of 1933 have remained in force and that the normal function of the Federal government has been suspended. [93d Congress, SENATE Report No. 93-549, 1st Session]. See War Powers Act.

"When Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution..."

* Dr. Eugene Schroder (a founder of the American Agriculture Movement) and David Schechter, in their book War, Central Planning and Corporations. The Corporate State, discuss the long-lasting impact of the powers granted by the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (Public Law 73-10):

"The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 [commonly referred to as the "Farm Bill"], a curse to farmers for so many years, was a key piece of legislation in these emergency powers, for it took the power to coin and regulate money away from congress (as provided in the Constitution) and gave it to the president. Tracing back through the archives, further investigation showed how emergency government was simultaneously implemented in all states through a highly coordinated effort coming straight down from FDR and the federal government. Emergency government, outside the bounds of the Constitution, has now been the norm for more than 64 years, according to the Senate's own study."

Gary North writes: "In 1933, Congressman James M. Beck, speaking from the Congressional Record, states:

* "I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is the worst. it means that when Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution. This means its death. It is the very doctrine that the German chancellor is invoking today in the dying hours of the parliamentary body of the German republic, namely, that because of an emergency, it should grant to the German chancellor absolute power to pass any law, even though the law contradicts the Constitution of the German republic. Chancellor Hitler is at least frank about it. We pay the Constitution lipservice, but the result is the same."

North says that what Congressman Beck was saying is "that, of all the damnable heresies that ever existed, this doctrine of emergency has got to be the worst, because once Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution."
Beck goes on to say:

* "But the Constitution of the United States, as a restraining influence in keeping the federal government within the carefully prescribed channels of power, is moribund, if not dead. We are witnessing its death-agonies, for when this bill becomes a law, if unhappily it becomes a law, there is no longer any workable Constitution to keep the Congress within the limits of its Constitutional powers."

North asks "What bill is Congressman Beck talking about?" Beck is referring to the 1933 "Farm Bill", which was passed by the House of Representatives "by a vote of more than three to one." North points out that, "again, we see the doctrine of emergency. Once an emergency is declared, there is no Constitution ... In 1973, in the Emergency Powers Statutes (Senate Report 93-549), the first sentence reads:

"Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency."

North emphasizes that the "Farm Bill" says "that if a national emergency is declared, there is no Constitution." This is further emphasized by the above Emergency Powers Statutes' statement -- "Since March the 9th of 1933, the United States has been," in fact, "in a state of declared national emergency."
The middle language of the Emergency Powers Statutes states:

"This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."

North adds that "this situation has continued uninterrupted since March the 9th of 1933. . . ."
"A majority of people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have in varying degrees been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency..."

* Senate Report 93-549 (Introduction) 1973.

"The President may: Seize property, organize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute Martial Law, seize and control and transportation and communication, regulate operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens".

* Senate Report 93-549; Senate Resolution 9, 93d Congress, 1st. Session (III) 1973.
* See: Chapter 1, Title 1, Section 48, Statute 1, March 9, 1933; Proclamation 2038; Title 12 U.S.C 95(b).
* Also see Executive Orders.

Currently, the United States remains in a permanent state of national emergency (22 U.S.C.A. 286d. 1977).

* Executive Order 12919[4] dated June 3, 1994, otherwise known as National Defense Industrial Resources Preparedness[5][6], was signed by President William Jefferson Clinton.

On October 29, 2003, President George W. Bush continued the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) regarding Weapons of mass destruction for 1 year, with the "national emergency declared in Executive Order 12938, as amended."[7]

"NATIONAL EMERGENCY: (as defined in Black's Law Dictionary) A state of national crisis; a situation demanding immediate and extraordinary national or federal action. Congress has made little or no distinction between a "state of national emergency" and a "state of war". Brown v. Bernstein, D.C.Pa., 49 F.Supp. 728, 732."[8]
[edit]
Related SourceWatch Resources


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Here. The second quote is an accurate description of today.









"The object and practice of liberty
lies in the limitation of government power."
-- General Douglas MacArthur
(1880-1964) WWII Supreme Allied Commander of the Southwest Pacific, Supreme United Nations Commander
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/D...thur.Quote.A7AD

"A new fascism promises security from the terror of crime.
All that is required is that we take away the criminals' rights
-- which, of course, are our own.
Out of our desperation and fear we begin to feel
a sense of security from the new totalitarian state."
-- Gerry Spence
Lawyer and author
Source: Give Me Liberty, 1998
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/G...ence.Quote.30E1


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Jesse Ventura tells it like it is!

I was websurfing just now and saw a little clip of former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura on "The View" (a morning talk show). Most of you may know that this former professional wrestler is known for speaking his mind and is not known for "sugar-coating" his views. He's also a Navy Seal, an elite unit within the Navy specializing in secret "covert operations" on foreign soil. He was involved in the Vietnam conflict. On the show, he said that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should be prosecuted for war crimes.

That's just for starters. He questions the events of 9/11. As a Navy Seal, he's quite familiar with demolitions. He used to blow things up. He wonders how the Twin Towers fell the way they did after being struck by commercial airliners. He authored a book titled "Don't Start The Revolution Without Me". I gotta read this. I found out he was also on Fox News (also known as Fix News). Anyway, I went to YouTube and typed "Jesse Ventura/Fox News". WOW!! They had dozens of video clips of him talking at various public forums as well as news shows. On one clip, he talked about this country getting closer and closer to fascism. Especially, after 9/11.

One of the more well known definitions of fascism is a government ruled by a dictator. Dictatorship, hmmmm. A bad word, right? Let's use, for now, former vice-president Cheney's escription......Unitary Executive. It has a business-like quality to it, plus it just SOUNDS better! It clouds its' true meaning. Or how about what Richard Nixon once said, "If the president does it, it's not illegal". Now, THAT'S a dictator! Corporatism is another element of a fascist state.

Where the line between corporate power and government power becomes very vague and ambiguous. In 1960, then president Dwight Eisenhower warned the American people of this in his Farewell Speech. Fascism also shows it's ugly face through "belligerent nationalism" which wraps itself in a blanket of false patriotism.

You know, "America, right or wrong!" Militarism (perpetual state of war) is yet another component of fascism. Does any of this sound at all familiar? Just look at history the last hundred years. You may find just a handful of years we were not at war. Oh, remember the "Cold War" we had with the Soviet Union?

There was no actual fighting goin' on against them, but to maintain the climate of fear and justify HUGE defense expenditures we injected the word "War" to characterize our ideological differences with the Soviets. On one of the clips, Jesse Ventura said something that was very scary. He says the CIA has an agent "imbedded" in all state governments. They are not elected by the people nor are they appointed by anyone in state government. Jesse had the "honor" of meeting the one who was there when he became Governor and, when that agent retired, was introduced to his replacement.

A month after being elected Governor of Minnesota, he was "requested" by the CIA to meet "in the bowels" of the State Capitol Building. Some room in the basement, I guess. Rather intrigued by this unusual "request", Jesse went along with it. Upon entering the room, he was met with the cold stares of 23 (yes, 23!) members of the Central Intelligence Agency. The newly-elected Governor of Minnesota was about to be "interrogated" (that was the word Jesse used) by the CIA! Jesse must have felt like he was a "national security threat".

Before they could begin, Jesse told them HE had a question for THEM! Aren't they violating their "mission statement?" They hummed and hawed, but no one answered. The CIA's mission is to protect the country from foreign threats and that is where their job lies......outside the borders of the U.S. Domestic threats fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI. At least, if we are in a free country.

While on active-duty as a Navy Seal during Vietnam, Jesse had alot of contact with CIA operatives. He's well aware of their "mission statement". They asked him "how" he got elected. He was neither a Democrat or Republican. He's an Independent. "Independent" must be a dangerous word for the CIA. They didn't "see him coming". Would more "Independents" be elected in the near future. Were they trying to find out exactly what Jesse did so it can't happen again? Jesse's "radical" views, I guess, threaten the status quo.

My favorite clips were the ones where Jesse was on Fox News (the ultra-rightwing, goose-stepping mouthpiece for the neo-conservative movement that sheathes itself in religion and pseudo-patriotism). They were the funniest. The way they treated Jesse......"How dare you question the government's version of 9/11!" Or, "The government doesn't lie!" Apparently, when someone has some legitimate doubts as to what happened on 9/11 they tread on "sacred ground".

It's sacrilegious! Jesse then has to give them a little history 101. Gulf of Tonkin, Watergate, Iran-Contra, WMDs......to name a few of the lies we KNOW ABOUT!! I'm sure more lies will be revealed in the future. On this one video, he talked about his trip to Cuba while he was Governor against the government's recommendation (isn't that what the old Soviet Union used to do....bar their citizens from traveling abroad?) He wanted to meet the "evil" Castro. While there, he was assigned three armed Cuban bodyguards and a translator.

In addition to two of his own armed bodyguards. The only time his bodyguards were disarmed were when he met Castro face to face. Understandable, considering the numerous (and well-documented) assassination attempts that were made against Castro by the CIA. At one point, Jesse got really pissed off. This was when he found out from his Cuban bodyguards that the CIA had operatives following him!

Can you believe it! What were they afraid of? That the Governor of Minnesota was going to defect, join forces with Castro and invade the continental United States using his superhuman wrestling prowess and elite Seal training? Damn, what fear can do to some people! Especially, those in power who want to secure that power. Jesse said that when he got back to the States, he called an acquaintance of his at the CIA.

He told his buddy to contact whatever department was assigned to spy on him and that if it ever happened again, the guy will end up washed ashore on some remote river bank. Being a Navy Seal, that is NOT an empty threat. Check out some of Jesse's videos.....they're not only informative, but Jesse being who he is, highly entertaining.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Lets wipe the 'sugar' off our image of war!!!










Yeah, let's just sweep these pictures under the rug. After all, it would "imperil our troops" if they are revealed. OF COURSE IT WILL IMPERIL OUR TROOPS!!!!!! The government-approved slogan "Support the Troops" may not hold too much water now, huh? We're occupying a foreign land to "promote freedom" and then we do this to the people there? The vast majority have not even been tried in a court of law! And even if they were tried and convicted, is this what we stand for? Have we "become" the "enemy"? They should release these photos. Then, and only then, can we get a more accurate picture of war. This is just one of the myriad of atrocities that occur in war. They always show the pictures of our troops giving candy and food to little children.......SHOW ALL THE PICTURES!!!! The truth, many times, hurts.

Photographs of alleged prisoner abuse which Barack Obama is attempting to censor include images of apparent rape and sexual abuse, it has emerged.

At least one picture shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee. 
Further photographs are said to depict sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.

Another apparently shows a female prisoner having her clothing forcibly removed to expose her breasts.

Detail of the content emerged from Major General Antonio Taguba, the former army officer who conducted an inquiry into the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq.

Allegations of rape and abuse were included in his 2004 report but the fact there were photographs was never revealed. He has now confirmed their existence in an interview with the Daily Telegraph.

The graphic nature of some of the images may explain the US President's attempts to block the release of an estimated 2,000 photographs from prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan despite an earlier promise to allow them to be published.

Maj Gen Taguba, who retired in January 2007, said he supported the President's decision, adding: "These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency.

"I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one and the consequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy, when we most need them, and British troops who are trying to build security in Afghanistan.

"The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it."

Yo! Notice the words in the 1st quote......"gradual and silent encroachment......" Gradual=step by step...in small increments. Silent=Nobody knows about it! Or, they're too distracted and scared to care! BOOOOOOOOO!!!!!









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: James Madison, John C. Calhoun
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 01:02:41 -0400

"Since the general civilization of mankind,
I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms
of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power
than by violent and sudden usurpations."
-- James Madison
(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
Source: Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution, in_Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution,_ Jonathan Elliot, ed., v.3 p.87 (Philadelphia, 1836), 6 June 1788
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/J...ison.Quote.75C5

"To maintain the ascendancy of the Constitution over the lawmaking majority is the great and essential point on which the success of the [American] system must depend; unless that ascendancy can be preserved, the necessary consequence must be that the laws will supersede the Constitution; and, finally, the will of the Executive, by influence of its patronage, will supersede the laws ..."
-- John C. Calhoun
(1782-1850) American statesman
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/J...houn.Quote.7228

The second quote is an accurate description of today.

"The object and practice of liberty
lies in the limitation of government power."
-- General Douglas MacArthur
(1880-1964) WWII Supreme Allied Commander of the Southwest Pacific, Supreme United Nations Commander
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/D...thur.Quote.A7AD

"A new fascism promises security from the terror of crime.
All that is required is that we take away the criminals' rights
-- which, of course, are our own.
Out of our desperation and fear we begin to feel
a sense of security from the new totalitarian state."
-- Gerry Spence
Lawyer and author
Source: Give Me Liberty, 1998
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/G...ence.Quote.30E1


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

BOOOOO! Did i scare you?

Due process should be practiced even when Osama tries to scare us into eliminating it. You may not remember (but, I do!), right after 9/11, Osama released a tape. Bush claimed it's contents could not be released to the public because there may be some secret code to "sleeper cells" within our borders for further attacks.

Okay.....possible (BUT, DAMN!) The thing is, the video was released AFTER the Patriot Act was passed (without being read by the vast majority of Congress) on Oct. 17, 2001. Then, lo and behold, it was released (under pressure). The mainstream "free press" did not show the whole thing. The Internet DID!!! And I saw it!

In it, Osama said that he would like Americans to lose their freedoms. He knew his history and how right wing governments react to "danger", "emergencies" or "attacks". They curtail domestic freedoms for the sake of "safety". So, I believe, this tape was intentionally suppressed until after the Patriot Act was passed. Osama is probably still laughing!

P.S. Has anybody here read the Patriot Act? Better question may be, "Has anybody read the Constitution"? Had Congress read it, The Patriot Act would be dead in the water. I was at a cookout once, years ago. Our host was a big supporter of the Iraq War.

He said we should not criticize our government during time of war (problem is, we've been in some war or other for decades). It "imperils" our troops. The troops are fighting for our freedoms. I couldn't take it any longer. I laid a hundred dollars on a table and DARED him to name the Bill of Rights. The rights that our troops are dying for.

The First through Ten Amendments. One by one. He knew the first, second, fourth and fifth amendments. Which ain't too bad. But when you are asking others to die, you better know every single one. Not only that, but, understand them AND not be afraid to defend them against enemies "foreign AND domestic". Oh, yeah, there are those within our borders who would like nothing better than to scare us into becoming automatons without independent thought. Am I crazy? Then so is the late Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter in the quotes below!

"The requirement of 'due process'
is not a fairweather or timid assurance.
It must be respected in periods
of calm and in times of trouble;
it protects aliens as well as citizens."
-- Felix Frankfurter
(1882-1965) U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Source: Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 1951
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/F...rter.Quote.4001

"It is easy to make light of insistence on scrupulous regard for the
safeguards of civil liberties when invoked on behalf of the unworthy.
History bears testimony that by such disregard are the rights of liberty
extinguished, heedlessly at first, then stealthily, and brazenly in the end."
-- Felix Frankfurter
(1882-1965) U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Source: David v. United States, 1946
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/F...rter.Quote.3FFE

"A court which yields to the popular will thereby license itself to practice despotism,
for there can be no assurance that it will not on another occasion indulge its own will."
-- Felix Frankfurter
(1882-1965) U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Source: A.F.L v. American Sash & Door, 1949
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/F...rter.Quote.4000


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

SUBJECT---Lets just wipe the SUGAR off the 'image' of war!

A friends email to me...

We have bad actors right here at home - so why wouldn't we expect there to be things going on in a military situation. How would posting the pictures help our people on the ground there? Keep in mind that our military is made up of people from here and the people in it reflect us as a society - meaning we have plenty of assholes here so why would we want to advertise something that will hurt our decent people in a war zone.

If you or I were there I don't think either of us would appreciate some politicians in a safe place putting our asses in more jeopardy - enough bullets and bombs are in the mix now. During a war propaganda is used to influence the population to come over to our side in this case. The history of a war usually comes out after the war is over.

The real story of this war needs to be told in full as much as possible after the peace is restored over a period of time after the hostilities are over. Think about all the stuff that is still coming out about WW II, Korea, Vietnam and a lot of less well known engagements that took place years ago. Right is right - but do we want to shoot all of our own troops in the foot to show how ethical we are.

MY responce!

As far as the image of war, it appears we are both looking at a glass half filled with water. One of us says it is half full.....the other, half empty. That's one way to look at it. Allow me to rebut, point by point, as best I can in my response. I agree we have bad actors here at home. As such, we can expect bad actors in the military.

Since you correctly compared the two, I'm asking what happens to the bad actors here at home? If caught, they are prosecuted in a court of law and, if convicted, imprisoned. Why not the same in the military? The military has the "Rules of Engagement". Military courts exist to try violations of military law. As well as international law.

Just like they want to keep these photos and (now I find out) videos secret, they could at least, prosecute and imprison the perpetrators of these atrocities in military court and keep it secret until after the conflict is over. How's that? Why do this half-ass? I'm sure this would ease concerns of danger to our troops. As far as "politicians in a safe place" putting us in more ("more" being the key word) jeopardy, yes, these greedy, pencil-pushing chickenhawks should be challenged when deciding to put our sons and daughters in "jeopardy" in the first place.

Why wait for spilt blood and bodybags before coming to the realization that we could have avoided entering a war under false pretenses. It's happened many times before, the deception. Unless the complete truth is revealed, it will continue to happen. I believe that if we truly care about those who volunteer to put on a uniform and place themselves in harm's way, for our sake, we should be much more diligent in analyzing and decimating the information we receive from our "politicians in a safe place".

Propaganda is useful during peacetime, too. Webster's dictionary defines propaganda as a widespread promotion of "particular" ideas (quotation marks are mine). During war (or a run-up TO war), propaganda is an excellent vehicle for disinformation. This disinformation is not just for disbursement into a foreign land, but for domestic consumption, as well.

Me and you know that......more people should know, too. In doing so, we can place ourselves in a better position to keep from being led one way or the other like "sheep to the slaughter". Our corporate-owned "free press" has failed miserably in keeping us properly informed. That's not surprising to me. They're just another tentacle in the power structure, as far as I'm concerned. They would rather entertain, than inform. More money in it. The problem I have with concealing the ugly realities of war is that it results in an endless series of military blunders.

In the long run, this is what puts our troops overseas at risk. Not to mention us, on the homefront. Maybe if the American people were more cognizant of the brutal tangibility of war, the collective thought of it would assume the form of something less palatable. I hope we are not becoming slowly desensitized. You mentioned WW ll. Near the end of that war, there were about 400,000 German prisoners of war housed here, within our borders, in camps.

In all my years, I have never come across an article, anywhere, of an American captor mistreating those German prisoners. That's because they, basically, didn't treat them harshly. In fact, when the war was over and hostilities ceased, tens of thousands of former German POWs decided to stay! We know the Nazis and Imperial Japanese military forces were guilty of countless war crimes in their treatment of American POWs. Yet, at that time, we were nowhere near becoming like them in savagery. We maintained the moral highground. It CAN be done!

The trick is that we exhibit ethical behavior before we allow our soldier's feet to be placed in areas that expose them to small arms' fire in the first place. A little objective, independent and critical thought can go a long way. The German people were not inherently evil in the 1930s and 40s. They were deceived by Hitler.

They set aside their ethics and fell victim to the climate of fear that Hitler's war machine generated. One of Hitler's henchmen, Hermann Goering, was found guilty of war crimes in the Nuremburg Trials of the mid-1940s. He was sentenced to be hanged. He committed suicide by poisoning himself with cyanide prior to his completing the sentence. The following quote is the most famous attributed to him during his trial:

"Why, of course, people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war. Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in, for that matter, Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along.

Whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of it's leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Does this sound even vaguely familiar?


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Take special note of the information highlighted when Henry Kissinger said in 1992 and what David Rockefeller wrote in his own memoirs. I know it's kinda long, but our current situation is so complex and global events so intertwined that alot of reading is required to understand even the fundamentals. When I read this, I was reminded of a quote FDR once said (and I'll paraphrase), "Everything that happens in politics, you can bet, was supposed to happen." A document created by The Project for the New American Century in 1998 (a think tank whose members and signatories are well-known for their neo-conservative views) outlined a blueprint for the world's future. It was actually sent to then president Clinton with "recommendations" of how to solidify America's position as "world leader" considering the recent collapse of the Soviet Union. Clinton pretty much dismissed it. In it (Chapter V) was a statement that reflected the following article's "allegations". It said something to the effect that "the process of transformation" in "public opinion" to accept America's new role in "global leadership" will be a long and arduous one, unless (UNLESS!!!) "there is a new Pearl Harbor". The "new Pearl Harbor" conveniently happened on September 11, 2001.









For over 14 years, Daniel Estulin has investigated and researched the Bilderberg Group's far-reaching influence on business and finance, global politics, war and peace, and control of the world's resources and its money.

His book, "The True Story of the Bilderberg Group," was published in 2005 and is now updated in a new 2009 edition. He states that in 1954, "the most powerful men in the world met for the first time" in Oosterbeek, Netherlands, "debated the future of the world," and decided to meet annually in secret. They called themselves the Bilderberg Group with a membership representing a who's who of world power elites, mostly from America, Canada, and Western Europe with familiar names like David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, Lloyd Blankfein, George Soros, Donald Rumsfeld, Rupert Murdoch, other heads of state, influential senators, congressmen and parliamentarians, Pentagon and NATO brass, members of European royalty, selected media figures, and invited others - some quietly by some accounts like Barack Obama and many of his top officials.

Always well represented are top figures from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), IMF, World Bank, Trilateral Commission, EU, and powerful central bankers from the Federal Reserve, the ECB's Jean-Claude Trichet, and Bank of England's Mervyn King.

For over half a century, no agenda or discussion topics became public nor is any press coverage allowed. The few invited fourth estate attendees and their bosses are sworn to secrecy. Nonetheless, Estulin undertook "an investigative journey" that became his life's work. He states:

"Slowly, one by one, I have penetrated the layers of secrecy surrounding the Bilderberg Group, but I could not have done this withot help of 'conscientious objectors' from inside, as well as outside, the Group's membership." As a result, he keeps their names confidential.

Whatever its early mission, the Group is now "a shadow world government....threaten(ing) to take away our right to direct our own destinies (by creating) a disturbing reality" very much harming the public's welfare. In short, Bilderbergers want to supplant individual nation-state sovereignty with an all-powerful global government, corporate controlled, and check-mated by militarized enforcement.

"Imagine a private club where presidents, prime ministers, international bankers and generals rub shoulders, where gracious royal chaperones ensure everyone gets along, and where the people running the wars, markets, and Europe (and America) say what they never dare say in public."

Early in its history, Bilderbergers decided "to create an 'Aristocracy of purpose' between Europe and the United States (to reach consensus to rule the world on matters of) policy, economics, and (overall) strategy." NATO was essential for their plans - to ensure "perpetual war (and) nuclear blackmail" to be used as necessary. Then proceed to loot the planet, achieve fabulous wealth and power, and crush all challengers to keep it.

Along with military dominance, controlling the world's money is crucial for with it comes absolute control as the powerful 19th century Rothschild family understood. As the patriarch Amschel Rothschild once said: "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws."

Bilderbergers comprise the world's most exclusive club. No one buys their way in. Only the Group's Steering Committee decides whom to invite, and in all cases participants are adherents to One World Order governance run by top power elites.

According to Steering Committee rules:

"the invited guests must come alone; no wives, girlfriends, husbands or boyfriends. Personal assistants (meaning security, bodyguards, CIA or other secret service protectors) cannot attend the conference and must eat in a separate hall. (Also) The guests are explicitly forbidden from giving interviews to journalists" or divulge anything that goes on in meetings.

Host governments provide overall security to keep away outsiders. One-third of attendees are political figures. The others are from industry, finance, academia, labor and communications.

Meeting procedure is by Chatham House Rules letting attendees freely express their views in a relaxed atmosphere knowing nothing said will be quoted or revealed to the public. Meetings "are always frank, but do not always conclude with consensus."

Membership consists of annual attendees (around 80 of the world's most powerful) and others only invited occasionally because of their knowledge or involvement in relevant topics. Those most valued are asked back, and some first-timers are chosen for their possible later usefulness.

Arkansas governor Bill Clinton, for example, who attended in 1991. "There, David Rockefeller told (him) why the North American Free Trade Agreement....was a Bilderberg priority and that the group needed him to support it. The next year, Clinton was elected president," and on January 1, 1994 NAFTA took effect. Numerous other examples are similar, including who gets chosen for powerful government, military and other key positions.

Bilderberg Objectives

The Group's grand design is for "a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace, policed by one world army, and financially regulated by one 'World (Central) Bank' using one global currency." Their "wish list" includes:

-- "one international identify (observing) one set of universal values;"

-- centralized control of world populations by "mind control;" in other words, controlling world public opinion;

-- a New World Order with no middle class, only "rulers and servants (serfs)," and, of course, no democracy;

-- "a zero-growth society" without prosperity or progress, only greater wealth and power for the rulers;

-- manufactured crises and perpetual wars;

-- absolute control of education to program the public mind and train those chosen for various roles;

-- "centralized control of all foreign and domestic policies;" one size fits all globally;

-- using the UN as a de facto world government imposing a UN tax on "world citizens;"

-- expanding NAFTA and WTO globally;

-- making NATO a world military;

-- imposing a universal legal system; and

-- a global "welfare state where obedient slaves will be rewarded and non-conformists targeted for extermination."

Secret Bilderberg Partners

In the US, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is dominant. One of its 1921 founders, Edward Mandell House, was Woodrow Wilson's chief advisor and rumored at the time to be the nation's real power from 1913 - 1921. On his watch, the Federal Reserve Act passed in December 1913 giving money creation power to bankers, and the 16th Amendment was ratified in February creating the federal income tax to provide a revenue stream to pay for government debt service.

From its beginnings, CFR was committed to "a one-world government based on a centralized global financing system...." Today, CFR has thousands of influential members (including important ones in the corporate media) but keeps a low public profile, especially regarding its real agenda.

Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. called it a "front organization (for) the heart of the American Establishment." It meets privately and only publishes what it wishes the public to know. Its members are only Americans.

The Trilateral Commission (discussed below) is a similar group that "brings together global power brokers." Founded by David Rockefeller, he's also a leading Bilderberger and CFR Chairman Emeritus, organizations he continues to finance and support.

Their past and current members reflect their power:

-- nearly all presidential candidates of both parties;

-- leading senators and congressmen;

-- key members of the fourth estate and their bosses; and

-- top officials of the FBI, CIA, NSA, defense establishment, and other leading government agencies, including state, commerce, the judiciary and treasury.

For its part, "CFR has served as a virtual employment agency for the federal government under both Democrats and Republicans." Whoever occupies the White House, "CFR's power and agenda" have been unchanged since its 1921 founding.

It advocates a global superstate with America and other nations sacrificing their sovereignty to a central power. CFR founder Paul Warburg was a member of Roosevelt's "brain trust." In 1950, his son, James, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "We shall have world government whether or not you like it - by conquest or consent."

Later at the 1992 Bilderberg Group meeting, Henry Kissinger said:

"Today, Americans would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil....individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by their world government."

CFR planned a New World Order before 1942, and the "UN began with a group of CFR members called the Informal Agenda Group." They drafted the original UN proposal, presented it to Franklin Roosevelt who announced it publicly the next day. At its 1945 founding, CFR members comprised over 40 of the US delegates.

According to Professor G. William Domhoff, author of Who Rules America, the CFR operates in "small groups of about twenty-five, who bring together leaders from the six conspirator categories (industrialists, financiers, ideologues, military, professional specialists - lawyers, medical doctors, etc. - and organized labor) for detailed discussions of specific topics in the area of foreign affairs." Domhoff added:

"The Council on Foreign Relations, while not financed by government, works so closely with it that it is difficult to distinguish Council action stimulated by government from autonomous actions. (Its) most important sources of income are leading corporations and major foundations." The Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations to name three, and they're directed by key corporate officials.

Dominant Media Partners

Former CBS News president Richard Salant (1961 - 64 and 1966 - 79) explained the major media's role: "Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have."

CBS and other media giants control everything we see, hear and read - through television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, films, and large portions of the Internet. Their top officials and some journalists attend Bilderberg meetings - on condition they report nothing.

The Rockefeller family wields enormous power, even though its reigning patriarch, David, will be 94 on June 12 and surely near the end of his dominance. However, for years "the Rockefellers (led by David) gained great influence over the media. (With it) the family gained sway over public opinion. With the pulse of public opinion, they gained deep influence in politics. And with this politics of subtle corruption, they are taking control of the nation" and now aim for total world domination.

The Bilderberger-Rockefeller scheme is to make their views "so appealing (by camouflaging them) that they become public policy (and can) pressure world leaders into submitting to the 'needs of the Masters of the Universe.' " The "free world press" is their instrument to disseminate "agreed-upon propaganda."

CFR Cabinet Control

"The National Security Act of 1947 established the office of Secretary of Defense." Since then, 14 DOD secretaries have been CFR members.

Since 1940, every Secretary of State, except James Byrnes, has been a CFR member and/or Trilateral Commission (TC) one.

For the past 80 years, "Virtually every key US National Security and Foreign Policy Advisor has been a CFR member.

Nearly all top generals and admirals have been CFR members.

Many presidential candidates were/are CFR members, including Herbert Hoover, Adlai Stevenson, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter (also a charter TC member), George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and John McCain.

Numerous CIA directors were/are CFR members, including Richard Helmes, James Schlesinger, William Casey, William Webster, Robert Gates, James Woolsey, John Deutsch, George Tenet, Porter Goss, Michael Hayden, and Leon Panetta.

Many Treasury Secretaries were/are CFR members, including Douglas Dillon, George Schultz, William Simon, James Baker, Nicholas Brady, Lloyd Bentsen, Robert Rubin, Henry Paulson, and Tim Geithner.

When presidents nominate Supreme Court candidates, the CFR's "Special Group, Secret Team" or advisors vet them for acceptability. Presidents, in fact, are told who to appoint, including designees to the High Court and most lower ones.

Programming the Public Mind

According to sociologist Hadley Cantril in his 1967 book, The Human Dimension - Experiences in Policy Research:

Government "Psycho-political operations are propaganda campaigns designed to create perpetual tension and to manipulate different groups of people to accept the particular climate of opinion the CFR seeks to achieve in the world."

Canadian writer Ken Adachi (1929 - 1989) added:

"What most Americans believe to be 'Public Opinion' is in reality carefully crafted and scripted propaganda designed to elicit a desired behavioral response from the public."

And noted Australian academic and activist Alex Carey (1922 - 1988) explained the three most important 20th century developments - "The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy."

Web of Control

Numerous think tanks, foundations, the major media, and other key organizations are staffed with CFR members. Most of its life-members also belong to the TC and Bilderberg Group, operate secretly, and wield enormous power over US and world affairs.

The Rockefeller-Founded Trilateral Commission (TC)

On page 405 of his Memoirs, David Rockfeller wrote:

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

In alliance with Bilderbergers, the TC also "plays a vital role in the New World Order's scheme to use wealth, concentrated in the hands of the few, to exert world control." TC members share common views and all relate to total unchallengeable global dominance.

Founded in 1973 and headquartered in Washington, its powerful US, EU and East Asian members seek its operative founding goal - a "New International Economic Order," now simply a "New World Order" run by global elites from these three parts of the world with lesser members admitted from other countries.

According to TC's web site, "each regional group has a chairman and deputy chairman, who all together constitute the leadership of the Committee. The Executive Committee draws together a further 36 individuals from the wider membership," proportionately representing the US, EU, and East Asia in its early years, now enlarged to be broadly global.

Committee members meet several times annually to discuss and coordinate their work. The Executive Committee chooses members, and at any time around 350 belong for a three-year renewable period. Everyone is a consummate insider with expertise in business, finance, politics, the military, or the media, including past presidents, secretaries of state, international bankers, think tank and foundation executives, university presidents and selected academics, and former senators and congressmen, among others.

Although its annual reports are available for purchase, its inner workings, current goals, and operations are secret - with good reason. Its objectives harm the public so mustn't be revealed. Trilaterals over Washington author Antony Sutton wrote:

"this group of private citizens is precisely organized in a manner that ensures its collective views have significant impact on public policy."

In her book, Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management, Holly Sklar wrote:

Powerful figures in America, Europe, and East Asia let "the rich....safeguard the interests of Western capitalism in an explosive world - probably by discouraging protectionism, nationalism, or any response that would pit the elites of one against the elites of another," in their common quest for global dominance.

Trilateralist Zbigniew Brzezinski (TC's co-founder) wrote in his Between Two Ages - America's Role in the Technotronic Era:

"people, governments and economies of all nations must serve the needs of multinational banks and corporations. (The Constitution is) inadequate....the old framework of international politics, with their sphere of influence....the fiction of sovereignty....is clearly no longer compatible with reality...."

TC today is now global with members from countries as diverse as Argentina, Ukraine, Israel, Jordan, Brazil, Turkey, China and Russia. In his Trilaterals Over America, Antony Sutton believes that TC's aim is to collaborate with Bilderbergers and CFR in "establishing public policy objectives to be implemented by governments worldwide." He added that "Trilateralists have rejected the US Constitution and the democratic political process." In fact, TC was established to counter a "crisis in democracy" - too much of it that had to be contained.

An official TC report was fearful about "the increased popular participation in and control over established social, political, and economic institutions and especially a reaction against the concentration of power of Congress and of state and local government."

To address this, media control was essential to exert "restraint on what newspapers may publish (and TV and radio broadcast)." Then according to Richard Gardner in the July 1974 issue of Foreign Affairs (a CFR publication):

CFR's leadership must make "an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece," until the very notion disappears from public discourse.

Bilderberg/CFR/Trilateralist success depends on finding "a way to get us to surrender our liberties in the name of some common threat or crisis. The foundations, educational institutions, and research think tanks supported by (these organizations) oblige by financing so-called 'studies' which are then used to justify their every excess. The excuses vary, but the target is always individual liberty. Our liberty" and much more.

Bilderbergers, Trilateralists and CFR members want "an all-encompassing monopoly" - over government, money, industry, and property that's "self-perpetuating and eternal." In Confessions of a Monopolist (1906), Frederick C. Howe explained its workings in practice:

"The rules of big business: Get a monopoly; let Society work for you. So long as we see all international revolutionaries and all international capitalists as implacable enemies of one another, then we miss a crucial point....a partnership between international monopoly capitalism and international revolutionary socialism is for their mutual benefit."

In the Rockefeller File, Gary Allen wrote:

"By the late nineteenth century, the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood that the most efficient way to gain a monopoly was to say it was for the 'public good' and 'public interest.' "

David Rockefeller learned the same thing from his father, John D., Jr. who learned it from his father, John D. Sr. They hated competition and relentlessly strove to eliminate it - for David on a global scale through a New World Order.

In the 1970s and 1980s, Trilateralists and CFR members collaborated on the latter's "1980 Project," the largest ever CFR initiative to steer world events "toward a particular desirable future outcome (involving) the utter disintegration of the economy." Why so is the question?

Because by the 1950s and 1960s, worldwide industrial growth meant more competition. It was also a model to be followed, and "had to be strangled in the cradle" or at least greatly contained. In America as well beginning in the 1980s. The result has been a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, shrinkage of the middle class, and plan for its eventual demise.

The North American Union (NAU)

The idea emerged during the Reagan administration in the early 1980s. David Rockefeller, George Schultz and Paul Volker told the president that Canada and America could be politically and economically merged over the next 15 years except for one problem - French-speaking Quebec. Their solution - elect a Bilderberg-friendly prime minister, separate Quebec from the other provinces, then make Canada America's 51st state. It almost worked, but not quite when a 1995 secession referendum was defeated - 50.56% to 49.44%, but not the idea of merger.

At a March 23, 2005 Waco, Texas meeting, attended by George Bush, Mexico's Vincente Fox, and Canada's Paul Martin, the Security and and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) was launched, also known as the North American Union (NAU). It was a secretive Independent Task Force of North America agreement - a group organized by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations, and CFR with the following aims:

-- circumventing the legislatures of three countries and their constitutions;

-- suppressing public knowledge or consideration; and

-- proposing greater US, Canadian and Mexican economic, political, social, and security integration with secretive working groups formed to devise non-debatable, not voted on agreements to be binding and unchangeable.

In short - a corporate coup d'etat against the sovereignty of three nations enforced by hard line militarization to suppress opposition.

If enacted, it will create a borderless North America, corporate controlled, without barriers to trade or capital flows for business giants, mainly US ones and much more - America's access to vital resources, especially oil and Canada's fresh water.

Insights into the 2009 Bilderberg Group Meeting

From May 14 - 17, Bilderbergers held their annual meeting in Vouliagmeni, Greece, and according to Daniel Estulin have dire plans for global economies.

According to his pre-meeting sources, they're divided on two alternatives:

"Either a prolonged, agonizing depression that dooms the world to decades of stagnation, decline and poverty (or) an intense but shorter depression that paves the way for a new sustainable world order, with less sovereignty but more efficiency."

Estulin also noted some considerable disagreement between "hardliners" wanting a "dramatic decline and a severe, short-term depression (versus others) who think that things have gone too far" so that "the fallout from the global economic cataclysm" can't be known, may be greater than anticipated, and may harm Bilderberger interests. Also, "some European bankers (expressed great alarm over their own fate and called the current) high wire act 'unsustainable.' "

There was a combination of agreement and fear that the situation remains dire and the worst of the crisis lies ahead, mainly because of America's extreme debt level that must be resolved to produce a healthy, sustainable recovery.

In the past, Estulin's sources proved accurate. Earlier, he predicted the housing crash and 2007 - 2008 financial market decline, preceded by the kind of financial crisis triggered by the Lehman Brothers collapse. Watch for further updates from him as new information leaks out on what the world's power elites have planned going forward.


----------



## His Majesty (Apr 5, 2005)

that last article was for some interesting reading.
how much of it is true and how much is bullshit i do not know.
but stuff like this is far to complicated for the average joe to understand and we have no control over it.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Do a little research Trigger and YOU tell me how much of it is BS. Come on dude. I know there are MANY smart people here.







Just afraid what others may say or think of them. F*CK that!


----------



## His Majesty (Apr 5, 2005)

im not disputing whats been said is all BS. i however will go and do some research on this.

although at the moment im not worried about those guys w/e they are called.

the f*cking BNP in britain gained 2 seats in the EU because stupid yorkshire folk voted for the nazi barstards.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Different topic but very interesting as well!

For the last couple of decades, I've heard so many things about Cuba. I believe our so-called "free press" has given them a bad rap. However, when I talk to people who have been there (or even, live there), I get a completely different story. Yes, they may not have as many VCRs, I-Pods, Blackberry cell phones, X-Boxes, new cars, etc., etc., etc., as we do. BUT!!!......they get a free education, healthcare and a job. IF they are suffering, it is because of the illegal embargo imposed on them by the U.S. for almost fifty years.

Illegal, according to United Nation's resolutions. Remember, we invaded Iraq for violating United Nation's resolutions. Let's be a little objective here. Webster's Dictionary defines the word hypocrite as "one who pretends to be pious and virtuous without really being so". It could also be said that a hypocrite is one who sets standards upon others that he does not adhere to himself. Am I wrong, or what? In order to remain credible in the global political and economic arena, the U.S. must hold fast to the same "yardstick" we use to measure other countries.

How can we expect anything less? Fair is fair. Have we become "comfortably numb" (to use the words of Pink Floyd, the classic rock band)? Indifferent to the hundreds of millions of fellow human beings who have almost nothing? Are we so enamored with our material possessions that we ignore how we attained them? As long as we persist on the path of over-consumption, corporations WILL deliver! Profits are to be made! They get us to buy things we don't need with money we don't have. By employing highly sophisticated marketing techniques, we do JUST THAT!!

To get a thirty second commercial during the Super Bowl, corporations will eagerly spend over $2 million!! Don't tell me TV does not affect behavior. We are prolific members of a "consumer society". It's out of control. Currently, we are suffering the consequences in this "economic downturn" as a result! We are not satisfied with a simple roof over our heads, clothes on our backs and enough income to eat. This is actually more than most people on the planet enjoy!

Nooooooo! They get us to believe that we "need" more and more. We want the mansion, designer clothes, brand new sleek car. Oops. Let me slow down a little. I'm speaking generally. From a national standpoint. NOT individually. I, myself, have fallen for the bait. It is an extreme challenge to step back and be capable of analyzing exactly what's being heaved at me.....from all angles. My only recourse is to seek spiritual guidance. Sorry if I babbled. The following is an article that I found quite informative. Later!









One of the most notable characteristics of 21st century Havana is what is not there: obvious and visible destitution. The begging and aggressive peddling prevalent in so many poor Latin capitals (and in most US cities) is entirely absent in Havana. There are no homeless people sleeping under bridges or hidden in doorways, no stumbling addicts crashed on park lawns, nor frantic children hawking candy and crafts. The sidewalks are crowded with workers and students and bureaucrats, rushing in every direction, often at a frenetic pace, but at no point is a visitor likely to encounter robbery or assault, or begging.

I recently spent a week in Cuba on a research tour, organized through the Canadian organization, Cuba Education Tours, with a group made up primarily of Canadian and American attorneys, union members, and researchers. It was an extraordinary experience, dispelling much of what I thought I knew about Cuba, and ultimately revealing more about the US than I had anticipated.

Two prevailing American misconceptions about Cuba were dispelled very early in our trip. One is the notion that the island is a society "closed" to the outside world, a stubborn throwback to another ideological moment. But this is typical American myopia, conjuring a country frozen in 1959, when the popular uprising displaced the American playground that was pre-Revolutionary Cuba. To be sure, the US economic blockade has had, and continues to have, a huge impact on the island's economy, reflected most dramatically in the poor housing stock and lack of industrial development, but Cuba is hardly isolated from the world. Today, Havana is crawling with Canadian, Mexican, European, African, and East Asian tourists, students, and businessmen, and even a fair share of American backpackers and adventurers stealthily defying the US State Department.

The other common, but more complicated, American misconception is that Cuban society is less "free" than American society. We Americans still like to think we live in the Free World, if not the center of it, despite our massive surveillance state, a prison system unparalleled in its size and ferocity, and our militarized borders and restrictive immigration policies. But Cubans, our government and media tell us, are forced to live under a repressive, colorless, and undemocratic police state. This characterization comes as a surprise to most Cubans, who have minimal interactions with police (far less visible in Havana than in, say, Guatemala City or New York), engage in a lively electoral process every 2-1/2 years, and who seem to be among the most engaging and politically astute people I have ever encountered.

In the days following President Obama's limited overtures to Cuba after the OAS meeting in April, the Administration's point person on Cuba policy was not the Secretary of State, but Obama's Economic Advisor, Lawrence Summers. According to Summers, "Cuba's known what it needs to do for a very long time and it's up to them in terms of their policies, their democratization and all the steps they can take and we'll have to see what happens down the road." President Obama himself echoed this line, lecturing Cubans that "if you take significant steps toward democracy, beginning with the freeing of all political prisoners, we will take steps to begin normalizing relations."

This is extraordinary stuff at a time when the US is enduring international rebukes over its publicly-admitted widespread use of torture and the detention of thousands of foreigners and even US citizens without due process of law. According to the oppositional Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation (CCDHRN), there are currently 232 "political prisoners" in Cuba, not an insignificant number, but slightly fewer than the number of "enemy combatants" currently held in Guantanamo Bay. How could it be that 232 alleged political prisoners - some of whom are leftist opponents of the Castro government and hardly pro-American-- represent the political basis for American hostility to the Cuban Revolution?

These 232 political prisoners have about as much relevance to the US blockade of Cuba as Saddam Hussein's non-existent "weapons of mass destruction" had to the decision to invade Iraq. The selection of Summers as a spokesman on US-Cuba policy, a man whose misogynistic and anti-democratic tendencies were on full display during his short tenure at Harvard, would be odd if the policy issues truly involved democratic freedoms. But of course, the real problem is not with the Cuban political system but with its economic system.

In Cuba, 85 percent of the population owns their own homes, mortgage-free. They have unrestricted access to high quality health care and a guarantee of a free public education through the university level. Teachers and community organizations have pivotal roles in determining educational priorities and curricula, ensuring the accessibility and relevance of the educational system. Every Cuban is guaranteed a basic income, and a job if they can work. One could go on about the percentage of female medical doctors (62 percent) or universal literacy (99.4 percent) or the number of incarcerated juveniles (zero), but in the US, such basic values have nothing to do with democracy or freedom. "Freedom" is reserved for markets and capital flow.

May Day 2009

My own trip to Cuba coincided with the 50th May Day celebration since the Cuban Revolution. For many Americans, the notion of International Workers Day might seem passé, a strange cousin to our own Labor Day celebrations of barbeque and the end of summer. Particularly in 2009, as American workers watch their hopes for long-term job security, health care, college educations, and a stable retirement dissolve in the face of economic meltdown, the notion of working class power feels highly theoretical.

But in Havana, May Day is not "Labor Day." It is both an act of defiance and a celebration of the survival of Cuban socialism. The 2009 May Day march was more than a million strong - ten percent of the entire population of the island marches - with unionists and community organizations from across the island massed for the festive occasion. The teachers union led off the march this year, with their block-wide banner, "Education is a Labor of Infinite Love," followed by a three-hour jubilant parade of teachers, doctors, construction workers, dancers and artists, taxi drivers, students, and even scientists and engineers marching past the official reviewing stand. Their hand-made signs declare "We Are A Free Country" and "We Defend Our Socialism," and of course hundreds of portraits of Che.

One sign in particular caught my eye, and seemed to explain the key role of Larry Summers in the debate over "freedom" and "democracy" in Cuba.

Somewhat poorly translated, the sign reads: "In capitalism in crisis, they impose unemployment on thousands and they close industries. How the working class suffers! Under socialism it is completely different. They create factories and industries, They provide jobs and guarantee work for those affected. We want socialism! Long live Fidel!"

Yes, this is a country that has been led by one man for most of the last fifty years, one of the most successful personality cults in world history. It is a country where travel abroad is difficult for most, and restricted for others, where political parties are banned and the official, monotonous state media allows little room for dissenting views. And most importantly, it is a country where resources are scarce and life can be very difficult for the mass of people.

But it is also a country without health insurance companies, home mortgages, or a usurious banking industry, and not accidentally, a country without unemployment or homelessness. It is a place where laid off sugar cane workers can go to school at state expense to become social workers or organic farmers, where masses of people from all strata of society participate in decisions about the economy and social development. Cubans do not depend on stock market gambles to provide for their retirement (at age 55) nor do they lose health insurance if they quit their jobs. Compare the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, from which New Orleans may never recover, with the devastating hurricanes that hit Cuba during the summer of 2008. In Cuba, there were no casualties, and the storms resulted in not even a single missed school day as teachers moved to makeshift classrooms, and friends and neighbors provided emergency housing.

The American demand that Cuba "change" in order to normalize relations with the United States is in fact anti-democratic, calling for a reversal of the current and overwhelmingly popular economic status quo. In return for an end to US hostility, Cubans must accept multinational corporate domination and privatized education and health care. They must allow the importation of consumer goods, the crushing of domestic industry and agriculture, and, most importantly, unfettered access for international finance. Only then, when Cuba begins to resemble Guatemala or Haiti or Mexico, will the Americans agree to "normal" relations and end nearly 50 years of terror. Only then will Cuba resemble the kind of American-style "democracy" supported by Barack Obama and Larry Summers.

But what became apparent to me as a first-time traveler to Cuba is that the official calls for "democracy in Cuba" are strictly for American consumption. The US blockade of Cuba, and restrictions on American travel there, must continue until there is no longer a Cuban Revolution. Otherwise, Americans might begin to envision a world where health care, education, and pensions are truly rights of residency; where industry is developed to support human needs, not scrapped for the benefit of creditors; and where egalitarianism is a realizable goal, not a utopian fantasy. Americans must never be permitted to see that, even in a flawed socialist economy in a tiny island country, there is no homelessness or starvation or unemployment or illiteracy. It might give us dangerous ideas about "Change We Can Believe In."

Philip Fornaci is a prisoners' rights attorney based in Washington, DC.


----------



## His Majesty (Apr 5, 2005)

that was a good article.
i love cuba. been there myself. and i love it. 
i dont care that they dont have flashy cars or all the up to date technology. im not that sort of person
cuba functions beatifully. great country, great weather, great health care and great people.
they just get on with their life and they are very calm
id love to live in cuba if i could

and i agree, the press gives cuba a bad rep just because they seem to be going against america's 'wishes'. they are being indpendent. free from the western pressures of society to be more consumer. 
just because they dont go with the mainstream american view of life they are deemed to be and enemy and that they need help to become democratic. utter BS they dont need any of that. its happening with other countries aswell. if america just left people alone the world would be a better place but their greed will not let them. (agains when i refer to america i mean the goverment)


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Trigger lover said:


> that was a good article.
> i love cuba. been there myself. and i love it.
> i dont care that they dont have flashy cars or all the up to date technology. im not that sort of person
> cuba functions beatifully. great country, great weather, great health care and great people.
> ...


You hit the nail right on the head my man. My good friend Mike goes there regularly and has been trying to convince me to go with him. GOD willing, some time VERY soon i will visit this GOD blessed country they call Cuba.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Many people think that the Constitution "gave" us our rights. NEGATIVE!! The Constitution protects the rights we were born with! Because, if they can be given, they can be taken away!









"It [freedom] is a thing of the spirit.
Men must be free to worship, to think,
to hold opinions, to speak without fear. 
They must be free to challenge wrong and
oppression with the surety of justice."
-- Herbert Hoover
(1874-1964), 31st US President
Source: Addresses on the American Road
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/H...over.Quote.408D

"Freedom of conscience is a natural right,
both antecedent and superior to all human laws
and institutions whatever;
a right which laws never gave and
a right which laws can never take away."
-- John Goodwin
(1594-1664)
Source: Might and Right Well Met, 1648
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/J...dwin.Quote.4031

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me.
If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them;
if I find them too obnoxious, I break them.
I am free because I know that I alone am
morally responsible for everything I do."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
(1907-1988) American writer
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/R...lein.Quote.6D66


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Thinking 'outside the box'!

This excellent article presents some realistic solutions to our economic quagmire. Too bad the "powers that be" are so well entrenched, I'm unable to envision what this article says that needs to be done.

Earlier this week our Secretary of the Treasury was booed, jeered and laughed at during a speech to students at Beijing University. That is what minds outside of the box think of our monetary policy. He said trust me, they said no. Needless to say, this was little reported in the mainstream media. The people representing the money powers that control our nation are viewed as an international disgrace. Foreigners recognize the financial Mafia that runs America, but most Americans are clueless to who the real power running America is.

We have heard much about the 40 to 60 times deposit ratios used by banks in the 2003 thru present period. Normally that ratio is 8 to 10 to one dollar on deposit. We painfully remember the subprime and ALT-A loans and the totally unqualified that received them. Then the loans that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should have never approved and finally the asset backed securities and collateralized debt obligation bonds foisted on professionals at AAA when they were in fact BBB.

What has not been publicized was the SEC position under pressure from the elitists on Wall Street during the easy money period and the steep yield curve to exempt brokerage houses from the net capital rule. That as well led to leverage of 40 to 60 to one. If the banks could do it they wanted to be able to do it too to compete. That decision ultimately led to five failures. Even a mitigating gold standard could not have surmounted lack of regulation.

After almost 50 years in the markets and a former brokerage house owner we know financial institutions should never be allowed to self regulate. If we have financial regulation we cannot have regulators who are friends with the people they regulate. No revolving door between Wall Street and the regulator. The same goes for the revolving door between Wall Street and banking and Washington, particularly in the Treasury Department. Real interest rates will always rise in a period of monetary and fiscal profligacy similar to what we are now experiencing as a result of unbridled leverage.

Keynesians will tell us such financial discipline is not possible in the real world, but of course it is. They just want to perpetually break the rules. There is no such thing as a self-regulating monetary policy. Distortion reigns instead of a slightly expansive classical free-market model. Markets can be far more rational then they are presently if the players are not allowed to run wild, as we have seen since 2002. In addition, a privately owned Federal Reserve should never be allowed to exist never mind take on government responsibilities, such as financial regulation, which is currently contemplated.

The Fed has always subordinated monetary policy to the desires of Wall Street and banking and at times has bowed to political expediency. The Fed is responsible for every recession and depression we have had since 1913. The great market distortions are all a product of Fed decisions. The Fed is now using adversity to expand its empire, taking on the responsibilities of government when it should not be allowed too. Its power to print money and credit has to be ended. No more papering over their mistakes or willful arrangements with Wall Street and banking. Who caused the dotcom boom and the housing bubble, they did.

As we predicted long end interest rates are already telling us that their policies are flawed as Treasuries fall in value and yields rise, a reflection of coming inflation, as the same time the dollar is falling and gold and silver are rising. The Fed is in a box and they cannot get out. From a fiscal perspective we have had five administrations that have created tremendous fiscal debt. The damage done by the last two administrations was horrendous. Don't forget as interest rates rise on debt service the debt gets larger and larger.

These higher rates are already limiting any housing recovery and we see rates moving higher; at least to 4% on the 10-year Treasury note. That would translate into a 30-year fixed rate mortgage of about 5-1/2%. That rate will disqualify many borrowers as unsold inventory increases via further foreclosures that will last into 2012. That means further price declines. That will further destabilize the banking system. The unsold housing inventory in lenders hands and the value of CDO and ABS bonds will fall as well.

The answer is elimination of the Fed. Its powers would be returned to the Treasury, which would have to be transparent and the revolving door between Treasury and Wall Street and banking closed. The Treasury would have to run a tight ship limiting money and credit creation to 5% and by raising interest rates. The crisis has to be addressed eventually and the longer it takes the worse it will be. The power to run Washington by Wall Street and banking has to end. The connection has to be broken. Treasury and Congress have to start acting responsibility and the financial service sector will have to accept lower profits, lower bonuses and a smaller industry.

Credit default swaps have to be settled and banned and all derivatives regulated. There has to be a permanent cap on leverage at banks and brokerage houses of 10 to one and their underlying financial bases have to be changed and closely monitored. If we do not make these changes the financial system as we now see it is doomed.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Could this be true?









The use of a uniform national banking Note for conducting business is a significant benefit to business. It is argued that the service the Federal Reserve Bank provides is to stabilize the U.S. economy, however is this really the case? Evidence proves the Federal Reserve Bank utilizes interest rate control to manipulate the economy through constant boom-bust cycles.

More sinister evidence also shows a consistent pattern through history by the Rothschild's who have repeatedly utilized market manipulation, scams and wars to shift ownership of the world into their hands.

Today it is estimated that the Rothschild's family owns around one third of the world. The simple fact that foreigners own the U.S. $ is quite astonishing. The Rothschild's Federal Reserve Bank makes money out of nothing, backs the money with nothing and effectively has had a blank check book to buy the world.

According to the highest law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, only silver and gold may be used as legal tender:

Art 1, Sec 10: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Since 1913 However, A Private Bank Controls U.S. Currency.

In exchange for financial support for his presidential campaign, Woodrow Wilson's agreed that if elected, he would sign the Federal Reserve Act. In December 1913, while many members of Congress were home for Christmas, the Federal Reserve Act was rammed through Congress and signed by President Wilson. Regarding his actionsla Wilson ter admitted. "I have unwittingly ruined my country".

The Federal Reserve Act handed the people's money to private bankers who then lent it back to the people, plus interest. Hennery Ford suggested that if the average American knew what was going on in banking there would be revolution by the morning. With nearly one hundred years in control of our currency we can take a historical look at the real impact of putting our nations currency in the control of private individuals.

Private Collection Company to Collect Tax
At the same time the U.S. Dollar was hijacked, the government for hire implemented their IRS to suck taxes from the people. However, 16th Amendment which authorized the IRS and uneven taxation was only properly ratified by two states. Secretary of State Knox, whom they named Fort Knox after, simply announced that the 16th was ratified when it was not. see Defects in Ratification of the 16th.

Beneficiaries of World War One
What is particularly interesting regarding the timing of events in the 1913 era is that the year following the establishment of the private Federal Reserve Bank, World War One broke out. One cannot help observe that that with the U.S. manufacturing armaments for both sides, the owners of the Federal Reserve Banks were one of the primary beneficiaries of WW 1.

Financial Instability Used To Control Market and Nation
The purported purpose of the Federal Reserve Bank is to bring stability to the U.S. economy. However, what does the track record show?

The Great Depression Triggered By The Federal Reserve Bank
In a 2002 conference honoring one of the worlds leading economists, Milton Friedman, it was also his 90th birthday, current Federal Reserve Bank Chairman, Ben Bernanke said to Mr. Friedman: "Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry." Mr. Friedman is an outspoken highly respected critic who flat out blames the Federal Reserve Bank for the Great Depression. see also FDR Made Depression Worse and Events Surrounding the Great Depression.

Who benefited from the Great Depression? With stocks and land going for fire sale prices the owners of the Federal Reserve Bank and their associates were certainly able to snap up corporations and land. (We have not come across any studies of this key era in regard to the acquisition of assets in the U.S. during the Great Depression, such a study could provide significant evidence suggesting collusion, such as the evidence showing enormous put options on American and United Airlines by a company connected to the #2 man at the CIA just before 9/11. Understandingly the government did nothing about that either).

With the public and economy in disarray from the Great Depression, getting their next man in as President was easy, the Fed's even managed to keep him there for three terms. In 1933 President Franklin Roosevelt committed treason when he closed American banks and forced citizens to turn in their gold to the Fed private bank.

The gold is supposedly held at Fort Knox, however, there has been no audit since 1974. A President has no authority to order the people to give their gold to a private bank, however this is exactly what Roosevelt did! The bank issued citizens in return for their legal tender of silver and gold, paper notes which they charge us interest for using.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Tired of the 'boom and bust' economy!

Things are going to get worse, I believe. Much worse. It's time to audit the Fed like the following article suggests. More and more, it will become evident to the general population what's happening. Eliminate the Fed and give the power to create and issue money back to the people! Like the Constitution intended. If they do a thorough investigation into the activities of the Fed, prepare for the collective outrage of the American people.

Finally, they'll be made aware of the huge pyramid scheme. One that's on a global scale. The "scam of the ages" will be exposed. The criminal perpetrators of this financial "shell game" must be required to pay dearly. Hopefully, heads will roll. Or, at least, some serious jail time. It's a BIG IF, though. Sad to say, I can't see this happening. The Fed is already too powerful (plus Obama is going to give them extensive new powers!). The Fed started this chaos and now they got us going to them to "save" us. If it wasn't so evil, it'd be brilliant!









How can anyone NOT expect interest rates to rise? Mandated programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and the FDIC and the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp., and a host of others have us over $100 trillion in the short-term.

We have been in a crisis financially and economically for 23 months. We were in recession from February 2007 to February 2009, and we have been in depression since this past February. The budget deficit for the fiscal year ended 9/30/09 should be about 15% of GDP the largest deficit since WW II or five times last year's deficit. The Treasury and the Fed have created money and credit of some $14.8 trillion and next year we project over $20 trillion - this as our government acquires large stakes in banks, brokerage houses, insurance companies, health-care, mortgage companies and auto and truck manufacturers.

As a result of this dreadful profligacy last month in May we began the beginnings of inflation resumption that will soon become hyperinflation. Interest rates will continue to rise as will gold, silver and commodities and bonds, stocks and the dollar will decline against other currencies and gold and silver. Business will be forced to pass on price increases or go out of business. Currency in circulation, which nominally is 10%, is now 50% of the monetary base and bank reserves have risen by 20-fold. Banks have this huge position as a reserve against their liabilities. This allows banks to float or extend the day they'll have to write off their losses.

Banks are able to expend their loan making abilities, but they have not done so as yet. As this loan constriction continues the expansion of money and credit is running at about 18% annualized. This will in time result in higher interest, which are underway and higher inflation, which we've begun as well. By way of example, M1 is near 15% the highest level in 50 years.

We are looking at a monetary policy far more inflationary than in the late 1970s, we know we were there. That wasn't a pretty picture and neither will this be. We saw inflation at 13.5% and the prime rate at 21.5%. We saw gold rise from $35.00 to $850.00. This time it could cross $6,000.

We'd like to see the Fed purge the system, something they should have done six years ago. We hear talk of contraction, but that is not going to work even if the FED wanted to do it, which they don't. They contract and the whole house of cards collapses. Some talk of raising reserve requirements, but if the FED does that the system will implode due to the continuing deflationary drag.

Real estate is still a long way from the bottom and it will experience trouble for years to come. The bottom won't be hit until 2012 or 2014. The demand for liquidity by the Fed and the Treasury is so great that just over the coming year it will be close to $5 trillion. There you have it and it is not a pretty picture.

Quite frankly, we have a once in 100-year opportunity to destroy the Federal Reserve. The House should pass Ron Paul's HR 1207, so we have to now make sure S604 is passed in the Senate. After the investigations begin it's terminate the Fed.

Interest rates have now become a dummy's game driven by derivatives. They are going to explode. It is only a question of when. All the major banks, holding 75% of US deposits are insolvent, and they will collapse when the derivative bomb explodes. In addition there are lots of other losses on the way as well. The ability of the Fed and the Treasury in the misuse of "The Working Group on Financial Markets" will come to an end. Much of what they have been up too will be exposed by an audit of the Fed, which we believe is on the way.

As a result legislation will follow that and will bring an end to the criminally misused executive order number 1263, which Bill Keene and Sue Herrera tell us on CNBC doesn't exist. It will be discovered that the swaps market has little or no collateral and as a result Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America will meet their demise. The biggest positions reside with JP Morgan, thus they should be first to bite the dust. The losses are going to be in the trillions. The loss of capitalization when the bomb explodes will engulf the entire world financial system.

The Ron Paul strategy in HR 1207, now with 225 co-sponsors, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, and the companion Bill in the Senate S604, The Federal Reserve Sunshine Act, sponsored by Bernard Sanders (I-VT) will uncover what the Fed and its owners - the major banks - have been up too; particularly in rigging markets.

It looks like HR 1207 will be passed in the House. Now train your guns on the Senate. Hit every Senator with: Dear Senator, Please co-sponsor S604, the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009, and make it become law. Sincerely, etc. Short and sweet and to the point. No comments or opinions.

The Fed is in a box and cannot get out. We have to make sure they do not get out by investigation, exposure and destruction. The Fed is the core, the nexus of the Illuminati. Few in the media or in business will tell the truth because they are either in on it or they are terrified to talk about it for fear of being destroyed. This is the kind of world we live in. you can still do your part by contacting the Senators. We want them buried in emails. This is our chance to finally win without bloodshed.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

The following article is very interesting. If true, and I think it is, we are in for one helluva ride. That's puttin' it mildly! Everything we took for granted will be "upside down". It WON'T be pretty. I don't want to get into any detail.....it'll really scare you.

P.S. If you ain't got GOD.........you better get some! Make sure he's the right one, though!

For over 30 years, F. William Engdahl has been a leading researcher, economist, and analyst of the New World Order with extensive writing to his credit on energy, politics, and economics. He contributes regularly to business and other publications, is a frequent speaker on geopolitical, economic and energy issues, and is a distinguished Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Engdahl's two previous books include "A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order" explaining that America's post-WW II dominance rests on two pillars and one commodity - unchallengeable military power and the dollar as the world's reserve currency along with the quest to control global oil and other energy resources.

Engdahl's other book is titled "Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation" on how four Anglo-American agribusiness giants plan world domination by patenting all life forms to force-feed GMO foods on everyone - even though eating them poses serious human health risks.

Engdahl's newest book is reviewed below. Titled "Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order," it discusses America's grand strategy, first revealed in the 1998 US Space Command document - Vision for 2020. Later released in 2000 as DOD Joint Vision 2020, it called for "full spectrum dominance" over all land, surface and sub-surface sea, air, space, electromagnetic spectrum and information systems with enough overwhelming power to fight and win global wars against any adversary, including with nuclear weapons preemptively.

Other means as well, including propaganda, NGOs and Color Revolutions for regime change, expanding NATO eastward, and "a vast array of psychological and economic warfare techniques" as part of a "Revolution in Military Affairs" discussed below.

September 11, 2001 served as pretext to consolidate power, destroy civil liberties and human rights, and wage permanent wars against invented enemies for global dominance over world markets, resources, and cheap labor - at the expense of democratic freedoms and social justice. Engdahl's book presents a frightening view of the future, arriving much sooner than most think.

Introduction

After the Soviet Union's dissolution in late 1989, America had a choice. As the sole remaining superpower, it could have worked for a new era of peace and prosperity, ended decades of Cold War tensions, halted the insane arms race, turned swords into plowshares, and diverted hundreds of billions annually from "defense" to "rebuild(ing) civilian infrastructure and repair(ing) impoverished cities."

Instead, Washington, under GHW Bush and his successors, "chose stealth, deception, lies and wars to attempt to control the Eurasian Heartland - its only potential rival as an economic region - by military (political, and economic) force," and by extension planet earth through an agenda later called "full spectrum dominance."

As a result, the Cold War never ended and today rages with over a trillion dollars spent annually on "defense" in all forms even though America has no enemy, nor did it after the Japanese surrendered in August 1945. So the solution was to invent them, and so they were.

Post-Soviet Russia, "The 'new' Cold War assumed various disguises and deceptive tactics until September 11, 2001" changed the game. It let George Bush "declare (a) permanent (Global War on Terror) against an enemy who was everywhere and nowhere, who allegedly threatened the American way of life, justified (police state) laws," and is now destroying our freedoms and futures.

The roots of the scheme go back decades - at least to 1939 when powerful New York Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) insiders planned a post-war world with one nation alone triumphant and unchallengeable.

Engdahl's book is a geopolitical analysis of the past two decades - peering into "the dark corners of Pentagon strategy and actions and the extreme dangers ('full spectrum dominance' holds for) the future," not just to America but the entire world.

Things are so out-of-control today that democratic freedoms and planetary life itself are threatened by "the growing risk of nuclear war by miscalculation" or the foolhardy assumption that waging it can be limited, controlled, and safe - like turning a faucet on and off. The very notion is implausible and reckless on its face, yet powerful forces in the country think this way and plan accordingly.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

It looks like "The New World Order" is making itself manifest in a cloak of invisibility. Unseen by most and understood by a few. The first president to use the term "New World Order" was George H. W. Bush (father of you know who). It was in a speech he gave to the nation. You want to know the date of the speech? Well, I'll tell you anyway.....September 11, 1990! The following is a condensed version of an article I read today.

It was long and with alot of detail......some of which I didn't understand. At least, not yet! In the midst of fighting two wars and surrounded by fear and uncertainty we have the tendency to place ourselves in a cocoon to play with the little toys we've been allowed to possess. Oblivious to our global surroundings. Or, maybe, just plain disinterested.

We need to compound our knowledge of history in order to become more politically astute. A little Economics 101 wouldn't hurt, either. If not, we'll be unwittingly converted to mere pawns on the global chessboard. Please read the information below and consider yourself forewarned! Later.

P.S. Almost forgot.......keep reading your Bible so as to "shield yourselves from the flaming arrows of the evil one"!!!! (Ephesians, Chapter 6)

Buried on page 83 of the 89-page Report on Financial Regulatory Reform issued by the U.S. Administration on June 17 is a recommendation that the new Financial Stability Board strengthen and institutionalize its mandate to promote global financial stability. Financial stability is a worthy goal, but the devil is in the details. The new global Big Brother is based in the Bank for International Settlements, a controversial institution that raises red flags among the wary . . . .

"Big Brother" is the term used by George Orwell in his classic novel 1984 for the totalitarian state that would lock into place in the year of his title. Why he chose that particular year is unclear, but one theory is that he was echoing Jack London's The Iron Heel, which chronicled the rise of an oligarchic tyranny in the United States. In London's book, the oligarchy's fictional wonder-city, fueled by oppressed workers, was to be completed by 1984. Orwell also echoed London's imagery when he described the future under Big Brother as "a boot stamping on a human face - forever." In Secret Records Revealed: The Men, the Money, and the Methods Behind the New World Order (1999), Dr. Dennis Cuddy asked:

"Could the 'boot' be the new eighteen-story Bank for International Settlements (BIS) which was completed in Basel, Switzerland, in 1977 in the shape of a boot, and became known as the'Tower of Basel'?"

The boot-like shape of the building is strange enough to be thought-provoking , but more disturbing is the description by Dr. Carroll Quigley of the pivotal role assigned to the BIS in consolidating financial power into a few private hands. Professor Quigley, who was Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown University, claimed to be an insider and evidently knew his subject. He wrote in Tragedy and Hope (1966):

The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations."

That helps explain the alarm bells that went off among BIS-watchers when the Bank was linked to the new Financial Stability Board (FSB) President Obama signed onto in April. When the G20 leaders met in London on April 2, 2009, they agreed to expand the powers of the old Financial Stability Forum (FSF) into this new Board. The FSF was set up in 1999 to serve in a merely advisory capacity by the G7 (a group of finance ministers formed from the seven major industrialized nations). The chair of the FSF was the General Manager of the BIS.

The new FSB has been expanded to include all G20 members (19 nations plus the EU). The G20, formally called the "Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors," was, like the G7, originally set up as a forum merely for cooperation and consultation on matters pertaining to the international financial system. But its new Financial Stability Board has real teeth, imposing "obligations" and "commitments" on its members.

The Shadowy Financial Stability Board

The Report on Financial Regulatory Reform issued by the Obama Administration on June 17 includes a recommendation that the FSB "strengthen" and "institutionalize" its mandate. What is the FSB's mandate, what are its expanded powers, and who is in charge? An article in The London Guardian addresses those issues in question and answer format:

"Who runs the regulator? The Financial Stability Forum is chaired by Mario Draghi, governor of the Bank of Italy. The secretariat is based at the Bank for International Settlements' headquarters in Basel, Switzerland."

Draghi was director general of the Italian treasury from 1991 to 2001, where he was responsible for widespread privatization (sell-off of government holdings to private investors). From January 2002 to January 2006, however, he was a partner at Goldman Sachs on Wall Street, another controversial player. As already noted, "basing" the FSB at the BIS is not a comforting sign, considering the dark and controversial history of the BIS. Dr. Cuddy, writing in 1999, quoted media sources describing the BIS and its behind-the-scenes leaders as "this economic cabal . . . this secretive group . . . the financial barons who control the world's supply of money" (Washington Post, June 28, 1998); "some of the world's most powerful and least visible men . . . officials able to shift billions of dollars and alter the course of economies at the stroke of a pen" (New York Times, August 5, 1995); men who can "move huge amounts of money into and out of markets in a nanosecond" and "topple politicians with the click of a mouse" (ABC's "Nightline," July 1, 1998).

"What will the new regulator do? The regulator will monitor potential risks to the economy . . . It will cooperate with the IMF, the Washington-based body that monitors countries' financial health, lending funds if needed. . . ."

The IMF is an international banking organization that is also controversial. Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist for the World Bank, charges it with ensnaring Third World countries in a debt trap from which they cannot escape. Debtors unable to pay are bound by "conditionalities" that include a forced sell-off of national assets to private investors in order to service their loans.

"What will the regulator oversee? All 'systemically important' financial institutions, instruments and markets."

The term "systemically important" is not defined. Will it include such systemically important institutions as national treasuries, and such systemically important markets as gold, oil and food?

"How will it work? The body will establish a supervisory college to monitor each of the largest international financial services firms. . . . It will act as a clearing house for information-sharing and contingency planning for the benefit of its members."

In some contexts, information-sharing is called illegal collusion. Would the information-sharing here include such things as secret agreements among central banks to buy or sell particular currencies, with the concomitant power to support or collapse targeted local economies? Consider the short-selling of the Mexican peso by collusive action in 1995, the short-selling of Southeast Asian currencies in 1998, and the collusion among central banks to support the U.S. dollar in July of last year - good for the dollar and the big players with inside information perhaps, but not so good for the small investors who reasonably bet on "market forces," bought gold or foreign currencies, and lost their shirts.

"What will the new regulator do about debt and loans? To prevent another debt bubble, the new body will recommend financial companies maintain provisions against credit losses and may impose constraints on borrowing."

What sort of constraints? The Basel Accords imposed by the BIS have not generally worked out well. The first Basel Accord, issued in 1998, was blamed for inducing a depression in Japan from which that country has yet to recover; and the Second Basel Accord and its associated mark-to-market rule have been blamed for bringing on the current credit crisis, from which the U.S. and the world have yet to recover. These charges have been explored at length elsewhere. The suspicious might see these failures as intentional. The warnings come to mind of Congressman Louis MacFadden, head of the House Banking and Currency Committee during the Great Depression:

"It was a carefully contrived occurrence. International bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair, so that they might emerge the rulers of us all." David Rockefeller, a key player in international finance, echoed this thinking in 1994, when he said at a UN dinner, "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

Take "fiscal policy transparency" as an example. The "Code of Good Practices on Fiscal Transparency" was adopted by the IMF Interim Committee in 1998. The "synoptic description" says:

"The code contains transparency requirements to provide assurances to the public and to capital markets that a sufficiently complete picture of the structure and finances of government is available so as to allow the soundness of fiscal policy to be reliably assessed."

We learn that members are required to provide a "picture of the structure and finances of government" that is complete enough for an assessment of its "soundness" -- but an assessment by whom, and what if a government fails the test? Is an unelected private committee based in the BIS allowed to evaluate the "structure and function" of particular national governments and, if they are determined to have fiscal policies that are not "sound," to impose "conditionalities" and "austerity measures" of the sort that the IMF is notorious for imposing on Third World countries? The wary might wonder if that is how the mighty United States is to be brought under the heel of Big Brother at last.

For three centuries, private international banking interests have brought governments in line by blocking them from issuing their own currencies and requiring them to borrow banker-issued "banknotes" instead. "Allow me to issue and control a nation's currency," Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild famously said in 1791, "and I care not who makes its laws." The real rebellion of the American colonists in 1776, according to Benjamin Franklin, was against a foreign master who forbade the colonists from issuing their own money and required that taxes be paid in gold. The colonists, not having gold, had to borrow gold-backed banknotes from the British bankers.

The catch was that the notes were created on the "fractional reserve" system, allowing the bankers to issue up to ten times as many notes as they actually had gold, essentially creating them out of thin air just as the colonists were doing. The result was not only to lock the colonists into debt to foreign bankers but to propel the nation into a crippling depression. The colonists finally rebelled and reverted to issuing their own currency. Funding a revolution against a major world power with money they printed themselves, they succeeded in defeating their oppressors and winning their independence.

Political colonialism is now a thing of the past, but under the new FSB guidelines, nations can still be held in feudalistic subservience to foreign masters. Consider this scenario: XYZ country, which has been getting along very well financially, discloses that its national currency is being printed by the government directly. The FSB determines that this practice represents an impermissible "merging of the public and private sectors" and is an unsound banking practice forbidden under the "12 Key International Standards and Codes." Banker-created national currency is declared to be the standard "good practice" all governments must follow. XYZ is compelled to abandon the "anachronistic" notion that creating its own national currency is a proper "function of government." It must now borrow from the international bankers, trapping it in the bankers' compound-interest debt web.

Consider another scenario: Like in the American colonies, the new FSB rules precipitate a global depression the likes of which have never before been seen. XYZ country wakes up to the fact that all of this is unnecessary - that it could be creating its own money, freeing itself from the debt trap, rather than borrowing from bankers who create money on computer screens and charge interest for the privilege of borrowing it. But this realization comes too late: the boot descends and XYZ is crushed into line. National sovereignty has been abdicated to a private committee, with no say by the voters.

Was Orwell Just 25 Years Too Early?

Suspicious observers might say that this is how you pull off a private global dictatorship: (1) create a global crisis; (2) appoint an "advisory body" to retain and maintain "stability"; and then (3) "formalize" the advisory body as global regulator. By the time the people wake up to what has happened, it's too late. Marilyn Barnewall, who was dubbed by Forbes Magazine the "dean of American private banking," writes in an April 2009 article titled "What Happened to American Sovereignty at G-20?":

"It seems the world's bankers have executed a bloodless coup and now represent all of the people in the world. . . . President Obama agreed at the G20 meeting in London to create an international board with authority to intervene in U.S. corporations by dictating executive compensation and approving or disapproving business management decisions. Under the new Financial Stability Board, the United States has only one vote. In other words, the group will be largely controlled by European central bankers. My guess is, they will represent themselves, not you and not me and certainly not America."

A bloodless coup . . . Again one is reminded of the admissions of David Rockefeller, who wrote in his Memoirs (Random House 2002):

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

The Commitments Mandated by the Financial Stability Board

Constitute a Commercial Treaty Requiring a 2/3 Vote of the Senate.

Adoption of the FSB was never voted on by the public, either individually or through their legislators. The G20 Summit has been called "a New Bretton Woods," referring to agreements entered into in 1944 establishing new rules for international trade. But Bretton Woods was put in place by Congressional Executive Agreement, requiring a majority vote of the legislature; and it more properly should have been done by treaty, requiring a two-thirds vote of the Senate, since it was an international agreement binding on the nation. The same should be mandated before imposing the will of the BIS-based Financial Stability Board on the U.S., its banks and its businesses.

Ellen Brown developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and "the money trust." She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her earlier books focused on the pharmaceutical cartel that gets its power from "the money trust." Her eleven books include Forbidden Medicine, Nature's Pharmacy (co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker), and The Key to Ultimate Health (co-authored with Dr. Richard Hansen). Her websites are www.webofdebt.com and www.ellenbrown.com.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

A VERY GOOD article by Michael Parenti.









Yet another foreign policy fiasco. Greedy corporate elites don't care about "promoting democracy and freedom". Money is their god!

Barack Obama is on record as advocating a military escalation in Afghanistan. Before sinking any deeper into that quagmire, we might do well to learn something about recent Afghani history and the role played by the United States.

Less than a month after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, US leaders began an all-out aerial assault upon Afghanistan, the country purportedly harboring Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist organization. More than twenty years earlier, in 1980, the United States intervened to stop a Soviet "invasion" of that country.

Even some leading progressive writers, who normally take a more critical view of US policy abroad, treated the US intervention against the Soviet-supported government as "a good thing." The actual story is not such a good thing.

Some REAL History









Since feudal times the landholding system in Afghanistan had remained unchanged, with more than 75 percent of the land owned by big landlords who comprised only 3 percent of the rural population. In the mid-1960s, democratic revolutionary elements coalesced to form the People's Democratic Party (PDP). In 1973, the king was deposed, but the government that replaced him proved to be autocratic, mismanaged, and unpopular. It in turn was forced out in 1978 after a massive demonstration in front of the presidential palace, and after factions of the army intervened on the side of the demonstrators.

The military officers who took charge invited the PDP to form a new government under the leadership of Noor Mohammed Taraki, a poet and novelist. This is how a Marxist-led coalition of national democratic forces came into office. "It was a totally indigenous happening. Not even the CIA blamed the USSR for it," writes John Ryan, a retired professor at the University of Winnipeg, who was conducting an agricultural research project in Afghanistan at about that time.

The Taraki government proceeded to legalize labor unions, and set up a minimum wage, a progressive income tax, a literacy campaign, and programs that gave ordinary people greater access to health care, housing, and public sanitation. Fledgling peasant cooperatives were started and price reductions on some key foods were imposed.

The government also continued a campaign begun by the king to emancipate women from their age-old tribal bondage. It provided public education for girls and for the children of various tribes. 
A report in the San Francisco Chronicle (17 November 2001) noted that under the Taraki regime Kabul had been "a cosmopolitan city. Artists and hippies flocked to the capital. Women studied agriculture, engineering and business at the city's university. Afghan women held government jobs--in the 1980s, there were seven female members of parliament. Women drove cars, traveled and went on dates. Fifty percent of university students were women."

The Taraki government moved to eradicate the cultivation of opium poppy. Until then Afghanistan had been producing more than 70 percent of the opium needed for the world's heroin supply. The government also abolished all debts owed by farmers, and began developing a major land reform program. Ryan believes that it was a "genuinely popular government and people looked forward to the future with great hope." 
But serious opposition arose from several quarters.

The feudal landlords opposed the land reform program that infringed on their holdings. And tribesmen and fundamentalist mullahs vehemently opposed the government's dedication to gender equality and the education of women and children.

Because of its egalitarian and collectivist economic policies the Taraki government also incurred the opposition of the US national security state. Almost immediately after the PDP coalition came to power, the CIA, assisted by Saudi and Pakistani military, launched a large scale intervention into Afghanistan on the side of the ousted feudal lords, reactionary tribal chieftains, mullahs, and opium traffickers.

A top official within the Taraki government was Hafizulla Amin, believed by many to have been recruited by the CIA during the several years he spent in the United States as a student. In September 1979, Amin seized state power in an armed coup. He executed Taraki, halted the reforms, and murdered, jailed, or exiled thousands of Taraki supporters as he moved toward establishing a fundamentalist Islamic state. But within two months, he was overthrown by PDP remnants including elements within the military.

It should be noted that all this happened before the Soviet military intervention. National security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski publicly admitted--months before Soviet troops entered the country--that the Carter administration was providing huge sums to Muslim extremists to subvert the reformist government. Part of that effort involved brutal attacks by the CIA-backed mujahideen against schools and teachers in rural areas.

In late 1979, the seriously besieged PDP government asked Moscow to send a contingent of troops to help ward off the mujahideen (Islamic guerrilla fighters) and foreign mercenaries, all recruited, financed, and well-armed by the CIA. The Soviets already had been sending aid for projects in mining, education, agriculture, and public health. Deploying troops represented a commitment of a more serious and politically dangerous sort. It took repeated requests from Kabul before Moscow agreed to intervene militarily.

Jihad and Taliban, CIA Style

The Soviet intervention was a golden opportunity for the CIA to transform the tribal resistance into a holy war, an Islamic jihad to expel the godless communists from Afghanistan. Over the years the United States and Saudi Arabia expended about $40 billion on the war in Afghanistan. The CIA and its allies recruited, supplied, and trained almost 100,000 radical mujahideen from forty Muslim countries including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Algeria, and Afghanistan itself.

Among those who answered the call was Saudi-born millionaire right-winger Osama bin Laden and his cohorts. (WOW! Osama was our "buddie"!) 
After a long and unsuccessful war, the Soviets evacuated the country in February 1989. It is generally thought that the PDP Marxist government collapsed immediately after the Soviet departure. Actually, it retained enough popular support to fight on for another three years, outlasting the Soviet Union itself by a year.

Upon taking over Afghanistan, the mujahideen fell to fighting among themselves. They ravaged the cities, terrorized civilian populations, looted, staged mass executions, closed schools, raped thousands of women and girls, and reduced half of Kabul to rubble. In 2001 Amnesty International reported that the mujahideen used sexual assault as "a method of intimidating vanquished populations and rewarding soldiers.'"
Ruling the country gangster-style and looking for lucrative sources of income, the tribes ordered farmers to plant opium poppy.

The Pakistani ISI, a close junior partner to the CIA, set up hundreds of heroin laboratories across Afghanistan. Within two years of the CIA's arrival, the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderland became the biggest producer of heroin in the world.

Largely created and funded by the CIA, the mujahideen mercenaries now took on a life of their own. Hundreds of them returned home to Algeria, Chechnya, Kosovo, and Kashmir to carry on terrorist attacks in Allah's name against the purveyors of secular "corruption." I remember President Reagan actually saying in a speech, "I am a mujahideen!"

In Afghanistan itself, by 1995 an extremist strain of Sunni Islam called the Taliban---heavily funded and advised by the ISI and the CIA and with the support of Islamic political parties in Pakistan---fought its way to power, taking over most of the country, luring many tribal chiefs into its fold with threats and bribes.

The Taliban promised to end the factional fighting and banditry that was the mujahideen trademark. Suspected murderers and spies were executed monthly in the sports stadium, and those accused of thievery had the offending hand sliced off. The Taliban condemned forms of "immorality" that included premarital sex, adultery, and homosexuality. They also outlawed all music, theater, libraries, literature, secular education, and much scientific research.

The Taliban unleashed a religious reign of terror, imposing an even stricter interpretation of Muslim law than used by most of the Kabul clergy. All men were required to wear untrimmed beards and women had to wear the burqa which covered them from head to toe, including their faces. Persons who were slow to comply were dealt swift and severe punishment by the Ministry of Virtue. A woman who fled an abusive home or charged spousal abuse would herself be severely whipped by the theocratic authorities. Women were outlawed from social life, deprived of most forms of medical care, barred from all levels of education, and any opportunity to work outside the home. Women who were deemed "immoral" were stoned to death or buried alive.

None of this was of much concern to leaders in Washington who got along famously with the Taliban. As recently as 1999, the US government was paying the entire annual salary of every single Taliban government official (SF Chronicle, 10/2/2001). Not until October 2001, when President George W. Bush had to rally public opinion behind his bombing campaign in Afghanistan did he denounce the Taliban's oppression of women. His wife, Laura Bush, emerged overnight as a full-blown feminist to deliver a public address detailing some of the abuses committed against Afghan women.

If anything positive can be said about the Taliban, it is that they did put a stop to much of the looting, raping, and random killings that the mujahideen had practiced on a regular basis. In 2000 Taliban authorities also eradicated the cultivation of opium poppy throughout the areas under their control, an effort judged by the United Nations International Drug Control Program to have been nearly totally successful. With the Taliban overthrown and a Western-selected mujahideen government reinstalled in Kabul by December 2001, opium poppy production in Afghanistan increased dramatically.

The years of war that have followed have taken tens of thousands of Afghani lives. Along with those killed by Cruise missiles, Stealth bombers, Tomahawks, daisy cutters, and land mines are those who continue to die of hunger, cold, lack of shelter, and lack of water.

The Holy Crusade for Oil and Gas

While claiming to be fighting terrorism, US leaders have found other compelling but less advertised reasons for plunging deeper into Afghanistan. The Central Asian region is rich in oil and gas reserves. A decade before 9/11, Time magazine (18 March 1991) reported that US policy elites were contemplating a military presence in Central Asia. The discovery of vast oil and gas reserves in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan provided the lure, while the dissolution of the USSR removed the one major barrier against pursuing an aggressive interventionist policy in that part of the world.

US oil companies acquired the rights to some 75 percent of these new reserves. A major problem was how to transport the oil and gas from the landlocked region. US officials opposed using the Russian pipeline or the most direct route across Iran to the Persian Gulf. Instead, they and the corporate oil contractors explored a number of alternative pipeline routes, across Azerbaijan and Turkey to the Mediterranean or across China to the Pacific. Hamid Karzai (current "president" of Afghanistan and "educated" at Harvard) was on the Board of Directors of the following oil company, Unocal. Coincidence? Get real!

The route favored by Unocal, a US based oil company, crossed Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean. The intensive negotiations that Unocal entered into with the Taliban regime remained unresolved by 1998, as an Argentine company placed a competing bid for the pipeline. Bush's war against the Taliban rekindled UNOCAL's hopes for getting a major piece of the action.

Interestingly enough, neither the Clinton nor Bush administrations ever placed Afghanistan on the official State Department list of states charged with sponsoring terrorism, despite the acknowledged presence of Osama bin Laden as a guest of the Taliban government. Such a "rogue state" designation would have made it impossible for a US oil or construction company to enter an agreement with Kabul for a pipeline to the Central Asian oil and gas fields.

In sum, well in advance of the 9/11 attacks the US government had made preparations to move against the Taliban and create a compliant regime in Kabul and a direct US military presence in Central Asia. The 9/11 attacks provided the perfect impetus, stampeding US public opinion and reluctant allies into supporting military intervention.

One might agree with John Ryan who argued that if Washington had left the Marxist Taraki government alone back in 1979, "there would have been no army of mujahideen, no Soviet intervention, no war that destroyed Afghanistan, no Osama bin Laden, and no September 11 tragedy." But it would be asking too much for Washington to leave unmolested a progressive leftist government that was organizing the social capital around collective public needs rather than private accumulation. Of course!

US intervention in Afghanistan has proven not much different from US intervention in Cambodia, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, and elsewhere. It had the same intent of preventing egalitarian social change, and the same effect of overthrowing an economically reformist government. In all these instances, the intervention brought retrograde elements into ascendance, left the economy in ruins, and pitilessly laid waste to many innocent lives.

The war against Afghanistan, a battered impoverished country, continues to be portrayed in US official circles as a gallant crusade against terrorism. If it ever was that, it also has been a means to other things: destroying a leftist revolutionary social order, gaining profitable control of one of the last vast untapped reserves of the earth's dwindling fossil fuel supply, and planting US bases and US military power into still another region of the world.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

'Bank Holiday' for this september!

You know what? I really hope this "holiday" (what a wonderful euphemism!) doesn't occur. It's supposedly just a possibility. But, from what I've been reading lately, it's a strong possibility. The last few years I've kept only enough money in the bank to pay bills. I hoard the rest. Might not make too much difference, however. They can devalue it in just a few hours. Not even that long, probably. Keep your eyes and ears open for any news or event that may even remotely signal the arrival of this "bank holiday". Listen closely to "carefully worded statements" coming from the government or the Federal Reserve. I sincerely hope that this Harry Schultz has got it wrong. The timing, I mean. The economic circumstances he describes in the following article, I believe, will occur. I just didn't think it would happen so soon. Eventually, there will be a complete and total "realignment" of the geo-political, social and economic forces that exist. When it does, it's going to get "ugly". For us......not "them".

Bob Chapman's influential International Forecaster is reporting on the possibility of a so-called "bank holiday" planned for late August or early September. According to Chapman's sources, U.S. embassies around the world are selling dollars and stockpiling money from respective countries where they operate.

FDR imposed a "bank holiday" soon after taking office. It resulted in the government stealing gold from the American people and giving them useless fiat paper money in return.

"Some US embassies worldwide are being advised to purchase massive amounts of local currencies," writes Harry Schultz, "enough to last them a year." Schultz publishes the Harry Schultz Letter, an international investment, financial, economic, and geopolitical newsletter named as "Newsletter of the Year" by Peter Brimelow of Market Watch in 2005 and 2008.

Schultz believes the global elite are in the process of engineering an FDR-style "bank holiday" of undetermined length in order to "sort-out the bank mess" and impose new bank rules.

On March 5, 1933, in the depths of the banker engineered "Great Depression," newly elected Franklin Roosevelt declared a "bank holiday" that forced banks closed for four days. Roosevelt then rammed the Emergency Banking Act through the legislature. Passed by Congress on March 9, the act granted FDR near dictatorial control over the dealings of banks. It also allowed the Secretary of the Treasury the power to compel every person and business in the country to relinquish their gold and accept paper currency in exchange.

On March 10, Roosevelt issued Executive Order No. 6073, forbidding people from sending gold overseas and forbidding banks from paying out gold. A few weeks later, on April 5, Roosevelt issued Executive Order No. 6102 ordering Americans to deliver their gold and gold certificates to the Federal Reserve bank in exchange for paper fiat money.

In other words, FDR engaged in one of history's greatest rip-offs - that is until now.

FDR not only ripped-off the American people, but foreigners holding dollars as well, thus ensuring the "Great Depression" would spread around the world like a bankster engineered contagion.

As Schultz notes, another forced "bank holiday" will likely lead to a formal devaluation of the already broadsided U.S. dollar. "But devalue against what? The euro? Doubtful. Gold? Maybe. Or vs. the IMF basket of currencies," which he feels is more likely.

In fact, this is precisely what the globalist have in mind. In March, the media reported the IMF was poised print billions of "global quantitative easing" dollars to be dubbed global "super-currency" to address the (bankster engineered) economic crisis. "The principle behind it is that everyone would get bonus dollars and instead of the Federal Reserve having to print them, everyone gets them," declared Simon Johnson, former chief economist at the IMF.

Can you say inflation?

It is no secret the elite have envisioned a global currency for some time now. In 2007, the director of international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations stated that the dollar and the euro are but temporary currencies. "It is the market that made the dollar into global money - and what the market giveth, the market can taketh away. If the tailors balk and the dollar falls, the market may privatize money on its own," Benn Steil pontificated.

More like the banksters taketh away - and not only money but national sovereignty as well because a global currency will demand an end to "monetary nationalism."

Or as Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, has said, "states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function."

Mr. Schultz believes a "bank holiday" would suit the burning desires of the international bankster elite. It will lead to "nationalization," which is a polite word for brazen thievery. It will allow the government - owned lock, stock and barrel by the global elite and run by their corrupt whores and cronies - to rape secured creditors and bondholders. Nationalization is the unfettered process of grabbing up of insurance companies, mortgage companies, banks, medical care, and car companies and handing them over to the monopoly men.

During the FDR "bank holiday," Schulz notes, "thousands of banks never reopened; it was a face-saving way of shutting them down. I would guess the same would occur today; thousands have little or no net value, loaded with debt, bad mortgages."

In order soften the nation up for the coming pillage, the Obama administration has proposed a plan to give the privately-owned and unaccountable Federal Reserve complete regulatory oversight across the entire U.S. economy. The new rules would see the Fed given the authority to "regulate" any company whose activity it believes could threaten the economy and the markets - that is to say if it "threatens" the monopolistic interests of the bankers.

"Obama's regulatory 'reform' plan is nothing less than a green light for the complete and total takeover of the United States by a private banking cartel that will usurp the power of existing regulatory bodies, who are now being blamed for the financial crisis in order that their status can be abolished and their roles handed over to the all-powerful Fed," write Paul Joseph and Steve Watson. "The government is ready to hand over everything to a monolithic private corporation and a gaggle of bastard banker offspring, that have gobbled up an amount close to the entire GDP of the country in taxpayers' money and figuratively stuck the middle finger up regarding questions over where that money has gone."

A "bank holiday" would work wonders for any "regulation" the Fed and the bankers have in mind. It would compliment the criminal consolidation now underway. It would allow them to finally and formally devalue the dollar and usher in a global "super currency" of control and enslavement.

A Bob Chapman subscriber added a little dinger to the prospect of the banks going dark. The subscriber claims to have overheard two men in FEMA jackets talking with a police chief in California, all who agreed that the federalization of police around the country - a process largely complete - will be required if the banks are shuttered in late August or early September because it will get "ugly" out there.

No doubt. Because the sort of enduring and polite American who weathered the "Great Depression" is now in seriously short supply.

If Mr. Schultz's prediction is correct, we can expect riots in bank foyers and ultimately martial law to be imposed.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Ron Pauls plea falling on deaf ears!

You remember Ron Paul? He ran for president in the last election. I talked about him alot back then. He was extremely popular on the Internet. I thought he should have been elected. I agreed with almost everything he said when it came to fixing the economy. He called for abolishing the Federal Reserve and reviving the power of Congress to "coin and issue" money like the Constitution originally intended. He ran as a Republican, which is why he lost. In the 80s he was in the Libertarian Party. He also called for the U.S. to shut down EVERY MILITARY BASE ON FOREIGN SOIL at a savings of about one TRILLION dollars a year! Like me, he's warning people of the impending economic collapse if we don't do something drastic. And quick! He's one of just a handful of our elected officials thats got it right!

Last week Congress passed the war supplemental appropriations bill. In an affront to all those who thought they voted for a peace candidate, the current president will be sending another $106 billion we don't have to continue the bloodshed in Afghanistan and Iraq, without a hint of a plan to bring our troops home.

Many of my colleagues who voted with me as I opposed every war supplemental request under the previous administration seem to have changed their tune. I maintain that a vote to fund the war is a vote in favor of the war. Congress exercises its constitutional prerogatives through the power of the purse, and as long as Congress continues to enable these dangerous interventions abroad, there is no end in sight, that is until we face total economic collapse.

From their spending habits, an economic collapse seems to be the goal of Congress and this administration. Washington spends with impunity domestically, bailing out and nationalizing everything they can get their hands on, and the foreign aid and IMF funding in this bill can rightly be called an international bailout!

As Americans struggle through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, this emergency supplemental appropriations bill sends $660 million to Gaza, $555 million to Israel, $310 million to Egypt, $300 million to Jordan, and $420 million to Mexico. Some $889 million will be sent to the United Nations for so-called "peacekeeping" missions. Almost one billion dollars will be sent overseas to address the global financial crisis outside our borders. Nearly $8 billion will be spent to address a "potential pandemic flu" which could result in mandatory vaccinations for no discernable reason other than to enrich the pharmaceutical companies that make the vaccine.

Perhaps most outrageous is the $108 billion loan guarantee to the International Monetary Fund. These new loan guarantees will allow that destructive organization to continue spending taxpayer money to prop up corrupt leaders and promote harmful economic policies overseas.

Not only does sending American taxpayer money to the IMF hurt citizens here, evidence shows that it even hurts those it pretends to help. Along with IMF loans comes IMF required policy changes, called Structural Adjustment Programs, which amount to forced Keynesianism. This is the very fantasy-infused economic model that has brought our own country to its knees, and IMF loans act as the Trojan Horse to inflict it on others.

Perhaps most troubling is the fact that leaders in recipient nations tend to become more concerned with the wishes of international elites than the wishes and needs of their own people. Argentina and Kenya are just two examples of countries that followed IMF mandates right off a cliff. The IMF frequently recommends currency devaluation to poorer nations, which has wiped out the already impoverished over and over. There is also a long list of brutal dictators the IMF happily supported and propped up with loans that left their oppressed populace in staggering amounts of debt with no economic progress to show for it.

We are buying nothing but evil and global oppression by sending your taxdollars to the IMF. Not to mention there is no Constitutional authority to do so. Our continued presence in Iraq and Afghanistan does not make us safer at home, but in fact undermines our national security. I vehemently opposed this Supplemental Appropriations Bill and was dismayed to see it pass so easily.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.


----------



## RedneckR0nin (Nov 5, 2008)

I like this thread badfish keep going allthough I don't agree with everything you post crisply and agrumentitve with class which is a rarity nowadays.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

I gotta get a hold of this movie!

Synopsis of the movie "Superpower". A new movie we can order from GlobalResearch. com!

Superpower: Far from a conspiracy film about the dangers of government secrets and regime change, this well-balanced film straddles the philosophical divide and allows viewers to understand the US quest for global dominance through economic and military strategy that is exposed through review of historical events, personal interviews, and analysis of US foreign policy.

The heart of Superpower lies in the analysis produced from a re-examination of history through a series of interviews with historians, documentarians, and academians such as Bill Blum, Chalmers Johnson, Michael Chossudovsky, and Noam Chomsky, and others with expertise in this subject such as the Executive Producer of The Unit, Command Sergeant (Ret.) Eric Haney; former Chief Economist for the US Department of Labor, Morgan Reynolds; three-time Noble Peace Prize nominee, Kathy Kelly; and Lt. Col. (Ret) Karen Kwiatkowski.

Examining key moments in America's history elicits a more consistent and plausible set of motives for US foreign policy actions guided by global expansion and military dominance, rather than the hyperbolic calls for democracy and totalitarian regime change that we have become so accustomed to hearing.

Should citizens trust that their government will keep them safe, a government that keeps secrets, and lies, in the name of national security? Does the simple act of withholding information lead to a world of eroding civil liberties and corruption? Superpower presents a view of US foreign policy, which lies in stark contrast to that depicted by corporate media, popular pundits, and US heads of state. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has emerged as the preeminent superpower of the world.

Superpower illustrates how the United States has chosen to leverage that position to pursue a grand strategy which will ensure itself unilateral world domination through absolute economic and military superiority. It shows a consistent pattern of government deception.

The United States emerged from World War II with its industrial base still intact and the only nation with the atomic bomb. It was without question the most powerful country on earth. What was done with this unprecedented power, the effects it's had on our Republic and the rest of the world is the story of Superpower.

An interesting excerpt from an article I read today.

Merriam Webster's dictionary defines capitalism as "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."

Despite the appearance of completeness, this definition is missing one thing; an unregulated capitalist society run by corrupt men would eventually collapse like a house of cards. Our brand of capitalism relies on prolific consumerism as a means to globalization, where needs are created and where everything and everyone is for sale.

We tend to sell the public various goods, services, people, politicians, Presidents, and even God for the right price. Everything and everyone becomes a commodity to be purchased and sold. From this consumerism, we develop an addiction to consumption that renders us as needy infants desperate to suckle their mother's breast.

Our brand of capitalism has us believe that the market is an independent entity that self-regulates rather than an arena controlled by a few powerful individuals who dictate and manipulate the entire game. Unfortunately for the people, if these men happen to be greedy and corrupt the whole system becomes a reflection of their image, which might eventually lead to its disintegration and complete dissolution. Extreme wealth often coexists with extreme corruption.

Today America is facing the same perilous patterns that the Roman Empire encountered over 1500 years ago. These patterns are characterized by prevalent corruption on every level of government, waging unnecessary expensive wars, inability to resolve conflicts in strategic areas within the empire, erosion of morality, control of the public, eradication of individual liberty, lavish borrowing and spending, hyperinflation, war mongering, and a wavering of the currency.

Money and power are the ultimate goals that every man attempts to achieve in the hope of satisfying their egos. This pathological narcissism that infests most of our leaders has been the only driving force in their alleged passion for public service.

President Barack Obama, allegedly the new face of change, had often proclaimed during his presidential campaign that he would not be bought or influenced by special interest groups, because he wanted to be a president of the people, for the people, and by the people. This rhetoric has rallied the populace who then enthusiastically rushed to send him contributions of $5 and $10 or more.

His supporters also believed that he would finally bring back hope, freedom, prosperity, peace, love, and end the extensive depravity and abuses practiced by his predecessor. Sadly, the people were deceived once again.

Practicing true freedom is difficult, anxiety provoking, and frightening. It also requires hard work, thinking, and competence. Instead, people prefer to be led and to be given their basic needs; as a result they are willing to give up their liberty. Let's remember that a state is not designed to care for the public but to control it. The more you allow the state to regulate you, the more controlled you will become. Let us also not forget that in a true democracy the purpose of government is to serve the people not to rule them.









AMEN!!!!


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Bilderburg Group!!!

By now, many of you may have heard about the annual meeting of the world's richest and most powerful men. These meetings are conducted in extreme secrecy. And with very tight security. Members must attend alone and only under invitation. They cannot bring wives, girlfriends or mistresses. Even personal bodyguards do not attend the actual meetings and eat in separate quarters. This is so they could speak freely and without fear of reprisal about how to best manipulate global events to achieve their stated goals.

Many attendees are current and former high-level officials of past administrations (both Democratic and Republican) as high as the presidency itself. Henry Kissinger has attended virtually every single one. I believe I have sent the following quote by Kissinger before. It bears repeating, however, because I did not know that Kissinger was unaware of his speech being taped. Remember, he said this in 1992!!!!!! Kind of prophetic, huh?

"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."

- Henry Kissinger speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 Bilderburgers meeting. Unbeknownst to Kissinger, his speech was taped by a Swiss delegate to the meeting.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

BRIC and SCO

Did you know BRIC is an acronym for Brazil, Russia, India and China? Just a little "partnership" they got to counter American domination of the global economy. SCO stands for Shanghai Cooperation Organization. They're refusing to finance our "Defense" budget, our debt and our foreign military interventions. What do you think would happen to our economy if the dollar is stripped of it's designation as the world's reserve currency? A new word would have to be invented because "Depression" just won't cut it.

While the US plays its tiresome geopolitical games on Russia 's eastern borders, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev was busy charting a new economic and political reality in the heart of Eurasia . "The artificially maintained unipolar system", he lectured, is based on "one big centre of consumption, financed by a growing deficit and ... one formerly strong reserve currency." At the root of the global financial crisis, he concluded, is that the US makes too little and spends too much.

Especially upsetting for Russia is its continued military largesse to Georgia , the missile shield in Eastern Europe and its invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan . "The summit must create the conditions for a fairer world order," he read out, as Presidents Hu Jintao of China , Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil and the Indian prime minister looked on approvingly.

China backs Russia 's two big gripes with the US : "The security of some states cannot be ensured at the expense of others, including the expansion of military-political alliances or the creation of global or regional missile defense systems," the joint Chinese-Russian statement says. Chinese leader Hu Jintao also joined Medvedev in denouncing US plans to militarise outer space: "Russia and China advocate peaceful uses of outer space and oppose the prospect of it being turned into a new area for deploying weapons ... The sides will actively facilitate practical work on a draft treaty on the prevention of the deployment of weapons in outer space, and of the use of force or threats to use force against space facilities."

Iranian President Ahmedinejad, fresh from trouncing his pro-Western rival in presidential elections, dotted the "i"s at the SCO meeting, taking a leaf from Venezuela 's Hugo Chavez: "The international capitalist order is retreating. It is absolutely obvious that the age of empires has ended and its revival will not take place."

But there was more than colourful rhetoric in all this, despite the pooh-poohing of Western pundits, who deride the SCO and BRIC as a collection of misfits and wannabes. The BRICs have put the US dollar on notice, and are already finding alternatives as a means of clearing accounts. Medvedev called for the IMF to include the Russian ruble and the Chinese yuan in the basket of currencies used to value its financial products. But that is just for starters. Chinese Central Bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan says the goal is now to create a reserve currency "that is disconnected from individual nations."

Even more ominous for the threadbare dollar, though perfectly sensible in the computer age, is the revival of stone-age barter on a big scale, which bypasses the need for any reserve currency at all. Brazil 's biggest trading partner, once the US , is now (surprise) China , and they are using barter deals to settler their accounts, bypassing the dollar altogether. Two weeks ago China reached an agreement with Malaysia to denominate trade between the two countries in yuan.

As dollars are the world's default reserve currency today, the US government can churn them out at will to paper over its massive foreign debt and budget deficit, effectively letting it steal other countries assets legally and forcing countries everywhere to finance its military spending. China , Russia , Brazil and now India are well aware of this, have had enough, and have the international heft to do something about it.

For them, the US is the ultimate rogue nation. How else to characterise the country (USA) that insists other countries follow one set of laws - on war, debt repayment and treatment of prisoners - but IGNORES them itself? The US is now the world's largest debtor yet has curiously avoided the pain of "structural adjustments" that the IMF imposes on other debtor economies, refusing to cut its bloated military budget or increase taxes meaningfully. "The world economy should not remain entangled, so directly and unnecessarily, in the vicissitudes of a single great world power," said Roberto Mangabeira Unger, Brazil's minister for strategic affairs.

The US can never "repay" the $4 trillion debt it owes foreign governments, their central banks and the wealth funds set up precisely to dispose of the global dollar glut. " America has become a deadbeat - and indeed, a militarily aggressive one," notes Michael Hudson. The problem is how to contain it. Rumblings are coming not only from fringe peaceniks.

Yu Yongding, a former Chinese central bank advisor now with China 's Academy of Sciences, advises US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner that the US should save by cutting back on its military spending. " US tax revenue is not likely to increase in the short term because of low economic growth, inflexible expenditures and the cost of 'fighting two wars'".

The BRICs are trying to organise their affairs so that they are no longer the unwilling recipients of dollars. No matter what they think of the US , they hasten to insist they don't want to see the US dollar collapse, since they hold most of their own reserves in dollars. But they are beginning to withdraw the life-support system the US has been relying on since Nixon completed the transition from a gold-based reserve currency to a purely paper one in 1971.

Just to emphasise how serious the situation is, according to the Financial Times, the top 5 financial institutions by market capitalisation in 1999 were, in order, Citigroup (US), Bank of America (US), HSBC (UK), Lloyds TSB (UK), Fannie Mae (US). The top 5 as of 2009 are Industrial & Commercial Bank of China, China Construction Bank, Bank of China, HSBC (UK), and JPMorgan Chase (US). From 0:3 to 3:1 for China, now officially the world's second largest economy after the US - a rout.

Just as countries are beginning to rediscover age-old barter, fixed, pegged and dual exchange rates are also being considered, mechanisms once derided as passe. In the face of continued US overspending, de-dollarisation will force countries to return to nationally determined fixed exchange rates and dual exchange rates - one exchange rate for commodity trade, another for capital movements and investments.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Whoever controls the money, CONTROLS the world! (Henry Kissinger)

The following article by Robert Bridge titled, "The Great Bank Robbery: How the Federal Reserve is Destroying America" is really good. It, at least, brings to light the essence of our economic condition. We are giving more authority to a profit-driven entity (Federal Reserve) that placed us where we're at, in the first place. Prepare for a "transformation" of your lifestyle. Mentally, Spiritually and financially. Choices will have to be made. The Faith we claim to have will be severely tested. It's in the Bible. The "Deception" or the "Big Lie" is so powerful and pervasive that "even the elect" may be vulnerable ("if it were possible"). It will be difficult, but GOD does not give us burdens we can't carry. He knows us better than we know ourselves.

As global leaders struggle to rescue their nations from economic breakdown, the legitimacy of the dollar as the world's reserve currency is under attack. Perhaps the problem lies with the Fed.

A large part of the "super" in the American superpower is based on the modern creed of liberal democracy, which serves as the motor of free-market capitalism. And the lubricant that keeps this colossal machine humming at full speed 24/7 is the US dollar. So before we risk any conjectures on the future prospects of America's versatile banknote, which presently serves as the 'world's reserve currency,' perhaps we should know more about who controls it.

In the Fed We Trust

It usually comes as a shock to people - especially diehard Americans who place infinite trust in their sacred Constitution - when they discover that the US dollar is not a product of the American government. That's right, fellow consumers, that crumpled wad of dollars in your pocket is the product of the U.S. Federal Reserve, and despite the very official title, is about as "federal" as Federal Express.

The reality is that the U.S. Federal Reserve is a profit-making venture just like Wal-Mart, General Motors or McDonald's. Yet the US Constitution clearly states (Article 1, Section 8) that one of the many functions of government is to "coin money, regulate the value thereof." Indeed, this task was deemed so important that the Founding Fathers mentioned it ahead of the obligation to "raise and support armies." The Constitution says absolutely NOTHING about outside parties being responsible for printing money or regulating interest rates.

To quote Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States, "The privilege of creating and issuing money is&#8230; the supreme prerogative of government."
Today, a handful of blue-blooded American politicians (a very rare breed these days, it seems) are beginning to echo ol' Abe on the very same issue.

Ron Paul, the congressman from Texas who made an unsuccessful bid for the 2008 Republican Party presidential nomination, represents a growing number of Americans who want to see the Fed severely tamed, or put out of business altogether.
"Congress created the Fed although it had no constitutional authority to do so," Paul told his peers during a recent House investigative meeting. "We forget that those powers not explicitly granted to Congress by the Constitution are inherently denied to the Congress and thus the authority to establish a central bank was never given.

"Congress&#8230; has essentially given up its oversight responsibilities over the Fed: there are no true audits; Congress knows nothing of the conversations, the plans, and the action-taking in concert with other central banks. We get less and less information regarding the money supply each year," Paul continued.

Incidentally, but certainly not insignificantly, Paul, despite his huge grassroots popularity, was deliberately snubbed by the American media on numerous occasions, including during a primetime debate on Fox News.
"Despite his $20 million and 10% showing in new Hampshire polls, Fox News excluded Paul from its Sunday night republican debate," wrote Andrew Malcolm in his Los Angeles blog. "So Paul gets 10% in Iowa and gets excluded, but Rudy (Giuliani) gets 4% and sits on the left end of the Fox Box desk. Hmmm." (To see why CNN probably won't be hosting another 'College Week' political program in the near future, click here ).

How does the US media justify the outright snub of a proven politician (Paul has served 10 consecutive terms in the House of Representatives)? The answer is simple: Ron Paul is one of the few men who poses a threat to the powers that be: The U.S. Federal Reserve System.

Top of the Pyramid

It is no secret that the power to print money and set interest rates constitutes the greatest power of any government.

"Let me issue and control a nation's money," commented international banker Amschel Rothschild, "and I care not who makes the laws."
Henry Kissinger reduced the almighty powers of the Federal Reserve to one line: "Whoever controls the money controls the world."
Former chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, who served for 18+ years in his position, was asked by political talk show host Jim Lehrer: "What should be the proper relationship between a chairman of the Fed and the president of the United States?"

"Well, first of all, the Federal Reserve is an independent agency, and that means basically that there is no other agency of government (including the executive office) which can overrule actions that we take," Greenspan responded matter-of-factly. "So long as that is in place&#8230; then, what the relationships are don't frankly matter."
In light of the above statements, it is safe to say that it is not US Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama who holds the reigns of real power in America, but rather Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Fed.

So guess who is in the hot chair today for (possibly) corrupting his absolute power? Yes, that's right, Mr. Ben Bernanke, who appeared last week before the House Oversight and Reform committee to explain some irregularities in his office.
At issue was the question of the Central Bank's involvement in Bank of America's controversial acquisition of Merrill Lynch.

Shortly after the US housing markets tanked, Bank of America moved to acquire Merrill Lynch. However, once it became known (at least in financial circles) that the investment bank was suffering major losses, Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis balked on the merger. What happened next is the center of the congressional investigation.
US lawmakers, armed with email correspondences taken from the Central Bank, argue that Bernanke overstepped his already-awesome authority by working behind the scenes to ensure that Lewis went ahead with the shotgun wedding.

In one email, it appears that Bernanke threatened that the Federal Reserve would replace Bank of America's management if Lewis decided to pull out of his planned acquisition of Merrill Lynch, or seek government aid to clinch the deal. Forcing bank mergers through outright coercion was never intended to be the function of the Fed. Bernanke, of course, denies any wrongdoing.

"I believe that the Federal Reserve acted with the highest integrity throughout its discussions with Bank of America regarding that company's acquisition of Merrill Lynch," Bernanke told the committee members, while reclaiming the moral high ground by arguing that the Fed's actions "averted a major financial crisis."
Nevertheless, US lawmakers are swirling around Bernanke and the Fed like sharks that sense blood.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-OH, criticized Bernanke for failing to provide information about Merrill Lynch's huge losses in November so that shareholders could vote on the transaction.

"If the Fed knew that there were losses before the government deal took place, why didn't it provide information to the SEC (Securities and Exchange Committee) so that shareholders were informed?" Kucinich asked.
Bank of America closed the deal with Merrill Lynch on Jan. 1 after the US government agreed to a $138 billion aid package to help bank of America complete the acquisition. The closed-door deal cost American taxpayers a cool $20 billion dollars. Meanwhile, the House investigation into the Fed actions will continue for weeks.

US Department of Usury

Besides having lost the power to regulate its own currency, the United States must also pay interest on the dollars it borrows. Given that the current bailout (and buy-in) of the American economy is in the ballpark of 9 trillion dollars it will take incalculable generations to pay back this monstrous bill.
"Henry Ford thinks its stupid and so do I, that for the loan of its own money the United States should be compelled to pay&#8230; interest," complained the famous American inventor, Thomas A. Edison. "Why must we pay interest to money-brokers for the use of our own money!"

Given the trillions of dollars that the Federal Reserve has pumped into the economy to jumpstart consumer spending (indeed, Capitalism itself), many generations of Americans will be struggling financially as the United States goes from creditor nation to debtor nation practically overnight. Yet somehow US President Barack Obama still promises to create a long overdue national healthcare plan.

Much of the present financial stress began just after 9/11, some economists argue, when George W. Bush beseeched the American people to show defiance in the face of al Qaeda. Their recourse to action: ascend on the shopping malls in their Fords and Chevrolets en masse and shop! So the Federal Reserve, caught up in the euphoria, happily slashed interest rates and the banks, in cooperation with Wall Street, began to underwrite dangerously risky loans and subprime mortgages. Exactly how dangerous was revealed last year with the collapse of the US housing markets. The globe is still feeling the aftershocks, and some are predicting the arrival of yet another 'big one' before it's all over.

For any American to see the US Constitution being arrogantly ignored to disastrous effect is enough to make a man want to activate other parts of the US Constitution - like form a standing militia and buy a rifle - and drive these pesky bankers straight out of town. To see how serious some Americans feel about the Fed and their shadow leaders, click here.
A less drastic course of action would be to limit the powers of the Federal Reserve, but rather incredibly Chairman Bernanke is requesting the strengthening of the Fed.

The Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Christopher Dodd, said the request to expand the powers of the Federal Reserve's powers as being like giving your son a "bigger, faster car right after he crashed the family station wagon."
But things seem to be heading in the opposite direction. As the Associated Press reported: "Obama wants to empower the Federal Reserve to oversee the largest and most influential financial firms."
It seems absolutely ludicrous that Congress would want entrust more powers to the Federal Reserve, an "independent agency" that is not answerable to Congress.
"There's not a lot of confidence in the Fed at this point," Dodd commented after Obama's speech.

End of the World's Reserve Currency?

Since the start of the ongoing economic crisis, which caused a tremendous loss of confidence in the US dollar, there have been calls to rebuild the world's financial architecture.
"We must rethink the financial system from scratch, as at Bretton Woods," said French President Nicolas Sarkozy in September.

In July 1944, with World War II drawing to a close, 730 representatives from over 40 nations assembled at the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, US. Here, the delegates agreed on financial legislation - including the creation of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank - that would dictate economic policy in the West for the next half a century.

At the center of the agreement was the decision to make the US dollar the 'world's reserve currency,' which was based on the gold standard. This system collapsed on August 15, 1971 when US President Richard Nixon "closed the gold window." In other words, the dollar is no longer backed up by gold reserves, and to this day the US currency enjoys "dollar hegemony." But for how long is another question.

In October, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin rattled financial markets when he hinted to his Chinese counterpart, Wen Jiabao, that the two countries "stop using US dollars in Russian-Chinese settlements."
RT reported that Putin has also called for a complete overhaul of the world's financial system to "end monopoly in world finance."

China owns around $700 billion dollars of US debt in the form of Treasury Bonds, so it is understandable that the Chinese authorities are seriously considering what the heck to do with their investment at this point.

A US delegation that met with central bankers in China early this month provided some insight.
"It's clear that China would like to diversify from its dollar investments," said Republican Mark Kirk said at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.
Kirk said the Chinese leaders were critical in private of the US Federal Reserve's policy of "quantitative easing" - which is in essence a flooding of the financial markets with cash. China views this as a reckless policy of printing cash out of thin air.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Lies, lies and nothing more than LIES!!!









It began with lies like this:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

- Dick Cheney, Vice President Speech to VFW National Convention 8/26/2002

... and this:

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

- Condoleezza Rice, US National Security Adviser CNN Late Edition 9/8/2002

... and this:

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

- Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing 1/9/2003

... and this:

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."

- Colin Powell, Secretary of State Remarks to the UN Security Council 2/5/2003

... and this:

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

- Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense ABC Interview 3/30/2003

It began with George W. Bush standing before both houses of Congress and an international television audience for his January 2003 State of the Union address and stating that Iraq was in possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons - which is one million pounds - of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent, 30,000 missiles to deliver the stuff, mobile biological weapons labs, al-Qaeda connections and uranium from Niger for use in a robust nuclear weapons program.

Lies. All lies. 4,321 American soldiers have died in Iraq because of those lies, 101 during this year, including Sgt. Timothy A. David of Michigan, who was killed on June 28 when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. Four more soldiers were killed in Iraq on Tuesday in the midst of the withdrawal.

Tens of thousands of American soldiers have been shredded and maimed because of those lies. Nobody knows how many innocent Iraqis have been killed and wounded because, to this day, we don't do body counts. Estimates range from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands to perhaps more than a million, depending on who you ask, all because of those lies.

Guess what? The lies will continue.









The 'good ole' U.S. of A.
 








"In terms of altering sociological patterns, free speech, rather than being the enemy, is a long-tested and worthy ally. To deny free speech in order to engineer social changes in the name of accomplishing a greater good for one sector of our society erodes the freedoms of all."

-- Sarah Evans Barker

Judge, U. S. District Court
Source: Decision overturning Indianapolis Pornography Ordinance, 19 November 1984
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/S...rker.Quote.8EE0

"...The Bill of Rights is a literal and absolute document.
The First Amendment doesn't say you have a right to speak out unless
the government has a 'compelling interest' in censoring the Internet.
The Second Amendment doesn't say you have the right to
keep and bear arms until some madman plants a bomb.
The Fourth Amendment doesn't say you have the right to be secure from
search and seizure unless some FBI agent thinks you fit the profile
of a terrorist. The government has no right to interfere with any
of these freedoms under any circumstances."

-- Harry Browne
(1933-2006) American libertarian writer, politician, and free-market investment analyst. Libertarian candidate for US President 1996 & 2000
1966
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/H...owne.Quote.4FA0

"I should, indeed, prefer twenty men to escape death through mercy,
than one innocent to be condemned unjustly."

-- Sir John Fortescue
(c.1394-1476) English Jurist
Source: De laudibus legum Angliae [In praise of English law], (c.1470)
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/J...scue.Quote.3FF3

"It was we, the people;
not we, the white male citizens;
nor yet we, the male citizens;
but we, the whole people,
who formed the Union."

-- Susan B. Anthony
(1820-1906) American abolitionist, women's suffragette
Source: 1873, at her trial for casting a ballot in the 1872 presidential election
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/S...hony.Quote.FBC9

"After a shooting spree,
they always want to take the guns
away from the people
who didn't do it.
I sure as hell
wouldn't want to live in a society
where the only people
allowed guns
are the police and the military."

-- William S. Burroughs
(1914-1997) American novelist, essayist, social critic
1992
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/W...ughs.Quote.35E3


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Its a GREAT read!









It's very rare we hear about American Iraqi War veterans speaking out against the war. BOTH of them. The Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. You won't read this in the "mainstream media". Wait 'till they come home! Many actually believe the government and the corporations who profited from the war will help them.

Fat chance! Ha! They risked their lives for NOTHING!!!! Nothing of any consequence! I'm so glad that their are people willing to speak "truth to power". At some point, we have to just stop and THINK! Read this at your own risk! Later!!!

On May 1st at Fort Hood in central Texas, Specialist Victor Agosto wrote on a counseling statement, which is actually a punitive U.S. Army memo:

"There is no way I will deploy to Afghanistan. The occupation is immoral and unjust. It does not make the American people any safer. It has the opposite effect."
Ten days later, he refused to obey a direct order from his company commander to prepare to deploy and was issued a second counseling statement. On that one he wrote, "I will not obey any orders I deem to be immoral or illegal." Shortly thereafter, he told a reporter, "I'm not willing to participate in this occupation, knowing it is completely wrong. It's a matter of what I'm willing to live with."

Agosto had already served in Iraq for 13 months with the 57th Expeditionary Signal Battalion. Currently on active duty at Fort Hood, he admits, "It was in Iraq that I turned against the occupations. I started to feel very guilty. I watched contractors making obscene amounts of money. I found no evidence that the occupation was in any way helping the people of Iraq. I know I contributed to death and human suffering. It's hard to quantify how much I caused, but I know I contributed to it."

Even though he was approaching the end of his military service, Agosto was ordered to deploy to Afghanistan under the stop-loss program that the Department of Defense uses to retain soldiers beyond the term of their contracts. At least 185,000 troops have been stop-lossed since September 11, 2001.
Agosto betrays no ambivalence about his willingness to face the consequences of his actions:

"Yes, I'm fully prepared for this. I have concluded that the wars [in Iraq and Afghanistan] are not going to be ended by politicians or people at the top. They're not responsive to people, they're responsive to corporate America. The only way to make them responsive to the needs of the people is for soldiers to not fight their wars. If soldiers won't fight their wars, the wars won't happen. I hope I'm setting an example for other soldiers."

Today, Agosto's remains a relatively isolated act in an all-volunteer military built to avoid the dissent that, in the Vietnam era, came to be associated with an army of draftees. However, it's an example that may, soon enough, have far greater meaning for an increasingly overstretched military plunging into an expanding Afghan War seemingly without end, even as its war in Iraq continues.

Avoiding Battle

Writing on his blog from Baquba, Iraq, in September 2004, Specialist Jeff Englehart commented: "Three soldiers in our unit have been hurt in the last four days and the true amount of army-wide casualties leaving Iraq are unknown. The figures are much higher than what is reported. We get awards and medals that are supposed to make us feel proud about our wicked assignment..."

Over the years, in response to such feelings, some American soldiers have come up with ingenious ways to express defiance or dissent on our distant battlegrounds. These have been little noted in the mainstream media, and when they do surface, officials in the Pentagon or in Washington just brush them aside as "bad apple" incidents (the same explanation they tend to use when a war crime is exposed).

But in the stories of men and women who served in the occupation of Iraq, they often play a different role. In October 2007, for instance, I interviewed Corporal Phil Aliff, an Iraq War veteran, then based at Fort Drum in upstate New York. He recalled:

"During my stints in Iraq between August 2005 and July 2006, we probably ran 300 patrols. Most of the men in my platoon were just in from combat tours in Afghanistan and morale was incredibly low. Recurring hits by roadside bombs had demoralized us and we realized the only way we could avoid being blown up was to stop driving around all the time. So every other day we would find an open field and park, and call our base every hour to tell them we were searching for weapon caches in the fields and everything was going fine. All our enlisted people had grown disenchanted with the chain of command."

Aliff referred to this tactic as engaging in "search and avoid" missions, a sardonic expression recycled from the Vietnam War when soldiers were sent out on official "search and destroy" missions. Sergeant Eli Wright, who served as a medic with the 1st Infantry Division in Ramadi from September 2003 through September 2004, had a similar story to tell me. "Oh yeah, we did search and avoid missions all the time. It was common for us to go set camp atop a bridge and use it as an over-watch position. We would use our binoculars to observe rather than sweep, but call in radio checks every hour to report on our sweeps."

According to Private First Class Clifton Hicks, who served in Iraq with the First Cavalry from October 2003, only six months after Baghdad was occupied by American troops, until July 2004, search and avoid missions began early and always had the backing of a senior non-commissioned officer or a staff sergeant. "Our platoon sergeant was with us and he knew our patrols were bullshit, just riding around to get blown up," he explained. "We were at Camp Victory at Baghdad International Airport. A lot of the time we'd leave the main gate and come right back in another gate to the base where there's a big PX with a nice mess hall and a Burger King. We'd leave one guy at the Humvee to call in every hour, while the others stayed at the PX. We were just sick and tired of going out on these stupid patrols."

These understated acts of refusal were often survival strategies as well as gestures of dissent, as the troops were invariably undertrained and ill-equipped for the job of putting down an insurgency. Specialist Nathan Lewis, who was deployed to Iraq with the 214th Artillery Brigade from March 2002 through June 2003, experienced this firsthand. "We never received any training for much of what we were expected to do," he said when telling me of certain munitions catching fire while he and other soldiers were loading them onto trucks, "We were never trained on how to handle [them] the right way."

Sergeant Geoff Millard of the New York Army National Guard served at a Rear Operations Center with the 42nd Infantry Division from October 2004 through October 2005. Part of his duty entailed reporting "significant actions," or SIGACTS - that is, attacks on U.S. forces. In an interview in 2007 he told me, "When I was there at least five companies never reported SIGACTS. I think 'search and avoids' have been going on for a long time.

One of my buddies in Baghdad emails that nearly each day they pull into a parking lot, drink soda, and shoot at the cans." Millard told me of soldiers he still knows in Iraq who were still performing "search and avoid" missions in December 2008. Several other friends deploying or redeploying to Iraq soon assured him that they, too, planned to operate in search and avoid mode.

Corporal Bryan Casler was first deployed to Iraq with the Marines in 2003, at the time of the invasion. Posted to Afghanistan in 2004, he returned to Iraq for another tour of duty in 2005. He tells of other low-level versions of the tactic of avoidance: "There were times we would go to fix a radio that had been down for hours. It was purposeful so we did not have to deal with the bullshit from higher [ups]. In reality, we would go so we could just chill out, let the rest of the squad catch up on some rest as one stood guard. It's mutual and people start covering for each other. Everyone knows what the hell's going on."

Staff Sergeant Ronn Cantu, an infantryman who was deployed to Iraq from March 2004 to February 2005, and again from December 2006 to January 2008, said of some of the patrols he observed while there: "[They] wouldn't go up and down the streets like they were supposed to. They would just go to a friendly compound with the Iraqi police or the Kurdish Peshmerga [militia] and stay at their compound and drink tea until it was time to go back to the base."

As a Stryker armored combat vehicle commander in Iraq from September 2004 to September 2005, Sergeant Seth Manzel had figured out a way to fabricate on screen the movement of their patrol and so could run computerized versions of a search and avoid mission. As he explained:

"Sometimes if they called us up to go and do something, we would swiftly send computer reports that we were headed in that direction. On the map we would manually place our icon to the target location and then move it back and forth to make it appear as though we were actually on the ground and patrolling. This was not an isolated case. Everyone did it. Everyone would go and hide somewhere from time to time."

Former Sergeant Josh Simpson, who served as a counter-intelligence agent in Iraq from October 2004 to October 2005, said he witnessed instances of faked movement. "I knew soldiers who learned to simulate vehicular movement on the computer screen, to create the impression of being on patrol," said Simpson. "There's no doubt that people did it."

Saying "No" One at a Time

"There was nothing to be done," Corporal Casler says of his time in Iraq, "no progress to be made there. Dissent starts as simple as saying this is bullshit. Why am I risking my life?"
Sometimes such feelings have permeated entire units and soldiers in them have refused to follow orders en masse. One of the more dramatic of these incidents occurred in July 2007. The 2nd Platoon of Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, in Baghdad had lost many men in its 11 months of deployment. After a roadside bomb killed five more, its members held a meeting and agreed that it was no longer possible for them to function professionally. Concerned that their anger might actually touch off a massacre of Iraqi civilians, they staged a quiet revolt against their commanders instead.

Kelly Kennedy, a reporter with the Military Times embedded with Charlie Company prior to the revolt, described the shape the platoon members were in by that time: "[T]hey went right to mental health and they got sleeping medications, and they basically couldn't sleep and reacted poorly. And then, they were supposed to go out on patrol again that day. And they, as a platoon, the whole platoon - it was about 40 people - said, 'We're not going to do it. We can't. We're not mentally there right now.'" In response, the military broke up the platoon. Each individual involved was also "flagged" so he would not get a promotion or receive any award due.

To this day, troops in Iraq continue to be plagued by equipment and manpower shortages, and work long hours in an extreme climate. In addition, their stress levels are regularly raised by news from home of veterans returning to separations and divorces, and of a Veteran's Administration often ill-equipped and unwilling to provide appropriate physical and psychological care to veterans.

While no broad poll of troops has been conducted recently, a Zogby poll in February 2006 found that 72% of soldiers in Iraq felt the occupation should be ended within a year. My interviews with those recently back from Iraq indicate that levels of despair and disappointment are once again on the rise among troops who are beginning to realize, months after the Obama administration was ushered in, that hopes of an early withdrawal have evaporated.

With the Afghan War heating up and the Iraq War still far from over, even if fighting there is at far lower levels than at its sectarian heights in 2006 and 2007, with stress and strain on the military still on the rise, dissent and resistance are unlikely to abate. In addition to small numbers of outright public refusals to deploy or redeploy, troops are going absent without official leave (AWOL) between deployments, and actual desertions may once again be on the rise. Certainly, there's one strong indication that despair is indeed growing: the unprecedented numbers of soldiers who are committing suicide; the Army's official suicide count rose to 133 in 2008, up from 115 in 2007, itself a record since the Pentagon began keeping suicide statistics in 1980. At least 82 confirmed or suspected suicides have been reported thus far in 2009, a pace that indicates another grim record will be set; and suicide, though seldom thought of in that context, is also a form of refusal, an extreme, individual way of saying no, or simply no more.

According to Sergeant Simpson, here's how a feeling of discontent and opposition creeps up on you while you're on duty: The part of the war you're involved in, interrogating Iraqis in his case, "doesn't make any sense. You realize that the whole system is flawed and if that is flawed, then obviously the whole war is flawed. If the basic premise of the war is flawed, definitely the intelligence system that is supposed to lead us to victory is flawed. What that implies is that victory is not even a possibility."

After finishing his tour in Iraq, Simpson joined the Reserves because he believed it would grant him a two-year deferment from being called up, but he was called up anyway. In his own case, he says, "I thought to myself, I can't do this anymore. First of all, it's bad for me mentally because I'm doing something I loathe. Second, I'm participating in an organization that I wish to resist in every way I can.

"So," he says, "I just stopped showing up for drill, didn't call my unit, didn't give them any reason for it. I changed my telephone number and they did not have my address." Eventually, he reached the end date of his contract and managed to graduate from Evergreen State University in Washington. "I don't know if technically I'm still in the reserves," he told me. "I don't know what my situation is, but I don't really care either. If I go to jail, I go to jail. I'd rather go to jail than go to Iraq."

 Unready and Unwilling Reserves

Sergeant Travis Bishop, who served 14 months in Baghdad with the 57th Expeditionary Signal Battalion - the same battalion as Agosto, who served north of the Iraqi capital - recently went AWOL from his station at Fort Hood, Texas, when his unit deployed to Afghanistan. He insists that it would be unethical for him to deploy to support an occupation he opposes on moral grounds. On his blog, he puts his position this way:

"I love my country, but I believe that this particular war is unjust, unconstitutional and a total abuse of our nation's power and influence. And so, in the next few days, I will be speaking with my lawyer, and taking actions that will more than likely result in my discharge from the military, and possible jail time... and I am prepared to live with that.... My father said, 'Do only what you can live with, because every morning you have to look at your face in the mirror when you shave. Ten years from now, you'll still be shaving the same face.' If I had deployed to Afghanistan, I don't think I would have been able to look into another mirror again."

I spoke with him briefly after he turned himself in at his base in early June. He said he'd chosen to follow Specialist Agosto's example of refusal, which had inspired him, and wanted to be present at his post to accept the consequences of his actions. He, too, hoped others might follow his lead. (He and Agosto, now in similar situations, have become friends.)

Agosto, whose hope has been to set an example of resistance for other soldiers, sees Bishop's refusal to deploy to Afghanistan as a personal success and says, "I already feel vindicated for what I'm doing by his actions. It's nice to see some immediate results."

His actions, he's convinced, have affected the way his fellow soldiers are now looking at the war in Afghanistan. "The topic has come up a lot in conversation, with soldiers on base now asking, 'What are we doing in Afghanistan? Why are we there?' People feel compelled to bring this up when I'm around. Even the ones that disagree with me say it's great what I'm doing, and that I'm doing what a lot of them don't have the courage to do. If anything, the people I work with have now been treating me better than ever."

On May 27th, rejecting an Article 15 - a nonjudicial punishment imposed by a commanding officer who believes a member of his command has committed an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice - Agosto demanded to be court-martialed.

According to Agosto, the Army has now begun the court martial process, but has not yet set a trial date. Bishop, too, awaits a possible court martial.

On June 1st, a day when four U.S. soldiers were killed in Afghanistan, Agosto told me in a phone call from Fort Hood, "I haven't had to disobey any orders lately. A sergeant asked me if it'd be okay if I had to follow orders, and I said no, and they didn't force it."

Agosto and Bishop are hardly alone. In November 2007, the Pentagon revealed that between 2003 and 2007 there had been an 80% increase in overall desertion rates in the Army (desertion refers to soldiers who go AWOL and never intend to return to service), and Army AWOL rates from 2003 to 2006 were the highest since 1980. Between 2000 and 2006, more than 40,000 troops from all branches of the military deserted, more than half from the Army. Army desertion rates jumped by 42% from 2006 to 2007 alone.

U.S. Army Specialist André Shepherd joined the Army on January 27, 2004. He was trained in Apache helicopter repair and sent first to Germany, then was stationed in Iraq from November 2004 to February 2005, before being based again in Germany. Shepherd went AWOL in southern Germany in April 2007 and lived underground until applying for asylum there in November 2008, making him the first Iraq veteran to apply for refugee status in Europe.

He, too, has refused further military service because he feels morally opposed to the occupation of Iraq. While he awaits word from the German government and is still technically AWOL, Shepherd is being supported by Courage to Resist, a group based in Oakland, California, which actively assists soldiers who refuse to deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan.

A counselor and administrative associate at that organization, Adam Szyper-Seibert, points out that "in recent months there has been a dramatic rise of nearly 200% in the number of soldiers that have contacted Courage to Resist." Szyper-Seibert suspects this may reflect the decision of the Obama administration to dramatically increase efforts, troop strength, and resources in Afghanistan. "We are actively supporting over 50 military resisters like Victor Agosto," Szyper-Seibert says. "They are all over the world, including André Shepherd in Germany and several people in Canada. We are getting five or six calls a week just about the IRR [Individual Ready Reserve] recall alone."

The Future of Military Dissent

Right now, acts of dissent, refusal, and resistance in the all-volunteer military remain small-scale and scattered. Ranging from the extreme private act of suicide to avoidance of duty to actual refusal of duty, they continue to consist largely of individual acts. Present-day G.I. resistance to the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan cannot begin to be compared with the extensive resistance movement that helped end the Vietnam War and brought an army of draftees to the point of near mutiny in the late 1960s. Nevertheless, the ongoing dissent that does exist in the U.S. military, however fragmented and overlooked at the moment, should not be discounted.

The Iraq War boils on at still dangerous levels of violence, while the war in Afghanistan (and across the border in Pakistan) only grows, as does the U.S. commitment to both. It's already clear that even an all-volunteer military isn't immune to dissent. If violence in either or both occupations escalates, if the Pentagon struggles to add more boots on the ground, if the stresses and strains on the military, involving endless redeployments to combat zones, increase rather than lessen, then the acts of Agosto, Bishop, and Shepherd may turn out to be pathbreaking ones in a world of dissent yet to be experienced and explored.

Add in dissatisfaction and discontent at home if, in the coming years, American treasure continues to be poured into an Afghan quagmire, and real support for a G.I. resistance movement may surface. If so, then the early pioneers in methods of dissent within the military will have laid the groundwork for a movement.

"If we want soldiers to choose the right but difficult path, they must know beyond any shadow of a doubt that they will be supported by Americans." So said First Lieutenant Ehren Watada of the U.S. Army, the highest ranking enlisted soldier to refuse orders to deploy to Iraq. (He finally had the military charges against him dropped by the Justice Department.) The future of any such movement in the military is now unknowable, but keep your eyes open. History, even military history, holds its own surprises.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Yo, everybody! Hope everyone is doing fine. I am.....now. Ya know what I'm saying? Wanted to say hello. My "hellos" are different from most other hellos. I like to include some information with my hellos. Just little tidbits, of course. Yeah, I know......."Not another article to read!". This is an especially good one, though. Really! It explains alot. I've never heard of Eric Walberg. You can bet I'm going to start reading more of his articles. His unique insight brings into view an accurate assessment of American foreign policy and it's failures. Past and present. It's like repetitive history. Like someone who keeps stepping into a pile of dogshit. When are we going to learn? Collectively, I mean....as a nation.

And, more importantly, as people. Claiming to be Children of God. Silence can be the facilitator of tyranny and evil. Complacency will lead us to catastrophic ruin. Something has got to be said. By word of mouth, a letter (do people write letters anymore?) or e-mail. I appreciate writers, like this Eric Walberg, who present their opinions based on solid historical evidence. Facts are facts. For me, he opened a window of opportunity to learn more. I'm just trying to put the pieces together. I consider it almost like a challenge. I don't like getting caught off guard. Especially, with the really important things. Ya know what I'm saying? Later!!!

June was a busy month for two of Washington's real 'Axis of Evil'. Venezuela's Chavez completed his nationalization of oil and Iran's Ahmedinejad stemmed a Western-backed color revolution, leaving both bad boys in place, muses Eric Walberg

What drives US foreign policy? Is it primarily the domestic economy, as it logically should be, or, as many argue, the powerful Israel lobby, or as other argue, the need to secure energy sources? Of course, the answer is all three, in varying degrees depending on the geopolitical importance of the country in question. And woe to any country that threatens any of the above.

Russia is perhaps a special case, as US politics was dependent for so long on the anti-communist Cold War that ideologues found it impossible to dispense with this useful bugaboo (bugaboo = Boogeyman....to keep ya scared! Remember?) even after the collapse of Communism. But it was not only Sovietologists like Condoleezza Rice that perversely prospered from this obsession, but the US domestic economy itself, which was transformed into what is best described as the military-industrial complex (MIC). It would take very little to placate today's Russia -- pull in NATO's horns and stop pandering to the Russophobes in Eastern Europe -- but that would hurt the MIC and would hamper the US plans for empire and oil. So it remains an enemy of choice, though not part of the Axis of Evil.

This crude characterization by Bush/Cheney lumped North Korea, Iraq and Iran together as the worst of the worst. With the US invasion of Iraq, the current score is one down, two to go. But North Korea is a red herring. It is merely a very useful Cold War foil, beloved of the MIC, justifying its many useless, lethal weapons programs. A popular whipping boy, a bit of innocent ideological entertainment.

Without Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and ignoring Korea, we are left with Iran. But Bush could easily have added Venezuela to his list, as it is these two countries that pose the greatest real threat to the US empire. Both have charismatic leaders who not openly denounce US and Israeli empire but do something about it. And both have large, nationalized oil sectors. Chavez's successful defiance of the US has directly inspired Bolivia, Ecuador and Paraguay to elect socialist leaders and given Cuba a new lease on life. Ahmedinejad has defied the many Israel-imposed bans on supporting the Palestinian resistance and even publically questioned the legitimacy of Israel itself. These bold and principled men are thereby pariahs, albeit useful ones for the MIC, along with their Cold War ghost Kim Jong Il.

That is the catch. While the empire officially frets, the US military-based economy thrives on its official enemies. It would collapse without them. This is the supreme irony to be noted by observers of what can only be described as the bizarre and contradictory world of US foreign policy.

Venezuela and Iran are indeed threats to the US empire. President Hugo Chavez not only thoroughly nationalised the oil sector after the crippling strike led by oil executives in 2002-03, but proceeded to use the revenues to transform his country, putting it on the albeit bumpy road to socialism -- subsidized basic goods, mass literacy and free health care. He has even been providing poor Americans with discount gas. "The oil belongs to all Venezuelans," Chavez emphasized to reporters last month in Argentina, after the government announced it was taking over oil service companies along with US-owned gas compression units, adding to the heavy oil projects Venezuela took over in 2007. Natural gas looks like it will be next. The point of this is to "regain full petroleum sovereignty," that is, full political sovereignty. No more attempted color revolutions for Venezuela.

Which brings us to Iran. When Mahmoud Ahmedinejad took office in 2005, with the backing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, he tried to wrest control of key ministries, especially oil and the government's National Iranian Oil Company (NOIC), from the Rafsanjani/ Mousavi capitalist elite, replacing officials with his own choices -- primarily from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). It was not till 2007 that he was able to install his candidate for oil minister, also head of the NIOC, Gholamhossein Nozari. Like Chavez, he proceeded to use state oil revenues to consolidate his base among the poor, something which the so-called reformists under his predecessor Mohammed Khatami or earlier nonreformists under Rafsanjani/ Mousavi were not noted for.

While Hashemi Rafsanjani was parliamentary speaker with Mirhossein Mousavi his prime minister in the 1980s, younger Iranians, including Ahmedinejad, were fighting in the IRGC (many martyring themselves) in the war with Iraq in the 1980s. Rafsanjani became Iran 's first president in 1989 and added to his family's vast fortune, much of it connected with oil, during his privatization program when he opened the oil industry to private Iranian contractors. This continued under the "reformist" Khatami, who took over the presidency in 1997.

Ahmedinejad's ascendancy in 2005 on a platform to fight and eliminate the "oil mafia" confirmed the IRGC as the underlying force confronting Rafsanjani and the reformists. Throughout the 2009 electoral campaign, Ahmedinejad attacked his opponents as leaders of the corrupt elite, now trying to claw back control.

The elite had had enough, and the election ruckus last month was their last stand against the clearly populist, essentially leftist Ahmedinejad (in the West labeled a "hardliner"). Some pundits call Ahmedinejad's decisive win a coup d'etat by the IRGC, but the recent demonstrations in Teheran look eerily similar to those in Caracas in 2002-03 when Venezuelan society was paralyzed by its economic elite, mobilizing its own Gucci crowd, strongly backed by the US, protesting a populist president's determination to use oil revenues to help the common people.

Chavez risked his life in the process, but his careful planning foiled the plotters and he survived to carry out his agenda. Whether Ahmedinejad can do the same, and to what extent the IRGC is a vehicle for promoting social welfare is a drama which is only now unfolding.

The Western media has uniformly denounced the Iranian elections, with no real evidence, as fraudulent, much as it denounced the many elections that Chavez had to undergo in the face of US-inspired strikes and even a military coup, before the opposition and its US backers relented. The US has generously financed Iranian expatriate dissidents and has penetrated Iranian society with the clear intent to overthrow Ahmedinejad, exactly like they did in Venezuela, though it is rarely mentioned in the Western press.

The US policy of using soft power to undermine unfriendly governments is well known to both Latin American socialists and Iranian clerics. Khamenei insisted in his sermon last week that Iran would not tolerate the green "colour revolution" underway. No wonder that Ahmedinejad, Chavez and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin are such good friends. They have much in common.

In similar electoral contests in Latin America between nationalist-populists and pro-Western liberals, the populists have consistently won in fair elections, so the results in Iran should come as no surprise. Past examples include Peron in Argentina and, most recently, Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia and Lula da Silva in Brazil, all of whom have consistently polled 60 per cent or more of the vote in free elections. The people in these countries prefer social welfare over unrestrained markets, national security over alignments with military empires.

The parallel between Iran and Venezuela coincides with a flowering of relations between Iran and Latin American countries as it seeks a way out of the US-imposed blockade. Iran will help develop Bolivia's oil and gas sector, has opened a trade office in Ecuador, and entered into agreements with Nicaragua, Cuba, Paraguay, Brazil and, of course, Venezuela. Council of Hemispheric Affairs analyst Braden Webb reports that "Venezuela and Iran are now gingerly engaged in an ambitious joint project, putting on-line Veniran, a production plant that assembles 5,000 tractors a year, and plans to start producing two Iranian-designed automobiles to provide regional consumers with the 'first anti-imperialist cars'."

Perhaps what upsets the US most about Ahmedinejad is his continued attempts to establish an Iranian Oil Bourse in the Iranian Free Trade Zone on the island of Kish, an idea which Chavez heartily approves of. The bourse is meant to attract international oil trading to the Middle East and to help move international trade away from the dollar as the oil currency, currently accounting for 65 per cent of trade. Over half of Iran's oil business is now conducted in euros, despite the EU's support for the US boycott. An indication of just how evil the US considers this move is the fact that his Evil Axis colleague Saddam Hussein was executed not long after switching his accounts to euros. Note that Kim Jong Il remains comfortably in place despite his own penchant for euros.

Both the Venezuelan and Iranian thorns have incensed Washington for daring to use their oil revenues to redistribute wealth in their societies and then organise resistance to US hegemony in their respective neighbourhoods. They are examples which continue to inspire and which pose a threat to US imperial policy, both international and domestic. For what better way to solve all the ills of US society -- lack of secure health care, poverty, violence -- than dismantling the MIC and initiating a foreign policy based on peace rather than war?

The big difference between these two thorns, of course, is Islam and Iran's interference with the US-Israeli agenda. Now that the oil companies have resigned themselves to Venezuela's new assertiveness, they and their government spokesmen are not so concerned with trying to overthrow Chavez. However, the extra weight of the Israel lobby in Washington makes sure that another Iranian revolution remains at the top of the list of Obama's things-to-do.

Another curious difference is that US attempts to turn Venezuela's neighbours against it backfired, as they came to Chavez's defence and followed his example, while similar efforts to conspire against Iran have had considerable success.

The schism in both Venezuelan and Iranian societies is very real and is being taken advantage of by the US and friends, who are doing their "best" to engineer a collapse of the populist governments to make room for more US-friendly colour revolutions. But there is too much Yankee baggage for this to work anymore. It is time for a color revolution at home.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Same old story!

You know! From the early 1900s to the 1980s, countries in South America were told that if they elect a president who believes in the "free market" they would "prosper". Guess what? It never happened! Their natural resources were plundered. The rich got richer and (of course) the poor got poorer through economic exploitation. So now, we have a populist movement all over our southern continental neighbor. They refuse to fall for the lies anymore. More and more countries to our south are starting to see the light. Why can't we? Chavez and Castro are trying to create a multi-national economic partnership in the southern hemisphere to counter U.S. domination. I'm curious to see how that evolves. The more successful they become, the more the U.S. will "demonize" them. Watch!

The ghost of the other, deadlier 9/11 has returned to stalk Latin America. On Sunday morning, a battalion of soldiers rammed their way into the Presidential Palace in Honduras. They surrounded the bed where the democratically elected President, Manuel Zelaya, was sleeping, and jabbed their machine guns to his chest. They ordered him to get up and marched him on to a military plane. They dumped him in his pyjamas on a landing strip in Costa Rica and told him never to return to the country that freely chose him as their head of state.

Back home, the generals locked down the phone networks, the internet and international TV channels, and announced their people were in charge now. Only sweet, empty music plays on the radio. Government ministers have been arrested and beaten. If you leave your home after 9pm, the population have been told, you risk being shot. Tanks and tear gas are ranged against the protesters who have thronged on to the streets.

For the people of Latin America, this is a replay of their September 11. On that day in Chile in 1973, Salvador Allende - a peaceful democratic socialist who was steadily redistributing wealth to the poor majority - was bombed from office and forced to commit suicide. He was replaced by a self-described "fascist", General Augusto Pinochet, who went on to "disappear" tens of thousands of innocent people. The coup was plotted in Washington DC, by Henry Kissinger.

The official excuse for killing Chilean democracy was that Allende was a "communist". He was not. In fact, he was killed because he was threatening the interests of US and Chilean mega-corporations by shifting the country's wealth and land from them to its own people. When Salvador Allende's widow died last week, she seemed like a symbol from another age - and then, a few days later, the coup came back.

Honduras is a small country in Central America with only seven million inhabitants, but it has embarked on a program of growing democracy of its own. In 2005, Zelaya ran promising to help the country's poor majority - and he kept his word. He increased the minimum wage by 60 per cent, saying sweatshops were no longer acceptable and "the rich must pay their share".

The tiny elite at the top - who own 45 per cent of the country's wealth - are horrified. They are used to having Honduras run by them, for them.

But this wave of redistributing wealth to the population is washing over Latin America. In the barrios and favelas, I have seen how shanty towns made out of mud and rusted tin now have doctors and teachers and subsidised supermarkets for the first time, because they elected leaders who have turned the spigot of oil money in their direction. In Venezuela, for example, the poorest half of the country has seen its incomes soar by 130 per cent after inflation since they chose Hugo Chavez as their President, according to studies cited by the Nobel Prize-winning US economist Joseph Stiglitz. Infant mortality has plummeted.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

This is the BIGGEST scam of ALL time!

Believe it or not, this has been going on for centuries.

It continues to this very day.

The Thin Red Bottom Line:

When you borrow money to buy your home or anything, where does the money come from? The answer is the owners of the Federal Reserve Bank create it out of nothing then lend it to you in exchange for real assets, namely your home, your labor, your car or other assets.

The Rothschild's, Rockefeller's, Lazard's from France, Israel Moses Seaf of Italy, the Kuhn's and Warburg's from Germany, the Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs and a few other owners of the Federal Reserve Bank just took ownership of most of your home, car and labor without doing anything other than inventing the money they lent you. These bankers have taken ownership of most peoples homes, mainstream media, major corporations and the government through fraud. They create the money out of nothing and exchange the paper and digital money for real assets.

"If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency.. the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." 
- Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson

Choosing one of their favorite dates, 9/11, again, this arch enemy of the people of the United States chose to unleash another attack on U.S. citizens. As reported in September 2007 Financial Times: "Ex-Fed chief admits existence of 'bubble'. Possible 'double-digit' falls in property values. Allan Greenspan: "Investors had become addicted to asset-backed securities that offered some additional yield over Treasury bonds as if they were 'cocaine'."

The market knows that when the Chairman or now former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank cries "wolf!" the market will crash. It's a simple equation that has been repeated consistently since the Federal Reserve Bank was created though fraud in 1913 (Yes, that's also the reason in 1914 for World War One and all the other major wars and depressions).

The brazen nature of this New World Order criminal's blatant repeated effort to crash the economy for his Oligarchy masters knows no bounds.

The Rothschild's man, Greenspan, is even suggesting that the paper money their private bank produces through fraud is more secure than real estate! As if this criminal had not done enough damage in crashing the Internet boom, these banksters also have to mount another concerted effort to steal more U.S. citizens homes. Perhaps, more astonishing though, is the sheer lack of comprehension of this crime by most Americans.

When Saddam Hussein stopped selling Iraq's oil in U.S. Dollars, these owners of the Federal Reserve Bank lost out on billions of dollars they would make on each sale. The buyer of Iraqi oil would first have to buy dollars from the owners of the Federal Reserve Bank before they could purchase the oil from Iraq. To buy the dollars (that the owners of the bank create out of nothing) the buyer of the oil would have to exchange real assets such as land or gold for the Fed dollars.

So when Saddam stopped selling Iraqi oil in dollars, the people who own the Federal Reserve Bank and control our government and military, took us to war with Iraq. And they did it in such a way that they and their buddies also made billions of dollars out of the war. Now that Iran has followed suit and has stopped selling their oil in Federal Reserve Bank dollars, George Bush and other agents of the Rothschild's, are desperate to invade Iran. The only question is if the American public will let these war criminals get away with mass murder again.

One and a half trillion dollars debt to the citizens of the U.S from the banksters Gulf War, we now face a 'never ending war against 'terrorism'', terrorism created by the bankers. The owners of the Federal Reserve Bank don't even pay tax and are not audited on their earnings.

"I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies" - Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson

Whenever anyone attempts to challenge the Federal Reserve Bank fraud the owners of the bank kill them.

To create environments where these incredibly wealthy bankers can steal even more, they initiate wars and financial disasters such as World War 1 and 2, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War and depressions like the Great Depression and the current depression. Their method is known as a "Hegelian Dialectic Process".

Their crimes depend on putting men of no integrity in positions of power, creating a hierarchical feeding chain from the lowest deputy on a police force to their Supreme Court judges and Presidents. By completely dominating the mainstream media, they keep the people in the dark as to the reality of the situation.

"If you want to remain slaves of the bankers and pay for the costs of your own slavery, let them continue to control money and create the nation's credit." - Sir Josiah Stamp 1880 - 1941

The Powers-That-Be Don't Have Enough Money to Keep the Matrix Running

George Washington Blog
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
As I previously noted:

Stalin said that dictatorships only last so long as the dictators keep their people well-fed. Americans have been strongly motivated not to question the government because they have been led to believe that if they just follow the party line, they'll get nice jobs, make a bundle of dough, buy into "the American dream". A crash has the possibility to awaken Americans from their dangerously cozy nap. It has the potential to get Americans to open their eyes and start questioning the lies they have been told &#8230;.

The revelations that Goldman Sachs is manipulating the market and that the Federal Reserve banks are private - not government - institutions are coming out now because the U.S. is going broke, and doesn't have enough money to to keep the matrix running. (Of course, it is also harder to cover up manipulations which are orders of magnitude greater than ever before attempted).

Indeed, Goldman is probably the key player on the plunge protection team and similar government schemes to manipulate the markets. So the fact that Goldman's shenanigans are starting to leak out - despite the government's best efforts to keep the whole enchilada secret - is dramatic.

The American Treasury has been looted (the big banks and financial institutions got the loot), the dollar is losing its status as the world's reserve currency, and the mountain of debt overhanging our economy threatens to bury any hope of recovery.

Dictatorships only last so long as the dictators keep their people well-fed and distracted, but the current financial "dictators" don't have enough spare cash to keep distracting people with "bread and circuses".

So the truth is starting to leak out in a big way.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

The timing of the 'emergency' has to be just right!

Read the article below.

Monday, July 6, 2009

Amendments to the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, which has already been passed by the House, would empower the Attorney General Eric Holder to define gun owners, anti-abortion activists and tax protesters as domestic terrorists in light of recent federal reports that classify millions of Americans as "extremists".

Former impeached Florida judge and now Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings has introduced amendments to H.R. 2647: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, which would give Holder dictator powers to demonize legitimate protest groups as being affiliated with violent race hate organizations.

The bill is ostensibly aimed at preventing race "extremists" and gang members from joining the Army, but since the Army already hires felons, criminals, racists and gang members, the real purpose behind the legislation is to codify the move to label gun owners, "anti-government" activists and tax protesters as domestic terrorists, a process that has been ongoing since at least the start of the decade.

Since the definition of an "extremist" has already been established by numerous federal documents over the last few years that list law-abiding citizens as domestic terrorists, Hastings' amendments are simply an attempt to centralize the power to demonize such groups into the hands of the Obama administration.

"This is arguably one of the worst pieces of legislation to come down the pike in a long, long time. This amendment is part and parcel of the trend in this country to suppress dissent by patriots by calling them domestic terrorists," warns writer Mike Baker.

Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) expressed his concern about the amendment on the house floor, noting that under Homeland Security's very definition of what constitutes an "extremist", the majority of Americans will be characterized as hate criminals.

"While the amendment seeks to keep gang members and members of violent groups out of the military, the amendment by its language is much more broad. Specifically, it confers upon the Attorney General the ability to categorize groups as hate groups, and this sounds an alarm for many of us because of the recent shocking and offensive report released by the Department of Homeland Security which labeled, arguably, a majority of Americans as "extremists," warned Franks.

As we reported in April, a recent Department of Homeland Security intelligence assessment equates gun owners with violent terrorists and states that radical extremists are "stockpiling" weapons in fear of an Obama administration gun ban.

The document, Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, states;

"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

A similar report was also issued by the DHS at the end of March which listed the "alternative media" with other radical extremist groups and implies that people who disagree with the mass media's version of events are potential domestic terrorists.

Both documents were just the latest in a long sordid line of training manuals in which the federal government characterizes millions of American citizens as potentially violent terrorists who are a threat to law enforcement, and designates them under the umbrella term of "extremists," in the same context cited in Hastings' amendments.

As we have exhaustively documented with the MIAC report and a whole host of others, the federal government apparently has very little concern for any perceived terrorist threat to America coming from the MIddle East or Al-Qaeda cells within the country, and indeed if any such threat existed we are only in more danger, because the feds have been busy training law enforcement that law-abiding American citizens who exercise their legal right to purchase firearms or who exercise their first amendment right to discuss politics or run websites, are potential terrorists who want to instigate a violent revolution.

In addition, current Department of Defense anti-terrorism training course material states that the exercise of First Amendment rights in the U.S. constitutes terrorist activity.

Over the last few years we have documented countless examples of security assessment reports from the likes of the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, as well as police training manuals, which state that anti-war protesters, gun owners, veterans, Ron Paul supporters and those who merely cite the Constitution should be equated with extremists and domestic terrorists.

The fact that the government is now treating people who merely criticize its conduct as domestic terrorists is the clearest signal possible that the United States has entered a period in history similar to Germany in the early 1930's and that it can only be a matter of time before the right "emergency" provides the justification for dissidents to be targeted for round-ups and mass imprisonment.

No one can claim now that this is merely a paranoid delusion - the government itself is training its law enforcement and military arms that protesters and people who use their First Amendment rights are domestic terrorists.

The facilities for round-ups of "extremists" who dare to exercise their First or Second Amendment rights are already being prepared, again with the help of Hastings, who sponsored (HR 645) - the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act.

The bill authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to set up a network of FEMA camp facilities to be used to house U.S. citizens in the event of a national emergency.

Ominously, the bill also states that the camps can be used to "meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security," an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse.

The bill mandates that six separate facilities be established in different Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions (FEMA) throughout the country.

The camps will double up as "command and control" centers that will also house a "24/7 operations watch center" as well as training facilities for Federal, State, and local first responders.

The bill also contains language that will authorize camps to be established within closed or already operating military bases around the country.

As we have previously highlighted, in early 2006 Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root was awarded a $385 million dollar contract by Homeland Security to construct detention and processing facilities in the event of a national emergency.

The language of the preamble to the agreement veils the program with talk of temporary migrant holding centers, but it is made clear that the camps would also be used "as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency."

The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act would similarly criminalize free speech on the Internet if it can be deemed in any way to have been "harmful" to an individual. This represents the end of political blogging and free speech on the world wide web.

If both bills are not opposed and thrown out then the First Amendment will become nothing more than a relic of a bygone age.

All of these coordinated moves to demonize informed, armed and pissed off Americans as extremists, terrorists and hate criminals represents the federal government's final push to brainwash the population into accepting the notion that some Americans are dangerous, that they are enemies of the state, and that they can be targeted in the same way that victims of the "war on terror" are now being targeted across the world - through misappropriation of guilt, torture and indefinite imprisonment.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

The 'root of ALL evil'.

DAYAM!!!!! I can't believe this is happening before our very eyes. Money truly is "the root of all evil". There is a very good reason the Federal Reserve (at least, in THEIR eyes!) does NOT want to be audited. Their greedy scam will then be exposed and they will lose control. If there ever was true justice in this world, these global thieves would be prosecuted in a world court of law.

As far as I'm concerned, no sentence would be too severe. These power-hungry elitists have given themselves the power to steal the economic security, not just of the present but, future generations. Of the WORLD, no less! For some reason, most of us sit idly by and become willing participants in a manipulative "system of things". I watched the video of Ben Bernanke (Federal Reserve Chairman), when asked by members of Congress why he refuses to be audited, give a reply that contained a thinly-veiled threat of an economic collapse if the Fed were to be audited.

It was the epitome of arrogance. It's almost laughable how the "mainstream media" can so easily distract hundreds of millions of people all over the world with the constant bombardment of "news" describing Michael Jackson's drug-induced demise for what could be weeks on end. Yet, information like the news item below, is basically ignored. Later!

A Senate amendment based on Congressman Ron Paul's successful House bill to audit the Federal Reserve was blocked by the Senate yesterday evening on procedural grounds, as Jim DeMint slammed the Fed for refusing to disclose where trillions in bailout funds had gone, while a top Obama administration advisor called for a second "stimulus" package to be prepared. Yeah, let's get a BIGGER shovel so we could dig ourselves a BIGGER hole!

Republican Senator DeMint had attempted to get a provision attached to the 2010 spending bill that would have removed restrictions on auditing the Fed's discount window operations, funding facilities, open market operations and agreements with foreign central banks and governments. What agreements? Foreign central banks? Foreign governments? Uh, oh!

However, the amendment was blocked by Senate authorities ("bought and paid for" by the banks Senators!) who claimed that it violated rules for provisions attached to spending bills.

Of course, when the elite want to get their own legislation rammed through, such as the recent climate bill in the House, it's perfectly fine for Congressmembers to be prevented from even reading it, for it to have 300 pages added at 3am in the morning before the vote, and for all kinds of pork barrel to be attached. But God forbid should representatives actually try to pass something that would benefit the American people and not the private bankers that are beyond all scrutiny and above the law.

DeMint said that the Fed has enjoyed a monopoly over money and credit in the United States since 1913 yet has never been transparent or accountable to Congress, while during that time the dollar has lost 95% of its purchasing power.

"The Federal Reserve will create and disburse trillions of dollars in response to our current financial crisis," DeMint said. "Americans across the nation, regardless of their opinion on the bailout, want to know where the money has gone," he added, referring to the Fed's refusal to disclose where trillions in bailout funds has gone.

"Allowing the Fed to operate our nation's monetary system in almost complete secrecy leads to abuse, inflation and a lower quality of life," said DeMint.
A Reuters article about the Senate's move to block the bill said that the Federal Reserve was "facing growing pressure as it tries to heal the ailing economy."

In reality, the Federal Reserve has done nothing to "heal" the economy as unemployment outstrips expectations and the financial picture only looks bleaker every day. The private, run for profit Fed has taken trillions in "stimulus" funds and refused to even divulge where it has gone, even under threat of lawsuits file by Bloomberg (New York Mayor).

Meanwhile, people like Ben Bernanke have committed financial terrorism by threatening an economic collapse if the Fed is allowed to be audited. Why the secrecy? Are they trying to hide the biggest scam of all time?

Any real audit of the Fed would of course create a giant roadblock for the Obama administration's plans to launch a whole new program of looting and grand larceny in the guise of a second "stimulus" package. Yeah, right, let's print more money.

"We should be planning on a contingency basis for a second round of stimulus," Laura D'Andrea Tyson, a member of the panel advising President Barack Obama on tackling the economic crisis, said on Tuesday," reports CNBC.

This is precisely why Senate authorities, bought and paid for by the private bankers that now own the United States, have blocked efforts to audit the Fed, because they know that the fallout will spell disaster for their place on the power peanut gallery and in turn end the ceaseless feasting at the trough of the battered, bruised and shaken-down American taxpayer.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Freedom of the press? Yeah right!!!









"Hitler's dictatorship differed in one fundamental point from all its 
predecessors in history. It was the first dictatorship in the present period of 
modern technical development, a dictatorship which made complete use of all 
technical means for the domination of its own country. Through technical 
devices like the radio and the loud-speaker, eighty million people were 
deprived of independent thought. It was thereby possible to subject them to the 
will of one man."
-- Albert Speer
Hitler's Minister for Armaments
Source: at his trial after World War II
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/A...peer.Quote.505D

"The modern press itself is a new phenomenon. Its typical unit is the great 
agency of mass communication. These agencies can facilitate thought and 
discussion. They can stifle it&#8230;. They can play up or down the news and its 
significance, foster and feed emotions, create complacent fictions and blind 
spots, misuse the great words and uphold empty slogans."
-- Commission On Freedom Of The Press
Source: A Free and Responsible Press, 1947
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/C...ress.Quote.38E0

"Protection against government is now not enough to guarantee that a man who 
has something to say shall have a chance to say it. The owners and managers of 
the press determine which person, which facts, which version of the facts, and 
which ideas shall reach the public."
-- Commission On Freedom Of The Press
Source: A Free and Responsible Press, 1947
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/C...ress.Quote.38DF


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Damn! I think (know) we got "played"!
















There is no economy left to recover. The US manufacturing economy was lost to offshoring and free trade ideology. It was replaced by a mythical "New Economy."

The "New Economy" was based on services. Its artificial life was fed by the Federal Reserve's artificially low interest rates, which produced a real estate bubble, and by "free market" financial deregulation, which unleashed financial gangsters to new heights of debt leverage and fraudulent financial products.

The real economy was traded away for a make-believe economy. When the make-believe economy collapsed, Americans' wealth in their real estate, pensions, and savings collapsed dramatically while their jobs disappeared.

The debt economy caused Americans to leverage their assets. They refinanced their homes and spent the equity. They maxed out numerous credit cards. They worked as many jobs as they could find. Debt expansion and multiple family incomes kept the economy going.

And now suddenly Americans can't borrow in order to spend. They are over their heads in debt. Jobs are disappearing. America's consumer economy, approximately 70% of GDP, is dead. Those Americans who still have jobs are saving against the prospect of job loss. Millions are homeless. Some have moved in with family and friends; others are living in tent cities.

Meanwhile the US government's budget deficit has jumped from $455 billion in 2008 to $2,000 billion this year, with another $2,000 billion on the books for 2010. And President Obama has intensified America's expensive war of aggression in Afghanistan and initiated a new war in Pakistan.

There is no way for these deficits to be financed except by printing money or by further collapse in stock markets that would drive people out of equity into bonds.

The US government's budget is 50% in the red. That means half of every dollar the federal government spends must be borrowed or printed. Because of the worldwide debacle caused by Wall Street's financial gangsterism, the world needs its own money and hasn't $2 trillion annually to lend to Washington.

As dollars are printed, the growing supply adds to the pressure on the dollar's role as reserve currency. Already America's largest creditor, China, is admonishing Washington to protect China's investment in US debt and lobbying for a new reserve currency to replace the dollar before it collapses. According to various reports, China is spending down its holdings of US dollars by acquiring gold and stocks of raw materials and energy.

The price of one ounce gold coins is $1,000 despite efforts of the US government to hold down the gold price. How high will this price jump when the rest of the world decides that the bankruptcy of "the world's only superpower" is at hand?

And what will happen to America's ability to import not only oil, but also the manufactured goods on which it is import-dependent?

When the over-supplied US dollar loses the reserve currency role, the US will no longer be able to pay for its massive imports of real goods and services with pieces of paper. Overnight, shortages will appear and Americans will be poorer.

Nothing in Presidents Bush and Obama's economic policy addresses the real issues. Instead, Goldman Sachs was bailed out, more than once. As Eliot Spitzer said, the banks made a "bloody fortune" with US aid.

It was not the millions of now homeless homeowners who were bailed out. It was not the scant remains of American manufacturing--General Motors and Chrysler--that were bailed out. It was the Wall Street Banks.

According to Bloomberg.com, Goldman Sachs' current record earnings from their free or low cost capital supplied by broke American taxpayers has led the firm to decide to boost compensation and benefits by 33 percent. On an annual basis, this comes to compensation of $773,000 per employee.

This should tell even the most dimwitted patriot who "their" government represents.

The worst of the economic crisis has not yet hit. I don't mean the rest of the real estate crisis that is waiting in the wings. Home prices will fall further when the foreclosed properties currently held off the market are dumped. Store and office closings are adversely impacting the ability of owners of shopping malls and office buildings to make their mortgage payments. Commercial real estate loans were also securitized and turned into derivatives.

The real crisis awaits us. It is the crisis of high unemployment, of stagnant and declining real wages confronted with rising prices from the printing of money to pay the government's bills and from the dollar's loss of exchange value. Suddenly, Wal-Mart prices will look like Nieman Marcus prices.

Retirees dependent on state pension systems, which cannot print money, might not be paid, or might be paid with IOUs. They will not even have depreciating money with which to try to pay their bills. Desperate tax authorities will squeeze the remaining life out of the middle class.

Nothing in Obama's economic policy is directed at saving the US dollar as reserve currency or the livelihoods of the American people. Obama's policy, like Bush's before him, is keyed to the enrichment of Goldman Sachs and the armament industries.

Matt Taibbi describes Goldman Sachs as "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentless jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money." Look at the Goldman Sachs representatives in the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations. This bankster firm controls the economic policy of the United States.

Little wonder that Goldman Sachs has record earnings while the rest of us grow poorer by the day.


----------



## AKSkirmish (Jun 24, 2005)

Damn thats a read


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Yo! This is an extremely interesting article. It gives an unusual and, I believe, accurate perspective on past history and events currently occurring throughout the globe. It helps me put the pieces together.









Humanity is on the verge of entering into the most tumultuous period in our history. The prospects of a global depression, the likes of which have never been seen before; a truly global war, on a scale never before imagined; and societal collapse, for which nations of the world are building totalitarian police states to control populations; are increasing by the day. The major global trend forecasters are sounding the alarms on economic depression, war, a return to fascism and a total reorganization of society.

Through crisis, we are seeing the reorganization of the global political economy, and the transformation of capitalism into a totalitarian capitalist world government. Capitalism has never stayed the same through its history; it has always changed and will continue to do so. Its changes are explained and analyzed through political-economic theory, both mainstream theory and critical. The changes are undertaken over years, decades and centuries. The next phase of capitalism is one in which the world moves to a state-controlled economic system, much like China, of totalitarian capitalism.

The global political economy itself is being reorganized into a world government body, consisting of one center of global power where the socio-political-economic power of the world is centralized in one institution. This is not a conspiracy theory; it is a reality. Nor is this a subject confined to the realm of "internet conspiracy theorists," but in fact, the concept of world government originates and evolves throughout the history of capitalism and the global political economy. Mainstream and critical political-economic theory has addressed the concept of world government for centuries.

The notion of a world government has such a long history, as the forces driving the world into such a structure intertwine with the history of the modern global political economy itself. The purpose of this report is to examine the history of the global political economy in taking steps toward forming a world government, in both theory and practice.

How did we get here and where are we going?

Why Study Theory?

Within the academic realm of Political Science, specifically the field of Global Political Economy (GPE), it is essential to understand the various theoretical perspectives of political economy so as to understand the actions and directions taken within the global political economy, and how capitalism has been and continues to be reorganized and altered. Theory provides the foundation upon which actors are understandable and actions are undertaken.

As the political economist Robert Cox once stated, "Theory is always for someone and for some purpose." It is important to understand and analyze the theoretical leanings of those making changes in the global political economy, in order to understand the changes being made, specifically the theoretical foundations of a world government. As well as this, it is important to examine critical theory in how it interprets both how and why a world government is being constructed.

Central Banking

Thus, liberal economic theory came to the forefront, championed by the global hegemonic power of the day, Great Britain, which was firmly under the control of the banking dynasties. In 1694, the Bank of England was formed as a private central bank, which would issue the currency of the nation, lending it to the government and industry at interest, which would be paid back to the Bank of England's shareholders, made up of these private banking dynasties.

The 16th to the 19th centuries was the period in which both the nation-state and capitalism emerged, soon followed by central banking in the late 1600s. This is when the origins of what was known as a "world economy" took place. Mercantilist economic theory dominated this period, in which the economy was secondary and submissive to the political structure of nations.

Liberal theorists rose in opposition to this. Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations in 1776, the same year that the American colonies revolted against the British imperial forces in the country, and ultimately gained independence from the British Empire. Among many of the primary motivating factors for the Revolution were the British military presence in the American colonies, acting above the law; a heavy imposition of colonial taxes, particularly on tea and other imports from foreign nations such as France, in an effort to promote the mercantilist assumptions that the colony should only survive and trade with the metropole (imperial hegemon) - which extracts the resources of the nation in trade for material goods to that nation, creating a dependence upon the colonial power.

Arguably one of the primary motivations for the Revolution was the control of currency by a foreign imperial power, with the ability to control inflation and devaluation, essentially controlling the entire economic conditions of the colony from abroad. The Founding Fathers of the United States understood the necessity of controlling one's own currency if one was to preserve sovereignty and independence.

Following Britain's humiliating defeat, which was aided by the French who supported the American revolt, European banking interests suffered a significant blow against their mercantilist expansion. Capitalism functions in that it constantly needs to expand and consume more. Central banking functions in a very similar, although much more dubious manner, in which it needs to expand its control over industry, nations and people through the expansion of debt, continually needing to bring more individuals, nations and industries under debt bondage.

Debt is the source of all power and wealth for the central banking system - as they do not actually produce any tradable good, such as industry; nor do they provide any necessary service, such as government. Interest on debt is the source of income and authority for the central banking system, and thus, it needs to continually advance credit and expand debt. Thus, the loss of the American colonies as a source of expansionary credit and debt was a massive blow to their entrenched interests.

The European banking interests quickly learned their lesson regarding not falling under the imperial hubris of believing people of a given region or nation could never defeat imperial might and armies. Revolution had become a great threat to the entrenched capitalist, and particularly, banking interests.

Within a decade of the American Revolutionary War, which ended in 1783, another nation was going down the road of revolutionary zeal, in part inspired by the American example. However, this nation was no colony, but rather a mercantilist imperial power, and thus, its loss would be too great a loss to allow. In 1788, the French Monarchy was bankrupt, and as tensions grew between the increasingly desperate people of France and the aristocratic and particularly monarchic establishment, European bankers decided to pre-empt and co-opt the revolution.

In 1788, prominent French bankers refused "to extend necessary short-term credit to the government, and they arranged to have shipments of grain and food to Paris "delayed" which triggered the hunger riots of the Parisians.[5] This sparked the Revolution, in which a new ruling class emerged, driven by violent oppression and political and actual terrorism. However, its violence grew, and with that, so too did discontentment with the Revolutionary Regime, and its stability and sustainability was in question. Thus, the bankers threw their weight behind a general in the Revolutionary Army named Napoleon, whom they entrusted to restore order.

Napoleon then gave the bankers his support, and in 1800, created the Bank of France, the privately owned central bank of France, and gave the bankers authority over the Bank. The bankers owned its shares, and even Napoleon himself bought shares in the bank.[6]

The bankers thus sought to control commerce and government and restore order to their newly acquired and privately owned and operated empire. However, Napoleon continued with his war policies beyond the patience of the bankers, which had a negative impact upon commercial activities,[7] and Napoleon himself was interfering in the operations of the Bank of France and even declared that the Bank "belongs more to the Emperor than to the shareholders."[8] With that, the bankers again shifted their influence, and remained through regime change.[9]

The Rothschilds ascended to the throne of international banking with the Battle of Waterloo. After having established banking houses in London, Paris, Frankfurt, Vienna and Naples, they profited off of all sides in the Napoleonic wars.[10] The British patriarch, Nathan Rothschild, was known for being the first with news in London, ahead of even the monarchy and the Parliament, and so everyone watched his moves on the stock market during the Battle of Waterloo.

Following the battle, Nathan got the news that the British won over 24 hours before the government itself had news, and he quietly went into the London Stock Exchange and sold everything he had, implying to those watching that the British lost. A panic selling ensued, in which everyone sold stock, stock prices crumbled, and the market crashed. What resulted was that Rothschild then bought up the near-entire British stock market for pennies on the dollar, as when news arrived of the British victory at Waterloo, Rothschild's newly acquired stocks soared in value, as did his fortune, and his rise as the pre-eminent economic figure in Britain.[11]

As Georgetown University History professor, Carroll Quigley wrote in his monumental Tragedy and Hope, "The merchant bankers of London had already at hand in 1810-1850 the Stock Exchange, the Bank of England, and the London money market," and that:

In time they brought into their financial network the provincial banking centers, organized as commercial banks and savings banks, as well as insurance companies, to form all of these into a single financial system on an international scale which manipulated the quantity and flow of money so that they were able to influence, if not control, governments on one side and industries on the other.

The period from 1815 to 1914 was known as the British Imperial Century, in which they adopted the liberal economic concepts of Adam Smith, and manipulated and distorted them for their own imperial ambitions. Mercantilism was still strong in practice, but rode under the banner of a liberal economic order, "free markets" and the "invisible hand." The "invisible hand" was in fact, connected to a body made up of government and industry, molding the "free market" according to its designs, and the body was controlled by the brain, the central bank, the Bank of England. Markets were hardly "free" and the hand was visible to those who could see the rest of the body.

The Liberal Revolution

It was during this British imperial century that other nations, such as Germany and the United States, were pursuing mercantilist economic practices in order to protect their own nations from the British free-trade imperialism. It was in this context that mercantilist theorists such as Alexander Hamilton in the United States, and Friedrich List in Germany were writing in criticism of liberal economic theory.

Mercantilists see the international arena as inherently conflictual, justifying their policies of colonialism and empire building in an international arena in which if one state does not colonize foreign lands and extract resources, another state will, and thus, will deprive the state that does not create an empire of resources and economic growth. In this sense, mercantilists view the world in terms of a zero-sum gain, in which the progress of one state requires the regression of another.

In the 1870s, the notion of a "liberal economic order" was challenged as the major European empires undertook an incredible extension of their imperial presence across the globe, itself a mercantilist practice - the idea of obtaining colonies in order to extract its resources, create a captive market for the imperial nations manufactured goods, and deprive its economic competitors of access to that market. Between 1878 and 1913, European empires extended their control over much of the world, specifically with the Scramble for Africa, in which all of Africa, save Ethiopia, was colonized by European powers.

This "new imperialism," as it was known, proliferated throughout Europe following the rapid expansion of banking throughout the continent, and the pre-eminence of international financiers over governments. The growth of the continent-wide banking networks "fed the growth of colonial empires" as it stimulated a system in which "creating debt that then had to be serviced by the purchase of more infrastructure," and expansion of territory. This led European nations to undertake a massive imperial effort across much of the globe, to find and control foreign markets and expand their capital.

The Emergence of Marxism

In the 19th century, the rise of critical IPE (International/Global Political Economy) theories emerged in opposition to the growing dominance of Liberal IPE. The most profound of these criticisms arose from Karl Marx. Marxism, as Marx's critical theory came to be known, put an extensive focus on the relations of classes within society, as the class that owns the means of production is the central and most powerful class, subverting the other classes to a submissive position.

Marxists also view capitalism as being inherently exploitative. Within this theory, the political and economic realms are not seen as separate spheres of action, but are seen as intertwined and internally related. Within this theory, the purpose of the state is not to serve the interests of the broader population that inhabits it, but to secure, maintain and advance the interests of the capitalist class. Marxist theorists also put emphasis on the nature of war and conflict as being intrinsically related to the expansionary nature of capitalism, which is one of the primary roles of states in advancing the interests of the capitalist ruling class.

Marx defines what he perceives as capitalism: a system which is governed by capital, which is money that has been invested in order to generate more money; production, which is dominant within capitalist society, is designed for sale, not use - in that, it moves beyond subsistence and into what we refer to today as materialism and consumption; labour is commodified, thus people, through their labour, themselves become a tradable commodity; exchange occurs with money; ownership of the means of production is in the hands of the capitalist class; and competition between various capitalist forces is the logic of interaction.

Marx places a large focus on the circuit of capital, in how money transforms into capital. Money (M), is invested in purchasing a Commodity ©, and then into Labour Power (LP) and the Mean of Production (MP), which make up the Production circuit (P), which produces a new Commodity (C1), which is then sold, creating expanding money (M1), or earned profits. Capital, thus, is money that is invested into production. Marx postulates that the inherent exploitative nature of capitalism is most apparent in the Production circuit, specifically with Labour Power.

Diverging From Marx

However, with the exploration and understanding of the central banking system, some of the circuit of capital must be called into question. Central banking functions not on "investment" of capital, but on the expansion and creation of money and debt, which is lent at interest, thus serving as the source of income for the central banking system. This cannot be called productive capital, for its purpose and intent is not to produce a new commodity, there is no labour power or means of production involved, and new money is not produced from the sale of such a new commodity, but rather profit is extracted from interest on the original money. This, for the sake of argument, can be called the Circuit of Debt:

M à L à I à M1 à LID à DB

M = Money

L = Loan

I = Interest

M1 = New Money

LID = new money Loaned to debtor to pay Interest on Debt

DB = debtor falls into Debt Bondage; owned by creditor

Through the Marxist perspective of exploitation, there is no labour to exploit within the Circuit of Debt, so where does exploitation come into play? Exploitation comes into the process in that the debt (or loan) issued, is designed to exploit whoever the debtor is, be it an individual, a nation, or a corporation.

Within this paradigm, class structure, although playing a significant part of the process of overall exploitation and exercise of power within the capitalist system is not the only, or arguably, even primary target of control and oppression within capitalism, as we know it. The target is the individual, the nation, and industry to the submission of the predatory nature of the central banking system.

The central banking system has, from its inception, acted in ways which monopolize industry (thus negating Adam Smith's concept of a "free market" and "competition"); militarize nations (financing wars and conquest, imperialism); merging the interests of both the economic and political realms into a holistic ruling class (modeled upon the dual nature of a central bank itself - holding the authority and power of a government body, but representing the interests and submitting to the ownership of private individuals).

Thus, the ruling class itself is a social construct which this tiny elite formed, hardly capable of the numbers to be termed a class, especially since class is most often defined in national terms, whereas this elite is international in nature.

The central bank of a nation finances monopoly industry and imperial states, both of which are created out of debt bondage to the central bank. Both the commercial/industrial elites and political elites merge their interests - the state will pursue imperial policies that have the effect of benefiting industry, while industry will support the building of a strong, powerful state (and provide a cozy job for the political elite upon leaving the public sector).

This makes up the ruling class of a nation, the capitalists, or owners of the means of production, merging with the political rulers of the nation. One does not represent or overpower the other, but rather, both serve the interests and are owned through interest, by a tiny international elite.

One must ask: What would capitalism look like if it were not for the advent of the central banking system?

Accumulation by Dispossession

In discussing Marxist theory, I am not advocating a total support of its theoretical discussion and perspective. However, it is vital to address, as historically and presently, it has served as a very powerful source of criticism against the capitalist system and its importance cannot be underestimated. Having said that, it is also important to address in that it does, as a theory, identify many accurate and important aspects of how the capitalist system functions. For that reason, many of the critiques have been and are currently prescient and justified.

In Marxist theory, the nature of accumulation plays a very important part, in that it holds a dual character. One is known as accumulation as expanded reproduction, which is concerned with commodity markets and production (the circuit of capital), where money is made through the labour process. The other nature of accumulation is accumulation by dispossession, which is usually framed in terms of relations between capitalist and non-capitalist modes of production.

This is accumulation derived from dispossessing someone of something. The Atlantic slave trade was an example of accumulation by dispossession, as Africans were dispossessed of their lives and freedom. Colonialism is another example, where resources are extracted, dispossessing the nation of its own resources.

Perhaps it would be helpful to expand upon Marx's ideas of accumulation by dispossession in regards to the central banking system. Central banking, not falling into the circuit of capital, and thus, accumulation as expanded reproduction, better represents an example of accumulation by dispossession. Money is given in loans at interest, to which the debtor is never meant to fully repay, and is dispossessed of its freedom and wealth through interest payments and debt bondage. Debt is just another word for slavery, therefore, the central banking system itself, functions through a system of accumulation by dispossession.

However, conventional understanding of accumulation by dispossession describes it as an interaction between capitalist and non-capitalist modes of production, where the capitalist mode will dispossess the non-capitalist mode of production. Central banking, however, is the pinnacle of the capitalist system, and ultimately, the primary source and avenue of its power, so it can hardly be said to be an interaction between capitalist and non-capitalist modes, as it is an interaction between central banks and ALL modes of production which need money - including the entirety of the capitalist system. Thus, industry/commerce, governments/nations, and individuals/people, are dispossessed of their freedom through debt bondage.

This cannot simply be predicated in terms of class warfare or class-centric theory, but rather, an assault against all individuals, individuality, and freedom, in any and all forms. It is within this context that class structures are created, so as to play off one against the other - to compartmentalize people into classes, and thus, better control and manipulate the masses. It is a strategy of dividing and conquering people. Class, including the upper capitalist class, is constructed in an effort to conform thought within each class, and thus direct collective action of that class accordingly. The freethinking individual is the target in all cases. Individuality is to be removed from commerce, government, and society as a whole.

The Communist Manifesto

In the Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, Marx proclaims in the opening subtitle that, "The history of all society hitherto is the history of class struggles." However, if class itself is a construct of powerful individuals, albeit throughout human history, can it not be argued instead that the history of all society is the history of the struggle of the individual against collectivity and control? Class itself is a collective grouping designed to control a mass of people, whether it is upper class or lower class. Individuals are stifled within all classes, and thus, the history of class struggles itself, is a history of the struggle between the free thinking individual and the collective form of control.

The Communist Manifesto ends with the declaration of, "Workers of all countries, Unite!" This, in and of itself, promotes class divisions within society, placing focus on the need for an international mobilization of the global working class to rise up against the capitalist class. Marx outlines that any successful workers' revolution must be international. Thus, this promotes the cosmopolitical notion of an international community, at least in initial terms of a transnational class system. Essentially, Marx argues that as capitalism expands, what we will later term "Globalizes," so too must the working class of the world "globalize" and "internationalize."

In a sense, this makes Marx, himself, an early globalist theorist, in promoting the concept of an international class uprising against the capitalist class. Ultimately, would this not simply replace the tyranny of one class for the tyranny of another? Throw out the capitalists and bring in the communists! Substituting one form of oppression for another is hardly a change in the right direction. In both systems, the individual suffers and free thought is stifled.

Though much Marxist criticism is extremely pointed in analyzing the functions and structure of the capitalist system, such theory itself, even though critical, must be critically examined.

Retaking America

The history of the United States from its founding through the 19th century to the early 20th century, was marked by a continual political battle revolving around the creation of a central bank of the United States. Mercantilists such as Alexander Hamilton, who was the first Treasury Secretary, were in favour of such a bank, and his advice won over George Washington, much to the dismay of Thomas Jefferson, who was a strong opponent to central banking.

However, "[Alexander] Hamilton, believing that government must ally itself with the richest elements of society to make itself strong, proposed to Congress a series of laws, which it enacted, expressing this philosophy," and that, "A Bank of the United States was set up as a partnership between the government and certain banking interests," which lasted until the charter expired in 1811.

Again, during the tenure of Andrew Jackson (1829-1837), the primary political struggle was with the entrenched financial interests both domestic and from abroad (namely Western Europe), on the issue of creating a central bank of the US. Andrew Jackson stood in firm opposition to such a bank, saying that, "the bank threatened the emerging order, hoarding too much economic power in too few hands," and referred to it as "The Monster." Congress passed the bill allowing for the creation of a Second Bank of the United States, however, Andrew Jackson vetoed the bill, much to the dismay of the banking interests.

It was in the later half of the 1800s that "European financiers were in favor of an American Civil War that would return the United States to its colonial status, they admitted privately that they were not necessarily interested in preserving slavery," as it had become unprofitable. The Civil War was not based upon the liberation of slaves, it was, as Howard Zinn described it, a clash "of elites," with the northern elite wanting "economic expansion - free land, free labor, a free market, a high protective tariff for manufacturers, [and] a bank of the United States.

[Whereas] The slave interests opposed all that." The Civil War, which lasted from 1861 until 1865, resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, during which, "Congress also set up a national bank, putting the government into partnership with the banking interests, guaranteeing their profits."

As Lincoln himself stated:

The money powers prey on the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes.

I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me, and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe. As a most undesirable consequence of the war, corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow. The money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.

Throughout much of the 1800s and into the 1900s, the United States suffered several economic crises, one of the most significant of which was the Great Depression of 1873. As Howard Zinn explained:

The crisis was built into a system which was chaotic in its nature, in which only the very rich were secure. It was a system of periodic crises - 1837, 1857, 1873 (and later: 1893, 1907, 1919, 1929) - that wiped out small businesses and brought cold, hunger, and death to working people while the fortunes of the Astors, Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, Morgans, kept growing through war and peace, crisis and recovery. During the 1873 crisis, Carnegie was capturing the steel market, Rockefeller was wiping out his competitors in oil.

Massive industrial consolidation by a few oligarchic elites was the rule of the day, as J.P. Morgan expanded total control over railroad and banking interests, and John D. Rockefeller took control of the oil market, and expanded into banking. Zinn explained that, "The imperial leader of the new oligarchy was the House of Morgan. In its operations it was ably assisted by the First National Bank of New York (directed by George F. Baker) and the National City Bank of New York (presided over by James Stillman, agent of the Rockefeller interests).

Among them, these three men and their financial associates occupied 341 directorships in 112 corporations. The total resources of these corporations in 1912 was $22,245,000,000, more than the assessed value of all property in the twenty-two states and territories west of the Mississippi River.

These banking interests, particularly those of Morgan, were very much allied with European banking interests. On the European side, specifically in Britain, the elite were largely involved in the Scramble for Africa at this time. Infamous among them was Cecil Rhodes, who made his fortune in the diamond and gold mining in Africa, as "With financial support from Lord Rothschild and Alfred Beit, he was able to monopolize the diamond mines of South Africa as De Beers Consolidated Mines and to build up a great gold mining enterprise as Consolidated Gold Fields.

Interestingly, "Rhodes could not have won his near-monopoly over South African diamond production without the assistance of his friends in the City of London: in particular, the Rothschild bank, at that time the biggest concentration of financial capital in the world." As historian Niall Ferguson explained, "It is usually assumed that Rhodes owned De Beers, but this was not the case. Nathaniel de Rothschild was a bigger shareholder than Rhodes himself; indeed, by 1899 the Rothschilds' stake was twice that of Rhodes.

In the early 20th century, European and American banking interests achieved what they had desired for over a century within America, the creation of a privately owned central bank. It was created through collaboration of American and European bankers, primarily the Morgans, Rockefellers, Kuhn, Loebs and Warburgs. After the 1907 banking panic in the US, instigated by JP Morgan, pressure was placed upon the American political establishment to create a "stable" banking system. In 1910, a secret meeting of financiers was held on Jekyll Island, where they planned for the "creation of a National Reserve Association with fifteen major regions, controlled by a board of commercial bankers but empowered by the federal government to act like a central bank - creating money and lending reserves to private banks."

President Woodrow Wilson followed the plan almost exactly as outlined by the Wall Street financiers, and added to it the creation of a Federal Reserve Board in Washington, which the President would appoint. The Federal Reserve, or Fed, "raised its own revenue, drafted its own operating budget and submitted neither to Congress," while "the seven governors shared power with the presidents of the twelve Reserve Banks, each serving the private banks in its region," and "the commercial banks held stock shares in each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks."

The retaking of the United States by international banking interests was achieved with barely a whimper of opposition. Where the British Empire failed in taking the United States militarily, international bankers succeeded covertly through the banking system. The Federal Reserve also had the effect of cementing an alliance between New York and London bankers.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Here's yet another great article. We got to be prepared for ANY possibility.......however remote. I try to monitor events and analyze what exactly they mean by using history as a guide. The Bible helps, too!

Eurasia is currently experiencing serious problems derived from financial and economic difficulties such as unemployment, GDP negative growth, currency depreciation, overall economic slowdown and so on. Several members of both the European Union and NATO (Poland, Hungary, Iceland come to mind) are already dealing with a considerable deal of domestic discontent. Some States from the Former Soviet Union (notably Ukraine, Belarus and the Central Asian Republics) and even Russia itself are facing similar problems. Even Chinese government officials acknowledge protests in the Chinese mainland, as pointed out by Professor Michael Klare, which means that East Asia is by no means an exception. As we shall see, financial and economic conditions are equally grave in the American hemisphere, if not more so.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor and early supporter of Barack Obama's presidential campaign, has warned that civil unrest on American soil is a possibility that should not be dismissed. Brzezinski explains that "[the United States is] going to have millions and millions of unemployed, people really facing dire straits. And we're going to be having that for some period of time before things hopefully improve. And at the same time there is public awareness of this extraordinary wealth that was transferred to a few individuals at levels without historical precedent in America..." Brzezinski concludes with this noteworthy remark "...hell, there could be even riots".

The aforementioned means that the upper echelons of the American political elite have realized that the current financial and economic turmoil is much worse than what many experts had foreseen, and that things could really spiral out of control if the present situation deteriorates even further. Indeed, optimistic signs are nowhere to be found. Quite the contrary.

The full magnitude of the financial tsunami is clearly reflected in a piece written by Barry Ritholtz, who states that the bailout plan promoted by former US Secretary of the Treasury Henry "Hank" Paulson amounts to a sum of money that is superior to the Louisiana Purchase, the New Deal, the Marshall Plan, the Apollo Lunar Project, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the invasion of Iraq and other large government expenditures - combined (!). This illustrates that America's top policymakers (both Democratic and Republican) hold serious concerns about the health of the American financial system and the American economy.

Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy (the largest in American history) was merely the tip of the iceberg and economic and financial conditions have dramatically worsened ever since.

All of the above indicates that the much-feared financial meltdown is no longer a distant and remote possibility because in fact it is already taking place. However, this chaos might trigger some very serious and preoccupying consequences. In order to have a clear understanding of these implications, it is vital to take into account some reports that were not given the proper amount of attention they deserved when they were first published.

Professor Michel Chossudovsky observed that the US Army 3rd Infantry's 1st Brigade Combat Team returned from Iraq some months ago. That information is extremely disturbing because such military unit "may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control", according to official sources. Now, what scenario could possibly require the operational deployment of said units on American soil? Professor Chossudovsky puts forward an intriguing hypothesis that must be borne in mind. He argues that "Civil unrest resulting from from the financial meltdown is a distinct possibility, given the broad impacts of financial collapse on lifelong savings, pension funds, homeownership, etc".

Shortly afterwards, the Centre for Research on Globalization website posted an article written by Wayne Madsen. Mr. Madsen claims that a highly confidential official report has been circulating among senior members of the US Congress and their top advisors. The report has been allegedly nicknamed as the "C & R document". The author stipulates that those letters stand for none other than "conflict" and "revolution" because those scenarios are supposedly regarded by America's policymakers as plausible consequences triggered by a financial meltdown. According to Mr. Madsen, the content of the document reveals that severe financial chaos could spark a major war if Washington refuses to honor its foreign debt and/or massive riots in US cities if the American population does not accept a considerable tax increase.

For decades, overall political stability in the US was taken for granted. However, as it has been pointed out, even senior American statesmen are taking into consideration that financial volatility could fuel a wave of discontent which could easily reach troubling proportions. It seems that America itself is not immune from "regime-threatening instability" as the Pentagon and the American intelligence community terms it. It is likely that American government officials have not dismissed the worst-case scenario. Indeed it looks like they have been preparing accordingly.

Therefore, as has been scrutinized here, once one proceeds to connect the dots a very dark picture begins to emerge, to say the least. An all-encompassing cloud of uncertainty prevents us from formulating an accurate forecast regarding what developments will occur and how they will unfold during the next few months, let alone years. The only thing that can be taken for granted and that one can be sure of is that the unthinkable has now become thinkable.























.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Ditto!!

"Although this nation unquestionably must take strong action under the leadership of the commander in chief to protect itself against enormous and unprecedented threats, that necessity cannot negate the existence of the most basic fundamental rights for which the people of this country have fought and died for well over two hundred years... In sum, there can be no question that the Fifth Amendment right asserted by the Guantanamo detainees in this litigation -- the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law -- is one of the most fundamental rights recognized by the U.S. Constitution."








-- Judge Joyce Hens Green


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Arundhati Roy is originally from India. She is a well-educated and outspoken critic of the global status quo. She has made speeches all over the world.....written books......contributed articles to the major news agencies of the world. I saw a short film she narrated where she exposed the underlying failures of corporate-induced global economic policy that results in the almost unimaginable suffering of hundreds of millions of people. Of course, most of them poor.

Modern democracies have been around for long enough\ for neo-liberal capitalists to learn how to subvert them. They have mastered the technique of infiltrating the instruments of democracy-the "independent" judiciary, the "free" press, the parliament-and molding them to their purpose. The project of corporate globalization has cracked the code. Free elections, a free press, and an independent judiciary mean little when the free market has reduced them to commodities available on sale to the highest bidder.

To control a democracy, it is becoming more and more vital to control the media. The principal media outlets in America are owned by six major companies. The six largest cable companies have eighty percent of cable television subscribers. Even Internet websites are being colonized by giant media corporations.

It's a mistake to think that the corporate media supports the neo-liberal project. It is the neo-liberal project. It is the nexus, the confluence, the convergence, the union, the chosen medium of those who have power and money. As the project of corporate globalization increases the disparity between the rich and the poor, as the world grows more and more restive, corporations on the prowl for sweetheart deals need repressive governments to quell the mutinies in the servants' quarters. And governments, of course, need corporations. This mutual dependence spawns a sort of corporate nationalism, or, more accurately, a corporate/nationalism-if you can imagine such a thing. Corporate/nationalism has become the unwavering anthem of the mass media.

Governments have learned to wait out crises-because they know that crises by definition must be short-lived. They know that a crisis-driven media simply cannot afford to hang about in the same place for too long. It must be off for its next appointment with the next crisis. Like business houses need a cash turnover, the media needs a crisis turnover. Whole countries become old news. They cease to exist. And the darkness becomes deeper than it was before the light was shone on them. We saw that in Afghanistan when the Soviets withdrew. We are being given a repeat performance now.

... Crisis reportage in the twenty-first century has evolved into an independent discipline-almost a science. The money, the technology, and the orchestrated mass hysteria that goes
into crisis reporting ...
In this era of crisis reportage, if you don't have a crisis to call your own, you're not in the news. And if you're not in the news, you don't exist. It's as though the virtual world constructed in the media has become more real than the real world.

The space for genuine nonviolent civil disobedience is atrophying. In the era of corporate globalization, poverty is a crime, and protesting against further impoverishment is terrorism. In the era of the War on Terror, poverty is being slyly conflated with terrorism.
Gaffing anyone who protests against the violation of their human and constitutional rights a terrorist can end up becoming a self-fulfilling accusation.
... for most people in the world, peace is war - a daily battle against hunger, thirst, and the violation of their dignity. Wars are often the end result of a flawed peace, a putative peace. And it is the flaws, the systemic flaws in what is normally considered to be "peace," that we ought to be writing about. We have to-at least some of us have to-become peace correspondents instead of war correspondents. We have to lose our terror of the mundane.

We have to use our skills and imagination and our art, to re-create the rhythms of the endless crisis of normality, and in doing so, expose the policies and processes that make ordinary things-food, water, shelter, and dignity-such a distant dream for ordinary people.
Most important of all, we have to turn our skills toward understanding and exposing the instruments of the State...

The only way to make democracy real is to begin a process of constant questioning, permanent provocation, and continuous public conversation between citizens and the State. That conversation is quite different from the conversation between political parties representing the views of rival political parties is what the mass media thinks of as "balanced" reporting. Patrolling the borders of our liberty is the only way we can guard against the snatching away of our freedoms. All over the world today, freedoms are being curbed in the name of protecting freedom. Once freedoms are surrendered by civil society, they cannot be retrieved without a struggle. It is so much easier to relinquish them than to recover them.

It is important to remember that our freedoms, such as they are, were never given to us by any government, they have been wrested by us. If we do not use them, if we do not test them from time to time, they atrophy. If we do not guard them constantly, they will be taken away from us. If we do not demand more and more, we will be left with less and less.
Understanding these things and then using them as tools to interrogate what we consider "normalcy" is a way of subverting the tyranny of crisis reportage.

President George W. Bush, commander in chief of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, has issued clear instructions: "Iraq. Will. Be. Liberated." (Perhaps he means that even if Iraqi people's bodies are killed, their souls will be liberated.) American and British citizens owe it to the Supreme Commander to forsake thought and rally behind their troops. Their countries are at war.
And what a war it is.

After using the "good offices" of U.N. diplomacy (economic sanctions and weapons inspections) to ensure that Iraq was brought to its knees, its people starved, half a million of its children killed, its infrastructure severely damaged, after making sure that most of its weapons have been destroyed, in an act of cowardice that must surely be unrivaled in history, the "Allies"/"Coalition of the Willing" (better known as the Coalition of the Bullied and Bought) sent in an invading army!
Operation Iraqi Freedom? I don't think so. It's more like Operation Let's Run a Race, but First Let Me Break Your Knees.

When the "Allies" bombed the Iraqi television station (also, incidentally, a contravention of the Geneva Convention), there was vulgar jubilation in the American media. In fact, Fox TV had been lobbying for the attack for a while. It was seen as a righteous blow against Arab propaganda. But mainstream American and British TV continue to advertise themselves as "balanced" when their propaganda has achieved hallucinatory levels.

Why should propaganda be the exclusive preserve of the Western media? Just because they do it better?
As of July 2002, the delivery of $5.4 billion worth of supplies to Iraq was blocked by the Bush/Blair Pair.° It didn't really make the news. But now, under the loving caress of live TV, two hundred and thirty tons of humanitarian aid-a minuscule fraction of what's actually needed (call it a script prop)-arrived on a British ship, the Sir Galahad. Its arrival in the port of Umm Qasr merited a whole day of live TV broadcasts. Barf bag, anyone?

Nick Guttmann, head of emergencies for Christian Aid, writing for the Independent on Sunday, said that it would take thirty-two Sir Galahads a day to match the amount of food Iraq was receiving before the bombing began.
We oughtn't to be surprised, though. . It's old tactics. They've been at it for years. 
While the American people will end up paying for the [Iraq] war, oil companies, weapons manufacturers, arms dealers, and corporations involved in "reconstruction" work will make direct gains from the war. Many of them are old friends and former employers of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice cabal... Contracts for "reconstruction" are already being negotiated.

The news doesn't hit the stands because much of the U.S. corporate media is owned and managed by the same interests.
... the War against Terror is not really about terror, and the War on Iraq not only about oil. It's about a superpower's self-destructive impulse toward supremacy, stranglehold, global hegemony.
At the end of it all, it remains to be said that dictators like Saddam Hussein, and all the other despots in the Middle East, in the Central Asian republics, in Africa, and Latin America, many of them installed, supported, and financed by the U.S. government, are a menace to their own people. Other than strengthening the hand of civil society (instead of weakening it as has been done in the case of Iraq), there is no easy, pristine way of dealing with them. (It's odd how those who dismiss the peace movement as utopian don't hesitate to proffer the most absurdly dreamy reasons for going to war: To stamp out terrorism, install democracy, eliminate fascism, and, most entertainingly, to "rid the world of evil-doers.")

Regardless of what the propaganda machine tells us, these tin-pot dictators are not the greatest threat to the world. The real and pressing danger, the greatest threat of all, is the locomotive force that drives the political and economic engine of the U.S. government, currently piloted by George Bush. Bush-bashing is fun, because he makes such an easy, sumptuous target. It's true that he is a dangerous, almost suicidal pilot, but the machine he handles is far more dangerous than the man himself.

Despite the pall of gloom that hangs over us today, I'd like to file a cautious plea for hope: In time of war, one wants one's weakest enemy at the helm of his forces. And President George W. Bush is certainly that. Any other even averagely intelligent U.S. president would have probably done the very same things, but would have managed to smoke up the glass and confuse the opposition. Perhaps even carry the United Nations with him. George Bush's tactless imprudence and his brazen belief that he can run the world with his riot squad has done the opposite. He has achieved what writers, activists, and scholars have striven to achieve for decades. He has exposed the ducts. He has placed on full public view the working parts, the nuts and bolts of the apocalyptic apparatus of the American Empire.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Well! I suppose FDR was also a "conspiracy theorist".









"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial
element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since
the days of Andrew Jackson. History depicts Andrew Jackson as the last
truly honorable and incorruptible American president."
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt
(1882-1945), 32nd US President
November 21, 1933
Source: in a letter written to Colonel E. Mandell House

"I am afraid that the ordinary citizen
will not like to be told that the banks
can and do create and destroy money.
And they who control the credit of a nation
direct the policy of governments, and
hold in the hollow of their hands
the destiny of the people."
-- Richard McKenna
Secretary to the Treasury (1903), President of the Board of Education (1907-08) First Lord of the Admiralty (1908-1911), Home Secretary (1911-1915) and Chancellor of the Exchequer (1915-1916), and Chairman of the Midland Bank (1918)
Source: speaking in 1924.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Yo! If you read this article, it is important to keep in mind that it was written in 1985, 24 years ago! Great freakin' article!

P.S. To paraphrase George Orwell,....."During times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act".

We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.

But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another-slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision ... people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy.

As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

Our politics, religion, news, athletics, education and commerce have been transformed into congenial adjuncts of show business, largely without protest or even much popular notice. The result is that we are a people on the verge of amusing ourselves to death.

... Thomas Paine's Common Sense, published on January 10, 1776, sold more than 100,000 copies by March of the same year. In 1985, a book would have to sell eight million copies (in two months) to match the proportion of the population Paine's book attracted. If we go beyond March, 1776, a more awesome set of figures is given by Howard Fast: "No one knows just how many copies were actually printed. The most conservative sources place the figure at something over 300,000 copies. Others place it just under half a million. Taking a figure of 400,000 in a population of 3,000,000, a book published today would have to sell 24,000,000 copies to do as well." The only communication event that could produce such collective attention in today's America is the Superbowl.

Richard Hofstadter
"The Founding Fathers, were sages, scientists, men of broad cultivation, many of them apt in classical learning, who used their wide reading in history, politics, and law to solve the exigent problems of their time."

From Erasmus in the sixteenth century to Elizabeth Eisenstein in the twentieth, almost every scholar who has grappled with the question of what reading does to one's habits of mind has concluded that the process encourages rationality; that the sequential, propositional character of the written word fosters what Walter Ong calls the "analytic management of knowledge." To engage the written word means to follow a line of thought, which requires considerable powers of classifying, inference-making and reasoning. It means to uncover lies, confusions, and overgeneralizations, to detect abuses of logic and common sense. It also means to weigh ideas, to compare and contrast assertions, to connect one generalization to another. To accomplish this, one must achieve a certain distance from the words themselves, which is, in fact, encouraged by the isolated and impersonal text.

That is why a good reader does not cheer an apt sentence or pause to applaud even an inspired paragraph. Analytic thought is too busy for that, and too detached.
I do not mean to imply that prior to the written word analytic thought was not possible. I am referring here not to the potentialities of the individual mind but to the predispositions of a cultural mind-set. In a culture dominated by print, public discourse tends to be characterized by a coherent, orderly arrangement of facts and ideas. The public for whom it is intended is generally competent to manage such discourse. In a print culture, writers make mistakes when they lie, contradict themselves, fail to support their generalizations, try to enforce illogical connections. In a print culture, readers make mistakes when they don't notice, or even worse, don't care.

... in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, American public discourse, being rooted in the bias of the printed word, was serious, inclined toward rational argument and presentation, and, therefore, made up of meaningful content.

Books ... are an excellent container for the accumulation, quiet scrutiny and organized analysis of information and ideas. It takes time to write a book, and to read one; time to discuss its contents and to make judgments about their merit, including the form of their presentation. A book is an attempt to make thought permanent and to contribute to the great conversation conducted by authors of the past.

The problem is not that television presents us with entertaining subject matter but that all subject matter is presented as entertaining.

Televison is our culture's principal mode of knowing about itself.

TV news has no intention of suggesting that any story has any implications, for that would require viewers to continue to think about it when it is done and therefore obstruct their attending to the next story ...

Newscasters do not pause to grimace or shiver when they speak their prefaces or epilogs to the film clips. Indeed, many newscasters do not appear to grasp the meaning of what they are saying, and some hold to a fixed and ingratiating enthusiasm as they report on earthquakes, mass killings and other disasters. Viewers would be quite disconcerted by any show of concern or terror on the part of newscasters. Viewers, after all, are partners with the newscasters in the "Now . . . this" culture, and they expect the newscaster to play out his or her role as a character who is marginally serious but who stays well clear of authentic understanding.

Whereas we expect books and even other media (such as film) to maintain a consistency of tone and a continuity of content, we have no such expectation of television, and especially television news. We have become so accustomed to its discontinuities that we are no longer struck dumb, as any sane person would be, by a newscaster who having just reported that a nuclear war is inevitable goes on to say that he will be right back after this word from Burger King; who says, in other words, "Now . . . this." One can hardly overestimate the damage that such juxtapositions do to our sense of the world as a serious place.

The damage is especially massive to youthful viewers who depend so much on television for their clues as to how to respond to the world. In watching television news, they, more than any other segment of the audience, are drawn into an epistemology based on the assumption that all reports of cruelty and death are greatly exaggerated and, in any case, not to be taken seriously or responded to sanely.

I should go so far as to say that embedded in the surrealistic frame of a television news show is a theory of anticommunication, featuring a type of discourse that abandons logic, reason, sequence and rules of contradiction. In aesthetics, I believe the name given to this theory is Dadaism; in philosophy, nihilism; in psychiatry, schizophrenia. In the parlance of the theater, it is known as vaudeville.

For those who think I am here guilty of hyperbole, I offer the following description of television news by Robert MacNeil, executive editor and co-anchor of the "MacNeil-Lehrer Newshour. "The idea, he writes, "is to keep everything brief, not to strain the attention of anyone but instead to provide constant stimulation through variety, novelty, action, and movement. You are required . . . to pay attention to no concept, no character, and no problem for more than a few seconds at a time." He goes on to say that the assumptions controlling a news show are "that bite-sized is best, that complexity must be avoided, that nuances are dispensable, that qualifications impede the simple message, that visual stimulation is a substitute for thought, and that verbal precision is an anachronism."

The result of all this is that Americans are the best entertained and quite likely the least well-informed people in the Western world. I say this in the face of the popular conceit that television, as a window to the world, has made Americans exceedingly well informed. Much depends here, of course, on what is meant by being informed. I will pass over the now tiresome polls that tell us that, at any given moment, 70 percent of our citizens do not know who is the Secretary of State or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Let us consider, instead, the case of Iran during the drama that was called the "Iranian Hostage Crisis." I don't suppose there has been a story in years that received more continuous attention from television.

We may assume, then, that Americans know most of what there is to know about this unhappy event. And now, I put these questions to you: Would it be an exaggeration to say that not one American in a hundred knows what language the Iranians speak? Or what the word ``Ayatollah" means or implies? Or knows any details of the tenets of Iranian religious beliefs? Or the main outlines of their political history? Or knows who the Shah was, and where he came from?

Nonetheless, everyone had an opinion about this event, for in America everyone is entitled to an opinion, and it is certainly useful to have a few when a pollster shows up. But these are opinions of a quite different order from eighteenth- or nineteenth-century opinions. It is probably more accurate to call them emotions rather than opinions, which would account for the fact that they change from week to week, as the pollsters tell us. What is happening here is that television is altering the meaning of "being informed" by creating a species of information that might properly be called disinformation.

I am using this word almost in the precise sense in which it is used by spies in the CIA or KGB. Disinformation does not mean false information. It means misleading information - misplaced, irrelevant, fragmented or superficial information - information that creates the illusion of knowing something, but which in fact leads one away from knowing. In saying this, I do not mean to imply that television news deliberately aims to deprive Americans of a coherent, contextual understanding of their world.

I mean to say that when news is packaged as entertainment, that is the inevitable result. And in saying that the television news show entertains but does not inform, I am saying something far more serious than that we are being deprived of authentic information. I am saying we are losing our sense of what it means to be well informed. Ignorance is always correctable. But what shall we do if we take ignorance to be knowledge?


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Yo! Do you all remember this Eliot Spitzer? I do. Mostly because I was shocked that a former state attorney-general and Governor of New York could afford a hooker that charges $1,000-an-hour!!! I didn't know, at the time, that Spitzer was aggressively pursuing corporate criminals. Now it becomes very clear to me. You see, he favors auditing the Federal Reserve. Could it be that maybe, just maybe, Bush's "Justice" Department targeted him because he was "rocking the boat"? Was he getting too close in examining the financial policies of the so-called financial "wizards"? I'm sure the "Justice" Department has loads of incriminating information on political figures that they withhold until said individuals become a threat to the status quo. Notice how they didn't expose that Republican Senator from Louisiana that had a diaper fetish. It's in the article below. He was caught by another medium of the press. What's with these Republicans? The Party of "Family Values"? In the last few years, we read these stories of them sending text messages containing graphic sexual content to teenage boys who work as Congressional pages. Or how 'bout the guy who propositions complete male strangers in the bathroom stalls of our nation's airports? AND they have the nerve to support anti-gay legislation! Can you say "Hypocrite"? I'm sure the Democrats commit their own sins, but they don't shout "Family Values" from a bullhorn.

The Federal Reserve - the quasi-autonomous body that controls the US's money supply - is a "Ponzi scheme" that created "bubble after bubble" in the US economy and needs to be held accountable for its actions, says Eliot Spitzer, the former governor and attorney-general of New York.

In a wide-ranging discussion of the bank bailouts on MSNBC's Morning Meeting, host Dylan Ratigan described the process by which the Federal Reserve exchanged $13.9 trillion of bad bank debt for cash that it gave to the struggling banks.

Spitzer - who built a reputation as "the Sheriff of Wall Street" for his zealous prosecutions of corporate crime as New York's attorney-general and then resigned as the state's governor over revelations he had paid for prostitutes - seemed to agree with Ratigan that the bank bailout amounts to "America's greatest theft and cover-up ever."

Advocating in favor of a House bill to audit the Federal Reserve, Spitzer said: "The Federal Reserve has benefited for decades from the notion that it is quasi-autonomous, it's supposed to be independent. Let me tell you a dirty secret: The Fed has done an absolutely disastrous job since [former Fed Chairman] Paul Volcker left.

"The reality is the Fed has blown it. Time and time again, they blew it. Bubble after bubble, they failed to understand what they were doing to the economy.

"The most poignant example for me is the AIG bailout, where they gave tens of billions of dollars that went right through - conduit payments - to the investment banks that are now solvent. We [taxpayers] didn't get stock in those banks, they didn't ask what was going on - this begs and cries out for hard, tough examination.

"You look at the governing structure of the New York [Federal Reserve], it was run by the very banks that got the money. This is a Ponzi scheme, an inside job. It is outrageous, it is time for Congress to say enough of this. And to give them more power now is crazy.

"The Fed needs to be examined carefully."

Spitzer resigned as governor of New York in March, 2008, after news reports stated he had paid for a $1,000-an-hour New York City call girl.

At the time, Spitzer had been raising the alarm about sub-prime mortgages. In the wake of the economic meltdown triggered last fall by sub-prime loans, some observers have suggested that Spitzer may have been targeted by law enforcement because of his high-profile opposition to Wall Street financial policies.

Investigative reporter Greg Palast wrote that federal agents' revealing of Spitzer's identity as a call-girl customer was no coincidence.

Palast wrote that the principle of "prosecutorial discretion" is often used to keep the names of high-profile persons out of the media when they are tangentially linked to a criminal investigation. In the case of Spitzer, the Justice Department chose not to invoke prosecutorial discretion.

Funny thing, this 'discretion.' For example, Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, paid Washington DC prostitutes to put him in diapers (ewww!), yet the Senator was not exposed by the US prosecutors busting the pimp-ring that pampered him.

Naming and shaming and ruining Spitzer - rarely done in these cases - was made at the 'discretion' of Bush's Justice Department.

Spitzer recently told Bloomberg News that President Obama's regulatory reforms of the financial sector are "irrelevant" because regulatory agencies have not been enforcing corporate laws to begin with.

"Regulatory agencies already had the power to do everything they needed to do," he said. "They just affirmatively chose not to do it."


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Excellent quotes but what a shame!!!









"Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer
from poor people in rich countries
to rich people in poor countries."
-- Douglas Casey
1992

"The government deficit is the difference between
the amount of money the government spends
and the amount it has the nerve to collect."
-- Sam Ewing

"The dollar represents a one dollar debt to the
Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve Banks
create money out of thin air to buy Government Bonds
from the U.S. Treasury ... and has created out of
nothing a ... debt which the American people are
obliged to pay with interest."
-- Wright Patman
[John William Wright Patman] (1893-1976) US Congressman (TX-D)
1964


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

The following is an excerpt from a book (title is in the subject line above) about Germany between the years 1933 to 1945. It's a conversation the author had with a colleague about the events during that period. Being educated men, they sensed what was happening with Hitler in power. Curbing of civil liberties due to "national emergencies" or "crises". Much of which came in small incremental steps......hardly noticeable to the naked eye. How fear and uncertainty can cause people to "adjust" their principles.....their morals. To say nothing and look the other way as the truth is twisted and perverted. To the point of Nazi soldiers throwing live infants into fiery ovens because they believed in Hitler's assertion that the Jewish race was sub-human. Oh, yeah! Demonizing the "enemy" makes it much easier to kill them. Remember a quote mentioned once before? "If I can make you believe an absurdity, I can get you to commit an atrocity." This book came out in 1955! Too bad it's still VERY relevant today. Later!

"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn't make people close to their government to be told that this is a people's government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all 
the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.

"Your friend the baker was right," said my colleague. "The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway. I do not speak of your 'little men,' your baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about-we were decent people-and kept us so busy with continuous changes and 'crises' and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the 'national enemies,' without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful 
things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?

"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it-please try to believe me-unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted,' that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these 'little measures' that no 'patriotic German' could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

"How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice-'Resist the beginnings' and 'Consider the end.' But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? Things might have. And everyone counts on that might.

"Your 'little men,' your Nazi friends, were not against National Socialism in principle. Men like me, who were, are the greater offenders, not because we knew better (that would be too much to say) but because we sensed better. Pastor Niemöller spoke for the thousands and thousands of men like me when he spoke (too modestly of himself) 
and said that, when the Nazis attacked the Communists, he was a little uneasy, but, after all, he was not a Communist, and so he did nothing; and then they attacked the Socialists, and he was a little uneasier, but, still, he was not a Socialist, and he did nothing; and then the schools, the press, the Jews, and so on, and he was always uneasier, but still he did nothing. And then they attacked the Church, and he was a Churchman, and he did something-but then it was too late."
"Yes," I said.

"You see," my colleague went on, "one doesn't see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don't want to act, or even talk, alone; you don't want to 'go out of your way to make trouble.' Why not?-Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

"Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, 'everyone' is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there would be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, 'It's not so bad' or 'You're seeing things' or 'You're an alarmist.'

"And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must 
lead to this, and you can't prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don't know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have.

"But your friends are fewer now. Some have drifted off somewhere or submerged themselves in their work. You no longer see as many as you did at meetings or gatherings. Informal groups become smaller; attendance drops off in little organizations, and the organizations themselves wither. Now, in small gatherings of your oldest friends, you feel that you are talking to yourselves, that you are isolated from the reality of things. This weakens your confidence still further and serves as a further deterrent to-to what? It is clearer all the time that, if you are going to do anything, you must make an occasion to do it, and then you are obviously a troublemaker. So you wait, and you wait.

"But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That's the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked-if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in '43 had come immediately after the 'German Firm' stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in '33. But of course this isn't the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a 
stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.

"And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying 'Jewish swine,' collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in-your nation, your people-is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way.

"You have gone almost all the way yourself. Life is a continuing process, a flow, not a succession of acts and events at all. It has flowed to a new level, carrying you with it, without any effort on your part. On this new level you live, you have been living more comfortably every day, with new morals, new principles. You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things that your father, even in Germany, could not have imagined.

"Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven't done (for that was all that was required of 
most of us: that we do nothing). You remember those early meetings of your department in the university when, if one had stood, others would have stood, perhaps, but no one stood. A small matter, a matter of hiring this man or that, and you hired this one rather than that. You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair.

"What then? You must then shoot yourself. A few did. Or 'adjust' your principles. Many tried, and some, I suppose, succeeded; not I, however. Or learn to live the rest of your life with your shame. This last is the nearest there is, under the circumstances, to heroism: shame. Many Germans became this poor kind of hero, many more, I think, than the world knows or cares to know."
I said nothing. I thought of nothing to say.

"Once the war began," my colleague continued, "resistance, protest, criticism, complaint, all carried with them a multiplied likelihood of the greatest punishment. Mere lack of enthusiasm, or failure to show it in public, was 'defeatism.' You assumed that there were lists of those who would be 'dealt with' later, after the victory. Goebbels was very clever here, too. He continually promised a 'victory orgy' to 'take care of' those who thought that their 'treasonable attitude' had escaped notice. And he meant it; that was not just propaganda. And that was enough to put an end to all uncertainty.

"Once the war began, the government could do anything 'necessary' to win it; so it was with the 'final solution of the Jewish problem,' which the Nazis always talked about but never dared undertake, not even the Nazis, until war and its 'necessities' gave them the knowledge that they could get away with it. The people abroad who thought that war against Hitler would help the Jews were wrong. And the people in Germany who, once the war had begun, still thought of complaining, protesting, resisting, were betting on Germany's losing the war. It was a long bet. Not many made it."


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Be quiet and EAT your banana!









Chiquita in Latin America
by Nikolas Kozloff
July 17-19, 2009

When the Honduran military overthrew the democratically elected government of Manuel Zelaya two weeks ago there might have been a sigh of relief in the corporate board rooms of Chiquita banana. Earlier this year the Cincinnati-based fruit company joined Dole in criticizing the government in Tegucigalpa which had raised the minimum wage by 60%.

Chiquita complained that the new regulations would cut into company profits, requiring the firm to spend more on costs than in Costa Rica: 20 cents more to produce a crate of pineapple and ten cents more to produce a crate of bananas to be exact. In all, Chiquita fretted that it would lose millions under Zelaya's labor reforms since the company produced around 8 million crates of pineapple and 22 million crates of bananas per year.

When the minimum wage decree came down Chiquita sought help and appealed to the Honduran National Business Council, known by its Spanish acronym COHEP. Like Chiquita, COHEP was unhappy about Zelaya's minimum wage measure. Amílcar Bulnes, the group's president, argued that if the government went forward with the minimum wage increase employers would be forced to let workers go, thus increasing unemployment in the country.

The most important business organization in Honduras, COHEP groups 60 trade associations and chambers of commerce representing every sector of the Honduran economy. According to its own Web site, COHEP is the political and technical arm of the Honduran private sector, supports trade agreements and provides "critical support for the democratic system." Yeah, right!

The international community should not impose economic sanctions against the coup regime in Tegucigalpa, COHEP argues, because this would worsen Honduras' social problems. In its new role as the mouthpiece for Honduras' poor, COHEP declares that Honduras has already suffered from earthquakes, torrential rains and the global financial crisis.

Before punishing the coup regime with punitive measures, COHEP argues, the United Nations and the Organization of American States should send observer teams to Honduras to investigate how sanctions might affect 70% of Hondurans who live in poverty. Bulnes meanwhile has voiced his support for the coup regime of Roberto Micheletti and argues that the political conditions in Honduras are not propitious for Zelaya's return from exile.

Chiquita: From Arbenz to Bananagate

It's not surprising that Chiquita would seek out and ally itself to socially and politically backward forces in Honduras. Colsiba, the coordinating body of banana plantation workers in Latin America, says the fruit company has failed to supply its workers with necessary protective gear and has dragged its feet when it comes to signing collective labor agreements in Nicaragua, Guatemala and Honduras.

Colsiba compares the infernal labor conditions on Chiquita plantations to concentration camps. It's an inflammatory comparison yet may contain a degree of truth. Women working on Chiquita's plantations in Central America work from 6:30 a.m. until 7 at night, their hands burning up inside rubber gloves. Some workers are as young as 14. Central American banana workers have sought damages against Chiquita for exposing them in the field to DBCP, a dangerous pesticide which causes sterility, cancer and birth defects in children.

Chiquita, formerly known as United Fruit Company and United Brands, has had a long and sordid political history in Central America. Led by Sam "The Banana Man" Zemurray, United Fruit got into the banana business at the
turn of the twentieth century. Zemurray once remarked famously, "In Honduras, a mule costs more than a member of parliament." By the 1920s United Fruit controlled 650,000 acres of the best land in Honduras, almost one quarter of all the arable land in the country. What's more, the company controlled important roads and railways.

In Honduras the fruit companies spread their influence into every area of life including politics and the military. For such tactics they acquired the name los pulpos (the octopuses, from the way they spread their tentacles). Those who did not play ball with the corporations were frequently found face down on the plantations. In 1904 humorist O. Henry coined the term "Banana Republic" to refer to the notorious United Fruit Company and its actions in Honduras.

In Guatemala, United Fruit supported the CIA-backed 1954 military coup against President Jacobo Arbenz, a reformer who had carried out a land reform package. Arbenz' overthrow led to more than thirty years of unrest and civil war in Guatemala. Later in 1961, United Fruit lent its ships to CIA-backed Cuban exiles who sought to overthrow Fidel Castro at the Bay of Pigs.

In 1972, United Fruit (now renamed United Brands) propelled Honduran General Oswaldo López Arellano to power. The dictator was forced to step down later however after the infamous "Bananagate" scandal which involved United Brands bribes to Arellano. A federal grand jury accused United Brands of bribing Arellano with $1.25 million, with the carrot of another $1.25 million later if the military man agreed to reduce fruit export taxes. During Bananagate, United Brands' President fell from a New York City skyscraper in an apparent suicide. Mmmm. Suicide, huh?

Go-Go Clinton Years and Colombia

In Colombia United Fruit also set up shop and during its operations in the South American country developed a no less checkered profile. In 1928, 3,000 workers went on strike against the company to demand better pay and working conditions. At first the company refused to negotiate but later gave in on some minor points, declaring the other demands "illegal" or "impossible." When the strikers refused to disperse the military fired on the banana workers, killing scores.

You might think that Chiquita would have reconsidered its labor policies after that but in the late 1990s the company began to ally itself with insidious forces, specifically right wing paramilitaries. Chiquita paid off the men to the tune of more than a million dollars. In its own defense, the company declared that it was merely paying protection money to the paramilitaries.

In 2007, Chiquita paid $25 million to settle a Justice Department investigation into the payments. Chiquita was the first company in U.S. history to be convicted of financial dealings with a designated terrorist organization. 
In a lawsuit launched against Chiquita victims of the paramilitary violence claimed the firm abetted atrocities including terrorism, war crimes and crimes against humanity. A lawyer for the plaintiffs said that Chiquita's relationship with the paramilitaries "was about acquiring every aspect of banana distribution and sale through a reign of terror."

Back in Washington, D.C. Charles Lindner, Chiquita's CEO, was busy courting the White House. Lindner had been a big donor to the GOP but switched sides and began to lavish cash on the Democrats and Bill Clinton. Clinton repaid Linder by becoming a key military backer of the government of Andrés Pastrana which presided over the proliferation of right wing death squads.

At the time the U.S. was pursuing its corporately-friendly free trade agenda in Latin America, a strategy carried out by Clinton's old boyhood friend Thomas "Mack" McLarty. At the White House, McLarty served as Chief of Staff and Special Envoy to Latin America. He's an intriguing figure who I'll come back to in a moment.

The Holder-Chiquita Connection

Given Chiquita's underhanded record in Central America and Colombia it's not a surprise that the company later sought to ally itself with COHEP in Honduras. In addition to lobbying business associations in Honduras however Chiquita also cultivated relationships with high powered law firms in Washington. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Chiquita has paid out $70,000 in lobbying fees to Covington and Burling over the past three years.

Covington is a powerful law firm which advises multinational corporations. Eric Holder, the current Attorney General, a co-chair of the Obama campaign and former Deputy Attorney General under Bill Clinton was up until recently a partner at the firm. At Covington, Holder defended Chiquita as lead counsel in its case with the Justice Department. From his perch at the elegant new Covington headquarters located near the New York Times building in Manhattan, Holder prepped Fernando Aguirre, Chiquita's CEO, for an interview with 60 Minutes dealing with Colombian death squads.

Holder had the fruit company plead guilty to one count of "engaging in transactions with a specially designated global terrorist organization." But the lawyer, who was taking in a hefty salary at Covington to the tune of more than $2 million, brokered a sweetheart deal in which Chiquita only paid a $25 million fine over five years. Outrageously however, not one of the six company officials who approved the payments received any jail time.

The Curious Case of Covington

Look a little deeper and you'll find that not only does Covington represent Chiquita but also serves as a kind of nexus for the political right intent on pushing a hawkish foreign policy in Latin America. Covington has pursued an important strategic alliance with Kissinger (of Chile, 1973 fame) and McLarty Associates (yes, the same Mack McLarty from Clinton-time), a well known international consulting and strategic advisory firm.

Kissinger was the main architect of the CIA-inspired coup that removed Salvador Allende (democratically elected president) in Chile circa 1973 and then installed right-wing dictator, Pinochet who, over the years, killed tens of thousands of his own people. Aren't we supposed to support free elections? I guess, only if they elect the guy WE WANT.

From 1974 to 1981 John Bolton served as an associate at Covington. As U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations under George Bush, Bolton was a fierce critic of leftists in Latin America such as Venezuela's Hugo Chávez. Furthermore, just recently John Negroponte became Covington's Vice Chairman. Negroponte is a former Deputy Secretary of State, Director of National Intelligence and U.S. Representative to the United Nations.

As U.S. Ambassador to Honduras from 1981-1985, Negroponte played a significant role in assisting the U.S.-backed Contra rebels intent on overthrowing the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. Human rights groups have criticized Negroponte for ignoring human rights abuses committed by Honduran death squads which were funded and partially trained by the Central Intelligence Agency. Indeed, when Negroponte served as ambassador his building in Tegucigalpa became one of the largest nerve centers of the CIA in Latin America with a tenfold increase in personnel.

While there's no evidence linking Chiquita to the recent coup in Honduras, there's enough of a confluence of suspicious characters and political heavyweights here to warrant further investigation. From COHEP to Covington to Holder to Negroponte to McLarty, Chiquita has sought out friends in high places, friends who had no love for the progressive labor policies of the Zelaya regime in Tegucigalpa.

Nikolas Kozloff is the author of Revolution! South America and the Rise of the New Left

A day in the life of 'joe republican'!

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.
He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.
Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.
He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.
He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

This is an e-mail that has floated around the Internet since, at least, 2004. I'm sure it was written by some "bleeding-heart, cry-baby, tree-hugging, un-patriotic ,commie bastard liberal wimp with homosexual tendencies." Damn, I hate when that happens! Later!!


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

EXTREMELY informative. Read this if you want to know whats really going on!

Collapse of 300 Year Ponzi Scheme
excerpted from the book
Web of Debt
The Shocking Truth About Our Money System And How We Can Break Free
by Ellen Hodgson Brown
Third Millennium Press, 2007, paperback

WRITTEN IN 2007,FOLKS!!!

The global debt web has been spun from a string of frauds, deceits and sleights of hand, including:
"Fractional" reserve banking.
Formalized in 1694 with the charter for the Bank of England, the modern banking system involves credit issued by private bankers that is ostensibly backed by "reserves." At one time, these reserves consisted of gold; but today they are merely government securities (promises to pay). The banking system lends these securities many times over, essentially counterfeiting them.

The "gold standard." In the nineteenth century, the government was admonished not to issue paper fiat money on the ground that it would produce dangerous inflation. The bankers insisted that paper
money had to be backed by gold. What they failed to disclose was that there was not nearly enough gold in their own vaults to back the privately-issued paper notes laying claim to it. The bankers themselves were dangerously inflating the money supply based on a fictitious "gold standard" that allowed them to issue loans many times over on the same gold reserves, collecting interest each time.

The "Federal" Reserve. Established in 1913 to create a national money supply, the Federal Reserve is not federal, and today it keeps nothing in "reserve" except government bonds or I.O.U.s. It is a private banking corporation authorized to print and sell its own Federal Reserve Notes to the government in return for government bonds, putting the taxpayers in perpetual debt for money created privately with accounting entries. Except for coins, which make up only about one one-thousandth of the money supply, the entire U.S. money supply is now created by the private Federal Reserve and private banks, by extending loans to the government and to individuals and businesses.

The federal debt and the money supply.

The United States went off the gold standard in the 1930s, but the "fractional reserve" system continued, backed by "reserves" of government bonds. The federal debt these securities represent is never paid off but is continually rolled over, forming the basis of the national money supply. As a result of this highly inflationary scheme, by January 2007 the federal debt had mushroomed to $8.679 trillion and was approaching the point at which the interest alone would be more than the public could afford to pay.

The federal income tax.

Considered unconstitutional for over a century, the federal income tax was ostensibly legalized in 1913 by the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution. It was instituted primarily to secure a reliable source of money to pay the interest due to the bankers on the government's securities, and that continues to be its principal use today.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the International Monetary Fund. 
A principal function of the Federal Reserve was to bail out banks that got over-extended in the fractional-reserve shell game, using money created in "open market" operations by the Fed. When the Federal Reserve failed in that backup function, the FDIC and then the IMF were instituted, ensuring that mega-banks considered "too big to fail" would get bailed out no matter what unwarranted risks they took.

The "free market."

The theory that businesses in America prosper or fail due to "free market forces" is a myth. While smaller corporations and individuals who miscalculate their risks may be left to their fate in the market, mega-banks and corporations considered too big to fail are protected by a form of federal welfare available only to the rich and powerful. Other distortions in free market forces result from the covert manipulations of a variety of powerful entities. Virtually every market is now manipulated, whether by federal mandate or by institutional speculators, hedge funds, and large multinational banks colluding on trades.

The Plunge Protection Team and the Counterparty Risk Management
Policy Group (CRMPG). Federal manipulation is done by the Working Group on Financial Markets, also known as the Plunge Protection Team (PPT). The PPT is authorized to use U.S. Treasury funds to rig markets in order to "maintain investor confidence", keeping up the appearance that all is well. Manipulation is also effected by a private fraternity of big New York banks and investment houses known as the CRMPG, which was set up to bail its members out of financial difficulty by colluding to influence markets, again with the blessings of the government and to the detriment of the small investors on the other side of these orchestrated trades.

Manipulation and collusion also occur in international currency markets. Rampant currency speculation was unleashed in 1971, when the United States defaulted on its promise to redeem its dollars in gold internationally. National currencies were left to "float" against each other, trading as if they were commodities rather than receipts for fixed units of value. The result was to remove the yardstick for measuring value, leaving currencies vulnerable to attack by international speculators prowling in these dangerous commercial waters.

To bring down competitor currencies, speculators use a device called the "short sale" - the sale of currency the speculator does not own but has theoretically "borrowed" just for purposes of sale. Like "fractional reserve" lending, the short sale is actually a form of counterfeiting. When speculators sell a currency short in massive quantities, its value is artificially forced down, forcing down the value of goods traded in it.

"Globalization" and "free trade."

Before a currency can be brought down by speculative assault, the country must be induced to open its economy to "free trade" and to make its currency freely convertible
into other currencies. The currency can then be attacked and devalued, allowing national assets to be picked up at fire sale prices and forcing the country into bankruptcy. The bankrupt country must then borrow from international banks and the IMF, which impose as a condition of debt relief that the national government may not issue its own money. If the government tries to protect its resources or its banks by nationalizing them for the benefit of its own citizens, it is branded "communist," "socialist" or "terrorist" and is replaced by one that is friendlier to "free enterprise." Locals who fight back are termed "terrorists" or "insurgents."

Inflation myths.

The runaway inflation suffered by Third World countries has been blamed on irresponsible governments running the money printing presses, when in fact these disasters have usually been caused by speculative attacks on the national currency. Devaluing the currency forces prices to shoot up overnight. "Creeping inflation" like that seen in the United States today is also blamed on governments irresponsibly printing money, when it is actually caused by private banks inflating the money supply with debt. Banks advance new money as loans that must be repaid with interest, but the banks don't create the interest necessary to service the loans. New loans must continually be taken out to obtain the money to pay the interest, forcing prices up in an attempt to cover this new cost, spiraling the economy into perpetual price inflation.

The "business cycle."

As long as banks keep making low-interest loans, the money supply expands and business booms; but when the credit bubble gets too large, the central bank goes into action to deflate it. Interest rates are raised, loans are "called," and the money supply shrinks, forcing debtors into foreclosure, delivering their homes and farms to the banks. This is called the "business cycle," as if it were a natural condition like the weather. In fact, it is a natural characteristic only of a monetary scheme in which money comes into existence as a debt to private banks for "reserves" of something lent many times over.

The home mortgage boondoggle.

A major portion of the money created by banks today originates with the "monetization" of home mortgages. The borrower thinks he is borrowing pre-existing funds, when the bank is just turning his promise to repay into an "asset" secured by real property. By the time the mortgage is paid off, the borrower has usually paid the bank more in interest than was owed on the original loan; and if he defaults, the bank winds up with the house, although the money advanced to purchase it was created out of thin air.

The housing bubble.

The dollar and the economy are currently being supported by a housing boom that was initiated when the Fed pushed interest rates to very low levels after the stock market collapsed in 2000, significantly shrinking the money supply. "Easy" credit pumped the money supply back up and saved the market investments of the Fed's member banks, but it also led to a housing bubble that must eventually collapse as well, sending the economy to the trough of the "business cycle" once again.

The Adjustable Rate Mortgage or ARM.

After interest rates were dropped to very low levels, the housing bubble was fanned into a blaze through a series of high-risk changes in mortgage instruments, including variable rate loans that have allowed nearly anyone to qualify to buy a home who will take the bait. By 2005, about half of all U.S. mortgages were at "adjustable" interest rates. Purchasers are lulled by "teaser" rates into believing they can afford mortgages that are liable to propel them into inextricable debt if not into bankruptcy. Payments can increase by 50 percent after 6 years just by their terms, and can increase by 100 percent if interest rates go up by a mere 2 percent in 6 years.

The secret bankruptcy of the banks.

The banks themselves are taking enormous risks with these housing loans, as well as with very risky investments known as "derivatives," which are basically side bets that some asset will go up or down. Banks have been led into these dangerous waters because traditional commercial banking has proven to be an unprofitable venture. While banks have the power to create money as loans, they also have the obligation to balance their books; and when borrowers default, the losses must be made up from the banks' profits. Faced with a wave of bad debts and lost business, banks have kept afloat by branching out into the economically destructive derivatives business, and by colluding with each other and the government to arrange periodic stealth bailouts when banks considered "too big to fail" become insolvent.

"Vulture capitalism" and the derivatives cancer.

At one time, banks served the community by providing loans to developing businesses; but today this essential credit function is being replaced by a form of "vulture capitalism," in which bank investment departments and affiliated hedge funds are buying out shareholders and bleeding businesses of their profits, using loans of "phantom money" created on a computer screen. Banks are also funding speculative derivative bets, in which money that should be going into economic productivity is merely gambled on money making money in the casino of the markets. Outstanding derivatives are now counted in the hundreds of trillions of dollars, many times the money supply of the world. The derivatives bubble is showing clear signs of imploding; and when it does, those banks considered too big to fail will expect to be bailed out from the consequences of their risky loans just as they have been in the past.

The bubble burst and the meltdown began in earnest when investment bank Bear Stearns had to close two of its hedge funds in June of 2007. The hedge funds were trading in collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) -- loans that had been sliced up, bundled with less risky loans, and sold as securities to investors. To induce rating agencies to give them triple-A ratings, these "financial products" had then been insured against loss with derivative bets. The alarm bells went off when the creditors tried to get their money back. The CDOs were put up for sale, and there were no takers at anywhere near the stated valuations.

The secret of the Wall Street wizards was out: the derivatives game was a confidence trick, and when confidence was lost, the trick no longer worked. The $681 trillion derivatives bubble was an illusion. Panic spread around the world, as increasing numbers of investment banks had to prevent "runs" on their hedge funds by refusing withdrawals from nervous customers who had bet the farm on this illusory scheme.

When the "liquidity crisis" became too big for the investment banks to handle, the central banks stepped in; but in this case the "crisis" wasn't actually the result of a lack of money in the system. The newly-created money lent to subprime borrowers was still circulating in the economy; the borrowers just weren't paying it back to the banks. Investors still had money to invest; they just weren't using it to buy "triple-A" asset-backed securities that had toxic subprime mortgages embedded in them. The "faith-based" money system of the banks was frozen into illiquidity because no one was buying it anymore. The solution of the U.S. Federal Reserve, along with the central banks of Europe, Canada, Australia and Japan, was to conjure up $315 billion in "credit" and extend it to troubled banks and investment firms.

In England, the central bank is at least technically owned by the government, warranting more transparency. The cost of that transparency, however, was that the Bank of England came under heavy public criticism for s bailout of Northern Rock.

At one time, U.S. bailouts were also done openly, through the FDIC under the auspices of Congress; but that approach cost votes. The failure of President George Bush Sr. to win a second term in office was blamed in part on the bailout of Long Term Capital Management engineered during his first term. The public cost was all too obvious to taxpayers and the more solvent banks, which wound up paying higher FDIC insurance premiums to provide a safety net for their high-rolling competitors.

Under the Fed's new stealth bailout plan, it could avoid this sort unpleasant scrutiny by taxing the public indirectly through inflation. No longer was it necessary to go begging to Congress for money. The Fed could just create "credit" with accounting entries. As Chris Powell commented on the GATA website in August 2007, "in central banking, if you need money for anything, you just sit down and type some up and click it over to someone who is ready to do as you ask with it.

Jim Cramer, investment guru, in a TV episode on January 17, 2008
[We used to say] "The commissions on structured products are so huge, let's jail! it." [Note "jam it" means foist it on the customer.] It's all about the 'commish'. The commission on structured product is gigantic. I could make a fortune 'jamming that crummy paper' but I had a degree of conscience - what a shocker! We used to regulate people but they decided during the Reagan revolution that that was bad. So we don't regulate anyone anymore. But listen, the commission in structured product is so gigantic ....

First of all the customer has no idea what the product really is because it is invented. 
Second, you assume the customer is really stupid; like we used to say about the German bankers, 'The German banks are just Bozos. Throw them anything.' Or the Australians, 'Morons.' Or the Florida Fund [ha ha], "They're so stupid, let's give them Triple B" [junk grade]. Then we'd just laugh and laugh at the customers and jam them with the commission .... Remember, this is about commissions, about how much money you can make by jamming stupid customers. I've seen it all my life; you jam stupid customers. (That's it.....in a nutshell!)

Super-banks have been able to re-enact the same kinds of structural conflicts of interest that were endemic in the 1920s - lending to speculators, packaging and securitizing credits and then selling them off, wholesale or retail, and extracting fees at every step along the way. And, much of this paper is even more opaque to bank examiners than its counterparts were in the 1920s. Much of it isn't paper at all, and the whole process is supercharged by computers and automated formulas.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

FEAR 'rules'.

Fear Rules
by Paul Craig Roberts
June 10, 2009

The power of irrational fear in the US is extraordinary. It ranks up there with the Israel Lobby, the military/security complex, and the financial gangsters. Indeed, fear might be the most powerful force in America.

Americans are at ease with their country's aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, which has resulted in a million dead Muslim civilians and several million refugees, because the US government has filled Americans with fear of terrorists. "We have to kill them over there before they come over here." Classic case of "sloganeering." Gotta keep it simple, or the people won't "get it." That's what Hitler said in his book, Mein Kampf. The chapter titled "Propaganda". The slogan has to be repeated over and over. You tell a lie long enough, eventually it will appear to be the truth. I read it myself! Without anybody tellin' me!

Fearful of American citizens, the US government is building concentration camps apparently all over the country. According to news reports, a $385 million US government contract was given by the Bush/Cheney Regime to Cheney's company, Halliburton, to build "detention centers" in the US. The corporate media never explained for whom the detention centers are intended. Actually, an alternative media source did. Those "camps" are supposed to be for a "mass influx of illegal immigrants." Oooookay.

Most Americans dismiss such reports. "It can't happen here." However, In northeastern Florida not far from Tallahassee, I have seen what might be one of these camps. There is a building inside a huge open area fenced with razor wire. There is no one there and no signs. The facility appears new and unused and does not look like an abandoned prisoner work camp.

What is it for?
Who spent all that money for what?
There are Americans who are so terrified of their lives being taken by terrorists that they are hoping the US government will use nuclear weapons to destroy "the Muslim enemy." The justifications concocted for the use of nuclear bombs against Japanese civilian populations have had their effect. There are millions of Americans who wish "their" government would kill everyone that "their" government has demonized.

When I tell these people that they will die of old age without ever seeing a terrorist, they think I am insane. Don't I know that terrorists are everywhere in America? That's why we have airport security and homeland security. That's why the government is justified in breaking the law to spy on citizens without warrants. That's why the government is justified to torture people in violation of US law and the Geneva Conventions. If we don't torture them, American cities will go up in mushroom clouds. Dick Cheney tells us this every week.
Terrorists are everywhere. "They hate us for our freedom and democracy." (Yet, another "slogan". So funny!!)

When I tell America's alarmed citizens that the US has as many stolen elections as any country and that our civil liberties have been eroded by "the war on terror" they lump me into the terrorist category. They automatically conflate factual truth with anti-Americanism. I hate when that happens! I wish I had a dime for every time I was accused of that.....I could pay for my newly "jacked up" healthcare costs!

The same mentality prevails with regard to domestic crime. Most Americans, including, unfortunately, juries, assume that if the police make a case against a person and a prosecutor prosecutes it, the defendant is guilty. Most Americans are incapable of believing that police or a prosecutor would frame an innocent person for career or bureaucratic reasons or out of pure meanness. 
Yet, it happens all the time. Indeed, it is routine.

Frame-ups are so routine that 96% of the criminally accused will not risk a "jury of their peers," preferring to negotiate a plea bargain agreement with the prosecutor. The jury of their peers are a brainwashed lot, fearful of crime, which they have never experienced but hear about all the time. Criminals are everywhere, doing their evil deeds. 
The US has a much higher percentage of its population in prison than "authoritarian" countries, such as China, a one-party state. An intelligent population might wonder how a "freedom and democracy" country could have incarceration rates far higher than a dictatorship, but Americans fail this test. The more people that are put in prison, the safer Americans feel.

Lawrence Stratton and I describe frame-up techniques in The Tyranny of Good Intentions. Police and prosecutors even frame the guilty, as it is easier than convicting them on the evidence. 
One case that has been before us for years, but is resolutely neglected by the corporate media, whose function is to scare the people, is that of Troy Davis. 
Troy Davis was convicted of killing a police officer. The only evidence connecting him to the crime is the testimony of "witnesses," the vast majority of whom have withdrawn their testimony. The witnesses say they testified falsely against Troy Davis because of police intimidation and coercion.

One would think that this would lead to a new hearing and trial. But not in America. The Republican judicial nazis have created the concept of "finality." Even if the evidence shows that a wrongfully convicted person is innocent, finality requires that we execute him. If the convicted person is executed, we can assume he was guilty, because America has a pure justice system and never punishes the innocent. Everyone in prison and everyone executed is guilty. Otherwise, they they wouldn't be in prison or executed. Right?

It is all very simple if you are an American. America is pure, but other countries, except for our allies, are barbaric.
The same goes for our wars. Everyone we kill, whether they are passengers on Serbian commuter trains or attending weddings, funerals, or children playing soccer in Iraq, is a terrorist, or we would not have killed them. So was the little girl who was raped by our terrorist-fighting troops and then murdered, brutally, along with her family. 
America only kills terrorists. If we kill you, you are a terrorist. And, because of the "PATRIOT" Act, they don't even have to prove you are one. The accusation alone will suffice.

Americans are the salt of the earth. They never do any wrong. Only those other people do. Not the Israelis, of course.
And police, prosecutors, and juries never make mistakes. Everyone accused is guilty.
Fear has made every American a suspect, eroded our rights, and compromised our humanity.

Fear can make me kill somebody. I hate to say it, but it's true. Let me explain. If someone breaks into my house and I fear for the safety of my family, I will kill that person. I have the means. The immediacy of the threat creates fear in me and I do what I would never do under any other circumstance. It's like a survival instinct. Fear is the only emotion that, for me, can do that. That's probably true for most people.

I would NEVER kill because of hate or anger. For example (God forbid), if someone were to break in while I wasn't home and killed my family. I would be consumed by hate and anger, but I would not kill. I would hope that the individual were caught and prosecuted. Jesus said, "Vengeance is mine....". And, as a self-professed Christian, I would be required to forgive that individual. That would be my struggle. A VERY difficult one, I'm sure. Later!


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

joe the republican needs his own thread.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Give it to him!


----------



## EZmoney (May 13, 2004)

chew on this... Propaganda in a Democratic Society
_
by Aldous Huxley_

In regard to propaganda the early advocates of universal literacy and a free press envisaged only two possibilities: the propaganda might be true, or it might be false. They did not forsee what in fact has happened, above all in our Western capitalist democracies - the development of a vast mass communications industry, concerned in the main neither with the true nor the false, but with the unreal, the more or less totally irrelevant. In a word, they failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions.

In the past most people never got a chance of fully satisfying this appetite. They might long for distractions, but the distractions were not provided. Christmas came but once a year, feasts were "solemn and rare," there were few readers and very little to read, and the nearest approach to a neighborhood movie theater was the parish church, where the performances, though infrequent, were somewhat monotonous. For conditions even remotely comparable to those now prevailing we must return to imperial Rome, where the populace was kept in good humor by frequent, gratuitous doses of many kinds of entertainment - from poetical dramas to gladitorial fights, from recitations of Virgil to all-out boxing, from concerts to military reviews and public executions. But even in Rome there was nothing like the non-stop distraction now provided by newspapers and magazines, by radio, television and the cinema. In _Brave New World_ non-stop distractions of the most fascinating nature (the feelies, orgy-porgy, centrifugal bumblepuppy) are deliberately used as instruments of policy, for the purpose of preventing people from paying too much attention to the realities of the social and political situation. The other world of religion is different from the other world of entertainment; but they resemble one another in being most decidedly "not of this world." Both are distractions and, if lived in too continuously, both can become, in Marx's phrase, "the opium of the people" and so a threat to freedom. Only the vigilant can maintain their liberties, and only those who are constantly and intelligently on the spot can hope to govern themselves effectively by democratic procedures. A society, most of whose members spend a great part of their time, not on the spot, not here and now and in the calculable future, but somewhere else, in the irrelevant other worlds of sport and soap opera, of mythology and metephysical fantasy, will find it hard to resist the encroachments of those who would manipulate and control it.

In their propaganda today's dictators rely for the most part on repetition, supression and rationalization - the repetition of catchwords which they wish to be accepted as true, the supression of facts which they wish to be ignored, the arousal and rationalization of passions which may be used in the interests of the Party or the State. As the art and science of manipulation come to be better understood, the dictators of the future will doubtless learn to combine these techniques with the non-stop distractions which, in the West, are now threatening to drown in a sea of irrelevance the rational propaganda essential to the maintenance of individual liberty and the survival of democratic institutions.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Yo! I'm tellin' ya, we don't know the half of it. It's really much worse than they're letting on.









The Bush administration and Congress discussed the possibility of a breakdown in law and order and the logistics of feeding US citizens if commerce and banking collapsed as a result of last autumn's financial panic, it was disclosed yesterday.

Making his first appearance on Capitol Hill since leaving office, the former Treasury secretary Hank Paulson said it was important at the time not to reveal the extent of officials' concerns, for fear it would "terrify the American people and lead to an even bigger problem". "Bigger problem"? Now that's an understatement! A bigger problem would lead to Martial Law.

Mr Paulson testified to the House Oversight Committee on the Bush administration's unpopular $700bn (£426bn) bailout of Wall Street, which was triggered by the failure of Lehman Brothers last September. In the days that followed, a run on some of the safest investment vehicles in the financial markets threatened to make it impossible for people to access their savings. Sooo, let me get this straight.......let's print more money and "kick the can" further down the road (on the backs of our children).

Paul Kanjorski, a Pennsylvania Democrat, asked Mr Paulson to reveal details of officials' concerns, which were relayed to Congress in hasty conference calls last year. The calls included discussion of law and order and whether it would be possible to feed the American people, and for how long, according to Mr Kanjorski. "....feed the American people"? It'll be shoot first, eat later!

"In a world where information can flow, money can move with the speed of light electronically, I looked at the ripple effect, and looked at when a financial system fails, a whole country's economic system can fail," Mr Paulson said. "I believe we could have gone back to the sorts of situations we saw in the Depression. I try not to use hyperbole. It's impossible to prove now since it didn't happen." We won't be so lucky in the near future.

The Oversight committee is investigating the takeover of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, a deal forged in the desperate weekend that Lehman Brothers failed, and which later required government support because of Merrill's spiralling losses.

Mr Paulson defended putting pressure on Bank of America when it had last-minute doubts about the deal in December. Not to have done so could have rekindled the "financial havoc" the bailout had calmed.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Check out Paul Craig Roberts' credentials at the very bottom. He's not just some "left-wing, radical traitor" to his country. A common accusation placed on many who are critical of American foreign policy.

Tent cities springing up all over America are filling with the homeless unemployed from the worst economy since the 1930s. While Americans live in tents, the Obama government has embarked on a $1 billion crash program to build a mega-embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, to rival the one the Bush government built in Baghdad, Iraq.

Hard times have now afflicted Americans for so long that even the extension of unemployment benefits from 6 months to 18 months for 24 high unemployment states, and to 46 - 72 weeks in other states, is beginning to run out. By Christmas 1.5 million Americans will have exhausted unemployment benefits while unemployment rolls continue to rise.

Amidst this worsening economic crisis, the House of Representatives just passed a $636 billion "defense" bill.

Who is the United States defending against? Americans have no enemies except those that the US government goes out of its way to create by bombing and invading countries that comprise no threat whatsoever to the US and by encircling others-Russia for example-with threatening military bases.

America's wars are contrived affairs to serve the money laundering machine: from the taxpayers and money borrowed from foreign creditors to the armaments industry to the political contributions that ensure $636 billion "defense" bills.

President George W. Bush gave us wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that are entirely based on lies and misrepresentations. But Obama has done Bush one better. Obama has started a war in Pakistan with no explanation whatsoever. Using those un-manned flying "predator drones" that have killed many more civilians than "terrorists".

If the armaments industry and the neoconservative brownshirts have their way, the US will also be at war with Iran, Russia, Sudan and North Korea.

Meanwhile, America continues to be overrun, as it has been for decades, not by armed foreign enemies but by illegal immigrants across America's porous and undefended borders.

It is more proof of the Orwellian time in which we live that $636 billion appropriated for wars of aggression is called a "defense bill."

Who is going to pay for all of this? When foreign countries have spent their trade surpluses and have no more dollars to recycle into the purchase of Treasury bonds, when US banks have used up their "bailout" money by purchasing Treasury bonds, and when the Federal Reserve cannot print any more money to keep the government going without pushing up inflation and interest rates, the taxpayer will be all that is left. Already Obama's two top economic advisors, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and director of the National Economic Council Larry Summers, are floating the prospect of a middle class tax increase. Will Obama be maneuvered away from his promise just as Bush Sr. was? Remember Bush Sr.'s statement "Read my lips....no new taxes" during his presidential campaign? See how history repeats itself?

Will Americans see the disconnect between their interests and the interests of "their" government? In the small town of Vassalboro, Maine, a few topless waitress jobs in a coffee house drew 150 applicants. Women in this small town are so desperate for jobs that they are reduced to undressing for their neighbors' amusement.

Meanwhile, the Obama government is going to straighten out Afghanistan and Pakistan and build marble palaces to awe the locals half way around the world.

The US government keeps hyping "recovery" the way Bush hyped "terrorist threat" and "weapons of mass destruction." The recovery is no more real than the threats. Indeed, it is possible that the economic collapse has hardly begun. Let's look at what might await us here at home while the US government pursues hegemony abroad.

The real estate crisis is not over. More home foreclosures await as unemployment rises and unemployment benefits are exhausted. The commercial real estate crisis is yet to hit. More bailouts are coming, and they will have to be financed by more debt or money creation. If there are not sufficient purchasers for the Treasury bonds, the Federal Reserve will have to purchase them by creating checking accounts for the Treasury, that is, by debt monetization or the printing of money. AGAIN????

More debt and money creation will put more pressure on the US dollar's exchange value. At some point import prices, which include offshored goods and services of US corporations, will rise, adding to the inflation fueled by domestic money creation. The Federal Reserve will be unable to hold down interest rates by buying bonds.

No part of US economic policy addresses the systemic crisis in American incomes. For most Americans real income ceased to grow some years ago. Americans have substituted second jobs and debt accumulation for the missing growth in real wages. With most households maxed out on debt and jobs disappearing, these substitutes for real income growth no longer exist.

The Bush-Obama economic policy actually worsens the systemic crisis that the US dollar faces as reserve currency. The fact that there might be no alternative to the dollar as reserve currency does not guarantee that the dollar will continue in this role. Countries might find it less risky to settle trade transactions in their own currencies.

How does an economy based heavily on consumer spending recover when so many high-value-added jobs, and the GDP and payroll tax revenues associated with them, have been moved offshore and when consumers have no more assets to leverage in order to increase their spending?

How does the US pay for its imports if the dollar is no longer used as reserve currency? Countries will refuse to accept the increasingly worthless dollar as payment. Uh, oh!

These are the unanswered questions.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan's first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider's Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow's Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.

Contuinue!!!

Excerpts from an excellent article. You may not be familiar with the term "Illuminist". It's a variation of the word Illuminati. Google it, if you dare! I'm beginning to feel a little disappointment in our new President who, I think, hasn't been forceful enough in implementing the "change" he promised during his campaign. I hope it wasn't just "campaign rhetoric" (in other words...bullshit). I know it's been only a few months since he took office. I expected a more visible indication of "change". Real change.....not just the appearance of change while, behind the scenes, it's "business as usual".

I'm talkin' about the increase in the violence as we remain engaged in TWO wars. Not to mention, the "detainees" at Guantanamo Bay who are being deprived of their inalienable rights by being denied due process. Many of whom have been imprisoned for years based on accusation alone. Or Obama's policy of "looking forward, not backward" in refusing to adequately investigate the likely commission of war crimes by the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld clique (as well as other officials in the State and "Justice" Departments).

In my opinion, there were clear violations of international AND Constitutional laws. Why not repeal the so-called "Patriot" Act. That's a good start! We can get back to being truly free. Then, of course, we bailed out the financial elites to the tune of hundreds of billions. Eventually we, the taxpayer, will receive a bill for trillions of dollars. A virtually unpayable debt. Our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be burdened with our current excesses. We need to become more politically and economically astute. Before it's too late. Also, knowledge of history could be highly instrumental in preventing a repeat of mistakes. Check out this very informative and accurate piece of journalistic excellence! A literary masterpiece! Ha! Ha! Later!

The starting point for all analysis of the ongoing bailout orgy that is currently being used in crony capitalist fashion to transfer wealth from our middle class to the financial elites and their transnational conglomerates is whether these bailouts are authorized by the US Constitution. The answer is a resounding NO!

Nothing in the Constitution could ever be interpreted in any manner that would in any way allow the conversion of our quasi-capitalist republic into a police state, which is the last thing our Founding Fathers had in mind.

How can our government simply hand over fiat money created out of thin air, which in itself totally violates the provisions in our Constitution dealing with the issuance of money, to whoever they deem to be too-big-to-fail? The very idea of such targeted bailouts violates every precept upon which our nation was founded, and our Constitution in no way allows the bailout of any private person or business entity, especially where this creates special privileges to be given to a chosen few "anointed" entities at the expense of our citizens in general.

Regulation of interstate commerce does not mean doling out crony capitalist bailouts, which amount to nothing short of the implementation of feudalism under the Puppet Master oligarchs of our Shadow Government. Regulation would mean fining and jailing these criminals and allowing them to fail so better run companies can acquire their assets via liquidation to be supervised by regulators. You reap what you sow in this nation. You do not reap profits for yourself and have everyone else pay for your losses. That is pure poppycock detritus.

But where is our redress? We have a President who is a usurper pushed into office by the Puppet Masters in another violation of our Constitution that limits the Presidency to natural born citizens, we have a bogus Congress beholden to the Puppet Masters for the filling of their campaign coffers in a political system where elective offices are bought and sold based on wealth instead of ability and integrity, and we have a Kangaroo Court System where the judges know not to bite the hands that appointed them, lest their skeletons be released from their closets or worse.

Our regulators, who are in on almost every scam and public rip-off (i.e. the Madoff debacle), look the other way or issue chump change fines without requiring any accountability. The only redress left now are forceful public demonstrations, and if the President and Congress still turn a deaf ear, then there is always the Second Amendment, which is the option which we predict will eventually be used to create a change in our government from total corruption back to public service. Obama wanted "change," and that is what the 
American people are going to give him, not what he is going to give us.

You've seen and heard in the media about the HUGE increase in gun sales after the election of Obama. There is a nationwide shortage of ammunition......people are stockpiling, not just bullets, but food and drinking water. I'm sure fear and uncertainty were the main catalyst driving this unusual behavior and it continues to this day.

When the subprime/credit-crunch debacles first unfolded, we took the position that there should absolutely be no bailouts because such things are illegal, unfair, immoral and flagrantly unconstitutional. You do not mess with private contract rights, or dole out special privileges to a chosen few on a whim, lest you become known as just another Banana Republic. We are a nation of laws and legal precedents. You don't throw out hundreds of years of legal precedent by subordinating secured bondholders to unsecured creditors, all with the blessing of our Supreme Kangaroo Court and its nine numbskulls, who are appropriately dressed like Darth Vader, and then expect any other nation in the world to take you seriously.

Our nation has lost any modicum of credibility and integrity, and the only nations who continue to deal with our government are the ones whose governments are even more criminal than ours is and/or who are caught in a "dollar trap." This fact alone is enough to kill the bond markets. This total disregard of the law and of legal precedents creates tremendous risk in the minds of foreign investors, and that means higher interest rates, and lower bond values, both public and private. And never mind the coming hyperinflation! We deserve to have the dollar lose its reserve status and to have our treasuries rated as "junk" bonds based on the actions of our leaders alone, much less the state of our economy. No contract is sacred anymore. They just make up the rules as they go along.

When we recommended against bailouts, we initially were referring to the subprime borrowers who lied on their applications and never should have been given mortgages in the first place. Bailing out failed financial institutions was the farthest thing from our mind because it was simply unthinkable. Instead, we have seen subprime borrowers given token help and watched in horror as the failed Illuminist financial institutions were given the key to Goldman Sachs South and its Treasury Department. We watched slack-jawed as the United States of America became the "Crony Capitalist Bailout Nation." If anyone is going to be bailed out, it should be the taxpayers and not the elitist transnational corporations and financial institutions who park their foreign profits offshore and don't pay any taxes on those profits! COME ON!!!

But the bailouts of "anointed" Illuminist companies have served one purpose very well. They have provided us with the smoking gun that proves the existence of the Illuminist agenda.

Let us first say that the only sensible solution to all the ongoing debacles, other than an immediate purging of the economy which is what we recommended because it would minimize the pain of financial excess and maximize the speed of recovery, would have been to correct the defaults that were causing the various real estate and other credit derivatives to lose value. The defaults could have been corrected by making the loans current or even by paying them off altogether.

The math is totally obvious. Anyone with a high school diploma, a calculator and Internet access could have figured it out. Yet apparently the people with 1600 combined SAT scores, Ivy League diplomas and many years of Wall Street experience apparently could not figure this out. Do you really believe that? If so, you are incredibly naive. You probably also believe that the psychopathic leverage, moronic lending standards and outlandish ratings on bonds and derivatives were the product of mistakes, greed and poor judgment. Again we say: COME ON!

Yes, the underlings were simply doing as they were told to get their million dollar bonuses even though they knew that what they were doing seemed very imprudent, but the people at the top, from the upper tier of the Illuminist cabal, knew exactly what they were doing. The top dogs created the framework for the underlings to work in. That framework was intentionally and fatally flawed by maniacal leverage, rampant fraud and total lack of any meaningful regulation.

Even a minor problem could be magnified into a major issue via excessive leverage. And any major problem could, by that same excessive leverage, be magnified into a catastrophic financial meltdown that would destroy the US economy, and even the world economy. You have to kill off the old system utterly, so you can install your fascist police state and one world government in the ensuing chaos, and that is exactly what is happening right under your nose, right before your very eyes. Does God have to club you over the head from His throne in Heaven to get you to take notice? Get a freaking clue, America!!!


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Making STARVATION 'profitable'.









I ran into the following short article about hunger and how corporations make money on it. I've read dozens that are longer and more detailed about the causes of hunger. This is just a short one.

A new report (9/2/08) from The World Bank admits that in 2005 three billion one hundred and forty million people live on less that $2.50 a day and about 44% of these people survive on less than $1.25. Complete and total wretchedness can be the only description for the circumstances faced by so many, especially those in urban areas. Simple items like phone calls, nutritious food, vacations, television, dental care, and inoculations are beyond the possible for billions of people. Things we take for granted. At least, for now!

Starvation.net logs the increasing impacts of world hunger and starvation. Over 30,000 people a day (85% children under 5) die of malnutrition, curable diseases, and starvation. The numbers of unnecessary deaths has exceeded three hundred million people over the past forty years.

These are the people who David Rothkopf in his book Superclass calls the unlucky. "If you happen to be born in the wrong place, like sub-Saharan Africa, &#8230;that is bad luck," Rothkopf writes. Rothkopf goes on to describe how the top 10% of the adults worldwide own 84% of the wealth and the bottom half owns barely 1%. Included in the top 10% of wealth holders are the one thousand global billionaires.

But is such a contrast of wealth inequality really the result of luck, or are there policies, supported by political elites, that protect the few at the expense of the many? What do you REALLY think? Is all this by "accident"? As long as we get some "crumbs", do we ignore those who get virtually nothing?

Farmers around the world grow more than enough food to feed the entire world adequately. Global grain production yielded a record 2.3 billion tons in 2007, up 4% from the year before, yet, billions of people go hungry every day. Grain.org describes the core reasons for continuing hunger in a recent article "Making a Killing from Hunger." It turns out that while farmers grow enough food to feed the world, commodity speculators and huge grain traders like Cargill control the global food prices and distribution. Starvation is profitable for corporations when demands for food push the prices up.

Cargill announced that profits for commodity trading for the first quarter of 2008 were 86% above 2007. World food prices grew 22% from June 2007 to June 2008 and a significant portion of the increase was propelled by the $175 billion invested in commodity futures that speculate on price instead of seeking to feed the hungry. The result is wild food price spirals, both up and down, with food insecurity remaining widespread. Profits are to be made when "insecurity" (FEAR!), in any form, runs rampant.

For a family on the bottom rung of poverty a small price increase is the difference between life and death, yet neither US presidential candidate has declared a war on starvation. Instead both candidates talk about national security and the continuation of the war on terror as if this were the primary election issue. Where is the Manhattan project for global hunger? Where is the commitment to national security though unilateral starvation relief? Where is the outrage in the corporate media with pictures of dying children and an analysis of who benefits from hunger?

American people cringe at the thought of starving children, often thinking that there is little they can do about it, save sending in a donation to their favorite charity for a little guilt relief. Yet giving is not enough, we must demand hunger relief as a national policy inside the next presidency. It is a moral imperative for us as the richest nation in the world to prioritize a political movement of human betterment and starvation relief for the billions in need. Global hunger and massive wealth inequality is based on political policies that can be changed. There will be no national security in the US without the basic food needs of the world being realized.

I'm not saying to just throw money at the poor and that will help them.....it won't. We have to help them HELP THEMSELVES!! I read something once that said, "Give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you'll feed him for a lifetime!!!


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Food, water and fuel. Basic necessities.

The sugar coated bullets of the "free market" are killing our children. The act to kill is unpremeditated. It is instrumented in a detached fashion through computer program trading on the New York and Chicago mercantile exchanges, where the global prices of rice, wheat and corn are decided upon.

Poverty is not solely the result of policy failures at a national level. People in different countries are being impoverished simultaneously as a result of a global market mechanism. A small number of financial institutions and global corporations have the ability to determine, through market manipulation, the standard of living of millions of people around the World.

We are at the crossroads of the most serious economic and social crisis in modern history. The process of global impoverishment unleashed at the outset of the 1980s debt crisis has reached a major turning point, leading to the simultaneous outbreak of famines in all major regions of the developing World.

There are many complex features underlying the global economic crisis pertaining to financial markets, the decline in production, the collapse of State institutions and the rapid development of a profit-driven war economy. What is rarely mentioned in this analysis, is how this global economic restructuring forcibly impinges on three fundamental necessities of life: food, water and fuel.

The provision of food, water and fuel is a precondition of civilized society: they are necessary factors for the survival of the human species. In recent years, the prices of these three variables has increased dramatically at the global level, with devastating economic and social consequences.

These three essential goods or commodities, which in a real sense determine the reproduction of economic and social life on planet earth, are under the control of a small number of global corporations and financial institutions.

Both the State as well as the gamut of international organizations --often referred to as the "international community"-- serve the unfettered interests of global capitalism. The main intergovernmental bodies including the United Nations, the Bretton Woods institutions and the World Trade Organizations (WTO) have endorsed the New World Order on behalf of their corporate sponsors. Governments in both developed and developing countries have abandoned their historical role of regulating key economic variables as well as ensuring a minimum livelihood for their people.

Protest movements directed against the hikes in the prices of food and gasoline have erupted simultaneously in different regions of the World. The conditions are particularly critical in Haiti, Nicaragua, Guatemala, India, Bangladesh. Spiraling food and fuel prices in Somalia have precipitated the entire country into a situation of mass starvation, coupled with severe water shortages. A similar and equally serious situation prevails in Ethiopia.

Other countries affected by spiraling food prices include Indonesia, the Philippines, Liberia, Egypt, Sudan, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Eritrea, a long list of impoverished countries..., not to mention those under foreign military occupation including Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine.

Could this happen here? No? Don't be too sure.
Famine in Ethiopia, June 2008

A famine-like situation hits north-eastern Bangladesh in late Autumn 2006 
Most of these labourers in Kurigram go hungry in these three months because of sheer unemployment and a rise in the price of essentials

The provision of food, water and fuel are no longer the object of governmental or intergovernmental regulation or intervention, with a view to alleviating poverty or averting the outbreak of famines.

The fate of millions of human beings is managed behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms as part of a profit driven agenda.

And because these powerful economic actors operate through a seemingly neutral and "invisible" market mechanism, the devastating social impacts of engineered hikes in the prices of food, fuel and water are casually dismissed as the result of supply and demand considerations.

Largely obfuscated by official and media reports, both the " food crisis" and the " oil crisis" are the result of the speculative manipulation of market values by powerful economic actors.

We are not dealing with distinct and separate food, fuel and water "crises" but with a global process of economic and social restructuring.

The dramatic price hikes of these three essential commodities is not haphazard. All three variables, including the prices of basic food staples, water for production and consumption and fuel are the object of a process of deliberate and simultaneous market manipulation.

At the heart of the food crisis is the rising price of food staples coupled with a dramatic increase in the price of fuel.

Concurrently, the price of water which is an essential input into agricultural and industrial production, social infrastructure, public sanitation and household consumption has increased abruptly as a result of a Worldwide movement to privatize water resources.

We are dealing with a major economic and social upheaval, an unprecedented global crisis, characterized by the triangular relationship between water, food and fuel: three fundamental variables, which together affect the very means of human survival.

In very concrete terms, these price hikes impoverish and destroy peoples lives. Moreover, the Worldwide collapse in living standards is occurring at a time of war. It is intimately related to the military agenda. The war in the Middle East bears a direct relationship to the control over oil and water reserves.

While water is not at present an internationally trade commodity in the same way as oil and food staples, it is also the object of market manipulation through the privatization of water.

The economic and financial actors operating behind closed doors, are:

- the major Wall Street banks and financial houses, including the institutional speculators which play a direct role in commodity markets including the oil and food markets

-The Anglo-American oil giants, including British Petroleum (BP), ExxonMobil, Chevron-Texaco, Royal Dutch Shell

-The biotech-agribusiness conglomerates, which own the intellectual property rights on seeds and farm inputs. The biotech companies are also major actors on the NY and Chicago mercantile exchanges.

-The water giants including Suez, Veolia and Bechtel-United Utilities, involved in the extensive privatization of the World's water resources.

-The Anglo-American military-industrial complex which includes the big five US defense contractors (Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grunman, Boeing and General Dynamics) in alliance with British Aerospace Systems Corporation (BAES) constitutes a powerful overlapping force, closely aligned with Wall Street, the oil giants and the agribusiness-biotech conglomerates.

Henry Kissinger........Quote of the CENTURY!!!

"Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control PEOPLE"


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

I'm going to look for this book at Border's. It gives a detailed account of American foreign policy that I failed to get in grade school, highschool and the limited time I spent at college.









Stephen Kinzer: Overthrow

Stephen Kinzer's Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change From Hawaii to Iraq (2006; paperback, 2007, Times Books) provides a compact survey of twelve instances where Americans, working through the US government, overthrew other governments to promote American ideology and interests. The instances are: Hawaii (1893), Cuba (also Puerto Rico and the Philippines, 1898), Nicaragua (1909), Honduras (1910), Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), South Vietnam (1963), Chile (1973), Grenada (1984), Panama (1989), Afghanistan (2001), and Iraq (2003). Most are well known cases, with Kinzer having previously written the book on Iran: All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror. Other cases could have been included: he discards in one line US-supported coups in the Congo, Brazil, and Indonesia, and doesn't even mention dozens of murkier cases.

The Hawaii story is relatively unknown. The coup there was started by American businessmen on the island, backed by the US consul and marines who "happened" to be onhand. This evidently happened with the approval of US president Benjamin Harrison, but his successor, Grover Cleveland, successfully blocked annexation. The US finally annexed Hawaii in 1898 as a sideshow to the Spanish-American War. In the long run, Hawaii resembles the case of Texas, which was even more of a freelance operation. "Remember the ALAMO!"

The Spanish-American War was the US's first big plunge into overseas expansion. It actually followed from the "open door" policies which had led the US into conflicts in Japan and China -- more or less directly triggering the Meiji Restoration which set the Japanese Empire loose on a binge of expansion that only ended in 1945. In addition to direct territorial acquisitions of Puerto Rico and the Philippines, the 1898 war kicked off a cycle of US interventions in and around the Caribbean that only ended with FDR's "good neighbor" policy in the 1930s.

Kinzer focuses on Nicaragua and Honduras as they were the most directly focused on regime change, but also mentions Panama, which the US split off from Colombia in order to gain the Canal Zone. During this period the US also sent troops into Mexico, Venezuela, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and elsewhere.
The nature of US interventions changed following WWII with the establishment of an ideological enemy (communism) and the creation of a covert action organization, the CIA.

One important case Kinzer doesn't write about is South Korea, where the US established a brutal puppet dictatorship that did much to provoke the Korean War. Also uncovered was US support for the Diem regime in South Vietnam, although Kinzer does mention Diem's cancelling the negotiated elections, and covers the US coup that overthrew Diem, allowing the US to draw the Vietnam War out another twelve years, leading to the deaths of fifty thousand US soldiers and a million or more Vietnamese.

The cases from Grenada in 1983 on were run by the US military, although the CIA was initially in charge of Afghanistan, (remember the early 80s? This was when Osama Bin Laden was considered a freedom fighter and got material and logistical support from the CIA!!!) 
so they represent a third stage of American imperialism. The first was explicitly business-directed and managed through gunboat operations. The second was more ideological, implemented largely by the CIA, although the ideology was often subject to explicit businesses, like United Fruit in Guatemala, IT&T in Chile, and the oil cartels in Iran. The third is more blatantly a naked projection of US military power for power's sake.

The following are quotes from his book.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quotes: (p. 3):

In Hawaii and the countries that rose against Spain in 1898, American presidents tested and developed their new interventionist policy. There, however, they were reacting to circumstances created by others. The first time a president acted on his own to depose a foreign leader was in 1909, when William Howard Taft ordered the overthrow of Nicaraguan president José Santos Zelaya. Taft claimed he was acting to protect American security and promote democratic principles. This is 1909!! Sounds kinda familiar today, huh?
His true aim was to defend the right of American companies to operate as they wished in Nicaragua. In a larger sense, he was asserting the right of the United States to impose its preferred form of stability on foreign countries.

This set a pattern. Throughout the twentieth century and into the beginning of the twenty-first, the United States repeatedly used its military power, and that of its clandestine services, to overthrow governments that refused to protect American interests. Each time, it coaked its intervention in the rhetoric of national security and liberation. In most cases, however, it acted mainly for economic reasons -- specifically to establish, promote, and defend the right of Americans to do business around the world without interference. WOW! How history repeats itself!

(p. 42):

Cuban patriots had for years promised that after independence, they would stabilize their country by promoting social justice. Americans wanted something quite different. "The people ask me what we mean by stable government in Cuba," the new military governor, General Leonard Wood, wrote in a report to Washington soon after he assumed office in 1900. "I tell him that when money can be borrowed at a reasonable rate of interest and when capital is willing to invest in the island, a condition of stability will have been reached." In a note to President McKinley, he was even more succinct: "When people ask me what I mean by stable government, I tell them, 'Money at six percent.'"

(pp. 83-84):

Americans have a profoundly compassionate side. Many not only appreciate the freedom and prosperity with which they have been blessed but fervently wish to share their good fortune with others. Time and again, they have proved willing to support foreign interventions that are presented as missions to rescue less fortunate people. That's how we're fooled.

When President McKinley said he was going to war in Cuba to stop "oppression at our very doors," Americans cheered. They did so again a decade later, when the Taft administration declared that it was deposing the government of Nicaragua in order to impose "republican institutions" and promote "real patriotism." Since then, every time the United States has set out to overthrow a foreign government, its leaders have insisted that they are acting not to expand American power but to help people who are suffering. Oh, really?

(pp. 104-105):

Expansion presented the United States with a dilemma that has confronted many colonial powers. If it allowed democracy to flower in the countries it controlled, those nations would begin acting in accordance with their own interests rather than the interest of the United States, and American influence over them would diminish. Establishing that influence, though, was the reason the United States had intervened in those countries in the first place. Americans had to choose between permitting them to become democracies or maintaining power over them. It was an easy choice.

If the United States had been more far-sighted, it might have found a way to embrace and influence reformers in Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Nicaragua, and Honduras. That could have produced a fairer social order in those countries, with two results. First, it would have improved the lives of many who have instead lived and died in poverty. Second, it would have eased festering social conflicts that periodically exploded into violence and dragged the United States into new rounds of intervention. But, you see, there's no profit in helping others.

Nationalists reflexively rebel against governments they perceive as lackeys of foreign power. In the twentieth century, many of these "rebels" were men and women inspired by American history, American principles, and the rhetoric of American democracy. They were critical of the United States, however, and wished to reduce or eliminate the power it wielded over their countries. Their defiance made them anathema to American leaders, who crushed them time after time. "Rebels"? Now they're called "insurgents" or "militants". Bush used to like the word "evildoers".

The course the United States followed brought enormous power and wealth but slowly poisoned the political climate in the affected countries. Over a period of decades, many of their citizens concluded that democratic opposition movements had no chance of success because the United States opposed them so firmly. That led them to begin embracing more radical alternatives. If the elections of 1952 in Cuba had not been canceled, and if candidates like the young Fidel Castro had been allowed to finish their campaigns for public office and use democratic institutions to modernize Cuba, a Communist regime might never had emerged there. If the United States had not resolutely supported dictators in Nicaragua, it would not have been confronted with the leftist Sandinista movement of the 1980s.

(p. 106):

American leaders clamored for this [open door] policy because, they said, the country desperately needed a way to resolve its "glut" of overproduction. This glut, however, was largely illusory. While wealthy Americans were lamenting it, huge numbers of ordinary people were living in conditions of severe deprivation. The surplus production from farms and factories could have been used to lift millions out of poverty, but this would have required a form of wealth redistribution that was repugnant to powerful Americans. Instead, they looked abroad. And "looked abroad" they did! Not to spread "freedom and democracy", but rather to exploit the potential consumer and take advantage of cheap labor.

After WWII, US operations in foreign countries took the form of covert action under the newly formed CIA. The first major exercise of this was in Iran. John Foster Dulles, in response to assurances that Iran's prime minister Mossadegh was no communist (p. 124):

None of this made the slightest impact on Dulles. His deepest instinct, rather than any cool assessment of facts, told him that overthrowing Mossadegh was a good idea. Never did he consult with anyone who believed differently. So, in 1953, the U.S. overthrew Mossadegh....a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Prime Minister of Iran. What happened to "freedom and democracy"????

(p. 161):

Paul Kattenburg, who had become chairman of the administration's Vietnam Interdepartmental Working Group, returned from a trip to Saigon in late August with a very gloomy view. He concluded that the Vietnamese had become steadily more nationalistic and would never accept a foreign-backed regime in Saigon. At a National Security Council meeting on August 31, he suggested that the time had come "for us to make the decision to get out honorably." His comrades promptly slapped him down.
"We will not pull out until the war is won," Rusk told him, curtly and to general approval.

Kattenburg had spoken the unspeakable, and was rewarded for his heresy with a diplomatic post in Guyana. A few weeks later, though, no less a figure than Attorney General Robert Kennedy wondered aloud at a White House meeting whether an eventual Communist victory in Vietnam "could be resisted with any government." If not, he suggested, perhaps it was "time to get out of Vietnam completely." Robert Kennedy later ran for president. Remember what happened to him?? BOOM!! He was shot in the head.

Others at the meeting considered this idea so weird as to be almost beyond response. Robert Kennedy might have been able to press his argument if he had thought it through more carefully and prepared a serious case, but he had not. After he spoke, one person at the meeting later recalled, his suggestion "hovered for a moment then died away, a hopelessly alien thought in a field of unexamined assumptions and entrenched convictions."

(p. 199):

[John Foster] Dulles was tragically mistaken in his view that the Kremlin lay behind the emergence of nationalism in the developing world. He could at least, however, claim consistency in his uncompromising opposition to every nationalist, leftist, or Marxist regime on earth. Nixon and Kissinger could not. While they were working obsessively to force Salvador Allende from power -- and while they supported anti-Communist dictators from Paraguay to Bangladesh -- they were building realistic, cooperative relationships with the Soviet Union and China.

The sophisticated pragmatism that guided them in their policy of détente did not extend to countries that were far less threatening to the United States. When they faced challenges from weak, vulnerable nations like Chile, they reacted with blind emotion rather than cool assessment of long-term interest that guided their approach to Moscow and Beijing. Democratically elected Allende
of Chile was overthrown by the CIA in a "covert operation" (under the direction of mostly Kissinger) in 1973. The date? September 11th!!

(p. 206):

The coup in Guatemala (1954) had another effect that, like many consequences of "regime change" operations, did not become clear until years later. During the Arbenz years, scores of curious Latin American leftists gravitated to Guatemala. One of them was a young Argentine doctor named Che Guevara. After the coup, Guevara flew to Mexico. There he met the Cuban revolutionary Fidel Castro. They discussed the events in Guatemala at great length, and from them drew a lesson that has reverberated throughout all of subsequent Latin American history.

Operation Success taught Cuban revolutionaries -- and those from many other countries -- that the United States would not accept democratic nationalism in Latin America. It gave them a decisive push toward radicalism. They resolved that once in power, they would not work with existing institutions, as Arbenz had done. Instead they would abolish the army, close Congress, decapitate the landholding class, and expel foreign-owned corporations.

(pp. 206-207):

In 1996, under the auspices of the United Nations, Guatemalan military commanders and guerrilla leaders signed a peace treaty. That did little to resolve the huge inequalities of life in Guatemala, where two percent of the people still own half the arable land, but it did end a long, horrific wave of government repression. It also led to the establishment of a Commission on Historical Clarification that was assigned to study the violence and its causes. The commission's report put the number of dead at over 200,000, and said soldiers had killed 93 percent of them. With the knowledge and support of the U.S. government that propped up this right-wing dictatorship.

(p. 250):

[George H.W.] Bush, however, came into office with the handicap of being considered weak and indecisive, and had to deal with what commentators called "the wimp factor." In May, after Noriega imposed his own president against the will of Panamanian voters, Bush announced that he was sending 1,800 troops to American bases in Panama, a step that was intended as a message to Noriega. When a reporter asked the president what he would like the Panamanians to do, Bush replied that they should "just do everything they can to get Mr. Noriega out of there."

(pp. 305-306):

In the hours after American troops invaded Panama and deposed General Manuel Noriega, Panama City degenerated into violent anarchy. This eminently predictable result of the invasion seemed to take the Americans completely by surprise. It took them several days to realize that by destroying the force that guaranteed public order, they had assumed an obligation to replace it themselves until a new local force could be constituted. By then it was too late.

The main boulevards in Panama City are lined with lavishly stocked department stores, exclusive boutiques, and specialty outlets that sell everything from televisions and stereo equipment to diamond jewelry and Jaguars. Shoppers from around Latin America and the Caribbean fly there to spend money, competing with rabiblancos to scoop up the most expensive prizes. The day after the Americans invaded, poor Panamanians had their chance.

By mid-morning on December 21, 1989, the shopping district's main streets were clogged with people pushing factory-fresh stoves, refrigerators, and washing machines. Some appeared with carts and filled them to overflowing with frozen meat, cases of alcohol, furniture, and whatever else they could find. It took them less than thirty-six hours to strip Panama City's famous shopping centers of almost all their goods. The same thing happened in Colón, one of the hemisphere's most active free ports, where swarms of looters smashed freight containers and carried away everything they found. By one estimate, more than $2 billion of merchandise was stolen during these hours. Even a small show of force would have stopped this larcenous frenzy, but American soldiers never appeared.

(p. 315):

There is no stronger or more persistent strain in the American character than the belief that the United States is a nation uniquely endowed with virtue. Americans consider themselves to be, in Herman Melville's words, "a peculiar, chosen people, the Israel of our times." In a nation too new to define itself by real or imagined historical triumphs, and too diverse to be bound together by a shared religion or ethnicity, this belief became the essence of national identity, the conviction that bound Americans to each other and defined their approach to the world.

They are hardly the first people to believe themselves favored by Providence, but they are the only ones in modern history who are convinced that by bringing their political and economic system to others, they are doing God's work.
This view is driven by a profound conviction that the American form of government, based on capitalism and individual political choice, is, as President Bush asserted, "right and true for every person in every society." And, if you disagree, we shoot and bomb you!

It rests on the belief that Western-style democracy is the natural state of all nations and that all will embrace it once the United States removes artificial barriers imposed by regimes based on other principles. By implication, it denies that culture and tradition shape the human psyche, that national consciousness changes only slowly, and that even great powers cannot impose their beliefs on others by force.

(p. 316):

"If the self-evident truths of our founding are true for us," Bush declared soon after the Iraq invasion, "they are true for all." Did Bush really know the "self-evident truths" he talked about.

Generations of Americans have eagerly embraced this belief, largely because it reinforces their self-image as uniquely decent people who want only to share their good fortune with others. More sophisticated defenders of the regime change idea make a better argument. They recognize that the United States considers principally its own interests when deciding whether to overthrow foreign governments, but insist that this is fine because what is good for the United States is also good for everyone else.

In their view, American power is intrinsically benign because the political and economic system it seeks to impose on other countries will make them richer, freer, and happier -- and, as a consequence, create a more peaceful world. Of course, that rarely happens.

(p. 320):

Modern history makes eminently clear that when the United States engages with oppressive and threatening regimes, using combinations of incentives, threats, punishments, and rewards, those regimes slowly become less dangerous. The most obvious examples are China and the former Soviet Union, but the same approach has been highly effective in countries from South Korea to South Africa. Nations the United States confronts only with threats and pressures, and isolates from the international system, like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, never emerge from their cocoons of repression and anti-Americanism.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Check out Paul Craig Roberts' credentials at the very bottom. He's not just some "left-wing, radical traitor" to his country. A common accusation placed on many who are critical of American foreign policy.

Tent cities springing up all over America are filling with the homeless unemployed from the worst economy since the 1930s. While Americans live in tents, the Obama government has embarked on a $1 billion crash program to build a mega-embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, to rival the one the Bush government built in Baghdad, Iraq.

Hard times have now afflicted Americans for so long that even the extension of unemployment benefits from 6 months to 18 months for 24 high unemployment states, and to 46 - 72 weeks in other states, is beginning to run out. By Christmas 1.5 million Americans will have exhausted unemployment benefits while unemployment rolls continue to rise.

Amidst this worsening economic crisis, the House of Representatives just passed a $636 billion "defense" bill.

Who is the United States defending against? Americans have no enemies except those that the US government goes out of its way to create by bombing and invading countries that comprise no threat whatsoever to the US and by encircling others-Russia for example-with threatening military bases.

America's wars are contrived affairs to serve the money laundering machine: from the taxpayers and money borrowed from foreign creditors to the armaments industry to the political contributions that ensure $636 billion "defense" bills.

President George W. Bush gave us wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that are entirely based on lies and misrepresentations. But Obama has done Bush one better. Obama has started a war in Pakistan with no explanation whatsoever. Using those un-manned flying "predator drones" that have killed many more civilians than "terrorists".

If the armaments industry and the neoconservative brownshirts have their way, the US will also be at war with Iran, Russia, Sudan and North Korea.

Meanwhile, America continues to be overrun, as it has been for decades, not by armed foreign enemies but by illegal immigrants across America's porous and undefended borders.

It is more proof of the Orwellian time in which we live that $636 billion appropriated for wars of aggression is called a "defense bill."

Who is going to pay for all of this? When foreign countries have spent their trade surpluses and have no more dollars to recycle into the purchase of Treasury bonds, when US banks have used up their "bailout" money by purchasing Treasury bonds, and when the Federal Reserve cannot print any more money to keep the government going without pushing up inflation and interest rates, the taxpayer will be all that is left.

Already Obama's two top economic advisors, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and director of the National Economic Council Larry Summers, are floating the prospect of a middle class tax increase. Will Obama be maneuvered away from his promise just as Bush Sr. was? Remember Bush Sr.'s statement "Read my lips....no new taxes" during his presidential campaign? See how history repeats itself?

Will Americans see the disconnect between their interests and the interests of "their" government? In the small town of Vassalboro, Maine, a few topless waitress jobs in a coffee house drew 150 applicants. Women in this small town are so desperate for jobs that they are reduced to undressing for their neighbors' amusement.

Meanwhile, the Obama government is going to straighten out Afghanistan and Pakistan and build marble palaces to awe the locals half way around the world.

The US government keeps hyping "recovery" the way Bush hyped "terrorist threat" and "weapons of mass destruction." The recovery is no more real than the threats. Indeed, it is possible that the economic collapse has hardly begun. Let's look at what might await us here at home while the US government pursues hegemony abroad.

The real estate crisis is not over. More home foreclosures await as unemployment rises and unemployment benefits are exhausted. The commercial real estate crisis is yet to hit. More bailouts are coming, and they will have to be financed by more debt or money creation. If there are not sufficient purchasers for the Treasury bonds, the Federal Reserve will have to purchase them by creating checking accounts for the Treasury, that is, by debt monetization or the printing of money. AGAIN????

More debt and money creation will put more pressure on the US dollar's exchange value. At some point import prices, which include offshored goods and services of US corporations, will rise, adding to the inflation fueled by domestic money creation. The Federal Reserve will be unable to hold down interest rates by buying bonds.

No part of US economic policy addresses the systemic crisis in American incomes. For most Americans real income ceased to grow some years ago. Americans have substituted second jobs and debt accumulation for the missing growth in real wages. With most households maxed out on debt and jobs disappearing, these substitutes for real income growth no longer exist.

The Bush-Obama economic policy actually worsens the systemic crisis that the US dollar faces as reserve currency. The fact that there might be no alternative to the dollar as reserve currency does not guarantee that the dollar will continue in this role. Countries might find it less risky to settle trade transactions in their own currencies.

How does an economy based heavily on consumer spending recover when so many high-value-added jobs, and the GDP and payroll tax revenues associated with them, have been moved offshore and when consumers have no more assets to leverage in order to increase their spending?

How does the US pay for its imports if the dollar is no longer used as reserve currency? Countries will refuse to accept the increasingly worthless dollar as payment. Uh, oh!

A RESPONCE!!!

Our dollar is sinking in real value. As is the purchasing power of peoples' wages and or savings. My greatest concern is we're not addressing our main concern

which is energy independence. Energy is costing us more than all the conflicts we can drum up, I can hear the cost of our energy sucking us dry like the big

drain at the bottom of a swimming pool. Have you heard anything about energy independence lately, 30 days, 6 months or a year. The cost of gas went down

some compared to when it was super high and the issue of energy independence went more or less quiet. Makes me believe we're being misdirected from

the real problem to other issues that are controversial at best and at most poverty add ons for all. Who ya gonna tax if nobody has thit. We'll all be real

well taken care of by our national health system when a significant part of our population is starving since they have no work and their government benefits

have run out. The prior big push for a national power grid of electricity running east to west and north to south is another big dollar drain that was talked

about for a while till it was realized that it would bankrupt the country and not be easily defended.

The real truth is if we don't make anything with our own resources ( physically and intellectually ) how can we expect to keep our dollar strong. The more

dollars that leave the US make the dollar less valuable, sooner or later if you spend your wealth then you become the impoverished. Tent cities.

Enemies, war and conflicts all cost money. Is our defense spending out of control - hard to find anybody that doesn't agree with that. Very difficult to

find an individual or a group with the strategy and the power to redirect our national interest. It is in our interest to have a presence around the world -

YES. Do we need to be in all the shooting - No.

Follow the money - where did it come from and where is it going - WHO is directing and WHO is reacting - what is the purpose ?

US borders are not under control for sure. Should our borders be secured? Of course. Do we need immigrants to help the US grow - yes. The US has to be in charge of who those immigrants are and why they are here.

ANOTHER REPLY!

My niece recieved this book from Northwestern University. She said all the incoming freshmen are getting it. It's by Thomas Friedman. He's won multiple Pulitzer prizes for his work. He wrote the book "The World Is Flat". He travels all over the world giving speeches about economics and history. He also contributes articles to most of the major newspapers in the country. This book is titled "Hot, Flat and Crowded". Over the years, he's become a strong advocate for energy independence and how best to achieve it without tearing up the environment and wasting the earth's limited natural resources. It's extremely interesting. You would think he's one of those "treehuggers", but he's not. He's a believer in the free market system. The real free market system.

He brings up so many good points AND they make sense! Like you, he's very concerned about our dependency on oil and how it creates conflict and political turmoil across the globe. He says the money we spend on oil supports what he calls "petrodictators" in the Middle East. These "petrodictators" then fund terrorist organizations who (to put it mildly) don't have our interests in mind. This is just one point! He wants America to get started on what he calls "The Next Great Global Industry". And get started NOW!! We can get a jump on the rest of the world in creating the economic tools necessary to produce clean power and thus become energy efficient. That's the thing.....we got to hurry up before another country (India, China, Russia, etc., etc.) does.

In September of 2007, Friedman was invited to speak in Tianjin, home to many of China's big automakers. The gathering was held at the Marriott Hotel. His audience consisted mostly of Chinese auto industry executives who would listen to his remarks, via translation, on headphones. It was dubbed "The Green Car Congress". You see, China has been steadily improving its own auto mileage and pollution standards and now holds conferences to talk about the latest in green-car technologies. Who knew!! Friedman said he thought long and hard beforehand about what he was going to say to this group to stimulate their thinking and give them a perspective they hadn't heard before. In the end, he decided to go for the jugular. This is going to be a little tedious for me, but let me copy a few words from this book. I'll highlight his words in red:

"Every year I come to China and young Chinese tell me, 'Mr. Friedman, you Americans got to grow dirty for 150 years...you got to have your Industrial Revolution based on coal and oil...now it's OUR turn.' Well, on behalf of all Americans, I am here today to tell you that you're right. It's YOUR turn. Please, take your time, grow as dirty as you like for as long as you like. Take your time! Please! Because I think my country needs only five years to invent all the clean power and energy efficiency tools that you, China, will need to avoid choking on pollution, and then we are going to come over and SELL them all to you.

We will get at least a five year jump on you in the next great global industry: clean power and energy efficiency. We will totally dominate you in those industries. So please, don't rush, grow as dirty as you like for as long as you want. If you want to do it for five more years, that's great. If you want to give us a ten year lead on the next great global industry, that would be even better. Please, take your time."

He goes on to write in his book:

At first, I could see alot of these grizzled Chinese car guys adjusting their earpieces to make sure that they were hearing me right: "What the hell did he just say? America is going to clean our clock in the next great global industry? What industry is that?" But as I went on, I could also see some heads nodding and some wry smiles of recognition from all those who got my point: Clean power is going to be the global standard over the next decade, and clean power tools are going to be the next great global industry, and the countries who make more of them and sell more of them will have a competitive advantage. Those countries will have both the cleanest air and the fastest growing businesses....not a bad combination.

That is the point I was trying to drive home in Tianjin, by making it a competitive issue: The longer China focuses on getting it's share from a world that no longer exists...a world in which people could use dirty fuels with impunity...and the longer it postpones imposing the policies, prices and regulations on itself that will stimulate a clean power industry at scale, the happier I am as an American.
America wins! America wins! America wins!

If only.........

I'm only half way through the book and I've learned so much. I usually finish a book in a few days if it has an interesting storyline. This book is blowing me away and I have to stop reading it just so I can think more about what he's suggesting. It really makes so much sense! We got to make our move NOW! Friedman put it this way: We have to avoid the unmanageable so we can manage the unavoidable. We have to acquire a little political fortitude and push this issue. The American people have to really understand this moment and do everything we can to put in place the winning formula....a renewable energy ecosystem for innovating, generating and deploying clean power, energy efficiency, resource productivity and conservation by becoming aware of the TRUE cost of burning coal, oil and gas. Then we will be able to clean China's clock. As it is, we don't understand the moment. Which is why China (or some other emerging economy) may end up cleaning our clock.







Later!!!


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

IMPERIALISM.....from then'til now'!

Imperialism 101

Chapter 1 of "Against Empire" by Michael Parenti.

Imperialism has been the most powerful force in world history over the last four or five centuries, carving up whole continents while oppressing indigenous peoples and obliterating entire civilizations. Yet, it is seldom accorded any serious attention by our academics, media commentators, and political leaders.

When not ignored outright, the subject of imperialism has been sanitized, so that empires become "commonwealths," and colonies become "territories" or "dominions" (or, as in the case of Puerto Rico, "commonwealths" too). Imperialist military interventions become matters of "national defense," "national security," and maintaining "stability" in one or another region. In this book I want to look at imperialism for what it really is.

Across the Entire Globe

By "imperialism" I mean the process whereby the dominant politico-economic interests of one nation expropriate for their own enrichment the land, labor, raw materials, and markets of another people. 
The earliest victims of Western European imperialism were other Europeans. Some 800 years ago, Ireland became the first colony of what later became known as the British empire. A part of Ireland still remains under British occupation. Other early Caucasian victims included the Eastern Europeans.

The people Charlemagne worked to death in his mines in the early part of the ninth century were Slavs. So frequent and prolonged was the enslavement of Eastern Europeans that "Slav" became synonymous with servitude. Indeed, the word "slave" derives from "Slav." Eastern Europe was an early source of capital accumulation, having become wholly dependent upon Western manufactures by the seventeenth century.

A particularly pernicious example of intra-European imperialism was the Nazi aggression during World War II, which gave the German business cartels and the Nazi state an opportunity to plunder the resources and exploit the labor of occupied Europe, including the slave labor of concentration camps.

The preponderant thrust of the European, North American, and Japanese imperial powers has been directed against Africa, Asia, and Latin America. By the nineteenth century, they saw the Third World as not only a source of raw materials and slaves but a market for manufactured goods. By the twentieth century, the industrial nations were exporting not only goods but capital, in the form of machinery, technology, investments, and loans. To say that we have entered the stage of capital export and investment is not to imply that the plunder of natural resources has ceased. If anything, the despoliation has accelerated.

Of the various notions about imperialism circulating today in the United States, the dominant view is that it does not exist. Imperialism is not recognized as a legitimate concept, certainly not in regard to the United States. One may speak of "Soviet imperialism" or "nineteenth-century British imperialism" but not of U.S. imperialism. A graduate student in political science at most universities in this country would not be granted the opportunity to research U.S. imperialism, on the grounds that such an undertaking would not be scholarly. While many people throughout the world charge the United States with being an imperialist power, in this country persons who talk of U.S. imperialism are usually judged to be mouthing ideological blather.

The Dynamic of Capital Expansion
Imperialism is older than capitalism. The Persian, Macedonian, Roman, and Mongol empires all existed centuries before the Rothschilds and Rockefellers. Emperors and conquistadors were interested mostly in plunder and tribute, gold and glory. Capitalist imperialism differs from these earlier forms in the way it systematically accumulates capital through the organized exploitation of labor and the penetration of overseas markets. Capitalist imperialism invests in other countries, transforming and dominating their economies, cultures, and political life, integrating their financial and productive structures into an international system of capital accumulation.

A central imperative of capitalism is expansion. Investors will not put their money into business ventures unless they can extract more than they invest. Increased earnings come only with a growth in the enterprise. The capitalist ceaselessly searches for ways of making more money in order to make still more money. One must always invest to realize profits, gathering as much strength as possible in the face of competing forces and unpredictable markets.

Given its expansionist nature, capitalism has little inclination to stay home. Almost 150 years ago, Marx and Engels described a bourgeoisie that "chases over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere. . . . It creates a world after its own image." The expansionists destroy whole societies. Self-sufficient peoples are forcibly transformed into disfranchised wage workers. Indigenous communities and folk cultures are replaced by mass-market, mass-media, consumer societies. Cooperative lands are supplanted by agribusiness factory farms, villages by desolate shanty towns, autonomous regions by centralized autocracies.

Consider one of a thousand such instances. A few years ago the Los Angeles Times carried a special report on the rainforests of Borneo in the South Pacific. By their own testimony, the people there lived contented lives. They hunted, fished, and raised food in their jungle orchards and groves. But their entire way of life was ruthlessly wiped out by a few giant companies that destroyed the rainforest in order to harvest the hardwood for quick profits. Their lands were turned into ecological disaster areas and they themselves were transformed into disfranchised shantytown dwellers, forced to work for subsistence wages-when fortunate enough to find employment.

North American and European corporations have acquired control of more than three-fourths of the known mineral resources of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. But the pursuit of natural resources is not the only reason for capitalist overseas expansion. There is the additional need to cut production costs and maximize profits by investing in countries with cheaper labor markets. U.S. corporate foreign investment grew 84 percent from 1985 to 1990, the most dramatic increase being in cheap-labor countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Spain, and Singapore.

Because of low wages, low taxes, nonexistent work benefits, weak labor unions, and nonexistent occupational and environmental protections, U.S. corporate profit rates in the Third World are 50 percent greater than in developed countries. Citibank, one of the largest U.S. firms, earns about 75 percent of its profits from overseas operations. While profit margins at home sometimes have had a sluggish growth, earnings abroad have continued to rise dramatically, fostering the development of what has become known as the multinational or transnational corporation. Today some four hundred transnational companies control about 80 percent of the capital assets of the global free market and are extending their grasp into the ex-communist countries of Eastern Europe.

Transnationals have developed a global production line. General Motors has factories that produce cars, trucks and a wide range of auto components in Canada, Brazil, Venezuela, Spain, Belgium, Yugoslavia, Nigeria, Singapore, Philippines, South Africa, South Korea and a dozen other countries. Such "multiple sourcing" enables GM to ride out strikes in one country by stepping up production in another, playing workers of various nations against each other in order to discourage wage and benefit demands and undermine labor union strategies.

Not Necessary, Just Compelling
Some writers question whether imperialism is a necessary condition for capitalism, pointing out that most Western capital is invested in Western nations, not in the Third World. If corporations lost all their Third World investments, they argue, many of them could still survive on their European and North American markets. In response, one should note that capitalism might be able to survive without imperialism-but it shows no inclination to do so. It manifests no desire to discard its enormously profitable Third World enterprises. Imperialism may not be a necessary condition for investor survival but it seems to be an inherent tendency and a natural outgrowth of advanced capitalism. Imperial relations may not be the only way to pursue profits, but they are the most lucrative way.

Whether imperialism is necessary for capitalism is really not the question. Many things that are not absolutely necessary are still highly desirable, therefore strongly preferred and vigorously pursued. Overseas investors find the Third World's cheap labor, vital natural resources, and various other highly profitable conditions to be compellingly attractive. Superprofits may not be necessary for capitalism's survival but survival is not all that capitalists are interested in. Superprofits are strongly preferred to more modest earnings. That there may be no necessity between capitalism and imperialism does not mean there is no compelling linkage.

The same is true of other social dynamics. For instance, wealth does not necessarily have to lead to luxurious living. A higher portion of an owning class's riches could be used for investment rather personal consumption. The very wealthy could survive on more modest sums but that is not how most of them prefer to live. Throughout history, wealthy classes generally have shown a preference for getting the best of everything. After all, the whole purpose of getting rich off other people's labor is to live well, avoiding all forms of thankless toil and drudgery, enjoying superior opportunities for lavish life-styles, medical care, education, travel, recreation, security, leisure, and opportunities for power and prestige. While none of these things are really "necessary," they are fervently clung to by those who possess them-as witnessed by the violent measures endorsed by advantaged classes whenever they feel the threat of an equalizing or leveling democratic force.

Myths of Underdevelopment
The impoverished lands of Asia, Africa, and Latin America are known to us as the "Third World," to distinguish them from the "First World" of industrialized Europe and North America and the now largely defunct "Second World" of communist states. Third World poverty, called "underdevelopment," is treated by most Western observers as an original historic condition. We are asked to believe that it always existed, that poor countries are poor because their lands have always been infertile or their people unproductive. 
In fact, the lands of Asia, Africa, and Latin America have long produced great treasures of foods, minerals and other natural resources. That is why the Europeans went through all the trouble to steal and plunder them. One does not go to poor places for self-enrichment. The Third World is rich. Only its people are poor-and it is because of the pillage they have endured.

The process of expropriating the natural resources of the Third World began centuries ago and continues to this day. First, the colonizers extracted gold, silver, furs, silks, and spices, then flax, hemp, timber, molasses, sugar, rum, rubber, tobacco, calico, cocoa, coffee, cotton, copper, coal, palm oil, tin, iron, ivory, ebony, and later on, oil, zinc, manganese, mercury, platinum, cobalt, bauxite, aluminum, and uranium. Not to be overlooked is that most hellish of all expropriations: the abduction of millions of human beings into slave labor.

Through the centuries of colonization, many self-serving imperialist theories have been spun. I was taught in school that people in tropical lands are slothful and do not work as hard as we denizens of the temperate zone. In fact, the inhabitants of warm climates have performed remarkably productive feats, building magnificent civilizations well before Europe emerged from the Dark Ages. And today they often work long, hard hours for meager sums. Yet the early stereotype of the "lazy native" is still with us. In every capitalist society, the poor-both domestic and overseas-regularly are blamed for their own condition.

We hear that Third World peoples are culturally retarded in their attitudes, customs, and technical abilities. It is a convenient notion embraced by those who want to depict Western investments as a rescue operation designed to help backward peoples help themselves. This myth of "cultural backwardness" goes back to ancient times, when conquerors used it to justify enslaving indigenous peoples. It was used by European colonizers over the last five centuries for the same purpose.

What cultural supremacy could by claimed by the Europeans of yore? From the fifteenth to nineteenth centuries Europe was "ahead" in a variety of things, such as the number of hangings, murders, and other violent crimes; instances of venereal disease, smallpox, typhoid, tuberculosis, plagues, and other bodily afflictions; social inequality and poverty (both urban and rural); mistreatment of women and children; and frequency of famines, slavery, prostitution, piracy, religious massacres, and inquisitional torture. Those who claim the West has been the most advanced civilization should keep such "achievements" in mind.

More seriously, we might note that Europe enjoyed a telling advantage in navigation and armaments. Muskets and cannon, Gatling guns and gunboats, and today missiles, helicopter gunships, and fighter bombers have been the deciding factors when West meets East and North meets South. Superior firepower, not superior culture, has brought the Europeans and Euro-North Americans to positions of supremacy that today are still maintained by force, though not by force alone.

It was said that colonized peoples were biologically backward and less evolved than their colonizers. Their "savagery" and "lower" level of cultural evolution were emblematic of their inferior genetic evolution. But were they culturally inferior? In many parts of what is now considered the Third World, people developed impressive skills in architecture, horticulture, crafts, hunting, fishing, midwifery, medicine, and other such things. Their social customs were often far more gracious and humane and less autocratic and repressive than anything found in Europe at that time. Of course we must not romanticize these indigenous societies, some of which had a number of cruel and unusual practices of their own. But generally, their peoples enjoyed healthier, happier lives, with more leisure time, than did most of Europe's inhabitants.

Other theories enjoy wide currency. We hear that Third World poverty is due to overpopulation, too many people having too many children to feed. Actually, over the last several centuries, many Third World lands have been less densely populated than certain parts of Europe. India has fewer people per acre-but more poverty-than Holland, Wales, England, Japan, Italy, and a few other industrial countries. Furthermore, it is the industrialized nations of the First World, not the poor ones of the Third, that devour some 80 percent of the world's resources and pose the greatest threat to the planet's ecology.

This is not to deny that overpopulation is a real problem for the planet's ecosphere. Limiting population growth in all nations would help the global environment but it would not solve the problems of the poor-because overpopulation in itself is not the cause of poverty but one of its effects. The poor tend to have large families because children are a source of family labor and income and a support during old age.

Frances Moore Lappe and Rachel Schurman found that of seventy Third World countries, there were six-China, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Chile, Burma, and Cuba-and the state of Kerala in India that had managed to lower their birth rates by one third. They enjoyed neither dramatic industrial expansion nor high per capita incomes nor extensive family planning programs. The factors they had in common were public education and health care, a reduction of economic inequality, improvements in women's rights, food subsidies, and in some cases land reform. In other words, fertility rates were lowered not by capitalist investments and economic growth as such but by socio-economic betterment, even of a modest scale, accompanied by the emergence of women's rights.

Artificially Converted to Poverty
What is called "underdevelopment" is a set of social relations that has been forcefully imposed on countries. With the advent of the Western colonizers, the peoples of the Third World were actually set back in their development sometimes for centuries. British imperialism in India provides an instructive example. In 1810, India was exporting more textiles to England than England was exporting to India. By 1830, the trade flow was reversed. The British had put up prohibitive tariff barriers to shut out Indian finished goods and were dumping their commodities in India, a practice backed by British gunboats and military force. Within a matter of years, the great textile centers of Dacca and Madras were turned into ghost towns. The Indians were sent back to the land to raise the cotton used in British textile factories. In effect, India was reduced to being a cow milked by British financiers.

By 1850, India's debt had grown to 53 million pounds. From 1850 to 1900, its per capita income dropped by almost two-thirds. The value of the raw materials and commodities the Indians were obliged to send to Britain during most of the nineteenth century amounted yearly to more than the total income of the sixty million Indian agricultural and industrial workers. The massive poverty we associate with India was not that country's original historical condition. British imperialism did two things: first, it ended India's development, then it forcibly underdeveloped that country.

Similar bleeding processes occurred throughout the Third World. The enormous wealth extracted should remind us that there originally were few really poor nations. Countries like Brazil, Indonesia, Chile, Bolivia, Zaire, Mexico, Malaysia, and the Philippines were and sometimes still are rich in resources. Some lands have been so thoroughly plundered as to be desolate in all respects. However, most of the Third World is not "underdeveloped" but overexploited. Western colonization and investments have created a lower rather than a higher living standard.

Referring to what the English colonizers did to the Irish, Frederick Engels wrote in 1856: "How often have the Irish started out to achieve something, and every time they have been crushed politically and industrially. By consistent oppression they have been artificially converted into an utterly impoverished nation." So with most of the Third World. The Mayan Indians in Guatemala had a more nutritious and varied diet and better conditions of health in the early 16th century before the Europeans arrived than they have today. They had more craftspeople, architects, artisans, and horticulturists than today. What is called underdevelopment is not an original historical condition but a product of imperialism's superexploitation.

Underdevelopment is itself a development.

Imperialism has created what I have termed "maldevelopment": modern office buildings and luxury hotels in the capital city instead of housing for the poor, cosmetic surgery clinics for the affluent instead of hospitals for workers, cash export crops for agribusiness instead of food for local markets, highways that go from the mines and latifundios to the refineries and ports instead of roads in the back country for those who might hope to see a doctor or a teacher.

Wealth is transferred from Third World peoples to the economic elites of Europe and North America (and more recently Japan) by direct plunder, by the expropriation of natural resources, the imposition of ruinous taxes and land rents, the payment of poverty wages, and the forced importation of finished goods at highly inflated prices. The colonized country is denied the freedom of trade and the opportunity to develop its own natural resources, markets, and industrial capacity. Self-sustenance and self-employment gives way to wage labor. From 1970 to 1980, the number of wage workers in the Third World grew from 72 million to 120 million, and the rate is accelerating.

Hundreds of millions of Third World peoples now live in destitution in remote villages and congested urban slums, suffering hunger, disease, and illiteracy, often because the land they once tilled is now controlled by agribusiness firms who use it for mining or for commercial export crops such as coffee, sugar, and beef, instead of growing beans, rice, and corn for home consumption. A study of twenty of the poorest countries, compiled from official statistics, found that the number of people living in what is called "absolute poverty" or rockbottom destitution, the poorest of the poor, is rising 70,000 a day and should reach 1.5 billion by the year 2000 (San Francisco Examiner, June 8, 1994).

Imperialism forces millions of children around the world to live nightmarish lives, their mental and physical health severely damaged by endless exploitation. A documentary film on the Discovery Channel (April 24, 1994) reported that in countries like Russia, Thailand, and the Philippines, large numbers of minors are sold into prostitution to help their desperate families survive. In countries like Mexico, India, Colombia, and Egypt, children are dragooned into health-shattering, dawn-to-dusk labor on farms and in factories and mines for pennies an hour, with no opportunity for play, schooling, or medical care.

In India, 55 million children are pressed into the work force. Tens of thousands labor in glass factories in temperatures as high as 100 degrees. In one plant, four-year-olds toil from 5 o'clock in the morning until the dead of night, inhaling fumes and contracting emphysema, tuberculosis, and other respiratory diseases. In the Philippines and Malaysia corporations have lobbied to drop age restrictions for labor recruitment. The pursuit of profit becomes a pursuit of evil.

Development Theory

When we say a country is "underdeveloped," we are implying that it is backward and retarded in some way, that its people have shown little capacity to achieve and evolve. The negative connotations of "underdeveloped" has caused the United Nations, the Wall Street Journal, and parties of various political persuasion to refer to Third World countries as "developing" nations, a term somewhat less insulting than "underdeveloped" but equally misleading. I prefer to use "Third World" because "developing" seems to be just a euphemistic way of saying "underdeveloped but belatedly starting to do something about it." It still implies that poverty was an original historic condition and not something imposed by the imperialists. It also falsely suggests that these countries are developing when actually their economic conditions are usually worsening.

The dominant theory of the last half century, enunciated repeatedly by writers like Barbara Ward and W. W. Rostow and afforded wide currency in the United States and other parts of the Western world, maintains that it is up to the rich nations of the North to help uplift the "backward" nations of the South, bringing them technology and teaching them proper work habits. This is an updated version of "the White man's burden," a favorite imperialist fantasy.

According to the development scenario, with the introduction of Western investments, the backward economic sectors of the poor nations will release their workers, who then will find more productive employment in the modern sector at higher wages. As capital accumulates, business will reinvest its profits, thus creating still more products, jobs, buying power, and markets. Eventually a more prosperous economy evolves. Oh, really?

This "development theory" or "modernization theory," as it is sometimes called, bears little relation to reality. What has emerged in the Third World is an intensely exploitive form of dependent capitalism. Economic conditions have worsened drastically with the growth of transnational corporate investment. The problem is not poor lands or unproductive populations but foreign exploitation and class inequality. Investors go into a country not to uplift it but to enrich themselves.

People in these countries do not need to be taught how to farm. They need the land and the implements to farm. They do not need to be taught how to fish. They need the boats and the nets and access to shore frontage, bays, and oceans. They need industrial plants to cease dumping toxic effusions into the waters. They do not need to be convinced that they should use hygienic standards. They do not need a Peace Corps Volunteer to tell them to boil their water, especially when they cannot afford fuel or have no access to firewood. They need the conditions that will allow them to have clean drinking water and clean clothes and homes. They do not need advice about balanced diets from North Americans. They usually know what foods best serve their nutritional requirements. They need to be given back their land and labor so that they might work for themselves and grow food for their own consumption.

The legacy of imperial domination is not only misery and strife, but an economic structure dominated by a network of international corporations which themselves are beholden to parent companies based in North America, Europe and Japan. If there is any harmonization or integration, it occurs among the global investor classes, not among the indigenous economies of these countries. Third World economies remain fragmented and unintegrated both between each other and within themselves, both in the flow of capital and goods and in technology and organization. In sum, what we have is a world economy that has little to do with the economic needs of the world's people.

Neoimperialism: Skimming the Cream
Sometimes imperial domination is explained as arising from an innate desire for domination and expansion, a "territorial imperative." In fact, territorial imperialism is no longer the prevailing mode. Compared to the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when the European powers carved up the world among themselves, today there is almost no colonial dominion left. Colonel Blimp is dead and buried, replaced by men in business suits. Rather than being directly colonized by the imperial power, the weaker countries have been granted the trappings of sovereignty-while Western finance capital retains control of the lion's share of their profitable resources. This relationship has gone under various names: "informal empire," "colonialism without colonies," "neocolonialism," and "neoimperialism."

U.S. political and business leaders were among the earliest practitioners of this new kind of empire, most notably in Cuba at the beginning of the twentieth century. Having forcibly wrested the island from Spain in the war of 1898, they eventually gave Cuba its formal independence. The Cubans now had their own government, constitution, flag, currency, and security force. But major foreign policy decisions remained in U.S. hands as did the island's wealth, including its sugar, tobacco, and tourist industries, and major imports and exports.

Historically U.S. capitalist interests have been less interested in acquiring more colonies than in acquiring more wealth, preferring to make off with the treasure of other nations without bothering to own and administer the nations themselves. Under neoimperialism, the flag stays home, while the dollar goes everywhere-frequently assisted by the sword.

After World War II, European powers like Britain and France adopted a strategy of neoimperialism. Left financially depleted by years of warfare, and facing intensified popular resistance from within the Third World itself, they reluctantly decided that indirect economic hegemony was less costly and politically more expedient than outright colonial rule. They discovered that the removal of a conspicuously intrusive colonial rule made it more difficult for nationalist elements within the previously colonized countries to mobilize anti-imperialist sentiments.

Though the newly established government might be far from completely independent, it usually enjoyed more legitimacy in the eyes of its populace than a colonial administration controlled by the imperial power. Furthermore, under neoimperialism the native government takes up the costs of administering the country while the imperialist interests are free to concentrate on accumulating capital-which is all they really want to do.

After years of colonialism, the Third World country finds it extremely difficult to extricate itself from the unequal relationship with its former colonizer and impossible to depart from the global capitalist sphere. Those countries that try to make a break are subjected to punishing economic and military treatment by one or another major power, nowadays usually the United States.

The leaders of the new nations may voice revolutionary slogans, yet they find themselves locked into the global capitalist orbit, cooperating perforce with the First World nations for investment, trade, and aid. So we witnessed the curious phenomenon of leaders of newly independent Third World nations denouncing imperialism as the source of their countries' ills, while dissidents in these countries denounced these same leaders as collaborators of imperialism.

In many instances a comprador class emerged or was installed as a first condition for independence. A comprador class is one that cooperates in turning its own country into a client state for foreign interests. A client state is one that is open to investments on terms that are decidedly favorable to the foreign investors. In a client state, corporate investors enjoy direct subsidies and land grants, access to raw materials and cheap labor, light or nonexistent taxes, few effective labor unions, no minimum wage or child labor or occupational safety laws, and no consumer or environmental protections to speak of. The protective laws that do exist go largely unenforced.

In all, the Third World is something of a capitalist paradise, offering life as it was in Europe and the United States during the nineteenth century, with a rate of profit vastly higher than what might be earned today in a country with strong economic regulations. The comprador class is well recompensed for its cooperation. Its leaders enjoy opportunities to line their pockets with the foreign aid sent by the U.S. government.

Stability is assured with the establishment of security forces, armed and trained by the United States in the latest technologies of terror and repression. Still, neoimperialism carries risks. The achievement of de jure independence eventually fosters expectations of de facto independence. The forms of self rule incite a desire for the fruits of self rule. Sometimes a national leader emerges who is a patriot and reformer rather than a comprador collaborator. Therefore, the changeover from colonialism to neocolonialism is not without risks for the imperialists and represents a net gain for popular forces in the world.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

BIG brother IS watching!









The Federal Bureau of Investigation's budget request for Fiscal Year 2010 reveals that America's political police intend to greatly expand their high-tech surveillance capabilities.

According to ABC News, the FBI is seeking additional funds for the development of "a new 'Advanced Electronic Surveillance' program which is being funded at $233.9 million for 2010. The program has 133 employees, 15 of whom are agents."

Electronic Surveillance deploys "tools and techniques for performing lawfully-authorized intercepts of wired and wireless telecommunications and data network communications technologies; enhancing unintelligible audio; and working with the communications industry as well as regulatory and legislative bodies to ensure that our continuing ability to conduct electronic surveillance will not be impaired as technology evolves."

But as we have seen throughout the entire course of the so-called "war on terror," systemic constitutional breeches by the FBI--from their abuse of National Security Letters, the proliferation of corporate-dominated Fusion Centers to the infiltration of provocateurs into antiwar and other dissident groups--the only thing "impaired" by an out-of-control domestic spy agency have been the civil liberties of Americans.

Communications Backdoor Provided by Telecom Grifters

While the Bureau claims that it performs "lawfully-authorized intercepts" in partnership with the "communications industry," also known as telecommunications' grifters, the available evidence suggests otherwise.

As Antifascist Calling reported last year, security consultant and whistleblower Babak Pasdar, in a sworn affidavit to the Government Accountability Project (GAP), provided startling details about the collusive--and profitable alliance--between the FBI and America's wireless carriers. Chi-ching, again!

Pasdar furnished evidence that FBI agents have instantly transferred data along a high-speed computer circuit to a Bureau technology office in Quantico, Virginia. The so-called Quantico Circuit was provided to the FBI by Verizon, The Washington Post revealed.

According to published reports, the company maintains a 45 megabit/second DS-3 digital line that allowed the FBI and other security agencies virtually "unfettered access" to the carrier's wireless network, including billing records and customer data "transferred wirelessly." Verizon and other telecom giants have supplied FBI technical specialists with real-time access to customer data.

"The circuit was tied to the organization's core network," Pasdar wrote. Such access would expose customers' voice calls, data packets, even their physical movements and geolocation to uncontrolled--and illegal--surveillance. You are being watched.

In April, Wired obtained documents from the FBI under a Freedom of Information Act request. Those files demonstrate how the Bureau's "geek squad" routinely hack into wireless, cellular and computer networks.

Although the FBI released 152 heavily-redacted pages, they withheld another 623, claiming a full release would reveal a "sensitive investigative technique." Nevertheless, Wired discovered that the FBI is deploying spyware called a "computer internet protocol address verifier," or CIPAV, designed to infiltrate a target's computer and gather a wide range of information, "which it sends to an FBI server in eastern Virginia." While the documents do not detail CIPAV's capabilities, an FBI affidavit from a 2007 case indicate it gathers and reports,

a computer's IP address; MAC address; open ports; a list of running programs; the operating system type, version and serial number; preferred internet browser and version; the computer's registered owner and registered company name; the current logged-in user name and the last-visited URL.

After sending the information to the FBI, the CIPAV settles into a silent "pen register" mode, in which it lurks on the target computer and monitors its internet use, logging the IP address of every server to which the machine connects. (Kevin Poulsen, "FBI Spyware Has Been Snaring Extortionists, Hackers for Years," Wired, April 16, 2009)

"Going Dark" is ostensibly designed to help the Bureau deal with technological changes and methods to intercept Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) phone calls facilitated by programs such as Skype. But a tool that can seamlessly target hackers and cyber-criminals can just as easily be deployed against political opponents. You really think this won't happen?

The FBI also intends to continue their use of automated link- and behavioral analysis derived from data mining as investigative tools. As a subset of applied mathematics, social network theory and its derivatives, link- and behavioral analysis, purport to uncover hidden relationships amongst social groups and networks. Over time, it has become an invasive tool deployed by private- and state intelligence agencies against political activists, most recently, as Antifascist Calling reported in February, against protest groups organizing against the Republican National Convention.

These methods raise very troubling civil liberties' and privacy concerns. With the proliferation of social networking sites, applications allow users to easily share information about themselves with others. But as EPIC points out, "Many online services relay information about online associations as users create new relationships. Will an agreement between Facebook and the FBI facilitate "dot connecting" or will it serve as a new, insidious means to widen the surveillance net, building ever-more intrusive electronic case files on dissident Americans?

Additionally, the civil liberties' group revealed that "records obtained through National Security Letters are placed in the Telephone Application, as well as the IDW by way of the ACS [Automated Case] system." It would appear that "Going Dark" will serve as a research subsystem feeding the insatiable appetite of the Investigative Data Warehouse.

In fact, these programs are part and parcel of what the security website Cryptohippie refers to as the Electronic Police State. Far from keeping us safe from all manner of dastardly plots hatched by criminals and/or terrorists, Cryptohippie avers:

An electronic police state is quiet, even unseen. All of its legal actions are supported by abundant evidence. It looks pristine.

An electronic police state is characterized by this:

State use of electronic technologies to record, organize, search and distribute forensic evidence against its citizens.

The two crucial facts about the information gathered under an electronic police state are these:

1. It is criminal evidence, ready for use in a trial.

2. It is gathered universally and silently, and only later organized for use in prosecutions.

In an Electronic Police State, every surveillance camera recording, every email you send, every Internet site you surf, every post you make, every check you write, every credit card swipe, every cell phone ping... are all criminal evidence, and they are held in searchable databases, for a long, long time. Whoever holds this evidence can make you look very, very bad whenever they care enough to do so. You can be prosecuted whenever they feel like it--the evidence is already in their database. ("The Electronic Police State, 2008 National Rankings," Cryptohippie, no date)

Unfortunately, this is not the stuff of paranoid fantasies, but American reality in the year 2009; one unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

In addition to "Going Dark," the FBI is busily constructing what ABC News refers to as the "development of the Biometric Technology Center, a Joint Justice, FBI and DoD program." At a cost of $97.6 million, the center will function as a research and development arm of the Bureau's Biometric Center of Excellence (BCOE), one which will eventually "be a vast database of personal data including fingerprints, iris scans and DNA which the FBI calls the Next Generation Identification (NGI)."

But as The Register pointed out when the program was publicly rolled-out, "civil libertarians and privacy advocates are not amused."

They claim that the project presents nightmare scenarios of stolen biometric information being used for ever-more outlandish forms of identity theft, which would be nearly impossible to correct. Correcting an inaccurate credit report is already an insulting and hair-raising experience in America, and critics contend that the use of biometrics would make correcting inaccurate credit reports or criminal histories nearly impossible. Besides, they argue, the US government does not exactly have a sterling record when it comes to database security--what happens when, as seems inevitable, the database is hacked and this intimate and allegedly indisputable data is compromised? ...

Databases usually become less accurate, rather than more, the older and bigger they get, because there's very little incentive for the humans that maintain them to go back and correct old, inaccurate information rather than simply piling on new information. Data entry typically trumps data accuracy. Furthermore, the facial recognition technology in its current iteration is woefully inaccurate, with recognition rates as low as 10 per cent at night. All in all, there is ample reason for skepticism--not that it will make much of a difference. (Burke Hansen, "FBI preps $1bn biometric database," The Register, December 24, 2007)

But WVU's CITeR isn't the only partner lining-up to feed at the FBI's trough. ABC reports that the Bureau "has awarded the NGI contract to Lockheed Martin to update and maintain the database which is expected to come online in 2010. After being fully deployed the NGI contract could cost up to $1 billion."

However, Federal Computer Week reported in 2008 that although the initial contract will "consist of a base year," the potential for "nine option years" means that "the value of the multiyear contract ... could be higher." You can bet it will!

Additional firms on Lockheed Martin's "team" as subcontractors include IBM, Accenture, BAE Systems, Global Science & Technology, Innovative Management & Technology Services and Platinum Solutions. In other words, NGI is yet another in a gigantic herd of cash cows enriching the Military-Industrial-Security Complex.

Democracy "Going Dark"

The "vast apparatus of domestic spying" greatly expanded under the criminal Bush regime is a permanent feature of the capitalist state; one that will continue to target political dissent during a period of profound economic crisis.

That the Obama administration, purportedly representing fundamental change from the previous government, has embraced the felonious methods of the Bush crime family and its capo tutti capo, Richard Cheney, should surprise no one. Like their Republican colleagues, the Democrats are equally complicit in the antidemocratic programs of repression assembled under the mendacious banner of the "global war on terror." Damn, I hate when that happens.

From warrantless wiretapping to the suppression of information under cover of state secrets, and from the waging of imperialist wars of conquest to torture, the militarist mind-set driving capitalist elites at warp speed towards an abyss of their own creation, are signs that new political provocations are being prepared by America's permanent "shadow government"--the military-intelligence-corporate apparatus.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Congress has the power to declare war. NOT one man!









Real nice article down below that serves as a reminder (again!) of how we've deviated from the Constitutional rule of law. Amazing how the tentacles of fear are able to squeeze our hearts and minds enough to relinquish, without a fight, what so many have fought and died for. The Korean War was a "police action". "Police action"? Those words were created to circumvent the Constitution. Where's POLICE ACTION in the Constitution? We just make up terms, now? More euphemisms to cloud true intentions?

The undeclared Vietnam War costs the lives of over 54,000 Americans and up to a million Vietnamese. At that time, they scared us with the term "domino effect". In other words, if Vietnam "fell" to the communists, all the other countries of the region would also "fall" and coalesce into a "communist bloc" resulting in a threat to our "safety and security". IT NEVER HAPPENED!!!! South Vietnam became communist and the world DID NOT END!!! How can a little country like Vietnam scare America. Or Haiti, Panama, Grenada, etc., etc.?

Why is it that when many other countries want to determine their own destiny by utilizing their own resources to uplift their people, this causes us to tremble with unmitigated fear. I'll tell you.....it's because we fall for the "baloney" (I wanted to use another term, but I'll keep it clean). These countries want "self-determination" in it's truest form. No outside or foreign interference. This is what makes them "dangerous"? A threat to us? Or a threat to transnational corporations who have NO ALLEGIANCE to any country, including ours?

Corporations exist for the sole purpose of making a profit. PERIOD! If other people want to live in tents, LET THEM!! If they want to live in the forests, deserts or mountains....LET THEM!! Now we have a classic case of history repeating itself......Iraq and Afghanistan. We haven't learned. We keep trying to shape other people in our image.....ALWAYS against their will. Ciao!!!

Great article...

On occasion, critics of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have questioned, with good reason, whether the American war in Afghanistan has been carried far beyond what Congress authorized. This raises a fundamental question that has bedeviled the country since 1950.

Although the Constitution requires Congress to make the decision to go to war and to decide the kind of war to be fought (navel, land, air), since the Korean conflict it has largely abdicated that responsibility to the president, says a law school dean and authority on the issue. The result has been more frequent (and frequently misguided) wars, than there would have been had Congress done its duty.

"Since 1950, the constitutional plan (of America's founders) has been destroyed, and the power to start wars without a previous Congressional declaration or authorization has been claimed by every President except Eisenhower," says Lawrence Velvel, dean of the Masachusetts School of Law at Andover.

The framers of the Constitution put the decision-making power on war in Congress because "they felt that war was a disaster and the Executive was too prone to war," Velvel said. Today, with regard to war "we have inverted the constitutional plan, and war is decided upon not by Congress, but by the President." The framers knew their history.

Velvel, who has written extensively on the issue, said the only power the Founders left to the President was his authority to repel an immediate attack on American lives, property or territory---a power he cannot lawfully inflate into a continuing war. The Founders "deliberately rejected the British system in which the king made the decision to go to war, with his powers being facilitated because he had a standing army, could provide navies, and could raise monies for the armed services," Velvel pointed out.

He said the Founders "wanted a decision so momentous for the people to be made not by one man or a small group of men in the Executive, but by the people's representatives in Congress," which is why the Founders wrote the declaration of war clause. HELLO!!

He went on to say the Founders made the President Commander-in-Chief not to impose military control over the civilian authority, "but for the very opposite reason: so that a civilian authority would be in control of the armed forces." Nowadays, who's in control....military or civilian? Before answering.....remember the "Patriot" Act!

Velvel said Founder Alexander Hamilton "made clear in The Federalist that as Commander-In-Chief the President was only the top general, as it were. He could not, in his military capacity, displace civilian authority" nor start a war but "could only command the armed forces once a war starts." "....once a war starts." That's a key phrase. Unless an individual is infallible, he alone should not possess the power to make war.

Velvel said that leaving the war decision to the President "is more dangerous than ever in modern times&#8230;because a war can escalate into a thermonuclear or biological holocaust" and because "Executive war is facilitated by military and financial facts the framers never dreamed of." These include a large, powerful standing army, navy, and air force with which to begin a war, millions of reservists the President can call up, and billions of dollars in the military pipeline as well as "contingency funds, reprogrammed funds, and secret funds."

In the last half century, Velvel notes, Congress has come to be a body of people "whose major goal is to stay in office permanently&#8230;Their major interest, therefore, is in raising money for elections" and because of this they want to avoid taking responsibility for hard decisions and are "perfectly happy to let the president make the decision and take the responsibility for war."

"The concept of doing one's duty is not a popular idea in America anymore, except in a few segments of society, and people in Congress flee from it at every possible opportunity lest they lose votes," Velvel said.

He added that even though the appropriations power was given to Congress to give it another check on executive war making, "the power has proven to be a miserable failure in that regard. Congressmen have been unwilling to deny appropriations for guns, tanks, food, etc. to men locked in battle. They feel it would be immoral and unpatriotic, as well as politically disastrous to them personally, to deny monies to men in combat." You see, they rush to get "men locked in battle" and then want the money.

If you question the legality of the war and deny funds, well then, you are not "supporting the troops in harm's way". In 2008, over $400 billion was appropriated for the Iraq war. Of that, how much actually went to the troops "in harm's way"? Very, very little. Guess who gets most of the money? Corporations (war profiteers), that's who.

For example, Halliburton (former Vice-President Cheney's old company) charges the government (the taxpayer) $28 for every meal our soldiers eat. That's three times a day for an average of, say, 140,000 troops for over six years! Chi-ching!! $$$$!! We, the working public, are asked to "sacrifice". Where is the "sacrifice" or "patriotic duty" of these money-hungry corporations? Can't find it anywhere. How can we be so gullible?

"So, with regard to war, we have inverted the constitutional plan, and war is decided upon not by Congress, but by the President."

To prevent future Presidential wars, Velvel said, Congress would have to enact a law or set of laws, with teeth, that makes it enforceably legal to fight a Presidential law. Velvel suggested the following language for such legislation: "Except for repelling an attack on American citizens, forces or property, the Executive shall not engage in military hostilities in the absence of a general or limited Congressional declaration of war or of a specific Congressional authorization which in terms authorizes and is intended to authorize specified forms of combat in specific geographic areas of the world."

It's what the framers of the Constitution would've wanted. It ain't gonna happen, though. Because the "powers that be" are so well entrenched, so established and are accepted by the unwitting public (largely due to "fear"), that we WILL be in a perpetual state of war. Chi-ching! It WON'T be "chi-ching" for us!

The law would protect soldiers who refused to participate in a war not approved by Congress.: "No member of the armed forces shall suffer any punishment for refusing to participate in such illegal action. The courts mandatorily shall enforce this law."

Velvel gave his views in a Q. and A. published in "The Long Term View," the magazine of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, which he cofounded and which he serves as Dean.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

A MUST READ!!!









The Theatre of Good and Evil by Eduardo Galeano

In the struggle of Good against Evil, it's always the people who get killed.

The terrorists killed workers of 60 countries in NYC and DC, in the name of Good against Evil. And in the name of Good against Evil, President Bush has promised vengeance: "We will eliminate Evil from the world," he announced. What a dummy! Only Jesus can do that!

Eliminate Evil?

What would Good be without Evil? It's not just religious fanatics who need enemies to justify their madness. The arms industry and the gigantic war machine of the U.S. also needs enemies to justify its existence. Good and evil, evil and good: the actors change masks, the heroes become monsters and the monsters heroes, in accord with the demands of the theatre's playwrights. I wonder who's writing this sick play?

This is nothing new. The German scientist Werner von Braun was evil when he invented the V-2 bombers that Hitler used against London, but became good when he used his talents in the service of the United States. How do you think we developed the technology for cruise missiles?
Stalin was good during World War Two and evil afterwards, when he became the leader of the Evil Empire.

In the cold war years John Steinbeck wrote: "Maybe the whole world needs Russians. I suppose that even in Russia they need Russians. Maybe Russia's Russians are called Americans." Even the Russians became good afterwards. Today, Putin can add his voice to say: "Evil must be punished."
Saddam Hussein was good, and so were the chemical weapons he used against the Iranians and the Kurds.

Afterwards, he became evil. They were calling him Satan Hussein when the U.S. finished up their invasion of Panama to invade Iraq because Iraq invaded Kuwait. This was Father Bush's war against Evil. With the humanitarian and compassionate spirit that characterizes his family, he killed more than 100,000 Iraqis, the VAST MAJORITY of them civilians.

Satan Hussein stayed where he was, but this number one enemy of humanity had to step aside and accept becoming number two enemy of humanity. The bane of the world is now called Osama bin Laden. The CIA taught him everything he knows about terrorism: bin Laden, loved and armed by the U.S. government, was one of the principal "freedom fighters" against Communism in Afghanistan.

Father Bush occupied the Vice Presidency when President Reagan called these heroes 'the moral equivalents of the Founding Fathers.' Hollywood agreed. They filmed Rambo 3: Afghani Muslims were the good guys. Now, 13 years later, in the time of Son Bush, they are the worst bad guys. Is there a pattern here? Noriega was on the CIA payroll for decades and then he (somehow?) became a "bad guy"? Eisenhower once said of some two-bit dictator the U.S. supported, "He may be an asshole, but he's OUR asshole." Bought and paid for!

Henry Kissinger was one of the first to react to the recent tragedy (Sept. 11)
"Those who provide support, financing, and inspiration to terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves," he intoned, words that Son Bush would repeat hours later. Oh, yeah? Are you serious? Has anybody heard of Luis Posado Carrilles?

Google him and be "surprised" to learn about his terrorist activities while on the CIA payroll. He blew up a Cuban airliner in 1973 and killed over 70 civilians. The Bush administration had him in custody on some immigration violation recently and refused to turn him over to Cuban and Venezuelan authorities for prosecution on charges of TERRORISM!! Who's "harboring" terrorists? What a double standard!

If that's how it is, the urgent need right now is to bomb Kissinger. He is guilty of many more crimes than bin Laden or any terrorist in the world. And in many more countries. He provided "support, financing, and inspiration" to state terror in Indonesia, Cambodia, Iran, South Africa, Bangladesh, and all the South American countries that suffered the dirty war of Plan Condor.

On September 11, 1973, exactly 28 years before Twin Towers fires, the Presidential Palace in Chile was stormed. Kissinger had written the epitaph for Allende and Chilean democracy long before when he commented on the results of the elections: "I don't see why we have to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people." Just the usual...."We'll support your democratic elections only if you vote for the guy WE want!"


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

It's just simply amazing that this book by Marine General Smedley Butler was written in 1935!!! He could be talkng about today.

Smedley Butler once said:

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912.

I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested." In the overwhelming majority of cases, every time you hear that war is imminent and "we" need to fight to protect "American interests"......it is really meant to protect CORPORATE interests.

From 1000 Americans
by George Seldes, 1947

The First Fascist Plot to Seize the U.S. Government
George Seldes' Editorial Note:

General Smedley Butler testified before a Congressional Committee that several Wall Street bankers, one of them connected with J.P. Morgan and Co., several founders of the American Liberty League, and several heads of the American Legion plotted to seize the government of the United States shortly after President Roosevelt established the New Deal. The press, with a few exceptions, suppressed the news. Worse yet, the McCormack-Dickstein Committee suppressed the facts involving the big business interests, although it confirmed the plot which newspapers and magazines had either refused to mention or had tried to kill by ridicule.

WAR IS A RACKET ! Excerpts from the book:

War is a racket...always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes. 
In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their income tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dugout? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried the bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle? Kinda like today.

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few -the self-same few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill. And spills their own blood.
And what is this bill? He should see today's bill!
This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds.

Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations. This guy must be psychic! 
For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds again gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other, forgetting, for the nonce, their dispute over the Polish Corridor. The assassination of King Alexander of Yugoslavia complicated matters. Yugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other's throats.

Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people -not those who fight and pay and die-only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit. Cheney and Rumsfeld??? Cheney got a minimum FOUR "deferments" to keep out of the Vietnam War. His excuse? In his own arrogant words he said, "I had other priorities." Oh, really? Famous "chickenhawk" (someone who likes wars as long as someone else fights them), Bill O'Reilly (FOX News) when asked why he didn't go to Vietnam, said he "preferred to fight" with the pen rather than the sword! How nice and patriotic!

There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.
Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?

War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have the courage to meet it.
Yes, all over, nations are camping on their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. Now it's the "mad dogs" of the Military Industrial Complex.

In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russian and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the "open door" policy in China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in 35 years and "we" (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.

Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war-a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men. Us, the taxpayer, pay and die to protect corporate interests.

Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit-fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.
Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn't they? It pays high dividends.

But what does it profit the masses? How come nobody ever thinks of that? Who REALLY benefits?
What does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit the men who are maimed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?
What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits? This is 1935, folks!!!! Eerily similar to the "new" millennium, huh?

Yes, and what does it profit the nation?
Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn't own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America. At that time our national debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became "internationally minded." We forgot, or shunted aside, the advice of the Father of our Country. We forgot Washington's warning about "entangling alliances." We went to war. We acquired outside territory. At the end of the World War period, as a direct result of our fiddling in international affairs, our national debt had jumped to over $25,000,000,000.

Therefore, on a purely financial bookkeeping basis, we ran a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade might well have been ours without the wars.
The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes even twelve per cent. But wartime profits-ah! that is another matter-twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent-the sky is the limit. All that the traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let's get it.

Of course, it isn't put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and "we must all put our shoulder to the wheel," but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket-and are safely pocketed. WOW! How history repeats itself!

TO HELL WITH WAR !

I am not such a fool as to believe that war is a thing of the past. I know the people do not want war, but there is no use in saying we cannot be pushed into another war. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Propaganda Minister, had perfected a formula of how to "scare" people into war. He said it was quite easy.

Looking back, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected president in 1916 on a platform that he had "kept us out of war" and on the implied promise that he would "keep us out of war." Yet, five months later he asked Congress to declare war on Germany.
In that five-month interval the people had not been asked whether they had changed their minds. The 4,000,000 young men who put on uniforms and marched or sailed away were not asked whether they wanted to go forth to suffer and to die.

Then what caused our government to change its mind so suddenly?
Money. MONEY!!! THAT"S WHAT....the "root of all evil"!
An allied commission, it may be recalled, came over shortly before the war declaration and called on the President. The President summoned a group of advisers. The head of the commission spoke. Stripped of its diplomatic language, this is what he told the President and his group:

There is no use kidding ourselves any longer. The cause of the allies is lost. We now owe you (American bankers, American munitions makers, American manufacturers, American speculators, American exporters) five or six billion dollars.
If we lose (and without the help of the United States we must lose) we, England, France and Italy, cannot pay back this money ... and Germany won't. So...
Had secrecy been outlawed as far as war negotiations were concerned, and had the press been invited to be present at that conference, or had the radio been available to broadcast the proceedings, America never would have entered the World War. But this conference, like all war discussions, was shrouded in the utmost secrecy.

When our boys were sent off to war they were told it was a war to make the world safe for democracy" and a "war to end all ,wars." Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of a democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or monarchies? Whether they are Fascists or Communists? Our problem is to preserve our own democracy. Couldn't have said it better, myself!

And very little, if anything, has been accomplished to assure us that the World War was really the war to end all wars.
Yes, we have had disarmament conferences and limitations of arms conferences. They don't mean a thing. One has just failed; the results of another have been nullified. We send our professional soldiers and our sailors and our politicians and our diplomats to these conferences. And what happens?

The professional soldiers and sailors don't want to disarm. No admiral wants to be without a ship. No general wants to be without a command. Both mean men without jobs. They are not for disarmament. They cannot be for limitations of arms. And at all these conferences, lurking in the background but all-powerful, just the same, are the sinister agents of those who profit by war. They see to it that these conferences do not disarm or seriously limit armaments. To companies making arms, disarmament and the possibility of a lasting peace is a profit-killer.

The chief aim of any power at any of these conferences has been not to achieve disarmament in order to prevent war but rather to endeavor to get more armament for itself and less for any potential foe.
There is only one way to disarm with any semblance of practicability. That is for all nations to get together and scrap every ship, every gun, every rifle, every tank, every war plane. Even this, if it were at all possible, would not be enough.

The next war, according to experts, will be fought not with battleships, not by artillery, not with rifles and not with guns. It will be fought with deadly chemicals and gases.
Secretly each nation is studying and perfecting newer and ghastlier means of annihilating its foes wholesale. Yes, ships will continue to get built, for the shipbuilders must make their profits. And guns still will be manufactured and powder and rifles will be made, for the munitions makers must make their huge profits. And the soldiers, of course, must wear uniforms, for the manufacturers of these uniforms must make their war profits too.

But victory or defeat will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists.
If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building a greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war - even the munition makers.
So ... I say, "TO HELL WITH WAR !"


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Our 'BACKYARD'.

The UNASUR (Union of South American Nations Summit) summit in Bariloche, Argentina will have to face two grave problems weighing heavily on Latin America: the military coup in Honduras and the militarization of the region as a result of the installation of not one but seven U.S. military bases in Colombia. Why SEVEN military bases? Is it an attempt to intimidate Venezuela, Bolivia and any other South American country that may consider going "left wing"?

In regards to the first problem, UNASUR ought to demand consistency from Barack Obama with respect to his statements in support of a new era of inter-American relations. As has been emphasized on numerous occasions, the coup is a test balloon to check the reactions of the peoples and governments of the region. And that it happened in Honduras is precisely because that is the country most intensely subjected to the ideological influence and political dominance of Washington.

With OAS negotiations having failed, Washington has proceeded to suspend the issuance of visas to Honduran citizens, a very lukewarm measure but an indicator of the fact that it is taking note of the prevailing political atmosphere in the region. "Prevailing political atmosphere in the region", hmmmm....there are those in our government that are concerned about these very words. For over a century, the U.S. has been interfering in the domestic affairs of numerous South American nations.

These countries were promised a higher standard of living if they "opened up their economy to foreign investment". They would prosper and enjoy the fruits of a "free market" system. IT NEVER HAPPENED!! What did result was a huge widening in the gap between rich and poor. The right-wing dictators the U.S. supported (and sometimes even installed) lined their pockets and filled their overseas secret bank accounts with our "economic aid". The poor sat back helpless as their nations were exploited and witnessed their vast resources go into the waiting hands of foreign corporations.

More and more the indigenous people of South America are beginning to see through the fog of lies they were told. It's like we're forcing them to go socialist....they see it as a possible alternative. The Monroe Doctrine forbids any country in the eastern hemisphere to have a military base in our western hemisphere. Why? We have hundreds in theirs. Central and South America have been called "our backyard". Our backyard??? It implies that we "own" them. That's the attitude. Why is it when a people of a country unite and create a populist movement that would allow them to determine their own destiny we label them a "threat"? Isn't that how America was founded? People seeking to escape the grip of the then British empire? We should be applauding them.

We know that Obama is not very well informed about what his military and civilian subordinates do, not to mention his intelligence services. But he ought know, because it is so basic, that the U.S. has been intervening in Honduras since 1903, the year in which for the first time U.S. Marines landed in that country to protect North American interests (corporate interests, I'm sure!) in a moment of political crisis. In 1907, on the occasion of war between Honduras and Nicaragua, U.S. troops were stationed for three months in the cities of Trujillo, Ceiba, Puerto Cortes, San Pedro Sula, Laguna, and Choloma. In 1911 and 1912 they repeated the invasions, in the later case to prevent the expropriation of a railroad in Puerto Cortes.

In 1919, 1924, and 1925 imperialist expeditionary forces again invaded Honduras, always with the same pretext - protect the lives and property of North American citizens residing in the country. But the largest invasion occurred in 1983 when, under the direction of a sinister figure, Ambassador John Negroponte, the huge base of operations was established from which the U.S. launched its reactionary offensive against the Sandinista government and the Salvadoran Farabundo Marti guerrilla movement. Obama can not ignore this nefarious history and ought to know that the coup against Zelaya was only possible due to the acquiescence of his government.

What is being asked is that the U.S. stop its intervention, that it withdraw its support for the coup government, the only thing keeping it in power, and thereby facilitate the return of Zelaya to Tegucigalpa. The White House has at its disposal many economic and financial tools with which to discipline its ally. If it does not do so it is because it does not want to, and the governments and peoples of Latin America will reach their own conclusions. And they are starting to do so.

In relation to the second problem, the U.S. bases in Colombia, the following must be said. First of all, the U.S. empire does not maintain 872 bases and military missions spread across the length and width of the planet so that its troops can experience the delights of multiculturalism or breathe fresh air of life. It maintains them, at enormous cost, Noam Chomsky has said on numerous opportunities, because they are the principal instrument in a plan of global domination comparable only to that which obsessed Adolf Hitler in the 1930s.

To think that those troops and weapons systems are based in Latin America for some reason other than to insure the territorial and political control of a region that experts consider the richest on the planet in terms of its natural resources - water, energy, biodiversity, minerals, agriculture, etcetera - would be unforgivably stupid. These bases are the front-line of a military aggression that may or may not occur today or tomorrow, but will certainly occur when the imperialists consider it convenient. (Venezuela better watch out!) For this reason, UNASUR ought to forcefully reject their presence and demand the suspension of the installation of these bases.

And furthermore, it should make clear that this is not an "internal matter" of Colombia - no one in their right mind can invoke rights of national sovereignty to justify the installation in their territory of troops and military equipment which can only bring destruction and death to its neighbors. During the years that Hitler rearmed Germany, the U.S. and its allies screamed to the high heavens, knowing that the next step would be war, and they were right. Why should it be any different now?

Secondly, as long as Uribe (A puppet whose strings are pulled from Washington) is president of Colombia there will be no solution to this problem. He knows, as does the entire world, that the U.S. has been putting together a growing dossier in which he is classified as a narcotrafficker and accomplice to the crimes of the Colombian paramilitaries. In 2004, the National Security Archives released a 1991 document in which the U.S. accused the then-Senator Alvaro Uribe Velez of being one of Colombia's principle narcotraffickers, ranking him number 82, just behind Pablo Escobar Gaviria, the head of the Medellin cartel, who ranked number 79.

The report, which can be read at http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAE...1/dia910923.pdf, makes clear that the now president of Colombia "was dedicated to collaboration with the Medellin cartel at high government levels. Uribe was connected with a business involved in narcotics activities in the U.S. His father was murdered in Colombia for his connection to narcotics traffickers. Uribe has worked for the Medellin cartel and is a close personal friend of Pablo Escobar Gaviria &#8230; (and) was one of the politicians who, from the Senate, has attacked all forms of the extradition treaty."

As a result, Uribe has no margin of freedom to oppose any request coming from Washington. His role is to be the empire's Trojan Horse and he knows that if he opposes that ignominious duty his fate will be no different than that of another Latin American figure, also a president, Manuel Antonio Noriega, who having completed the mission that the White House had set out for him was arrested in 1989 after a devastating U.S. invasion of Panama and was condemned to 40 years in prison for his connection with the Medellin cartel.

When Noriega ceased to be useful to the interests of the imperialists, he quickly went from being president to a prisoner in a maximum security cell in the United States. This is the mirror into which Uribe looks day and night, and explains his permanent irritation, his lies, and his desperation to be re-elected as president of Colombia, while at the same time converting that nation into a U.S. protectorate and himself into a sort of proconsul-for-life of the empire, at the ready to caste a shadow over an entire continent so as to avoid the same fate as his Panamanian counterpart.









(Translated by David Brookbank)

Atilio Borón is professor of political theory at the University of Buenos Aires. He is the recipient of the 2009 UNESCO International Jose Marti Award for outstanding contribution to the unity and the integration of Latin America and the Caribbean and to the preservation of their identities, cultural traditions and historical values.

The omnipresent Goldman Sachs! The 'ultimate scammer'!

WOW!!

The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled dry American empire, reads like a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates.

By now, most of us know the major players. As George Bush's last Treasury secretary, former Goldman CEO Henry Paulson was the architect of the bailout, a suspiciously self-serving plan to funnel trillions of Your Dollars to a handful of his old friends on Wall Street. Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton's former Treasury secretary, spent 26 years at Goldman before becoming chairman of Citigroup - which in turn got a $300 billion taxpayer bailout from Paulson.

There's John Thain, the asshole chief of Merrill Lynch who bought an $87,000 area rug for his office as his company was imploding; a former Goldman banker, Thain enjoyed a multibilliondollar handout from Paulson, who used billions in taxpayer funds to help Bank of America rescue Thain's sorry company. And Robert Steel, the former Goldmanite head of Wachovia, scored himself and his fellow executives $225 million in goldenparachute payments as his bank was selfdestructing.

There's Joshua Bolten, Bush's chief of staff during the bailout, and Mark Patterson, the current Treasury chief of staff, who was a Goldman lobbyist just a year ago, and Ed Liddy, the former Goldman director whom Paulson put in charge of bailedout insurance giant AIG, which forked over $13 billion to Goldman after Liddy came on board. The heads of the Canadian and Italian national banks are Goldman alums, as is the head of the World Bank, the head of the New York Stock Exchange, the last two heads of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York - which, incidentally, is now in charge of overseeing Goldman.

But then, any attempt to construct a narrative around all the former Goldmanites in influential positions quickly becomes an absurd and pointless exercise, like trying to make a list of everything. What you need to know is the big picture: If America is circling the drain, Goldman Sachs has found a way to be that drain - an extremely unfortunate loophole in the system of Western democratic capitalism, which never foresaw that in a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy.

The bank's unprecedented reach and power have enabled it to turn all of America into a giant pumpanddump scam, manipulating whole economic sectors for years at a time, moving the dice game as this or that market collapses, and all the time gorging itself on the unseen costs that are breaking families everywhere - high gas prices, rising consumercredit rates, halfeaten pension funds, mass layoffs, future taxes to pay off bailouts.

All that money that you're losing, it's going somewhere, and in both a literal and a figurative sense, Goldman Sachs is where it's going: The bank is a huge, highly sophisticated engine for converting the useful, deployed wealth of society into the least useful, most wasteful and insoluble substance on Earth - pure profit for rich individuals.

They achieve this using the same playbook over and over again. The formula is relatively simple: Goldman positions itself in the middle of a speculative bubble, selling investments they know are crap. Then they hoover up vast sums from the middle and lower floors of society with the aid of a crippled and corrupt state that allows it to rewrite the rules in exchange for the relative pennies the bank throws at political patronage.

Finally, when it all goes bust, leaving millions of ordinary citizens broke and starving, they begin the entire process over again, riding in to rescue us all by lending us back our own money at interest, selling themselves as men above greed, just a bunch of really smart guys keeping the wheels greased. They've been pulling this same stunt over and over since the 1920s - and now they're preparing to do it again, creating what may be the biggest and most audacious bubble yet.

If you want to understand how we got into this financial crisis, you have to first understand where all the money went - and in order to understand that, you need to understand what Goldman has already gotten away with. It is a history exactly five bubbles long - including last year's strange and seemingly inexplicable spike in the price of oil. There were a lot of losers in each of those bubbles, and in the bailout that followed. But Goldman wasn't one of them.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Real wedding disasters.

Will What We Don't Know (or Care to Know) Hurt Us?
Mourning Michael Jackson, Ignoring the Afghan Dead

By Tom Engelhardt

It was a blast. I'm talking about my daughter's wedding. You don't often see a child of yours quite that happy. I'm no party animal, but I danced my 64-year-old legs off. And I can't claim that, as I walked my daughter to the ceremony, or ate, or talked with friends, or simply sat back and watched the young and energetic enjoy themselves, I thought about those Afghan wedding celebrations where the "blast" isn't metaphorical, where the bride, the groom, the partygoers in the midst of revelry die.

In the two weeks since, however, that's been on my mind -- or rather the lack of interest our world shows in dead civilians from a distant imperial war -- and all because of a passage I stumbled upon in a striking article by journalist Anand Gopal. In "Uprooting an Afghan Village" in the June issue of the Progressive magazine, he writes about Garloch, an Afghan village he visited in the eastern province of Laghman. After destructive American raids, Gopal tells us, many of its desperate inhabitants simply packed up and left for exile in Afghan or Pakistani refugee camps. 
One early dawn in August 2008, writes Gopal, American helicopters first descended on Garloch for a six-hour raid:

"The Americans claim there were gunshots as they left. The villagers deny it. Regardless, American bombers swooped by the village just after the soldiers left and dropped a payload on one house. It belonged to Haiji Qadir, a pole-thin, wizened old man who was hosting more than forty relatives for a wedding party. The bomb split the house in two, killing sixteen, including twelve from Qadir's family, and wounding scores more... The malek [chief] went to the province's governor and delivered a stern warning: protect our villagers or we will turn against the Americans."

That passage caught my eye because, to the best of my knowledge, I'm the only person in the U.S. who has tried to keep track of the wedding parties wiped out, in whole or part, by American military action since the Bush administration invaded Afghanistan in November 2001. With Gopal's report from Garloch, that number, by my count, has reached five (only three of which are well documented in print).

The first occurred in December of that invasion year when a B-52 and two B-1B bombers, wielding precision-guided weapons, managed, according to reports, to wipe out 110 out of 112 revelers in another small Afghan village. At least one Iraqi wedding party near the Syrian border was also eviscerated -- by U.S. planes back in 2004. Soon after that slaughter, responding to media inquiries, an American general asked: "How many people go to the middle of the desert... to hold a wedding 80 miles from the nearest civilization?" This epitomizes our lack of knowledge about foreign cultures. Because they're not like us, they're evil? What does he expect these poor people to do? Rent a banquet hall at the nearest Hyatt Regency? Dumbass.

Later, in what passed for an acknowledgment of the incident, another American general said: "Could there have been a celebration of some type going on?... Certainly. Bad guys have celebrations." Case closed. That's it, huh?

Perhaps over the course of an almost eight-year war in Afghanistan, the toll in wedding parties may seem modest: not even one a year! But before we settle for that figure, evidently so low it's not worth a headline in this country, let's keep in mind that there's no reason to believe: 
* I've seen every article in English that, in passing, happens to mention an Afghan wedding slaughter -- the one Gopal notes, for instance, seems to have gotten no other coverage; or 
* that other wedding slaughters haven't been recorded in languages I can't read; or 
* that, in the rural Pashtun backlands, some U.S. attacks on wedding celebrants might not have made it into news reports anywhere. 
In fact, no one knows how many weddings -- rare celebratory moments in an Afghan world that, for three decades, has had little to celebrate -- have been taken out by U.S. planes or raids, or a combination of the two.

Turning the Page on the Past

After the Obama administration took office and the new president doubled down the American bet on the Afghan War, there was a certain amount of anxious chatter in the punditocracy (and even in the military) about Afghanistan being "the graveyard of empires." Of course, no one in Washington was going to admit that the U.S. is just such an empire, only that we may suffer the fate of empires past. 
When it comes to wedding parties, though, there turn out to be some similarities to the empire under the last Afghan gravestone.

The Soviet Union was, of course, defeated in Afghanistan by some of the very jihadists the U.S. is now fighting, thanks to generous support from the CIA, the Saudis, and Pakistan's intelligence services. It withdrew from that country in defeat in 1989, and went over its own cliff in 1991. As it happens, the Russians, too, evidently made it a habit to knock off Afghan wedding parties, though we have no tally of how many or how regularly. 
Reviewing a book on the Soviet-Afghan War for the Washington Monthly, Christian Caryl wrote recently:

"One Soviet soldier recalls an instance in 1987 when his unit opened fire on what they took to be a 'mujaheddin caravan.' The Russians soon discovered that they had slaughtered a roving wedding party on its way from one village to another -- a blunder that soon, all too predictably, inspired a series of revenge attacks on the Red Army troops in the area. This undoubtedly sounds wearily familiar to U.S. and NATO planners (and Afghan government officials) struggling to contain the effects from the 'collateral damage' that is often cited today as one of the major sources of the West's political problems in the country."

And, by the way, don't get me started on that gloomy companion rite to the wedding celebration: the funeral. Even I haven't been counting those, but that doesn't mean the U.S. and its allies haven't been knocking off funeral parties in Afghanistan (and recently, via a CIA drone aircraft, in Pakistan as well). 
Following almost two weeks in which the U.S. (and global) media went berserk over the death of one man, in which NBC, for instance, devoted all but about five minutes of one of its prime-time half-hour news broadcasts to nothing -- and I mean nothing -- but the death of Michael Jackson, in which the President of the United States sent a condolence letter to the Jackson family (and was faulted for not having moved more quickly), in which 1.6 million people registered for a chance to get one of 17,500 free tickets to his memorial service... well, why go on? Unless you've been competing in isolation in the next round of Survivor, or are somehow without a TV, or possibly any modern means of communication, you simply can't avoid knowing the rest.

You'd have to make a desperate effort not to know that Michael Jackson (until recently excoriated by the media) had died, and you'd have to make a similarly desperate effort to know that we've knocked off one wedding party after another these last years in Afghanistan. One of these deaths -- Jackson's -- really has little to do with us; the others are, or should be, our responsibility, part of an endless war the American people have either supported or not stopped from continuing. And yet one is a screaming global headline; the others go unnoticed.

You'd think there might, in fact, be room for a small headline somewhere. Didn't those brides, grooms, relatives, and revelers deserve at least one modest, collective corner of some front-page or a story on some prime-time news show in return for their needless suffering? You'd think that some president or high official in Washington might have sent a note of condolence to someone, that there might have been a rising tide of criticism about the slow response here in expressing regrets to the families of Afghans who died under our bombs and missiles.

Here's the truth of it, though: When it comes to Afghan lives -- especially if we think, correctly or not, that our safety is involved -- it doesn't matter whether five wedding parties or 50 go down, two funerals or 25. Our media isn't about to focus real attention on the particular form of barbarity involved -- the American air war over Afghanistan which has been a war of and for, not on, terror. 
Now, we're embarked on a new moment -- the Obama moment -- in Afghanistan. More than seven-and-a-half years into the war, in a truly American fashion, we're ready to turn the page on the past, to pretend that none of it really happened, to do it "right" this time around. We're finally going to bring the Afghans over to our side. I don't think so.

We're ready to light out for the territories and start all over again. American troops are now moving south in force, deep into the Pashtun (and Taliban) areas of Afghanistan, and their commanders -- a passel of new generals -- are speaking as one from a new script. It's all about conducting a "holistic counterinsurgency campaign," as new Afghan commander General Stanley A. McChrystal put it in Congressional testimony recently. It's all about "hearts and minds"(though that old Vietnam-era phrase has yet to be resuscitated).

It's all about, they say, "protecting civilians" rather than killing Taliban guerrillas; it's all about shaping, clearing, holding, building, not just landing, kicking in doors, and taking off again; it's all about new "rules of engagement" in which the air war will be limited, and attacks on the Taliban curbed or called off if it appears that they might endanger civilians (even if that means the guerrillas get away); it's all about reversing the tide of the war so far, about the fact that civilian casualties caused by air attacks and raids have turned large numbers of Afghans against American and NATO troops. I think it's too late for that. Hope I'm wrong.
The commander of the Marines just now heading south, Brigadier General Larry Nicholson, typically said this:

"We need to make sure we understand that the reason we're here is not necessarily the enemy. The reason we're here is the people. What won the war in al-Anbar province [Iraq] and what changed the war in al-Anbar was not that the enemy eventually got tired of fighting. It's that the people chose a side, and they chose us... We'll surround that house and we'll wait. And here's the reason: If you drop that house and there's one woman, one child, one family in that house -- you may have killed 20 Taliban, but by killing that woman or that child in that house, you have lost that community. You are dead to them. You are done." It sounds good....let's see if it works.

The Value of a Life

As it happens, however, the past matters -- and keep this in mind (it's what the wedding-party-obliteration record tells us): To Americans, an Afghan life isn't worth a red cent, not when the chips are down. 
Back in the Vietnam era, General William Westmoreland, interviewed by movie director Peter Davis for his Oscar-winning film Hearts and Minds, famously said: "The Oriental doesn't put the same high price on life as does a Westerner. Life is plentiful. Life is cheap in the Orient."

In those years, there were many in the U.S., including Davis, who insisted very publicly that a Vietnamese life had the same value as an American one. In the years of the Afghan War, Americans -- our media and, by its relative silence, the public as well -- turned Westmoreland's statement into a way of life as well as a way of war. As one perk of that way of life, most Americans have been able to pretend that our war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with us -- and Michael Jackson's death, everything. 
So he dies and our world goes mad. An Afghan wedding party, or five of them, are wiped off the face of the Earth and even a shrug is too much effort.

Here's a question then: Will what we don't know (or don't care to know) hurt us? I'm unsure whether the more depressing answer is yes or no. As it happens, I have no answer to that question anyway, only a bit of advice -- not for us, but for Afghans: If, as General McChrystal and other top military figures expect, the Afghan War and its cross-border sibling in Pakistan go on for another three or four or five years or more, no matter what script we're going by, no matter what we say, believe me, we'll call in the planes. So if I were you, I wouldn't celebrate another marriage, not in a group, not in public, and I'd bury my dead very, very privately. 
If you gather, after all, we will come. BOOM!!


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Swine Flu vaccinations??? Like what ive ALWAYS said...Ill take my chances, thank you !

Here's a seventh grade word problem for you: If swine flu has infected one million people and killed 500, how many people might be expected to die if it infects 150 million people (assuming no major changes in the virus)? The correct answer, of course, is 75,000 people, and that's within the range of the number of swine flu deaths now being publicly predicted by the White House.

But there's another part to this word problem: How many vaccine shots and hand washings does it take to boost vitamin D levels in the average person?

The question, of course, makes no sense. Vaccine shots don't boost vitamin D levels any more than eating pork infects you with swine flu. So why is the official advice on swine flu protection essentially limited to "wash your hands, get your vaccine shot and cough into your elbow?" (Seriously. I'm not making this up.)

The Associated Press has distilled swine flu advice to "10 things you need to know." None of those ten things include boosting your nutrition, getting more vitamin D or taking anti-viral medicinal herbs. They do, however, include hilarious explanations like "If you develop breathing problems, pain in your chest, constant vomiting or a fever that keeps rising, go to an emergency room."

Emergency room in a pandemic?
Whatever for? They don't bother to mention that in a pandemic scenario that strikes you with constant vomiting, the entire emergency room is likely to be overrun with other people joining you in a hospital room vomit fest.

Nor do they mention some other important math: The very limited number of anti-viral medication courses available in the U.S. The last time I checked, that was roughly 50 million courses. If the U.S. population is roughly 300 million people, and there are 50 million courses of anti-viral meds available, how many Americans will have no access to those meds? (Ahem&#8230; 250 million people&#8230

Here's an even more interesting brain buster for you: If each vaccine shot generates $25 in revenue for drug companies, and the U.S. government orders the production of 160 million vaccines, how much money is Big Pharma making off the pandemic? That answer is roughly $4 billion in net revenues.

But even that doesn't count all the repeat business from the future victims who suffer neurological side effects from the vaccines and have to be institutionalized and subjected to high-dollar medical care for years on end. In all, a mass vaccination program could end up generating over ten billion dollars in revenues for drug companies.

These numbers just don't add up
Now let's look at some serious statistics: If one million people have already been infected with swine flu, and 500 have died, that's a fatality rate of 1 out of 2000 people. Depending on which research you believe, vaccines might at most be credited with preventing 1% of flu deaths during any given flu season (and that's being very generous to the vaccine). So here's the question:
How many people have to be vaccinated with the new swine flu vaccine to save ONE life from a swine flu fatality?
(Notice, carefully, this question has never been asked in the mainstream media. That's because the answer isn't exactly what most people want to hear&#8230

This question is easy to answer, actually. If the vaccine were 100% effective (that is, they prevented every death that would have otherwise occurred), they could be credited with saving 1 life out of 2000, right? Because that's the normal death rate for this particular virus (these figures are widely quoted by AP, Reuters and the White House, by the way).

But no vaccine is 100% effective. As I mentioned above, seasonal flu vaccines might - at a stretch - be credited with preventing 1% of the deaths that might otherwise have occurred. With this 1% effectiveness factor calculated back into the formula for swine flu (assuming the same 1% effectiveness factor), it turns out that you would have to vaccinate 200,000 people to save ONE life from swine flu.

That puts a whole new perspective on the vaccine push, doesn't it? 200,000 vaccines costs taxpayers roughly $5,000,000, and it subjects 200,000 people to the potential side effects of these vaccines which have never been subjected to any long-term testing whatsoever.
It all begs the question: Is it really worth it?
Is it worth spending $5 million and exposing 200,000 people to potentially dangerous vaccine side effects in order to prevent ONE death from swine flu? And why isn't anybody breaking down the numbers on this issue and providing a serious cost / benefit analysis as I'm doing here?

Let's be generous to the vaccine&#8230;
Vaccine pushers might argue that the vaccine is far more than 1% effective at preventing swine flu deaths. In their wildest dreams, they might imagine a death reduction rate of, say, a wildly optimistic 10%. But even considering that, is it worth it? If the vaccine stops 10% of deaths that would have otherwise occurred, that still means you'd have to vaccinate 200,000 people to prevent the deaths of ten people.

I'm going to throw out a wild guess here and suggest that far more than 10 people will be killed by the vaccine itself, completely nullifying any net reduction in total deaths. Mathematically, you see, mass swine flu vaccinations make absolutely no sense given the very low rate of fatalities being observed right now.

Just do something!
Of course, public health policy is never based on sense. It's based on politics. And the politics demand that "they DO something!" That's what the public wants: Do something! It doesn't matter if doing something is worse than doing nothing&#8230; they just want to see some action.

When it comes to swine flu vaccines, any honest look at the math reveals that 200,000 people will have to be vaccinated with a largely untested experimental vaccine in order to prevent the death of one person (or ten people, if you really believe in vaccines). Remembering that more than one person in 200,000 will almost certainly be killed by the vaccine itself, it really makes you wonder: What's the point of all this?

The point, of course, is to sell vaccines. It's the one math problem that everybody understands: To make money, you have to sell a product, and there's no better way to sell vaccines to 160 million people than to scare them into begging for injections that are statistically opposed their own self interests. But I suppose anything is possible in a country where state governments can punitively tax the poor by convincing them to play the lottery.

People who play the lottery are very likely to be the same people getting vaccine shots: It's like a lottery on your health, except that your odds of "winning" are far worse than your odds of winning something in a state lotto.

Let's see:

You have a 1 in 1 chance of being injected with foreign viral matter, and yet you only have a 1 in 200,000 chance of your life being saved by it.
Allow me to put this into perspective: You have a 40 times greater chance of being struck by lightning at some point in your life than having your life saved by the swine flu vaccine. (Source: National Weather Service statistics.)

Mathematically speaking, getting a swine flu injection and hoping it will save your life is more foolish than buying a lotto ticket with your last dollar and hoping you'll scratch off a multi-million dollar winning ticket.

And buying a lotto ticket doesn't risk the health of your nervous system, by the way. You can always earn back a buck, but restoring your nervous system after it's attacked by a rogue vaccine can take years or decades. Some never recover. (Thousands died from the 1976 vaccines.)
Pop quiz: What's the actual cost of vaccinating 160 million Americans with an unproven, experimental swine flu vaccine?

Answer: $1.6 billion plus countless victims with strange neurological disorders, comas and sudden death - all of which will be written off as "coincidence" by the vaccine pushers.

Free flu shots for the unemployed

As this article was about to go to press, I couldn't help but notice a new announcement by CVS and Walgreens pharmacies. The powers that be are so desperate to get all Americans injected with this experimental vaccine that CVS and Walgreens are now offering free swine flu vaccine injections to anyone who doesn't have a job!

That's right: Just show up, prove you're unemployed, and you get jabbed at no charge. (Who said losing your job didn't have some benefits, huh?) Conspiracy theorists might suggest this is a clever way to clear the streets of "useless eaters." Just lure the jobless into some experimental vaccine program, inject them and send them on their way. Next, will retailers start handing out free Soylent Green too?


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Vaccine shot or shot of whiskey?

Vaccine, anyone? Me? No thanks, I'll take my chances with a shot of whiskey!

The CDC has followed in the footsteps of British health authorities by warning neurologists to look out for cases of the nerve disease Guillain-Barre syndrome caused by the swine flu vaccine.

Doctors in Britain were advised last month by the government to carefully track cases of the disease and report each one to the Health Protection Agency. A letter sent by 600 neurologists indicated that "there is concern at the highest levels that the vaccine itself could cause serious complications," according to a Daily Mail report.

During the 1976 swine flu scare in the U.S., which prompted the government to order a mass vaccination program to cover the entire population, the vaccine caused more deaths than the actual virus, prompting a public backlash that cost the then director of the CDC his job.

SImilar concerns about the vaccine are now being replicated over 30 years later.

"The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Neurology have asked all neurologists to report new cases of Guillain-Barre in people who get vaccines this fall and winter to the Food & Drug Administration's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System," reports The Oregonian.

Guillain-Barre syndrome can cause paralysis and breathing difficulties and is sometimes fatal. It also produces a tingling sensation and weakens limbs.

As we have previously documented, the swine flu vaccine is being rushed through safety procedures while governments have provided pharmaceutical companies with blanket immunity from lawsuits arriving out of the vaccine causing deaths and injuries.

It was previously revealed that some batches of the vaccine will contain mercury, a toxin linked with autism and neurological disorders. The vaccine will also contain the dangerous ingredient squalene, which has been directly linked with cases of Gulf War Syndrome and a host of other debilitating diseases.

Several surveys have revealed that huge numbers of health professionals all over the world will refuse to take the swine flu vaccine despite government plans to institute mass vaccination programs. A new poll released yesterday found that just 6 per cent of pregnant women would "definitely" take the vaccine following concerns about its safety.


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

bewilders me why you get your own thread when everyone else has to spam in aqhu


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Boobah said:


> bewilders me why you get your own thread when everyone else has to spam in aqhu


Dont know! Maybe because facts aren't considered spam.









Swine flu or swine 'BOO'???

DAMN!!

It is not any alleged "Swine Flu" or H1N1 "virus" that is the danger to the lives of our loved ones, our children, our pregnant mothers. We are being literally panicked by WHO, CDC, the US Government and uncritical mass media into demanding what amounts to legalized toxins as a "guard" against a disease so far milder than a common cold.

The few details that have managed to leak out regarding the contents of the fluids that major pharmaceutical companies want to inject into our veins confirm what I have been writing since the first alleged outbreak of Swine Flu in the environs of a factory pig farm in Veracruz Mexico.

The declaration by WHO of Phase 6 "Pandemic Level" global health emergency was a political decision which had no relation to any proven "virus threat." It had to do at the least with a multibillion dollar injection of hyper-profits into the coffers of a tiny handful of global vaccine giants-GlaxoSmithKline, Roche (Gilead Science Inc), Baxter Labs, Novartis, Sanofi Pasteur and a few other elite drug giants. Chi-ching!!

More, the current H1N1 fear campaign from WHO, the German Robert Koch Institute, the US Government's CDC, appears on serious examination to have to do not with safeguarding the public health, but rather with a long-term agenda of political control of populations through deliberate means of making them ill, weak, partly paralyzed or otherwise too weak to focus on the increasingly obvious social crisis facing us all, the global breakdown of the dollar system. Why else would allegedly responsible governments from the United States to the Federal Republic of Germany, from Britain to France, embrace such a manifest health hoax?

The simplest research of a high school pupil using official WHO and other government sources, can demonstrate this. If you doubt this, just commission your school age children to demonstrate, using only official sources, published on the internet, that there is no sound, public health reason to declare any special measures, let alone to authorize "fast track" rollout of new vaccines, untested, for mass injection in the population. Tell them that the students who make the best case from only official sources, will get the top honors in the course. Our teachers should do this.

UK report of neurological damage from vaccine

According to a confidential warning letter written on July 29, 2009, a copy of which was leaked to the British newspaper, Daily Mail, the UK Government's Health Protection Agency head of Immunization Department, Prof. Elizabeth Miller, warned British neurologists that the swine flu vaccine, which was briefly used in a mass vaccination program in 1976 in the USA until it was abruptly withdrawn because of dangerous side effects, is linked to Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), a potentially deadly and nerve crippling of the central nervous system. Guillain-Barre Syndrome attacks the lining of the nerves, causing paralysis and inability to breathe, and can be fatal. It can cause paralysis of the breathing muscles that can cause death by suffocation.

The warning letter of Prof. Miller states, "The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use." The US Government was forced in the 1976 Swine Flu scandal to pay out millions of dollars in damages to victims of GBS who had received the vaccine. I remember reading about this while I was in Korea protecting all of you from communist aggression. Hey, that's what they told me.

The UK Government plans to inject 13 million British citizens beginning October with virtually untested H1N1 vaccines. The British Neurological Surveillance Unit (BNSU), part of the British Association of Neurologists, has been asked to monitor closely any cases of GBS as the vaccine is rolled out. One senior neurologist told the press off-record, "I would not have the swine flu jab because of the GBS risk."

Miller's letter was reportedly sent to 600 British neurologists on July 29, a sign that there is concern at the highest levels that the vaccine itself could cause serious complications. The letter notes, referring to the similar swine flu vaccination process in the USA in 1976 that "more people died from the vaccination than from swine flu; some 500 cases of GBS were found; vaccines may have increased risk of GBS by 800%; the US vaccine was withdrawn after just ten weeks when Government scientists confirmed the link with GBS; the US Government then was forced to pay tens of millions of dollars to those affected.

They monitored that within days, symptoms of GBS were reported among those who had been immunised and 25 people died from respiratory failure after severe paralysis. One in 80,000 people came down with the condition. In contrast, just one person died of swine flu.

Notably, the Obama Administration has issued a special ruling exempting the vaccine makers from all liability from the vaccines.

WOW!! No-risk profits! The sky is the limit!

Most alarming in this context is the fact that the new vaccine has not been sufficiently tested and that the effects, especially on children, are unknown. Yet small children and pregnant mothers are the first priority to be vaccinated under WHO recommendations.

However, as leading European epidemiologists confirm privately, the effects of the so-called H1N1 Influenza A or "Swine Flu" are to date extremely mild, comparable to a common cold and disappear in a few days with bed rest. The deaths, as CDC and other health agencies have had to admit, all took place in patients with previous severe respiratory problems or other severe illness, and have in no known case been definitively linked to Swine Flu. The deaths were what epidemiologists term "opportunistic" that is "coincidental" not causal.

GBS however, which is believed linked to adjuvants present in the new vaccines, can cause paralysis and death. One woman, Hilary Wilkinson, was stricken with GBS and had to be fed through a drip while needing a tracheotomy just to breathe. It took her three months in the hospital to learn how to walk and talk again. On the topic of the swine flu vaccine, she says today, "It makes me feel wary that the Government is rolling out this vaccine without any clear idea of the GBS risk, if any. I wouldn't wish it on anyone."

An 800% rise in GBS risk

Another letter with a warning about the swine flu vaccine from the Association of British Neurologists, signed by Dr. Rustam Al-Shahi Salman and Professor Patrick Chinnery, says, "Following the 1976 program of vaccination against swine influenza in the US, a retrospective study found a possible eight-fold increase in the incidence of GBS." That is 800% increase after vaccination of 40 million Americans was done on a similar "health emergency" basis before abruptly being withdrawn. The 1976 swine flu mass vaccination campaign was abandoned after hundreds of cases of GBS were diagnosed and 25 died.

An emergency mass vaccination program was backed by President Gerald Ford that year because Center for Disease Control head, Dr. David Sencer, convinced the White House that the swine flu strain was similar to the one responsible for the 1918-19 pandemic, which he claimed had killed half a million Americans and 20 million people worldwide. Sencer was forced to resign in disgrace months later. The current CDC and WHO hysteria campaign over "H1N1 Influenza A Swine Flu" bears ominous similarities to that of 1976.

According to the British Dr Tom Jefferson, co-ordinator of the vaccines section of the influential Cochrane Collaboration, an independent British group that reviews drug research, says, "New vaccines never behave in the way you expect them to. It may be that there is a link to GBS, which is certainly not something I would wish on anybody. But it could end up being anything because one of the additives in one of the vaccines is a substance called squalene, and none of the studies we've extracted have any research on it at all." Squalene, a naturally occurring enzyme, could potentially cause so-far-undiscovered side effects.

In other words, what we have with the new versions of H1N1 "swine flu" vaccine is an untested, potentially dangerous cocktail of chemicals and viral fragments that could plausibly be linked to a devastating neurological condition, or worse.

The doctors and scientists are warning about the possibility of dangerous neurological side effects precisely because the government is failing to do so. Governments and pharmaceutical companies don't want people to know about risks associated with the vaccine, so they don't talk about them. Nor do they reveal the rather startling fact that the vaccine has never been tested on children or expectant mothers even though those are the two primary groups being targeted for the vaccine.

Vaccines are the bedrock of the pharmaceutical industry's profit centers. Through vaccines, the drug companies can ensure generations of future profits from diseases that have been identified in numerous studies as triggered or worsened by vaccines, including Alzheimer's, cancer, autism, Parkinson's disease, and others.

British Conservative Party Health Parliament Spokesman, Mike Penning has stated, "The last thing we want is secret letters handed around experts within the NHS. Our job is to make sure that the public knows what's going on. Why is the Government not being open about this? It's also very worrying if doctors, who will be administering the vaccine, aren't being warned."









Sometimes the 'TRUTH' hurts. Even when its 'OLD' news!!!









Over the years, people who "dare" question the "official" events of 9/11 are labeled anything from "kooks" to "conspiracy theorists" and even anti-American. My favorite is that the families of the 9/11 victims are being "disrespected" when doubting the explanation of what occurred on that tragic day. The following is a long list of "kooks" who have some serious questions about what we were told happened.

Note that many have impeccable credentials.....highly decorated military officers, or those with extensive backgrounds in the fields of intelligence and national security or professionals in structural engineering. Not to mention, experts in demolition or members of the "Commission" itself! Legal scholars, Congressman, Senators, former candidates for president, New York firefighters, first responders and families of the victims..... One day, many years from now, it will all come out. I hope and i believe it eventually will.









Highly Credible People Question 9/11

The following people question the government's version of 9/11, or the government's openness in providing information about the September 11 attacks.

9/11 COMMISSIONERS

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our investigation".
The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people. 
Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."
9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"

Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up".
9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said that "We purposely put together a staff that had - in a way - conflicts of interest".

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry, said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described &#8230;. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years&#8230;. This is not spin. This is not true."

CONGRESS

According to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, a U.S. government informant was the landlord to two of the hijackers for over a year (but the White House refused to let the 9/11 inquiry interview him).
Current U.S. Senator (Patrick Leahy) states "The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?" On August 8, 2001, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice received a memo warning that terrorists were plotting to hijack airliners and ram them into skyscrapers. She testified that this information was too "ambiguous" to warrant any action on the part of our intelligence services! Too "ambiguous"? This was televised.....I saw it myself!

Current Republican Congressman (Ron Paul) calls for a new 9/11 investigation and states that "we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on"
Current Democratic Congressman (Dennis Kucinich) hints that we aren't being told the truth about 9/11
Former Democratic Senator (Mike Gravel) states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don't know the truth about 9/11
Former Republican Senator (Lincoln Chaffee) endorses a new 9/11 investigation
Former U.S. Democratic Congressman (Dan Hamburg) says that the U.S. government "assisted" in the 9/11 attacks, stating that "I think there was a lot of help from the inside" Maybe, that's why he's a "former" Congressman.

Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee (Curt Weldon) has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job

MILITARY LEADERS

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan (Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is "the dog that doesn't hunt" (bio)
Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated that 9/11 was an inside job. He also said:

"If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot-I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they've changed them to-if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!"

U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt. Daniel Davis) stated:

"there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control &#8230; Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth. It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.' "

President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col. Jeff Latas) is a member of a group which doubts the government's version of 9/11

U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said "We've never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I've seen that for a long time."
Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official (Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski) finds various aspects of 9/11 suspicious

Lieutenant colonel, 24-year Air Force career, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at the Defense Language Institute (Lt. Colonel Steve Butler) said "Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism." Again, this is where "fear" comes in handy when curbing our liberties. Very useful when "modifying" the behavior and thoughts of the population.

Two-Star general (Major General Albert Stubbelbine) questions the attack on the Pentagon
U.S. Air Force fighter pilot, former instructor at the USAF Fighter Weapons School and NATO's Tactical Leadership Program, with a 20-year Air Force career (Lt. Colonel Guy S. Razer) said the following:

"I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government &#8230;.
Those of us in the military took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it.

We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders that were given us had to trust our leaders. The violation and abuse of that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate definition of treason!"

U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, a fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions flown and a 21-year Marine Corps career (Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford) believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and said:

"This isn't about party, it isn't about Bush Bashing. It's about our country, our constitution, and our future. &#8230;
Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away.

If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, or &#8230; to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you? &#8230;.
Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can't handle it? &#8230;" Who dares to say this? (Remember, "Support the Troops", now!) A Marine Corps lieutenant colonel with 300 combat missions flown over a 21 year career! Is he a "kook"? A "conspiracy theorist"? "Anti-American"?

U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' pilot (Commander Ralph Kolstad) who questions the official account of 9/11 and is calling for a new investigation, says "When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story".
The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S. Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility.

Additionally, numerous military leaders from allied governments have questioned 9/11, such as:
Canadian Minister of Defense, the top military leader of Canada (Paul Hellyer)
Assistant German Defense Minister (Andreas Von Bulow)
Commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy (Anatoli Kornukov)
Chief of staff of the Russian armed forces (General Leonid Ivashov)

INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS

Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg recently said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers". He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that "very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been", that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there's enough evidence to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath.

A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said "I think at simplest terms, there's a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke", and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.

A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis (William Bill Christison) said "I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. &#8230; All three [buildings that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11." (and see this).
20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer (David Steele) stated that "9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war", and it was probably an inside job (see Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).

A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called "perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East", and whose astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that"the evidence points at" 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job .
The Division Chief of the CIA's Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 - 2004 (Melvin Goodman) said "The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup."

Professor of History and International Relations, University of Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency, former military attaché in China, with a 21-year career in U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army) questions the government's version of the events of 9/11.

The head of all U.S. intelligence, the Director of National Intelligence (Mike McConnel) said "9/11 should have and could have been prevented"
A number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about "serious shortcomings," "omissions," and "major flaws" in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation (they were ignored).

SCIENTISTS

A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building 7 collapsed "does not match the available facts" and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition
A world-renowned scientist, recipient of the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement (Dr. Lynn Margulis) said:

"I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken."

The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world's leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. &#8230; I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable."

The principal electrical engineer for the entire World Trade Center complex, who was "very familiar with the structures and [the Twin Towers'] conceptual design parameters" (Richard F. Humenn), stated that "the mass and strength of the structure should have survived the localized damage caused by the planes and burning jet fuel . . . . the fuel and planes alone did not bring the Towers down."
Former Director for Research, Director for Aeronautical Projects, and Flight Research Program Manager for NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, who holds masters degrees in both physics and engineering (Dwain A. Deets) says:

"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Centers on 9/11]."

A prominent physicist, former U.S. professor of physics from a top university, and a former principal investigator for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects (Dr. Steven E. Jones) stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition
A U.S. physics professor who teaches at several universities (Dr. Crockett Grabbe) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition 
An expert on demolition (Bent Lund) said that the trade centers were brought down with explosives (in Danish)

A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded
A safety engineer and accident analyst for the Finnish National Safety Technology Authority (Dr. Heikki Kurttila) stated regarding WTC 7 that "The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition."

A 13-year professor of metallurgical engineering at a U.S. university, with a PhD in materials engineering, a former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member (Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn), is calling for a new investigation of 9/11

A Danish professor of chemistry (Dr. Niels Harrit) said, in a mainstream Danish newspaper, "WTC7 collapsed exactly like a house of cards. If the fires or damage in one corner had played a decisive role, the building would have fallen in that direction. You don't have to be a woodcutter to grasp this" (translated)

A former guidance systems engineer for Polaris and Trident missiles and professor emeritus, mathematics and computer science at a university concluded (Dr. Bruce R. Henry) that the Twin Towers "were brought down by planted explosives."

A mechanical engineer with 20 years experience as a Fire Protection Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans Affairs, who is a contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S. Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities, a board member of the Northern California - Nevada Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, currently serving as Fire Protection Engineer for the city of San Jose, California, the 10th largest city in the United States (Edward S. Munyak) believes that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition.

The former Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch, U.S. Department of Energy, and former Director of the Office of Engineering at the Public Service Commission in Washington, D.C., who is a mechanical engineer (Enver Masud) , does not believe the official story, and believes that there is a prima facie case for controlled demolition of the World Trade Center.

A professor of mathematics (Gary Welz) said "The official explanation that I've heard doesn't make sense because it doesn't explain why I heard and felt an explosion before the South Tower fell and why the concrete was pulverized"

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS

A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition (see also this)

Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)

An architect, member of the American Institute of Architects, who has been a practicing architect for 20 years and has been responsible for the production of construction documents for numerous steel-framed and fire-protected buildings for uses in many different areas, including education, civic, rapid transit and industrial use (Richard Gage) disputes the claim that fire and airplane damage brought down the World Trade Centers and believes there is strong evidence of controlled demolition (many other architects who question 9/11 are listed here)

LEGAL SCHOLARS

Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Former Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation; former Professor of Aviation, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and Aviation and Professor of Public Policy, Ohio State University (Mary Schiavo) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign; a leading practitioner and advocate of international law; responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention; served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court, with a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University (Dr. Francis Boyle) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Former prosecutor in the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the U.S. Justice Department and a key member of Attorney General Bobby Kennedy's anti-corruption task force; former assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois (J. Terrence "Terry" Brunner) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Professor Emeritus, International Law, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University; in 2001 served on the three-person UN Commission on Human Rights for the Palestine Territories, and previously, on the Independent International Commission on Kosovo (Richard Falk) questions the government's version of 9/11., and asks whether the Neocons were behind 9/11.

Bessie Dutton Murray Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Director, Center for Human Rights, University of Iowa; Fellow, World Academy of Art and Science. Honorary Editor, Board of Editors, American Journal of International Law (Burns H. Weston) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Former president of the National Lawyers Guild (C. Peter Erlinder), who signed a petition calling for a real investigation into 9/11. Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Troy University; associate General Counsel, National Association of Federal Agents; Retired Agent in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs, responsible for the internal integrity and security for areas encompassing nine states and two foreign locations; former Federal Sky Marshall; 27-year U.S. Customs career (Mark Conrad) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Professor of Law, University of Freiburg; former Minister of Justice of West Germany (Horst Ehmke) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Director of Academic Programs, Institute for Policy and Economic Development, University of Texas, El Paso, specializing in executive branch secrecy policy, governmental abuse, and law and bureaucracy; former U.S. Army Signals Intelligence officer; author of several books on law and political theory (Dr. William G. Weaver) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Famed trial attorney (Gerry Spence) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Former Instructor of Criminal Trial Practice, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley 11-year teaching career. Retired Chief Assistant Public Defender, Contra Costa County, California 31-year career (William Veale) said:

"When you grow up in the United States, there are some bedrock principles that require concerted effort to discard. One is the simplest: that our leaders are good and decent people whose efforts may occasionally warrant criticism but never because of malice or venality&#8230; But one grows up. &#8230; And with the lawyer's training comes the reliance on evidence and the facts that persuade&#8230; After a lot of reading, thought, study, and commiseration, I have come to the conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 were, in their essence, an inside job perpetrated at the highest levels of the U S government."

FAMILY MEMBERS AND HEROIC FIRST RESPONDERS

A common criticism of those who question 9/11 is that they are being "disrespectful to the victims and their families". Ha! Ha! So funny!

However, half of the victim's families believe that 9/11 was an inside job (according to the head of the largest 9/11 family group, Bill Doyle) (and listen to this interview). Many family and friends of victims not only support the search for 9/11 truth, but they demand it (please ignore the partisan tone). See also this interview.

Indeed, it has now become so clear that the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash that the same 9/11 widows who called for the creation of the 9/11 Commission are now demanding a NEW investigation (see also this video).

And dying heroes, soon-to-be victims themselves, the first responders who worked tirelessly to save lives on and after 9/11, say that controlled demolition brought down the Twin Towers and that a real investigation is necessary.

PSYCHIATRISTS AND PSYCHOLOGISTS

Finally, those who attack people who question the government's version of 9/11 as "crazy" may wish to review the list of mental health professionals who have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false:
Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD
Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz

Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, as well as Radiology, at Duke University Medical Center D. Lawrence Burk, Jr., MD
Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Ruters University Barry R. Komisaruk
Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward
Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino

Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther
Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral Studies Ralph Metzner
Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor
Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris
Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech
Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser

THOUSANDS OF OTHERS

The roster above is only a sample. There are too many Ph.D. scientists and engineers, architects, military and intelligence officials, politicians, legal scholars and other highly-credible people who question 9/11 - literally thousands - to list in one place. Here are a few additional people to consider:

The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission
Former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand" and who handled two actual hijackings (Robin Hordon) says that 9/11 could not have occurred as the government says, and that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview)

Perhaps "the premiere collapse expert in the country", who 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer referred to as a "very, very respected expert on building collapse", the head of the New York Fire Department's Special Operations Command and the most highly decorated firefighter in its NYFD history, who had previously "commanded rescue operations at many difficult and complex disasters, including the Oklahoma City Bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, and many natural disasters worldwide" thought that the collapse of the South Tower was caused by bombs, because the collapse of the building was too even to have been caused by anything else (pages 5-6).

Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who's who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11

Former FBI agent (Robert Wright) says "The FBI, rather than trying to prevent a terrorist attack, was merely gathering intelligence so they would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred."
Former Minnesota Governor (Jesse Ventura) questions the government's account of 9/11 and asks whether the World Trade Center was demolished

Former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice's Inspector General and several senators have called extremely credible (Sibel Edmonds), said "If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me, they will do everything to cover this up".


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Hypocrisy... It WILL kill you!!!

Americans have lost their ability for introspection, thereby revealing their astounding hypocrisy to the world.

US War Secretary Robert Gates has condemned the Associated Press and a reporter, Julie Jacobson, embedded with US troops in Afghanistan, for taking and releasing a photo of a US Marine who was wounded in action and died from his injury. Oh yeah, pictures from Vietnam come to mind. People never want to see the brutality of war. That's why we keep having wars. What about those documentaries on the History channel showing wounded Americans (many of which later died from their injuries) on Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Pearl Harbor, Battle of the Bulge and, better yet, Omaha Beach on D-Day? Are the producers of those films traitors?

Are they unpatriotic? I could just hear my detractors saying, "Well, back then, you couldn't show those images to the public at the time they were happening." OF COURSE!!! That's "kinda" my point. Americans, at that time (prior to Pearl Harbor), wanted nothing to do with the European conflict. World War 1 was still on their minds. Once the U.S. got into the war, there is NO WAY that those films showing graphic American casualties would have been allowed to be released. It may have diminished our "will to fight". War has to be portrayed nice and clean.....shiny. Give food to the poor and candy to the kids. That way, they won't be so angry that we bombed their homes!

The photographer was on patrol with the Marines when they came under fire. She found the courage and presence of mind to do her job. Her reward is to be condemned by the warmonger Gates as "insensitive." Gates says her employer, the Associated Press, lacks "judgment and common decency." Are we to believe that bombing a funeral procession or a wedding party is practicing "good judgement and common decency"? Is it okay to kill dozens of innocent civilians if we also kill a couple of "terrorists"?

The American Legion jumped in and denounced the Associated Press for a "stunning lack of compassion and common decency."

To stem opposition to its wars, the War Department hides signs of American casualties from the public. Angry that evidence escaped the censor, the War Secretary and the American Legion attacked with politically correct jargon: "insensitive," "offended," and the "anguish," "pain and suffering" inflicted upon the Marine's family. The War Department sounds like it is preparing a harassment tort.

Isn't this passing the buck? The Marine lost his life not because of the Associated Press and a photographer, but because of the war criminals--Gates, Bush, Cheney, Obama, and the US Congress that supports wars of naked aggression that serve no American purpose, but which keeps campaign coffers filled with contributions from the armaments companies. Chi-ching!! War is so profitable!

Marine Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard is dead because the US government and a significant percentage of the US population believe that the US has the right to invade, bomb, and occupy other peoples who have raised no hand against us but are demonized with lies and propaganda. Dehumanizing the "enemy" (even children) makes it easier to kill them.

For the American War Secretary it is a photo that is insensitive, not America's assertion of the right to determine the fate of Afghanistan with bombs and soldiers. How dare they don't want to be like us!

The exceptional "virtuous nation" does not think it is insensitive for America's bombs to blow innocent villagers to pieces. On September 4, the day before Gates' outburst over the "insensitive" photo, Agence France Presse reported from Afghanistan that a US/Nato air strike had killed large numbers of villagers who had come to get fuel from two tankers that had been hijacked from negligent and inattentive occupation forces:

" 'Nobody was in one piece. Hands, legs and body parts were scattered everywhere. Those who were away from the fuel tanker were badly burnt,' said 32-year-old Mohammad Daud, depicting a scene from hell. The burned-out shells of the tankers, still smoking in marooned wrecks on the riverbank, were surrounded by the charred-meat remains of villagers from Chahar Dara district in Kunduz province, near the Tajik border. Dr. Farid Rahid, a spokesperson in Kabul for the ministry of health, said up to 250 villagers had been near the tankers when the air strike was called in."

What does the world think of the United States? The American War Secretary and a US military veterans association think a photo of an injured and dying American soldier is insensitive, but not the wipeout of an Afghan village that came to get needed fuel. What have we become? We are allowing our morals to be twisted in such a grotesque way. These people have NOTHING! Absolutely NOTHING comparable to us. I'm sure they knew the danger of approaching those fuel tankers.

But when you have starving children to feed, you take risks in an attempt to alleviate their suffering. How many of us would do what they did? The fuel could be used to cook food OR trade for food. How long must a parent withstand looking at the faces of their hungry children before he/she will do something, anything, to comfort them. You tell me.

The US government is like a criminal who accuses the police of his crime when he is arrested or a sociopathic abuser who blames the victim. It is a known fact that the CIA has violated US law and international law with its assassinations, kidnappings and torture. But it is not this criminal agency that will be held accountable.

Instead, those who will be punished will be those moral beings who, appalled at the illegality and inhumanity of the CIA, leaked the evidence of the agency's crimes. The CIA has asked the US Justice (sic) Department to investigate what the CIA alleges is the "criminal disclosure" of its secret program to murder suspected foreign terrorist leaders abroad. As we learned from Gitmo, those suspected by America are overwhelmingly innocent.

The CIA program is so indefensible that when CIA director Leon Panetta found out about it six months after being in office, he cancelled the program (assuming those running the program obeyed) and informed Congress.

Yet, the CIA wants the person who revealed its crime to be punished for revealing secret information. A secret agency this unmoored from moral and legal standards is a greater threat to our country than are terrorists. Who knows what false flag operation it will pull off in order to provide justification and support for its agenda. An agency that is more liability than benefit should be abolished. Remember, I mentioned "false flag" operations before?

That's when the CIA commits what amounts to an act of terror within the sovereign borders of another nation (usually a country that won't "go along with the program") and, when that country responds, the American people are more easily convinced to invade and bomb said nation with impunity since they were not "aware" of the secret CIA "operation" that caused this in the first place. It's a matter of "national security" when our intelligence services provoke another country to defend themselves so we can't know about it. Gimme a BREAK!

The agency's program of assassinating terrorist leaders is itself fraught with contradictions and dangers. The hatred created by the US and Israel is independent of any leader. If one is killed, others take his place. The most likely outcome of the CIA assassination program is that the agency will be manipulated by rivals, just as the FBI was used by one mafia family to eliminate another. In order to establish credibility with groups that they are attempting to penetrate, CIA agents will be drawn into participating in violent acts against the US and its allies. Will the CIA kill an American citizen to prove their allegiance when trying to penetrate a terrorist group? I mean, they like to go by numbers. Kill one...save hundreds? Don't be too sure.

Accusing the truth-teller instead of the evil-doer is the position that the neoconservatives took against the New York Times when after one year's delay, which gave George W. Bush time to get reelected, the Times published the NSA leak that revealed that the Bush administration was committing felonies by violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The neocons, especially those associated with Commentary magazine, wanted the New York Times indicted for treason. To the evil neocon mind, anything that interferes with their diabolical agenda is treason. Wow! How they can twist things around!

This is the way many Americans think. America uber alles! No one counts but us (and Israel). The deaths we inflict and the pain and suffering we bring to others are merely collateral damage on the bloody path to American hegemony. "Collateral damage"......a term created by the military to hide it's real meaning. What if Osama Bin Laden called the 9/11 victims "collateral damage" when he declared war on us? Ooooooo! Apparently, only we can do that. Maybe, we can call a rape victim an "unwilling sperm recipient"? Or a starving child a "pre-adolescent lacking in proper nutrition"? Or (my favorite!) we can call a drug dealer an "independent pharmaceutical distributor"? Words.....they can be used to mask a host of different things.

The attitude of the "freedom and democracy" (?) US government is that anyone who complains of illegality or immorality or inhumanity is a traitor. The Republican Senator Christopher S. Bond is a recent example. Bond got on his high horse about "irreparable damage" to the CIA from the disclosures of its criminal activities. Bond wants those "back stabbers" who revealed the CIA's wrongdoings to be held accountable. Bond is unable to grasp that it is the criminal activities, not their disclosure, that is the source of the problem. Obviously, the whistleblower protection act has no support from Senator Bond, who sees it as just another law to plough under.

This is where the US government stands today: Ignoring and covering up government crimes is the patriotic thing to do. To reveal the government's crimes is an act of treason. Many Americans on both sides of the aisle agree. There are those who equate "nationalism" with patriotism. The slogan "America, right or wrong!" is nationalism. Like Hitler. "Might makes right". We can do no wrong! God is on our side! People actually believe that. They are completely ignorant of the history of this country. Just read even SOME of the quotes by the Founders of America. Thomas Jefferson once said, "Love your country, but SUSPECT THE GOVERNMENT". There's a DIFFERENCE! He knew his history.

Yet, they still think that they are The Virtuous Nation, the exceptional nation, the salt of the earth.


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

baddfish said:


> Hypocrisy... It WILL kill you!!!
> 
> Americans have lost their ability for introspection, thereby revealing their astounding hypocrisy to the world.
> 
> ...


Um I have a problem with that, I know Mohhamed Daud and he is a bloody liar.


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

^If they weren't stealing from already Taliban hijacked NATO tankers, they wouldnt have been blown up.... You do the crime you do the.... well you get annihilated.


----------



## His Majesty (Apr 5, 2005)

Baddfish, american hypocracy is nothing new!


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Unfortunately, to most it is!


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Preamble to the United States constitution. James Madison and John Adams.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves
and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America."
-- Preamble To The United States Constitution
9/17/1787

"Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression.
In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the community,
and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended,
not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents,
but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the
major number of the Constituents."
-- James Madison
(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
Source: in a letter to Thomas Jefferson in 1788

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America
arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation,
nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance
of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation."
-- John Adams
(1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President
Source: in a letter to Thomas Jefferson in 1787

"Life is a gift, Freedom is a responsibility."


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Ever wonder what happened to that fellow that threw that shoe (should have been a bullet) at that DEMON George W Bush?









Mutadhar al-Zaidi, the Iraqi who threw his shoe at George Bush gave this speech on his recent release.

In the name of God, the most gracious and most merciful.

Here I am, free. But my country is still a prisoner of war.

Firstly, I give my thanks and my regards to everyone who stood beside me, whether inside my country, in the Islamic world, in the free world. There has been a lot of talk about the action and about the person who took it, and about the hero and the heroic act, and the symbol and the symbolic act.

But, simply, I answer: What compelled me to confront is the injustice that befell my people, and how the occupation wanted to humiliate my homeland by putting it under its boot.

And how it wanted to crush the skulls of (the homeland's) sons under its boots, whether sheikhs, women, children or men. And during the past few years, more than a million martyrs fell by the bullets of the occupation and the country is now filled with more than 5 million orphans, a million widows and hundreds of thousands of maimed. And many millions of homeless because of displacement inside and outside the country.

We used to be a nation in which the Arab would share with the Turkman and the Kurd and the Assyrian and the Sabean and the Yazid his daily bread. And the Shiite would pray with the Sunni in one line. And the Muslim would celebrate with the Christian the birthday of Christ, may peace be upon him. And despite the fact that we shared hunger under sanctions for more than 10 years, for more than a decade.

Our patience and our solidarity did not make us forget the oppression. Until we were invaded by the illusion of liberation that some had. (The occupation) divided one brother from another, one neighbor from another, and the son from his uncle. It turned our homes into never-ending funeral tents. And our graveyards spread into parks and roadsides. It is a plague. It is the occupation that is killing us, that is violating the houses of worship and the sanctity of our homes and that is throwing thousands daily into makeshift prisons.

I am not a hero, and I admit that. But I have a point of view and I have a stance. It humiliated me to see my country humiliated. And to see my Baghdad burned. And my people being killed. Thousands of tragic pictures remained in my head, and this weighs on me every day and pushes me toward the righteous path, the path of confrontation, the path of rejecting injustice, deceit and duplicity. It deprived me of a good night's sleep.

Dozens, no, hundreds, of images of massacres that would turn the hair of a newborn white used to bring tears to my eyes and wound me. The scandal of Abu Ghraib. The massacre of Fallujah, Najaf, Haditha, Sadr City, Basra, Diyala, Mosul, Tal Afar, and every inch of our wounded land. In the past years, I traveled through my burning land and saw with my own eyes the pain of the victims, and hear with my own ears the screams of the bereaved and the orphans. And a feeling of shame haunted me like an ugly name because I was powerless.

And as soon as I finished my professional duties in reporting the daily tragedies of the Iraqis, and while I washed away the remains of the debris of the ruined Iraqi houses, or the traces of the blood of victims that stained my clothes, I would clench my teeth and make a pledge to our victims, a pledge of vengeance.

The opportunity came, and I took it.

I took it out of loyalty to every drop of innocent blood that has been shed through the occupation or because of it, every scream of a bereaved mother, every moan of an orphan, the sorrow of a rape victim, the teardrop of an orphan.

I say to those who reproach me: Do you know how many broken homes that shoe that I threw had entered because of the occupation? How many times it had trodden over the blood of innocent victims? And how many times it had entered homes in which free Iraqi women and their sanctity had been violated? Maybe that shoe was the appropriate response when all values were violated.

When I threw the shoe in the face of the criminal, Bush, I wanted to express my rejection of his lies, his occupation of my country, my rejection of his killing my people. My rejection of his plundering the wealth of my country, and destroying its infrastructure. And casting out its sons into a diaspora.

After six years of humiliation, of indignity, of killing and violations of sanctity, and desecration of houses of worship, the killer comes, boasting, bragging about victory and democracy. He came to say goodbye to his victims and wanted flowers in response.

Put simply, that was my flower to the occupier, and to all who are in league with him, whether by spreading lies or taking action, before the occupation or after.

I wanted to defend the honor of my profession and suppressed patriotism on the day the country was violated and its high honor lost. Some say: Why didn't he ask Bush an embarrassing question at the press conference, to shame him? And now I will answer you, journalists. How can I ask Bush when we were ordered to ask no questions before the press conference began, but only to cover the event. It was prohibited for any person to question Bush. So thousands of American troops died and they haven't even got "freedom" of the press?? What a waste.

And in regard to professionalism: The professionalism mourned by some under the auspices of the occupation should not have a voice louder than the voice of patriotism. And if patriotism were to speak out, then professionalism should be allied with it.

I take this opportunity: If I have wronged journalism without intention, because of the professional embarrassment I caused the establishment, I wish to apologize to you for any embarrassment I may have caused those establishments. All that I meant to do was express with a living conscience the feelings of a citizen who sees his homeland desecrated every day.

History mentions many stories where professionalism was also compromised at the hands of American policymakers, whether in the assassination attempt against Fidel Castro by booby-trapping a TV camera that CIA agents posing as journalists from Cuban TV were carrying, or what they did in the Iraqi war by deceiving the general public about what was happening. And there are many other examples that I won't get into here. Unlike many of our "journalists", this guy knows our history. The various ways the U.S. brings other countries into submission. He could write a book about it.

But what I would like to call your attention to is that these suspicious agencies -- the American intelligence and its other agencies and those that follow them -- will not spare any effort to track me down (because I am) a rebel opposed to their occupation. They will try to kill me or neutralize me, and I call the attention of those who are close to me to the traps that these agencies will set up to capture or kill me in various ways, physically, socially or professionally. He may end up dead and they'll call it a "suicide".

And at the time that the Iraqi prime minister came out on satellite channels to say that he didn't sleep until he had checked in on my safety, and that I had found a bed and a blanket, even as he spoke I was being tortured with the most horrific methods: electric shocks, getting hit with cables, getting hit with metal rods, and all this in the backyard of the place where the press conference was held. And the conference was still going on and I could hear the voices of the people in it. And maybe they, too, could hear my screams and moans.

In the morning, I was left in the cold of winter, tied up after they soaked me in water at dawn. And I apologize for Mr. Maliki for keeping the truth from the people. I will speak later, giving names of the people who were involved in torturing me, and some of them were high-ranking officials in the government and in the army.

I didn't do this so my name would enter history or for material gains. All I wanted was to defend my country, and that is a legitimate cause confirmed by international laws and divine rights. I wanted to defend a country, an ancient civilization that has been desecrated, and I am sure that history -- especially in America -- will state how the American occupation was able to subjugate Iraq and Iraqis, until its submission.

They will boast about the deceit and the means they used in order to gain their objective. It is not strange, not much different from what happened to the Native Americans at the hands of colonialists. Here I say to them (the occupiers) and to all who follow their steps, and all those who support them and spoke up for their cause: Never!

Because we are a people who would rather die than face humiliation.

And, lastly, I say that I am independent. I am not a member of any political party, something that was said during torture -- one time that I'm far-right, another that I'm a leftist. I am independent of any political party, and my future efforts will be in civil service to my people and to any who need it, without waging any political wars, as some said that I would.
My efforts will be toward providing care for widows and orphans, and all those whose lives were damaged by the occupation. I pray for mercy upon the souls of the martyrs who fell in wounded Iraq, and for shame upon those who occupied Iraq and everyone who assisted them in their abominable acts. And I pray for peace upon those who are in their graves, and those who are oppressed with the chains of imprisonment. And peace be upon you who are patient and looking to God for release.

And to my beloved country I say: If the night of injustice is prolonged, it will not stop the rising of a sun and it will be the sun of freedom.

One last word. I say to the government: It is a trust that I carry from my fellow detainees. They said, 'Muntadhar, if you get out, tell of our plight to the omnipotent powers' -- I know that only God is omnipotent and I pray to Him -- 'remind them that there are dozens, hundreds, of victims rotting in prisons because of an informant's word.'

They have been there for years, they have not been charged or tried. I guess, they have their own Guantanamo Bay! Their own "Patriot Act"! We are making them "in our image". And some don't like it. Maybe, they're just a bunch of "whiners".

They've only been snatched up from the streets and put into these prisons. And now, in front of you, and in the presence of God, I hope they can hear me or see me. I have now made good on my promise of reminding the government and the officials and the politicians to look into what's happening inside the prisons. The injustice that's caused by the delay in the judicial system.

Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you

The translation is by McClatchy's special correspondent, Sahar Issa.


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

baddfish said:


> Ever wonder what happened to that fellow that threw that shoe (should have been a bullet) at that DEMON George W Bush?


That's fucked up right there.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

ChilDawg said:


> Ever wonder what happened to that fellow that threw that shoe (should have been a bullet) at that DEMON George W Bush?


That's fucked up right there.
[/quote]

Whats F**KED up is EVERYTHING he did while in office!









INCLUDING knowledge and participation of the sept-11 attacks on HIS own country.


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

baddfish said:


> Ever wonder what happened to that fellow that threw that shoe (should have been a bullet) at that DEMON George W Bush?


That's fucked up right there.
[/quote]

Whats F**KED up is EVERYTHING he did while in office!









INCLUDING knowledge and participation of the sept-11 attacks on HIS own country.
[/quote]

hahahaha. Love it.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Lysander Spooner

"No attempt or pretence, that was ever carried into practical operation amongst civilized men -- unless possibly the pretence of a "Divine Right," on the part of some, to govern and enslave others -- embodied so much of shameless absurdity, falsehood, impudence, robbery, usurpation, tyranny, and villany of every kind, as the attempt or pretence of establishing a government by consent, and getting the actual consent of only so many as may be necessary to keep the rest in subjection by force. Such a government is a mere conspiracy of the strong against the weak. It no more rests on consent than does the worst government on earth."
-- Lysander Spooner
(1808-1887) Political theorist, activist, abolitionist
Source: No Treason. No. II The Constitution, (Boston: Published by the Author, 1867)

"The strong are always free by virtue of their superior strength. So long as government is a mere contest as to which of two parties shall rule the other, the weaker must always succumb. And whether the contest be carried on with ballots or bullets, the principle is the same; for under the theory of government now prevailing, the ballot either signifies a bullet, or it signifies nothing. And no one can consistently use a ballot, unless he intends to use a bullet, if the latter should be needed to insure submission to the former."
-- Lysander Spooner
(1808-1887) Political theorist, activist, abolitionist
Source: No Treason. No. II The Constitution, (Boston: Published by the Author, 1867)

"A government that can at pleasure accuse, shoot, and hang men, as traitors, for the one general offence of refusing to surrender themselves and their property unreservedly to its arbitrary will, can practice any and all special and particular oppressions it pleases. The result -- and a natural one -- has been that we have had governments, State and national, devoted to nearly every grade and species of crime that governments have ever practised upon their victims; and these crimes have culminated in a war that has cost a million of lives; a war carried on, upon one side, for chattel slavery, and on the other for political slavery; upon neither for liberty, justice, or truth. And these crimes have been committed, and this war waged, by men, and the descendants of men, who, less than a hundred years ago, said that all men were equal, and could owe neither service to individuals, nor allegiance to governments, except with their own consent."
-- Lysander Spooner
(1808-1887) Political theorist, activist, abolitionist
Source: No Treason. No. II The Constitution, (Boston: Published by the Author, 1867)


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

"Patriotism" A word whos TRUE meaning has been TWISTED!!!









Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger. Sound familiar?

- Herman Goering (Hitler's chief deputy) at the Nuremberg trials

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." Do I hear an echo?









- Mark Twain - Source: Chronicle of Young Satan


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

They gave al-qaida 6 billion dollars in 1989-1992. Government ties is why the government Lies.


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

Badfish is branded a maniac for speaking the truth and he will be murdered as soon as he hits the streets with the proof.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

BEWARE the 'banking cartel'...









More "conspiracy theorists"?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"A careful examination of what is happening behind the scenes reveals that all 
of these interests are working in concert with the masters of the Kremlin in 
order to create what some refer to as a "New World Order." Private 
organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of 
International Affairs, the Trilateral Commission, the Dartmouth Conference, the 
Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, the Atlantic Institute, and the 
Bilderberg Group serve to disseminate and to coordinate the plans for this 
so-called new world order in powerful business, financial, academic, and 
official circles."
-- Jesse Helms
Source: speech to the Senate, 1987

"The surest way to destroy a nation is to debauch its currency."
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
[Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov] (1870 - 1924), First Leader of the Soviet Union

"Of course, members of the dynastic banking families had been financing the 
Russian-oriented revolutionists for many years. Trotsky, in his biography, 
refers to some of these loans from British financiers going back as far as 
1907. By 1917 the major subsidies for the revolution were being arranged by Sir 
George Buchanan and Lord Alfred Milner (of the Morgan-Rothschild-Rhodes 
confederacy). Milner, it will be recalled, was the founder of England's secret 
"Round Table" group which started the Royal Institute for International Affairs 
in England and the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States. One 
American source gave Trotsky, Lenin and the other Communist leaders around 
twenty million dollars for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia. This was 
Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb and Company."
-- W. Cleon Skousen
Source: The Naked Capitalist (Salt Lake City, 1970), pp. 40-41

Share these quotes -- spread them around!
Many have sacrificed their lives for our Liberty.
Let us renew our commitment to Freedom.

REAL FREEDOM.......Not the "other" one!


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

I read this story before......I hope it's true. The greatest example of what they call "sportsMANship" I ever saw was commited by women....YES, WOMEN! It was on Youtube. It was a women's college softball game. I saw it with my own eyes. It was near the end of the game in the ninth inning. I think the game was tied up, two outs and the final batter was at the plate. Well, this young lady hit a home run to effectively win the game. However, the rules say that when you hit a home run, you have to run around the bases and touch each one for the home run to count. As luck would have it this young women, while running to first, somehow hurt her knee or ankle (I forget).

She fell to the ground in extreme pain. She knew, in order to win, she had to tag each base. The final base being home plate. She was going to crawl, if she had to, all the way around so her team could win. After only a couple of feet, two members of the OPPOSING team walked up to her, lifted her to her feet while at the same time supporting her so she wouldn't have to put any weight on her injured leg. The two then clutched eachothers' hands underneath the injured player's behind (her ass!) and made it so she could sit there! I was absolutely awestruck! I couldn't believe it! In an age where "winning" is everything......the humanity, the compassion they showed for another person of an "opposing" team.

They then carried her all the way around the bases and allowed her to "tag" each one all the way to home plate. In doing so, these two compassionate individuals lost the game. There was a standing ovation and applause from EVERY single person there.....even their teamates! And a lot of tears. You know me.....how I am. But I KNOW men would never do this. We HAVE to win. Unless, of course, we were like those nice little boys playing baseball who gave a disabled child the dream of his life! They should now, instead of calling it sportsMANship, call it sportsWOMANship! They displayed a human quality that is very rare nowadays. Later!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although I don't agree that we all as humans are by nature "good", as this story would have us believe. I do however believe what the bible says about our nature, and that is that we (all humans) are fallen and that there is none that does good not even one. Although I do believe that even as a fallen race we are still capable of compassion and love, as this story shows us. It is a nice read about the love of God shown thru us to others who are less fortunate and may be the least among us. Enjoy.

Two Choices

What would you do?....you make the choice. Don't look for a punch line, there isn't one. Read it anyway.

My question is: Would you have made the same choice?

At a fundraising dinner for a school that serves children with learning disabilities, the father of one of the students delivered a speech that would never be forgotten by all who attended. After extolling the school and its

dedicated staff, he offered a question:

'When not interfered with by outside influences, everything nature does,is done with perfection.

Yet my son, Shay, cannot learn things as other children do. He cannot understand things as other children do.

Where is the natural order of things in my son?'

The audience was stilled by the query.

The father continued. 'I believe that when a child like Shay, who was mentally and physically disabled comes into the world, an opportunity to realize true human nature presents itself, and it comes in the way other people treat that child.'

Then he told the following story:

Shay and I had walked past a park where some boys Shay knew were playing baseball. Shay asked, 'Do you think they'll let me play?' I knew that most of the boys would not want someone like Shay on their team, but as a father I also understood that if my son were allowed to play, it would give him a much-needed sense of belonging and some confidence to be accepted by others in spite of his handicaps.

I approached one of the boys on the field and asked (not expecting much) if Shay could play. The boy looked around for guidance and said, 'We're losing by six runs and the game is in the eighth inning. I guess he can be on our team and we'll try to put him in to bat in the ninth inning.'

Shay struggled over to the team's bench and, with a broad smile, put on a team shirt. I watched with a small tear in my eye and warmth in my heart. The boys saw my joy at my son being accepted.

In the bottom of the eighth inning, Shay's team scored a few runs but was still behind by three.

In the top of the ninth inning, Shay put on a glove and played in the right field. Even though no hits came his way, he was obviously ecstatic just to be in the game and on the field, grinning from ear to ear as I waved to him from the stands.

In the bottom of the ninth inning, Shay's team scored again.

Now, with two outs and the bases loaded, the potential winning run was on base and Shay was scheduled to be next at bat.

At this juncture, do they let Shay bat and give away their chance to win the game?

Surprisingly, Shay was given the bat. Everyone knew that a hit was all but impossible because Shay didn't even know how to hold the bat properly, much less connect with the ball.

However, as Shay stepped up to the

plate, the pitcher, recognizing that the other team was putting winning aside for this moment in Shay's life, moved in a few steps to lob the ball in softly so Shay could at least make contact...

The first pitch came and Shay swung clumsily and missed.

The pitcher again took a few steps forward to toss the ball softly towards Shay.

As the pitch came in, Shay swung at the ball and hit a slow ground ball right back to the pitcher.

The game would now be over.

The pitcher picked up the soft grounder and could have easily thrown the ball to the first baseman.

Shay would have been out and that would have been the end of the game.

Instead, the pitcher threw the ball right over the first baseman's head, out of reach of all team mates.

Everyone from the stands and both teams started yelling, 'Shay, run to first!

Run to first!'

Never in his life had Shay ever run that far, but he made it to first base.

He scampered down the baseline, wide-eyed and startled.

Everyone yelled, 'Run to second, run to second!'

Catching his breath, Shay awkwardly ran towards second, gleaming and struggling to make it to the base.

B y the time Shay rounded towards second base, the right fielder had the ball, the smallest guy on their team who now had his first chance to be the hero for his team.

He could have thrown the ball to the second-baseman for the tag, but he understood the pitcher's intentions so he, too, intentionally threw the ball high and far over the third-baseman's head.

Shay ran toward third base deliriously as the runners ahead of him circled the bases toward home.

All were screaming, 'Shay, Shay, Shay, all the Way Shay'

Shay reached third base because the opposing shortstop ran to help him by turning him in the direction of third base, and shouted, 'Run to third!

Shay, run to third!'

As Shay rounded third, the boys from both teams, and the spectators, were on their feet screaming, 'Shay, run home! Run home!'

Shay ran to home, stepped on the plate, and was cheered as the hero who hit the grand slam and won the game for his team

'That day', said the father softly with tears now rolling down his face, 'the boys from both teams helped bring a piece of true love and humanity into this world'.

Shay didn't make it to another summer. He died that winter, having never forgotten being the hero and making me so happy, and coming home and seeing his Mother tearfully embrace her little hero of the day!

AND NOW A LITTLE FOOT NOTE TO THIS STORY:

We all send thousands of jokes through the e-mail without a second thought, but when it comes to sending messages about life choices, people hesitate.

The crude, vulgar, and often obscene pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion about decency is too often suppressed in our society.

If you're thinking about forwarding this message, chances are that you're probably sorting out the people in your address book who aren't the 'appropriate' ones to receive this type of message Well, the person who sent you this believes that we all can make a difference.

We all have thousands of opportunities every single day to help realize the 'natural order of things.'

So many seemingly trivial interactions between two people present us with a choice:

Do we pass along a little spark of love and humanity or do we pass up those opportunities and leave the world a little bit colder in the process?

A wise man once said every society is judged by how it treats it's least fortunate amongst them.

May your day, be a Shay Day.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

A 'MUST' read.

The following letter was published about 8 months after the Iraq War started back in 2003 by a Vietnam veteran. He sees the parallels between then and now. He lived it. He's as patriotic as they come. AND he kept his humanity.

Hold On to Your Humanity:
An Open Letter to GIs in Iraq

by Stan Goff
(US Army Retired)
First published November 2003

Dear American serviceperson in Iraq,

I am a retired veteran of the army, and my own son is among you, a paratrooper like I was. The changes that are happening to every one of you--some more extreme than others--are changes I know very well. So I'm going to say some things to you straight up in the language to which you are accustomed.

In 1970, I was assigned to the 173rd Airborne Brigade, then based in northern Binh Dinh Province in what was then the Republic of Vietnam. When I went there, I had my head full of sh*t: sh*t from the news media, sh*t from movies, sh*t about what it supposedly means to be a man, and sh*t from a lot of my know-nothing neighbors who would tell you plenty about Vietnam even though they'd never been there, or to war at all.
The essence of all this sh*t was that we had to "stay the course in Vietnam" (remember that term?)and that we were on some mission to save good Vietnamese from bad Vietnamese, and to keep the bad Vietnamese from hitting beachheads outside of Oakland. That's funny! We stayed the course until 58,000 Americans were dead and lots more maimed for life, and 3,000,000 Southeast Asians were dead. Ex-military people and even many on active duty played a big part in finally bringing that crime to a halt.

When I started hearing about weapons of mass destruction that threatened the United States from Iraq, a shattered country that had endured almost a decade of trench war followed by an invasion and twelve years of sanctions, my first question was how in the hell can anyone believe that this suffering country presents a threat to the United States? But then I remembered how many people had believed Vietnam threatened the United States. Including me.

When that bullshit story about weapons came apart like a two-dollar shirt, the politicians who cooked up this war told everyone, including you, that you would be greeted like great liberators. They told us that we were in Vietnam to make sure everyone there could vote.
What they didn't tell me was that before I got there in 1970, the American armed forces had been burning villages, killing livestock, poisoning farmlands and forests, killing civilians for sport, bombing whole villages, and commiting rapes and massacres, and the people who were grieving and raging over that weren't in a position to figure out the difference between me--just in country--and the people who had done those things to them.
What they didn't tell you is that over a million and a half Iraqis died between 1991 and 2003 from malnutrition, medical neglect, and bad sanitation. Over half a million of those who died were the weakest: the children, especially very young children.

My son who is over there now has a baby. We visit with our grandson every chance we get. He is eleven months old now. Lots of you have children, so you know how easy it is to really love them, and love them so hard you just know your entire world would collapse if anything happened to them. Iraqis feel that way about their babies, too. And they are not going to forget that the United States government was largely responsible for the deaths of half a million kids.

So the lie that you would be welcomed as liberators was just that. A lie. A lie for people in the United States to get them to open their purse for this obscenity, and a lie for you to pump you up for a fight.
And when you put this into perspective, you know that if you were an Iraqi, you probably wouldn't be crazy about American soldiers taking over your towns and cities either. This is the tough reality I faced in Vietnam. I knew while I was there that if I were Vietnamese, I would have been one of the Vietcong.

But there we were, ordered into someone else's country, playing the role of occupier when we didn't know the people, their language, or their culture, with our head full of bullshit our so-called leaders had told us during training and in preparation for deployment, and even when we got there. There we were, facing people we were ordered to dominate, but any one of whom might be pumping mortars at us or firing AKs at us later that night. The question we stated to ask is who put us in this position?
In our process of fighting to stay alive, and in their process of trying to expel an invader that violated their dignity, destroyed their property, and killed their innocents, we were faced off against each other by people who made these decisions in $5,000 suits, who laughed and slapped each other on the back in Washington DC with their fat f*cking asses stuffed full of cordon blue and caviar.
They chumped us. Anyone can be chumped. It's still happening now!

That's you now. Just fewer trees and less water. From the jungles of Vietnam to the deserts of the Middle East.
We haven't figured out how to stop the pasty-faced, oil-hungry backslappers in DC yet, and it looks like you all might be stuck there for a little longer. So I want to tell you the rest of the story.
I changed over there in Vietnam and they were not nice changes either. I started getting pulled into something--something that craved other people's pain. Just to make sure I wasn't regarded as a "f*cking missionary" or a possible rat, I learned how to fit myself into that group that was untouchable, people too crazy to f*ck with, people who desired the rush of omnipotence that comes with setting someone's house on fire just for the pure hell of it, or who could kill anyone, man, woman, or child, with hardly a second thought. People who had the power of life and death--because they could.
The anger helps. It's easy to hate everyone you can't trust because of your circumstances, and to rage about what you've seen, what has happened to you, and what you have done and can't take back.

It was all an act for me, a cover-up for deeper fears I couldn't name, and the reason I know that is that we had to dehumanize our victims before we did the things we did. How many times have I said that?
We knew deep down that what we were doing was wrong. So they became dinks or gooks, just like Iraqis are now being transformed into ******** or hajjis. People had to be reduced to "*******" here before they could be lynched. No difference. We convinced ourselves we had to kill them to survive, even when that wasn't true, but something inside us told us that so long as they were human beings, with the same intrinsic value we had as human beings, we were not allowed to burn their homes and barns, kill their animals, and sometimes even kill them. So we used these words, these new names, to reduce them, to strip them of their essential humanity, and then we could do things like adjust artillery fire onto the cries of a baby.
Until that baby was silenced, though, and here's the important thing to understand, that baby never surrendered her humanity. I did. We did. That's the thing you might not get until it's too late. When you take away the humantiy of another, you kill your own humanity. You attack your own soul because it is standing in the way.

So we finish our tour, and go back to our families, who can see that even though we function, we are empty and incapable of truly connecting to people any more, and maybe we can go for months or even years before we fill that void where we surrendered our humanity, with chemical anesthetics--drugs, alcohol, until we realize that the void can never be filled and we shoot ourselves, or head off into the street where we can disappear with the flotsam of society, or we hurt others, especially those who try to love us, and end up as another incarceration statistic or a mental patient.

You can never escape that you became a racist because you made the excuse that you needed that to survive, that you took things away from people that you can never give back, or that you killed a piece of yourself that you may never get back.
Some of us do. We get lucky and someone gives a damn enough to emotionally resuscitate us and bring us back to life. Many do not.
I live with the rage every day of my life, even when no one else sees it. You might hear it in my words. I hate being chumped.
So here is my message to you. You will do what you have to do to survive, however you define survival, while we do what we have to do to stop this thing. But don't surrender your humanity. Not to fit in. Not to prove yourself. Not for an adrenaline rush. Not to lash out when you are angry and frustrated. Not for some ticket-punching f*cking military careerist to make his bones on. Especially not for the Bush-Cheney Gas & Oil Consortium. I wondered when he would finally bring this up!

The big bosses are trying to gain control of the world's energy supplies to twist the arms of future economic competitors. That's what's going on, and you need to understand it, then do what you need to do to hold on to your humanity. The system does that; tells you you are some kind of hero action figures, but uses you as gunmen. They chump you.
Your so-called civilian leadership sees you as an expendable commodity. They don't care about your nightmares, about the DU
(Depleted Uranium.......I'll tell you about that later. Some REALLY dangerous stuff) that you are breathing, about the lonliness, the doubts, the pain, or about how your humanity is stripped away, a piece at a time. They will cut your benefits, deny your illnesses, and hide your wounded and dead from the public. They already are.

They don't care. So you have to. And to preserve your own humanity, you must recognize the humanity of the people whose nation you now occupy and know that both you and they are victims of the filthy rich bastards who are calling the shots.
They are your enemies--The Suits--and they are the enemies of peace, and the enemies of your families, especially if they are Black families, or immigrant families, or poor families. They are thieves and bullies who take and never give, and they say they will "never run" in Iraq, but you and I know that they will never have to run, because they f*cking aren't there! You are!

They'll skin and grin while they are getting what they want from you, and throw you away like a used condom when they are done. Ask the vets who are having their benefits slashed out from under them now. Bush, Rumsfeld and their cronies are parasites, and they are the sole beneficiaries of the chaos you are learning to live in. They get the money. You get the prosthetic devices, the nightmares, and the mysterious illnesses. Agent Orange, Gulf War Syndrome.....Depleted Uranium will cause much more....wait and see. As usual, the U.S. government will deny everything.

So if your rage needs a target, there they are, responsible for your being there, and responsible for keeping you there. I can't tell you to disobey. That would probably run me afoul of the law. That will be a decision you will have to take when and if the circumstances and your own conscience dictate. But it's perfeclty legal for you to refuse illegal orders, and orders to abuse or attack civilians are illegal. Ordering you to keep silent about these crimes is also illegal.

I can tell you, without fear of legal consequence, that you are never under any obligation to hate Iraqis, you are never under any obligation to give yourself over to racism and nihilism and the thirst to kill for the sake of killing, and you are never under any obligation to let them drive out the last vestiges of your capacity to see and tell the truth to yourself and to the world. You do not owe them your souls.
Come home safe, and come home sane. The people who love you and who have loved you all your lives are waiting here, and we want you to come back and be able to look us in the face. Don't leave your souls in the dust there like another corpse.

Hold on to your humanity.
Stan Goff
US Army (Ret.)

PERFECTLY stated!!!


----------



## His Majesty (Apr 5, 2005)

that was a very good letter. i liked what he had to say


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Trigger lover said:


> that was a very good letter. i liked what he had to say


I agree. A very good and TRUE letter.

And here's a couple good and TRUE quotes!!!

Julius Ceasar....Mark Twain‏

"Beware the leader who bangs the drum of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor. For patriotism is indeed a double- edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and patriotism, will offer up all of their rights to the leader and gladly so.
How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Julius Caesar."

"Statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."
- Mark Twain - Source: Chronicle of Young Satan


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

ChilDawg said:


> Ever wonder what happened to that fellow that threw that shoe (should have been a bullet) at that DEMON George W Bush?


That's fucked up right there.
[/quote]

Yeah that's fucked up isnt it? What's even more fucked up is the bombs that he allowed to be dropped on innocent children and all of the masses of innocent lives he has allowed to be taken. One day that f*cking puppet will be living in the hottest part of hell.


----------



## His Majesty (Apr 5, 2005)

ChilDawg why is that fucked up?


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

The following article is the best written explanation of fractional reserve banking I've ever read.

The heart of the modern monetary system is fractional reserve banking. This system is based on fraud. At the very heart of the modern economy is fraud - fraud on a gigantic scale.
What is the nature of this fraud? Counterfeiting. Banks are government-licensed institutions that issue bogus IOUs. Because these IOUs function as money, they are counterfeit money. This is the heart, mind, and soul of all modern banking.

There is only one textbook in money and banking that states explicitly that all fractional reserve banking rests on fraud: Murray Rothbard's The Mystery of Banking. It is not used in any university. It never has been. It was published in 1983. It went out of print almost immediately. It is on-line here.
Rothbard takes the reader through the traditional T-account exercise that is common to all upper-division textbooks in money and banking. Unlike all the others, his book shows how the process of making deposits and lending the money involves counterfeiting whenever the depositor has the legal right to withdraw his money on demand.

This is not the same as a life insurance contract in which you can borrow against your built-up reserves. The company treats the policy-holder as it would treat another borrower. It raises money to make the loan.
The banking system issues multiple IOUs to depositors and borrowers, yet these IOUs are based on the same initial deposits. Traditional textbooks describe this process, but they refuse to identify the process as counterfeiting. They also refuse to mention that this process of monetary inflation is the sole basis of all booms and busts: the business cycle. This was Ludwig von Mises' insight as far back as 1912 in his book, The Theory of Credit. 1912? WOW! By coincidence (?), the following year the Federal Reserve Act was passed! This gave control of our money supply to PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL BANKERS! This is contrary to Constitutional law.

Rothbard makes it clear why fractional reserve banking is fraudulent. This is why no professor assigns his book to his classes.

The irresistible temptation now emerges for the goldsmith or other deposit banker to commit fraud and inflation: to engage, in short, in fractional reserve banking, where total cash reserves are lower, by some fraction, than the warehouse receipts outstanding. It is unlikely that the banker will simply abstract the gold and use it for his own consumption; there is then no likelihood of ever getting the money should depositors ask to redeem it, and this act would run the risk of being considered embezzlement. Instead, the banker will either lend out the gold, or far more likely, will issue fake warehouse receipts for gold and lend them out, eventually getting repaid the principal plus interest. In short, the deposit banker has suddenly become a loan banker; the difference is that he is not taking his own savings or borrowing in order to lend to consumers or investors.

Instead he is taking someone else's money and lending it out at the same time that the depositor thinks his money is still available for him to redeem. Or rather, and even worse, the banker issues fake warehouse receipts and lends them out as if they were real warehouse receipts represented by cash. At the same time, the original depositor thinks that his warehouse receipts are represented by money available at any time he wishes to cash them in. Here we have the system of fractional reserve banking, in which more than one warehouse receipt is backed by the same amount of gold or other cash in the bank's vaults. 
It should be clear that modern fractional reserve banking is a shell game, a Ponzi scheme, a fraud in which fake warehouse receipts are issued and circulate as equivalent to the cash supposedly represented by the receipts.

Modern economists do not acknowledge that fractional reserve banking is a gigantic system of counterfeiting. They do not apply the same analysis to fractional reserve banking that they would apply to counterfeiting if they discussed counterfeiting. They rarely discuss counterfeiting. This is because they know that bright students can make the analytical connection. The students will be tempted to conclude what is in fact the case, namely, that fractional reserve banking is a form of counterfeiting.

BORROWED SHORT AND LENT LONG

The banker offers a deal to holders of currency. (Prior to 1914 in Europe and prior to 1933 in the United States, the public held gold coins.) Here is the offer.

If you will deposit your money in my bank, I will lend it out at interest. I will share some of this interest with you by guaranteeing you a fixed rate of return.

So far, so good. But then comes the kicker. Furthermore, I will pay you your money on demand during banking hours. Any time you want your currency back, just come to the bank and take it out - no questions asked (unless you try to take out $10,000 or more).
The banker knows what the economics professor knows: almost no one can think through the implications of this promise. Both the banker and the professor of money and banking strive to keep people in the dark. They promote the mystery of banking.
What are a few implications? Here is one. When the bank lends money to a borrower at a fixed rate of return, it lends for a specific period of time (commercial loans) or else no deadline (credit card loans). It cannot get this money back on demand. Yet it owes money on demand.

The depositor can demand immediate payment. Yet the money is gone. The bank has therefore issued two IOUs to the same deposit. The depositor can pull out his money at any time. The borrower, who has the money sitting in his account, can do the same thing.
How is this possible? Because the government or the central bank allows the bank to set aside a small percentage of reserves on the deposit. The bank does not have to keep 100% of the on-demand money in reserve.
With a 10% reserve requirement, if a bank gets a $100 deposit and sends $10 to the central bank as a reserve, it can legally lend $90. When the borrower spends this $90, the receiving bank sets aside $9 and lends $81. The initial $100 deposit leads to $900 in new money.

If the banker had added the following statement, there would be no fraud. There would be no counterfeiting.

You will not be able to get your money back on demand until the contract runs out for the borrower. As he repays interest, you will get your share. If he refuses to repay, I will pay you your principal based on bank reserves. But, of course, if the bank goes bankrupt, you will not be repaid.

This offer would make it clear to the depositor that there is no such thing as a free lunch. He cannot get the return of his money until the bank gets it back from the borrower. The same deposit still serves as money: for the borrower, not for the depositor. 
The banker makes the offer of payment on demand because he knows that few depositors will demand their money most of the time. Those who do demand their money can be paid out of the money deposited by today's depositors. Is this a Ponzi scheme? It is a Ponzi scheme that can go on much longer, because the bank possesses the power to create money. ........"out of thin air", like magic!

CONTRACTS OVER TIME

All contracts have a time component. A contract is a promise to perform an action in the future.

A contract that promises to do the impossible is fraudulent. If it is part of a series of identical contracts, only a few of which can be consummated on the same day, then all of the payment-on-demand contracts are fraudulent. The creditor cannot distinguish his claim from all the others, other than by "first come, first served." That principle encourages bank runs. If everybody in the country went to their bank at the same time to withdraw their money, only one in ten will get it.

Bankers woo depositors with promises of everlasting commitment. The proof of this everlasting commitment is the promise of withdrawal on demand. Then they take the depositors' money to woo borrowers with promises of what would otherwise have been below-market interest rates. Why below market? Because depositors have been lured into parting with their money by means of a promise - a promise that cannot be fulfilled because of the time discrepancy between borrowing short (depositors' accounts) and lending long (borrowers' accounts).

The basis of this monetary philandery is the discrepancy between the rival promises of time.

To understand modern banking, think of a full-time philanderer with one mid-town apartment, four mistresses, and three keys. We can call this a 25% reserve requirement. Three mistresses live in the suburbs. His favorite lives in mid-town. One key is for him; one is for the mid-town girl; and one is for the other three mistresses. This key is kept on reserve at the desk downstairs. He assumes that out-of-towners will not all show up on the same day at the same time.
This plan works until a rumor gets out about the nature of the arrangement. Then all three out-of-towners show up to make sure they have a key. This is an EXCELLENT example of "fractional reserve banking".

INFLATION AND BAD INFORMATION

Counterfeiters increase the money supply. This is inflationary. They defraud holders of the non-counterfeit currency. How? By lowering the market price of the currency already in circulation. The slogan is: "More money chasing the same amount of goods."
But, as Mises showed, there is more to it than this. The added money, when lent to producers, leads to a transfer of wealth to the producers. They start bidding for production goods: land (including raw materials), labor, and capital (land plus labor over time). The can make higher bids. They supply goods and services to match expected demand. This creates an economic boom. But when the counterfeiters stop counterfeiting, expected demand does not appear. This creates a bust.
Counterfeit money distorts information. How? Because prices convey information. Prices should convey accurate information. When decision-makers have accurate information, they can find ways to lower the transaction costs of their decisions. They can search out better ways to cut expenses. They can become more efficient. 
When prices convey inaccurate information, individuals find that they make more mistakes. They make decisions in terms of information that is misleading. This is why prices should be based on decentralized decisions in which individuals making the decisions are responsible for the outcome of their actions. This is the defense of free-market capitalism. But, when it comes to banks, the economists refuse to follow the logic of this principle of individual responsibility and performance. Defenders of central banking and fractional reserve banking are necessarily defenders of inaccurate information.

CENTRAL BANKING

A central bank provides emergency money to commercial banks. This reduces the threat of bank runs. Central banks intervene to save large banks. This is why no large American bank went bust in the Great Depression, while over 6,000 small banks did. I wonder why? 
Central banks are the enforcing arm of the fractional reserve banking system. Central banks determine which banks survive and which do not in a national bank run. Their job is to protect the largest commercial banks. This is a form of central planning by a government-licensed monopolistic agency. Wait a minute....."central planning"? Isn't that the "evil" socialism? Where is the right-wing outrage?

When central planners substitute their judgment for individual decision-makers, we see a centralization of power over the market. The terms of exchange are not being set by individual participants who are responsible for their actions. The terms of exchange are being set by a distant committee. They are immune from negative feedback for their own decisions. The Federal Reserve has never been audited. However, there is a growing movement in Congress to change this. I watched on tape Ben Bernanke (Chairman of the Federal Reserve) speaking on the issue of auditing the Fed before Congress threaten an economic collapse of catastrophic proportion if the Fed were to be audited. That's the kind of power he wields. Of course, chickenshit Congress backed off.

This arrangement is guaranteed to reduce the accuracy of information that is conveyed by prices. Furthermore, when the intervention in question relates to the control of the money supply, we can be certain that the information conveyed by the decision of the committee will be less accurate than the information conveyed by individual decision-makers.
Fractional reserve banking creates blindness. Central banking extends this blindness. 
Any economy that relies on fractional reserve banking is flying partially blind. This blindness becomes permanent when a central bank protects large commercial banks that are regarded as too big to fail.

CONCLUSION

Fractional reserve banking is inherently fraudulent. It inflates the money supply. It creates the boom-bust cycle. Through central banking, it transfers planning authority to bureaucrats with only an indirect stake in the outcome of their decisions. 
It is the basis of the modern economy. The booms and busts get worse. The dollar depreciates. Central planning increases. Information becomes more distorted.
This will end badly. Worse, it may start over again.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

MORE wonderful news from the 'GOOD OLE' USA!!!

DU...Depleted Uranium

Notice the following article was written in 2004. I like reading articles from years back. Frequently, they'll accurately predict the future. I especially enjoy the ones that run counter to "established" thought. These writers are laughed at and villified by the "mainstream media".....until future events prove them correct. Anyway, I've went to websites that show graphic photos of victims suffering the effects from contact with depleted uranium (DU). HORRIFIC!! Especially, the children. The type of birth defects......they don't even look human. Remember, it messes with our DNA.....our genetic code. And it's not over. DU has a half-life of four and a half BILLION YEARS! I'm hoping the public will become better informed because we have yet to see the full extent of the damage from this "weapon of mass destruction".

Depleted Uranium:
Dirty Bombs, Dirty Missiles, Dirty Bullets ---

A Death Sentence Here And Abroad
By Leuren Moret 
San Francisco Bay View, August 18, 2004

At an April press conference, a group of New York Army National Guard vets raised their hands when asked if they have health problems. The soldiers, all from the 442nd Military Police Company, are complaining of headaches and fatigue after what they think is exposure to depleted uranium during their recent tour in Iraq.
Photo: americanfreepress.net

"Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." - Henry Kissinger, quoted in "Kiss the Boys Goodbye: How the United States Betrayed Its Own POW's in Vietnam" Support the troops, huh?

Vietnam was a chemical war for oil, permanently contaminating large regions and countries downriver with Agent Orange, and environmentally the most devastating war in world history. But since 1991, the U.S. has staged four nuclear wars using depleted uranium weaponry, which, like Agent Orange, meets the U.S. government definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Vast regions in the Middle East and Central Asia have been permanently contaminated with radiation.

And what about our soldiers? Terry Jemison of the Department of Veterans Affairs reported this week to the American Free Press that "Gulf-era veterans" now on medical disability since 1991 number 518,739, with only 7,035 reported wounded in Iraq in that same 14-year period.
This week the American Free Press dropped a "dirty bomb" on the Pentagon by reporting that eight out of 20 men who served in one unit in the 2003 U.S. military offensive in Iraq now have malignancies. That means that 40 percent of the soldiers in that unit have developed malignancies in just 16 months.

Since these soldiers were exposed to vaccines and depleted uranium (DU) only, this is strong evidence for researchers and scientists working on this issue, that DU is the definitive cause of Gulf War Syndrome. Vaccines are not known to cause cancer. One of the first published researchers on Gulf War Syndrome, who also served in 1991 in Iraq, Dr. Andras Korényi-Both, is in agreement with Barbara Goodno from the Department of Defense's Deployment Health Support Directorate, that in this war soldiers were not exposed to chemicals, pesticides, bioagents or other suspect causes this time to confuse the issue.
This powerful new evidence is blowing holes in the cover-up perpetrated by the Pentagon and three presidential administrations ever since DU was first used in 1991 in the Persian Gulf War. Fourteen years after the introduction of DU on the battlefield in 1991, the long-term effects have revealed that DU is a death sentence and very nasty stuff.

Scientists studying the biological effects of uranium in the 1960s reported that it targets the DNA. Marion Fulk, a nuclear physical chemist retired from the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab and formerly involved with the Manhattan Project, interprets the new and rapid malignancies in soldiers from the 2003 war as "spectacular &#8230; and a matter of concern."
This evidence shows that of the three effects which DU has on biological systems - radiation, chemical and particulate - the particulate effect from nano-size particles is the most dominant one immediately after exposure and targets the Master Code in the DNA. This is bad news, but it explains why DU causes a myriad of diseases which are difficult to define. Thus, can be easily denied by the Pentagon when returning veterans seek medical attention.

In simple words, DU "trashes the body." When asked if the main purpose for using it was for destroying things and killing people, Fulk was more specific: "I would say that it is the perfect weapon for killing lots of people."
Soldiers developing malignancies so quickly since 2003 can be expected to develop multiple cancers from independent causes. This phenomenon has been reported by doctors in hospitals treating civilians following NATO bombing with DU in Yugoslavia in 1998-1999 and the U.S. military invasion of Iraq using DU for the first time in 1991.

Medical experts report that this phenomenon of multiple malignancies from unrelated causes has been unknown until now and is a new syndrome associated with internal DU exposure.
Just 467 U.S. personnel were wounded in the three-week Persian Gulf War in 1990-1991. Out of 580,400 soldiers who served in Gulf War I, 11,000 are dead, and by 2000 there were 325,000 on permanent medical disability. This astounding number of disabled vets means that a decade later, 56 percent of those soldiers who served now have medical problems.
The number of disabled vets reported up to 2000 has been increasing by 43,000 every year. Brad Flohr of the Department of Veterans Affairs told American Free Press that he believes there are more disabled vets now than even after World War II.

They brought it home

Not only were soldiers exposed to DU on and off the battlefields, but they brought it home. DU in the semen of soldiers internally contaminated their wives, partners and girlfriends. Tragically, some women in their 20s and 30s who were sexual partners of exposed soldiers developed endometriosis and were forced to have hysterectomies because of health problems.
In a group of 251 soldiers from a study group in Mississippi who had all had normal babies before the Gulf War, 67 percent of their post-war babies were born with severe birth defects. They were born with missing legs, arms, organs or eyes or had immune system and blood diseases. In some veterans' families now, the only normal or healthy members of the family are the children born before the war.
The Department of Veterans Affairs has stated that they do not keep records of birth defects occurring in families of veterans. Oh, I'm sure they don't!

How did they hide it?

Before a new weapons system can be used, it must be fully tested. The blueprint for depleted uranium weapons is a 1943 declassified document from the Manhattan Project. I'm sure most of you know that the Manhattan Project was the secret government program that resulted in the development of the first atomic weapon during WWII.

Harvard President and physicist James B. Conant, who developed poison gas in World War I, was brought into the Manhattan Project by the father of presidential candidate John Kerry. Kerry's father served at a high level in the Manhattan Project and was a CIA agent. DAMN!! I never knew that!

Conant was chair of the S-1 Poison Gas Committee, which recommended developing poison gas weapons from the radioactive trash of the atomic bomb project in World War II. At that time, it was known that radioactive materials dispersed in bombs from the air, from land vehicles or on the battlefield produced very fine radioactive dust which would penetrate all protective clothing, any gas mask or filter or the skin. By contaminating the lungs and blood, it could kill or cause illness very quickly.
They also recommended it as a permanent terrain contaminant, which could be used to destroy populations by contaminating water supplies and agricultural land with the radioactive dust.
The first DU weapons system was developed for the Navy in 1968, and DU weapons were given to and used by Israel in 1973 under U.S. supervision in the Yom Kippur war against the Arabs. What a sick way of studying the effects of this stuff on real people.

The Phalanx weapons system, using DU, was tested on the USS Bigelow out of Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in 1977, and DU weapons have been sold by the U.S. to 29 countries. That's just freakin' great. 29 countries? Who's to say they won't use this on us later? Remember, Saddam used to be our "friend". I go to jail for selling some reefer and these guys sell this stuff and nothing happens to them. Psssss!

Military research report summaries detail the testing of DU from 1974-1999 at military testing grounds, bombing and gunnery ranges and at civilian labs under contract. Today 42 states are contaminated with DU from manufacture, testing and deployment.
Women living around these facilities have reported increases in endometriosis, birth defects in babies, leukemia in children and cancers and other diseases in adults. Thousands of tons of DU weapons tested for decades by the Navy on four bombing and gunnery ranges around Fallon, Nevada, is no doubt the cause of the fastest growing leukemia cluster in the U.S. over the past decade. The military denies that DU is the cause.

The medical profession has been active in the cover-up - just as they were in hiding the effects from the American public - of low level radiation from atmospheric testing and nuclear power plants. A medical doctor in Northern California reported being trained by the Pentagon with other doctors, months before the 2003 war started, to diagnose and treat soldiers returning from the 2003 war for mental problems only.

Medical professionals in hospitals and facilities treating returning soldiers were threatened with $10,000 fines if they talked about the soldiers or their medical problems. They were also threatened with jail.
Reporters have also been prevented access to more than 14,000 medically evacuated soldiers flown nightly since the 2003 war in C-150s from Germany who are brought to Walter Reed Hospital near Washington, D.C.

How was the truth about DU hidden from military personnel serving in successive DU wars? Before his tragic death, Sen. Paul Wellstone informed Joyce Riley, R.N., B.S.N., executive director of the American Gulf War Veterans Association, that 95 percent of Gulf War veterans had been recycled out of the military by 1995. Any of those continuing in military service were isolated from each other, preventing critical information being transferred to new troops. The "next DU war" had already been planned, and those planning it wanted "no skunk at the garden party."

The US has a dirty (DU) little (CIA) secret

A new book just published at the American Free Press by Michael Collins Piper, "The High Priests of War: The Secret History of How America's Neo-Conservative Trotskyites Came to Power and Orchestrated the War Against Iraq as the First Step in Their Drive for Global Empire," details the early plans for a war against the Arab world by Henry Kissinger and the neo-cons in the late 1960s and early 1970s. That just happens to coincide with getting the DU "show on the road" and the oil crisis in the Middle East, which caused concern not only to President Nixon. The British had been plotting and scheming for control of the oil in Iraq for decades since first using poison gas on the Iraqis and Kurds in 1912.

The book details the creation of the neo-cons by their "godfather" and Trotsky lover Irving Kristol, who pushed for a "war against terrorism" long before 9/11 and was lavishly funded for years by the CIA. His son, William Kristol, is one of the most influential men in the United States.
Both are public relations men for the Israeli lobby's neo-conservative network, with strong ties to Rupert Murdoch. Kissinger also has ties to this network and the Carlyle Group, who, one could say, have facilitated these omnicidal wars beginning from the time former President Bush took office. It would be easy to say that we are recycling World Wars I and II, with the same faces.

When I asked Vietnam Special Ops Green Beret Capt. John McCarthy, who could have devised this omnicidal plan to use DU to destroy the genetic code and genetic future of large populations of Arabs and Moslems in the Middle East and Central Asia - just coincidentally the areas where most of the world's oil deposits are located - he replied: "It has all the handprints of Henry Kissinger."
In Zbignew Brzezinski's book "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives," the map of the Eurasian chessboard includes four regions strategic to U.S. foreign policy. The "South" region corresponds precisely to the regions now contaminated permanently with radiation from U.S. bombs, missiles and bullets made with thousands of tons of DU. Zbignew Brzeznski describes the world as a "Grand Chessboard". Mmmmm. I wonder who are the "pawns" on his global chessboard.

A Japanese professor, Dr. K. Yagasaki, has calculated that 800 tons of DU is the atomicity equivalent of 83,000 Nagasaki bombs. The U.S. has used more DU since 1991 than the atomicity equivalent of 400,000 Nagasaki bombs. Four nuclear wars indeed, and 10 times the amount of radiation released into the atmosphere from atmospheric testing!

No wonder our soldiers, their families and the people of the Middle East, Yugoslavia and Central Asia are sick. But as Henry Kissinger said after Vietnam when our soldiers came home ill from Agent Orange, "Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used for foreign policy." I notice this writer equates using DU as engaging in "nuclear" war.


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

Trigger lover said:


> ChilDawg why is that fucked up?


It's fucked up that he said that George Bush should have been shot instead of shoed.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Strategy for the "New World Order"‏

I ran into this article. Wow! It put into words what I have been unable to do. You know, I've read that when a person has a certain belief system (religious or otherwise) and that person is confronted with evidence that contradicts that belief, he/she tends to ignore what is undeniably apparent. Especially, if they believed in something for a long time. It's that predisposition that causes many to just look away.....not wanting to admit to what they see.....in plain view. I, myself, was a skeptic way back when. Over time, however, I began to put the different pieces together. History has a way of redeeming itself. There is a spiritual element to all this. I realize not everyone is religiously inclined. I am. When I'm in the position to witness Biblical prophecy being fulfilled.....how can I deny it? I would love to be able to say, "Oh, that's just a coincidence.", or, "This means something else." Well, okay. But after years and years of recognizing how global events have culminated to where it's undeniably visible (on TV, newspapers, Internet, etc.) to my eyes and soul, how can I arrive at any other conclusion? It lends credibility to the Scriptures. I look forward to the Promise of our Creator.

In the face of total global economic collapse, the prospects of a massive international war are increasing. Historically, periods of imperial decline and economic crisis are marked by increased international violence and war. The decline of the great European empires was marked by World War I and World War II, with the Great Depression taking place in the intermediary period.

Currently, the world is witnessing the decline of the American empire, itself a product born out of World War II. As the post-war imperial hegemon, America ran the international monetary system and reigned as champion and arbitrator of the global political economy.

To "manage" the global political economy, the US has created the single largest and most powerful military force in world history. Constant control over the global economy requires constant military presence and action. Has that, or has that not, happened?

Now that both the American empire and global political economy are in decline and collapse, the prospect of a violent end to the American imperial age is drastically increasing.

Defining a New Imperial Strategy

In 1991, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, US-NATO foreign policy had to re-imagine its role in the world. The Cold War served as a means of justifying US imperialist expansion across the globe with the aim of "containing" the Soviet threat. NATO itself was created and existed for the sole purpose of forging an anti-Soviet alliance. With the USSR gone, NATO had no reason to exist, and the US had to find a new purpose for its imperialist strategy in the world.

In 1992, the US Defense Department, under the leadership of Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney [later to be George Bush Jr.'s VP], had the Pentagon's Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Paul Wolfowitz [later to be George Bush Jr.'s Deputy Secretary of Defense and President of the World Bank], write up a defense document to 'guide' American foreign policy in the post-Cold War era, commonly referred to as the "New World Order."

The Defense Planning Guidance document was leaked in 1992, and revealed that, "In a broad new policy statement that is in its final drafting phase, the Defense Department asserts that America's political and military mission in the post-cold-war era will be to ensure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge in Western Europe, Asia or the territories of the former Soviet Union," and that, "The classified document makes the case for a world dominated by one superpower whose position can be perpetuated by constructive behavior and sufficient military might to deter any nation or group of nations from challenging American primacy." ANY nation that challenges the U.S. in any way, shape or form will be considered "rogue" and a threat to "our way of life". Especially, if they prefer an alternate political or economic system.

Further, "the new draft sketches a world in which there is one dominant military power whose leaders 'must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'." Among the necessary challenges to American supremacy, the document "postulated regional wars against Iraq and North Korea," and identified China and Russia as its major threats. It further "suggests that the United States could also consider extending to Eastern and Central European nations security commitments similar to those extended to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab states along the Persian Gulf."[1]

The War on Terror and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)

When Bill Clinton became President, the neo-conservative hawks from the George H.W. Bush administration formed a think tank called the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC. In 2000, they published a report called, Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century. Building upon the Defense Policy Guidance document, they state that, "the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars."[23] and that "the Pentagon needs to begin to calculate the force necessary to protect, independently, 'US interests' in Europe, East Asia and the Gulf at all times."[25] They never explain in detail what "U.S. interests" are. I believe it really means U.S. CORPORATE interests. Can't be us....we're supposed to die so they can count their money. Has that, or has that not, happened.

Interestingly, the document stated that, "the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."[26] However, in advocating for massive increases in defense spending and expanding the American empire across the globe, including the forceful destruction of multiple countries through major theatre wars, the report stated that, "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."[27] That event came one year later with the events of 9/11.

Many of the authors of the report and members of the Project for the New American Century had become officials in the Bush administration, and were conveniently in place to enact their "Project" after they got their "new Pearl Harbor." Can it really be a coincidence? Notice the words "process of transformation". They wanted to "transform" the American people to accept perpetual war (like our current "War on Terror" that Bush and others have admitted may take decades). Historically, the best way to do that is to inspire FEAR!! Fear that arises from some "catastrophic and catalyzing event" (9/11!). They hoped for something like 9/11 to happen. Then their "Project for the New American Century" can be fulfilled. Remember, this document was written in the late 90s. I've read most of it.....it's long.

The plans for war were "already under development by far right Think Tanks in the 1990s, organisations in which cold-war warriors from the inner circle of the secret services, from evangelical churches, from weapons corporations and oil companies forged shocking plans for a new world order." To do this, "the USA would need to use all means - diplomatic, economic and military, even wars of aggression - to have long term control of the resources of the planet and the ability to keep any possible rival weak." "Use all means", "wars of aggression", "long term control of the resources".....it's in their own words. They'll even fool the "Christian" churches.....just like it says in Revelations! Again, this blueprint was created prior to 9/11!

Among the people involved in PNAC and the plans for empire, "Dick Cheney - Vice President, Lewis Libby - Cheney's Chief of Staff, Donald Rumsfeld - Defence Minister, Paul Wolfowitz - Rumsfeld's deputy, Peter Rodman - in charge of 'Matters of Global Security', John Bolton - State Secretary for Arms Control, Richard Armitage - Deputy Foreign Minister, Richard Perle - former Deputy Defence Minister under Reagan, now head of the Defense Policy Board, William Kristol - head of the PNAC and adviser to Bush, known as the brains of the President, Zalmay Khalilzad," who became Ambassador to both Afghanistan and Iraq following the regime changes in those countries.[28] Guess which companies they're invested in!

Brzezinski's "Grand Chessboard" Ah!! The "Grand Chessboard"! A book that will reveal who are the "pawns" in this scheme.

Arch-hawk strategist, Zbigniew Brzezinski, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller, former National Security Adviser and key foreign policy architect in Jimmy Carter's administration, also wrote a book on American geostrategy. Brzezinski is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group, and has also been a board member of Amnesty International, the Atlantic Council and the National Endowment for Democracy. Currently, he is a trustee and counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a major US policy think tank.

In his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski outlined a strategy for America in the world. He wrote, "For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia. For half a millennium, world affairs were dominated by Eurasian powers and peoples who fought with one another for regional domination and reached out for global power." Further, "how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail African subordination."[29]

He continued in outlining a strategy for American empire, stating that, "it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book."[30] He explained that, "Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them: [and] second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above."[31] WOW! This guy comes right out and SAYS IT!!

What this means is that is it of primary importance to first identify states that could potentially be a pivot upon which the balance of power in the region exits the US sphere of influence; and secondly, to "offset, co-opt, and/or control" such states and circumstances. An example of this would be Iran; being one of the world's largest oil producers, and in a strategically significant position in the axis of Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Iran could hold the potential to alter the balance of power in Eurasia if it were to closely ally itself with Russia or China, or both - giving those nations a heavy supply of oil as well as a sphere of influence in the Gulf, thus challenging American hegemony in the region.

Brzezinski removed all subtlety from his imperial leanings, and wrote, "To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together."[32] I guess "barbarians" must be those who refuse to submit to his imperialist designs!

Brzezinski referred to the Central Asian republics as the "Eurasian Balkans," writing that, "Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold."[33]

He further wrote that, "It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it."[34] This is a clear example of America's role as an engine of empire; with foreign imperial policy designed to maintain US strategic positions, but primarily and "infinitely more important," is to secure an "economic prize" for "the global community." In other words, the United States is an imperial hegemon working for international financial interests. That's no surprise!

Brzezinski also warned that, "the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power,"[35] and he, "puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy." Thus, "The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role."[36] Can you "see" where this is going?

The War on Terror and Surplus Imperialism

In 2000, the Pentagon released a document called Joint Vision 2020, which outlined a project to achieve what they termed, "Full Spectrum Dominance," as the blueprint for the Department of Defense in the future. "Full-spectrum dominance means the ability of U.S. forces, operating alone or with allies, to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the range of military operations." The report "addresses full-spectrum dominance across the range of conflicts from nuclear war to major theater wars to smaller-scale contingencies. It also addresses amorphous situations like peacekeeping and noncombat humanitarian relief." Further, "The development of a global information grid will provide the environment for decision superiority."[37] Think about it......what does "full spectrum dominance" mean?

As political economist, Ellen Wood, explained, "Boundless domination of a global economy, and of the multiple states that administer it, requires military action without end, in purpose or time."[38] Further, "Imperial dominance in a global capitalist economy requires a delicate and contradictory balance between suppressing competition and maintaining conditions in competing economies that generate markets and profit. This is one of the most fundamental contradictions of the new world order."[39]

Following 9/11, the "Bush doctrine" was put in place, which called for "a unilateral and exclusive right to preemptive attack, any time, anywhere, unfettered by any international agreements, to ensure that '[o]ur forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hope of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States'."[40] Reminds me of an old saying, "......absolute power corrupts absolutely."

NATO undertook its first ground invasion of any nation in its entire history, with the October 2001 invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. The Afghan war was in fact, planned prior to the events of 9/11, with the breakdown of major pipeline deals between major western oil companies and the Taliban. The war itself was planned over the summer of 2001 with the operational plan to go to war by mid-October.[41] Here's some little known news: After the Soviets failed to conquer Afghanistan and they withdrew, the Taliban were approached by a certain Richard Armitage (at that time, a top White House official AND current member of the "Project for the New American Century"!) who proposed to them (the "evil" Taliban) a deal.

Let Unocal, a major oil company, build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. The Taliban refused. A frustrated Armitage was reported to have said, "We will bury you". This was during the 90s. Coincidently (?), just a few years later, Afghanistan was invaded and "elected" their first president, Hamid Karzai. Thing is, Karzai was a former boardmember of the Unocal Oil Company. Just lucky, I guess. Let's see what happens with this pipeline IF EVER Afghanistan gets "stabilized".

Afghanistan is extremely significant in geopolitical terms, as, "Transporting all the Caspian basin's fossil fuel through Russia or Azerbaijan would greatly enhance Russia's political and economic control over the central Asian republics, which is precisely what the west has spent 10 years trying to prevent. Piping it through Iran would enrich a regime which the US has been seeking to isolate. Sending it the long way round through China, quite aside from the strategic considerations, would be prohibitively expensive. But pipelines through Afghanistan would allow the US both to pursue its aim of 'diversifying energy supply' and to penetrate the world's most lucrative markets."[42] Could this be the real reason our troops are dying there? Hey, just asking.

As the San Francisco Chronicle pointed out a mere two weeks following the 9/11 attacks, "Beyond American determination to hit back against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks, beyond the likelihood of longer, drawn-out battles producing more civilian casualties in the months and years ahead, (they must have been psychics!) the hidden stakes in the war against terrorism can be summed up in a single word: oil." Explaining further, "The map of terrorist sanctuaries and targets in the Middle East and Central Asia is also, to an extraordinary degree, a map of the world's principal energy sources in the 21st century. (21st century? You mean, the "New American Century"?) The defense of these energy resources -- rather than a simple confrontation between Islam and the West -- will be the primary flash point of global conflict for decades to come." Decades to come? Damn, I hate when that happens.

Among the many notable states where there is a crossover between terrorism and oil and gas reserves of vital importance to the United States and the West, are Saudi Arabia, Libya, Bahrain, the Gulf Emirates, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Sudan and Algeria, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Chechnya, Georgia and eastern Turkey. Importantly, "this region accounts for more than 65 percent of the world's oil and natural gas production." Further, "It is inevitable that the war against terrorism will be seen by many as a war on behalf of America's Chevron, ExxonMobil and Arco; France's TotalFinaElf; British Petroleum; Royal Dutch Shell and other multinational giants, which have hundreds of billions of dollars of investment in the region."[43] Duh!!

It's no secret that the Iraq war had much to do with oil. In the summer of 2001, Dick Cheney convened an Energy Task Force, which was a highly secret set of meetings in which energy policy was determined for the United States. In the meetings and in various other means of communication, Cheney and his aides met with top officials and executives of Shell Oil, British Petroleum (BP), Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Conoco, and Chevron.[44] At the meeting, which took place before 9/11 and before there was any mention of a war on Iraq, documents of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals were presented and discussed, and "Saudi Arabian and United Arab Emirates (UAE) documents likewise feature a map of each country's oilfields, pipelines, refineries and tanker terminals."[45]

Both Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum have since received major oil contracts to develop Iraqi oilfields.[46] I remember reading about these secret meetings Cheney held with oil executives. I recall thinking, "Why are meetings about national energy policy being held in secret?" Apparently, Congress was wondering the same thing. They subpoened Cheney to reveal what was discussed. He refused. A court date was set. Two weeks prior to that day Bush appointed a federal judge to adjudicate the matter. Not surprisingly, the judge summarily dismissed the case. Just another "piece of the puzzle". Are we that distracted?

The war on Iraq, as well as the war on Afghanistan, also largely serve specifically American, and more broadly, Western imperial-strategic interests in the region. In particular, the wars were strategically designed to eliminate, threaten or contain regional powers, as well as to directly install several dozen military bases in the region, firmly establishing an imperial presence. The purpose of this is largely aimed at other major regional players and specifically, encircling Russia and China and threatening their access to the regions oil and gas reserves. Iran is now surrounded, with Iraq on one side, and Afghanistan on the other. Just as planned! Iranian oil is a very light crude and highly prized by the major oil companies. Light crude is much cheaper to refine into gasoline as opposed to, say, Venezuelan oil (a heavy crude). Right now, Iranian oil is the most desired on the planet because of its' "cost-efficient" qualities.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Terrorism....covert "black" operations......SAME THING!‏

A while back, I wrote to many of you about how Bush, one month prior to leaving office, pushed through Congress a bill authorizing $400,000,000 to support "opposition groups" in Iran. What happened a few months later? Remember those huge protests that turned deadly when the government of Iran cracked down? It's not a coincidence. Now that the street demonstrations have wound down, it's getting more serious. This terrorist group, Jundullah, was once led by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (supposed architect of the 9/11 attack). Apparently, our government (via the CIA) is involved in suicide bombings to promote "regime change" in Iran. All in the name of "democracy and freedom". This is clearly a terrorist attack. As the article below states, the CIA calls this a covert "black" operation. Talk about euphemisms! Can you imagine if Castro financed a suicide bombing that killed five members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? What would we call it? C'mon, tell the truth! It's the usual double standard. I guess it's only terrorism if "they" do it. It reminds me of yet ANOTHER old saying, "People with glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

P.S. No, I'm NOT anti-American.....just anti-government. BIG, BIG difference!

October 19, 2009

The U.S. government effectively attacked Iran yesterday after its proxy terror group Jundullah launched a suicide bomb attack against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard at their headquarters in Pishin, near the border with Pakistan.

Leaders of the Al-Qaeda affiliated Sunni terrorist group Jundullah have claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing in Iran that killed over 40 people yesterday. The group is funded and trained by the CIA and is being used to destabilize the government of Iran, according to reports out of the London Telegraph and ABC News.

In the aftermath of the attack, which killed at least five commanders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard along with scores of others, media reports have swung between Iranian accusations of US and British involvement and blanket denials on behalf of the U.S. State Department.

However, the fact that Jundullah, who have since claimed responsibility for the attack and named the bomber as Abdol Vahed Mohammadi Saravani, are openly financed and run by the CIA and Mossad is not up for debate, it has been widely reported for years.

"President George W Bush has given the CIA approval to launch covert "black" operations to achieve regime change in Iran, intelligence sources have revealed. Mr Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs," reported the London Telegraph in May 2007.

Part of that destabilization campaign involved the the CIA "Giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan," stated the report.

Jundullah is a Sunni Al-Qaeda offshoot organization that was formerly headed by alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The fact that it is being directly supported by the U.S. government under both Bush and now Obama destroys the whole legitimacy of the "war on terror" in an instant.

The group has been blamed for a number of bombings inside Iran aimed at destabilizing Ahmadinejad's government and is also active in Pakistan, having been fingered for its involvement in attacks on police stations and car bombings at the Pakistan-US Cultural Center in 2004.

The group also produces propaganda tapes and literature for al-Qaeda's media wing, As-Sahab, which is in turn closely affiliated with the military-industrial complex front IntelCenter, the group that makes available Al-Qaeda videos to the western media.

In May 2008, ABC News reported on how Pakistan was threatening to turn over six members of Jundullah to Iran after they were taken into custody by Pakistani authorities.

"U.S. officials tell ABC News U.S. intelligence officers frequently meet and advise Jundullah leaders, and current and former intelligence officers are working to prevent the men from being sent to Iran," reported ABC news, highlighting again the close relationship between the terror group and the CIA.

In July 2009, a Jundullah member admitted before a court in Zahedan Iran that the group was a proxy for the U.S. and Israel.

Abdolhamid Rigi, a senior member of the group and the brother of the group's leader Abdolmalek Rigi, who was one of the six members of the organization extradited by Pakistan, told the court that Jundullah was being trained and financed by "the US and Zionists". He also said that the group had been ordered by America and Israel to step up their attacks in Iran.

Jundullah is not the only anti-Iranian terror group that US government has been accused of funding in an attempt to pressure the Iranian government.

Multiple credible individuals including US intelligence whistleblowers and former military personnel have asserted that the U.S. is conducting covert military operations inside Iran using guerilla groups to carry out attacks on Iranian Revolution Guard units.

It is widely suspected that the well known right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, is now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations and carrying out remote bombings in Iran.

After a bombing inside Iran in March 2007, the London Telegraph also reported on how a high ranking CIA official has blown the whistle on the fact that America is secretly funding terrorist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear program.

A story entitled, US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran, reveals how funding for the attacks carried out by the terrorist groups "comes directly from the CIA's classified budget," a fact that is now "no great secret", according to a former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph.

Former US state department counter-terrorism agent Fred Burton backed the claim, telling the newspaper, "The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilize the Iranian regime."
John Pike, the head of the influential Global Security think tank in Washington, said: "The activities of the ethnic groups have heated up over the last two years and it would be a scandal if that was not at least in part the result of CIA activity."

The timing of the bombing that targeted Iranian Revolutionary Guard members yesterday was clearly orchestrated to coincide with talks between representatives from Iran, Russia, France, the U.S. and the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna today concerning Iran's nuclear intentions.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Terrorism....covert "black" operations......SAME THING!‏

A while back, I wrote to many of you about how Bush, one month prior to leaving office, pushed through Congress a bill authorizing $400,000,000 to support "opposition groups" in Iran. What happened a few months later? Remember those huge protests that turned deadly when the government of Iran cracked down? It's not a coincidence. Now that the street demonstrations have wound down, it's getting more serious. This terrorist group, Jundullah, was once led by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (supposed architect of the 9/11 attack). Apparently, our government (via the CIA) is involved in suicide bombings to promote "regime change" in Iran. All in the name of "democracy and freedom". This is clearly a terrorist attack. As the article below states, the CIA calls this a covert "black" operation. Talk about euphemisms! Can you imagine if Castro financed a suicide bombing that killed five members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? What would we call it? C'mon, tell the truth! It's the usual double standard. I guess it's only terrorism if "they" do it. It reminds me of yet ANOTHER old saying, "People with glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

P.S. No, I'm NOT anti-American.....just anti-government. BIG, BIG difference!

October 19, 2009

The U.S. government effectively attacked Iran yesterday after its proxy terror group Jundullah launched a suicide bomb attack against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard at their headquarters in Pishin, near the border with Pakistan.

Leaders of the Al-Qaeda affiliated Sunni terrorist group Jundullah have claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing in Iran that killed over 40 people yesterday. The group is funded and trained by the CIA and is being used to destabilize the government of Iran, according to reports out of the London Telegraph and ABC News.

In the aftermath of the attack, which killed at least five commanders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard along with scores of others, media reports have swung between Iranian accusations of US and British involvement and blanket denials on behalf of the U.S. State Department.

However, the fact that Jundullah, who have since claimed responsibility for the attack and named the bomber as Abdol Vahed Mohammadi Saravani, are openly financed and run by the CIA and Mossad is not up for debate, it has been widely reported for years.

"President George W Bush has given the CIA approval to launch covert "black" operations to achieve regime change in Iran, intelligence sources have revealed. Mr Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs," reported the London Telegraph in May 2007.

Part of that destabilization campaign involved the the CIA "Giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan," stated the report.

Jundullah is a Sunni Al-Qaeda offshoot organization that was formerly headed by alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The fact that it is being directly supported by the U.S. government under both Bush and now Obama destroys the whole legitimacy of the "war on terror" in an instant.

The group has been blamed for a number of bombings inside Iran aimed at destabilizing Ahmadinejad's government and is also active in Pakistan, having been fingered for its involvement in attacks on police stations and car bombings at the Pakistan-US Cultural Center in 2004.

The group also produces propaganda tapes and literature for al-Qaeda's media wing, As-Sahab, which is in turn closely affiliated with the military-industrial complex front IntelCenter, the group that makes available Al-Qaeda videos to the western media.

In May 2008, ABC News reported on how Pakistan was threatening to turn over six members of Jundullah to Iran after they were taken into custody by Pakistani authorities.

"U.S. officials tell ABC News U.S. intelligence officers frequently meet and advise Jundullah leaders, and current and former intelligence officers are working to prevent the men from being sent to Iran," reported ABC news, highlighting again the close relationship between the terror group and the CIA.

In July 2009, a Jundullah member admitted before a court in Zahedan Iran that the group was a proxy for the U.S. and Israel.

Abdolhamid Rigi, a senior member of the group and the brother of the group's leader Abdolmalek Rigi, who was one of the six members of the organization extradited by Pakistan, told the court that Jundullah was being trained and financed by "the US and Zionists". He also said that the group had been ordered by America and Israel to step up their attacks in Iran.

Jundullah is not the only anti-Iranian terror group that US government has been accused of funding in an attempt to pressure the Iranian government.

Multiple credible individuals including US intelligence whistleblowers and former military personnel have asserted that the U.S. is conducting covert military operations inside Iran using guerilla groups to carry out attacks on Iranian Revolution Guard units.

It is widely suspected that the well known right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, is now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations and carrying out remote bombings in Iran.

After a bombing inside Iran in March 2007, the London Telegraph also reported on how a high ranking CIA official has blown the whistle on the fact that America is secretly funding terrorist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear program.

A story entitled, US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran, reveals how funding for the attacks carried out by the terrorist groups "comes directly from the CIA's classified budget," a fact that is now "no great secret", according to a former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph.

Former US state department counter-terrorism agent Fred Burton backed the claim, telling the newspaper, "The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilize the Iranian regime."
John Pike, the head of the influential Global Security think tank in Washington, said: "The activities of the ethnic groups have heated up over the last two years and it would be a scandal if that was not at least in part the result of CIA activity."

The timing of the bombing that targeted Iranian Revolutionary Guard members yesterday was clearly orchestrated to coincide with talks between representatives from Iran, Russia, France, the U.S. and the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna today concerning Iran's nuclear intentions.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Are we being 'conditioned' to accept perpetual war???

Looks like this Afghan war is not going as well as expected despite the sugarcoated news we're fed by the mainstream media. I hear that Hamid Karzai, under intense diplomatic pressure, is agreeing to a run-off election against the next viable opponent on November 7th. How much more of our money and blood will we continue to pour down this endless pit? Not to mention Iraq! Are we going to wait until tens of thousands of troops die....like in Vietnam? Don't even get me going on all the innocent people that will die because of our misguided foreign policy that promotes PROFITS over people. Afghanistan is known as the "Graveyard of Empires". For centuries they have failed to be dominated by foreigners. History is on their side.

The fraudulent Afghan election of last August 20th has delayed the possibility of a new regime taking over promptly to replace the corrupt rule of the discredited, U.S. hand-picked President Hamid Karzai.

The ballot box stuffing has blunted a key aspect of President Obama's stated desire to bring about domestic reform there, not just to wage war, in that tortured nation.

While the recount drags on over what the Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) called "clear and convincing evidence of fraud," Pentagon officials are claiming the Taliban is growing ever stronger and they need tens of thousands of additional troops. General Stanley McChrystal, the Afghanistan commander, warned of possible "mission failure" without them. Civilians continue to die from U.S. air strikes aimed at Taliban targets as well as Taliban explosives and U.S. troops continue to die in record numbers in the fighting. Each day brings fresh headlines detailing the slaughter.

"This war has slogged on for nearly nine years, making it longer than America's involvement in World Wars I and II combined. We've already spent $228 billion, 826 Americans have been killed (nearly 200 so far this year), and Obama's summer surge has muscled up America's Afghan presence to 68,000 troops (plus another 42,000 from NATO," Jim Hightower and Phillip Frazer note in the October Hightower Lowdown. "Yet the Taliban forces we're fighting are stronger than ever, and our own military commanders concede that not only is the war going badly for us, but the situation is rapidly 'deteriorating.'"

What's more, by backing Hamid Karzai, the "leader" designated by the Bush-Cheney regime in Dec., 2001, Hightower and Frazer say, Obama is strengthening a central government that is "infamously incompetent, openly corrupt, criminally abusive, and thoroughly despised."

Sarah Chayes, an adviser to U.S. General Stanley McChrystal, the American commander in Afghanistan, told a reporter for The New Yorker magazine(Sept. 28), "What the Afghans expected of us was to help create a decent government. Instead, we gave them warlords, because we were focused on counterterrorism."

The reporter, George Packer, noted that in areas the Taliban took over, they "collected taxes and even set up a commission to hear grievances against their fighters, something that neither the Afghan government nor NATO had done."

Capt. Jason Adler, a company commander in Wardak province, where fighting continues, told Packer, "The biggest complaint you hear from Afghan folks is there's no connection to the government." Said an Afghan watermelon seller, "If you go to government officials, they just put money in their pockets. They have their properties in Dubai---they don't care about the poor."

Added a mechanic, "Most of our police, they're no good, they have drug problems. We want the police to take responsibility and bring peace for us. We don't want police who are there to take money." And one man described by Packer as an old man in a turban, observed, "Our government is all corrupt. We need a system to give more money to the poor. When the Taliban were in power, there was peace, there wasn't one gunshot at that time. They didn't help the poor, but there was peace. The last eight years, we've had nothing."

Polish NATO troops stationed in Ghazni province, south of Kabul, saw things much the same way as the mechanic. "The Poles found that support from the Afghan Army was woefully lacking; the police were barely present," Packer wrote of them.

He called the August vote "a disaster" as "The evidence of fraud by Karzai's campaign was so overwhelming that it threatened to render the entire vote illegitimate." Packer went on to say that publicly, Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. Special Representative to Afghanistan, "hailed the election" but privately, according to his colleagues, he suggested that a runoff between Karzai and his main challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, might be necessary for the appearance of legitimacy."

"Now there is a strong possibility," he continued, "that a stolen election will leave Karzai in power for five more years, at the very moment that Obama has to answer his generals' request to send thousands more troops to fight, and perhaps die, on behalf of the Afghan government." We can print more money to finance this war but, how do we replace our dead troops?

Packer goes on to say, "Holbrooke once told me that three things could cause America to lose the war: the Taliban sanctuary in Pakistan, civilian casualties, and corruption." Packer added, "The Afghan government was so crooked that NATO considered it as much of a threat to success as the Taliban." (Note: all three of those warning flags are flying.)

Packer concludes his report in The New Yorker stating, "Holbrooke must know that there will be no American victory in this war; he can only try to forestall potential disaster."

As Holbrooke told Packer, "Americans cannot think of a situation where, in the face of attacks by Al Qaeda, they would give up, they would say, 'The hell with it, we have to leave,'" he told me. "It's just not an acceptable course of action." (Note: by last month, more than half of all Americans and 70 percent of Democrats had concluded the war is not worth fighting.)

Holbrooke told Packer, "I still believe in the possibility of the United States, with all its will and all its strength, and I don't just mean military, persevering against any challenge. I still believe that."

The key word in the above sentence is "still," a word that strongly suggests that Holbrooke knows better. As for Americans refusing to "give up, "perhaps it is time to remind them of the illegality of the U.S. attack on Afghanistan by President George W. Bush in the first place. Bush, a former oil company executive, and Vice President Dick Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton Corp., have been tied in with major oil interests.

Francis Boyle, the international legal scholar at the University of Illinois, Champaign, and author of "Destroying World Order,"(Clarity Press), writes there is "no evidence that implicated the Taliban government of Afghanistan in the 11 September, 2001, attacks upon the United States"and there is "no justification for the U.S. to wage war against Afghanistan, a U.N. Member State, in gross violation of the United Nations Charter."

Boyle pointed out, "The Clinton administration had already negotiated with the Taliban government over letting it have the U.N. Seat as well as extending it bilateral de jure recognition in return, in part, for the construction of the UNOCAL pipeline across Afghanistan, a negotiation from which, ominously, in light of the onslaught to come-the Taliban government demurred." AH! The oil pipeline, that's why we're there!

Moreover, Chalmers Johnson points out in "The Sorrows of Empire" (Metropolitan/Owl) that plans to destroy the Taliban in Afghanistan had been discussed for months before the U.S. was attacked on 9/11/2001, including at a Group of Eight summit in Genoa, Italy, the previous July. "Pakistani insiders have described a detailed American plan of July 2001 to launch military strikes against the Taliban from bases in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan before mid-October of that year." And that's exactly what they did!

Morton Abramowitz, former chief of the State Department intelligence bureau, is quoted by Packer as saying, "Obama, in a fit of absent mindedness, to show he was tough, made Afghanistan his signature issue because he wanted to get out of Iraq. And this is going to be God damned difficult."

In considering his options, President Obama might reflect that U.S. bombing of Afghanistan, launched in October, 2001, claimed victims among whom "not one was ever identified as having a connection" to 9/11, author William Blum writes in "Rogue State"(Common Courage Press). Let me jump in here a second. I don't know about you, but I remember soon after 9/11 Bush charged that Osama was directly responsible for the attack. That was a lie. Since then, both the CIA and the FBI have publically admitted that Bin Laden was NOT the mastermind. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (under torture {water boarding}) has confessed.

Osama was in Afghanistan with the Taliban at the time. A lot of people don't know that, under Islamic law when a Muslim welcomes a guest into their home or country, the host is required to protect that guest WITH THEIR LIVES! According to Islamic law, if that guest has committed a crime, evidence must be presented. If it is, he would be turned over to the custody of those making the charge. Bush knew he didn't have the evidence.

He wanted that oil pipeline, remember? Here was his excuse to invade! This is our problem....we don't know our "enemy". We choose to remain ignorant of other cultures. Osama did train Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on how to terrorize. BUT, who trained Osama? Think hard! I'll give you a clue........Soviet-Afghan War.

As a result of U.S. actions, "countless homes and other buildings have been destroyed; depleted uranium (radioactive ammunition) has begun to show its ugly face; the warlords have returned to extensive power; opium cultivation is booming anew; crime and violence are once again a daily fact of life in the cities neighborhoods...(and) U.S. forces seize Afghans and take them away without explanation and keep them incommunicado indefinitely... (and) in Kabul, the number of children suffering from malnutrition is almost double what it was before the American invasion..."

The CIA earlier, Blum added, had supported Moujahedeen rebels "engaged heavily in opium cultivation" that provided "up to one half of the heroin used annually in the United States." He alleged that "CIA officers may also have gotten their hands on a portion of the drug money, using it to help finance their operations, or even themselves." Remember Iran-Contra? When Congress refused to fund the "freedom fighters" Reagan called the Contras? The CIA became directly involved in drug smuggling and used the drug profits to fund the Contras totally ignoring Congressional restrictions. Wow, we have short memories! For some, it's just "selective amnesia".

President Obama's argument the U.S. is in Afghanistan to "disrupt, dismantle, and defeat" al Qaeda is bogus as al Qaeda is no longer even in that country, political analysts Hightower and Frazer point out. I read they're in Pakistan, our "ally".

"While Afghanistan could be an attractive terrorist base, it is not at all crucial to al Qaeda, which now has many 'homes,' including fiery spinoffs in Indonesia, Morocco, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, as well as in enclaves in France and England," they note.

"By investing so much to block off Afghanistan as a safe haven, we're not blocking out al Qaeda at all---we're blocking ourselves in. If al Qaeda doesn't need Afghanistan, neither do we."

Given the eight destructive years of the illegal U.S. occupation in Afghanistan, the indiscriminate bombings, the thousands of innocent people killed, arrested, detained without legal rights, and tortured, the use of polluting radioactive ammunition (DU...depleted uranium), the fraudulent election of puppet Karzai (previously a long-time U.S. resident), (long time resident? AND Harvard educated! Why is that not a surprise?) and the worsening conditions of daily life, plus the tragic losses to American troops stationed there, it ill behooves President Obama to pursue the war President Bush started one day longer. Afghanistan is now Obama's War and Obama's disgrace. Thanks, George W.!









Before it was agent orange, now, depleted uranium!









This is yet another article about depleted uranium (DU). In the years to come, DU will become almost like a household term. I subscribe to a website called Military.com. It was them that helped me find my old Army buddies. Today, they had an article saying that the Veteran's Administration will finally expand it's Agent Orange "illness list".

After 40 years of generally denying the extent of its' effects. For those who don't know, Agent Orange was used in Vietnam as a jungle "defoliant". To this day, the Vietnemese people are suffering from illnesses and birth defects as a result of our using this chemical weapon. Not to mention the thousands and thousands of Vietnam veterans who are experiencing similar debilitating symptoms.

Now, we have a much more devastating creation.....depleted uranium. Right now, we have thousands of veterans of the first Gulf War (1991) that are being denied proper medical care because our government is not acknowledging the dangerous effects of DU. How many veterans from our current TWO wars will walk the same gauntlet in the near and distant future? SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!!!!?

The horrors of the US Agent Orange "defoliation" campaign in Vietnam, about which I wrote on Oct. 15, could ultimately be dwarfed by the horrors caused by the depleted uranium weapons which the US began using in the 1991 Gulf War (300 tons), and which it has used much more extensively--and in more urban, populated areas--in the Iraq War and the now intensifying Afghanistan War.

Depleted uranium, despite its rather benign-sounding name, is not depleted of radioactivity or toxicity. The term "depleted" refers only to its being depleted of the U-235 isotope needed for fission reactions in nuclear reactors. The nuclear waste material from nuclear power plants, DU as it is known, is what is removed from the power plants' spent fuel rods and is essentially composed of the uranium isotope U-238 as well as U-236 (a product of nuclear reactor fission, not found in nature), as well as other trace radioactive elements.

Once simply a nuisance for the industry, that still has no permanent way to dispose of the dangerous stuff, it turns out to be an ideal metal for a number of weapons uses, and has been capitalized on by the Pentagon. 1.7 times heavier than lead, and much harder than steel, and with the added property of burning at a super-hot temperature, DU has proven to be an ideal penetrator for warheads that need to pierce thick armor or dense concrete bunkers made of reinforced concrete and steel. Once through the defenses, it burns at a temperature that incinerates anyone inside (which is why we see the carbonized bodies of bodies in the wreckage of Iraqi tanks hit by US fire).

Accordingly it has found its way into 30 mm machine gun ammunition, especially that used by the A-10 Warthog ground-attack fighter planes used extensively in Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as Kosovo). It is also the warhead of choice for Abrams tanks and is also reportedly used in GBU-28 and the later GBU-37 bunker buster bombs, each of which can have 1-2 tons of the stuff in its warhead. DU is also used as ballast in cruise missiles, and this burns up when a missile detonates its conventional explosive.

Some cruise missiles are also designed to hit hardened targets and reportedly feature DU warheads, as does the AGM-130 air-to-ground missile, which carries a one-ton penetrating warhead. In addition, depleted uranium is used in large quantities in the armor of tanks and other equipment.

While the Pentagon has continued to claim, against all scientific evidence, that there is no hazard posed by depleted uranium, US troops in Iraq have reportedly been instructed to avoid any sites where these weapons have been used-destroyed Iraqi tanks, exploded bunkers, etc.-and to wear masks if they do have to approach. Many torched vehicles have been brought back to the US, where they have been buried in special sites reserved for dangerously contaminated nuclear materials. (Thousands of tons of DU-contaminated sand from Kuwait, polluted with DU during the US destruction of Iraq's tank forces in the 1991 war, were removed and shipped to a waste site in Idaho last year with little fanfare.)

Suspiciously, international health officials have been prevented or obstructed from doing medical studies of DU sites in Iraq and Afghanistan. But an excellent series of articles several years ago by the Christian Science Monitor described how reporters from that newspaper had visited such sites in Iraq with Geiger-counters and had found them to be extremely "hot" with radioactivity.

The big danger with DU is not as a pure metal, but after it has exploded and burned, when the particles of uranium oxide, which are just as radioactive as the pure isotopes, can be inhaled or ingested. Even the smallest particle of uranium in the body is both deadly poisonous as a chemical, and over time can cause cancer-particularly in the lungs, but also the kidneys, testes and ovaries. This is where birth defects comes in.

There are reports of a dramatic increase in the incidence of deformed babies being born in the city of Fallujah, where DU weapons were in wide use during the November 2004 assault on that city by US Marines. The British TV station SKY UK, in a report last month that has received no mention in any mainstream American news organization, found a marked increase in birth defects at local hospitals. Birth defects have also been high for years in the Basra area in the south of Iraq, where DU was used not just during America's 2003 "shock and awe" attack on Iraq, but also in the 1991 Gulf War.

Deformed baby born in post-US Invasion Iraq: DU's legacy?

Further, a report sent to the UN General Assembly by Dr Nawal Majeed Al-Sammarai, Iraq's Minister of Women's Affairs since 2006, stated that in September 2009, Fallujah General Hospital had 170 babies born, 24% of which died within their first week of life. Worse yet, fully 75% of the babies born that month were deformed. This compares to August 2002, six months before the US invasion, when 530 live births were reported with only six dying in the first week, and only one deformity. Clearly something terrible is happening in Fallujah, and many doctors suspect it's the depleted uranium dust that is permeating the city.

But the real impact of the first heavy use of depleted uranium weaponry in populous urban environments (DU was used widely especially in 2003 in Baghdad, Samara, Mosul and other big Iraqi cities), will come over the years, as the toxic legacy of this latest American war crime begins to show up in rising numbers of cancers, birth defects and other genetic disorders in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Of course, as in the case of Agent Orange in Vietnam, the toxic effects of this latest battlefield use of toxic materials by the US military will also be felt for years to come by the men and women who were sent over to fight America's latest wars. As with Agent Orange, the Pentagon and the Veterans Affairs Department have been assiduously denying the problem, and have been just as assiduously denying claims by veterans of the Gulf War and the two current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who claim their cancers and other diseases have anything to do with their exposure to DU.

The record on Agent Orange should lead us to be suspicious of the government's claims.

The deformed and dead babies in Iraq should make us demand a cleanup of Iraq and Afghanistan, medical aid for the victims, and a ban on all depleted uranium weapons.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Wars financed by drugs? Who knew???

Excellent article! Very informative. It explains a lot. This kind of information does affect us. We're paying for all this bullshit. Our debt is SO BIG, our grandchildren won't even be able to pay for it! It's like we're digging ourselves a hole and the solution "they" give us is to hand us a bigger shovel! I am in awe of how easily we're "played".

One of the most remarkable aspects of the Obama Presidential agenda is how little anyone has questioned in the media or elsewhere why at all the United States Pentagon is committed to a military occupation of Afghanistan. There are two basic reasons, neither one of which can be admitted openly to the public at large.

Behind all the deceptive official debate over how many troops are needed to "win" the war in Afghanistan, whether another 30,000 is sufficient, or whether at least 200,000 are needed, the real purpose of US military presence in that pivotal Central Asian country is obscured.

Even during the 2008 Presidential campaign candidate Obama argued that Afghanistan not Iraq was where the US must wage war. His reason? Because he claimed, that was where the Al Qaeda organization was holed up and that was the "real" threat to US national security. The reasons behind US involvement in Afghanistan is quite another one.

The US military is in Afghanistan for two reasons. First to restore and control the world's largest supply of opium for the world heroin markets and to use the drugs as a geopolitical weapon against opponents, especially Russia. That control of the Afghan drug market is essential for the liquidity of the bankrupt and corrupt Wall Street financial mafia. I was surprised to learn recently that Russia is the world's biggest consumer of heroin. Surpassing, not only the countries of Europe, but the U.S. as well! How did this come about?

Their war in Afghanistan where their troops got hooked on the stuff. They brought their addiction home. Now, I'm reading that the Taliban will be implementing a new strategy to fight U.S. and NATO troops by supplying them with heroin. Most troops in Afghanistan are just sitting around waiting for a mission. Perfect scenario for them to "cop a buzz"! It may alleviate the "anxiety of war"! I haven't gotten the opportunity to confirm this but, I'll be keeping an eye on it. Hell, if it worked against the Russians, maybe, just maybe.......

Geopolitics of Afghan Opium

According even to an official UN report, opium production in Afghanistan has risen dramatically since the downfall of the Taliban in 2001. (It's a documented fact that ,during Taliban rule, opium production was down over 90%!) UNODC data shows more opium poppy cultivation in each of the past four growing seasons (2004-2007), than in any one year during Taliban rule. More land is now used for opium in Afghanistan, than for coca cultivation in Latin America. In 2007, 93% of the opiates on the world market originated in Afghanistan. This is no accident.

It has been documented that Washington hand-picked the controversial Hamid Karzai, a Pashtun warlord from the Popalzai tribe, long in the CIA's service, brought him back from exile in the USA, created a Hollywood mythology around his "courageous leadership of his people." According to Afghan sources, Karzai is the Opium "Godfather" of Afghanistan today. There is apparently no accident that he was and is today still Washington's preferred man in Kabul. Yet even with massive vote buying and fraud and intimidation, Karzai's days could be ending as President.

The second reason the US military remains in Afghanistan long after the world has forgotten even who the mysterious Osama bin Laden and his alleged Al Qaeda terrorist organization is or even if they exist, is as a pretext to build a permanent US military strike force with a series of permanent US airbases across Afghanistan. (Remember the "Project for the New American Century?).

The aim of those bases is not to eradicate any Al Qaeda cells that may have survived in the caves of Tora Bora, or to eradicate a mythical "Taliban" which at this point according to eyewitness reports is made up overwhelmingly of local ordinary Afghanis fighting to rid their land once more of occupier armies as they did in the 1980's against the Russians.

The aim of the US bases in Afghanistan is to target and be able to strike at the two nations (China and Russia) which today represent the only combined threat in the world today to an American global imperium, to America's Full Spectrum Dominance as the Pentagon terms it.

The lost 'Mandate of Heaven'

The problem for the US power elites around Wall Street and in Washington is the fact that they are now in the deepest financial crisis in their history. That crisis is clear to the entire world and the world is acting on a basis of self-survival. The US elites have lost what in Chinese imperial history is known as the Mandate of Heaven. That mandate is given a ruler or ruling elite provided they rule their people justly and fairly. When they rule tyrannically and as despots, oppressing and abusing their people, they lose that Mandate of Heaven.

If the powerful private wealthy elites that have controlled essential US financial and foreign policy for most of the past century or more than ever had a "mandate of Heaven", they clearly have lost it. The domestic developments towards creation of an abusive police state with deprivation of Constitutional rights to its citizens (the Patriot Act!), the arbitrary exercise of power by non elected officials such as Treasury Secretaries Henry Paulson and now Tim Geithner, stealing trillion dollar sums from taxpayers without their consent in order to bailout the bankrupt biggest Wall Street banks, banks deemed "Too Big To Fail," this all demonstrates to the world they have lost the mandate. C'mon, people, we've got to wake up! The "bailout" changed very little. The banks are still "speculating" with OUR money! Bonuses up the "ying yang"! They're consolidating their power! We are in a heap of trouble.

In this situation, the US power elites are increasingly desperate to maintain their control of a global parasitical empire, called deceptively by their media machine, "globalization." To hold that dominance it is essential that they be able to break up any emerging cooperation in the economic, energy or military realm between the two major powers of Eurasia that conceivably could pose a challenge to future US sole Superpower control-China in combination with Russia. Does this sound familiar?

Each Eurasian power brings to the table essential contributions. China has the world's most robust economy, a huge young and dynamic workforce, an educated middle class (AND....over a BILLION potential consumers! Chi-ching!). Russia, whose economy has not recovered from the destructive end of the Soviet era and of the primitive looting during the Yeltsin era, still holds essential assets for the combination. Russia's nuclear strike force and its military pose the only threat in the world today to US military dominance (let's not forget China's nuclear arsenal!), even if it is largely a residue of the Cold War. The Russian military elites never gave up that potential.

As well Russia holds the world's largest treasure of natural gas and vast reserves of oil urgently needed by China. The two powers are increasingly converging via a new organization they created in 2001 known as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). That includes as well as China and Russia, the largest Central Asia states Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.

The purpose of the alleged US war against both Taliban and Al Qaeda is in reality to place its military strike force directly in the middle of the geographical space of this emerging SCO in Central Asia. Iran is a diversion. The main goal or target is Russia and China.

Officially, of course, Washington claims it has built its military presence inside Afghanistan since 2002 in order to protect a "fragile" Afghan democracy. It's a curious argument given the reality of US military presence there.

In December 2004, during a visit to Kabul, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld finalized plans to build nine new bases (Full Spectrum Dominance?) in Afghanistan in the provinces of Helmand, Herat, Nimrouz, Balkh, Khost and Paktia. The nine are in addition to the three major US military bases already installed in the wake of its occupation of Afghanistan in winter of 2001-2002, ostensibly to isolate and eliminate the terror threat of Osama bin Laden. What a bunch of liars!

The Pentagon built its first three bases at Bagram Air Field north of Kabul, the US' main military logistics center; Kandahar Air Field, in southern Afghanistan; and Shindand Air Field in the western province of Herat. Shindand, the largest US base in Afghanistan, was constructed a mere 100 kilometers from the border of Iran, and within striking distance of Russia as well as China. Remember, this was planned since, at least, the 90s.

Afghanistan has historically been the heartland for the British-Russia Great Game, the struggle for control of Central Asia during the 19th and early 20th Centuries. British strategy then was to prevent Russia at all costs from controlling Afghanistan and thereby threatening Britain's imperial crown jewel, India. This is ALL HISTORY!

Afghanistan is similarly regarded by Pentagon planners as highly strategic. It is a platform from which US military power could directly threaten Russia and China, as well as Iran and other oil-rich Middle East lands. Little has changed geopolitically over more than a century of wars.

Afghanistan is in an extremely vital location, straddling South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East. Afghanistan also lies along a proposed oil pipeline route from the Caspian Sea oil fields to the Indian Ocean, where the US oil company, Unocal, along with Enron and Cheney's Halliburton, had been in negotiations for exclusive pipeline rights to bring natural gas from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan and Pakistan to Enron's huge natural gas power plant at Dabhol near Mumbai. Karzai, before becoming puppet US president, had been a Unocal lobbyist. AND former boardmember!

Al Qaeda doesn't exist as a threat

The truth of all this deception around the real purpose in Afghanistan becomes clear on a closer look at the alleged "Al Qaeda" threat in Afghanistan. According to author Erik Margolis, prior to the September 11,2001 attacks, US intelligence was giving aid and support both to the Taliban and to Al Qaeda (WHAAAAAT?). Margolis claims that "The CIA was planning to use Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda to stir up Muslim Uighurs against Chinese rule, and Taliban against Russia's Central Asian allies." Divide and conquer!

The US clearly found other means of stirring up Muslim Uighurs against Beijing last July via its support for the World Uighur Congress. But the Al Qaeda "threat" remains the lynchpin of Obama's US justification for the Afghan war buildup.

Now, however, the National Security Adviser to President Obama, former Marine Gen. James Jones has made a statement, conveniently buried by the friendly US media, about the estimated size of the present Al Qaeda danger in Afghanistan. Jones told Congress, "The al-Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies."

That's true! We are now fighting the Taliban who, according to international law (of which the U.S. was instrumental in creating in the 1940s!), is allowed to use force to expel foreign occupation forces. It's ironic that, when the Soviets invaded and occupied Afghanistan and held "elections", the U.S. asserted that "free" elections cannot be considered legitimate while under occupation! Oh, yeah! I don't forget! YET! YET! When WE occupy, elections in are "legitimate"! WOW! Double standard, or what?

That means that Al-Qaeda, for all practical purposes, does not exist in Afghanistan. Oops&#8230;!

Even in neighboring Pakistan, the remnants of Al-Qaeda are scarcely to be found. The Wall Street Journal reports, "Hunted by US drones, beset by money problems and finding it tougher to lure young Arabs to the bleak mountains of Pakistan, al Qaeda is seeing its role shrink there and in Afghanistan, according to intelligence reports from Pakistan and U.S. officials. For Arab youths who are al Qaeda's primary recruits, 'it's not romantic to be cold and hungry and hiding,' said a senior U.S. official in South Asia."

If we follow the statement to its logical consequence we must conclude then that the reason German soldiers are dying along with other NATO youth in the mountains of Afghanistan has nothing to do with "winning a war against terrorism." Conveniently most media chooses to forget the fact that Al Qaeda to the extent it ever existed, was a creation in the 1980's of the CIA, who recruited and trained radical muslims from across the Islamic world to wage war against Russian troops in Afghanistan as part of a strategy developed by Reagan's CIA head Bill Casey and others to create a "new Vietnam" for the Soviet Union which would lead to a humiliating defeat for the Red Army and the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union.

Now US NSC (National Security Council) head Jones admits there is essentially no Al Qaeda anymore in Afghanistan. Perhaps it is time for a more honest debate from our political leaders about the true purpose of sending more young to die protecting the opium harvests of Afghanistan. When will we learn? We're going broke trying to impose, using the barrel of a gun, our "beliefs" on others. Damn!

F. William Engdahl is author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order. He may be reached via his website at www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net.

The rich have 'stolen' the economy!









Well, it looks like it's back to business as usual. It's right in front of our FACE! Regular folks are losing their homes, health care, jobs and opportunities. Yet, these #[email protected]&! are lining their pockets with the almighty dollar.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's closest aides earned millions of dollars a year working for Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and other Wall Street firms. Bloomberg reports that none of these aides faced Senate confirmation. Yet, they are overseeing the handout of hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer funds to their former employers.

The gifts of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money provided the banks with an abundance of low cost capital that has boosted the banks' profits, while the taxpayers who provided the capital are increasingly unemployed and homeless. Screwed, again!

JPMorgan Chase announced that it has earned $3.6 billion in the third quarter of this year.

Goldman Sachs has made so much money during this year of economic crisis that enormous bonuses are in the works. London Evening Standard reports that Goldman Sachs' "5,500 London staff can look forward to record average payouts of around 500,000 pounds ($800,000) each. Senior executives will get bonuses of several million pounds each with the highest paid as much as 10 million pounds ($16 million)." Must be nice!

In the event the banksters can't figure out how to enjoy the riches, the Financial Times is offering a new magazine--"How To Spend It." New York City's retailers are praying for some of it, suffering a 15.3% vacancy rate on Fifth Avenue. Statistician John Williams (shadowstats.com) reports that retail sales adjusted for inflation have declined to the level of 10 years ago: "Virtually 10 years worth of real retail sales growth has been destroyed in the still unfolding depression."

Meanwhile, New York City's homeless shelters have reached the all time high of 39,000, 16,000 of whom are children.

New York City government is so overwhelmed that it is paying $90 per night per apartment to rent unsold new apartments for the homeless. Desperate, the city government is offering one-way free airline tickets to the homeless if they will leave the city and charging rent to shelter residents who have jobs. A single mother earning $800 per month is paying $336 in shelter rent.

Long-term unemployment has become a serious problem across the country, doubling the unemployment rate from the reported 10% to 20%. Now hundreds of thousands more Americans are beginning to run out of extended unemployment benefits. High unemployment has made 2009 a banner year for military recruitment. WOW! Excellent way to have the poor fight their wars!

A record number of Americans, more than one in nine, are on food stamps. Mortgage delinquencies are rising as home prices fall. According to Jay Brinkmann of the Mortgage Bankers Association, job losses have spread the problem from subprime loans to prime fixed-rate loans. On a Wise, Virginia, fairgrounds, 2,000 people waited in lines for free dental and health care.

While the US speeds plans for the ultimate bunker buster bomb and President Obama prepares to send another 45,000 troops into Afghanistan, 44,789 Americans die every year from lack of medical treatment. National Guardsmen say they would rather face the Taliban than the US economy. More money in fighting the Taliban. Of course, the rich don't have to worry about this.

Little wonder. In the midst of the worst unemployment since the Great Depression, US corporations continue to offshore jobs and to replace their remaining US employees with lower paid foreigners on work visas. How can we put up with this?

The offshoring of jobs, the bailout of rich banksters, and war deficits are destroying the value of the US dollar. Since last spring the US dollar has been rapidly losing value. The currency of the hegemonic superpower has declined 14% against the Botswana pula, 22% against Brazil's real, and 11% against the Russian ruble. Once the dollar loses its reserve currency status, the US will be unable to pay for its imports or to finance its government budget deficits. Don't believe it? Watch.

Offshoring has made Americans heavily dependent on imports, and the dollar's loss of purchasing power will further erode American incomes. As the Federal Reserve is forced to monetize Treasury debt issues, domestic inflation will break out. Except for the banksters and the offshoring CEOs, there is no source of consumer demand to drive the US economy.

The political system is unresponsive to the American people. It is monopolized by a few powerful interest groups that control campaign contributions. Interest groups have exercised their power to monopolize the economy for the benefit of themselves, the American people be damned.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

zippa said:


> I know the principle around it but it's the flu and it has been through the ages and nothing has killed it yet. I just feel that our bodies know what they are doing when it comes to fighting infection and such. My son gets it yeah and if I was a senior citizen then sure I would get it but other than that why bother. If your healthy then there is no reason IMHO or like Wink where you in a high risk area or such. Also like the H1N1 shot that the FDA sped through to approve who knows what that can do to you or side-effects it can have.


EXACTLY!!!

Swine Flu vaccinations??? Like what i said...Ill take my chances, thank you !

Here's a seventh grade word problem for you: If swine flu has infected one million people and killed 500, how many people might be expected to die if it infects 150 million people (assuming no major changes in the virus)? The correct answer, of course, is 75,000 people, and that's within the range of the number of swine flu deaths now being publicly predicted by the White House.

But there's another part to this word problem: How many vaccine shots and hand washings does it take to boost vitamin D levels in the average person?

The question, of course, makes no sense. Vaccine shots don't boost vitamin D levels any more than eating pork infects you with swine flu. So why is the official advice on swine flu protection essentially limited to "wash your hands, get your vaccine shot and cough into your elbow?" (Seriously. I'm not making this up.)

The Associated Press has distilled swine flu advice to "10 things you need to know." None of those ten things include boosting your nutrition, getting more vitamin D or taking anti-viral medicinal herbs. They do, however, include hilarious explanations like "If you develop breathing problems, pain in your chest, constant vomiting or a fever that keeps rising, go to an emergency room."

Emergency room in a pandemic?
Whatever for? They don't bother to mention that in a pandemic scenario that strikes you with constant vomiting, the entire emergency room is likely to be overrun with other people joining you in a hospital room vomit fest.

Nor do they mention some other important math: The very limited number of anti-viral medication courses available in the U.S. The last time I checked, that was roughly 50 million courses. If the U.S. population is roughly 300 million people, and there are 50 million courses of anti-viral meds available, how many Americans will have no access to those meds? (Ahem&#8230; 250 million people&#8230

Here's an even more interesting brain buster for you: If each vaccine shot generates $25 in revenue for drug companies, and the U.S. government orders the production of 160 million vaccines, how much money is Big Pharma making off the pandemic? That answer is roughly $4 billion in net revenues.

But even that doesn't count all the repeat business from the future victims who suffer neurological side effects from the vaccines and have to be institutionalized and subjected to high-dollar medical care for years on end. In all, a mass vaccination program could end up generating over ten billion dollars in revenues for drug companies.

These numbers just don't add up
Now let's look at some serious statistics: If one million people have already been infected with swine flu, and 500 have died, that's a fatality rate of 1 out of 2000 people. Depending on which research you believe, vaccines might at most be credited with preventing 1% of flu deaths during any given flu season (and that's being very generous to the vaccine). So here's the question:
How many people have to be vaccinated with the new swine flu vaccine to save ONE life from a swine flu fatality?
(Notice, carefully, this question has never been asked in the mainstream media. That's because the answer isn't exactly what most people want to hear&#8230

This question is easy to answer, actually. If the vaccine were 100% effective (that is, they prevented every death that would have otherwise occurred), they could be credited with saving 1 life out of 2000, right? Because that's the normal death rate for this particular virus (these figures are widely quoted by AP, Reuters and the White House, by the way).

But no vaccine is 100% effective. As I mentioned above, seasonal flu vaccines might - at a stretch - be credited with preventing 1% of the deaths that might otherwise have occurred. With this 1% effectiveness factor calculated back into the formula for swine flu (assuming the same 1% effectiveness factor), it turns out that you would have to vaccinate 200,000 people to save ONE life from swine flu.

That puts a whole new perspective on the vaccine push, doesn't it? 200,000 vaccines costs taxpayers roughly $5,000,000, and it subjects 200,000 people to the potential side effects of these vaccines which have never been subjected to any long-term testing whatsoever.
It all begs the question: Is it really worth it?
Is it worth spending $5 million and exposing 200,000 people to potentially dangerous vaccine side effects in order to prevent ONE death from swine flu? And why isn't anybody breaking down the numbers on this issue and providing a serious cost / benefit analysis as I'm doing here?

Let's be generous to the vaccine&#8230;
Vaccine pushers might argue that the vaccine is far more than 1% effective at preventing swine flu deaths. In their wildest dreams, they might imagine a death reduction rate of, say, a wildly optimistic 10%. But even considering that, is it worth it? If the vaccine stops 10% of deaths that would have otherwise occurred, that still means you'd have to vaccinate 200,000 people to prevent the deaths of ten people.

I'm going to throw out a wild guess here and suggest that far more than 10 people will be killed by the vaccine itself, completely nullifying any net reduction in total deaths. Mathematically, you see, mass swine flu vaccinations make absolutely no sense given the very low rate of fatalities being observed right now.

Just do something!
Of course, public health policy is never based on sense. It's based on politics. And the politics demand that "they DO something!" That's what the public wants: Do something! It doesn't matter if doing something is worse than doing nothing&#8230; they just want to see some action.

When it comes to swine flu vaccines, any honest look at the math reveals that 200,000 people will have to be vaccinated with a largely untested experimental vaccine in order to prevent the death of one person (or ten people, if you really believe in vaccines). Remembering that more than one person in 200,000 will almost certainly be killed by the vaccine itself, it really makes you wonder: What's the point of all this?

The point, of course, is to sell vaccines. It's the one math problem that everybody understands: To make money, you have to sell a product, and there's no better way to sell vaccines to 160 million people than to scare them into begging for injections that are statistically opposed their own self interests. But I suppose anything is possible in a country where state governments can punitively tax the poor by convincing them to play the lottery.

People who play the lottery are very likely to be the same people getting vaccine shots: It's like a lottery on your health, except that your odds of "winning" are far worse than your odds of winning something in a state lotto.

Let's see:

You have a 1 in 1 chance of being injected with foreign viral matter, and yet you only have a 1 in 200,000 chance of your life being saved by it.
Allow me to put this into perspective: You have a 40 times greater chance of being struck by lightning at some point in your life than having your life saved by the swine flu vaccine. (Source: National Weather Service statistics.)

Mathematically speaking, getting a swine flu injection and hoping it will save your life is more foolish than buying a lotto ticket with your last dollar and hoping you'll scratch off a multi-million dollar winning ticket.

And buying a lotto ticket doesn't risk the health of your nervous system, by the way. You can always earn back a buck, but restoring your nervous system after it's attacked by a rogue vaccine can take years or decades. Some never recover. (Thousands died from the 1976 vaccines.)
Pop quiz: What's the actual cost of vaccinating 160 million Americans with an unproven, experimental swine flu vaccine?

Answer: $1.6 billion plus countless victims with strange neurological disorders, comas and sudden death - all of which will be written off as "coincidence" by the vaccine pushers.

Free flu shots for the unemployed

As this article was about to go to press, I couldn't help but notice a new announcement by CVS and Walgreens pharmacies. The powers that be are so desperate to get all Americans injected with this experimental vaccine that CVS and Walgreens are now offering free swine flu vaccine injections to anyone who doesn't have a job!

That's right: Just show up, prove you're unemployed, and you get jabbed at no charge. (Who said losing your job didn't have some benefits, huh?) Conspiracy theorists might suggest this is a clever way to clear the streets of "useless eaters." Just lure the jobless into some experimental vaccine program, inject them and send them on their way. Next, will retailers start handing out free Soylent Green too?

Vaccine shot or shot of whiskey?

Vaccine, anyone? Me? No thanks, I'll take my chances with a shot of whiskey!

The CDC has followed in the footsteps of British health authorities by warning neurologists to look out for cases of the nerve disease Guillain-Barre syndrome caused by the swine flu vaccine.

Doctors in Britain were advised last month by the government to carefully track cases of the disease and report each one to the Health Protection Agency. A letter sent by 600 neurologists indicated that "there is concern at the highest levels that the vaccine itself could cause serious complications," according to a Daily Mail report.

During the 1976 swine flu scare in the U.S., which prompted the government to order a mass vaccination program to cover the entire population, the vaccine caused more deaths than the actual virus, prompting a public backlash that cost the then director of the CDC his job.

SImilar concerns about the vaccine are now being replicated over 30 years later.

"The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Neurology have asked all neurologists to report new cases of Guillain-Barre in people who get vaccines this fall and winter to the Food & Drug Administration's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System," reports The Oregonian.

Guillain-Barre syndrome can cause paralysis and breathing difficulties and is sometimes fatal. It also produces a tingling sensation and weakens limbs.

As we have previously documented, the swine flu vaccine is being rushed through safety procedures while governments have provided pharmaceutical companies with blanket immunity from lawsuits arriving out of the vaccine causing deaths and injuries.

It was previously revealed that some batches of the vaccine will contain mercury, a toxin linked with autism and neurological disorders. The vaccine will also contain the dangerous ingredient squalene, which has been directly linked with cases of Gulf War Syndrome and a host of other debilitating diseases.

Several surveys have revealed that huge numbers of health professionals all over the world will refuse to take the swine flu vaccine despite government plans to institute mass vaccination programs. A new poll released yesterday found that just 6 per cent of pregnant women would "definitely" take the vaccine following concerns about its safety.









Thats 'OLD' news!!!


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

How did America fall SOOOOOOOO fast?

The following was written by a blogger named "George Washington". Something to think about.

Thursday, Oct 22nd, 2009

In 2000, America was described as the sole remaining superpower - or even the world's "hyperpower". Now we're in real trouble (at the very least, you have to admit that we're losing power and wealth in comparison with China).
How did it happen so fast?

As everyone knows, the war in Iraq - which will end up costing $3-5 trillion dollars - was launched based upon false justifications. Indeed, the government apparently planned both the Afghanistan war and the Iraq war before 9/11.
And the financial system collapsed last year due to looting and fraud.

How Empires Fall

But Paul Farrel provides a bigger-picture analysis, quoting Jared Diamond and Marc Faber.
Diamond's book 's, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, studies the collapse of civilizations throughout history, and finds:

Civilizations share a sharp curve of decline. Indeed, a society's demise may begin only a decade or two after it reaches its peak population, wealth and power&#8230;
One of the choices has depended on the courage to practice long-term thinking, and to make bold, courageous, anticipatory decisions at a time when problems have become perceptible but before they reach crisis proportions.

And PhD economist Faber states:

How [am I] so sure about this final collapse?
Of all the questions I have about the future, this is the easiest one to answer. Once a society becomes successful it becomes arrogant, righteous, overconfident, corrupt, and decadent &#8230; overspends &#8230; costly wars &#8230; wealth inequity and social tensions increase; and society enters a secular decline.
[Quoting 18th century Scottish historian Alexander Fraser Tytler:] The average life span of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years progressing from "bondage to spiritual faith &#8230; to great courage &#8230; to liberty &#8230; to abundance &#8230; to selfishness &#8230; to complacency &#8230; to apathy &#8230; to dependence and &#8230; back into bondage"

[Where is America in the cycle?] It is most unlikely that Western societies, and especially the U.S., will be an exception to this typical "society cycle." &#8230; The U.S. is somewhere between the phase where it moves "from complacency to apathy" and "from apathy to dependence."

In other words, America's rapid fall is not really that novel after all.

How Consumers, Politicians and Wall Street All Contributed to the Fall

On the individual level, people became "fat and happy", the abundance led to selfishness ("greed is good"), and then complacency, and then apathy.
Indeed, if you think back about tv and radio ads over the last couple of decades, you can trace the tone of voice of the characters from Gordon Gecko-like, to complacent, to apathetic and know-nothing.

On the political level, there was no courage in the White House or Congress "to practice long-term thinking, and to make bold, courageous, anticipatory decisions". Of course, the bucket loads of donations from Wall Street didn't hurt, but there was also a religion of deregulation promoted by Greenspan, Rubin, Gensler and others which preached that the economy was self-stabilizing and self-sustaining.

This type of false ideology only can spread during times of abundance and complacency, when an empire is at its peak and people can fool themselves into thinking "the empire has always been prosperous, we've solved all of the problems, and we will always prosper" (incidentally, this type of false thinking was also common in the 1920's, when government and financial leaders said that the "modern banking system" - overseen by the Federal Reserve - had destroyed instability once and for all). Then what happened in 1929?

And as for Wall Street, the best possible time to pillage is when your victim is at the peak of wealth. With America in a huge bubble phase of wealth and power, the Wall Street looters sucked out vast sums through fraudulent subprime loans, derivatives and securitization schemes, Ponzi schemes and high frequency trading and dark pools and all of the rest.

Like the mugger who waits until his victim has made a withdrawal from the ATM, the white collar criminals pounced when America's economy was booming (at least on paper).
Given that the people were in a contented stupor of consumption, and the politicians were flush with cash and feel-good platitudes, the job of the criminals became easier.

A study of the crash of the Roman - or almost any other - empire would show something very similar.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Before I get to the letter below, I'm watching on TV hundreds of protesters, here in Chicago, gathering in front of a meeting place of some Banker's Association. It's being called a "Debtor's Revolution". I'm hoping it spreads to the national level. This is a good thing. My only regret is that why do we wait until these banking and financial executives get hundreds of billions of our dollars before we "rise up"?

With just a little knowledge of history, we could've nipped this at the butt. With just a little vigilance, we could've recognized these events for what they were as they've transpired over the years. Anyway, the letter below was written by the same Vietnam veteran who wrote to our troops a few months after the Iraq War started in 2003 asking them to maintain their "humanity". Remember, I posted it a while back?

Around two years later, in 2005 after speaking with some current veterans, he is now concerned about how the word "loyalty" is being perverted to promote the obscenity of war. As a combat veteran AND a military "lifer", I'm sure he's heard it all before. This is what he wrote:

On Loyalty

An Open Letter to US Troops in Afghanistan and Iraq

By STAN GOFF

06/15/05 - - I was a soldier for most of the time between 1970 and 1996. I signed out on my retirement from 3rd Special Forces in Ft. Bragg. I had also served in 7th Special Forces, on three Ranger assignments, with Delta for almost four years, as a Cavalry Scout for a while, and in the 82nd Airborne Division as an infantryman. I started my career in Vietnam with the 173rd Airborne Brigade.

I thugged around in eight different places in East Asia, Latin America, and Africa, where I pointed guns at people. Like you, I was an instrument of American foreign policies......policies controlled, then as now, by the rich.

In the course of that career, I heard everything you have heard and felt everything you have felt about "loyalty."

Tricky thing, loyalty.

Nowadays, when I talk with some of you, or when I hear conversations recorded with you, I hear many who have very serious reservations about these wars of occupation. I had more than reservations from the get-go about Iraq and Afghanistan, and I opposed them as hard as I could, and so did millions of other people around the world.

But that brain-dead piece of sh*t in the White House who is legally your boss, and all his handlers, starting with Vice President Dick "Halliburton" Cheney they sent you to do this thing anyway.

They talked themselves into believing this would be, and these are their words, ­ a cakewalk. They surrounded themselves exclusively with others who echoed what was already in their minds; and they punished and villified and isolated anyone who told them what they didn't want to hear. Because they made up their minds to conduct these invasions years ago, and with the attacks of September 11, in which Iraq's role was exactly nothing­, they figured now was their chance to conduct the re-disposition of the old Cold War military into their new plan to build permanent bases in Southwest Asia. It's all in the 1998 document known as The Project for the New American Century.

Since they'd made up their minds, they didn't want to hear anything except rosy scenarios for their plans, because these reptile-minded, preppy gangsters are like spoiled children who can't abide anyone f*cking up their toy-emperor fantasies.

But when those fantasies did get fucked up, by the realities they ran so hard to escape, they continued to pursue their grim agenda in spite of the mounting consequences, because they don't pay those consequences.

If I had my way, we would issue the whole shriveled, manicured lot of them their assault rifles, put them aboard an Air Force transport, tighten the leg straps on their static line parachutes, and boot their sorry asses out from 800 feet right over the middle of Ramadi ­ where they could drop their harnesses in the street and explain democracy to the locals. I would take a second mortgage on my house and PAY to see that!!!

But that's just ranting, because I do so despise them. I hate people who get away with sh*t just because they have money and power. And I hate people who sacrifice the lives of others to amplify or protect that power.

But I'm not telling you anything. You all already know by now what generation after generation has learned the hard way. When the rich start their wars, it's not the rich that get sent to fight them. Yeah, a few go get their time as part of putting together a political career, but we know who does the heavy lifting.

And in these conversations that many of you have with me and thousands of other people, we hear you say, ­ more and more often now, ­that you know this war is wrong, but that you have to "do your job," because you are loyal to your buddies; because you feel that you have to back them up; and because if you don't go, someone else will have to. And I respect that sentiment.

But I have to challenge this loyalty thing, and I do it out of respect for you, and because I care about you, and because my own son is back there for his second go-around.

A young friend of mine, Patrick Resta, who recently returned from Iraq, and who is now a member of an organization called Iraq Veterans Against the War, recently told me, "My platoon sergeant tried to get us to violate the Geneva Convention, and when we resisted, he threatened us with punishment. He told us that the Geneva Convention doesn't exist in Iraq, and that is in writing at the Brigade level.'"

You all know that this is bullshit, and if you didn't know, let me give you a news flash about some, ­not all, but some ­ military lifers; and this is coming from a military lifer. Some of them are dumber than dog sh*t. During my military service, I came into contact with quite a few!

Some of them say things when they don't have the foggiest f*cking idea what they are talking about. Some of them will say any goddamn thing to get you to do what they want you to do.

But then again, there was a memorandum that came down that "suggested" the Geneva Conventions were void in Iraq. It didn't come from the Brigade level, though; it came from f*cking George W. Bush's office. And it's a lie. That's why they sat there in front of Congress before they made the author of that memo into the Attorney General of the United States ­ (get your head around that­) and denied that they meant it.

But it is a lie.

You do not have to follow illegal orders EVER, under any circumstances, and you ARE bound by International Law. You should also be bound by what you know is right, by your sense of plain common decency.

One of the ways they will get you to do things that you will not want to live with for the rest of your lives is to impose that group-think on you. If one of us is guilty, we are all guilty. And "what happens in Iraq, stays in Iraq." This is one of the many ways they take that buddy-to-buddy loyalty and twist it into a way to control you, even when they are trying to get you to violate the law and not only the formal law, but to violate what you know is right, to violate your own conscience and jeopardize your own peace of mind for the rest of your life. In other words, set aside your humanity, your morals and continue this tragic farce.

And I'm telling you that you do not owe them, or anyone else, that kind of loyalty. HOO, RAH!!!

They know that many of you know that you were sent to do this thing for a pack of lies about weapons of mass destruction and mushroom clouds over New York City and phony al Qaeda connections (and then when that fell apart, you were there to deliver democracy at gunpoint). So they know that many of you can't stay committed to this violent occupation out of loyalty to that gang of thugs in Washington DC, who are busy every day at home undermining the same Constitution you swore to protect (from all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC). Many people conveniently forget the DOMESTIC part.

They know that you know that plenty of the officers are out there trying to get new fruit salad medals on their Class-A uniforms, and bucking for promotion, by risking your asses on pointless glory patrols. So they know that they can't rely on the loyalty of many of you to the chain of command any more either.

Where do they have to go with this, then, after all? What do they tell you?

"You get out there on that Humvee, and face those IEDs, together, as loyal buddies."

"You get out there and ransack people's houses in the middle of the night and make their babies cry, ­together, as buddies."

"You get out there and set up a road block without Arabic signs or interpreters and get put into that situation where you are tense and don't know, and you shoot up that car and kill parents in front of their children, and you have to live with that for the rest of your lives, ­together, because you are loyal buddies."

"You get out there and lose life, limb, or eyesight, face mental and physical ailments for the rest of your lives together, as an act of loyalty to your buddies."

That's the pressure you have on you today. Cover your buddies, and for some of you, go to Iraq so someone else doesn't take your place.

But let's look at the bigger picture here, and for that I'll take you back to Vietnam, before many of you were born. We heard this same bullshit then. Almost verbatim. And do you know what one of the main contributing factors was for getting us out of that war?

We quit being good soldiers.

The United States military got to the point where it was no longer an effective fighting force, because US soldiers quit taking orders. It got to the point where an officer, who was using his men's bodies to chase medals, might find himself on the wrong end of a Claymore mine. Now I'm not advocating that again, and I hope we can stop this before it goes that far.

The other thing many soldiers did was become part of the political resistance at home. They looked at this question of looking out for their buddies and for fellow soldiers in the short term, by staying in a barbaric and immoral war. And they realized that the best thing they could do for their buddies ­not as soldiers, but as human beings ­ was to enlist in the opposition to the war and bring it to an end.

In the process, many of them discovered that it took a lot more endurance and a lot more courage to oppose the war than it did to demonstrate that macho bullshit they were expected to display as they continued to do terrible things to those other human beings whose country they occupied.

Here's how you can exercise a deeper loyalty to the troops there now, and to all those who will continue to go as long as this obscenity continues:

Do everything you can to stop the war.

Question every order, and base those questions on the Geneva Conventions and the Law of Land Warfare. Let them see you keeping a detailed journal of your experience. Send your stories home in letters. Open up discussions about the legitimacy of the war when you are in your billets, even if it does spark controversy.

Spread around information you get about the war from sources other than those loud-mouthed news-mannequins on FOX. And email or mail your anonymous membership in to Iraq Veterans Against the War. The link is at the end of this letter. "Anonymous membership"? It has to be anonymous......or they'll be branded as traitors. They won't be "loyal", anymore.

The day this war stops and they put the last of you on an airplane home, is when you will never again have to smell that fresh-blood smell that stays in your head for hours after you've loaded someone onto a stretcher or rolled them into that big Ziploc bag. The day will come when you all pull out, because this was a losing proposition from the outset, but Bush and his crew were too f*cking stupid to know it.

The best thing is that this war of occupation ends sooner than later, and ­as an exercise of loyalty to your own conscience, of loyalty to those who are there and those who may go there, and loyalty to the principle of human decency, ­ you can find ways to hasten that day.

You can find ways to bring closer the day when the Iraqis can get on about the business of taking control of their own destiny, and you and your buddies can sleep in security and comfort in your own homes, play with your children, make love with your partners, and walk down familiar streets unencumbered by the rattling luggage of war.

If bringing this day closer for all of you is the goal, how much more loyal can you get?

Yours for walking unencumbered,

Stan Goff

US Army (Retired)

Stan Goff is the author of "Hideous Dream: A Soldier's Memoir of the US Invasion of Haiti" (Soft Skull Press, 2000), "Full Spectrum Disorder" (Soft Skull Press, 2003) and "Sex & War" which will be released approximately December, 2005. He is retired from the United States Army. His blog is at www.stangoff.com.

I encourage troops to show this to other troops. I encourage family members of troops to print it out and send it to them in letters, or to paste it into emails. I encourage troops and family members who are on military reservations to make copies and place them everywhere you can think of.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

I hope these (and other) protests grow bigger and bigger. We have to hold these greedy bastards accountable for their actions. I have more respect for some scumbag thug who robs me of my wallet on the street. These guys stole OUR future, OUR children's future AND OUR grandchildren's future. You tell me who's worse. FU*KING BASTARDS.

CHICAGO (AFP) - Thousands of protesters chanted "the banks got bailed out, we got sold out" as they marched through the streets of Chicago on their way to a meeting of US bankers Tuesday.

Carrying signs proclaiming "Hold Wall Street accountable" and "Foreclosures ruin communities," they demanded an end to massive bonuses for the bankers who they say helped bring on the financial crisis and credit crunch which dragged the United States into the deepest recession since the Great Depression.

Organized by a coalition of union and community organizations, the protesters called on the bankers to stop lobbying against financial reform and to invest the trillions they received in government bailouts to stem the tide of foreclosures and invest in businesses which will help kickstart the economy.

"We love our country when you work hard and you're able to take care of your family," Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union's Illinois office told the crowd gathered near a meeting of the American Bankers Association.

"The people (at the bankers' meeting) are people who love their company more than our country... Who love their bonuses more than our country." I wonder who loves Halliburton more than their country? Or Bechtel?

Organizers said the American Bankers Association and six top banks have spent 35 million dollars fighting financial reforms after accepting 17.8 trillion dollars in taxpayer bailouts and backstops.


----------



## His Majesty (Apr 5, 2005)

^^finally. something you posted that makes sence and which i agree with whole heartedly

bankers in england are already receieving bonuses one year after getting bailed out by tax payers money. if they have enough money to give themselves bonuses they have enough money to pay all the money back that they borrowed


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

The reason I'm posting the following article is because now we have a White House official who is having second thoughts about the war in Afghanistan. He resigned. The Obama White House, embarrassed, tried to offer him another position. After a week or two of careful consideration, he refused.....citing his conscience. He came to the realization that this war is unwinnable......much like Daniel Ellsberg who became convinced that the Vietnam war (way back when) was unwinnable.

It brought back memories. Back then, Ellsberg was categorized a "traitor". Un-American. Their credentials (military service) be damned. Both of these guys were being told that everything is "hunky-doory". "Peaches and cream". In my opinion, these individuals took the popular slogan "support the troops" to heart. Over time, the truth rose from the blood of those willing to sacrifice their lives. They were unwitting "pawns" of the bigger picture. The picture described in Revelations....the last Book of the Bible. Here, I risk losing some of you.

Let me tell you about a Warrant Officer named Hugh Thompson who was a veteran of the Vietnam war. Helicopter crew chief. A real hero. He died, recently. He came upon a situation where his helicopter flew toward a village in Vietnam where a platoon of American soldiers were about to MURDER a group of innocent old men, women and children. Hugh Thompson's helicopter hovered above the impending massacre. Thompson, God bless his heart, called out to the American troops on the ground. He informed them that, if they opened fire on these civilians, they would be fired upon by HIS machine-gunner aboard the chopper! Can you imagine the courage of his decision to place his morals above "national allegiance"? This is an example of true heroism.....of true patriotism. Real humanity.

He must have really believed in God. At that time, his actions were categorized as treasonous. His name was dragged through the mud. Fortunately, history redeemed him.....it took a while, though. He, eventually, got a medal. Since then (about three or four years ago), I had the privilege of watching this documentary where the people of the village he saved built a statue to commemorate his heroic action. They remembered him! Made songs about him! They invited him to come and visit. A woman in her late thirties or early forties (along with others that were present during the "almost war crime"), who was only a child at the time and had her own children, was there to greet him when he made a special visit at the villager's request.

The tears were flowing. And rightly so! These poor people could've easily hated ALL Americans......justifiably. They didn't. They recognized and appreciated the humanity of an individual who was a member of an invading military force and had the capacity to display compassion toward the helpless. WOW! God works in mysterious ways!

"Let the eye of vigilance never be closed." -Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1821.

Daniel Ellsberg is a former U.S. Marine and military analyst who precipitated a constitutional crisis in 1971 when he released the "Pentagon Papers." The papers comprised the U.S. military's account of theater activities during the Vietnam War. Ellsberg released top secret documents to The New York Times. His release of the Pentagon Papers succeeded in substantially eroding public support for the Vietnam War. A succession of related events, including Watergate, eventually led to President Richard M. Nixon's resignation.

The Pentagon Papers were mostly an indictment of the Democratic administration of Lyndon B. Johnson, but they fed the Nixon administration's preoccupation with finding information and document leakers. They eventually led to the secret White House "Plumbers" (They were called "Plumbers" because they were supposed to stop "leaks" of information to the public) group and then to Watergate. In its turn, Watergate led to the first resignation of an American president, Richard M. Nixon. The Pentagon Papers contained plans to invade Vietnam, even though President Johnson had told the public that he had no intention to stage an invasion.

Ellsberg, born April 7, 1931, grew up in Detroit, Michigan, and attended Cranbrook School, followed by Harvard University. He graduated with a Ph.D. in economics in 1959, in which he described a paradox in decision theory now known as the "Ellsberg Paradox." He served as a company commander in the Marine Corps for two years and then became an analyst at the Rand Corporation (Longtime war profiteer). A committed Cold War warrior, he served in the Pentagon in 1964 under Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. He then served for two years in Vietnam as a civilian in the State Department, and became convinced that the Vietnam War was unwinnable.

Ellsberg believed there was a consensus in the Defense and State departments that the United States had no realistic chance of victory in Vietnam, but that political considerations prevented them from saying so publicly. McNamara and others continued to state in press interviews that victory was "just around the corner." (Kinda like what they tell us now, huh?) As the war continued to worsen, Ellsberg became deeply disillusioned.

Working again at Rand, Ellsberg managed to procure, photocopy, then return a large number of classified or top-secret papers regarding the conduct of the war. They revealed the knowledge, early on, that the war would not likely be won and that continuing the war would lead to many times more casualties than was admitted publicly. Further, the papers showed a deep cynicism by the military towards the public and a disregard for the loss of life and injury suffered by soldiers and civilians. Do I hear an echo from 38 years ago?

Ellsberg knew that releasing that information would most likely result in his conviction and a sentence of many years in prison. Throughout 1970, Ellsberg covertly attempted to convince a few sympathetic senators, (among them J. William Fulbright, who refused to break the law), that he should release the Pentagon Papers on the Senate floor, because a Senator cannot be prosecuted for anything he says on record before the Senate. No senator was willing to do so. WOW! I didn't know that! It's good to know.

Finally, Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to the Times. On June 13, 1971, the paper began to publish the first installment of the 7,000 page document. For 15 days, the Times was prevented from publishing its articles on the orders of the Nixon administration. However, the Supreme Court ordered publication to resume freely. Although the Times did not reveal the source of the leak, Ellsberg knew that the FBI would soon determine that he was the source of the leak. Ellsberg went underground, living secretly among like-minded people. He was not caught by the FBI, even though they were under enormous pressure from the Nixon Administration to find him. I could imagine.

The release of those papers was politically embarrassing, not only to the incumbent Nixon Administration, but also to the previous Johnson and Kennedy administrations. Nixon's attorney general John Mitchell almost immediately issued a telegram to the Times, ordering it to halt publication. The paper refused, then the government brought suit against them. Although the Times eventually won the case before the Supreme Court, an appellate court ordered that the paper temporarily halt further publication.

That was the first attempt in American history by the federal government to restrain the publication of a newspaper. Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers to other newspapers in rapid succession, making it clear to the government that they would have to obtain injunctions against every newspaper in the country to stop the story. What a patriot!! A smart patriot. Who trained him?

President Nixon made discrediting Ellsberg a high priority. Nixon's Oval Office tape from June 14, 1971, reveals H.R. Haldeman describing the situation to Nixon:

"To the ordinary guy, all this is a bunch of gobbledygook. But out of the gobbledygook comes a very clear thing: You can't trust the government; you can't believe what they say; and you can't rely on their judgment. And the implicit infallibility of presidents, which has been an accepted thing in America, is badly hurt by this, because it shows that people do things the president wants to do even though it's wrong, and the president can be wrong." Nixon once said, "If the president does it, it's NOT illegal." Sounds like a dictatorship to me.

On June 28, 1971, Ellsberg publicly surrendered at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Boston. He was taken into custody believing he would spend the rest of his life in prison; he was charged with theft, conspiracy, and espionage.

In one of Nixon's actions against Ellsberg, G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt broke into Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office in September 1971, hoping to find information they could use to discredit him. Nixon must have been scared! The revelation of the break-in became part of the Watergate scandal. On May 3, 1972, the White House secretly flew a dozen Cuban CIA "assets" (commandos), to Washington, D.C., with orders to assault or assassinate Ellsberg. They backed out because the crowd was too large.

Because of the gross governmental misconduct, all charges against Ellsberg were eventually dropped, a president eventually resigned, and a large segment of the American populace became disenfranchised and alienated from their government at all levels. Well, it was about time!

Ellsberg has continued as a political activist. Recently he provoked criticism from the George W. Bush Administration for praising whistleblower* Katharine Gun, a former British Inteligence employee, and calling on others to leak any other information that reveals alleged deception regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Ellsberg currently serves as a senior research associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Center for International Studies.

The latest and a most signifigant development in this saga has been the revelation in June 2005, 34 years hence, of the identity of the Watergate "Deep Throat" informant. In June 2005 91-year-old Mark Felt, a former associate director of the FBI, confirmed that he is Deep Throat.

The former television mystery, "The X-Files," had roots in the true saga of the Pentagon Papers and Watergate. The X-Files is fictional entertainment based upon the proposition that the truth is out there, but it may not be revealed by government before some alienated loner, out of a sense of moral justice, reveals embarrassing facts hidden from public scrutiny. One person can make a difference.


----------

