Coming Soon A Global Central Bank, Global Currency and World Government

09/30/2015

http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/Article/A_Global_Central_Bank_Global_Currency_World_Government.html

© By ANDREW MARSHALL

Following the 2009 G20 summit, plans were announced for implementing the creation of a new global currency to replace the US dollar’s role as the world reserve currency. Point 19 of the communiqué released by the G20 at the end of the Summit stated, “We have agreed to support a general SDR allocation which will inject $250 billion into the world economy and increase global liquidity.” SDRs, or Special Drawing Rights, are “a synthetic paper currency issued by the International Monetary Fund.”

As the Telegraph reported, “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.”1

The article continued in stating that, “there is now a world currency in waiting. In time, SDRs are likely to evolve into a parking place for the foreign holdings of central banks, led by the People’s Bank of China.” Further, “the creation of a Financial Stability Board looks like the first step towards a global financial regulator,” or, in other words, a global central bank.

It is important to take a closer look at these “solutions” being proposed and implemented in the midst of the current global financial crisis. These are not new suggestions, as they have been in the plans of the global elite for a long time. However, in the midst of the current crisis, the elite have fast-tracked their agenda of forging a New World Order in finance. It is important to address the background to these proposed and imposed “solutions” and what effects they will have on the International Monetary System (IMS) and the global political economy as a whole.

A New Bretton-Woods

In October of 2008, Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the UK, said that we “must have a new Bretton Woods – building a new international financial architecture for the years ahead.” He continued in saying that, “we must now reform the international financial system,” and that he would want “to see the IMF reformed to become a ‘global central bank’ closely monitoring the international economy and financial system.”2

On October 17, 2008, Gordon Brown wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he said that this ‘new Bretton-Woods’ should work towards “global governance,” and implementing “shared global standards for accounting and regulation,” and “the renewal of our international institutions to make them effective early-warning systems for the world economy.”3

In early October 2008, it was reported that, “as the world’s central bankers gather this week in Washington DC for an IMF-World Bank conference to discuss the crisis, the big question they face is whether it is time to establish a global economic ‘policeman’ to ensure the crash of 2008 can never be repeated.” Further, “any organisation with the power to police the global economy would have to include representatives of every major country – a United Nations of economic regulation.” A former governor of the Bank of England suggested that, “the answer might already be staring us in the face, in the form of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS),” however, “the problem is that it has no teeth. 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.”4

Emergence of Regional Currencies

On January 1, 1999, the European Union established the Euro as its regional currency. The Euro has grown in prominence over the past several years. However, it is not to be the only regional currency in the world. There are moves and calls for other regional currencies throughout the world.

In 2007, Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, ran an article titled, ‘The End of National Currency’, in which it began by discussing the volatility of international currency markets, and that very few “real” solutions have been proposed to address successive currency crises.

The author poses the question, “Will restoring lost sovereignty to governments put an end to financial instability?” He answers by stating that, “this is a dangerous misdiagnosis,” and that, “the right course is not to return to a mythical past of monetary sovereignty, with governments controlling local interest and exchange rates in blissful ignorance of the rest of the world. Governments must let go of the fatal notion that nationhood requires them to make and control the money used in their territory. National currencies and global markets simply do not mix; together they make a deadly brew of currency crises and geopolitical tension and create ready pretexts for damaging protectionism. In order to globalise safely, countries should abandon monetary nationalism and abolish unwanted currencies, the source of much of today’s instability.”

The author explains that, “monetary nationalism is simply incompatible with globalisation. It has always been, even if this has only become apparent since the 1970s, when all the world’s governments rendered their currencies intrinsically worthless.” The author states that, “since economic development outside the process of globalisation is no longer possible, countries should abandon monetary nationalism. Governments should replace national currencies with the dollar or the euro or, in the case of Asia, collaborate to produce a new multinational currency over a comparably large and economically diversified area.” Essentially, according to the author, the solution lies in regional currencies.5

In October of 2008, “European Central Bank council member Ewald Nowotny said a ‘tri-polar’ global currency system is developing between Asia, Europe and the US and that he’s skeptical the US dollar’s centrality can be revived.”6

In South America, there are moves to create a regional currency and central bank under the Union of South American Nations, which was established in May of 2008.7,8 The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a regional trade bloc of Arabic Gulf nations, has also been making moves towards creating a regional central bank and common currency for its member nations, following the example of Europe, and even being advised by the European Central Bank.9-12

From the time of the East Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s, there have been calls for the creation of a regional currency for East Asia among the ten member nations of the ASEAN bloc, as well as China, Japan and South Korea. In 2008, ASEAN central bank officials and financial ministers met to discuss monetary integration in the region.13-19

Within Africa, there are already certain regional monetary unions, and within the framework of the African Union, there are moves being implemented to create an African currency under the control of an African Central Bank (ACB), which is to be located in Nigeria.20-24

In North America, there are moves, coinciding with the deepening economic and political integration of the continent under NAFTA and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), to create a regional currency for North America, aptly given the current designation as the Amero, and even the then-Governor of the Central Bank of Canada, David Dodge, in 2007, said that a regional currency was “possible.”25-33

A Global Currency

In 1988, The Economist ran an article titled, ‘Get Ready for the Phoenix’, in which they wrote, “thirty years from now, Americans, Japanese, Europeans, and people in many other rich countries and some relatively poor ones will probably be paying for their shopping with the same currency. Prices will be quoted not in dollars, yen or D-marks but in, let’s say, the phoenix. The phoenix will be favoured by companies and shoppers because it will be more convenient than today’s national currencies, which by then will seem a quaint cause of much disruption to economic life in the late twentieth century.”

The article stated that, “The market crash [of 1987] taught [governments] that the pretence of policy cooperation can be worse than nothing, and that until real co-operation is feasible (ie, until governments surrender some economic sovereignty) further attempts to peg currencies will flounder.”

Amazingly the author of the article adds that, “Several more big exchange-rate upsets, a few more stockmarket crashes and probably a slump or two will be needed before politicians are willing to face squarely up to that choice. This points to a muddled sequence of emergency followed by patch-up followed by emergency, stretching out far beyond 2018 – except for two things. As time passes, the damage caused by currency instability is gradually going to mount; and the very trends that will make it mount are making the utopia of monetary union feasible.”

The article advocated the formation of a global central bank, perhaps through the IMF, and “this means a big loss of economic sovereignty, but the trends that make the phoenix so appealing are taking that sovereignty away in any case.”

The article concludes in stating that, “The phoenix would probably start as a cocktail of national currencies, just as the Special Drawing Right is today. In time, though, its value against national currencies would cease to matter, because people would choose it for its convenience and the stability of its purchasing power.” The last sentence says, “Pencil in the phoenix for around 2018, and welcome it when it comes.”34

Former US Federal Reserve Governor Paul Volcker has said that, “if we are to have a truly global economy, a single world currency makes sense.” A European Central Bank executive stated that, “we might one day have a single world currency,” in “a step towards the ideal situation of a fully integrated world.”35

The IMF held a conference in 2000 discussing how the world was segmenting into regional currency blocs and that a single world currency was possible, and that it is, in fact, preferable.36 Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Mundell has long advocated the creation of a global currency, and that it “would restore a needed coherence to the international monetary system, give the International Monetary Fund a function that would help it to promote stability, and be a catalyst for international harmony.”37

In March 2009, Russia suggested that the G20 meeting in April should “consider the possibility of creating a supra-national reserve currency or a ‘super-reserve currency’,” and to consider the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) in this capacity.38 A week later, China’s central bank governor proposed the creation of a global currency controlled by the IMF, replacing the US dollar as the world reserve currency, also using the IMF’s SDRs as the reserve currency basket against which all other currencies would be fixed.39

Days after this proposal, the US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, former President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, told the Council on Foreign Relations that, in response to a question about the Chinese proposal, “we’re actually quite open to that suggestion. But you should think of it as rather evolutionary, building on the current architectures, than – rather than – rather than moving us to global monetary union.”40

In late March a UN panel of economists recommended the creation of a new global currency reserve that would replace the US dollar, and that it would be an “independently administered reserve currency.”41

Creating a World Central Bank

In 1998, Jeffrey Garten wrote an article for the New York Times advocating a “global Fed.” Garten was former Dean of the Yale School of Management, former Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade in the Clinton administration, previously served on the White House Council on International Economic Policy under the Nixon administration and on the policy planning staffs of Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Cyrus Vance of the Ford and Carter administrations, former Managing Director at Lehman Brothers, and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

In his article written in 1998, he stated that, “over time the United States set up crucial central institutions – the Securities and Exchange Commission (1933), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (1934) and, most important, the Federal Reserve (1913). In so doing, America became a managed national economy. These organisations were created to make capitalism work, to prevent destructive business cycles and to moderate the harsh, invisible hand of Adam Smith.” He stated that, “this is what now must occur on a global scale. The world needs an institution that has a hand on the economic rudder when the seas become stormy. It needs a global central bank.”

Interestingly, Garten states that, “one thing that would not be acceptable would be for the bank to be at the mercy of short-term-oriented legislatures.” In essence, it is not to be accountable to the people of the world. So, he asks the question, “To whom would a global central bank be accountable? It would have too much power to be governed only by technocrats, although it must be led by the best of them. One possibility would be to link the new bank to an enlarged Group of Seven – perhaps a ‘G-15’ [or in today’s context, the G20] that would include the G-7 plus rotating members like Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Poland, India, China and South Korea.” He further states that, “There would have to be very close collaboration” between the global bank and the Fed.42

In September of 2008, Jeffrey Garten wrote an article for the Financial Times in which he stated that, “Even if the US’s massive financial rescue operation succeeds, it should be followed by something even more far-reaching – the establishment of a Global Monetary Authority to oversee markets that have become borderless.”

In late October of 2008, Garten wrote an article for Newsweek in which he stated that, “leaders should begin laying the groundwork for establishing a global central bank.” He explained that, “there was a time when the US Federal Reserve played this role [as governing financial authority of the world], as the prime financial institution of the world’s most powerful economy, overseeing the one global currency. But with the growth of capital markets, the rise of currencies like the euro and the emergence of powerful players such as China, the shift of wealth to Asia and the Persian Gulf and, of course, the deep-seated problems in the American economy itself, the Fed no longer has the capability to lead single-handedly.”43

In January of 2009, it was reported that, “one clear solution to avoid a repeat of the problems would be the establishment of a ‘global central bank’ – with the IMF and World Bank being unable to prevent the financial meltdown.” Dr. William Overholt, senior research fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School, formerly with the Rand Institute, gave a speech in Dubai in which he said that, “To avoid another crisis, we need an ability to manage global liquidity. Theoretically that could be achieved through some kind of global central bank, or through the creation of a global currency, or through global acceptance of a set of rules with sanctions and a dispute settlement mechanism.”44

A “New World Order” in Banking

In June of 2008, before he was Treasury Secretary in the Obama administration, Timothy Geithner, as head of the New York Federal Reserve, wrote an article for the Financial Times following his attendance at the 2008 Bilderberg conference, in which he said that, “banks and investment banks whose health is crucial to the global financial system should operate under a unified regulatory framework,” and that, “the US Federal Reserve should play a ‘central role’ in the new regulatory framework, working closely with supervisors in the US and around the world.”45

In November of 2008, The National, a prominent United Arab Emirates newspaper, reported on Baron David de Rothschild accompanying UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown on a visit to the Middle East, although not as a “part of the official party” accompanying Brown. Following an interview with the Baron, it was reported that, “Rothschild shares most people’s view that there is a new world order. In his opinion, banks will deleverage and there will be a new form of global governance.”46

In February of 2009, the Times Online reported that a “new world order in banking [is] necessary,” and that, “it is increasingly evident that the world needs a new banking system and that it should not bear much resemblance to the one that has failed so spectacularly.”47

But of course, the elites that are shaping this new banking system are the champions of the previous banking system. The solutions that will follow are simply the extensions of the current system, only sped up through the necessity posed by the current crisis.

An Emerging Global Government

An April 3, 2009 article in the Toronto Star, reported that the G20 “confab constitutes the first great get-together of the new world order. This geopolitical order may follow a number of directions, by no means all of them pleasant. But its defining characteristic is already unchangeable.” Further, “An uncomfortable characteristic of the new world order may well turn out to be that global income gaps will widen because the rising powers, such as China, India and Brazil, regard those below them on the ladder as potential rivals.” The author further states that, “The new world order thus won’t necessarily be any better than the old one,” and that, “what is certain, though, is that global affairs are going to be considerably different from now on.”48

David Rothkopf, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, former Deputy Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade in the Clinton administration, and former managing director of Kissinger and Associates, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, recently wrote a book titled, Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They are Making, of which he is certainly a member. When discussing the role and agenda of the global “superclass,” he states that, “in a world of global movements and threats that don’t present their passports at national borders, it is no longer possible for a nation-state acting alone to fulfil its portion of the social contract.”49

He writes that “the international organisations and alliances we have today,” are evolving and achieving great things, despite certain flaws, and that he is “optimistic that progress will continue to be made,” but it will be difficult, because it “undercuts many national and local power structures and cultural concepts that have foundations deep in the bedrock of human civilisation, namely the notion of sovereignty.”50 He further notes that, “mechanisms of global governance are more achievable in today’s environment,” and that these mechanisms “are often creative with temporary solutions to urgent problems that cannot wait for the world to embrace a bigger and more controversial idea like real global government.”51

In December of 2008, the Financial Times ran an article written by Gideon Rachman, a past Bilderberg attendee, who wrote that, “for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible,” and that, “a ‘world government’ would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.” Asking if the European model could “go global,” he states that it can, and that this is made possible through an awakening “change in the political atmosphere,” as “the financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.”

He quoted an adviser to French President Nicolas Sarkozy as saying, “global governance is just a euphemism for global government,” and that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law.” However, Rachman states that any push towards a global government “will be a painful, slow process.” He then states that a key problem in this push can be explained with an example from the EU, which “has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for ‘ever closer union’ have been referred to the voters. In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic. [Emphasis added]”52

In November of 2008, the United States National Intelligence Council (NIC), the US intelligence community’s “centre for midterm and long-term strategic thinking,” released a report that it produced in collaboration with numerous think tanks, consulting firms, academic institutions and hundreds of other experts, among them are the Atlantic Council of the United States, the Wilson Center, RAND Corporation, the Brookings Institution, American Enterprise Institute, Texas A&M University, the Council on Foreign Relations and Chatham House in London.53

The report, titled Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World, outlines the current global political and economic trends that the world may be going through by the year 2025. In terms of the financial crisis, it states that solving this “will require long-term efforts to establish a new international system.”54 It suggests that as the “China-model” for development becomes increasingly attractive, there may be a “decline in democratisation” for emerging economies, authoritarian regimes, and “weak democracies frustrated by years of economic underperformance.” Further, the dollar will cease to be the global reserve currency, as there would likely be a “move away from the dollar.”55

It states that the dollar will become “something of a first among equals in a basket of currencies by 2025. This could occur suddenly in the wake of a crisis, or gradually with global rebalancing.”56 The report elaborates on the construction of a new international system, stating that, “by 2025, nation-states will no longer be the only – and often not the most important – actors on the world stage and the ‘international system’ will have morphed to accommodate the new reality. But the transformation will be incomplete and uneven.” It also notes that, “most of the pressing transnational problems – including climate change, regulation of globalised financial markets, migration, failing states, crime networks, etc. – are unlikely to be effectively resolved by the actions of individual nation-states. The need for effective global governance will increase faster than existing mechanisms can respond.”57

The report discusses the topic of regionalism, stating that, “Asian regionalism would have global implications, possibly sparking or reinforcing a trend toward three trade and financial clusters that could become quasi-blocs (North America, Europe, and East Asia).” These blocs “would have implications for the ability to achieve future global World Trade Organisation agreements and regional clusters could compete in the setting of trans-regional product standards for IT, biotech, nanotech, intellectual property rights, and other ‘new economy’ products.”58

Reflecting similar assumptions made by Rachman in his article advocating a world government is the topic of democratisation, on which the report says, “advances are likely to slow and globalisation will subject many recently democratised countries to increasing social and economic pressures that could undermine liberal institutions.” This is largely because “the better economic performance of many authoritarian governments could sow doubts among some about democracy as the best form of government. The surveys we consulted indicated that many East Asians put greater emphasis on good management, including increasing standards of livings, than democracy.” Further, “even in many well-established democracies, surveys show growing frustration with the current workings of democratic government and questioning among elites over the ability of democratic governments to take the bold actions necessary to deal rapidly and effectively with the growing number of transnational challenges.”59

The Creation of a New World Order

Ultimately, what this implies is that the future of the global political economy is one of increasing moves toward a global system of governance, or a world government, with a world central bank and global currency; and that, concurrently, these developments are likely to materialise in the face of and as a result of a decline in democracy around the world, and thus, a rise in authoritarianism. What we are witnessing is the creation of a New World Order, controlled by a totalitarian global government structure.

In fact, the very concept of a global currency and global central bank is authoritarian in its very nature, as it removes any vestiges of oversight and accountability away from the people of the world, and toward a small, increasingly interconnected group of international elites.

As Carroll Quigley explained in his monumental book, Tragedy and Hope, “[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 Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.”60

Indeed, the current “solutions” being proposed to the global financial crisis benefit those that caused the crisis over those that are poised to suffer the most as a result of the crisis: the disappearing middle classes, the world’s dispossessed, poor, indebted people. The proposed solutions to this crisis represent the manifestations and actualisation of the ultimate generational goals of the global elite; and thus, represent the least favourable conditions for the vast majority of the world’s people.

It is imperative that the world’s people throw their weight against these “solutions” and usher in a new era of world order, one of the People’s World Order; with the solution lying in local governance and local economies, so that the people have greater roles in determining the future and structure of their own political-economy, and thus, their own society. With this alternative of localised political economies, in conjunction with an unprecedented global population and international democratisation of communication through the internet, we have the means and possibility before us to forge the most diverse manifestation of cultures and societies that humanity has ever known.

The answer lies in the individual’s internalisation of human power and destination, and a rejection of the externalisation of power and human destiny to a global authority of which all but a select few people have access to. To internalise human power and destiny is to realise the gift of a human mind, which has the ability to engage in thought beyond the material, such as food and shelter, and venture into the realm of the conceptual. Each individual possesses – within themselves – the ability to think critically about themselves and their own life; now is the time to utilise this ability with the aim of internalising the concepts and questions of human power and destiny: Why are we here? Where are we going? Where should we be going? How do we get there?

The supposed answers to these questions are offered to us by a tiny global elite who fear the repercussions of what would take place if the people of the world were to begin to answer these questions themselves. I do not know the answers to these questions, but I do know that the answers lie in the human mind and spirit, that which has overcome and will continue to overcome the greatest of challenges to humanity, and will, without doubt, triumph over the New World Order.

Footnotes:

 

  1. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, ‘The G20 moves the world a step closer to a global currency’, The Telegraph, April 3, 2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/5096524/The-G20-moves-the-world-a-step-closer-to-a-global-currency.html
  2. Robert Winnett, ‘Financial Crisis: Gordon Brown calls for “new Bretton Woods”,’ The Telegraph, October 13, 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3189517/Financial-Crisis-Gordon-Brown-calls-for-new-Bretton-Woods.html
  3. Gordon Brown, ‘Out of the Ashes’, The Washington Post, October 17, 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/16/AR2008101603179.html
  4. Gordon Rayner, ‘Global financial crisis: does the world need a new banking “policeman”?’, The Telegraph, October 8, 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3155563/Global-financial-crisis-does-the-world-need-a-new-banking-policeman.html
  5. Benn Steil, ‘The End of National Currency’, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 86, Issue 3, May/June 2007, pp.83-96
  6. Jonathan Tirone, ‘ECB’s Nowotny Sees Global “Tri-Polar” Currency System Evolving’, Bloomberg, October 19, 2008, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=apjqJKKQvfDc&refer=home
  7. BBC, ‘South America nations found union’, BBC News, May 23, 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7417896.stm
  8. CNews, ‘South American nations to seek common currency’, China View, May 26, 2008, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-05/27/content_8260847.htm
  9. AME Info, ‘GCC: Full steam ahead to monetary union’, September 19, 2005, http://www.ameinfo.com/67925.html
  10. John Irish, ‘GCC Agrees on Monetary Union but Signals Delay in Common Currency’, Reuters, June 10, 2008, http://www.arabnews.com/?page=6&section=0&article=110727&d=10&m=6&y=2008
  11. ‘TIMELINE-Gulf single currency deadline delayed beyond 2010’, Forbes, March 23, 2009, http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2009/03/24/afx6204462.html
  12. Agencies, ‘GCC need not rush to form single currency’, Business 24/7, March 26, 2009, http://www.business24-7.ae/articles/2009/3/pages/25032009/03262009_4e19de908b174f04bfb3c37aec2f17b3.aspx
  13. Barry Eichengreen, ‘International Monetary Arrangements: Is There a Monetary Union in Asia’s Future?’, The Brookings Institution, Spring 1997, http://www.brookings.edu/articles/1997/spring_globaleconomics_eichengreen.aspx
  14. ‘After European now Asian Monetary Union?’, Asia Times Online, September 8, 2001, http://www.atimes.com/editor/CI08Ba01.html
  15. ‘ASEAN Makes Moves for Asian Monetary Fund’, Association of Southeast Asian Nations, May 6, 2005, http://www.aseansec.org/afp/115.htm
  16. Reuven Glick, ‘Does Europe’s Path to Monetary Union Provide Lessons for East Asia?’, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, August 12, 2005, http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2005/el2005-19.html
  17. AFP, ‘Asian Monetary Fund may be needed to deal with future shocks’, Channel News Asia, July 2, 2007, http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world_business/view/285700/1/.html
  18. AFX News Limited, ‘East Asia monetary union “feasible” but political will lacking – ADB’, Forbes, September 19, 2007, http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2007/09/19/afx4133743.html
  19. Lin Li, ‘ASEAN discusses financial, monetary integration’, China View, April 2, 2008, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-04/02/content_7906391.htm
  20. Paul De Grauwe, Economics of Monetary Union, Oxford University Press, 2007, pp.109-110
  21. Heather Milkiewicz & Paul R. Masson, ‘Africa’s Economic Morass—Will a Common Currency Help?’, The Brookings Institution, July 2003, http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2003/07africa_masson.aspx
  22. John Gahamanyi, ‘Rwanda: African Central Bank Governors Discuss AU Financial Institutions’, The New Times, August 23, 2008, http://allafrica.com/stories/200808230124.html
  23. Eric Ombok, ‘African Union, Nigeria Plan Accord on Central Bank’, Bloomberg, March 2, 2009, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601116&sid=afoY1vOnEMLA&refer=africa
  24. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ‘Africa in the Quest for a Common Currency’, Republic of Kenya, March 2009, http://www.mfa.go.ke/mfacms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=346&Itemid=62
  25. Herbert Grubel, ‘The Case for the Amero’, The Fraser Institute, September 1, 1999, p.4, http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/publication_details.aspx?pubID=2512
  26. Ibid, p.17
  27. Thomas Courchene & Richard Harris, ‘From Fixing to Monetary Union: Options for North American Currency Integration’, C.D. Howe Institute, June 1999, p.22, http://www.cdhowe.org/display.cfm?page=research-fiscal&year=1999
  28. Ibid, p.23
  29. Barrie McKenna, ‘Dodge Says Single Currency “Possible”‘, The Globe and Mail, May 21, 2007
  30. ‘Consider a Continental Currency, Jarislowsky Says’, The Globe and Mail, November 23, 2007, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071123.RDOLLAR23/TPStory/?query=%22Steven%2BChase%22b
  31. CNN, Larry King Live, Transcripts, October 8, 2007, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/08/lkl.01.html
  32. Herbert Grubel, ‘Fix the Loonie’, The Financial Post, January 18, 2008, http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=245165
  33. Todd Harrison, ‘How realistic is a North American currency?’, Market Watch, January 28, 2009, http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Do-we-need-a-North/story.aspx?guid={D10536AF-F929-4AF9-AD10-250B4057A907}
  34. ‘Get ready for the phoenix’, The Economist, Vol. 306, January 9, 1988, pp.9-10
  35. ECB, ‘The euro and the dollar – new imperatives for policy co-ordination’, Speeches and Interviews, September 18, 2000, http://www.ecb.int/press/key/date/2000/html/sp000918.en.html
  36. IMF, ‘One World, One Currency: Destination or Delusion?’, Economic Forums and International Seminars, November 8, 2000, http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/ecforums/110800.htm
  37. Robert A. Mundell, ‘World Currency’, The Works of Robert A. Mundell, http://www.robertmundell.net/Menu/Main.asp?Type=5&Cat=09&ThemeName=World%20Currency
  38. Itar-Tass, ‘Russia proposes creation of global super-reserve currency’, ITAR-TASS News Agency, March 16, 2009, http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=13682035&PageNum=0
  39. Jamil Anderlini, ‘China calls for new reserve currency’, The Financial Times, March 23, 2009, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7851925a-17a2-11de-8c9d-0000779fd2ac.html
  40. CFR, A Conversation with Timothy F. Geithner, Council on Foreign Relations Transcripts, March 25, 2009, http://www.cfr.org/publication/18925/
  41. ‘UN backs new global currency reserve’, The Sunday Telegraph, March 29, 2009, http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,27753,25255091-462,00.html
  42. Jeffrey E. Garten, ‘Needed: A Fed for the World’, The New York Times, September 23, 1998, http://www.nytimes.com/1998/09/23/opinion/needed-a-fed-for-the-world.html
  43. Jeffrey Garten, ‘We Need a Bank Of the World’, Newsweek, October 25, 2008, http://www.newsweek.com/id/165772
  44. Sean Davidson, ‘Global central bank could prevent future crisis’, Business 24/7, January 10, 2009, http://www.business24-7.ae/articles/2009/1/pages/01102009_350bc822e4ee4508b724e55b0f1393df.aspx
  45. James Politi & Gillian Tett, ‘NY Fed chief in push for global bank framework’, The Financial Times, June 8, 2008, http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto060820081850443845
  46. Rupert Wright, ‘The first barons of banking’, The National, November 6, 2008, http://www.thenational.ae/article/20081106/BUSINESS/167536298/1005
  47. Michael Lafferty, ‘New world order in banking necessary after abject failure of present model’, The Times Online, February 24, 2009, http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/management/article5792585.ece
  48. Richard Gwyn, ‘Change not necessarily for the better’, The Toronto Star, April 3, 2009, http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/612822
  49. David Rothkopf, Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They are Making, Toronto: Penguin Books, 2008, p.315
  50. Ibid, pp.315-316
  51. Ibid, p.316
  52. Gideon Rachman, ‘And now for a world government’, The Financial Times, December 8, 2008, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a03e5b6-c541-11dd-b516-000077b07658.html
  53. NIC, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World, The National Intelligence Council’s 2025 Project, November, 2008, http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html
  54. Ibid, p.11
  55. Ibid, pp.11-12
  56. Ibid, p.94
  57. Ibid, p.81
  58. Ibid, p.83
  59. Ibid, p.87
  60. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, New York: Macmillan Company, 1966, p.324

ANDREW MARSHALL is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization based out of Montreal, Canada (www.globalresearch.ca). He has written extensively on issues imperialism in the Middle East and Africa, the environment, Homeland Security, war, terrorism and the global economy. He is currently studying Global Political Economy and the History of the Middle East and Africa at Simon Fraser University (Canada).

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


CRONY CAPITALISM THE CAUSE OF SOCIETYS PROBLEMS

09/29/2015

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/crony-capitalism-the-cause-of-societys-problems/

9-29-2015 9-42-09 AM

By Richard M. Ebeling

Since the economic downturn of 2008, the critics of capitalism have redoubled their efforts to persuade the American people and many others around the world that the system of individual freedom and free enterprise has failed.

These critics have insisted that it is unbridled capitalism, set lose on the world, which is the source of all of our personal and society misfortunes. We hear and read this not only in the popular news media and out of the mouths of the political pundits. We see it also in the election of a radical socialist to the leadership of the British Labor party, and a self-proclaimed “democratic socialist” riding high in the public opinion polls for the Democratic Party’s nomination to the U.S. presidency.

The first observation to make is that many if not most of the social and economic misfortunes that are most frequently talked about are not the product of a “failed” free enterprise. The reason for this is that a consistently practiced free enterprise system no longer exists in the United States.

The Heavy Hand of Regulation

What we live under is a heavily regulated, managed and controlled interventionist-welfare state. The over 80,000 pages of the Federal Register, the volume that specifies and enumerates all the Federal regulations that are imposed on and to which all American businesses are expected to comply, is just one manifestation of the extent to which government has weaved a spider’s web of commands over the business community.

The Small Business Administration has estimated that compliance costs imposed on American enterprise by this mountain of regulations maybe upwards of $2 trillion a year.

At the same time, the tangled web of corrupt government-private sector relationships is also reflected in the size and cost of special interest lobbying activities connected with the Federal government.

According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Government, in 2014 there were almost 12,000 registered lobbyists working in Washington, D.C. Their job is to influence the writing of legislation that serve special interest groups attempting to obtain sectorial tax breaks, anti-competitive regulations or market restrictions, redistributions of wealth, or taxpayer funded subsidies and protections from the realities of free market competition and trade, or to advance various ideologically motived “causes.”

Spending Big Money to Plunder Others

The Center for Responsive Government, which tracks who lobbies and for what purposes and causes through the targeting of specific holders of or contenders for Federal elected office, including the Presidency and both Houses of the U.S. Congress, estimated that in 2014 lobbyists spent nearly $3.25 billion in the pursuit of privileges for some at the expense of others in society.

Just alone in 2013-2014, over $500 million dollars was spent on lobbying activity by the financial, insurance, and real estate sectors. Ideological and single-issue groups spent more than $352 million. Lawyers and lobbyists spent $151.5 million; health industry companies spent $142 million; and labor unions “invested” $140.6 million on lobbying.

Communications and electronic companies spent $116 million; energy and natural resource sector, $115 million; agribusiness, $77 million; construction companies, $67.7 million; transportation firms, $61 million, and defense companies, $25.4 million.

Based on the Senate Office of Public Records, the Center for Responsive Government calculates that lobbyists spent close to $41 billion on lobbying activities over the last 15 years, since the beginning of the twenty-first century.

These billions of special interest-serving dollars have influenced and affected the spending of trillions of dollars of Federal government expenditures over the same decade and a half. The lobbyists work with and use those who hold high political office so the special interest and ideological groups who employ them can plunder many others in American society; they can be viewed as among the most successful enterprisers in the country.

The Best Politicians Money Can Buy

But the symbiotic relationship between politicians and special interest groups of all types does not begin or end with the formal lobbying for legislative, regulatory and fiscal privileges and favors in the halls of Congress and the White House in Washington, D.C.

It goes on all year round all over the country in the form of campaign and electioneering contributions to get those elected or reelected who can be depended upon to direct the powers of government in ways that interest groups and ideological activists desire and from which they hope to benefit.

Again according to the Center for Responsive Politics, in 2013-2014, individuals and PACS donated over $1.6 billion to 1,671candidates of both major political parties running for office in the Senate and the House of Representatives. Democratic Party candidates received $736 million, while Republican Party candidates received $901.5 million.

While it may seem unseemly to suggest such a thing, these amounts for legislative lobbying and campaign funding, of course, do not include more millions of dollars that grease the palms of those in political power or who want to be in those lofty positions that represent funding that are outside the official channels in the form of “gifts,” travel junkets, off-the-books expense accounts, and out-and-out bribes of one type or another.

The real world of corrupted and corrupting crony capitalism includes more than lobbying expenditures and campaign contributions to have ringside seats in the halls of political plunderland.

The media has been in a frenzy with the revelations that the Volkswagen automobile company manipulated information about emission standards on its diesel vehicles to deceive environmental regulators in both the United States and Europe. This is being portrayed by many in the media as another example and “proof” of the consequences of unbridled capitalism, when left outside of sufficiently tight and demanding government regulation and intense oversight.

Government Partnerships and the Volkswagen Scandal

However, a closer look shows that this is, instead, another example of the result arising from government, business and labor union “partnerships.” In Germany, labor union representatives sit on the executive boards of large companies and corporations that work closely with various levels of the German government to attain political and “social” goals and objectives very different and separate from what a truly free market company does in pursuing peaceful and honest profits in the service of consumer demand on open, competitive markets.

On September 25, 2015, The New York Times quoted a former Volkswagen executive who said:

There’s no other company where the owners and the unions are working so closely together as Volkswagen. [Volkswagen] guarantees jobs for over half the supervisory board. What management, the government and the unions all want is full employment, and the more jobs, the better. Volkswagen is seen as having a national mission to provide employment to the German people. That’s behind the push to be No. 1 in the world. They’ll look the other way about anything.

In such a politicized market economy, working for and serving “national” and “social” interests become the guiding principle of business decision-making. Not only does it lead to wasteful and inefficient economic business operations having less or sometimes nothing to do with cost-effective management and allocation of labor and resources to make better, newer and less expensive products, it also corrupts the individuals participating in these activities.

Breaking one or more regulatory standards imposed by government on these enterprises is merely one way of “doing business” to advance other political goals such as “jobs” and “full employment” that are expected as part of the “partnerships” with local and national-level politicians and labor union leaders.

The only thing expected from the business enterprises in these intricate political webs is: Don’t get caught. If you do, then your political partners become like Captain Renault, the prefect of police in the 1942 movie “Casablanca.” When Renault orders the closing of Rick’s Café, the owner asks him on what grounds. Renault declares that he is “shocked, shocked” to discover that there is gambling going on in the café. At which point the roulette coupé appears with a stack of franc banknotes in his hand and says to Renault, “Your winnings, Sir.”

Volkswagen got caught, and will pay handsomely in financial and other penalties that will, no doubt, be imposed by the U.S. and European governments. And all the time, Volkswagen’s political partners, especially in Germany, who fostered and worked with the company to play its part in the “game” of government interventionism that has nothing to do with market-oriented enterprise, will sanctimoniously condemn the greedy and “selfish” conduct of profit-hungry businessmen.

What all these examples and facts about lobbying activities, campaign funding and government-business partnerships highlight is the pervasive extent to which “capitalism” as it now exists in the United States or Europe – or in fact all other parts of the world – has nothing to do with free market, laissez-faire capitalism.

Corrupting Hand of the Interventionist State

The Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises, described this twisted, corrupted, and politicized capitalism over 80 years ago, in 1932, in an essay on “The Myth of the Failure of Capitalism,” published shortly before the coming of Hitler and the Nazi movement to power:

In the interventionist state it is no longer of crucial importance for the success of an enterprise that the business should be managed in a way that it satisfies the demands of consumers in the best and least costly manner.

It is far more important that one has ‘good relationships’ with the political authorities so that the interventions work to the advantage and not the disadvantage of the enterprise. A few marks’ more tariff protection for the products of the enterprise and a few marks’ less tariff for the raw materials used in the manufacturing process can be of far more benefit to the enterprise than the greatest care in managing the business.

No matter how well an enterprise may be managed, it will fail if it does not know how to protect its interests in the drawing up of the custom rates, in the negotiations before the arbitration boards, and with the cartel authorities. To have ‘connections’ becomes more important that to produce well and cheaply.

So the leadership positions within the enterprises are no longer achieved by men who understand how to organize companies and to direct production in the way the market situation demands, but by men who are well thought of ‘above’ and ‘below,’ men who understand how to get along well with the press and all the political parties, especially with the radicals, so that they and their company give no offense. It is that class of general directors that negotiate far more often with state functionaries and party leaders than with those from whom they buy or to whom they sell.

Since it is a question of obtaining political favors for these enterprises, their directors must repay the politicians with favors. In recent years, there have been relatively few large enterprises that have not had to spend very considerable sums for various undertakings in spite of it being clear from the start that they would yield no profit. But in spite of the expected loss it had to be done for political reasons. Let us not even mention contributions for purposes unrelated to business – for campaign funds, public welfare organizations, and the like.

Forces are becoming more and more generally accepted that aim at making the direction of large banks, industrial concerns, and stock corporations independent of the shareholders . . . The directors of large enterprises nowadays no longer think they need to give consideration to the interests of the shareholders, since they feel themselves thoroughly supported by the state and that they have interventionist public opinion behind them.

In those countries in which statism has most fully gained control . . . they manage the affairs of their corporations with about as little concern for the firm’s profitability as do the directors of public enterprises. The result is ruin.

The theory that has been cobbled together says that these enterprises are too big to allow them to be managed simply in terms of their profitability. This is an extraordinarily convenient idea, considering that renouncing profitability in the management of the company leads to the enterprise’s insolvency. It is fortunate for those involved that the same theory then demands state intervention and support for those enterprises that are viewed as being too big to be allowed to go under . . .

The crisis from which the world is suffering today is the crisis of interventionism and of national and municipal socialism; in short, it is the crisis of anti-capitalist policies.”

How different is today, in its essential qualities, from Mises’ description of the interventionist state and government-business “partnerships” during those years between the two World Wars?

Real Free Markets Mean Privileges for None

If what we have today is what is widely referred to as “crony capitalism,” then how might we define and explain what a truly free market capitalism would be like? Let me suggest that the following seven points capture the essence of a real free economy:

  1. All means of production (land, resources, capital) are privately owned;
  2. The use of the means of production is under the control of private owners who may be individuals or corporate entities;
  3. Consumer demands determine how the means of production will be used;
  4. Competitive forces of supply and demand determine the prices of consumer goods and the various factors of production including wages of workers;
  5. The success or failure of individual and corporate enterprises is determined by the profits and losses these enterprises earn in free competition with their rivals in the market place;
  6. The free market is not confined to domestic transactions, and includes freedom of international trade;
  7. Government is limited in its activities to the enforcement and protection of life, liberty, and honestly acquired property against, violence and fraud.

In a real free market, there is no place for politicians to offer privileges and favors, because there are none to sell. There is no motive or gain for special interest groups to spend huge sums of money in campaign contributions or lobbying expenses, because political benefits for some at others’ expense cannot be bought.

Wasteful and corrupting “partnerships” between government and business enterprises cannot occur because political authority is restrained from any task other than the securing of each individual’s right to his life, liberty, and peacefully acquired property.

As Ludwig von Mises said, the political and economic crises through which the world suffers is not the crisis or failure of the free market. No, it is the crisis and failure of the interventionist-welfare state, and its anti-free market capitalist ideology.

This post was written by: Richard M. Ebeling

Dr. Richard M. Ebeling is the recently appointed BB&T Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel. He was formerly professor of Economics at Northwood University, president of The Foundation for Economic Education (2003–2008), was the Ludwig von Mises Professor of Economics at Hillsdale College (1988–2003) in Hillsdale, Michigan, and served as vice president of academic affairs for The Future of Freedom Foundation (1989–2003).

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

No wonder the world is so screwed up, the collusion between governments and business just authenticates my contention that humanity is depraved beyond redemption. They shit in their own nest, complain about the stink, and refuse to change. There is nothing wrong with being a misanthropic curmudgeon after-all.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


Three Decades of Mass Immigration The Legacy of the 1965 Immigration Act

09/28/2015

http://cis.org/1965ImmigrationAct-MassImmigration

By CIS

Introduction

“This bill we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not restructure the shape of our daily lives.”

So said President Lyndon Johnson at the signing of the Hart-Celler Immigration Bill thirty years ago next month, on Oct. 3, 1965. The legislation, which phased out the national origins quota system first instituted in 1921, created the foundation of today’s immigration law. And, contrary to the president’s assertions, it inaugurated a new era of mass immigration which has affected the lives of millions.

Despite modifications, the framework established by the 1965 act remains intact today. And, while the reform proposals now being discussed in Congress, the administration, and the Commission on Immigration Reform would reduce the total number of legal immigrants, they would maintain the fundamentals of the 1965 act — family reunification and employment preferences. So it behooves us on this 30th anniversary to look at the act and the expectations its sponsors had for it.

Under the old system, admission largely depended upon an immigrant’s country of birth. Seventy percent of all immigrant slots were allotted to natives of just three countries — United Kingdom, Ireland and Germany — and went mostly unused, while there were long waiting lists for the small number of visas available to those born in Italy, Greece, Poland, Portugal, and elsewhere in eastern and southern Europe.

The new system eliminated the various nationality criteria, supposedly putting people of all nations on an equal footing for immigration to the United States. The new legislation (P.L. 89 236; 79 Stat. 911; technically, amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952) substituted a system based primarily on family reunification and needed skills.

In the shadow of the Statue of Liberty, President Johnson criticized the old policy at the signing ceremony:

“This system violates the basic principle of American democracy — the principle that values and rewards each man on the basis of his merit as a man. It has been un-American in the highest sense, because it has been untrue to the faith that brought thousands to these shores even before we were a country.” (Johnson, Lyndon B., Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1966, pp. 1037-1040.)

Despite the noble words, the architects of the 1965 law did not see it as a means of significantly changing the immigration flow — it was considered more a symbolic act, an extension of civil rights sentiments beyond our borders. Proponents repeatedly denied that the law would lead to a huge and sustained increase in the number of newcomers and become a vehicle for globalizing immigration. Many senators and representatives believed that the new, equal quotas would not be fully used by European, Asian, and Middle Eastern nations. In addition, they did not foresee the expansion of non-quota admissions (those not covered by numerical limits) under the act’s strengthened provisions for family reunification.

The unexpected result has been one of the greatest waves of immigration in the nation’s history — more than 18 million legal immigrants since the law’s passage, over triple the number admitted during the previous 30 years, as well as uncountable millions of illegal immigrants. And the new immigrants are more likely to stay (rather than return home after a time) than those who came around the turn of the century. Moreover, this new, enlarged immigration flow came from countries in Asia and Latin America which heretofore had sent few of their sons and daughters to the United States. And finally, although the average level of education of immigrants has increased somewhat over the past 30 years, the negative gap between their education and that of native-born Americans has increased significantly, creating a mismatch between newcomers and the needs of a modern, high-tech economy.

This paper offers a brief overview of the issues relating to the anniversary, including quotes from many of the participants, as well as an outline of the law’s consequences.

Setting

The liberalization of immigration policy reflected in the 1965 legislation can be understood as part of the evolutionary trend in federal policy after World War II to end legal discrimination based on race and ethnicity — essentially, the immigration bill was mainly seen as an extension of the civil rights movement, and a symbolic one at that, expected to bring few changes in its wake.

In 1957, Congress passed the first civil rights law since Reconstruction, another in 1960, and two important bills in 1964 and 1965. Moreover, Supreme Court decisions and state and local laws also struck at the remnants of legal racism. The immigration bill was merely another step in this process.

The connection between civil rights legislation and abolishing the national origins quotas was explicit. As Rep. Philip Burton (D-CA) said in Congress:

“Just as we sought to eliminate discrimination in our land through the Civil Rights Act, today we seek by phasing out the national origins quota system to eliminate discrimination in immigration to this nation composed of the descendants of immigrants.” (Congressional Record, Aug. 25, 1965, p. 21783.)

And Rep. Robert Sweeney (D-OH) said:

“Mr. Chairman, I would consider the amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act to be as important as the landmark legislation of this Congress relating to the Civil Rights Act. The central purpose of the administration’s immigration bill is to once again undo discrimination and to revise the standards by which we choose potential Americans in order to be fairer to them and which will certainly be more beneficial to us.” (Congressional Record, Aug. 25, 1965, p. 21765.)

Other politicians also thought the immigration law needed to be changed. Much earlier, President Truman, in the message accompanying his (unsuccessful) veto of the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act (which had maintained the national origins quota system), wrote:

“These are only a few examples of the absurdity, the cruelty of carrying over into this year of 1952 the isolationist limitations of our 1924 law. In no other realm of our national life are we so hampered and stultified by the dead hand of the past, as we are in this field of immigration.” (Truman, Harry S., Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1961, pp. 443-444.)

In 1960, President Dwight D. Eisenhower declared to Congress:

“I again urge the liberalization of some of our restrictions upon immigration…we should double the 154,000 quota immigrants … we should make special provisions for the absorption of many thousands of persons who are refugees.” (Eisenhower, Dwight D., Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1961, pp. 308-310.)

President John F. Kennedy’s immigration message to Congress on July 23, 1963, assailed the national origins quota system as having “no basis in either logic or reason.” He complained,

“It neither satisfies a national need nor accomplishes an international purpose. In an age of interdependence among nations, such a system is an anachronism for it discriminates among applicants for admission into the United States on the basis of the accident of birth.” (Kennedy, John F., Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1964, pp. 594-597.)

Foreign policy concerns also motivated some to support change in the national origins system. With the decolonization of Africa and Asia, and with ongoing competition with the Soviet Union for the hearts and minds of the developing world, the quota system was seen as an embarrassment. Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, for instance, said the existing immigration law stood in contrast to the growth of refugee legislation aimed at forming international linkages and having “the respect of people all around the world.” (Congressional Record, June 27, 1952, p. 8267.)

Others favored a change in the law for more personal reasons — they had relatives who were on long immigration waiting lists because of small quotas for their countries. Italy, for instance, had an annual quota of 5,666 immigrants, Greece 308, Poland 6,488, Yugoslavia 942, and so on. Joseph Errigo, National Chairman of the Sons of Italy Committee on Immigration, was upset at the small size of Italy’s quota and urged Congress to “abolish a system which is gradually becoming unpopular and inoperative.” Italy had 249,583 people waiting for admission into the United States. (U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965, p. 407.)

Details

The Hart-Celler Act of 1965:

 

  • Established the basic structure of today’s immigration law.
  • Abolished the national origins quota system (originally established in 1921 and most recently modified in 1952), while attempting to keep immigration to a manageable level. Family reunification became the cornerstone of U.S. immigration policy.
  • Allocated 170,000 visas to countries in the Eastern Hemisphere and 120,000 to countries in the Western Hemisphere. This increased the annual ceiling on immigrants from 150,000 to 290,000. Each Eastern-Hemisphere country was allowed an allotment of 20,000 visas, while in the Western Hemisphere there was no per-country limit. This was the first time any numerical limitation had been placed on immigration from the Western Hemisphere. Non-quota immigrants and immediate relatives (i.e., spouses, minor children, and parents of U.S. citizens over the age of 21) were not to be counted as part of either the hemispheric or country ceiling.
  • For the first time, gave higher preference to the relatives of American citizens and permanent resident aliens than to applicants with special job skills. The preference system for visa admissions detailed in the law (modified in 1990) was as follows:

 

  1. Unmarried adult sons and daughters of S. citizens.
  2. Spouses and children and unmarried sons and daughters of permanent resident aliens.
  3. Members of the professions and scientists and artists of exceptional ability.
  4. Married children of S. citizens.
  5. Brothers and sisters of S. citizens over age twenty-one.
  6. Skilled and unskilled workers in occupations for which there is insufficient labor supply.
  7. Refugees given conditional entry or adjustment — chiefly people from Communist countries and the Middle East.
  8. Applicants not entitled to preceding preferences — i.e., everyone else.

Predictions

Although the 1965 bill was intended only to end discrimination, some people feared a major increase in immigration and a change in the source countries of immigrants. Supporters of the measure assured doubters that this would not happen.

Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY), a sponsor of the bill, told his colleagues:

“With the end of discrimination due to place of birth, there will be shifts in countries other than those of northern and western Europe. Immigrants from Asia and Africa will have to compete and qualify in order to get in, quantitatively and qualitatively, which, itself will hold the numbers down. There will not be, comparatively, many Asians or Africans entering this country. .. .Since the people of Africa and Asia have very few relatives here, comparatively few could immigrate from those countries because they have no family ties in the U.S.” (Congressional Record, Aug. 25, 1965, p. 21812.)

Attorney General Robert Kennedy told House immigration subcommittee members,

“I would say for the Asia-Pacific Triangle it [immigration] would be approximately 5,000, Mr. Chairman, after which immigration from that source would virtually disappear; 5,000 immigrants would come the first year, but we do not expect that there would be any great influx after that.” (U.S. Congress, House, 1964 hearings, p. 418.)

And in a letter to The New York Times, he called for repeal of the national origins system:

“The time has come for us to insist that the quota system be replaced by the merit system…It deprives us of able immigrants whose contributions we need…It would increase the amount of authorized immigration by only a fraction.” (The New York Times, Aug. 24, 1964, p. 26.)

Senate immigration subcommittee chairman Edward Kennedy (D-MA.) reassured his colleagues and the nation with the following:

“First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia … In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.”

Sen. Kennedy concluded by saying,

“The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.” (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1-3.)

In 1965, new Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach testified:

“This bill is not designed to increase or accelerate the numbers of newcomers permitted to come to America. Indeed, this measure provides for an increase of only a small fraction in permissible immigration.” (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965, p.8.)

Secretary of State Dean Rusk, when asked about the number of people from India who would want to immigrate, responded:

“The present estimate, based upon the best information we can get, is that there might be, say, 8,000 immigrants from India in the next five years … I don’t think we have a particular picture of a world situation where everybody is just straining to move to the United States … There is not a general move toward the United States.” (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington D.C., Feb. 10, 1965, p.65.)

[Note: There were actually 27,859 Indian immigrants over the five years following passage of the bill, three times Secretary Rusk’s predicted level. From 1965 through 1993, immigration from India totaled 558,980.]

Senator Hiram Fong (R-HI) answered questions concerning the possible change in our cultural pattern by an influx of Asians.

“Asians represent six-tenths of 1 percent of the population of the United States … with respect to Japan, we estimate that there will be a total for the first 5 years of some 5,391 … the people from that part of the world will never reach 1 percent of the population .. .Our cultural pattern will never be changed as far as America is concerned.” (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965, pp.71, 119.)

[Note: From 1966 to 1970, 19,399 immigrants came from Japan, more than three times Sen. Fong’s estimate. Immigration from Asia as a whole has totaled 5,627,576 from 1966 to 1993. Three percent of the American population is currently of Asian birth or heritage.]

Rep. Sidney Yates (D-IL) supported the bill as a reaffirmation of “our devotion to the principle of equal justice for peoples previously subject to discrimination,” but did not see it as ushering in a new era of mass immigration:

“I am aware that this bill is more concerned with the equality of immigrants than with their numbers. It is obvious in any event that the great days of immigration have long since run their course. World population trends have changed, and changing economic and social conditions at home and abroad dictate a changing migratory pattern.” (Congressional Record, August 25, 1965, p. 21793.)

Another rosy prediction from a supporter of the bill, Sen. Claiborne Pell (D-RI):

“Contrary to the opinions of some of the misinformed, this legislation does not open the floodgates.” (Congressional Record, Sept. 20, 1965, p. 24480.)

The original version of the bill gave top preference to people with special skills, but that was changed in the final version to the current nepotistic emphasis on family relationship. A Washington Post editorial was no better at predicting the result than the bill’s congressional supporters:

“The most important change, in fact, was in direction, shuffling the preference categories to give first consideration to relatives of American citizens instead of to specially skilled persons. This had more emotional appeal and, perhaps more to the point, insured that the new immigration pattern would not stray radically from the old one.” (The Washington Post, Oct. 4, 1965, p. 16.)

Even Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC), who voted against the bill out of concern for overpopulation, didn’t think the new preference system would mean much of a change:

“The preferences which would be established by this proposal are based, I believe, on sound reasoning and meritorious considerations, not entirely dissimilar in effect from those which underlie the national origins quotas of existing law.” (Congressional Record, Sept. 17, 1965, p. 24237.)

A few of the congressmen who opposed the bill did see that the new system, even with tight labor controls, meant a drastic change.

Republican Vice Presidential candidate Rep. William Miller of New York wrote:

“We estimate that if the President gets his way, and the current immigration laws are repealed, the number of immigrants next year will increase threefold and in subsequent years will increase even more … shall we, instead, look at this situation realistically and begin solving our own unemployment problems before we start tackling the world’s?” (The New York Times, Sept. 8, 1964, p. 14.)

[Note: Although immigration did increase as dramatically as Rep. Miller predicted, it took longer than he thought. By 1968 — when the law fully took effect — the 1965 level of 290,697 had increased to 454,448, “only” a 56 percent increase.]

Another opponent, Sen. Spessard Holland (D-FL), told his colleagues:

“What I object to is imposing no limitation insofar as areas of the earth are concerned, but saying that we are throwing the doors open and equally inviting people from the Orient, from the islands of the Pacific, from the subcontinent of Asia, from the Near East, from all of Africa, all of Europe, and all of the Western Hemisphere on exactly the same basis. I am inviting attention to the fact that this is a complete and radical departure from what has always heretofore been regarded as sound principles of immigration.” (Congressional Record, Sept. 22, 1965, p. 24779.)

Among those who more accurately foresaw the future effects of the change in immigration law was a certain Myra C. Hacker, Vice President of the New Jersey Coalition, who testified at a Senate immigration subcommittee hearing:

“In light of our 5 percent unemployment rate, our worries over the so called population explosion, and our menacingly mounting welfare costs, are we prepared to embrace so great a horde of the world’s unfortunates? At the very least, the hidden mathematics of the bill should be made clear to the public so that they may tell their Congressmen how they feel about providing jobs, schools, homes, security against want, citizen education, and a brotherly welcome … for an indeterminately enormous number of aliens from underprivileged lands.”

“We should remember that people accustomed to such marginal existence in their own land will tend to live fully here, to hoard our bounteous minimum wages and our humanitarian welfare handouts … lower our wage and living standards, disrupt our cultural patterns …”

“Whatever may be our benevolent intent toward many people, [the bill] fails to give due consideration to the economic needs, the cultural traditions, and the public sentiment of the citizens of the United States.” (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 681-687.)

Results

Legal Immigration to the United States, 1820-1994

The 1965 changes unwittingly ushered in a new era of mass immigration. The current level of immigration is actually higher than the graph below indicates because illegal immigration is much higher now than ever before, with a conservative estimate of 300,000 new permanent illegal immigrants each year. The result is an influx of more than 1 million people a year, with no natural end in sight.

9-28-2015 11-01-52 AM

Return Migration

Another factor in intensifying the impact of immigration is a reduced rate of emigration — that is, more of today’s newcomers stay for their whole lives, rather than returning to the old country after a few years. Note that in the 1930s, emigration was higher than 100 percent, meaning that during the Great Depression more people left the country than entered.

9-28-2015 11-02-52 AM

Change in Source Countries of Immigrants

Despite the protestations of the 1965 act’s sponsors, the sources of immigration have changed radically. This is partly due to the fact that there are fewer people in Europe are seeking to leave, now that most countries there are modern and industrialized. The ending of the national origins quotas opened the doors to mass entry of people from Asia and Latin America (regions where people are far more likely to want to emigrate), and the law’s emphasis on family reunification ensured that those through the door first would be able to bring in their relatives, freezing out potential immigrants from Europe and from other developing nations.

9-28-2015 11-04-12 AM

Growing Education Gap

Although the percentage of high school dropouts among immigrants has fallen somewhat, the gap between natives and the foreign born has grown significantly, with immigrants more than twice as likely as native-born Americans not to have completed high school. This contributes to a growing pool of blue-collar workers competing for a shrinking number of well-paying jobs.

9-28-2015 11-05-18 AM

Chronology

1882 Chinese Exclusion Act — Barred the entry of any Chinese for 10 years, made permanent in 1904 until it was rescinded in 1943.

1907 Gentlemen’s Agreement — Barred the entry of Japanese and Koreans.

1917 Immigration Act — Passed over President Wilson’s veto, it established a literacy test and created the “Asiatic Barred Zone,” virtually prohibiting immigration from Asia.

1921 Quota Act (Johnson Act) — Set the first immigration quotas in the nation’s history, equal to 3 percent of the foreign born of admissible nationality in the 1910 census. There was still no limit on immigration from the Western Hemisphere.

1924 Immigration Act (Johnson-Reid Act) — Set an annual ceiling of 154,227 for the Eastern Hemisphere. Each country had a quota representative of its population in the U.S. as of the 1920 census.

1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (McCarran-Walter Act) — Passed over President Truman’s veto, it reaffirmed the basic provisions of the national origins quota system, and the annual ceiling remained 154,277. It abolished immigration and naturalization exclusions against Asians and allotted 100 visas for each Asian country. In addition, the act instituted a system to give preference (within the national origins quotas) to foreigners with education or skills, as well as relatives — this was the predecessor of today’s preference system. Immigration from Latin America and the Caribbean remained exempt from numerical limits.

1965 Amendments to Immigration and Nationality Act (Hart-Celler Act) — See “Details” section of this paper.

1976 Amendments to Immigration and Nationality Act — Extended a version of the seven-category preference system previously applied to Eastern Hemisphere countries to all Western Hemisphere countries. Also imposed an annual ceiling of 20,000 immigrants from any one country in the Western Hemisphere.

1978 Amendments to Immigration and Nationality Act — The two hemispheric ceilings were combined into a worldwide quota of 290,000. The U.S. now had a policy that, on paper, applied uniformly to the people of all countries.

1980 Refugee Act — Established a separate admissions policy for refugees, eliminating the previous geographical and ideological criteria, and defining “refugee” according to United Nations norms. It abolished the seventh preference category for refugees (see Details). It set a separate target for refugees at 50,000 and reduced the annual worldwide ceiling for immigrants to 270,000.

1981 Report of the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy — The 16-member commission was created by Congress to evaluate immigration and refugee laws, policies, and procedures. The Commission’s recommendations were summed up as follows by its chairman, the Rev. Theodore Hesburgh: “We recommend closing the back door to undocumented, illegal migration, opening the front door a little more to accommodate legal migration in the interests of this country, defining our immigration goals clearly and providing a structure to implement them effectively, and setting forth procedures which will lead to fair and efficient adjudication and administration of U.S. immigration laws.”

1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) — Tried to control and deter illegal immigration by providing amnesty and temporary status to all illegal aliens who had lived in the United States continuously since before January 1, 1982; extended a separate, more lenient amnesty to farmworkers; imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens; increased inspection and enforcement at U.S. borders.

1990 Immigration Act (IMMACT) — Modified and expanded the 1965 act; it significantly increased the total level of immigration to 700,000, increasing available visas 40 percent. The act retained family reunification as the major entry path, while more than doubling employment-related immigration. The law also provided for the admission of immigrants from “underrepresented” countries to increase the diversity of the immigrant flow.

***

Contacts

Many of those involved in the debate 30 years ago are still with us, either in Congress or retired, and their recollections might be worth noting. Among them are:

Sen. Edward Kennedy, (202) 224-4543. He ushered the bill through the Senate.

Sen. Robert Dole (R-KS), (202) 224-6521. Then a congressman, Sen. Dole voted for the bill.

Sens. Strom Thurmond (R-SC) (202) 224-5972, and Robert Byrd (D-WV), 224-3954, voted no.

Former President Gerald Ford, then a congressman, voted yes.

Former Sen. Albert Gore Sr., the Vice President’s father, voted yes.

Former Sen. Eugene McCarthy voted for the bill in 1965, but has since criticized the direction of U.S. immigration policy.

Others who voted for the 1965 bill: Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI); Sen. Claiborne Pell (D-RI); Rep. George Brown Jr. (D-CA); Rep. Sam Gibbons (D-FL); Rep. Patsy Mink (D-HI); Rep. Sidney Yates (D-IL); Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN); Rep. Andrew Jacobs Jr. (D-IN); Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-MI); Rep. John Dingell (D-MI); Rep. Joseph McDade (R-PA); Rep. Henry Gonzalez (D-TX); former Sen. George McGovern; former Rep. Dan Rostenkowski.

Others who voted against the bill: Rep. James Quillen (R-TN); Rep. E. (Kika) de la Garza (D-TX).

 

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


Pope Calls for New World Government

09/26/2015

https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/12819.2.0.0/pope-calls-for-new-world-government

The pope releases his most radical document yet.

By Richard Palmer

Never has a declaration from the pope been more hotly anticipated. The leaking of an early draft of Pope Francis’s latest encyclical—an official addition to Catholic doctrine—certainly helped. The fact that it deals with global warming means that it has been discussed across many media outlets that rarely pay close attention to papal pronouncements. Britain’s left-wing Guardian newspaper even published whole sections of it and live-blogged its release.

This suits the pope’s purpose for the document perfectly. In his introduction he makes clear that, unlike his last encyclical, he is not just writing to members of the Catholic Church. Instead, he writes, “I would like to enter into dialogue with all people.” The Guardian called it “the most astonishing and perhaps the most ambitious papal document of the past 100 years.”

It’s a bold aim for a bold document. Following on from the pope’s earlier criticism of capitalism in his encyclical Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel), it is a subtle bid for much greater Catholic control over the global economy, global politics and even the whole globe in general.

This new encyclical, called Laudato Si (Be Praised), is the pope’s plea to humanity on behalf of “our sister, Mother Earth.” A good chunk of it deals with global warming. But there is also much on the many other ways man is destroying his planet, through means like pollution, shortages of fresh water and the general “self-destructive” behavior of mankind—warnings that would not be out of place on the Trumpet website. This warning especially could almost have come from a Trumpet article:

It is foreseeable that, once certain resources have been depleted, the scene will be set for new wars, albeit under the guise of noble claims. War always does grave harm to the environment and to the cultural riches of peoples, risks which are magnified when one considers nuclear arms and biological weapons.

The pope also warns that “people no longer seem to believe in a happy future; they no longer have blind trust in a better tomorrow based on the present state of the world and our technical abilities”—adding that it has become clear the science does not have all the answers. He addresses “the crisis of family and social ties”—calling family the “basic cell of society.”

But it is when Francis gets to the solution of these problems that his letter is most dramatic. Once again, Francis places the blame for both the coming environmental crisis that he foresees, as well as world poverty, on the shoulders of “the current global system, where priority tends to be given to speculation and the pursuit of financial gain.” There is some truth to this—man’s current system is far from perfect—though it ignores the fact that communism has had more than its fair share of environmental disasters and does much less to help the poor.

This is the genius of Francis. He has exactly the same message as Benedict, but takes it to a much large audience.And the solution? As soon as Francis starts addressing this subject in Chapter 5 of his letter, he calls for a radical new power to be given control in the world.

This is the heart and core of this document’s message—not the global warming debate that has taken up so many newspaper columns. Francis writes that we must think of “one world with a common plan.”

Here he builds on the previous pope’s, Benedict xvi’s, radical call for a “world political authority” in one of his encyclicals. Benedict’s statement is dramatic and worth quoting in full—as Francis does:

To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John xxiii indicated some years ago.

This is the genius of Francis. He has exactly the same message as Benedict, but takes it to a much larger audience. Benedict never had his encyclicals printed in the Guardian or endorsed by left-wing journalists.

But Francis’s call goes beyond utopian dream. It is much more specific than some kind of airy-fairy new world order. He also uses language that is very practical. He says that “enforceable international agreements are urgently needed” and talks about “global regulatory norms.”

Over the next few months the pope will speak to the the U.S. Congress and the the UN to try and put these goals into practice. ”The 21st century, while maintaining systems of governance inherited from the past, is witnessing a weakening of the power of nation states, chiefly because the economic and financial sectors, being transnational, tends to prevail over the political,” he writes. “Given this situation, it is essential to devise stronger and more efficiently organized international institutions, with functionaries who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments, and empowered to impose sanctions.”

Last year, in his Evangelii Gaudium, Francis published what was referred to as his call for “the overhaul of the financial system.” He condemned “unfettered capitalism” and said that the world’s economic system had failed the poor. At the time we wrote about the radical nature of the pope’s letter, but noted, “Pope Francis has yet to present a detailed, overt action plan for the global economy.” Laudato Si is closer to being that action plan. Where do you start overhauling the world’s financial system? The pope’s answer is to empower international institutions and create new international regulation with teeth.

This is not simply the pope’s opinion. It is more like a declaration of intent: He plans to get straight to work building these institutions. In three months’ time, the pope will be a key speaker at the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Summit. During the same trip, he will also be the first pope to address a joint session of the United States Congress. The Guardian notes:

The rare encyclical, called Laudato Si, or “Praised Be,” has been timed to have maximum public impact ahead of the pope’s meeting with [President] Barack Obama and his address to the U.S. Congress and the UN General Assembly in September.

It is also intended to improve the prospect of a strong new UN global agreement to cut climate emissions. By adding a moral dimension to the well-rehearsed scientific arguments, Francis hopes to raise the ambition of countries above their own self-interest to secure a strong deal in a crucial climate summit in Paris in November.

Over the next few months the pope will be speaking to the most powerful national body (the U.S. Congress) and the most powerful international body (the UN) to try to put these goals into practice.

The global economy still has not recovered from the economic crisis of 2008. The situation in Greece could plunge Europe into more than just a financial crisis at any moment. There are a whole number of problems that could push the world into the abyss. And at this crucial decision point, the pope is driving his way forward.

Over the weekend, the pope exposed more details about the new world system he would like to create.Over the weekend, the pope exposed more details about the new world system he would like to create. He showed that he has nothing but contempt for the major powers that dominate the world today—mainly America and Russia.

On Sunday he condemned these “great powers” of the world for not bombing the Auschwitz supply lines during the Second World War. He also condemned the “great powers” for “looking the other way” during the Armenia genocide 40 years earlier.

These statements by Pope Francis are astonishing. He is the head of a church that looked the other way during the Holocaust. Actually, it is far worse than that: The Vatican sided with Hitler. Even the most ardent supporters of Pope Pius xii have to admit that he never spoke out against the Holocaust. (For more information on his role in World War ii, read our article “Was Pope Pius xii Pious?”) Yet his successor criticizes the Allies for the way they fought and sacrificed millions of lives to bring that Holocaust to an end, and accuses them of being too weak to speak out.

Pope Pius’s role in the war is controversial, and there is not space for a full discussion here. But to sum up, here is a statement that even the pope’s supporters would find hard to deny: Without the “great powers,” the Holocaust likely would not have ended until the Nazis had killed every last Jew within their reach. And here is another, perhaps more controversial but equally true: Without the Catholic Church, Hitler would probably not have come to power in the first place. Certainly Hitler would have had far less power without his alliance with the Catholic Church!

These “great powers” are the ones that built the current world order. It was the Allies—Britain, America, the Soviet Union and France—that received the first permanent seats in the UN Security Council. The UN itself and many other global bodies are of their design. Yet when the pope speaks from “the heart,” as he said he was doing over the weekend, his words are filled with hate and anger against these powers.

Pope Francis plainly wants a different order, with different nations in charge—guided by the Catholic Church.

Would a Catholic world government be better? The Catholic Church ruled Western civilization for hundreds of years, and during that time—to put it mildly—the plight of the poor was much worse than it is today. The Catholic Church quite plainly did not manage to solve man’s problems back then.

Pope Francis plainly wants a different order, with different nations in charge—guided by the Catholic Church. Six times in history the Catholic Church has dominated a major power; each time it ended in catastrophe. In the sixth century a.d., the Emperor Justinian revived the Roman Empire as a Catholic theocracy. The church’s ensuing crack down on heretics and its other enemies meant that the “the whole Roman Empire was a scene of massacre and flight,” as one contemporary writer put it.

As the Byzantine Empire dwindled, the Catholic Church formed an alliance with the Franks under Charlemagne, or Charles the Great. The result? The Encyclopedia Britannica notes: “The violent methods by which this missionary task was carried out had been unknown to the earlier Middle Ages, and the sanguinary [bloody] punishment meted out to those who broke canon law or continued to engage in pagan practices called forth criticism in Charles’s own circle.”

The Church struck a similar relationship with Otto the Great and his descendants in the 10th century. Once again, “[c]onversion was by the sword,” as Friedrich Heer wrote in his book The Holy Roman Empire. Shortly after this time the church began launching crusades in the Holy Land that ended in massacre after massacre.

Beginning in the 15th century, the Catholic Church held sway through the Habsburg Empire, where they killed, or caused to be killed, thousands upon thousands of Protestants and used the military might of the empire to spread its religion throughout the newly discovered Latin America. This time, the church’s power came crashing down in what is still one of the most destructive wars in Europe’s history—the Thirty Years’ War. Over 7 million died, and it is estimated that Germany lost around 20 percent of its population. Some may dispute whether the Catholic Church was responsible for the war, but its huge influence in Europe certainly failed to prevent it.

The next great European leader to strike a deal with the Catholic Church was Napoleon. The French emperor initially opposed the church, but quickly saw the benefit of an alliance. “Thus we have the paradox that the convulsion which threatened to engulf Roman Christianity ended by endowing a dying papacy with a new cycle of life,” wrote historian Paul Johnson. “And the papacy, thus reborn, returned to an ancient theme but with a modern orchestration—populist triumphalism.” Finally, after Napoleon’s fall, the Catholic Church aligned itself with Mussolini and Hitler with the catastrophic results that are obvious to all. That’s hardly an impressive track record as an international peacemaker.

Now, under Francis, this church is again bidding to play a role in world governance.

The Bible describes only one church with strong links to “the kings of the earth” and influencing all “the inhabitants of the earth.” For proof of this, read our free booklet Who or What Is the Prophetic Beast?

Now, under Francis, this church is bidding to play a role in world governance. Historically, the Catholic Church has been a major power among kings. The Bible says it will have that role again.

It appears this is what Pope Francis is advocating. He is attempting to set up the church to rule over or influence nations and governments—to make rulings through new “enforceable international agreements.”

Toward the end of his encyclical, Francis goes off on what could look like an unrelated tangent. He starts writing about the benefits of Sunday and Catholic mass. But the pope sees Sunday worship as part of the solution to the problems he brought up. “And so the day of rest [Sunday], centered on the Eucharist, sheds it light on the whole week, and motivates us to greater concern for nature and the poor,” he writes.

The Trumpet, and before us the Plain Truth, has long warned that the Catholic Church would attempt to enforce Sunday worship on the world. Now, as the pope discusses world governance, he brings up Sunday.

The pope’s latest encyclical is bringing to light—and could soon prove to bring to pass—forecasts made by the Plain Truth and the Trumpet for decades, and by the Bible for millennia.

Yet this church will not dominate global politics endlessly. The same scriptures that tell of its great power and reach also say that this church will only rise up one last time.

Laudato Si is part of this pope’s attempt to bring about that final rise.

For more on the history and prophecy about the Catholic Church, read our free booklet The Holy Roman Empire in Prophecy. Our newest booklet will be available in September, but you can pre-order it today. ▪

Additional Reading:

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


The Federal Reserve uses fraud to enslave the American people!

09/25/2015

http://anticorruptionsociety.com/2015/09/24/the-federal-reserve-uses-fraud-to-enslave-the-american-people/#more-10318

AS EXPLAINED BY ATTORNEY MELVIN STAMPER IN HIS BRILLIANT BOOK,

FRUIT FROM A POISONOUS TREE

9-25-2015 11-16-25 AM

Excerpts from the book, pages 58-60:

Edward M. House

Col. Edward Mandell House, who was the agent provocateur of Rothschild, the head of the European Central Banks, was assigned to oversee the President and the Congress in the implementation of the central bankers’ plans. House is attributed with giving direction and strategy to be implemented by the president and the senators to enslave the American people with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act and Amendments 16 and 17.

Support for the legal presumption that the American people had volunteered to participate in the United States democracy was legislated with the 17th Amendment in 1913 in that participation in federal elections for U.S. Senator established the legal presumption necessary in determining that you were a federal citizen.

[The American BAR Association]

The scheme also provided for the control of the courts via the 1913 creation of the American Bar Association [1], whose parent organization was the European International Bar Association, which was the creation of Rothschild. This allowed the International Bankers to control the practice of law, in that the only ones permitted to practice before the courts were those who were educated under their brand of law, which was only Admiralty and Contract law. Common law of the people was to be replaced as it gave the natural man many jurisdictional protections from the bankers’ legislation.

When the Congress made its first attempt to throw out the common law and replace it with Admiralty law, the Supreme Court rejected the proposed rules of court, explaining that the proposed rules would bring into existence a national police state. So, Roosevelt stacked the high Court and waited for a case upon which the demise of the common law could be accomplished. Erie v. Tompkins came along in 1938 [2] and gave the court the opportunity that the Constitution did not. Thereafter, Common law at the federal level was to be no more.

The 1920s were an eat, drink and be merry time, with the majority of the population living the good life with no care in the world and no attention to what was happening in Congress. The stock market crashed, and those not on the inside were not warned to take their money out of the market and, as a result, lost everything. This set the stage for socialism and Roosevelt’s New Deal. It was a new deal, all right – a one-sided deal, as you are about to learn.

[The Birth of the STRAWMAN]

Contract law is above the Constitution and under the jurisdiction of Equity/Admiralty courts, so the governments began to contract with everyone. The 1930s saw federal legislation providing for the registration of babies through applications for birth certificates. Government workers could get maternity leave with pay. The States pushed for registration of cars through applications for certificates of title and for registration of land through registration of deeds of trust. Constructive trusts were created secretly by adhesion contracts, giving benefits either present or future and as a result, each of the people blindly walked into the trap of United States democracy and its jurisdiction by the signing of contracts, thereby agreeing to be sureties for the debts of the United States and collateral for the Federal Reserve Bank, Inc. [3]

The Great Depression supplied the diversion needed to keep the people’s attention away from what the government was doing. The Social Security program was implemented, along with numerous other socialistic “New Deal” programs that invited the American people to volunteer to be the sureties behind the United States’ new registered property and adhesion contracts through the legal presumption that they were 14th Amendment United States subjects. [4] We are permitted to contract with anyone, even the government, so for the promise of benefits from the federal government, we traded away our unalienable rights and put on a mask of the subject [juristic] person.

Massive registration of property through United States agencies, including the States of the Union as instrumentalities of the federal government in bankruptcy, assured the United States and its officers and instrumentalities (the states) that they would become wealthy beyond their wildest expectations, as predicted by Colonel House.

Edward Mandell House had this to say in a private meeting with Woodrow Wilson (President, 1913-1921) From the private papers of Woodrow Wilson:
“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a charge back for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living. They will be our Chattel and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading [5] to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.” [6] Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation [7] to foment this plot against America.”

All of this was done without disclosure of the material facts that accompanied each application for contract registration. That fraud would have been sufficient reason to charge all the United States officers and elected officials with treason, unless a legal remedy could be legislated for the people to recoup their property and collect for the damages they suffered as a result of the fraud if ever discovered.

[Hidden ‘Legal Remedy’]

If a legal remedy was available, and the people chose not to or failed to secure their remedy, no charge of fraud could be brought, even to a common law court. The United States Congress needed only to provide the legal remedy. It was not required to explain it or even tell the people where the remedy could be found; if they did that then the entire conspiracy would be revealed and every cherry tree in Washington would be decorated with hanging bodies of Congressmen and bankers. The attorneys did not even have to be taught about the remedy in law school. Remaining quiet, Congress had plausible deniability if the people discovered the deception. The majority of the legislators did not have to have the intricate details of the law explained to them regarding the bills they were passing; the pressure was on by the leadership to pass this legislation, and that was all they needed to know. If the people failed to exercise due diligence, the United States became the holder in trust of all the land and labor of every subject in the American Empire. If, however, the people did discover their legal remedy, the United States would have to honor it and release the registered property back to the people, but only if the people were cognizant that they had a remedy, and only if they exercised it in the proper technical manner. It was a great plan, and it has worked for over 70 years.

Having established plausible deniability, even if the people became enlightened that they had a remedy and pursued it, the attorneys, judges, and legislators could claim that they did not understand the people’s claims, especially if the technical requirements for achieving it were not followed pursuant to the statutory requirements. Requiring the public schools to teach civics, government, and history classes out of federally-approved politically correct textbooks written by the publishing houses owned by the owners of the Federal Reserve would assure that the people would not discover the remedy for a long time, if ever.

NOTE: Fruit from a Poisonous Tree is available at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Here is a link to Chapter Two – Magicians (31 pages) that contains these excerpts.

[1] See: The Legal Craft (The BAR Card)

[2] See Who’s Running America; Barefoot’s World.com

[3] “The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a ‘beneficiary’ of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their ‘subjects,’ the 14th  Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.”  See:Congressional Record, March 17, 1993

[4] See: The Great American Adventure by Judge Dale, retired

[5] The “bills of lading” refer to the documents presented to the harbor master when goods are delivered – i.e. the “Certificate of Live Birth” signed by the Mother after she delivers her baby, as demanded by the hospital or mid-wife.

[6] Social Security

[7] See: United States Corporation

Of Importance

In August 1999, President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 13132, Federalism, which states in Section 2 (d): The people of the States are free, subject only to restrictions in the Constitution itself or in constitutionally authorized Acts of Congress, to define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives.

This Executive Order pointed to the American people’s remedies. If they refuse to vote in the “Federal Elections”, declare their legal character as a flesh and blood living man or woman (versus a “juristic person”), and sign all documents “without prejudice UCC 1-308” restricting their assent; then they can challenge statutory (Admiralty) rules/statutes being falsely portrayed as laws. Suggestions for doing this can be found in LAWFULLY YOURS – The People’s Empowerment Guide to our Corporate-commercial Legal System.

Related:

Treason – A Notice to Public Servants

Is your dead legal-fiction STRAWMAN still enslaving you?

Federalism, “personage” and freedom

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


The Worst Part Is Central Bankers Know Exactly What They Are Doing

09/24/2015

http://alt-market.com/articles/2701-the-worst-part-is-central-bankers-know-exactly-what-they-are-doing

9-24-2015 9-09-57 AM

By Brandon Smith

The best position for a tyrant or tyrants to be in, at least while consolidating power, is tyranny by proxy. That is to say, the most dangerous tyrants are those the people do not recognize: the tyrants who hide behind scarecrows and puppets and faceless organizations. The worst position for the common citizen to be in is a false sense of security and understanding, operating on the assumption that tyrants do not exist or that potential tyrants are really just greedy fools acting independently from one another.

Sadly, there are a great many people today who hold naïve notions that our sociopolitical dynamic is driven by random chaos, greed and fear. I’m sorry to say that this is simply not so, and anyone who believes such nonsense is doomed to be victimized by the tides of history over and over again.

9-24-2015 9-14-34 AM

There is nothing random or coincidental about our political systems or economic structures. There are no isolated tyrants and high-level criminals functioning solely on greed and ignorance. And while there is certainly chaos, this chaos is invariably engineered, not accidental. These crisis events are created by people who often refer to themselves as “globalists” or “internationalists,” and their goals are rather obvious and sometimes openly admitted: at the top of their list is the complete centralization of government and economic power that is then ACCEPTED by the people as preferable. They hope to attain this goal primarily through the exploitation of puppet politicians around the world as well as the use of pervasive banking institutions as weapons of mass fiscal destruction.

Their strategic history is awash in wars and financial disasters, and not because they are incompetent. They are evil, not stupid.

By extension, perhaps the most dangerous lie circulating today is that central banks are chaotic operations run by intellectual idiots who have no clue what they are doing. This is nonsense. While the ideological cultism of elitism and globalism is ignorant and monstrous at its core, these people function rather successfully through highly organized collusion. Their principles are subhuman, but their strategies are invasive and intelligent.

That’s right; there is a conspiracy afoot, and this conspiracy requires created destruction as cover and concealment. Central banks and the private bankers who run them work together regardless of national affiliations to achieve certain objectives, and they all serve a greater agenda. If you would like to learn more about the details behind what motivates globalists, at least in the financial sense, read my article “The Economic Endgame Explained.”

Many people, including insiders, have written extensively about central banks and their true intentions to centralize and rule the masses through manipulation, if not direct political domination. I think Carroll Quigley, Council on Foreign Relations insider and mentor to Bill Clinton, presents the reality of our situation quite clearly in his book Tragedy And Hope:

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. Each central bank … sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.

This “world system of financial control” that Quigley speaks of has not yet been achieved, but the globalists have been working tirelessly towards such a goal.  The plan for a single global currency system and a single global economic authority is outlined rather blatantly in an article published in the Rothschild owned The Economist entitled “Get Ready For A Global Currency By 2018.”  This article was written in 1988, and much of the process of globalization it describes is already well underway.  It is a plan that is at least decades in the making.  Again, it is foolhardy to assume central banks and international bankers are a bunch of clumsy Mr. Magoos unwittingly driving our economy off a cliff; they know EXACTLY what they are doing.

Being the clever tyrants that they are, the members of the central banking cult hope you are too stupid or too biased to grasp the concept of conspiracy. They prefer that you see them as bumbling idiots, as children who found their father’s shotgun or who like to play with matches because in your assumptions and underestimations they find safety. If you cannot identify the agenda, you can do nothing to interfere with the agenda.

Hoarding these items is better than having money in the bank (Ad)

I have found that the false notion of central bank impotence is growing in popularity lately, certainly in light of the recent Fed decision to delay an interest rate hike in September. With that particular event in mind, let’s explore what is really going on and why the central banks are far more dangerous and deliberate than people are giving them credit for.

The argument that the Federal Reserve is now “between a rock and a hard place” keeps popping up in alternative media circles lately, but I find this depiction to be inaccurate. It presumes that the Federal Reserve “wants”  to save the U.S. economy or at least wants to maintain our status quo as the “golden goose.” This is not the case.  America is not the golden goose.  In truth, the Fed is exactly where it wants to be; and it is the American people who are trapped economically rather than the bankers.

Take, for instance, the original Fed push for the taper of quantitative easing; why did the Fed pursue this in the first place? QE and zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) are the two pillars holding up U.S. equities markets and U.S. bonds. No one in the mainstream was demanding that the Fed enact taper measures. And when the Fed more publicly introduced the potential for such measures in the fall of 2013, no one believed it would actually follow through. Why? Because removing a primary support pillar from under the “golden goose” seemed incomprehensible to them.

In September of that year, I argued that the Fed would indeed taper QE. And, in my article “Is The Fed Ready To cut America’s Fiat Life Support?” I gave my reasons why. In short, I felt the Fed was preparing for the final collapse of our economic system and the taper acted as a kind of control valve, making a path for the next leg down without immediate destabilization. I also argued that all stimulus measures have a shelf life, and the shelf life for all QE and ZIRP is quickly coming to an end. They no longer serve a purpose except to marginally slow the collapse of certain sectors, so the Fed is systematically dismantling them.

I received numerous emails, some civil and some hostile, as to why I was crazy to think the Fed would ever end QE. I knew the taper would be instituted because I was willing to accept the real motivation of central banks, which is to undermine and destroy economies within a particular time frame, not secure economies or kick the can indefinitely. In light of this, the taper made sense. One great pillar is gone, and now only ZIRP remains.

After a couple of meetings and preplanned delays, the Fed did indeed follow through with the taper in December of that year. In response, energy markets essentially imploded and stocks became steadily more volatile over the course of 2014, leading to a near 10% drop in early fall followed by foreign QE efforts and false hints of QE4 by Fed officials as central banks slowed the crisis to an easier to manage pace while easing the investment world into the idea of reduced stimulus policies and reduced living standards; what some call the “new normal”.

have held that the Fed is likely following the same exact model with ZIRP, delaying through the fall only to remove the final pillar in December.

For now, the Fed is being portrayed as incompetent with markets behaving erratically as investors lose faith in their high priests. This is exactly what the bankers that control the Fed prefer. Better to be seen as incompetent than to be seen as deliberately insidious. And who knows, maybe a convenient disaster event in the meantime such as a terrorist attack or war (Syria) could be used to draw attention away from the bankers completely.

Strangely, Bloomberg seems to agree (at least in part) with my view that the taper model is being copied for use in the rate hike theater and that a hike is coming in December.

Meanwhile, some Federal Reserve officials once again insinuate that a hike will be implemented by the end of the year while others hint at the opposite.

Other mainstream sources are stating the contrary, with Pimco arguing that there will be no Fed rate hike until 2016.  Of course, Pimco made a similar claim back in 2013 against any chance of a QE taper.  They were wrong, or, they were deliberately misleading investors.

Goldman Sachs is also redrafting their predictions and indicating that a Fed rate hike will not come until mid-2016. With evidence indicating that Goldman Sachs holds considerable influence over Fed policy (such as exposed private meetings on policy between Fed officials and banking CEO’s), one might argue that whatever they “predict” for the rate hike will ultimately happen. However, I would point out that if Goldman Sachs is indeed on the inside of Fed policy making, then they are often prone to lying about it or hiding it.

During the taper fiasco in 2013, Goldman Sachs first claimed that the Fed would taper in September. They lost billions of dollars on bad currency bets as the Fed delayed.

Then, Goldman Sachs argued that there would be no taper in December of that year; and they were proven to be wrong (or disingenuous) once again.

Today, with the interest rate fiasco, Goldman Sachs claimed a Fed rate hike would likely take place in September. They were wrong. Now, once again, they are claiming no rate hike until next year.

Are we beginning to see a pattern here?

How could an elitist-run bank with proven inside connections to the Federal Reserve be so wrong so often about Fed policy changes? Well, losing a billion dollars here and there is not a very big deal to Goldman Sachs. I believe they are far more interested in misleading investors and keeping the public off guard, and are willing to sacrifice some nominal profits in the process. Remember, these are the same guys who conned nations like Greece into buying toxic derivatives that Goldman was simultaneously betting against!

The relationship between international banks like Goldman Sachs and central banks like the Federal Reserve is best summed up in yet another Carroll Quigley quote from Tragedy And Hope:

It must not be felt that these heads of the world’s chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called “international” or “merchant” bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks.

Goldman Sachs and other major banks act in concert with the Fed (or even dictate Fed actions) in conditioning public psychology as much as they manipulate finance. First and foremost, globalists require confusion. Confusion is power.  What better way to confuse and mislead the investment world than to place bad bets on Fed policy changes?

Heading into the end of 2015, we are only going to be faced with ever mounting mixed messages and confusion from the mainstream media, international banks and central banks. It is important to always remember, though, that this is by design. A common motto of the elite is “order out of chaos,” or “never let a good crisis go to waste.” Think critically about why the Fed has chosen to push forward with earth-shaking policy changes this year that no one asked for. What does it have to gain? And realize that if the real goal of the Fed is instability, then it has much to gain through its recent and seemingly insane actions.

If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here.  We greatly appreciate your patronage.

Image Credit: Banksy

You can read more from Brandon Smith at his site Alt-Market.com. You can contact Brandon Smith at: brandon@alt-market.com

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


The Crisis of the Now: Distracted and Diverted from the Ever-Encroaching Police State

09/23/2015

http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=f6eb78f457b

7b82887b643445&id=417b2df066&e=84f74f6a6a

By John W. Whitehead
September 22, 2015

“When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby talk, when, in short, a people become an audience and their public business a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk: culture-death is a clear possibility.”—Author Neil Postman

Caught up in the spectacle of the forthcoming 2016 presidential elections, Americans (never very good when it comes to long-term memory) have not only largely forgotten last year’s hullabaloo over militarized police, police shootings of unarmed citizens, asset forfeiture schemes, and government surveillance but are also generally foggy about everything that has happened since.

Then again, so much is happening on a daily basis that it’s understandable if the average American has a hard time keeping up with and remembering all of the “events,” manufactured or otherwise, which occur like clockwork and keep us distracted, deluded, amused, and insulated from reality while the government continues to amass more power and authority over the citizenry.

In fact, when we’re being bombarded with wall-to-wall news coverage and news cycles that change every few days, it’s difficult to stay focused on one thing—namely, holding the government accountable to abiding by the rule of law—and the powers-that-be understand this. As investigative journalist Mike Adams points out:

This psychological bombardment is waged primarily via the mainstream media which assaults the viewer by the hour with images of violence, war, emotions and conflict. Because the human nervous system is hard wired to focus on immediate threats accompanied by depictions of violence, mainstream media viewers have their attention and mental resources funneled into the never-ending ‘crisis of the NOW’ from which they can never have the mental breathing room to apply logic, reason or historical context.

Consider if you will the regularly scheduled trivia and/or distractions in the past year alone that have kept us tuned into the various breaking news headlines and entertainment spectacles and tuned out to the government’s steady encroachments on our freedoms:

Americans were riveted when the Republican presidential contenders went head-to-head for the second time in a three-hour debate that put Carly Fiorina in a favored position behind Donald Trump; Hillary Clinton presented the softer side of her campaign image during an appearance on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon; scientists announced the discovery of what they believed to be a new pre-human speciesHomo naledi, that existed 2.8 million years ago; an 8.3 magnitude earthquake hit Chile; massive wildfires burned through 73,000 acres in California; a district court judge reversed NFL player Tom Brady’s four-game suspension; tennis superstar Serena Williams lost her chance at a calendar grand slam; and President Obama and Facebook mogul Mark Zuckerberg tweeted their support for a Texas student arrested for bringing a homemade clock to school.

That was preceded by the first round of the Republican presidential debates; an immigration crisis in Europe; the relaxing of Cuba-U.S. relations; the first two women soldiers graduating from Army Ranger course; and three Americans being hailed as heroes for thwarting a train attack in France. Before that, there was the removal of the Confederate flag from the South Carolina statehouse; shootings at a military recruiting center in Tennessee and a movie theater in Louisiana; the Boy Scouts’ decision to end its ban on gay adult leaders; the first images sent by the New Horizons spacecraft of Pluto; and the victory over Japan of the U.S. in the Women’s World Cup soccer finals.

No less traumatic and distracting were the preceding months’ newsworthy events, which included a shooting at a Charleston, S.C., church; the trial and sentencing of Boston Marathon bomber suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev; the U.S. Supreme Court’s affirmation of same-sex marriage, Obamacare, lethal injection drugs and government censorship of Confederate flag license plates; and an Amtrak train crash in Philadelphia that left more than 200 injured and eight dead.

Also included in the mix of distressing news coverage was the death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray while in police custody and the subsequent riots in Baltimore and city-wide lockdown; the damning report by the Dept. of Justice into discriminatory and abusive practices by the Ferguson police department; the ongoing saga of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account while serving as secretary of state; the apparently deliberate crash by a copilot of a German jetliner in the French Alps, killing all 150 passengers and crew; the New England Patriots’ fourth Super Bowl win; a measles outbreak in Disneyland; the escalating tensions between New York police and Mayor Bill de Blasio over his seeming support for anti-police protesters; and a terror attack at the Paris office of satire magazine Charlie Hebdo.

Rounding out the year’s worth of headline-worthy new stories were protests over grand jury refusals to charge police for the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown; the disappearance of an AirAsia flight over the Java Sea; an Ebola outbreak that results in several victims being transported to the U.S. for treatment; reports of domestic violence among NFL players; a security breach at the White House in which a man managed to jump the fence, cross the lawn and enter the main residence; and the reported beheading of American journalist Steven Sotloff by ISIS.

That doesn’t even begin to touch on the spate of entertainment news that tends to win the battle for Americans’ attention: Bruce Jenner’s transgender transformation to Caitlyn Jenner; the death of Whitney Houston’s daughter Bobbi Kristina Brown; Kim Kardashian’s “break the internet” nude derriere photo; sexual assault allegations against Bill Cosby; the suicide of Robin Williams; the cancellation of the comedy The Interview in movie theaters after alleged terror hack threats; the wedding of George Clooney to Amal Alamuddin; the wedding of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt; the ALS ice bucket challenge; and the birth of a baby girl to Prince William and Kate.

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, these sleight-of-hand distractions, diversions and news spectacles are how the corporate elite controls a population by entrapping them in the “crisis of the NOW,” either inadvertently or intentionally, advancing their agenda without much opposition from the citizenry.

Professor Jacques Ellul studied this phenomenon of overwhelming news, short memories and the use of propaganda to advance hidden agendas. “One thought drives away another; old facts are chased by new ones,”wrote Ellul.

“Under these conditions there can be no thought. And, in fact, modern man does not think about current problems; he feels them. He reacts, but he does not understand them any more than he takes responsibility for them. He is even less capable of spotting any inconsistency between successive facts; man’s capacity to forget is unlimited. This is one of the most important and useful points for the propagandists, who can always be sure that a particular propaganda theme, statement, or event will be forgotten within a few weeks.”

But what exactly has the government (aided and abetted by the mainstream media) been doing while we’ve been so cooperatively fixated on whatever current sensation happens to be monopolizing the so-called “news” shows?

If properly disclosed, consistently reported on and properly digested by the citizenry, the sheer volume of the government’s activities, which undermine the Constitution and in many instances are outright illegal, would inevitably give rise to a sea change in how business is conducted in our seats of power.

Surely Americans would be concerned about the Obama administration’s plans to use behavioral science tactics to “nudge” citizens to comply with the government’s public policy and program initiatives? There would be no end to the uproar if Americans understood the ramifications of the government’s plan to train non-medical personnel—teachers, counselors and other lay people—in “mental first aid” in order to train them to screen, identify and report individuals suspected of suffering from mental illness. The problem, of course, arises when these very same mental health screeners misdiagnose opinions or behavior involving lawful First Amendment activities as a mental illness, resulting in involuntary detentions in psychiatric wards for the unfortunate victims.

Parents would be livid if they had any inkling about the school-to-prison pipeline, namely, how the public schools are being transformed from institutions of learning to prison-like factories, complete with armed police and surveillance cameras, aimed at churning out compliant test-takers rather than independent-minded citizens. And once those same young people reach college, they will be indoctrinated into believing that they have a “right” to be free from acts and expressions of intolerance with which they might disagree.

Concerned citizens should be up in arms over the government’s end-run tactics to avoid abiding by the rule of law, whether by outsourcing illegal surveillance activities to defense contractors, outsourcing inhumane torture to foreign countries, causing American citizens to disappear into secret interrogation facilities, or establishing policies that would allow the military to indefinitely detain any citizen—including journalists—considered a belligerent or enemy.

And one would hope American citizens would be incensed about being treated like prisoners in an electronic concentration camp, their every movement monitored, tracked and recorded by a growing government surveillance network that runs the gamut from traffic cameras and police body cameras to facial recognition software. Or outraged that we will be forced to fund a $93 billion drone industry that will be used to spy on our movements and activities, not to mention the fact that private prisons are getting rich (on our taxpayer dollars) by locking up infants, toddlers, children and pregnant women?

Unfortunately, while 71% of American voters are “dissatisfied” with the way things are going in the United States, that discontent has yet to bring about any significant changes in the government, nor has it caused the citizenry to get any more involved in their government beyond the ritualistic election day vote.

Professor Morris Berman suggests that the problems plaguing us as a nation—particularly as they relate to the government—have less to do with our inattention to corruption than our sanctioning, tacit or not, of such activities. “It seems to me,” writes Berman, “that the people do get the government they deserve, and even beyond that, the government who they are, so to speak.”

In other words, if we end up with a militarized police state, it will largely be because we welcomed it with open arms. In fact, according to a recent poll, almost a third of Americans would support a military coup “to take control from a civilian government which is beginning to violate the constitution.”

So where does that leave us?

As legendary television journalist Edward R. Murrow warned, “Unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it, and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.”

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

I am sitting here at a loss for words to explain how this man, who is a member of the most subversive organization in America, (THE BAR) can also be the most proficient educator and information source in this entire country. He seems relentless in his effort to educate the people and is involved in helping people who have encountered the beast. (THE BENCH)

John, you can be the best educator in America, or the slickest subversive, but you cannot be both. Yet you keep doing a bang-up job of it. Go Figure!

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


In A World Gone Mad

09/22/2015

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-20/guest-post-safe-assets-world-gone-mad

Submitted by Tyler Durden

Submitted by Ton Chatham via Project Chesapeake,

 Gold and silver are good assets to hold to insure the preservation of EXCESS wealth but there are other assets that are even more valuable longterm. Those things that can be used to produce a product are the elements that can be used to leverage your time, resources and talents to produce wealth. The ability to produce excess is the basis of the need for wealth preservation.

Physical goods in the form of equipment that can be used to create or produce goods needed by society are the basis of prosperity and wealth in the world. Gold and silver only become necessary when society begins to produce more products than the producer can use. This excess production is then traded for those things that can preserve the value of this excess production until it is needed by individuals.

Machines to build or repair such as saws and hammers, sewing machines, metal fabricating machines such as lathes and mills and machines to convert raw materials to value added products such as steel to I beams or pots and pans, wheat to flour or pasta, lumber to finished furniture and cotton to cloth are the assets that define how prosperous you are as a nation. A nation derives its wealth from having a product to sell. That will never change. It is true for nations as well as for individuals.

Individuals need to have the ability to produce something in excess of their needs to advance to the need to store that excess. This requires tools and equipment in most cases. You do not necessarily need to process your own resources to generate this excess. A miller can provide the equipment to grind grain for the community taking part of the production for his time and effort. This gives rise to the service economy where individual specialization is traded for other services and resources rendered. In most cases this service will require specialized equipment not possessed by the general population. This specialized equipment is an asset more valuable than gold and silver in many cases.

The goods need to exist before gold and silver can be traded for them and gold and silver need to exist to preserve this excess production for future use.Storing some of your excess production today in equipment that you can use to start a cottage industry will insure gold and silver will have useful value in the future. You cannot have one without the other.

When a person uses their wealth in such a way that allows them to employ several others, it will not only increase their wealth but insure prosperity for others.The ability to earn payment in return for their time and energy allows these employees to utilize these funds to provide income for the butcher, baker and woodsman. This is the basis for the economy small or large. The economy is what ultimately determines the value of any asset.

The ability of individuals to insure a functioning economy will determine the wealth and standard of living of everyone. A safe asset is one that contributes something to the ability of the economy to function properly. Without that, wealth is determined by what each individual can produce themselves for themselves insuring wealth will be limited for many and unequal as ability will determine what that wealth will be. Restricted access to resources and goods eventually leads to war. In war, no asset is completely safe.

When it comes to the next generation, the options are going to be very limited. If parents expect to pass on any of their hard earned wealth it must be done in a way that prevents government from devaluing or stealing it outright. The use of gold, silver, diamonds and some types of land will likely be the best options. If the government cannot find it or get their hands on it, it will make keeping it that much easier. Given the current situation even guns, ammo and reloading equipment might be seen as a good asset to hold for future use. Along these lines, tools and specialized equipment that can be used to produce some type of income will also be an advantage for youngsters that would otherwise have difficulty finding employment in the future. The greatest thing you could do for your children is to develop some type of business that can be handed down to them to give them the chance to make it in the future where government intervention has destroyed the economy and future job prospects.

Add to this a few small cottages that can be rented out for a modest price and maybe even a small industrial plant to process fibers such as cotton, wool or flax. Mini mills are now available that makes this a possibility today. A small store on site that can sell locally produced items such as soap, candles, food, clothing or medicinal herbs will all add to income opportunities to insure a decent standard of living. The number of products that can be locally made and sold are numerous and allows for many such farms in an area without fear of duplication.

To get by in the future people are going to have to learn to be creative once again in order to take care of themselves and their families. The west line has moved meaning Americans will be forced to live in a smaller economy with a lower standard of living than in the past. If you do not adjust to that now you will be forced to later under much more difficult circumstances. The assets you preserve during the coming years will determine how well you will live and how well your children will live. Nothing is guaranteed at this point so the future is entirely on you.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


EUROPE’S REFUGEE CRISIS: A HUMANITARIAN CRISIS OR A WEAPON OF WAR?

09/21/2015

http://www.newswithviews.com/Baruch/benjamin109.htm

By Benjamin Baruch and Jeffrey Nyquist
NewsWithViews.com

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The evening news is filled with pictures of suffering refugees fleeing the war torn Middle East. The American public watches as Syrian children disembarking from trains in Germany are handed cookies by smiling Germans, who appear to be happy about the sudden influx of hundreds of thousands of mostly Moslem refugees. European and American leaders press the case that both Europe and the United States must absorb this steady flow of illegal immigrants as the only humanitarian response in light of the incredible suffering now being inflicted upon civilians throughout much of the region.

The Bush doctrine of exporting democracy to the Middle East through the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq almost 14 years ago has left only a legacy of failure and suffering in its wake. Rather than achieving the goal of bringing democracy to the Arab world, American policy only succeeded in destabilizing our former allies while increasing the various conflicts throughout the region. The Obama administration, rather than bringing change or even a semblance of sanity to U.S. foreign policy, has engaged in even greater forms of what can only be described as schizophrenic actions. America today has turned its back on our traditional allies in the region, Egypt, Israel and Saudi Arabia, in order to embrace our enemies in Iran. It is hard to find anyone who can explain how this latest chapter in the Obama doctrine makes any sense at all. To much of the world, America now appears as a super power gone wild.

When the Arab spring first began to break out across Middle East, America lent its support to the people, demanding states like Egypt respect their right to protest. When civil war in Syria broke out, we provided support to the freedom fighters who opposed Assad, only to learn later, many of these same freedom fighters now fight alongside ISIS. In Egypt, American officials gave their support to the anti-Mubarak camp, assisting the rise in power of the Muslim Brotherhood, a communist sponsored organization with known ties to terrorism. In Libya, American and NATO airstrikes assisted Islamic forces in toppling Kaddafi, only to leave the country in the midst of chaos and tribal warfare.

Throughout the region, America’s foreign policy has only destabilized the moderate regimes, bringing down pro-American allies, while opening the door for radical extremists to rise to power. In looking back at the foolishness of these actions, are we merely to believe the political leaders of the West are this stupid?

Following the events of 11 September 2001, the President of the United States formally declared war on an ideology which he called terrorism and for the first time in history, a nation declared war on an idea. Shortly thereafter the US invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq. Fourteen years later, the entire Middle East has now been destabilized, while the nations of the world are all mobilizing for war. The Arab Spring has brought only radicalization across the region. The civil war which continues to rage in Syria is now being directly supported by Russian troops on the ground. In Iran, American appeasement has given the mullahs the green light to continue their pursuit of nuclear weapons.

In late 2004, an expert on American foreign policy from one of the Ivy League think tanks spoke to a large group of intelligent Americans. He spoke at great length how the US policy of creating a democratic government in Iraq was doomed to failure, concluding that the leadership that promoted such madness must either be mentally impaired or insane. The majority of the listening audience concurred and offered their opinion of how foolish and ignorant the Bush administration must be to pursue such an obviously doomed agenda.

No one in the room even stopped to consider that the true purpose of American foreign policy has been carefully hidden from the public eye, veiled within lies and deceptions, while the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were actually pursuing another agenda. This agenda was designed in hell, and is built upon lies and deceit. Its sole purpose is to bring the world to brink of destruction and to open the door for the rise in power of the New World Order, a one world government.

The refugees flooding out of this war torn region are merely pawns in a global war which has already begun. Reports indicate as many as 75% of the refugees are military aged men, in excellent physical condition. Robert Spencer, columnist for Front Page magazine writes that Islamists “planned to flood Europe with as many as 500,000 refugees” while the actual numbers may likely be more than double that amount. Spencer continues, “This is no longer just a refugee crisis, this is hijrah.”

Hijrah is the Islamic strategy of using immigration as a weapon of Jihad against the infidel nations. While the attention of the world is focused on the refugee crisis, in the shadows behind these events, another nation’s sinister plan is now in play. Russia has always been the main ally of the world’s terrorist regimes. Islamic terrorism was created as a weapon against the West, but it didn’t arise on its own, it was actually first created in the think tanks of the KGB. The Soviet Union began recruiting future terrorist leaders from the Arab world in the 1950’s, bringing them to Russia and training them in subversion and terrorism tactics. Many of the world’s terrorist leaders were recruited by and act as agents for the Soviet KGB. They were sent back to their Arab countries to stir up anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiment and to build terrorist organizations which would one day be used as a weapon against the West.

Benjamin Baruch and Jeffrey Nyquist, in The New Tactics of Global War: Reflections on the Changing Balance of Power in the Final Days of Peace, explore the truth of what is really happening behind today’s news headlines, and why after the Cold War, Russia remains the number one threat to the United States. Most Americans believe Islamic extremism is the number one threat to the West, but the greater threat is from the nation where all of this began almost seventy years ago.

The New Tactics of Global War uncovers the reality of the changing balance of power in our world offering insight into the thinking of the Russian strategists who first began this game of deception almost one hundred years ago. This book allows the reader to see inside the minds of the men who have conjured a new totalitarian threat, and in so doing, allows the reader a glimpse into the heart of a beast.

And behold a second beast, like a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh. Daniel 7:5

The New Tactics of Global War: Reflections on the Changing Balance of Power in the Final Days of Peace will be released in early October, 2015.

© 2015 Benjamin Baruch – All Rights Reserved

Benjamin Baruch is a professional financial advisor, author and public speaker.

Benjamin Baruch is the author of the best-selling book; “The Day of the LORD is at Hand.” First released in 1998, it immediately became an underground best-seller, with over 20,000 copies sold. The 7th Edition was released in December, 2014 and includes insight into the today’s major news headlines including the crisis in the Ukraine, and the growing wars of the Middle East. Benjamin also uncovers what has been occurring behind the closed doors of power in the United States offering the reader a clear view of what our rulers are doing in the dark.

Benjamin’s has recently released his second book, a seven volume series; entitled “ Search the Scriptures Volume One: Out of the Darkness” which is now available at Amazon.com.

Benjamin Baruch is a Chartered Financial Analyst and a Certified Public Accountant and is a financial advisor to some of the largest privately held real estate companies in America. His academic background includes studies in International Finance and Economics at UCLA and graduate studies in the Middle East conflict at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel. Benjamin is a recognized expert in real estate taxation, and his professional experience includes the management of institutional investment portfolios. For more information, or to book Benjamin for a speaking or media appearance, please contact him through his website.

Amazon authors page: Benjamin Baruch, Author

Website: BenjaminBaruch.net

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

I disagree with the Authors attempt to give Russia the credit for designing this covert war on Democracy. He neglect’s to acknowledge that the Banking Cartel have been designing and assisting both America and Russia from the get go. This is not a Russia war on America per-se.  It is a United co-operation of all major governments involved to Bankrupt them all and usher in the New world order. They are not stupid enough to think the world’s citizens would accept a world government without chaos and total loss of local governments support. This is going to end from utter demoralization of the people in a helpless condition when they finally realize there is no government support for freedom anywhere on earth. The demoralized people will thank their oppressors for uniting against them and giving them a new false hope. Give a starving man food and he will accept slavery with thanks and loyalty! In my book they are listed as God-damned cowards. Death is much better than slavery. OBUMA, YOU S.O.B., YOU’RE GOING TO ROT IN HELL…………………………..FOREVER!

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


Monsanto, Rockefeller,Trilateral Commission, Brzezinski

09/19/2015

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/09/the-tpp-monsanto-rockefeller-trilateral-commission-brzezinski.html?utm_source=Activist+Post+Subscribers&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=5730b11223-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_term=0_b0c7fb76bd-5730b11223-387807993

9-19-2015 1-14-32 PM

By Jon Rappoport

All hands on deck for global, economic, corporate dictatorship.

“The so-called ‘migration’ of populations into Europe and America is no accident. It’s part and parcel of a Trilateral Commission plan to introduce a high degree of chaos—which of course will require a militarized police response, to ‘restore order’ and remove huge chunks of freedom in the process. All significant US policy decisions are initiated by Trilateral members working inside and outside of government.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

There are dots to connect here. They’re real, and they’re spectacular.

Let me begin with a brief exchange from a 1978 interview, conducted by reporter Jeremiah Novak. He was speaking with two American members of the Trilateral Commission (TC), a group founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller and his intellectual flunkey, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral Commission] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others? After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.

RICHARD COOPER [Trilateral Commission member]: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.

KARL KAISER [Trilateral Commission member]: It just hasn’t become an issue.

Source: “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management,” ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.

This through-the-looking-glass moment summed up the casual arrogance of Trilateral members: of course US government policy was in the hands of Trilateralists; what else would you expect?

US government policy most certainly covers the area of international trade—and Cooper and Kaiser were foreshadowing blockbuster trade treaties to come: e.g., NAFTA, GATT (which established the World Trade Organization), CAFTA, and now, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is being negotiated in secret among 12 nations responsible for a major amount of world trade and world GDP.

Here are two key Trilateral quotes that reflect this global outlook—by which I mean a world dominated by mega-corporations:

The nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state. — Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1969.

Brzezinski was Obama’s foreign policy mentor after Obama won the Presidency in 2008.

Any doubt on the question of Trilateral Commission goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs(2003):

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 is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

“Integrated global political and economic structure” means: domination of populations via giant corporations.

Here is the payoff. The current US Trade Representative (appointed by Obama in 2013), who is responsible for negotiating the TPP with 11 other nations, is Michael Froman, a former member of the Trilateral Commission. Don’t let the word “former” fool you. TC members resign when they take positions in the Executive Branch of government. And when they serve in vital positions, such as US Trade Representative, they aren’t there by accident. They’re TC operatives with a specific agenda.

The TPP IS a major item on the Trilateral to-do list. Make no mistake about it.

Let’s move along to Monsanto, one of those mega-corporations the Trilateralists fervently favor.

From 2001 to 2008, a man named Islam Siddiqui was a staunch US lobbyist for, and vice president of, CropLife America. Siddiqui represented Monsanto, BASF, Bayer, Dow, DuPont, Syngenta—the biggest and most aggressive biotech GMO corporations in the world.

On October 21, 2011, Siddiqui’s new appointment (by Obama) was confirmed. He became the federal government’s Chief Agricultural Negotiator, and served in that position until he resigned on December 12, 2013. During his tenure, Siddiqui, Monsanto’s man, was up to his ears in negotiating the TPP.

On April 22, 2009, Siddiqui had addressed the press in a US State Dept. briefing disingenuously titled “Green Revolution”:

What we need now in the 21st century is another revolution… you would not do it just by conventional breeding. You need to have use of 21st century technologies, including biotechnology, genetic [GMO] technology… And these molecules, which are being used (inaudible), they are state-of-the-art technologies, using molecular biology. Especially in chemicals [pesticides], they have less harsh footprint on the environment, they are more green, in terms of the adverse effects and ecological effects. They are also tested more thoroughly.

Siddiqui is a disinformation pro. For example, the most widely used pesticide in the world, deployed in conjunction with Monsanto’s GMO crops, was tested so “thoroughly” for safety.  that it is now declared a probable carcinogen by the World Health Organization. You have heard of it: Roundup.

Siddiqui’s tenure negotiating US interests in the TPP surely favored big biotech, and all the companies who make their living selling GMO crop-seeds and pesticides.

The predicted outcome of the TPP vis-à-vis GMOs? It’s obvious. Nations who resist the importation of GMO food crops will be sued, in private tribunals, for interfering with “free trade.”

This is the future writ large, unless the TPP is derailed.

Consider the local movement in Hawaii’s Maui County, where in the last election, citizens voted to block long-standing Monsanto/Dow experimentation with GMOs and their attendant pesticides, until an independent investigation could assess the health effects of those reckless open-air activities.

Monsanto immediately sued to suspend the force of the vote, successfully obtained an injunction, and the case has been hung up in federal court ever since.

Under the TPP, all successful local community actions against GMOs and their pesticides, anywhere in the 12-member countries, would be viewed per se as obstructions to free trade; and instead of engaging in a public and messy court battle, corporations could simply sue (or threaten to sue) the offending member country in a private tribunal, automatically defeat the local communities, and win a cash judgment.

Attempts to label GMOs, and previous laws allowing labeling in various countries, could be arbitrarily canceled.

Consider the recent astounding action of US Trade Representatives in Europe. Using yet another disastrous trade treaty under negotiation, the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), US Trade Reps pressured the European Union (EU) to modify its stance on pesticides.

The Guardian (May 22, 2015) headline and tag says it all:

EU dropped pesticide laws due to US pressure over TTIP, documents show… US trade officials pushed EU to shelve action on endocrine-disrupting chemicals linked to cancer and male infertility to facilitate TTIP free trade deal.

Natural and Non-Toxic Products. Up to 50% Off – Every Day (Ad)

Note: this repressive and criminal action didn’t even involve a treaty that had been ratified. The pressure was all about the so-called positive economic impact the TTIP would have, when passed, for Europe. And in the face of that money benefit, and the threat of its removal (by ditching the TTIP negotiations), who would dare curb the import and use of chemicals that achieve something as “minor” as disrupting human endocrine systems and causing male infertility and cancer?

This is the sort of judgment we can look forward to, if and when the TTP and the TTIP are ratified.

This is the face of corporate Globalism. This is the face of the Globalist Trilateral Commission.

Recently, US Senator Jeff Sessions broke the code of silence on what is in the forbidden-to-be-disclosed TPP Treaty. His most pungent revelation concerned “living agreements.” Thus giving new meaning to the term bait-and-switch.

Living agreements are arbitrary changes that can be made to the treaty, by Presidential fiat, without consulting Congress, after the treaty has been ratified.

That’s right. In other words, the treaty is the treaty until it isn’t, until it’s something more, something different, something worse, something that empowers mega-corporations to a greater degree than previously negotiated.

Because those corporations, those Monsantos and Dows and Syngentas, wouldn’t want to miss a trick, wouldn’t want to forego suddenly realizing how they can exert even more dominance, would they?

Barbara Chicherio offers a powerful clue about what’s to come if the TPP is ratified (“Trans-Pacific Partnership and Monsanto,” occupy-monsanto.com):

Trade agreements have a history of displacing small farmers and destroying local food economies. Ten years following the passage of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) 1.5 million Mexican farmers became bankrupt because they could not compete with the highly subsidized US corn entering the Mexican market.

In the same 10 years Mexico went from a country virtually producing all of its own corn to a country that now imports at least half of this food staple. Mexican consumers are now paying higher prices for Monsanto’s GMO corn.

It isn’t just GMOs. Suppose a US pharmaceutical company decides to export a new drug to Japan or Australia or Canada, all members of the TPP. And suppose the drug is highly toxic. And suppose the governments of those nations object. The US company could sue, win a huge $$ judgment, and force the export to go through anyway.

As I’ve written in previous articles, the details of the TPP negotiations and the text of the TPP are secret. Government officials in the member nations are not allowed to know all the details of the treaty, nor are they permitted to reveal what they know to the public.

This is an oligarchic dictatorship of corporations on a global scale. Along with a purposeful dumb-show, played out by government officials: “I don’t even know much about what’s in the trade treaty. And if I did, I couldn’t tell you.” So far, Senator Sessions is the only exception.

Those people who still believe that One World United, delivered to us by the powers-that-be, will lead to a better life for all, need to put that fairy tale away and see the underlying framework and the underlying betrayal.

The Globalist/Trilateral Community aims to destroy the rights and power of all communities, and ultimately, destroy all people who still have a grip on the word freedom.

This is the grinning nightmare descending in the long night, professing to help us all, claiming to know the details of better living through chemistry, asserting that trade treaties couldn’t harm a flea…and television news assures us that, at worst, this is just another he-said he-said debate, nothing to worry about, be happy, march forward, eyes closed, mouths shut, mind quiet.

 

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealedclick here.)

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALEDEXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


YouGov Poll 29 percent Of Americans Would Support A Military Coup

09/18/2015

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2693-yougov-poll-29-of-

americans-would-support-a-military-coup

9-18-2015 11-34-16 AM

By Joshua Krause

EDITOR’S NOTE: I have written extensively in the past about the dangers of military coup and the sad reality that many in the Liberty Movement support such a development.  To be frank, some people support the concept of military coup purely because of cowardice.  It is far easier to have someone else fight your revolution against corruption for you, rather than having to do it yourself.  The problem is, if average people do not lead in the fight against tyranny then they will have no power to decide what system replaces the original.  The new system could very well end up being as criminal as the old.  Military coup is NOT outlined as an option in the Constitution; it is the common citizen and civilian that carries the responsibility for the removal of corrupt government.  If this duty is shirked out of laziness or fear, it will quickly come back to haunt us.  It is the duty of each serviceman to refuse unconstitutional orders when they are given and to fight on the side of the citizenry when necessary, not to follow some trumped up cabal of elitist military brass in a potential farce of a revolt that ends in a Junta that the people will eventually be forced to destroy anyway.  Also keep in mind that military coups have been used by the elites throughout history in order to con the masses into thinking they have “defeated” the oligarchy when in fact they have only replaced one puppet structure with another.  Military coup is a losing proposition, and only a fool would entertain it as practical…

Brandon Smith, Alt-Market Founder

This article was written by Joshua Krause and originally published at The Daily Sheeple

As it stands today, our government is a constitutional republic in name only. Our nation is ruled by wealthy oligarchs and special interests, and there is plenty of blame to go around for this situation. No society falls to these depths without at least the implicit consent of the population, and even the most ruthless of governments can’t survive if its citizens refuse to go along with the program.

So it’s safe to say that the American people are at least partly to blame for the sick institutions that rule over them. And if that’s the case, you have to ask yourself, what might our society come to accept in the future? If our lack of resistance has contributed to the corrosion of our civil liberties and the growth of our unbounded government, then nothing is off the table. If we’re willing to put up with this, what won’t we put up with? What sort of system might our society produce in the future?

If recent polls are to be believed, then a military dictatorship is certainly a possibility. After a West Point professor entertained the possibility of a coup occurring on American soil two weeks ago, (which led to his resignation) YouGov decided to poll 1000 American voters on their opinion of the military, and whether or not they would support a military takeover. The results were fairly shocking.

In a new survey by YouGov, 29 percent of respondents said they can imagine a situation in which they would support the military taking control of the federal government – that translates into over 70 million American adults. Forty-one percent of respondents said could not imagine supporting the military taking over the country.

Republicans (43 percent) were more likely to say they can envision a scenario in which they could support a military coup than Democrats (20 percent). Perhaps that difference is related to having a Democratic president who some critics on the right see as overstepping his power.

Regardless of political ideology, one reason people might support a military coup is because they respect officers in the military far more than they do people in Congress. According to the same YouGov survey, almost three-quarters (70 percent) of respondents believe that military officers want what is best for the country, while only 29 percent think the same of members of Congress.

Lawmakers better shape up or they might be shipped out — literally.

The poll also found that 55% of the population believes that the police want what’s best for the country, while 24% thought that they were only interested in what’s best for themselves. The other categories, which included Congress, local politicians, and civil servants, went in the other direction. The majority of those polled thought that the people in these categories were self-serving.

In other words, most Americans have a lot of confidence in the armed enforcers of government, but very little confidence in the politicians and bureaucrats in our government. This is a rather dangerous trend when you think about it, but it’s not exactly a new one.

Every year gallup asks Americans about their confidence with 15 major segments of American society. The police and the military routinely top the list with overwhelming support, while no other government institution inspires confidence among the majority of voters. That includes the presidency, the Supreme Court, public schools, the justice system, and Congress. Also near the bottom, is the media, big business, and the banks.

Essentially, most Americans have completely lost faith in the system, and the powers that be. The only people they still trust, are cops and soldiers.  And a society that trusts its armed enforcers more than everyone else, including the people they vote for, is a society that is ripe for a coup.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

Assuming the reader is intelligent enough to see that the author is right, what other options are there to get rid of a tyrannical government such as we have had for over a hundred and fifty years? HOW ABOUT AN EDUCATED PUBLIC CONCLUDING THAT NON COMPLIANCE IS AN OPTION!

That could be a semi peaceful method of taking down the power structure, and all we have to do is refuse to do business with them. Yes, they may send their goons to arrest you, but that’s a hell of a lot easer to deal with than a brigade of syked up soldiers. Refuse to pay taxes, refuse to apply for a drivers license, refuse to send your kids to public school, refuse to obey, all speed restrictions !  REFUSE TO VOTE!  Do not engage them in warfare unless it is self defense.  Refuse to acknowledge their authority in all things! But most important, do your home work and be prepared to support known activist who have educated you. There are thousands of authors who have proven their knowledge about freedom and a real Republican Government. 

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


Public School Students Are the New Inmates in the American Police State

09/17/2015

http://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary

/public_school_students_are_the_new_inmates_in_the_american_police_state

4-6-2015 2-39-02 PM

By John W. Whitehead
September 14, 2015

“Every day in communities across the United States, children and adolescents spend the majority of their waking hours in schools that have increasingly come to resemble places of detention more than places of learning. From metal detectors to drug tests, from increased policing to all-seeing electronic surveillance, the public schools of the twenty-first century reflect a society that has become fixated on crime, security and violence.”—Investigative journalist Annette Fuentes

In the American police state, you’re either a prisoner (shackled, controlled, monitored, ordered about, limited in what you can do and say, your life not your own) or a prison bureaucrat (police officer, judge, jailer, spy, profiteer, etc.).

Indeed, at a time when we are all viewed as suspects, there are so many ways in which a person can be branded a criminal for violating any number of laws, regulations or policies. Even if you haven’t knowingly violated any laws, there is still a myriad of ways in which you can run afoul of the police state and end up on the wrong side of a jail cell.

Unfortunately, when you’re a child in the American police state, life is that much worse.

Microcosms of the police state, America’s public schools contain almost every aspect of the militarized, intolerant, senseless, over criminalized, legalistic, surveillance-riddled, totalitarian landscape that plagues those of us on the “outside.”

From the moment a child enters one of the nation’s 98,000 public schools to the moment she graduates, she will be exposed to a steady diet of draconian zero tolerance policies that criminalize childish behavior, overreaching anti-bullying statutes that criminalize speech, school resource officers (police) tasked with disciplining and/or arresting so-called “disorderly” students, standardized testing that emphasizes rote answers over critical thinking, politically correct mindsets that teach young people to censor themselves and those around them, and extensive biometric and surveillance systems that, coupled with the rest, acclimate young people to a world in which they have no freedom of thought, speech or movement.

If your child is fortunate enough to survive his encounter with the public schools, you should count yourself fortunate.

Most students are not so lucky.

By the time the average young person in America finishes their public school education, nearly one out of every three of them will have been arrested.

More than 3 million students are suspended or expelled from schools every year, often for minor misbehavior, such as “disruptive behavior” or “insubordination.” Black students are three times more likely than white students to face suspension and expulsion.

For instance, a Virginia sixth grader, the son of two school teachers and a member of the school’s gifted program, was suspended for a year after school officials found a leaf (likely a maple leaf) in his backpack that they suspected was marijuana. Despite the fact that the leaf in question was not marijuana (a fact that officials knew almost immediately), the 11-year-old was still kicked out of school, charged with marijuana possession in juvenile court, enrolled in an alternative school away from his friends, subjected to twice-daily searches for drugs, and forced to be evaluated for substance abuse problems.

As the Washington Post warns: “It doesn’t matter if your son or daughter brings a real pot leaf to school, or if he brings something that looks like a pot leaf—okra, tomato, maple, buckeye, etc. If your kid calls it marijuana as a joke, or if another kid thinks it might be marijuana, that’s grounds for expulsion.”

Many state laws require that schools notify law enforcement whenever a student is found with an “imitation controlled substance,” basically anything that look likes a drug but isn’t actually illegal. As a result, students have been suspended for bringing to school household spices such as oreganobreath mints, birth control pills and powdered sugar.

It’s not just look-alike drugs that can get a student in trouble under school zero tolerance policies. Look-alike weapons (toy guns—even Lego-sized ones, hand-drawn pictures of guns, pencils twirled in a “threatening” manner, imaginary bows and arrows, even fingers positioned like guns) can also land a student in detention.

Acts of kindness, concern or basic manners can also result in suspensions. One 13-year-old was given detention for exposing the school to “liability” by sharing his lunch with a hungry friend. A third grader was suspended for shaving her head in sympathy for a friend who had lost her hair to chemotherapy. And then there was the high school senior who was suspended for saying “bless you” after a fellow classmate sneezed.

Unfortunately, while these may appear to be isolated incidents, they are indicative of a nationwide phenomenon in which children are treated like suspects and criminals, especially within the public schools.

The schools have become a microcosm of the American police state, right down to the host of surveillance technologies, including video cameras, finger and palm scanners, iris scanners, as well as RFID and GPS tracking devices, employed to keep constant watch over their student bodies.

Making matters worse are the police.

Students accused of being disorderly or noncompliant have a difficult enough time navigating the bureaucracy of school boards, but when you bring the police into the picture, after-school detention and visits to the principal’s office are transformed into punishments such as misdemeanor tickets, juvenile court, handcuffs, tasers and even prison terms.

In the absence of school-appropriate guidelines, police are more and more “stepping in to deal with minor rulebreaking—sagging pants, disrespectful comments, brief physical skirmishes. What previously might have resulted in a detention or a visit to the principal’s office was replaced with excruciating pain and temporary blindness, often followed by a trip to the courthouse.”

Thanks to a combination of media hype, political pandering and financial incentives, the use of armed police officers to patrol school hallways has risen dramatically in the years since the Columbine school shooting (nearly 20,000 by 2003). Funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, these school resource officers (SROs) have become de facto wardens in the elementary, middle and high schools, doling out their own brand of justice to the so-called “criminals” in their midst with the help of tasers, pepperspray, batons and brute force.

The horror stories are legion.

One SRO is accused of punching a 13-year-old student in the face for cutting the cafeteria line. That same cop put another student in a chokehold a week later, allegedly knocking the student unconscious and causing a brain injury. In Pennsylvania, a student was tased after ignoring an order to put his cell phone away.

Defending the use of handcuffs and pepper spray to subdue students, one Alabama police department reasoned that if they can employ such tactics on young people away from school, they should also be permitted to do so on campus.

Now advocates for such harsh police tactics and weaponry will tell you that school safety should be our first priority lest we find ourselves with another Sandy Hook. What they will not tell you is that such shootings are rare. As one congressional report found, the schools are, generally speaking, safe places for children.

In their zeal to crack down on guns and lock down the schools, these cheerleaders for police state tactics in the schools might also fail to mention the lucrative, multi-million dollar deals being cut with military contractors such as Taser International to equip these school cops with tasers, tanks, rifles and $100,000 shooting detection systems.

Indeed, the transformation of hometown police departments into extensions of the military has been mirrored in the public schools, where school police have been gifted with high-powered M16 rifles, MRAP armored vehicles, grenade launchers, and other military gear. One Texas school district even boasts its own 12-member SWAT team.

According to one law review article on the school-to-prison pipeline, “Many school districts have formed their own police departments, some so large they rival the forces of major United States cities in size. For example, the safety division in New York City’s public schools is so large that if it were a local police department, it would be the fifth-largest police force in the country.”

The ramifications are far-reaching.

The term “school-to-prison pipeline” refers to a phenomenon in which children who are suspended or expelled from school have a greater likelihood of ending up in jail. One study found that “being suspended or expelled made a student nearly three times more likely to come into contact with the juvenile justice system within the next year.”

Not content to add police to their employee rosters, the schools have also come to resemble prisons, complete with surveillance cameras, metal detectors, drug-sniffing dogs, random locker searches and active shooter drills. The Detroit public schools boast a “‘$5.6 million 23,000-sq ft. state of the art Command Center’ and ‘$41.7 million district-wide security initiative’ including metal detectors and ID system where visitors’ names are checked against the sex offender registry.”

As if it weren’t bad enough that the nation’s schools have come to resemble prisons, the government is also contracting with private prisons to lock up our young people for behavior that once would have merited a stern lecture. Nearly 40 percent of those young people who are arrested will serve time in a private prison, where the emphasis is on making profits for large megacorporations above all else.

Private prisons, the largest among them being GEO and the Corrections Corporation of America, profit by taking over a state’s prison population for a fee. Many states, under contract with these private prisons, agree to keep the prisons full, which in turn results in more Americans being arrested, found guilty and jailed for nonviolent “crimes” such as holding Bible studies in their back yard. As the Washington Post points out, “With the growing influence of the prison lobby, the nation is, in effect, commoditizing human bodies for an industry in militant pursuit of profit… The influence of private prisons creates a system that trades money for human freedom, often at the expense of the nation’s most vulnerable populations: children, immigrants and the poor.”

This profit-driven system of incarceration has also given rise to a growth in juvenile prisons and financial incentives for jailing young people. Indeed, young people have become easy targets for the private prison industry, which profits from criminalizing childish behavior and jailing young people. For instance, two Pennsylvania judges made headlines when it was revealed that they had been conspiring with two businessmen in a $2.6 million “kids for cash” scandal that resulted in more than 2500 children being found guilty and jailed in for-profit private prisons.

It has been said that America’s schools are the training ground for future generations. Instead of raising up a generation of freedom fighters, however, we seem to be busy churning out newly minted citizens of the American police state who are being taught the hard way what it means to comply, fear and march in lockstep with the government’s dictates.

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, with every school police raid and overzealous punishment that is carried out in the name of school safety, the lesson being imparted is that Americans—especially young people—have no rights at all against the state or the police.

I’ll conclude with one hopeful anecdote about a Philadelphia school dubbed the “Jones Jail” because of its bad reputation for violence among the student body. Situated in a desperately poor and dangerous part of the city, the John Paul Jones Middle School’s student body had grown up among drug users, drug peddlers, prostitutes and gun violence. “By middle school,” reports The Atlantic, most of these students “have witnessed more violence than most Americans who didn’t serve in a war ever will.”

According to investigative reporters Jeff Deeney, “School police officers patrolled the building at John Paul Jones, and children were routinely submitted to scans with metal detecting wands. All the windows were covered in metal grating and one room that held computers even had thick iron prison bars on its exterior… Every day… [police] would set up a perimeter of police officers on the blocks around the school, and those police were there to protect neighbors from the children, not to protect the children from the neighborhood.”

In other words, John Paul Jones, one of the city’s most dangerous schools, was a perfect example of the school-to-prison, police state apparatus at work among the nation’s youngest and most impressionable citizens.

When management of John Paul Jones was taken over by a charter school that opted to de-escalate the police state presence, stripping away the metal detectors and barred windows, local police protested. In fact, they showed up wearing Kevlar vests. Nevertheless, school officials remained determined to do away with institutional control and surveillance, as well as aggressive security guards, and focus on non-coercive, nonviolent conflict resolution with an emphasis on student empowerment, relationship building and anger management.

The result: a 90% drop in serious incidents—drug sales, weapons, assaults, rapes—in one year alone. As one fifth-grader remarked on the changes, “There are no more fights. There are no more police. That’s better for the community.”

The lesson for the rest of us is this: you not only get what you pay for, but you reap what you sow.

If you want a nation of criminals, treat the citizenry like criminals.

If you want young people who grow up seeing themselves as prisoners, run the schools like prisons.

But if you want to raise up a generation of freedom fighters, who will actually operate with justice, fairness, accountability and equality towards each other and their government, then run the schools like freedom forums. Remove the metal detectors and surveillance cameras, re-assign the cops elsewhere, and start treating our nation’s young people like citizens of a republic and not inmates in a police state.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


How George W Bush Destroyed the Temple of Baal

09/16/2015

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/15/how-george-w-bush-destroyed-the-temple-of-baal/

9-16-2015 1-09-26 PM

By GARY LEUPP

First he bombed mercilessly, cruelly grinning throughout. Costumed in a flight suit, he proclaimed a “Mission Accomplished” after he had, with what they call “bipartisan support” (as though this lends some sort of legitimacy), destroyed the modern country of Iraq.

George W. Bush destroyed Iraq’s infrastructure, its institutions, its ruling party and its army. Then he destroyed its social fabric, which had permitted widespread Sunni-Shiite intermarriage and religiously integrated neighborhoods.

Bush destroyed the law and order which had permitted girls to walk to school, heads uncovered, in modern western dress. He destroyed the freedom of physicians and other professionals to go about their work and caused masses of them to exit their country. He destroyed neighborhoods whose residents were forced to flee for their lives. He destroyed the Christian community, which dropped from 1.5 million in 2001 to perhaps 200,000 a decade later. He destroyed the prevalent ideology of secularism and ushered in an era of bitterly contested sectarian rule. He destroyed the right to broadcast rock ‘n roll music, or sell liquor and DVDs.

He destroyed the stability of Anbar province by sowing the chaos that allowed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to establish—for the first time—an al-Qaeda branch in Iraq.

He destroyed the stability of Syria when “Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia” (now ISIL) retreated into that neighboring country during the “surge” of 2007. By creating power vacuums and generating new chapters and spin-offs of al-Qaeda, he destroyed Yazidi communities and their freedom from genocide and slavery. By hatching the forerunner of ISIL, he destroyed the prospects for a peaceful “Arab Spring” in Syria three years after his presidency ended.

Through his actions he destroyed the border between Syria and Iraq. He destroyed the Tomb of Jonah in Mosul. He destroyed 3,300 year old monuments, the glorious art of the Assyrians, in Nimrud. On August 23 while sitting in his home artist’s studio in Crawford, Texas, he destroyed the 2,000-year-old Temple of Baalshamin in Palmyra, Syria.

The most complete structure in that gorgeous pearl of an ancient preserved city, a mix of Roman, Syrian and Egyptian artistic influences, is now a pile of rubble.

(Have you noted how this heart-breaking loss of a world cultural treasure—designated by the UN as a World Heritage Site—has been all but ignored by the mainstream media, which takes all its cues from the State Department? It’s as though this particular ramification of the criminal war-based-on-lies is just so embarrassing that they can’t bring themselves to talk about it. So the talking heads redouble their attentions to Kentucky clerk Kimberly Davis, the spectacle of the Republican primary, the New England Patriots’ Deflategate scandal, and the routine shipment of Russian arms to Syria rather than asking frankly: What the hell have we done in the Middle East? Why has “our” government inflicted such calculated, ongoing, unforgiveable terror on so many innocent people, and on the cultural heritage of all humanity?)

The status quo in the region was grim enough in 2001, when Bush began to plan his general assault. The status quo now is far, far worse. It’s all murder, crucifixions, beheadings, ruin, and the demolition of ancient priceless cultural monuments, with no end in sight.

What will be next, you wonder. Young Muslims are flocking to the black and white banner of the Islamic State, seeing in it a revival of the glorious caliphate of the past—a turning point in world history, retribution for the sins of the west, a scourge upon traitorous leaders and sundry infidels and pagans.

No moral hesitation pauses the fanatic as he takes aim at the Buddhas of Bamiyan, or the exquisite 2900 year old stone reliefs at the palace of King Ashurnarspal II, in Nimrud. Let the unbelievers—the ecstatic vandal thinks—gasp in horror at the death of their idols! Allah wants this done. How great is He!

The destructive power of religious idiocy takes many forms. President George W. Bush was once asked by a journalist to name his favorite philosopher. “Jesus,” he replied. He initially proclaimed his War on Terror as a “crusade.” While denying any anti-Muslim intent, and indeed averring puzzlement that anyone would think him religiously intolerant, he deliberately conflated a host of Muslim targets with al-Qaeda.

GIs in Iraq put up posters in their barracks showing Saddam Hussein next to Osama bin Laden, as though these mutual enemies in real life were somehow comrades-in-arms—both Muslim, Arab, and “anti-American.” They should not be faulted for their display of stunning stupidity; it was inculcated in them. Meanwhile Bush labeled the Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat a “terrorist” and refused to deal with him, as he refused to deal with Iran, brusquely rejecting a diplomatic overture in 2003 through his co-ruler, Dick Cheney.

Bush exploited anti-Muslim feeling in this country after 9/11 to foment public support for a generalized assault on the Middle East. Famously ignorant of the world and of history, he not-so-subtly encouraged the view overtly conveyed by his Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence from 2003 to 2007, Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin, who gave speeches in full military dress at religious events declaring that the U.S. was fighting a “spiritual battle” in the Middle East against “a guy called Satan” who “wants to destroy us as a Christian army.”

George W. Bush is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, plus tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers doing what soldiers typically do when their country is invaded. Estimates of the total death toll between 2003 and 2011 range from around 150,00 to over 600,000. The U.S. military provides no estimate, expressing disdain for such activity (“We don’t do body counts”). But surely the numbers killed by U.S. forces in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East since 2011 far exceed the death count of the Islamic State.

Bush himself did not take a sledgehammer to the walls of Temple of Baalshamin, but he did enable those who destroyed the temple, who are now systematically destroying the ancient tombs surrounding it, battling, in their own fevered minds, some mythical Satan of Gen. Boykin’s imagination.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff, said in an interview on RT television September 3 that Cheney “should be in prison for war crimes” and “Dick Cheney, in a word, is an idiot.” I’d say Powell himself bears enough responsibility for war crimes to stand trial, and that he was a “useful idiot” in presenting that collection of lies to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003—even while privately harboring grave doubts about the charges’ validity.

(Notice how following his stint as “the first African-American Secretary of State,” in which he did the white power structure’s bidding—as loyally as he did when he covered up the My Lai Massacre during a tour in Vietnam—Powell despite some forays out into the media has become for the most part a quiet recluse, allowing Wilkerson to reclaim his dignity, and portray him as a victim of the war-mongers rather than a war crimes co-defendant himself?)

But the buck stops at the Chief Executive’s desk. Bush is the chief war criminal. Obama also ranks with Cheney among others who, in a better world, would today be in the dock. Obama stands charged with absolving the Bush cabinet of any legal responsibility for their crimes, and with following up on their regime-change agenda by destroying Libya and spreading unimaginable suffering in Syria and Yemen.

Bush and Obama share blame for the tragic death of the three-year-old Syrian Kurdish refugee boy Aylan Kurdi found in coastal waters by the Turkish official. They bear responsibility for the refugee crisis in Europe unknown for the last 70 years.

When Obama and his then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton decided to support the armed opposition to the Damascus regime in 2011 they took—whatever they might say—the side of radical Islamists versus secularists. Their M198 howitzers supplied to the tiny, pathetic, largely imaginary “Free Syrian Army” wound up in the hands of ISIL, along with tanks and Humvees wrested from the collapsing Iraqi Army across the border. ISIL has acquired U.S.-produced hand grenades, ammunition and rocket-propelled grenade launchers intended for Kurdish forces in Syria.

ISIL and other Islamist forces (some supported by U.S. allies Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar), as well as U.S.-backed armed “moderates,” have forced the flight of tens, even hundreds of thousands of Syrians into Europe.

Washington would like to blame the government of Bashar al-Assad, who they allege “fired on his own people” during the peaceful protests of the Arab Spring. But those peaceful forces have not by and large joined the Islamist crazies but proposed negotiations with the Syrian regime. Such talks are supported by Russia and Iran but opposed by the U.S. which stubbornly orders Assad to leave the scene.

By insisting on Assad’s removal, sustaining the pipe-dream of a viable U.S.-aligned “Free Syrian Army” that will topple him while also defeating al-Nusra and ISIL, castigating (the seriously anti-ISIL) Russians and Iranians for their assistance to Damascus, and most recently castigating Moscow for its supposed “vast increase” in aid to the hard-pressed regime, the Obama administration is prolonging the civil war that promotes the worst players while sending hundreds of thousands of refugees into an ill-prepared, crisis-wracked Europe. Even the most compassionate, welcoming forces on that continent ask reasonably why Europe should shoulder the burden for Washington’s arrogant regime-change ambitions.

The Original Sin was the war on Iraq, and its destruction in that war-based-on-lies. The inability of the imperialist state to recognize that, and punish those responsible, or generate presidential candidates who can speak honestly about this history (or even coherently address issues of contemporary world politics) confirms that the sin cannot be washed away by or within the system. All we hear is calls to “Make America great again”— as though the destruction of the Middle East is something other than a display of U.S. greatness in all its vicious savagery.

As though the failure of the U.S. to wipe out the Taliban, or al-Qaeda, or ISIL, or the diverse, pesky, disobedient forces from Libya to Pakistan to Ukraine who refuse to fall in line behind the U.S.’s agendas makes this country a victim or laughing-stock as Donald Trump wants us to imagine.

Virtually all the presidential candidates in one way or another deploy the themes of  national humiliation and renewed national greatness. They cannot look reality in the face. Or if they do, they cannot share with the people their understanding that they’re agents of the One Percent in this country struggling to maintain global hegemony as our standard of living sinks, as global alliances fray, and as the world becomes increasingly sick and tired of U.S. bullying.

When the closest thing to an “alternative” candidate is Bernie Sanders, who has voted for every military appropriations bill and every pro-Israel Senate resolution, and whose challenge to Wall Street is softened by his politically mandatory loyalty oath to free enterprise, what hope is there for real change through the system?

Wall Street once determined that a black presidential candidate with a (false) reputation as an antiwar figure was just what was needed to revive faith in its bogus “democratic process. Obama got the job. Nothing changed except that there was a “surge” in Afghanistan and a record number of murderous drone strikes infuriating people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere. And a record number of prosecutions of whistle blowers and journalists revealing uncomfortable truths about U.S. imperialism.

The fraction of the One Percent that makes the vital decisions knows that what’s important is not so much what candidate wins, as that the system wins, by reaffirming its legitimacy every four years as voters dutifully head to the polls, voting for Tweedledee or Tweedledum, only to become—as all pollsters know—disillusioned down the road, voting next time for the “other party” (there being precisely two assigned by game rules a chance to win) as an impotent “protest” that leads nowhere.

The Original Sin of the Iraq crime cannot be redeemed by a bourgeois election preordained to elect another clown citing U.S. “exceptionalism” as an excuse to break more countries and sow more havoc. The system that bred that crime, inflicting unending misery on the world, cannot be dislodged without truly revolutionary change. I don’t know how it will happen, any more than I know how to repair the damage inflicted to human memory and culture by the monsters now occupying the exquisite dying jewel of Palmyra.

But now we are confronted—by this splendid democratic system—with the choice of Hillary Clinton (“We came, we saw, he died”), airhead Donald Trump (“I’m the most militaristic person here”), asshole Jeb Bush (“anyone would have invaded Iraq”) or even “support our troops” Bernie Sanders as the only feasible options o change course.

Their whole antiquated system, based on the worship of capital and war, needs to go the way of the Temple of Baalshamin. Only that destruction would meet with global relief and celebration.

9-16-2015 1-13-13 PM

Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa JapanMale Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, (AK Press). He can be reached at: gleupp@tufts.edu

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

Much is missing in this otherwise excellent article; such as how a near majority of the American people are mentally infected with American exceptionalism, and really consider America as the rightful moral leader of planet earth. They are so self centered they have no conscious awareness of their atrocious depravity. They are like a Christian Mega Church Pastor and his wife equally committed to wife swapping. On one hand they feel superior from inviting every opposing world view to share America with by the millions, and simultaneously ignore the principals that this great Nation was supposedly built on. They are easy pray for the relentless surreptitious mind control by the Bankers media puppets. They feel morally justified in preventing sane people from having the equipment needed to protect their lives, through government force, while importing fanatical killers with the people’s money. They deny God exist and will punish us all for their insane desire for more government control. Conundrum ???????? While they support government intervention in everything from education to traveling abroad, they refuse to address the possibility that the whole world is falling apart from government atrocities. America needs a virus that only infects government supporters! Don’t know what to do??? Try this: You Know Something is Wrong When…..: An American Affidavit of Probable Cause (Paperback) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1491279184/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk ONLY 276 PAGES THAT A FORTH GRADER CAN UNDERSTAND. We are not lost in the wilderness, there is a way back to sanity.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


9/11 Memory Fascism & Gold – JIM WILLIE

09/15/2015

http://sgtreport.com/2015/09/911-memory-fascism-gold-jim-willie/#more-407373

By Jim Willie, via Perpetual Assets:

The ultimate patriotic act is to invest the life savings in Gold & Silver, which does honor to real money, shows disdain for paper merchants who rule the central banks, and forces nations to put forth honest sound money in usage. It is important to recall the 9/11 event, however based in reality, not the official story. Honor should be given to the 2500 victims of the mass murder event. The official story makes far less sense than the Kennedy assassination, while the two events appear to be front and back bookends of the same Fascist takeover of the United States Govt. The Patriot Act was a fascist manifesto, much like the Enabling Act installed in Germany over seven decades ago. The two acts have a 90% correlation and overlap, yet the American public remains largely in the dark on the similarity in template. The USCongress passed the controversial Patriot Act, which has totally opposite direction to patriotism, under threat of anthrax in their ventilation system (rumored to be engineered by the FBI). The creation of the Homeland Security Agency should ring loud gongs about the Gestapo similarities. That the US & London & Swiss bankers are fascists with roots to 1930 fascists should also be brought to public attention. The US bankers on Wall Street actually had loans extended to the German Nazis, a fact the public seems to overlook. Operation Paperclip, which opened the US gates to the several hundred bankers, scientists, and industrial captains should have been a wakeup call to Americans, but they remain asleep. Imagine a nation that makes a mockery of citizens seeking the truth on the event, calling them disparagingly the Truthers. Recall that truth is the enemy of fascist regimes, and the early victim of any war.

The 9/11 event was the coming out party for the American Fascists. It was also a complex sequence of criminal events, to abrogate $230 billion in Russian bonds, to wipe clean the Black Eagle Fund on gold obligations. But in the immediate, it was a bank heist. Few Americans realize that the World Trade Center housed the largest bank in the Western world. Thus the object of the bank robbery, where $100bn in bearer bonds were stolen, $100bn in diamonds were stolen, and $100bn in gold bullion was stolen. For reasons tied to national security, no investigations or claims are permitted. It was also an opportunity to test out some nano-technology and extreme micro nuclear demolition methods. Over 2000 people perished on that day. Around 200 police, firemen, and emergency medical professionals also died on that day. The event sealed the fate of the nation, to become a fascist enclave, the exceptional nation, the home of the new brown shirts. Much credit is due to the courageous and diligent scientific groups like AE1000, the Architects & Engineers, who have contradicted the official nonsensical silly reports which serve as the Official 9/11 Commission report, far more vacant and illogical and baseless than the Warren Report of 1963. Both were hastily produced under political pressure, both with Papa Bush fingerprints at the crime scene. The group of scientists have produced a powerful body of evidence in dispute, yet over half the US nation believes the fairy tale in the official USGovt story. It was a fascist takeover of the USGovt and establishment of the banking system as the power center.

All manner of war and sanctions cannot prevent the removal of the USDollar from its global currency reserve privilege. Too much abuse from violent war, sponsored terrorism, $trillion gifts to bankers, backdoor bailouts to bankers, has caused a global upheaval and resistance. Sanctions are the device used against nations which oppose the USDollar in usage, primarily in crude oil payments. The USGovt has refused to liquidate the big banks, which have served as the Western seat of power and pilferage. The series of sanctions have backfired badly. The obstacles to gas pipelines cannot be maintained. The movement against the corrupt toxic USDollar has gathered tremendous momentum. It has an African monetary policy attached, an incredibly destructive policy, and worse, it is called stimulus. The return of the Gold Standard is inevitable. The big question is how much destruction the USGovt, its powerful military, and its subversive security agencies will permit before the legitimate monetary system is put in place. The path seems clear, that the legitimate system will first arrive on the trade front, deposing the USTreasury Bill in back pressure like excrement from the global bowels.

THE PLETHORA OF BIG CLUES

The big clues are so many as to be astounding in volume. The multiple detonations on the side facades of the World Trade Center buildings should bring suspicion. The quick 11-second collapse of the giant building was consistent with free fall, in contradiction of the silly pancake theory of a sequence of staged collapses. Basic physics should bring suspicion. The Jackass surmises that not 25% of Americans took physics in high school (or did not sleep through it). The thermite explosive residue laced all through the debris should bring suspicion. The melting of structural steel by mere jet fuel (as claimed) should bring suspicion. The Jackass surmises that not 25% of Americans took chemistry in high school (or did not sleep through it). The disintegration of the antenna tower of the WTCenter section should bring suspicion. The twenty-three trucks moving something en masse (like gold bars) after the initial aircraft impact on the buildings, but before the buildings collapsed, should bring suspicion. The obstacles to include the New York Police Dept captain’s testimony of multiple explosions in the WTCenter basement after the initial aircraft impact, for the official commission hearing, should bring suspicion. The melting of hundreds of car and truck engines in the WTCenter vicinity should bring suspicion. The migration of Cantor Fitzgerald bond database records to New Jersey three months earlier should bring suspicion. The collapse of Building #7 without impact of any kind should bring suspicion.

9-15-2015 11-10-00 AM

The clear shape charge cuts to the giant World Trade Center steel beams (seen above), evidence of demolition, should bring suspicion. All workers at the site were aware of the demolition and obvious shape charge cuts. The gag orders on several dozen air traffic controllers should bring suspicion. Desperation followed the event, to dismiss alternative explanations as unpatriotic. The reporting on Australian television news networks of the 9/11 crash at the World Trade Center a full 15 minutes before the event even occurred should bring suspicion. The alerting of American news networks of an imminent terrorist event before the WTCenter crash should bring suspicion. With 99.8% certainty in the Jackass mind, it was an inside job to convert the United States of America into a fascist nation, to move the National Security Agency into a strong position of power, and to put the CIA in control of the White House. It was an event with at least five principal groups involved. The United States has been transformed into a giant police state. The event was a celebration of fascism, a magnificent bank heist and bond sealed deal, and climax of the narco lineage of presidents. The event left an indelible imprint that will surely lead to a systemic failure.

9-15-2015 11-09-32 AM

The initial CNN reporting by Ian McIntyre of a missile of some sort on 9/11, with no debris on the Pentagon lawn, should bring suspicion. The absence of any commercial aircraft parts like wings or fuselage or seats or even the black box on the Pentagon lawn should bring suspicion (see the lawn site above). The spherical damage inside the Pentagon wall, plus all internal fragments pushed out 30-50 meters should bring suspicion. The incredibly moronic story of an entire commercial aircraft being vaporized should bring suspicion. The removal of nearby video camera tapes from the Pentagon area should bring suspicion. The shorting of airline stocks on a broad basis before the event and volume should bring suspicion. That hole aint from a commercial aircraft, whose fuselage is easily twice the diameter. Despite all the big clues, which would result in considerable reasonable doubt in any grand jury court room session, the pattern is clear for over half the nation. They accept the official story, then work backwards, dismissing evidence, ignoring the cornucopia of data that contradicts the 9/11 Commission Report. It is a fairy tale and fascist concoction and pure drivel

9-15-2015 11-09-14 AM

KENNEDY KILLED TO DISCARD GOLD STANDARD
KENNEDY KILLED TO PLANT FASCIST SEEDS

The theory is simple, makes sense, and is logical. The US Leadership turned fascist long ago, and took control of the USGovt at the highest levels of the government. They dominated totally after JFKennedy was removed in 1963. Kennedy wanted to disband the CIA and tried to re-install the Silver Certificates as currency instead of Federal Reserve Notes as currency. Notice the string of consistent fascist regimes supported by the US in the last few decades, always the fascist brutal regimes, pitted against the communists. One could produce a list of 20 such nations, many in South America. The US has been deeply committed to some war, much further and deeper than the Cold War, for a period including decades. The true ugly fact is that the fascists conquered the US through the White House coup d’etat, the narco security agencies, and the controlled oligopoly of media networks. The reality goes beyond 9/11, as the USGovt has been under fascist control for 50 years. The death of Kennedy marks the beginning of the fascist lineage of USGovt and its selected presidents. Obama reigns over the systemic breakdown, for which he surely gave a few pushes. The USTreasury Bond market is fracturing on his watch, while the police state is being installed on his watch.

Nixon made a deal with the devil to cooperate with the coup d’etat and in return dropped the Gold Standard. Recall that Nixon was dead political timber until revived by a cooperative press. Nixon then established the NSA, set up as the uber-Gestapo. The war theme has become part of the US social, commercial, and sport fabric. Even the USOpen tennis tournament had an honor guard and giant flag folding ceremony. The regular war footing is evident with every hot spot on earth, with 170 USMilitary bases scattered around the globe. The military drones killing civilians (in foreign nations and soon possibly inside the US), pervasive eavesdropping (overseas and at home), constant high security alert, the alienation will all nations including allies, the airport checks, the difficulty to renew passports, the theft of private accounts, these are the tell-tale signals of a fascist regime in power. Freedom of speech and assembly have been shattered, as has due process. The treatment of Occupy Wall Street as terrorists, the torture in Guantanimo, the viruses hidden in vaccines, the Monsanto chromosome devices with food, the constant propaganda, the chemtrails in the sky, the contamination of groundwater systems from Halliburton fracking, the thefts from central banks, the gigantic $23 trillion in gift loans to cabal bankers around the world, these are the tell-tale signals of a fascist regime in power.

FASCIST BUSINESS MODEL & USDOLLAR & GOLD

The climax of the fascist seeds has been the Fascist Business Model, whose tree of corruption has indeed born fruit. But it is not edible, cannot produce jobs, and has resulted in the magnificent demolition of the USEconomy. The reverence paid to the financial sector stands as a defiant elite gesture of neglect paid to the millions of workers whose jobs are at risk, after their homes have lost equity. All stimulus is intentionally kept from Main Street, vast channels of liquidity obstructed like with pride. The $260 billion in fines and penalties directed at the Wall Street banks have not put them out of business. Rather the USFed and USGovt have covered their bills, along with the shareholders. Consequential costs from criminal fraud and thefts are a mere cost of doing business. The climax is the bitter fruit from the fascist tree, which will hasten very soon the demise of the USDollar and the resurrection from the charred treasury of the golden eagle (phoenix), as the Gold Standard is inevitable. The United States will be nearly the last nation to adopt the Gold Standard in remedy.

The link to gold from the entire 9/11 event is direct and indirect. The $100bn in gold bar thefts depleted foreign nations and foreign companies of their legitimately held gold assets, held in the WTCenter vaults. It was mainly a gold heist. However, what followed was a path created by the Fascist Business Model. The model merges the major corporations with the state, permits fraud and thefts, allows the big banks to write legislation in the Congress, puts bankers in regulatory posts to monitor banks and stocks, and generally leads to elite corruption, fraud, malfeasance, murder, lawlessness, and indescribable inefficiency within the capitalist system. The breakdown has led to a climax in 2012 with the QE set up by the US Federal Reserve. The Quantitative Easing promotes the unfettered printing of money to cover the USGovt debt, and to cover the redemption of Wall Street banks for their USTreasury Bonds held as securities. The unsterilized hyper monetary inflation is easily 10 times greater in volume than reported, and has undermined the entire capitalist structure of the USEconomy. The reaction across the globe from gigantic monetary inflation of the worst kind is to hedge as protection into hard assets. The result is the wrong kind of price inflation produced, which the St Louis Fed has admitted. The QE to Infinity has produced cost inflation, vanished profit margins, and retired capital. The capital destruction assure the systemic breakdown of the USEconomy.

The QE monetary policy is a guaranteed death sentence for the USDollar, since internally it has wrecked the USEconomy on the capital front, and externally it has undercut the global system reserves on the banking front. In the death spiral for the USDollar, the global players reject the USTreasury Bond as the reserve asset, and gradually move toward the Gold Standard. It will occur on the trade corridors first, then the banking system second, and finally the currency system. The 9/11 tragedy set events in motion which gave the Fascist Business Model a full official blessing, resulting in annual $1 trillion deficits, a USGovt deficit that cannot be financed, a QE disastrous monetary policy resembling those in Africa, and an assured death of the USDollar. Its demise, which is in progress by means of the dismantled Petro-Dollar machinery, will usher in the return to the Gold Standard. The hidden derivative losses are in the multiple $trillions. Since the United States is the least likely to produce a valid gold-backed currency, the risk is greatest for the US to fall into the Third World.

Read More @ Perpetualassets.com

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


A Major Bank Just Made Global Financial Meltdown Its Base Case The Worst The World Has Ever Seen

09/14/2015

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/a-major-bank-just-made-global-financial-

meltdown-its-base-case-the-worst-the-world-has-ever-seen/ utm_source=wysija&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Mailing+List+Sunday+10+AM

9-14-2015 6-58-34 AM

by ZeroHedge

When it comes to the epic bubble in China’s economy, it really boils down to one – or rather two – things: a vast debt build up (by now everybody should be familiar with McKinsey’s chart showing China’s consolidated debt buildup) leading to a just as vast build up of excess capacity, also known as capital stock accumulation. And/or vice versa.

It is how China resolves this pernicious, and self-reinforcing feedback loop, that is a far greater threat to the global economy than even what happens to China’s bad debt (China NPLs are currently realistically at a 10-20% level of total financial assets) or whether China successfully devalues its currency without experiencing runaway capital flight and a currency crisis.

One bank that is now less than optimistic that China can escape a total economic meltdown is the Daiwa Institute of Research, a think tank owned by Daiwa Securities Group, the second largest brokerage in Japan after Nomura.

Actually, scratch that: Daiwa is downright apocalyptic.

In a report released on Friday titled “What Will Happen if China’s Economic Bubble Bursts“, Daiwa – among other things – looks at this pernicious relationship between debt (and thus “growth”) and China’s capital stock.  This is what it says:

The sense of surplus in China’s supply capacity has been indicated previously. This produces the risk of a large-scale capital stock adjustment occurring in the future.

Chart 6 shows long-term change in China’s capital coefficient (= real capital stock / real GDP). This chart indicates that China’s policies for handling the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008 led to the carrying out of large-scale capital investment, and we see that in recent years, the capital coefficient has been on the rise. Recently, the coefficient has moved further upwards on the chart, diverging markedly from the trend of the past twenty years. It appears that the sense of overcapacity is increasing.

Using the rate of divergence from past trends in the capital coefficient, we can calculate the amount of surplus in real capital stock. This shows us that as of the year 2013, China held a surplus of 19.4 trillion yuan in capital stock (about 12% of real capital stock).

Since China is a socialist market economy, they could delay having to deal directly with the problem of capital stock surplus for 1-2 years through fiscal and financial policy. However, there is serious risk of a large-scale capital stock adjustment occurring in the mid to long-term (around 3-5 years).

9-14-2015 9-00-40 AM

Daiwa then attempts to calculate what the magnitude of the collapse of China’s economic bubble would be. Its conclusions:

Even in an optimum scenario China’s economic growth rate would fall to around zero

We take a quantitative look at the potential magnitude of the collapse of China’s economic bubble to ensure that we can get a good grasp of the future risk scenario. If a surplus capital stock adjustment were to actually occur, what is the risk for China and how far would its economy fall?

Chart 7 shows a factor analysis of China’s potential growth rate. The data here suggests that (1) China’s economy has gradually matured in recent years, and this has slowed progress in technological advancement, (2) Despite this fact, it has continued to depend on the accumulation of capital mainly from public spending to maintain a high economic growth rate, and (3) As a result, this has done more harm than good to technological advancement. Between the years 2012-15 China’s economy declined, yet still was able to maintain a high growth rate of over 7%. However, 5%pt of the growth rate was due to the increase in capital stock. Labor input and total factor productivity contributed only 2%pt.

The major decline in the rate of contribution from total factor productivity is especially noteworthy, as it had maintained an annualized rate of 5% for thirty years straight since the introduction of the reform and opening-up policy and on through the era of rapid globalization.

According to a DIR simulation, if a capital stock adjustment were to occur under such circumstances, China’s potential growth rate would fall to around 4% at best. This adjustment process is shown in the bottom left Chart 7. As far as can be determined from the capital stock circulation diagram, capital spending at the level seen in 2014 should not have been allowable without an expected growth rate of over 10%. Hence if adjustment progresses to the point where the potential growth rate is only 4%, the situation for capital spending will continue to be harsh. If the adjustment process lasts from the year 2016 to 2020, capital spending will likely continue in negative numbers on a y/y basis. If this scenario becomes a reality, the real economic growth rate will hover at around zero as is shown in the  lower right portion of Chart 7.

9-14-2015 9-01-07 AM

All of this is well-known by most (or at least those who are willing to accept reality at face value instead of goalseeking it away with Keynesian theories that serve to merely perpetuate fallacious groupthink). It does, however, underscore the severity of China’s economic situation and the follow-through linkages to the rest of the world.

But where the Daiwa stands out from every other report we have read on this topic, and where it truly goes where no other research has dared to go before, is quantifying the probability of China’s worst case scenario. Here is what it says:

Meltdown scenario: World economy sent into a tailspin

We have already stressed that the scenario discussed in the previous section is the optimum or bestcase scenario. What is just as likely or possibly more likely to occur is the following. If the expected growth rate declines and the progress of the capital stock adjustment causes the bad debt problem to become even more serious, the economy could spiral out of control, lapsing further into a meltdown situation.

The stunning punchline:

Of all the possible risk scenarios the meltdown scenario is, realistically speaking, the most likely to occur. It is actually a more realistic outcome than the capital stock adjustment scenario.  The point at which the capital stock adjustment is expected to hit bottom is at a much lower point than in the previously discussed capital stock adjustment scenario (see Chart 8). As shown in the bottom right portion of this chart, the actual economic growth rate will continue to register considerably negative performance. If China’s economy, the second largest in the world, twice the size of Japan’s, were to lapse into a meltdown situation such as this one, the effect would more than likely send the world economy into a tailspin. Its impact could be the worst the world has ever seen.”

9-14-2015 9-01-33 AM

Translated: Daiwa just made a Chinese “meltdown” and global economic “tailspin” its “realistically speaking, the most likely”, base case scenario.

And here we were thinking our calls (since 2011) that China’s debt and excess capacity bubble would negatively impact global growth, are audacious.

The question, now that Daiwa has broken the seal on Chinese and global doomsday scenarios, is whether and how soon other banks will follow in Daiwa’s path, and predict an armageddon scenario which sooner or later, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy even without the help of China’s increasingly clueless micromanagers.

Source: Daiwa

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


Patriots vs. Politicians

09/12/2015

DeWeese Report dot com

Many of the younger generation must be truly bewildered over the emotions older Americans display when expressing love, devotion, respect and reverence for our country. A tear in the eye for a patriotic song… a hand over the heart as the national anthem plays… a salute to the flag as it passes in a parade. Why would we older folks do that?

What frame of reference could younger Americans possibly have? Patriotism, nationalism – even American citizenship are taboo in today’s school curriculum. Globalism, diversity, and political correctness trump real history, sound economics, and science. Communism is just another economic system. The Founding Fathers are simply old, dead slave-owning white guys. The UN’s Declaration on Human Rights trumps the Declaration of Independence.

Where are the heroes for today’s young people to admire? Principled leaders who understood the roots of America’s greatness now are replaced by blow-dried sound-byte kings whose professional campaign staffs understand only how to maneuver a special interest group or a voting block.

How can young people make decisions in the voting booth? Who can they choose? Are there any candidates who offer anything other than meaningless gibberish? If today’s young people could learn some of the history that brings the older generation a sense of pride then they could be helped to understand that ordinary people in history knew that there were life principles worth sacrificing or even dying for. Perhaps they could help demand a better future for themselves.

Here are three little known examples from three separate eras of our nation’s history which demonstrate how Americans once thought. They are examples of how we as a nation once stood proud, ready to defend ideals to the death if necessary. And these examples clearly show why the rest of the world understood that such unwavering devotion to those ideals meant our word was true. Our steadfast principles of freedom clearly showed the rest of the world that America offered the human race something different, something wonderful. Our unmatched freedoms meant that Americans were more secure, more prosperous and happier than any people in history.

Perhaps, through the following  examples, today’s young Americans will understand that the tear in an eye or the hand over a heart expressed by the older generation wasn’t for a flag or a song. That show of emotion is really for the brave actions taken by the men and women which resulted in making the flags and the songs symbols of freedom.

Thomas Nelson, Jr.

Thomas Nelson, Jr. was born and raised in a wealthy family in Yorktown, Virginia. Educated in England, he was elected to the House of Burgesses in 1761. He loved everything British and was proud to be a British subject. That is until King George decided that his American subjects were good for little more than a revenue source to pay for his wars with France. The King imposed the hated Stamp Act on the American colonies and Nelson became a dedicated opponent. He believed he had rights to his own hard-earned money and he believed it was wrong to impose the tax when he had virtually no say in the matter. Such was the foundation of the American Revolution. It mattered.

Soon Nelson was elected to represent Virginia in the Continental Congress where he became one of fifty-six men to sign the Declaration of Independence. By adding his name to the bottom of the document he pledged his life, fortune and sacred honor. In other words Nelson and his fifty-five colleagues gambled everything in exchange for the ability to live their lives in freedom.

Thomas Nelson, Jr. backed up that pledge by becoming a brigadier general in George Washington’s army. But he did more than just fight. He used his own fortune to help Washington fund the army. His money helped make payrolls for the men who needed it for their families back home. His contributions to help keep the army on the battlefield would have equaled $2 million today.

Finally, in the last battle of the war Nelson found himself commanding troops outside his own hometown of Yorktown. As Washington laid siege to the British-held town, Nelson watched as a cannon battery continually missed an important target. It was British General Cornwallis’ command post. Nelson inquired of the troops why they weren’t shooting at the house. “Because,” they said, “it’s your house.” Nelson said, “give me the torch.” He then fired the first cannon aimed at his own home and gave the order for the other cannon to fire at the target as well. The home was destroyed. Not long after, Cornwallis surrendered and the United States was born.

For his service, Nelson died a pauper as his health and fortune were wrecked by the war. Thomas Nelson, Jr. made the sacrifice because he believed freedom was more important than comfort and material wealth. He was not alone as almost all signers of the Declaration of Independence met similar fates. Some died in the war effort. Many lost their fortunes. Some even lost their “sacred honor.” They did it so that future generations might live a better life.

Francis Scott Key

Most young people today think of the Star Spangled Banner as simply a hard song to sing before sporting events. To them, its curious words about bombs bursting in air and flags flying just sound like a Fourth of July party. Where’s the beer? Play ball.

But the words mean much more. The song’s lyrics are actually a testimony to sacrifice, death and courage. Francis Scott Key personally witnessed the events described in the song and wrote what he saw as it was happening.

Key was an attorney who lived in Washington, D.C. during the War of 1812. Again the United States was at war with Great Britain. The British had never really gotten over losing the American colonies. In the 20 years since Cornwallis had surrendered at Yorktown, they had continually harassed American ships on the high seas. The U.S. tried diplomacy to solve the problems as the country sought to freely and honestly trade with both England and France. Peace was the goal of the young nation.

But American ships seeking trade with Europe faced blockades by the British, who dominated the seas with their vast fleet, the largest in the world. In addition to preventing trade, the British claimed the right to take their sailors off the American ships. The problem was, they also took American sailors, making them serve against their will on British ships. Finally, the Americans had enough. Diplomacy wasn’t working. American lives and freedoms were being threatened. So the U.S. Government declared war on the British, again.
It didn’t go well for the Americans. The British used their vast sea power to attack the United States.

First the fleet sailed up the Hudson River to control New York. They launched an attack on New Orleans, gaining control of the Mississippi. And then they sailed up the Chesapeake, into the Potomac to invade Washington D.C. With little resistance, the British ransacked the Capital city, burning buildings, including the White House. First Lady Dolly Madison was able to escape with little more than the Declaration of Independence. As the Americans were forced to flee, the British fleet set its sights on the next target, one of the nation’s most prosperous cities, Baltimore – just a short trip up the Chesapeake. It was meant to be the final victory before reestablishing the Americans as British subjects.

Meanwhile, as the ships wreaked havoc from the sea, British troops were on the ground in countless towns and villages, arresting American citizens and putting them in makeshift jails or on prison ships. The Americans were not happy having these occupying troops in their communities and tried to fight back. In the small community of Upper Marlborough, Maryland two drunken British soldiers were arrested by Dr. William Beanes and thrown into jail. One escaped, caught up to his unit and reported what had happened. The British returned to the town, released their soldier and arrested Dr. Beanes.

Enter Francis Scott Key. The people of Upper Marlborough enlisted Key to help free Dr. Beanes who was now being held in the hold of a prison ship in Baltimore harbor. Key was allowed on the ship and taken to the prison hold. There he found the ship packed with American prisoners, including Beanes. Key met with Rear Admiral Sir George Cockburn to negotiate a prisoner exchange in hopes of freeing all of the Americas. At first Cockburn agreed and Key went below to tell the men they would soon be released.

As the two men met on the deck of the ship, Cockburn told him that, yes the men would soon be released, but not through a prisoner exchange. They would be released, he said, because the war will be over. Then Cockburn pointed down the bay where Key saw hundreds of British ships sailing toward them. “That,” said Cockburn, “is the entire British fleet. They are coming here to take Fort McHenry.” The fort was the last strong hold of the Americans and it protected Baltimore. Its fall would assure the final British victory and the end of the United States.

Key was held on the ship, unable to leave until the battle was over. The bombardment began at dusk in a deafening roar of cannon fire from a hundred ships which stayed outside the range of Fort McHenry’s guns. As the fleet opened fire on the fort, the men held in chains below deck wanted to know what was happening. Key reported what he saw throughout the battle.

Waving from the fort was a large American flag. As night began to fall, the bombs from the British fleet burst through the air. The last thing anyone could see in the twilight’s last gleaming was the flag defiantly flying over the fort. Throughout the night the prisoners called out, “is it still flying.” No matter how many bombs seemed to hit the flag, it continued to fly. Finally, in frustration, the British fleet trained all of its guns on the flag, determined to bring it and the American’s defiance down in a heap. Still it flew.

In the morning the guns stopped. In the dawn’s early light all saw that the flag still flew and the fort remained in American hands. Eventually, the fleet sailed away. Key was released. According to some reports, Key rushed to the fort and there he saw what had happened. The flagpole, say the reports, had been hit numerous times. Some have reported that around the base of the flag were numerous bodies of American soldiers and citizens. Throughout the night, it is said, they had sacrificed themselves to keep the flag waving. As the flagpole splintered from the direct hits it suffered, men rushed out and held up the flag, becoming human flagpoles. One by one, as each was cut down by the bombs bursting in air, another rushed out to take his place.

The nation survived and America became a shining symbol to the world as the land of the free. And the men of Fort McHenry proved it was also the home of the brave.

William Barret Travis

In the winter and early spring of 1836, war raged throughout what is now the State of Texas. Mexico, led by General Santa Anna wanted to control the territory. Santa Anna was a pompous, brutal dictator who had terrorized the citizens, murdering at will, and taking property at his whim. The Texans wanted to be free of him. In a recent battle they had managed to free the town of San Antonio of his rule. Now he wanted it back.

So, Santa Anna began a march on San Antonio with more that 1,000 troops, determined to prove that resistance to his rule was futile. On February 23rd, about 145 Texans under the command of William Barret Travis rushed into a mission called the Alamo. Soon they were surrounded. Travis put out a call for reinforcements, saying, “I am besieged by a thousand or more Mexicans… I have sustained a continual bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours… The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise the garrison are to be put to the sword if the fort is taken.”

Over the following two weeks, the Mexican forces continually strengthened to over 2,000. Answering Travis’s call, a few reinforcements for the Texans were able to break through the lines and build the garrison to 189. Famed frontiersman and former Congressman Davy Crockett arrived with 15 good men from Tennessee. Another famous frontiersman, Jim Bowie was there. There were 30 volunteers from South Carolina, ready to fight with their native son, Travis. More than 81 volunteers were from different countries including England, Scotland, Germany, Ireland and various U.S. states.

Finally, as it became apparent that no large group of reinforcements would be able to come to their aid, Travis called a meeting of the men and told them they were free to leave and save themselves. He took out his sword and drew a line in the sand. He said, if you choose to stay, cross that line. To a man they crossed, determined to stay and fight the Santa Anna tyranny.

After constant bombardment from the Mexican guns, the men inside the Alamo heard a certain bugle signal. It was the command to Santa Anna’s troops to charge and take no prisoners. The men in the Alamo fought to the last man. Travis was one of the first to fall, on the north wall where the main assault occurred. He was 26. Jim Bowie, ill on a stretcher, was killed in a small room on the south side. He was 41. And Davy Crockett’s body was found in a small fort on the west side, surrounded by a pile of dead Mexicans. He was 50 years old.

189 Texans died that day but they took 600 Mexicans with them. The Alamo had fallen, but their courage allowed Texas General Sam Houston the time he needed to raise an army and meet Santa Anna only forty six days later. As Houston’s men charged, they shouted, “Remember the Alamo.” The battle lasted only 18 minutes. The Texans killed 630 of Santa Anna’s men, and captured 730, literally destroying his army. The next day, General Santa Anna was captured, disguised as a peasant. His rule was finished and Texas had won its independence, because 189 heroes had offered their lives in a belief that preserving freedom was more important than living life under tyranny.

Making Sense Of It All

American history is full of stories of sacrifice and heroism in the name of preserving freedom. They were called patriots and they didn’t sacrifice to build the power of government, or to enrich the pockets of a select power elite or to promote one group over another. They did it so they could live their lives in peace, unencumbered and left alone.

Today, our young people are taught in government classrooms that these ideals are old fashioned, quaint and, in many cases just plain wrong. Patriotism is racism, we’re told by modern scholars. Property ownership is selfish, a social injustice. Children are taught that our free society is the root of the Earth’s destruction and must be dismantled through a tightly controlled, organized global village. The Constitution, say some the scholars, is a living document, changeable on a whim. The Declaration of Independence, which Dolly Madison risked everything to save, is just a “war document from the Revolution.” Nothing more.

Yesterday’s patriots have been replaced by politicians who pander to special interests, as they fill their pockets with money in exchange for deals, privilege and power. A foreign policy based on honest trade, avoiding “entangling alliances,” has been replaced with our military meddling in over one hundred countries, as we impose economic and personal values where they aren’t wanted. America today is guilty of the very same kind of “nation building” we fought King George to end. Now America finds itself hated and non-respected, assuring American citizens are unsafe on every street corner in the world.

Politicians

America needs leadership which understands and reveres our roots and the history it took to mold this nation. But who can our young people look to for such ideas? Who among the politicians and self-appointed leaders of our nation would make such sacrifices? Who among them would even advocate such an attitude?

Would Hillary Clinton stand on the front lines in defense of this nation and order her own home destroyed for freedom’s sake? Would Barack Obama stand on the North wall and fight to the death to stop an invasion of the country? Of course not. In fact, both of these “leaders” have actually thrown open the door of Fortress America and are calling for those very descendents of the original invaders of the Alamo to “come on over.” William Travis would have shot them.

Today, instead of statesmen who serve our country out of love and loyalty for its ideals; or leaders who deal with other nations under the guideline of “does it serve the just interest of the United States,  we have politicians looking for a deal. Will it sound good to a certain voter block? Will it make me look good on television? Can I get a leg up on the other candidates if I propose this?

Today’s politicians such as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders propose vast policy programs costing billions of dollars with no concern of where the money is coming from. They grab private land, displace families and regulate private business out of existence in the name of social justice. Meanwhile, House Speaker John Boehner, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the ones we count on to stand in defense of our Constitutional system, join right in, refusing to take action to even slow down the growth and cost of these massive government schemes.

What are the real issues on the minds of the American public? Too-high taxes; ever-creeping government intrusion in our lives; unprotected borders; over 60% say they want us out of the UN; growing corporate power; reduced standard of living; the fall of the dollar and less buying power; massive government debt; high energy prices. These issues affect every single American and we want someone to speak for us.

Yet not one of these issues is being addressed by most of the candidates for president. Instead we have great debates on the so called “War on Women,” racial disparity, and whether or not Donald Trump is too mean to run for president. Each of these issues is a hot button for specific special interest groups which are piling money into campaign coffers. The average American could care less about any of them, yet these are the debates of the day while the real issues are ignored.

Instead of addressing real issues, political campaigns have become little more than an exercise in character assassination of opponents in an attempt to get a leg up in the public. The mainstream news media has become the lap dog for the big government ideology.

These politicians would never be trusted on the front lines next to the heroes of the Alamo or Thomas Nelson, Jr. None would ever inspire a single lyric by Key. And they are not worthy of being elected to lead the country these heroes helped create.

Patriots

But there are still patriots in our nation who are fighting a desperate fight to preserve our freedoms. Some are just citizens who see the wrongs and take local action to fight them. They show up at city council and county commission meetings to express their opposition to policies that affect property and taxes and quality of life. They work tirelessly, producing materials, working in political campaigns, and getting in front of microphones wherever they can. Though just an unorganized, unfunded rag tag band, these freedom fighters are beginning to make an impact and the big government forces are starting to nervously take notice.

Some of the best I’ve had the privilege to work with – to name just a tiny few, include Sheriff Richard Mack, who travels the nation teaching county sheriffs that they are the first line of defense against an oppressive central government. KrisAnne Hall, who travels over 265 days a year to teach Americans the power and justice of the Constitution. Pastor Chuck Baldwin, whose writings demand we think with common sense. And John Anthony, who is one of the very best in teaching local residents how to deal with invading planners as they attempt to transform our communities into socialist utopias.

Others decide to take the big step of running for office. Perhaps they were just local activists to start with, but decided that the cause needed elected representatives that can really make a difference from the inside. In the past couple of years, barely a week goes by without my hearing from new, dedicated representatives who ask me what they can do to take effective action to stop the growing tyranny.

Again, I’ve had the great privilege to not only work with some of these great patriots, but to call them my friend. One of the very first to stand, unwavering against the massive growth and corruption of local government is Carroll County, Maryland Commissioner Richard Rothschild. Even as he is attacked in the news media and falsely labeled a danger to the future of his community, he stands, many times alone, for the principles of freedom. As powerful forces work to remove him, he stands, like Travis on the wall, and refuses to back down.

In the state legislature of Washington stands Representative Matt Shea. In one of the most liberal states in the Union, Rep. Shea has organized a Freedom Team of legislators to fight for limited government and the ideals of freedom. In the past two sessions they have introduced over 100 bills, all aimed at limiting the size, cost, reach and power of government. They have managed to pass about thirty of these into law. Matt Shea and Richard Rothschild are the models for us all. And they are unwavering patriots.

There are many others, in every state, who are beginning to make their efforts felt in the cause to preserve freedom. They understand that private property ownership is the key to prosperity. They had seen that the more powerful the government control, the more corruption, and that it is government itself that must be controlled. And they are becoming a growing force. Their courage is an inspiration.

Matt Shea would order the destruction of his own home if it meant one American would be free. Richard Rothschild would stand on that wall of the Alamo to the last. He already has in our modern day fight. And KrisAnne Hall would sing the glory of the heroes of Fort McHenry. She does it every day.

As your children seek to understand why we older folks get a tear in our eye and a swell of pride in hearts as we hear the songs and see the flags flying – symbols of the incredible sacrifice so many suffered just to defend our freedom – they need look no further than these modern day heroes. Patriots still exist among us and they are still fighting the same tyranny as our Founders, and for the same reasons. We should all stand together so that our children and our children’s children will have a life of their own choosing. It’s that simple.

Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence. Subscribe to his monthly report at: http://deweesereport.com

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


9/11: Eternal Pretext Eternal War

09/11/2015

http://www.globalresearch.ca/911-eternal-pretext-eternal-war/5475419

9-11-2015 2-39-36 PM

By Larry Chin

Global Research

 The false flag operation of 9/11 was not an “intelligence failure”. It was the greatest “intelligence success” and criminal operation in history.

The Bush/Cheney administration’s 9/11 atrocity set in motion the world war that continues to expand and metastasize to this day. This war—the “war on terrorism”, the war on Afghanistan and Iraq, the war on Libya, the “war on the Islamic State” etc. is the same single war, all rooted in the Big Lie of 9/11. No corner of the world has escaped the reach of this still-growing horror. No individual is untouched by its flames. Thousands upon thousands have been murdered. Entire societies have been wiped out and displaced.

9-11-2015 2-39-17 PM

Today’s world—of endless war for oil, endless false flag terror operations and atrocities, unabated political criminality, economic looting, social upheaval, fascism, surveillance and cyber terror, and global war/intelligence-industrial police state—is the fruit of 9/11.

Fourteen years and countless false flag terror operations later, the US government is on the verge of toppling Syria using Al-Qaeda military-intelligence assets. The US now openly supports and arms Al-Qaeda all over the world. The very same Al-Qaeda terrorists that were “responsible for 9/11” are the West’s finest foot soldiers and military-intelligence assets. Al-Qaeda effectively controls two-thirds of Syria for the Anglo-American empire. Libya was overthrown by the same forces.

All of this merely brings us back to the inescapable conspiracy fact that the empire no longer bothers to hide:

Islamic “terrorists”, Al-Qaeda and its many functionaries (including the conveniently removed and semi-fictional Osama bin Laden) have been in the continuous employ of western forces and the CIA since the Cold War—before and since 9/11, up to this very minute. Al-Qaeda is American-made and CIA-sponsored. As written by Michel Chossudovsky, “those who lead the ‘Global War on Terrorism’ in the name of ‘Democracy’ are those who are supporting and financing the terrorist organizations which they themselves created”. The Islamic State is merely a variation upon the theme. It is also “American made”, openly supported and utilized by the United States and its allies, and under orders of US-NATO sponsors and handlers.

Today, Washington’s war makers can openly and freely embrace their terrorist associates and functionaries, and do so with confidence. The original 9/11 myth is so deeply embedded into the brain synapses that subsequent distortions do not even register. The acquiescent, ignorant masses scarcely notice that the official fairy tale has been routinely flipped this way and that, that way and this.

Even the refugee crisis—the direct result of the Anglo-American empire’s war and regional destabilization—is being manipulated by the CIA into yet another propaganda weapon. According the CIA’s corporate media, the Syrian government (that is under US attack) is to blame. Therefore, “we” must remove the Assad regime even sooner, by sending more of “our” Al-Qaeda “freedom fighters” to destroy what is left. Now, as on 9/11, Orwellian horror abounds.

Key 9/11 mastermind Dick Cheney promised that this war “will not end in our lifetimes”. Indeed it will not. Nor will the presence of 9/11’s most malignant criminals.

Barack Obama dutifully escalated the Bush/Cheney 9/11 agenda. Soon the Bush crime family will take back (or will be handed back) the reins of world criminal power again, under Jeb Bush, who aims to be president of the United States in 2016. Jeb, the “smart one”, has managed key Bush criminal enterprises since the Iran-Contra era.

George W. Bush is now a popular figure. A majority of Americans view him favorably. George H.W. “Poppy” Bush, the CIA godfather and venom-spitting mass murderer, is now viewed by most Americans as a kindly old harmless grandpa. The next generation of Bushes is on the rise, with George P. Bush, a nightmarish Bush scion of politically useful Latin descent, working his way up the ranks of Congress.

Hillary and Bill Clintons, whose association with the Bushes has been long-standing, are also poised for a White House run. Should a Jeb Bush campaign falter, the Clintons will run the war machine seamlessly. What is beyond much doubt is that the next phase of this war, one that will likely involve full-blown superpower conflict between the United States, Russia and China, will be spearheaded by denizens of the same criminal syndicate.

Tragically, everything that many whistleblowers of 9/11 have predicted has come about. It is bitter vindication for everyone who has spoken and written the truth. The world around us speaks for itself, and it is a death scream.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


9/11 Fourteen Years Later

09/11/2015

http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/36527/Paul-Craig-Roberts-911-Fourteen-Years-Later/?uuid=6F80FACC-5056-9627-3C224900D5600C65

By Paul Craig Roberts

 Millions of refugees from Washington’s wars are currently over-running Europe. Washington’s 14-year and ongoing slaughter of Muslims and destruction of their countries are war crimes for which the US government’s official 9/11 conspiracy theory was the catalyst. Factual evidence and science do not support Washington’s conspiracy theory. The 9/11 Commission did not conduct an investigation. It was not permitted to investigate. The Commission sat and listened to the government’s story and wrote it down. Afterwards, the chairman and cochairman of the Commission said that the Commission “was set up to fail.” For a factual explanation of 9/11, watch this film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsoY3AIRUGA&feature=youtu.be.

Here is an extensive examination of many of the aspects of 9/11: http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=167.

Phil Restino of the Central Florida chapter of Veterans For Peace wants to know why national antiwar organizations buy into the official 9/11 story when the official story is the basis for the wars that antiwar organizations oppose. Some are beginning to wonder if ineffectual peace groups are really Homeland Security or CIA fronts.

The account below of the government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory reads like a parody, but in fact is an accurate summary of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. It was posted as a comment in the online UK Telegraph on September 12, 2009, in response to Charlie Sheen’s request to President Obama to conduct a real investigation into what happened on September 11, 2001.

The Official Version of 9/11 goes something like this:

Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah. Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes.

And hangover or not, they manage to give the world’s most sophisticated air defence system the slip.

Unfazed by leaving their “How to Fly a Passenger Jet” guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely.

The laws of physics fail, and the world watches in awe as asymmetrical damage and scattered low temperature fires cause steel-framed buildings to collapse symmetrically through their own mass at free-fall speed, for the first time in history.

Despite their dastardly cunning and superb planning, they give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the destruction of steel and concrete and fall to the ground where they are quickly discovered lying on top of the mass of debris.

Meanwhile in Washington

Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked Cessna flying school, gets carried away with all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a jet airliner. Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off a little. Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the Pentagon. Without ruining the nicely mowed lawn and at a speed just too fast to capture on video.

In the skies above Pennsylvania 

Desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that would not be possible until several years later.

And following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, the airliner crashes into a Pennsylvania field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants except for the standard issue Muslim terrorist bandana.

During these events

President Bush continues to read “My Pet Goat” to a class of primary school children.

In New York

World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously.

In Washington

The Neoconservatives are overjoyed by the arrival of the “New Pearl Harbor,” the necessary catalyst for launching their pre-planned wars.

This article contributed courtesy of PaulCraigRoberts.org.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

Far surpassing the devastating loss of life, 9/11 produced absolute proof of how naïve and down-right stupid most Americans really are. A six year old child should have the intellect to dismember this horrific lie. Get it through your head folks; the Banking Cartel has the manpower to make you believe your butt hole is the entrance to paradise. Your intestines must be connected to your brain to believe the Building came down by fire weakened steel columns simultaneously; for the first time in history! This was demolition at its very best, and it is exactly what is going to happen to our economy. THE PERFECT CRASH IS COMING AGAIN. THE CARTEL MUST BE HAVING BACK TO BACK ORGASMS FROM OBSERVING YOUR IGNORANCE. SEND OUR TROOPS AROUND THE WORLD ELIMINATING THEM, AND NEVER EVER TRUST MONEY MANIPULATORS AGAIN.

IF YOU OWE SOMEONE, THEY OWN YOU!

BEYON MISINFORMATION

http://cafr1.com/Beyond-Misinformation-2015.pdf

9-11-2015 10-18-42 AM

9-11-2015 10-58-17 AM

http://cafr1.com/Beyond-Misinformation-2015.pdf

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


Economic Crisis How You Can Prepare Over The Next Six Months

09/10/2015

http://alt-market.com/articles/2690-economic-crisis-how-you-can-prepare-over-the-next-six-months

9-10-2015 9-42-44 AM

By Brandon Smith

I wouldn’t say that it is “never too late” to prepare for potential disaster because, obviously, the numerous economic and social catastrophes of the past have proven otherwise. There simply comes a point in time in which the ignorant and presumptive are indeed officially screwed. I will say that we have not quite come to that point yet here in the U.S., but the window of opportunity for preparation is growing very narrow.

9-10-2015 9-42-25 AM

As expected, U.S. stocks are now revealing the underlying instability of our economy, which has been festering for several years. Extreme volatility not seen since 2008/2009 has returned, sometimes with 1000 point fluctuations positive and negative in the span of only a couple days. Current market tremors are beginning to resemble the EKG of a patient suffering a heart attack.

Stocks are a trailing indicator, meaning that when an equities crash finally becomes visible to the mainstream public, it indicates that the economic fundamentals have been broken beyond repair for quite a while. What does this mean for those people who prefer to protect themselves and their families rather than wait to be drowned like lemmings in a deluge? It means they are lucky if they have more than a few months to put their house in order.

The process of crisis preparedness is not as simple as going on a gear-buying bonanza or making a few extra trips to Costco. That is better than nothing; but really, it’s a form of half-assed prepping that creates more of an illusion of survivabilty rather than providing ample security in the event that financial systems malfunction.

Much of what’s listed in this article will include training and infrastructure goals far beyond the usual standards of beans, bullets and Band-Aids.

Market turmoil has only just begun to take shape around the globe; and as I explained in my last article, the situation is only going to become exponentially worse as 2015 bleeds into 2016. I certainly cannot say for certain how long our system will remain “stable,” primarily because our current collapse could easily move faster or slower through the influence of outside or engineered events (a slower progression without any black swan-style triggers would likely end in total breakdown within the span of a couple years, rather than a fast progression ending in the span of a few months). What I can do is give you a conservative timeline for preparedness and offer examples of actions anyone can accomplish within that period. For now, my timeline is limited to six months or less, meaning these preparations should be undertaken with the intent to complete them in half a year. If you get more time than that, thank your lucky stars for the extension.

Find Two Family Members, Two Friends and One Neighbor Of Like Mind

Here is the bottom line: If you are going the route of the lone wolf or secret squirrel isolated from any community, then you are already dead. You might as well hand your food and supplies over to someone else with a better fighting chance. The lone wolf methodology is the worst possible strategy for survival. And if you look at almost every collapse scenario in history from Argentina to Bosnia to the Great Depression, it is always the people with strong community who end up surviving.

Going lone wolf is partially useful only if you have zero moral fortitude and you plan to rob or murder every other person you come across and then run. This is not the smartest idea either because it requires a person to constantly seek out violent contact in order to live day to day. Eventually, the lone wolf’s luck will run out no matter how vicious he is.

I’ve noticed that those people who promote lone wolf survivalism tend to lean toward moral relativism, though they rarely come right out and admit what their real plans are. I’ve also noticed that it is the lone wolves who also often attempt to shame average preppers into isolationism with claims of “OPSEC” (operations security) and warnings of neighbors ready to loot their homes at the first sign of unrest. “Don’t talk to anyone,” they say. “Your only chance is to hide.” One should consider the possibility that the lone wolves prefer that preppers never form groups or communities because that would make their predatory strategy more successful.

Hoarding these items is better than having money in the bank (Ad)

Without community, you have no security beyond the hope that people will not find you by chance. You also have limited skill sets to draw from (no one has the knowledge and ability to provide all services and necessities for themselves). And you will have no ability to rebuild or extend your lines of safety, food production, health services, etc. once the opportunity arises. If you cannot find two family members, two friends and one neighbor to work with you in the next six months, then you aren’t trying hard enough; and thus, frankly, you don’t deserve to survive. I’ve heard all the excuses before: “Everyone around me is blissfully ignorant,” “My family is addicted to their cellphones,” “All my friends are Keynesians” and so on. It doesn’t matter. No more excuses. Get it done. If I can do it, you can.

Approach Your Church, Veterans’ Hall Or Other Organization

What do you have to lose? Find an existing organization you belong to and see if you can convince them to pre-stage supplies or hold classes on vital skills. Keep your approach nonpolitical. Make it strictly about preparedness and training. If you can motivate a church or a veterans’ hall or a homeschoolers’ club to actually go beyond their normal parameters and think critically about crisis preparedness, then you may have just saved the lives of dozens if not hundreds or people who would have been oblivious otherwise. Making the effort to approach such groups could be accomplished in weeks, let alone six months.

Learn A Trade Skill

Take the next six months and learn one valuable trade skill, meaning any skill that would allow you to produce a necessity, repair a necessity or teach a necessary knowledge set. If you cannot do this, then you will have no capability to barter in a sustainable way. Remember this: The future belongs to the producers, and only producers will thrive post-collapse.

Commit To Rifle Training At Least Once A Week

Set aside the money and the ammo to practice with your primary rifle every week for the next six months. Yes, training uses up your ammo supply; but you are far better off sending a couple thousand rounds down range to perfect your shooting ability rather than letting that ammo sit in a box doing nothing while your speed and accuracy go nowhere.

Also, think in terms of real training methods, including speed drills, movement drills, reloading and malfunction clearing, and, most importantly, team movement and communications drills. Shooting a thousand rounds from a bench at the range is truly a waste of time and money. Train in an environment that matches your expected operational conditions. Make sure you are learning something new all the time and make sure you are actually challenged by the level of difficulty. If you are not getting frustrated, then you are not training correctly.

Create A Local Ham Network – Expand To Long Distance

A 5-watt ham radio can be had for about $40. With the flood of low-cost, Chinese-made radios on the market today, there is simply no excuse not to have one. If you want to get your ham license, then by all means do so and expand the number of available frequencies you can legally use. If you don’t have a license, practice on non-licensed channels such as MURS channels (yes, MURS is only supposed to be operated at 1 watt or less; I won’t tattle on you to the Federal Communications Commission if you use 5 watts).

A 5-watt handheld ham radio can easily achieve 30 miles or more depending on the type of antenna used. With repeaters, hundreds of miles can becovered. With a high frequency (HF) rig, hundreds or sometimes thousands of miles can be covered without the use of repeaters (though HF radios are far more expensive).

During a national disaster, there is no guarantee that normal communications will continue. Phone and Internet connections can be lost through neglect, or they can be deliberately eliminated by government entities. A nation or community without communications is lost. Find friends and family and set up your communications network now. Over time, your network may grow to cover a vast area; but it has to start with a core, and that core is you.

Learn Basic Emergency And Combat Medical Response

We are lucky in my area to have a few people with extensive medical knowledge in our Community Preparedness Team. I have received training in multiple areas of emergency and combat medical response, and I am grateful for access to such people because there is always more to learn in this field. If you do not have people on your team with medical experience, then you will have to seek out such classes where you can.

Local EMT classes are a good start, but these courses are very limited in scope and do not cover treatment as much as they cover the identification of particular problems. Almost no community courses I can think of delve into combat medical response. If you can’t find a private trainer in your area, then you will have to settle for Web videos. Purchase extra supplies such as Israeli or OLAES bandages and practice using them. Learn your CAT tourniquet until you can use it in the dark. My team even shot a Christmas ham and then pumped fake blood through it to simulate a wound for our blood-stopping class.

If you already have solid people with medical training, try focusing in a niche area like dental work. At the very least, learn your trauma-response basics and store your own medical supplies. Do not assume that you will have access to a hospital when you need it.

Store At Least One Year Of Food – Then Store Extra

With your current food stores can you make it at least one year without a grocery supply source? Can you make it through at least one planting and harvest season with 2000 – 3000 available calories per person? Do you have extra food for people you might wish to help?

Imagine you or your community come across an ER surgeon during a crisis situation, but he did not prepare. Are you going to “stick it to him” and let him starve because he didn’t see the danger coming, or are you going to want to keep that guy and his skill sets around? Food preparedness is not as straightforward as it seems. You have to think in terms of your own survival, yes, but also in terms of individual aid. During a full spectrum collapse food is the key to everything. This is why governments like ours set up provisions for food confiscation. They know well that food is power. Without extra supply, communities struggle to form because people become hyper-focused on themselves and lose track of the bigger survival picture. Governments understand that if they can offer limited food to the desperate, they can control the desperate. Do what you can to make sure there are no desperate people within your sphere of influence and you remove the establishment’s best mode of control.

Plan Your Food Independence In Advance

To survive you must become your own farmer. Period. Do you know how to do this in your particular climate? Have you accounted for pest control and bad weather conditions? Have you extended your growing season with the use of greenhouses? Are you planning your crops realistically? What provides more sustenance, a field of tomatoes or a field of potatoes? A planting box full of lettuce or of carrots? What crops can be stored the longest and are the hardiest against poor conditions? What gives you the best bang for your buck and for your labor?

I realize that the current growing season is almost at an end, but that does not mean you can’t spend the next six months planning for the next season. Condition your soil for planting now. Store extra fertilizer and compost. Be ready for pests. Learn the square foot method as well as barrel planting. Take note of the space you have and how you can best use it. Stockpile seeds for several years of planting.

Train Your Mind To Handle Crisis

Panic betrays and fear kills. The preparedness culture is built upon the ideal that one must defeat fear in order to live. How a person goes about removing uncertainty from the mind is really up to the individual. For me, combat training and mixed martial arts is a great tool. If you get used to people trying to hurt you in a ring, it’s not quite as surprising or terrifying when it happens in the real world. If you can handle physical and mental trauma in a slightly more controlled environment, then fear is less likely to take hold of you during a surprise disaster.

Six months may be enough time to enter a state of mental preparedness, it may not be, but more than anything else, this is what you should be focusing on. All other survival actions depend on it. Your ability to function personally, your ability to work with others, your ability to act when necessary, all rely on your removal of fear. Take the precious time you have now and ensure you are ready to handle whatever the future throws at you.

Image Credit

You can read more from Brandon Smith at his site Alt-Market.com

10 13 11 flagbar

 


The Supercommittee That Really Runs America – Presenting The November 1 TBAC Minutes

09/09/2015

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/supercommittee-really-runs-

america-presenting-november-1-tbac-minutes

Submitted by Tyler Durden

With Tim Geithner having proven repeatedly and beyond a reasonable doubt he has insurmountable intellectual challenges, many have wondered just who it is that makes the real decisions at the US Treasury? The answer is, The Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee, or the TBAC in short, chaired by JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, which meets every quarter, and in which the richest people in America (here is its composition) set the fate of the US for the next 3 months in the form of a very much irrelevant report to TurboTax (link). What is of huge importance, however, are the minutes, which unlike the FOMC, are released immediately following the meeting. Below are the full minutes from the latest TBAC meeting held yesterday, just released by the US Treasury (and yes, the issuance of FRN Treasurys, corporate cash hoarding as well as the resumption of the SFP program are both discussed – like we said: these guys run the world) as well as the critical associated powerpoint.

 Minutes of the Meeting of the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association November 1, 2011

The Committee convened in closed session at the Hay Adams Hotel at 9:30 a.m.  All Committee members were present with the exception of Paul Tudor Jones.  Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets Mary Miller, Deputy Assistant Secretary (DAS) for Federal Finance Matthew Rutherford and Director of the Office of Debt Management Colin Kim welcomed the Committee and its newest member, Stuart Spodek [fixed income PM at BlackRock].  Other members of Treasury staff present were Fred Pietrangeli, Jennifer Imler, Amar Reganti, Allen Zhang, David Chung, Alfred Johnson, Dara Seaman and Brian Zakutansky.  Federal Reserve Bank of New York members Dina Marchioni and Mark Cabana were also present.

DAS Rutherford began the meeting with an update on tax receipts, which were $140 billion higher in 2011 versus the prior fiscal year (FY).  He noted that withheld receipts were up only slightly on a year-over-year basis due in part to the payroll tax cut.  Corporate tax growth slowed in Q4 FY 2011.

DAS Rutherford then discussed outlays, which totaled approximately $3.6 trillion in FY 2011 or roughly 24 percent of GDP. Health and Human Services was the largest outlay in FY 2011 at $891 billion, with Medicare and Medicaid being the largest sub-categories. Social Security spending totaled $784 billion, with Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance increasing the most. The third largest outlay was Defense, within it, Operations and Maintenance was the largest expenditure. Rounding out the top four categories was Treasury.  Roughly 85 percent of the $537 billion in Treasury outlays was made up of interest expense, with $235 billion from debt service on marketable debt and about $220 billion from non-marketable interest payments. With respect to nonmarketable borrowing, DAS Rutherford noted that SLGS redemptions continued into Q4 FY 2011, causing Treasury to borrow an extra $17.6 billion last quarter.

Next, DAS Rutherford reviewed the deficit for this past fiscal year versus the prior two years.  For FY 2011, the deficit was recorded at 1.299 trillion, or 8.7 percent of GDP.  Going forward, dealers expect the deficit in FY 2012 to total $1.132 trillion, consistent with expectations last quarter. Most estimates assume the deficit will fall to below $1 trillion by FY 2013.

DAS Rutherford briefly summarized the American Jobs Act (AJA) into three components: extension of current laws, spending measures and new/incremental tax cuts.  He noted that the President’s plan was meant to stimulate to the economy in the short term, while putting in place a medium-to-long-term credible deficit reduction plan.

Director Kim then discussed Treasury’s debt portfolio.  Given current OMB deficit projections, which include the AJA, and assuming no changes to issuance sizes or auction frequency, Treasury expects to be modestly under-financed in FY 2012. However, given the same assumptions, Treasury would be over-financed from FY 2013 through FY 2016.

Kim next reviewed a number of debt metrics.  The average maturity of the portfolio, which currently stands slightly above 62 months, continues to extend.  Kim proceeded to discuss hypothetical average maturity calculations.  In the example used by Director Kim, Treasury adjusted future nominal coupon issuance on a pro-rata basis, while keeping the mix of securities and the auction schedule constant.  Treasury also held the bill stock constant.  In this example, the maturity was shown to naturally extend to approximately 70 months by 2015.

Kim emphasized that the average maturity projections and the associated underlying assumptions for future issuance were purely hypothetical.  The projections were not meant to convey future debt management policy or an average maturity target.  He reiterated that Treasury must remain flexible in the conduct of debt management policy.

Currently, Treasury bills make up about 15 percent of the debt portfolio, with nominal coupons and TIPS at slightly more than 77 and 7 percent, respectively. If Treasury were to adjust nominal coupons to meet OMB’s future financing estimates, bills would become approximately 10 percent of the debt portfolio around 2016.  Additionally, on a percentage basis, the amount of Treasury debt maturing in the next 1, 2 and 3 years remains at historic lows.  If Treasury were to continue its current issuance pattern, Kim noted that by FY 2020 almost 20 percent of the portfolio would have a maturity profile greater than or equal to 10 years.

Director Kim then discussed demand for Treasuries.  He commented that auction coverage ratios remain very high for all of Treasury’s products.  Treasury bill bid-to-cover ratios have averaged 4.61 for this FY and coupon bid-to-cover ratios averaged 2.98.  Kim also noted that Treasury’s investor class data, which is released twice a month, continues to show healthy participation from a variety of accounts.  Kim highlighted that investment funds are becoming a larger participant in TIPS. Observing the change in investor class auction purchases in FY 2011, as compared to past years, he noted that there was an auction rule change in June 2009.  The new rule prevented primary dealers from guaranteeing an auction award at the clearing level to their customers.  Once this new rule went into effect, primary dealer awards declined.

 Kim mentioned that private and public foreign participation was slightly less in FY 2011 than in FY 2010, with the largest decline in the bill sector.  Also, data shows an uptrend in longer-dated nominal coupon awards to foreign accounts.  Lastly, Kim noted that primary dealer awards averaged 59 percent for bills, 49.4 percent for nominal coupons and 49.5 percent for TIPS.

Following DAS Rutherford and Director Kim’s presentation, the Committee turned to a brief discussion on potential changes to financing and the auction calendar.  It was the consensus that Treasury should not make any changes to issuance sizes or existing auction calendar at this time.

The Committee noted that they have consistently advised Treasury over the last several years to extend the average maturity of the debt portfolio.  Further, members of the committee observed that maturity extension expectations should already be priced into fixed income markets. It was the Committee’s view that Treasury should continue to extend average maturity in the most cost effective way.  Members of the Committee stated that their purpose is to advise and assist Treasury in achieving its mandate of minimizing borrowing costs over time.

 A member then broached the subject of Floating Rate Notes (FRNs), noting that it was recently discussed with primary dealers ahead of the November refunding.  DAS Rutherford noted that while FRNs have many features that make them a potentially attractive instrument for Treasury, there is still a lot of work that needs to be done on the product related to cost, structure, and demand.  DAS Rutherford emphasized that no decision has been made on whether to introduce this product.  It was the view of the Committee that Treasury should continue to study the product idea with a focus on cost.

Another member raised a question about the possible resumption of Supplemental Financing Program (SFP).  In light of debt ceiling constraints, it was the view of the Committee that Treasury should not resume the program at this time.

The Committee next turned to the charge on the TBAC agenda: “The Impact of a Prolonged Period of Low-Interest Rates on Financial Markets.”

The presenting member first turned to the state of borrowers within the U.S. economy.  The member noted that overall loan growth continues to rise as lenders are making more commercial and industrial (“C&I”) loans.  However, consumer and real estate loan growth remains weak.

The presenter noted that loan recovery was still well below prior economic recoveries.  All forms of bank credit were significantly weaker than levels seen during those other periods.  The member noted that, based on the presented data, the lack of lending was driven, in part, by a lack of credit demand rather than a lack of credit supply from traditional bank lending.

The discussion moved into the demand segment, the presenter noted that U.S. corporations have built up significant amounts of cash, lowering their marginal demand for borrowing.  A spirited discussion followed on whether the increase in cash holdings was due to corporate concerns regarding future funding or whether corporations did not see a significant opportunity cost in holding cash.

The presenter briefly summarized the effects of the current rate environment on various fixed income investors.  The member noted that low rates are particularly challenging to the money fund industry, resulting in a difficult low return environment.  Pension funds and insurers have had difficulty sourcing enough long-duration paper at appropriate yields for their ongoing asset-liability management strategies. A variety of investors may have to either extend duration or reallocate into higher yielding products to meet certain performance targets.  Banks, particularly small banks, are facing challenges due to the compression of their net interest margins.  The impact on mortgage lenders is uncertain, with an ongoing debate on whether lower rates and a flatter curve will spark more origination or “refi burnout”.  The presenter noted that REITS will likely suffer due to a lower carry and higher pre-payments.  In addition, mortgage servicers will see their mortgage servicing rights impacted during periods of refinancing or prepays.  The presenter also noted that foreign investor demand for Treasuries still remains healthy by historical standards.

Finally, the presenter concluded that Treasury should continue to investigate new product alternatives in order to diversify its investor base.

The meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

The Committee reconvened at the Department of the Treasury at 5:40 p.m.  All Committee members were present with the exception of Paul Tudor Jones. The Chairman presented the Committee report to Secretary Geithner.

A brief discussion followed the Chairman’s presentation but did not raise significant questions regarding the report’s content.

The Committee then reviewed the financing for the remainder of the July through September quarter (see attached).

The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.

Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee Members

CHAIRMAN

Dana M. Emery

CEO, President & Director of Fixed Income

Dodge & Cox

555 California Street

San Francisco, CA 94104

VICE CHAIRMAN

Curtis Arledge

Vice Chairman, CEO, Invest. Mgmt.

BNY Mellon

One Wall Street

New York, NY 10286

Jason Cummins

Global Head of Research

Brevan Howard

1776 I Street NW

Washington, DC 20006

Elizabeth M. Hammack

Global Head of Short Term Interest Rate Trading

Goldman, Sachs & Co.

200 West Street

New York, NY 10282

Christine Hurtsellers

CIO, Fixed Income

Voya Investment Management

5780 Powers Ferry Road NW

Atlanta, GA30327

Jon Kinol

Managing Director, Head of Global Rates

Credit Suisse

11 Madison Avenue

New York, NY10010

Carey Lathrop

Managing Director, Head of Credit Markets

Citigroup

390 Greenwich Street

New York, NY10013

Michael Lillard

Chief Investment Officer

Prudential Fixed Income

655 Broad Street

Newark, NJ07102

Walter J. Muller III

Chief Investment Officer

Bank of America

600 Peachtree Street

Atlanta, GA30308

Ajay Rajadhyaksha

Co-Head of Global FICC Research

Barclays Capital Inc

745 Seventh Avenue

New YorkNY10019

Stephen Rodosky

Managing Director

PIMCO

650 Newport Center Drive

Newport Beach, CA92660

Brian P. Sack

Director of Global Economics

  1. E. Shaw & Co., L.P.

1166 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY10036

Stuart Spodek

Managing Director

BlackRock

55 East 52nd Street

New York, NY10055

Matthew E. Zames

Chief Operating Officer

JP Morgan Chase & Co.

270 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10017

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM