Log in



Categories » ‘Executive Orders’

Reagan’s Administration Was Among the Most Corrupt

January 28th, 2015 by

 http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/+Reasonable/Reagan.html

 

 “By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations.  In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever.” from p. 184,Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years, by Haynes Johnson, (1991, Doubleday), as are the examples below:

  1. James Watt, Reagan’s Secretary of the Interior was indicted on 41 felony counts for using connections at the Department of Housing and Urban Development to help his private clients seek federal funds for housing projects in Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.  Watt conceded that he had received $500,000 from clients who were granted very favorable housing contracts after he had intervened on their behalf.  In testifying before a House committee Watt said: “That’s what they offered and it sounded like a lot of money to me, and we settled on it.” Watt was eventually sentenced to five years in prison and 500 hours of community service.
  2. Although not convicted, Edwin Meese III, resigned as Reagan’s Attorney General after having been the subject of investigations by the United States Office of the Independent Counsel on two occasions (Wedtech and Iran-Contra), during the 3 short years he was in office.
  3. E. Bob Wallach, close friend and law classmate of Attorney General Edwin Meese, was sentenced to six years in prison and fined $250,000 in connection with the Wedtech influence-peddling scandal.
  4. Lyn Nofziger – Convicted on charges of illegal lobbying of White House in Wedtech scandal.
  5. Michael Deaver received three years’ probation and was fined one hundred thousand dollars after being convicted for lying to a congressional subcommittee and a federal grand jury about his lobbying activities after leaving the White House.
  6. The Iran-Contra scandal. In June, 1984, at a National Security Council meeting, CIA Director Casey urged President Reagan to seek third-party aid for the Nicaraguan contras.  Secretary of State Schultz warned that it would be an “impeachable offense” if the U.S. government acted as conduit for such secret funding.  But that didn’t stop them.  That same day, Oliver North was seeking third-party aid for the contras.  But Reagan, the “teflon President” avoided serious charges or impeachment.
  7. Casper Weinberger was Secretary of Defense during Iran-Contra.  In June 1992 he was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of concealing from congressional investigators and prosecutors thousands of pages of his handwritten notes.  The personal memoirs taken during high level meetings, detailed events in 1985 and 1986 involving the Iran-Contra affair.  Weinberger claimed he was being unfairly prosecuted because he would not provide information incriminating Ronald Reagan.  Weinberger was scheduled to go on trial January 5, 1993, where the contents of his notes would have come to light and may have implicated other, unindicted conspirators.  While Weinberger was never directly linked to the covert operations phase of the Iran-Contra affair, he is believed to have been involved in the cover-up of the ensuing scandal. According to Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, Weinberger’s notes contain evidence of a conspiracy among the highest ranking Reagan Administration officials to lie to congress and the American public.  Some of the notes are believed to have evidence against then Vice-President George Bush who pardoned Weinberger to keep him from going to trial.
  8. Raymond Donovan, Secretary of Labor indicted for defrauding the New York City Transit Authority of $7.4. million. { Republicans will point out that Donovan was acquitted.  And that really matters in Donovan’s case, because he was a Republican.  But it didn’t matter for Clinton or any of his cabinet, most all of whom were acquitted, because they were Democrats!}
  9. Elliott Abrams was appointed by President Reagan in 1985 to head the State Department’s Latin American Bureau.  He was closely linked with ex-White House aide Lt. Col. Oliver North’s covert movement to aid the Contras.  Working for North, Abrams coordinated inter-agency support for the contras and helped solicit illegal funding from foreign powers as well as domestic contributors.  Abrams agreed to cooperate with Iran-Contra investigators and pled guilty to two charges reduced to misdemeanors.  He was sentenced in 1991 to two years probation and 100 hours of community service but was pardoned by President George Bush.
  10. Robert C. McFarlane was appointed Ronald Reagan’s National Security Advisor in October 1983 and become well-known as a champion of the MX missile program in his role as White House liaison to congress.  In 1984, Mc Farlane initiated the review of U.S. policy towards Iran that led directly to the arms for hostages deal.  He also supervised early National Security Council efforts to support the Contras. Shortly after the Iran-Contra scandal was revealed in early 1987, McFarlane took an overdose of the tranquilizer Valium in an attempt to end his life.  In his own words: “What really drove me to despair was a sense of having failed the country.” McFarlane pled guilty to four misdemeanors and was sentenced to two years probation and 200 hours of community service.  He was also fined $20,000.  He received a blanket pardon from President George Bush.
  11. Oliver North – Convicted of falsifying and destroying documents, accepting an illegal gratuity, and aiding and abetting the obstruction of Congress.  Conviction overturned on appeal due to legal technicalities.
  12. John Poindexter, Reagan’s national security advisor, – guilty of five criminal counts involving conspiracy to mislead Congress, obstructing congressional inquiries, lying to lawmakers, used “high national security” to mask deceit and wrong-doing.
  13. Richard Secord pleaded guilty to a felony charge of lying to Congress over Iran-Contra.
  14. Alan D. Fiers was the Chief of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Central American Task Force.  Fiers pled guilty in 1991 to two counts of withholding information from congress about Oliver North’s activities and the diversion of Iran arms sale money to aid the Contras.  He was sentenced to one year of probation and 100 hours of community service.  Fiers agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in exchange for having his felonies reduced to misdemeanors and his testimony gave a boost to the long standing criminal investigation of Lawrence Walsh, Special Prosecutor.  Fiers testified that he and three CIA colleagues knew by mid-1986 that profits from the TOW and HAWK missile sales to Iran were being diverted to the Contras months before it became public knowledge.  Alan Fiers received a blanket pardon for his crimes from President Bush.
  15. Clair George was Chief of the CIA’s Division of Covert Operations under President Reagan.  In August 1992 a hung jury led U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth to declare a mistrial in the case of Clair George who was accused of concealing from Congress his knowledge of the Iran-Contra affair.  George had been named by Alan Fiers when Fiers turned state’s evidence for Lawrence Walsh’s investigation. In a second trial on charges of perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice, George was convicted of lying to two congressional committees in 1986.  George faced a maximum five year federal prison sentence and a $20,000 fine for each of the two convictions.  Jurors cleared George of five other charges including two counts of lying to a federal grand jury.  Those charges would have carried a mandatory 10 months in prison upon conviction.  Clair George received a blanket pardon for his crimes from President George Bush.
  16. Duane R. (Dewey) Clarridge was head of the CIA’s Western European Division under President Reagan.  He was indicted on November 29, 1991 for lying to congress and to the Tower Commission that investigated Iran- Contra.  Clarridge was charged with five counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements for covering up his knowledge of a November 25, 1985 shipment of HAWK missiles to Iran. Clarridge was also suspected of diverting to the Contras weapons that were originally intended for the Afghan mujahaddeen guerrillas.  Clarridge received a blanket pardon for his crimes on Christmas Eve 1992 from President George Bush.
  17. Environmental Protection Agency’s favoritism toward polluter.  Assistant administrator unduly influenced by chemical industry lobbyists.  Another administrator resigned after pressuring employees to tone down a critical report on a chemical company accused of illegal pollution in Michigan.  The deputy chief of federal activities was accused of compiling an interagency “hit” or “enemies” list, like those kept in the Nixon Watergate period, singling out career employees to be hired, fired or promoted according to political beliefs.
  18. Anne Gorscuh Burford resigned amid accusations she politically manipulated the Superfund money.
  19. Rita Lavelle was fired after accusing a senior EPA official of “systematically alienating the business community.” She was later indicted, tried and convicted of lying to Congress and served three months of a six-month prison sentence.  After an extensive investigation, in August 1984, a House of Representatives subcommittee concluded that top-level EPA appointees by Reagan for three years “violated their public trust by disregarding the public health and the environment, manipulating the Superfund program for political purposes, engaging in unethical conduct and participating in other abuses.”.
  20. Neglected nuclear safety. A critical situation involving nuclear safety had been allowed to develop during the Reagan era.  Immense sums, estimated at 200 billion or more, would be required in the 1990s to replace and make safe America’s neglected, aging, deteriorating, and dangerous nuclear facilities.
  21. Savings & Loan Bail-out. Hundreds of billions of dollars were needed to bail out savings and loan institutions that either had failed during the deregulation frenzy of the eighties or were in danger of bankruptcy.
  22. Reckless airline deregulation. Deregulation of airline industry took too broad a sweep, endangering public safety.     Additionally:
  23. Richard Allen, National Security adviser resigned amid controversy over an honorarium he received for arranging an interview with Nancy Reagan.
  24. Richard Beggs, chief administrator at NASA was indicted for defrauding the government while an executive at General Dynamics.
  25. Guy Flake, Deputy Secretary of Commerce, resigned after allegations of a conflict of interest in contract negotiations.
  26. Louis Glutfrida, Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency resigned amid allegations of misuses of government property.
  27. Edwin Gray, Chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank was charged with illegally repaying himself and his wife $26,000 in travel costs.
  28. Max Hugel, CIA chief of covert operations who resigned after allegations of fraudulent financial dealings.
  29. Carlos Campbell, Assistant Secretary of Commerce resigned over charges of awarding federal grants to his personal friends’ firms.
  30. John Fedders, chief of enforcement for the Securities and Exchange Commission resigned over charges of beating his wife.
  31. Arthur Hayes, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration resigned over illegal travel reimbursements.
  32. J. Lynn Helms, chief of the Federal Aviation Administration resigned over a grand jury investigation of illegal business activities.
  33. Marjory Mecklenburg, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Resources resigned over irregularities on her travel vouchers.
  34. Robert Nimmo, head of the Veterans Administration resigned when a report criticized him for improper use of government funds.
  35. J. William Petro, U.S. Attorney fired and fined for tipping off an acquaintance about a forthcoming Grand Jury investigation.
  36. Thomas C. Reed, White House counselor and National Security Council adviser resigned and paid a $427,000 fine for stock market insider trading.
  37. Emanuel Savas, Assistant Secretary of HUD resigned over assigning staff members to work on government time on a book that guilty to expense account fraud and accepting kickbacks on government contracts.
  38. Charles Wick, Director of the U.S. Information Agency investigated for taping conversations with public officials without their approval.

 

The Real Reagan Legacy

Debunking Myths About Reagan

 

 

by Mike Hersh

March 19, 2002 (Political Sanity/APJP) –

        Let’s begin our examination of the real Reagan Legacy by taking a look at myth number one:

Democrats dominated Congress all through Reagan’s terms,

and called all his budgets Dead On Arrival.

 

        That’s numerically and historically false.  Reagan’s people shoved his programs through the Congress during the early Reagan years.  James A. Baker, David Stockman and other Reaganites ran roughshod over Tip O’Neill and the divided Democrats in the House and Senate, and won every critical vote.  This is because of the GOP majority in the Senate and the GOP-“Boll Weevil” (or “Dixiecrat”) coalition in the House.  Phil Gramm was a House Democrat at the time, and he even sponsored the most important Reagan budgets.

        Only after the huge Reagan recession – made worse by utterly failed Reagan “Voodoo Economics” – did Democrats regain some control in Congress.  They halted some Reagan initiatives, but couldn’t do much on their own.  That was a time of gridlock.

        Six years into Reagan’s presidency, Democrats took back the Senate, and began to reverse some of Reagan’s horrendous policies.  By that time, Reaganomics had “accomplished” quite a bit: doubled the national debt, caused the S&L crisis, and nearly wrecked the financial system.

        Which brings us to myth number two :

Jimmy Carter (Reagan’s predecessor) wrecked the economy,

    and Reagan’s bold tax cuts saved it.

 

        This is utterly absurd.  Economic growth indices – GDP, jobs, revenues – were all positive when Carter left office.  All plunged after Reagan policies took effect. . . .

        Another major myth :

Reagan cut taxes on all Americans, and that led to a great expansion.

 

        Here’s the truth: the total federal tax burden increased during the Reagan years, and most Americans paid more in taxes after Reagan than before.  The “Reagan Recovery” was unremarkable.  It looks great only contrasted against the dismal Reagan Recession – but it had nothing to do with Supply Side voodoo.

        With a red ink explosion – $300 BILLION deficits looming as far as the eye could see – GOP Senators, notably including Bob Dole, led the way on tax hikes.  The economy enjoyed its recovery only after total tax increases larger than the total tax cuts were implemented.  Most importantly, average annual GDP growth during the Reagan 80s was lower than during the Clinton 90s or the JFK-LBJ 60s!

        Enough about the economy.  Here’s the biggest myth of them all :

Ronald Reagan won the “Cold War”.

 

        In reality, Reagan did nothing to bring down the Soviet Union.

        By 1980, the Soviet Union was trying to cut its own defense spending.  Reagan made it harder for them to do so.  In fact, Reagan increased the possibility of a nuclear war because he was – frankly, and sadly – senile.  He thought we could actually recall submarine-launched nuclear missiles (talk about a Reagan myth), and bullied the Soviets to highest alert several times.

        Critically, Reagan never even tried to bring down the Soviet Union.

        Wasteful overspending on defense didn’t end the Soviet Union.  In fact, it played into the hands of authoritarian “Communist” hard-liners in the Kremlin.  Reagan thought the Soviet Union was more powerful than we were.  He was trying to close what he called “the window of vulnerability.”

        This was sheer idiocy.

        No general in our military would trade our armed forces for theirs.  If it were to happen, none of the Soviet military command would turn down that deal.  We had better systems, better troops, and better morale.

        Here’s the truth: we’d already won the Cold War before Reagan took office.  All Reagan needed to do was continue the tried-and-true containment policies Harry S. Truman began and all subsequent presidents employed.  The Soviet Union was collapsing from within.  The CIA actually told this to Reagan as he took office.

        Here’s an example: the Soviet Union military couldn’t deal with a weak state on its own border, the poor, undermanned Afghanistan.  Most of the Soviets’ military might had to make sure its “allies” in the Warsaw Pact and subjects along the South Asian front didn’t revolt.  Even Richard Nixon told Reagan he could balance the budget with big defense cuts.

        Reagan ignored this, and wrecked our budget.

        We didn’t have to increase weapons spending, but Reagan didn’t care.  He ran away from summits with the dying old-guard Soviets, and the new-style “glasnost” leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev baffled the witless Reagan and his closed-minded extremist advisors.

        Maggie Thatcher finally cajoled the Gipper into meeting Gorby, and Gorby cleaned Reagan’s clock.  Reagan’s hard-right “handlers” nearly had to drag Reagan out of the room before he signed away our entire nuclear deterrent.  Reagan – and the planet – was lucky Gorbachev sought genuine and stable peace.  Had Yuri Andropov’s health held, Reagan’s “jokes” and gaffes might have caused World War III.

        Eventually Reagan even gave Gorbachev his seal of approval.  Visiting Moscow before the August Coup, Reagan said the Soviet Union was no longer the “Evil Empire.” He predicted his friend Gorbachev would lead the Soviet Union for many years to come.

        As usual, Reagan was wrong.  A few months later, disgruntled military officers kidnapped Gorbachev, throwing him out of power forever.  Reagan remained disengaged: nothing he did caused the coup, and nothing he did made the Soviet military support Boris Yeltsin over their superiors.

        We’re all fortunate things happened as they did – but once again, Reagan did nothing to make this fluke more likely.

        All this is vintage Reagan.  Reagan took credit for others’ hard word and hard choices, and blamed them for his failures.  Reagan even blamed Jimmy Carter for Reagan’s foolish, fatal, and reckless decision to leave 243 Marines stationed in Beirut, helpless and unguarded.

        Reagan hired over 100 crooks to run our government, and broke several laws himself.  His policies were almost uniformly self-defeating, wrong-headed, immoral and unfair.

        Reagan was an actor playing the part of the president.  He was style over substance; lucky, not good.   And once the myths are stripped from the “legacy”, the truth becomes obvious:

Reagan was by far the most overrated man in American history.

Reagan’s betrayal of the Air Traffic Controllers :

 

        Most people who have any memory of the Reagan years remember that he caused almost 11,350 of the Air Traffic Controllers’ union (approximately 70 percent) to be fired and barred from ever working in their profession again. What most never knew is that in October 1980, candidate Reagan had met with the leaders of that same union and in response to their explaining their issues and concerns to him, he wrote them a letter putting in writing his promise to support them and address their concerns if elected.

        “You can rest assured that if I am elected president, I will take whatever steps are necessary to provide our air-traffic controllers with the most modern equipment available and to adjust staff levels and work days so that they are commensurate with achieving a maximum degree of public safety. I pledge to you that my administration will work very closely with you to bring about a spirit of cooperation between the air-traffic controllers. Such harmony can and must exist if we are to restore the people’s confidence in their government.”

 

[ Ronald Reagan’s letter to Robert Poli, president of PATCO, Oct. 20, 1980 ]

        Subsequently, PATCO was one of the very few labor unions that endorsed his candidacy (the others being the Teamsters and the Air Line Pilots Association).

        When candidate Reagan became President Reagan, however, that letter’s tone of cooperation and concern of only months before turned into dark threats and stern ultimatums.”

 

[ http://www.massnurses.org/labor/education/2006/sept/patco.htm ]

Shed No Tears for Reagan

 

 

Beyond Chron • ‘The Voice Of The Rest’ •

San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily

by Randy Shaw 07.JUN.04

“The media love celebrity politicians, and Reagan got the sort of media reverence now on display with Arnold Schwarzenegger.  This adoration of the B-movie actor-turned Governor-turned President enabled him to engage in conduct – -the illegal sending of weapons to the Nicaraguan contras-that should have brought his impeachment.

        Reagan’s legacy was the massive redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle-class to the rich, which he accomplished through massive tax cuts for the wealthy.

        Reagan all but killed off federal housing funding, paving the way for homelessness to remain a persistent problem in America two decades later

        Reagan refused to mention the word “AIDS,” and his delayed response to the epidemic caused tens of thousands of avoidable deaths.

        Reagan sent American weapons to thugs seeking to over the democratically-elected Sandinista Government in Nicaragua, despite a congressional ban of such weapon transfers.  He was directly responsible for the murder of thousands of Nicaraguans, and that nation’s continued poverty is a legacy of the Reagan.- backed wars.  Reagan sent weapons to prop up El Salvador’s phony “democratic” government, and indirectly supported the death squads that preyed on human rights activists and workers seeking to impose real democracy in that land.

        Reagan pushed for the destruction of federally-funded legal services, arts and humanities, and volunteer programs such as the then activist-oriented VISTA program.  What programs Reagan could not kill, he weakened.

        Reagan’s environmental record may actually have been worse than George W. Bush’s – -impossible as that seems.

        Reagan threw billions down the tubes in a failed attempt to create a Star Wars Missile Defense System.

        Reagan’s 1981 tax cut plan was the major force for gentrification and displacement in urban America during the 1980’s, as it provided unprecedented tax incentives for real estate speculation. In a not unrelated impact of the measure, saving and loan institutions faced collapse around America, resulting in a multi-billion dollar taxpayer bailout of the S & L industry.

        The list of Reagan wrongs could go on and on.  This is a man who held a press conference eating grapes during the UFW grape boycott-Reagan called the farmworkers “outside agitators.”

        This is a man who held his campaign kickoff for the Presidency in 1980 in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the site where three civil rights workers were murdered in the 1960’s.  Reagan chose the site not to highlight the abuses of racism, but to send a message that he would do his best to bring the return of the old ways to the South.

        Ronald Reagan was responsible for more evil and destruction than any American of his generation.  May he rest in peace.”

 

        Here’s another very insightful article comparing Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush :

Don’t cry for Reagan

 

by Paul Krugman

The New York Times

March 19, 2007

 

As the Bush administration sinks deeper into its multiple quagmires, the personality cult the G.O.P. once built around President Bush has given way to nostalgia for the good old days. The current cover of Time magazine shows a weeping Ronald Reagan, and declares that Republicans “need to reclaim the Reagan legacy.”

        But Republicans shouldn’t cry for Ronald Reagan; the truth is, he never left them. There’s no need to reclaim the Reagan legacy: Mr. Bush is what Mr. Reagan would have been given the opportunity.

        In 1993 Jonathan Cohn – the author, by the way, of a terrific new book on our dysfunctional health care system – published an article in The American Prospect describing the dire state of the federal government. Changing just a few words in that article makes it read as if it were written in 2007.

        Thus, Mr. Cohn described how the Interior Department had been packed with opponents of environmental protection, who “presided over a massive sell-off of federal lands to industry and developers” that “deprived the department of several billion dollars in annual revenue.” Oil leases, anyone?

        Meanwhile, privatization had run amok, because “the ranks of public officials necessary to supervise contractors have been so thinned that the putative gains of contracting out have evaporated. Agencies have been left with the worst of both worlds – demoralized and disorganized public officials and unaccountable private contractors.” Holy Halliburton!

        Not mentioned in Mr. Cohn’s article, but equally reminiscent of current events, was the state of the Justice Department under Ed Meese, a man who gives Alberto Gonzales and John Mitchell serious competition for the title of worst attorney general ever. The politicization of Justice got so bad that in 1988 six senior officials, all Republicans, including the deputy attorney general and the chief of the criminal division, resigned in protest.

        Why is there such a strong family resemblance between the Reagan years and recent events? Mr. Reagan’s administration, like Mr. Bush’s, was run by movement conservatives – people who built their careers by serving the alliance of wealthy individuals, corporate interests and the religious right that took shape in the 1960s and 1970s. And both cronyism and abuse of power are part of the movement conservative package.

        In part this is because people whose ideology says that government is always the problem, never the solution, see no point in governing well. So they use political power to reward their friends, rather than find people who will actually do their jobs.

        If expertise is irrelevant, who gets the jobs? No problem: the interlocking, lavishly financed institutions of movement conservatism, which range from K Street to Fox News, create a vast class of apparatchiks who can be counted on to be “loyal Bushies.”

        The movement’s apparatchik culture, in turn, explains much of its contempt for the rule of law. Someone who has risen through the ranks of a movement that prizes political loyalty above all isn’t likely to balk at, say, using bogus claims of voter fraud to disenfranchise Democrats, or suppressing potentially damaging investigations of Republicans. As Franklin Foer of The New Republic has pointed out, in College Republican elections, dirty tricks and double crosses are considered acceptable, even praiseworthy.

        Still, Mr. Reagan’s misgovernment never went as far as Mr. Bush’s. As a result, he managed to leave office with an approval rating about as high as that of Bill Clinton, who, as we now realize with the benefit of hindsight, governed very well. But the key to Reagan’s relative success, I believe, is that he was lucky in his limitations.

        Unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. Reagan never controlled both houses of Congress – and the pre-Gingrich Republican Party still contained moderates who imposed limits on his ability to govern badly. Also, there was no Reagan-era equivalent of the rush, after 9/11, to give the Bush administration whatever it wanted in the name of fighting terrorism.

        Mr. Reagan may even have been helped, perversely, by the fact that in the 1980s there were still two superpowers. This helped prevent the hubris, the delusions of grandeur, that led the Bush administration to believe that a splendid little war in Iraq was just the thing to secure its position.

        But what this tells us is that Mr. Bush, not Mr.Reagan, is the true representative of what modern conservatism is all about. And it’s the movement, not just one man, that has failed.”

 

Collective + or Collective Alzheimer’s :

America ‘Remembers’

Ronald Reagan

 

 

by Paul Douglas Newman

        To remember Ronald Reagan as one of the greatest Presidents of the twentieth century, to replace FDR on the dime with Reagan’s profile as Republicans wish to do, we are being asked to forget too much.

We are asked to forget Lebanon, where Reagan decided to “cut and run” after hundreds of Marines perished when a suicide bomber invaded their compound.

We are asked to forget El Salvador, where the right wing FMLN, armed with Reagan money, Reagan weapons, and Reagan military training from the School of the America’s at Fort Benning, Georgia slaughtered more than 80,000 civilians in the “War on Communism.”

We are asked to forget the Iran-Contra Scandal, an event that he evidently “could not recall” in response to more than one hundred questions during the Congressional hearings.

We are asked to forget the groundwork laid for nuclear disarmament by Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Nixon.

We are asked to forget the Strategic Arms Limitations Treaties I and II.

We are asked to forget the re-freezing of the Cold War following the Nixon thaw, when Reagan bellicosely denounced the Soviets as the “Evil Empire,” and then joked on his weekly radio address that our missiles were ready to launch.

We are asked to forget the silly invasion of Grenada following the Lebanon disaster, and the reversal of goodwill gestures made to the Caribbean made by previous administrations, including the return of the Panama Canal.

We are asked to forget the Soviet Union’s internal move to Perestroika, a groundswell that occurred over decades resulting in a generation of new Communists by 1985 who were not manufactured by Reagan’s bravado, but were products of the “Evil Empire.”

We are asked to forget that Reagan presided over the worst recession since the Great Depression.

We are asked to forget the enormous cuts to social welfare programs and the Veterans Administration, moves that led to such an enormous rise in the homeless population, especially evident on the streets of Washington, D.C., that even comedians felt that they had to do something to stop the bleeding with “Comic Relief.”

We are asked to forget the policies that enriched agri-business at the expense of small farmers, continuing the decline of the family farm to the point that recording artists were the only ones left to uphold the Populists’ mantle with “Farm-Aid.”

We are asked to forget that he slashed taxes for the wealthiest, raised taxes on the poor, and then bailed out the corrupt Savings and Loan industry at taxpayer expense.

We are asked to forget that his SEC presided over such a corrupt and over-inflated stock market that the Dow saw the largest one-day crash in its history, greater than in 1929.

We are asked to forget that Reagan’s economic policies effected a reversal in the trend toward greater distribution of wealth begun by Progressive Republican, Democratic, and Socialist politicians in the early twentieth centuries, and have led us to the greatest concentration of wealth today since the days of Andrew Carnegie and James Pierpont Morgan.

We are asked to forget the enormous and outrageous military contracts, for which American taxpayers paid hundreds of dollars for nuts, bolts, and toilet seats, and the nation saw defense-spending rise to astronomical heights.

We are asked to forget the Reagan Administration’s opposition to the Civil Rights movement, their blocking of busing programs and cuts to Head Start, programs designed to bring educational equality of opportunity to all Americans .

We are asked to forget that Reagan considered ketchup to be a vegetable in federal school lunch programs.

We are asked to forget “government cheese.” (the program to buy surplus cheese from U.S. farmers to give away to the poor)

We are asked to forget jelly beans, splitting wood, bad B-movies, McCarthy-ite participation in Hollywood blacklisting.

We are asked to forget our history.

        We are asked to forget, and forget, and forget.

        And by the looks of the New York Times and Washington Post’s memorials to the “Great Communicator,”  it appears that what historian Studs Terkel has referred to as “America’s collective amnesia” is still acute.

Perhaps it is more serious than that.

Perhaps we have a national case of Alzheimer’s Disease.

Perhaps our ability to remember relatively recent events has eroded, and our capacity for rational thought has diminished as well.

Perhaps we are becoming a danger to ourselves and others.

Perhaps we need admittance into a managed care facility for nations.

Perhaps we are “riding off into the sunset.” How else do we explain our descent into Bushism?: our quick repetition of past economic and foreign policy blunders, our re-visitation of failed policies to solve current problems, our persistent dementia that results in trying the same things and expecting different results? As of now, there is no cure for Alzheimer’s Disease, only management of the symptoms and provision of comfort until death.

        Hopefully Studs Terkel is right, and we’ve just suffered another blow to the head from which the American people will recover, and remember, and remember, and remember.

        Paul Douglas Newman  (paulnewman52868@hotmail.com)  is Associate Professor of American History at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown, PA .

An “Unbiased Reporter” wrote the following :

“For anyone who was there (the Reagan Years) and paying attention, :

        . . .  “However, I don’t want to be all negative, Reagan did conquer Grenada.  A proud moment in American Military history.  Well, actually, the invasion of Grenada was meant to distract the simple-minded Americans who just watched Reagan bungle his invasion of Beirut, Lebanon, where over 200 marines were murdered by Reagan’s trading partners, Hezbollah. 

        To the horror of the Republican Party, some of us remember.  The Joint Chiefs wanted our marines to be housed on our ships at sea, where they’d be safe.  But the Reagan White House thought it would “look better” if those brave men slept on land, instead.  This disastrous decision, made by political hacks at the White House and approved by the senile and confused president, over the objections of the Joint Chiefs, cost hundreds of brave men their lives.

        Can you imagine the years of endless hearings that Congressmen Dan Burton, Henry Hyde and the rest would have held if Bill Clinton had personally overruled the Joint Chiefs and gotten 220 marines killed because Sandy Berger thought it might “look better?”

 For much more on the horrendous policies of the Reagan administration, see

thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/ReaganRevolution_Stockwell.html &

this outstanding statistical analysis of Reagan policies, claims and results & this other great Reagan web site

10 13 11 flagbar.

 

 

Law Has Been Murdered

January 27th, 2015 by

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/01/23/law-murdered-paul-craig-roberts/

 By Paul Craig Roberts

Barrett Brown, Kathy Kelly, and Bonny Mahoney are the kind of people who are imprisoned in America. It is not the perjurers and liars, the torturers, war criminals and mass murderers. It is the good people who peacefully protest the crimes of those who control the US government and its policies.

Since around 1990 I have studied and reported on cases that have resulted in the erosion of the protective features in law that made law a shield of the people instead of a weapon in the hands of the government. Barrett Brown’s statement to the Judge in his show trial shows that the US Department of Justice has been successful in preventing the system from delivering any justice. The US Court system delivers support for the government’s crimes. That’s it.

Brown’s statement shows how the system works. The government brings false charges against you or they bring charges that are not illegal under law as understood. However, prosecutors invent new interpretations of laws and judges and juries accept legislation-by-prosecutor-to-fit-the-made-up-case. Almost never is a jury involved, not that jurors show any inclination to go against the government’s case. However, prosecutors only face that unlikely risk in 3 or 4 percent of the cases. All other cases are settled on the basis of self-incrimination. The prosecutor tells the defendant and his attorney, “you can admit to this and that and have a sentence of 5 or 10 years. Otherwise, we are indicting you with 105 offenses with imprisonment of at least one lifetime.

Read Brown’s statement to the judge. This young man describes perfectly how the so-called “criminal justice system” actually works. I have seen it time after time in cases I have investigated. Read The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/journalist-barrett-brown-sentenced-to-63-months-in-prison-for-linking-to-hacked-material-read-his-speech-here/5426421

Kathy Kelly and Bonny Mahoney were sentenced to prison for stepping across the perimeters of Air Force bases in peaceful protests against murder-by-drone. There was no real reason for charges to be brought against them or for a judge to sentence them to prison except to continue to make it crystal clear that the US government tolerates no dissent.

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/pressroom/news/2015/01/23/kathy-kelly-begins-her-three-month-federal-prison-sentence-t

http://warisacrime.org/content/hancock-drone-resister-convicted-unexpected-new-charge

A democracy protected by free speech would permit these demonstrations, but the US is not a democracy and does not have free speech. That is the fact that Barrett Brown, Kathy Kelly and Bonny Mahoney are proving.

In my opinion, protesting drone murders at Air Force bases that operate the killer drones is unlikely to be effective in stopping the murders. Suppose the protests resulted in a base commander having second thoughts. What can he possibly do about it? If he disobeys orders, he would face a court martial. If he expresses doubts or makes protests to higher ups, he would be removed and a worse murderer would be put in his place.

To be effective in halting the drone murders, the protests would have to be very large and persistent, and the protests would have to focus on Congress and the White House. They would need public support, but would get none from the presstitute media or from “law and order” conservatives, patriot organizations, neoconservatives, or liberals who have bought into the “war on terror.”

What Brown, Kelly, and Mahoney are in fact proving is that the US is lawless in the sense that law serves only the government and its agenda. In America law no longer has any other meaning. There is no rule of law. We are ruled by the government’s agenda.

 10 13 11 flagbar

Obamacare here come the toxic psychiatrists

January 26th, 2015 by

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/obamacare-here-come-the-toxic-psychiatrists/

By Jon Rappoport

www.nomorefakenews.com

The toxic psychiatrists are already here, but under Obamacare their mission will expand.

A recent Washington Post article parroted the usual unscientific statistic on numbers of people in America with mental disorders: 20% of all adults have “experienced a mental-health issue.”

Propaganda focuses heavily on children, with claims that “half of all mental-health disorders first show up before a person turns 14.”

“Three-quarters of mental-health disorders begin before 24. But less than 20% of children and adolescents with mental disorders receive the treatment they need.”

Obamacare has an “essential list” of services, and “mental-health treatment” is one of them. You can be sure the targeting of children will expand.

More and more children will be brought into the system and receive diagnoses of mental disorders and the toxic drugs psychiatrists routinely prescribe. More kids will be screened for depression and undergo “behavioral assessments.”

The influence of psychiatry in young children’s lives is going to expand beyond anything we’ve yet seen. America is going to experience another sea change: the medicalization of children’s behavior will blanket the country.

First of all, as I’ve established many times, NO so-called mental disorder is defined scientifically. There are no physical diagnostic tests: no blood tests, no urine tests, no saliva tests, no genetic tests, no brain-scan tests.

If there were, you would find them in the DSM, the bible of the psychiatric profession, which lists the, yes, 300 mental disorders.

Instead, disorders consist of menus of behaviors assembled by committees of psychiatrists, who decide which clusters of behaviors rate a disorder label.

In a PBS Frontline interview, during the episode called “Does ADHD Exist?”, Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Centerwas asked about the lack of a blood test for ADHD. He made this extraordinary statement:

“That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science.That doesn’t make them invalid.”

Dr. Barkley has his own definition of science. If, say, physics surrendered the need for physical tests, it could claim the sun revolves around the Earth, all oceans end in steep cliffs, and unexplored forests automatically contain dragons.

But “psychiatry is different.” Committees of men can assemble lists of behaviors and call them disorders. 300 and counting.

This is why all assessments of numbers of people who have mental disorders are useless. The disorders themselves are arbitrarily concocted.

But there are very serious consequences: drugs and more drugs.

When it comes to their toxicity and behavioral effects, I recommend several sources. The website “SSRI stories” presents a number of studies of the SSRI antidepressants (e.g., Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft). Consult the work of Dr. Peter Breggin, David Healy, and Robert Whitaker. Read Breggin’s essential book,Toxic Psychiatry.

Here is important information about one psychiatric drug: Ritalin.

In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a most important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841].

Scarnati listed a large number of adverse affects of Ritalin and cited published journal articles which reported each of these symptoms.

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:

Paranoid delusions
Paranoid psychosis
Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
Activation of psychotic symptoms
Toxic psychosis
Visual hallucinations
Auditory hallucinations
Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
Effects pathological thought processes
Extreme withdrawal
Terrified affect
Started screaming
Aggressiveness
Insomnia
Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphetamine-like effects
Psychic dependence
High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
Decreased REM sleep
When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
Convulsions
Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.

Ritalin and other speed-type drugs are given to kids who are slapped with the ADHD label. Speed, sooner or later, produces a crash. This is easy to call “clinical depression.”

Then comes Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft. These drugs can produce temporary highs, followed by more crashes. The psychiatrist notices the up and down pattern—and then produces a new diagnosis of Bipolar (manic-depression) and prescribes other drugs, including Valproate and Lithium. (To see some of the toxic and dangerous effects of these two drugs, read my article, “The lying liars who lie about psychiatry.”)

In the US alone, there are at least 300,000 cases of motor brain damage incurred by people who have been prescribed so-called anti-psychotic drugs (aka “major tranquilizers”). Source: Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Peter Breggin, St. Martin’s Press, 1991

This psychiatric drug plague is accelerating across the land. Under Obamacare, with psychiatry firmly placed on a par with other branches of medical practice, the plague is going to spread further, as previously uninsured people enter the system.

At the website, “SSRI stories”, you can also read numerous reports of antidepressants’ links to violent behavior, including suicide and homicide. The correlation is not meant to establish a perfect causative chain, but the shocking number of incidents is more than suggestive.

After commenting on some of the adverse effects of the antidepressant drug Prozac, psychiatrist Peter Breggin notes, “From the initial studies, it was also apparent that a small percentage of Prozac patients became psychotic.” Paxil and Zoloft are in the same class of drug as Prozac.

Prozac, in fact, endured a rocky road in the press for a time. Stories on it rarely appear now. The major media have backed off. But on February 7th, 1991, Amy Marcus’ Wall Street Journal article on the drug carried the headline, “Murder Trials Introduce Prozac Defense.” She wrote, “A spate of murder trials in which defendants claim they became violent when they took the antidepressant Prozac are imposing new problems for the drug’s maker, Eli Lilly and Co.”

Also on February 7, 1991, the New York Times ran a Prozac piece headlined, “Suicidal Behavior Tied Again to Drug: Does Antidepressant Prompt Violence?”

In his landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Breggin mentions that the Donahueshow (Feb. 28, 1991) “put together a group of individuals who had become compulsively self-destructive and murderous after taking Prozac and the clamorous telephone and audience response confirmed the problem.”

Breggin also cites a troubling study from the February 1990 American Journal of Psychiatry (Teicher et al, v.147:207-210) which reports on “six depressed patients, previously free of recent suicidal ideation, who developed `intense, violent suicidal preoccupations after 2-7 weeks of fluoxetine [Prozac] treatment.’ The suicidal preoccupations lasted from three days to three months after termination of the treatment. The report estimates that 3.5 percent of Prozac users were at risk. While denying the validity of the study, Dista Products, a division of Eli Lilly, put out a brochure for doctors dated August 31, 1990, stating that it was adding `suicidal ideation’ to the adverse events section of its Prozac product information.”

An earlier study, from the September 1989 Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, by Joseph Lipiniski, Jr., indicates that in five examined cases people on Prozac developed what is called akathesia. Symptoms include intense anxiety, inability to sleep, the “jerking of extremities,” and “bicycling in bed or just turning around and around.” Breggin comments that akathesia “may also contribute to the drug’s tendency to cause self-destructive or violent tendencies … Akathesia can become the equivalent of biochemical torture and could possibly tip someone over the edge into self-destructive or violent behavior … The June 1990 Health Newsletter, produced by the Public Citizen Research Group, reports, ‘Akathesia, or symptoms of restlessness, constant pacing, and purposeless movements of the feet and legs, may occur in 10-25 percent of patients on Prozac.’”

The well-known publication, California Lawyer, in a December 1998 article called “Protecting Prozac,” details some of the suspect maneuvers of Eli Lilly in its handling of suits against Prozac. California Lawyer also mentions other highly qualified critics of the drug: “David Healy, MD, an internationally renowned psychopharmacologist, has stated in sworn deposition that `contrary to Lilly’s view, there is a plausible cause-and-effect relationship between Prozac’ and suicidal-homicidal events. An epidemiological study published in 1995 by the British Medical Journal also links Prozac to increased suicide risk.”

When pressed, proponents of these SSRI drugs sometimes say, “Well, the benefits for the general population far outweigh the risk,” or, “Maybe in one or two tragic cases the dosage prescribed was too high.” But the problem will not go away on that basis. A shocking review-study published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (1996, v.184, no.2), written by Rhoda L. Fisher and Seymour Fisher, called “Antidepressants for Children,” concludes: “Despite unanimous literature of double-blind studies indicating that antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in treating depression in children and adolescents, such medications continue to be in wide use.”

In wide use. This despite such contrary information and the negative, dangerous effects of these drugs.

Under Obamacare, mental-health professionals are looking forward to a much larger piece of the “treatment pie.” Huge numbers of previously uninsured people, including vulnerable children, will now move under the psychiatric umbrella, and their futures are at extreme risk.

Psychiatry has deeply troubling similarities to the Surveillance State. It profiles people and labels them. However, it then treats them with highly toxic and dangerous drugs.

In the wake of recent mass killings, Obama has shown his preference for psychiatric treatment in a number of statements. He’s also launched the so-called “brain mapping project,” which aims to detect more “mental problems” that need fixing by drugs and other invasive methods, and he’s promised to establish new community mental-health centers across the nation.

This, taken together with Obamacare, signals a catastrophe, and spells out the need for public resistance.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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 emails atwww.nomorefakenews.com

The lying liars who lie about psychiatry

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/the-lying-liars-who-lie-about-psychiatry/

By Jon Rappoport

May 7, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

These days, we are witnessing an acceleration in the use of psychiatry to target Americans, to label them as dangerous, to take away guns they own, to blame gun violence in the US on mentally ill people. (see also this story by Dan Roberts).

It’s a winning strategy, because most Americans don’t have a clue about the way psychiatry actually works or its pose of being a science.

The public hears techno-speak and nods and surrenders.

If psychiatrists are experts on the human mind, mice can navigate the Arctic in canoes. But psychiatrists are educated to be able to talk a good game.

And politicians are more than happy to mouth vagaries, and consign the problems of society to “mental-health professionals.”

It turns out that the phrase “mental health” was invented by psyops specialists, who needed to create an analogy to physical well-being.

The needed to, because the mind was (and is) a mystery to psychiatrists.

An open secret has been slowly bleeding out into public consciousness for the past ten years.

THERE ARE NO DEFINITIVE LABORATORY TESTS FOR ANY SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDER.

And along with that:

ALL SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDERS ARE CONCOCTED, NAMED, LABELED, DESCRIBED, AND CATEGORIZED by a committee of psychiatrists, from menus of human behaviors.

Their findings are published in periodically updated editions of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), printed by the American Psychiatric Association.

For years, even psychiatrists have been blowing the whistle on this hazy crazy process of “research.”

Of course, pharmaceutical companies, who manufacture highly toxic drugs to treat every one of these “disorders,” are leading the charge to invent more and more mental-health categories, so they can sell more drugs and make more money.

But we have a mind-boggling twist. Under the radar, one of the great psychiatric stars, who has been out in front inventing mental disorders, went public. He blew the whistle on himself and his colleagues. And for 2 years, almost no one noticed.

His name is Dr. Allen Frances, and he made VERY interesting statements to Gary Greenberg, author of a Wired article: “Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness.” (Dec.27, 2010).

Major media never picked up on the interview in any serious way. It never became a scandal.

Dr. Allen Frances is the man who, in 1994, headed up the project to write the latest edition of the psychiatric bible, the DSM-IV. This tome defines and labels and describes every official mental disorder. The DSM-IV eventually listed 297 of them.

In an April 19, 1994, New York Times piece, “Scientist At Work,” Daniel Goleman called Frances “Perhaps the most powerful psychiatrist in America at the moment…”

Well, sure. If you’re sculpting the entire canon of diagnosable mental disorders for your colleagues, for insurers, for the government, for Pharma (who will sell the drugs matched up to the 297 DSM-IV diagnoses), you’re right up there in the pantheon.

Long after the DSM-IV had been put into print, Dr. Frances talked to Wired’s Greenberg and said the following:

“There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”

BANG.

That’s on the order of the designer of the Hindenburg, looking at the burned rubble on the ground, remarking, “Well, I knew there would be a problem.”

After a suitable pause, Dr. Frances remarked to Greenberg, “These concepts [of distinct mental disorders] are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the borders.”

Frances might have been referring to the fact that his baby, the DSM-IV, had rearranged earlier definitions of ADHD and Bipolar to permit many MORE diagnoses, leading to a vast acceleration of drug-dosing with highly powerful and toxic compounds.

Finally, at the end of the Wired interview, Frances flew off into a bizarre fantasy:

“Diagnosis [as spelled out in the DSM-IV] is part of the magic…you know those medieval maps? In the places where they didn’t know what was going on, they wrote ‘Dragons live here’…we have a dragon’s world here. But you wouldn’t want to be without the map.”

Translation: Patients need hope for the healing of their troubles; so even if we psychiatrists are shooting blanks and pretending to know one kind of mental disorder from another, even if we’re inventing these mental-disorder definitions based on no biological or chemical diagnostic tests—it’s a good thing, because patients will then believe and have hope; they’ll believe it because psychiatrists place a name on their problems…

Needless to say, this has nothing to do with science.

If I were an editor at one of the big national newspapers, and one of my reporters walked in and told me, “The most powerful psychiatrist in America just said the DSM is sheer b.s. but it’s still important,” I think I’d make room on the front page.

If the reporter then added, “This shrink was in charge of creating the DSM-IV,” I’d clear more room above the fold.

If the reporter went on to explain that the whole profession of psychiatry would collapse overnight if the DSM was discredited, I’d call for a special section of the paper to be printed.

I’d tell the reporter to get ready to pound on this story day after day for months. I’d tell him to track down all the implications of Dr. Frances’ statements.

I’d open a bottle of champagne to toast the soon-to-be-soaring sales of my newspaper.

And then, of course, the next day I’d be fired.

Because there are powerful multi-billion-dollar interests at stake, and those people don’t like their deepest secrets exposed in the press.

And as I walked out of my job, I’d see a bevy of blank-eyed pharmaceutical executives marching into the office of the paper’s publisher, ready to read the riot act to him.

Dr. Frances’ work on the DSM-IV allowed for MORE toxic drugs to be prescribed, because the definition of Bipolar was expanded to include more people.

Adverse effects of Valproate (given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

acute, life-threatening, and even fatal liver toxicity;

life-threatening inflammation of the pancreas;

brain damage.

Adverse effects of Lithium (also given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

intercranial pressure leading to blindness;

peripheral circulatory collapse;

stupor and coma.

Adverse effects of Risperdal (given for “Bipolar” and “irritability stemming from autism”) include:

serious impairment of cognitive function;

fainting;

restless muscles in neck or face, tremors (may be indicative of motor brain damage).

Dr. Frances’ label-juggling act also permitted the definition of ADHD to expand, thereby opening the door for greater and greater use of toxic Ritalin (and other similar compounds) as the treatment of choice.

So what about Ritalin?

In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a most important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841].

Scarnati listed a large number of adverse affects of Ritalin and cited published journal articles which reported each of these symptoms.

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:

Paranoid delusions
Paranoid psychosis
Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
Activation of psychotic symptoms
Toxic psychosis
Visual hallucinations
Auditory hallucinations
Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
Effects pathological thought processes
Extreme withdrawal
Terrified affect
Started screaming
Aggressiveness
Insomnia
Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphetamine-like effects
Psychic dependence
High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
Decreased REM sleep
When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
Convulsions
Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.

A recent survey revealed that a high percentage of children diagnosed with bipolar had first received a diagnosis of ADHD. This is informative, because Ritalin and other speed-type drugs are given to kids who are slapped with the ADHD label. Speed, sooner or later, produces a crash. This is easy to call “clinical depression.”

Then comes Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft. These drugs can produce temporary highs, followed by more crashes. The psychiatrist notices the up and down pattern—and then produces a new diagnosis of Bipolar (manic-depression) and other drugs, including Valproate and Lithium.

In the US alone, there are at least 300,000 cases of motor brain damage incurred by people who have been prescribed so-called anti-psychotic drugs (aka “major tranquilizers”). Risperdal (mentioned above as a drug given to people diagnosed with Bipolar) is one of those major tranquilizers. (source: Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Peter Breggin, St. Martin’s Press, 1991)

This psychiatric drug plague is accelerating across the land.

Where are the mainstream reporters and editors and newspapers and TV anchors who should be breaking this story and mercilessly hammering on it week after week? They are in harness.

And Dr. Frances is somehow let off the hook. He’s admitted in print that the whole basis of his profession is throwing darts at labels on a wall, and implies the “effort” is rather heroic—when, in fact, the effort leads to more and more poisonous drugs being dispensed to adults and children, to say nothing of the effect of being diagnosed with “a mental disorder.”

I’m not talking about “the mental-disease stigma,” the removal of which is one of Hillary Clinton’s missions in life. No, I’m talking about MOVING A HUMAN INTO THE SYSTEM, the medical apparatus, where the essence of the game is trapping that person to harvest his money, his time, his energy, and of course his health—as one new diagnosis follows on another, and one new toxic treatment after another is undertaken, from cradle to grave.

The result is a severely debilitated human being (if he survives), whose major claim to fame is his list of diseases and disorders.

Thank you, Dr. Frances.

Here is a smoking-gun statement made by another prominent psychiatrist, on an episode of PBS’ Frontline series. The episode was: “Does ADHD Exist?”

PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.

BARKLEY (Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center): That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid. [Emphasis added]

Without intending to, Dr. Barkley blows the whistle on his own profession.

So let’s take Dr. Barkley to school. Medical science, and disease-research in particular, rests on the notion that you can make a diagnosis backed up by lab tests. If you can’t produce lab tests, you’re spinning fantasies.

These fantasies might be hopeful, they might be “educated guesses,” they might be launched from traditional centers of learning, they might be backed up by billions of dollars of grant money…but they’re still fantasies.

If I said the moon was made of green cheese, even if I were a Harvard professor, sooner or later someone would ask me to produce a sample of moon rock to be tested for “cheese qualities.” I might begin to feel nervous, I might want to tap dance around the issue, but I would have to submit the rock to a lab.

Dr. Barkley employs a version of logical analysis in his statement to the PBS Frontline interviewer. Barkley is essentially saying, “There is no lab test for any mental disorder. But if a test were the standard of proof, we wouldn’t have science at all, and that would mean our whole profession rests on nothing—and that is absurd, so therefore a test doesn’t matter.”

That logic is no logic at all. Barkley is proving the case against himself. He just doesn’t want to admit it.

Close to 50 years ago, psychiatry was dying out as a profession. Fewer and fewer people wanted to see a psychiatrist for help, for talk therapy. All sorts of new therapies were popping up. The competition was leaving medical psychiatry in the dust.

As Dr. Peter Breggin describes it in his landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry, a deal was struck. Drug companies would bankroll psychiatry and rescue it. These companies would pour money into professional conferences, journals, research. In return, they wanted “science” that would promote mental disease as a biological fact, a gateway into the drugs. Everyone would win—except the patient.

So the studies were rolled out, and the list of mental disorders expanded. The FDA was in on the deal as well, as evidenced by their drug “safety” approvals, in the face of the obvious damage these drugs were doing.

So this is how we arrived at where we are. This was the plan, and it worked.

Under the cover story, it was all fraud all the time. Without much of a stretch, you could say psychiatry has been the most widespread profiling operation in the history of the human race. Its goal has been to bring humans everywhere into its system. It hardly matters which label a person is painted with, as long as it adds up to a diagnosis and a prescription of drugs.

And now, in the wake of the Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings, it matters even less who or how many people are labeled with mental disorders. The more the better, as far as government is concerned.

Just as in the old USSR, psychiatry becomes an instrument of oppression, a way to discredit any person the State wants to silence and destroy.

“…in the disputes between the East and West concerning the Russian opponents of the Soviet regime… [m]any dissidents went to lunatic asylums and were treated as mentally sick. Western doctors and the press accused Soviet doctors of being blind instruments of the regime and of having broken the solemn oath of their calling. The Russian doctors thought the West had gone mad in reproaching their behavior. For them, anyone who opposed such an efficient police power must be mentally disturbed. In their view, only those who had what Seneca called Libido morienti (the death wish) would dare to provoke the State. The Russian doctors were convinced that they were undertaking a humanitarian mission by placing the opponents of the regime in asylums and thereby reducing their aggression–the only hope for their survival. To reduce the outstanding to mediocrity was always a medical and human duty in a state where mediocrity had the better chance of survival.” — “Man: The Fallen Ape” by Branko Bokun

 10 13 11 flagbar

“If You Question Authority, You Are Mentally Ill”, Report Finds

January 23rd, 2015 by

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-21/if-you-question-authority-you-are-mentally-ill-report-finds

By Tyler Durden via Zerohedge

Submitted by Pater Tenebrarum via Acting-Man blog,

Only the Sheeple Are Sane

This post is about an issue that is by now a bit dated (though the topic as such certainly isn’t), but we have only just become aware of it and it seemed to us worth rescuing it from the memory hole. In late 2013, the then newest issue of the American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM for short) defined a new mental illness, the so-called“oppositional defiant disorder” or ODD.

As TheMindUnleashed.org informs us, the definition of this new mental illness essentially amounts to declaring any non-conformity and questioning of authority as a form of insanity. According to the manual, ODD is defined as:

[…] an “ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile and defiant behavior,” symptoms include questioning authority, negativity, defiance, argumentativeness, and being easily annoyed.

In short, as Natural News put it: According to US psychiatrists, only the sheeple are sane.

Every time a new issue of the DSM appears, the number of mental disorders grows – and this growth is exponential. A century ago there were essentially 7 disorders, 80 years ago there were 59, 50 years ago there were 130, and by 2010 there were 374 (77 of which were “found” in just seven years). A prominent critic of this over-diagnosing (and the associated over-medication trend) is psychologist Dr. Paula Caplan. Here is an interview with her:

Allen Gregg in conversation with psychologist Dr. Paula Caplan

As MindUnleashed notes:

“Are we becoming sicker? Is it getting harder to be mentally healthy? Authors of the DSM-IV say that it’s because they’re better able to identify these illnesses today. Critics charge that it’s because they have too much time on their hands.

New mental illnesses identified by the DSM-IV include arrogance, narcissism, above-average creativity, cynicism, and antisocial behavior. In the past, these were called “personality traits,” but now they’re diseases. And there are treatments available.”

1-23-2015 11-56-36 AM

Edward Abbey on what happens when no-one ever stirs things up

 There is an obvious danger involved with such loose definitions such as the one employed in identifying the alleged illness of “ODD”. A chilling example was provided by the Soviet Union in the 1960s and 1970s. In a 1959 speech, Nikita Khrushchev made the following remark:

“Can there be diseases, nervous diseases among certain people in the communist society? Evidently there can be. If that is so, then there also will be offenses which are characteristic of people with abnormal minds. To those who might start calling for opposition to communism on this ‘basis,’ we say that now, too, there are people who fight against communism, but clearly the mental state of such people is not normal.”

Obviously, questioning the best socio-economic system ever devised had to be a sign of insanity, and after Khrushchev’s speech Soviet psychiatrists immediately went to work to discover and institutionalize all those mentally ill “communism deniers”.

The road to what followed had already been paved in 1951, when in a joint session of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences and the Board of the All-Union Neurological and Psychiatric Association, several leading neurologists and psychiatrists were accused of pursuing an “anti-Marxist and reactionary” deviation from the teachings of Pavlov. The session took place on Stalin’s behest so as to “free Soviet psychiatry of Western influences”.

The psychiatrist who wrote the policy report associated with this purge was Andrei Snezhnevsky, who invented (err, “discovered”) a new mental illness, which he termed “sluggish schizophrenia”. After Khrushchev’s 1959 speech, the term was widely adopted and the illness was diagnosed throughout the Eastern Bloc. The symptoms of the alleged “illness” were such that even the slightest change in behavior patterns could henceforth be interpreted as a sign of mental derangement. Political dissent was for instance considered to by a symptom of “sluggish schizophrenia with delusions of reform”.

Snezhnevsky personally signed a decision declaring several prominent dissidents legally insane – among them also neurophysiologist Vladimir Bukovsky, who was the first to expose and criticize the abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union and spent altogether 12 years in prisons, forced labor camps and locked up in psychiatric hospitals for his efforts.

Snezhnevsky’s theories became the only ones acceptable in Soviet psychiatry, and it was obviously held to be quite dangerous to oppose them. Ironically, in 1970, one year before Vladimir Bukovsky managed to smuggle out 150 pages that documented the silencing of political dissenters with the aid of psychiatry in the Soviet Union, the American Psychiatric Association named Snezhnevsky a “distinguished fellow” for his “outstanding contribution to psychiatry and related sciences” at its annual meeting in San Francisco.

 1-23-2015 11-57-48 AM

Soviet psychiatrist Andrei Snezhnevsky, hero of socialist labor, owner of two Orders of Lenin as well as four Orders of the Red Star and USSR state prize.

Photo credit: tapemark.narod.ru

 Money and the Invention of new Categories of Disease

There is a basic problem with psychiatry and psychology: they are largely thymological, as opposed to natural sciences. If you break your arm and visit 10 different medical doctors, you will get the same diagnosis from every single one of them – they will all tell you that your arm is broken. A standardized treatment exists for dealing with a broken arm.

Make a list of psychological problems you are experiencing and visit ten different psychiatrists, and chances are very good that you will receive 10 different diagnoses coupled with 10 different proposals for treatment (including prescriptions for very powerful psychotropic drugs). Genuine severe mental disorders may be connected with chemical imbalances in the brain to some extent (no conclusive proof for this actually exists), but by and large there is little that can be objectively “measured”. The psychologist or psychiatrist must largely rely on the same ability that also characterizes the work of the historian – i.e., what Mises called “understanding”. They can only judge behavior.

So why have so many former “personality traits” been transformed into symptoms of mental illness? One major reason is money. Here are a few data points that shed light on the monetary side of the psychiatry business; the data are by now slightly dated, but they suffice to get the point across. As of 2010:

Global sales of anti-depressants, stimulants, anti-anxiety and anti-psychotic drugs had reached more than $76 billion per year.

Globally, 54 million people were taking anti-depressants that are known to cause addiction, and often violent and homicidal behavior.

In the US, 20% of all women were taking mental health medication in 2010. Essentially every fourth female is prozac’d into quietude.

20 million children worldwide had been diagnosed with mental disorders and were prescribed stimulants and/or powerful anti-depressants.

In 2002, more than 100 million prescriptions were written for anti-depressants alone (cost: $19.5 billion nominal)

In France, one in seven prescriptions is for a psychotropic drug and more than 50% of the employed were taking such drugs (as of 2010, 1.8 million people).

Between 1986 and 2004, combined spending on anti-psychotic drugs and anti-depressants jumped from $500 million to $20 billion.

In the US, the mental health budget, adjusted for inflation, has soared from $33 billion in 1994 to $ 80 billion in 2010 (similar increases have occurred elsewhere).

(data via Stefan Molyneux)

Stefan Molyneux whom we got the above data from also reports that according to the US National Institute of Mental Health (in 2010) “26% of Americans suffer from mental illness” and “nearly 58 million Americans will suffer from an episode of mental illness in any given year”. There you have it – we’re literally surrounded by lunatics. As Molyneux rightly points out: if there is a disease for which we have effective cures, then application of this cure should reduce the prevalence of the disease.

For instance, a number of infectious diseases have been nearly, or completely exterminated by effective vaccines. We should therefore expect that with the arrival of psychiatric medications that allegedly “correct chemical imbalances in the brain”, there should be a decline in the number of mentally ill people. The first such medications were introduced in the mid 1950s. So what happened? In 1955, there were 355,000 adults confined to mental hospitals all over the US on account of being diagnosed as mentally ill by psychiatrists. After 50 years of medical treatment with anti-psychotic drugs, that number has risen to more than 4 million patients (as of 2007). Some success!

While the prescription of psychiatric medications to children soared from the mid 1980s to today, so did the number of youth receiving disability payments from the government for mental disability. It rose from 16,200 in 1986 to 561,569 in 2007 (a 35 fold increase). It appears that all those meds prescribed to “ODD” and “ADHD” children have had the exact opposite effect from that advertised.

 1-23-2015 11-59-17 AM

Again, there exists no convincing proof as of yet for any chemical, biological or genetic causes of mental illness. The categorizations found in the DSM are arrived at by “peer consensus”, not by any objective measurements. And yet, drugs that alter chemical balances in the brain are prescribed as treatment. The greater the number of new diseases manufactured by said consensus, the more treatments can be prescribed. As Dr. Thomas Dorman, internist and member of the Royal College of Physicians of the UK, and Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Canada, put it:

“In short, the whole business of creating psychiatric categories of ‘disease,’ formalizing them with consensus, and subsequently ascribing diagnostic codes to them, which in turn leads to their use for insurance billing, is nothing but an extended racket furnishing psychiatry a pseudo-scientific aura. The perpetrators are, of course, feeding at the public trough.”

It is not too difficult to see the enormous monetary incentives that are driving this business of declaring as many people as possible to be mentally ill. There no longer is such a thing as a harmless “eccentric”. Any deviation from the norms laid out by the psychiatric profession mean one is in need of treatment. Only the sheeple are sane.

Stefan Molyneux’s podcast on mental illness from which we have taken most of the statistics presented above can be seen here:

 Stefan Molyneux on mental illness.

 Freethinkers Medicated Into Silence by Good Serfs

However, there may be another reason why anti-authoritarianism specifically has made it onto the list of behaviors held to be symptomatic of mental illness. Psychologist Dr. Bruce Levine has laid the problem out in an article entitled “Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill”. A few pertinent excerpts follow below. First Dr. Levine explains why there seem so few anti-authoritarians in the US. The reason in his opinion is that many have been medicated into silence:

“Anti-authoritarians question whether an authority is a legitimate one before taking that authority seriously. Evaluating the legitimacy of authorities includes assessing whether or not authorities actually know what they are talking about, are honest, and care about those people who are respecting their authority. And when anti-authoritarians assess an authority to be illegitimate, they challenge and resist that authority—sometimes aggressively and sometimes passive-aggressively, sometimes wisely and sometimes not.

Some activists lament how few anti-authoritarians there appear to be in the United States. One reason could be that many natural anti-authoritarians are now psycho-pathologized and medicated before they achieve political consciousness of society’s most oppressive authorities.”

(emphasis added)

But why does this happen, apart from the monetary incentives discussed above? Why are psychiatrists so eager to medicate anti-authoritarians into a stupor? In Dr. Levine’s opinion, the reason is that the career of most psychiatrists involves an extraordinary degree of compliance with authorities, to the point where they are not even aware anymore of how obedient they have become. When confronted with patients who aren’t exhibiting a similar degree of obedient behavior, they immediately suspect that there is something to diagnose and treat:

“The selection and socialization of mental health professionals tends to breed out many anti-authoritarians. Having steered the higher-education terrain for a decade of my life, I know that degrees and credentials are primarily badges of compliance. Those with extended schooling have lived for many years in a world where one routinely conforms to the demands of authorities. Thus for many MDs and PhDs, people different from them who reject this attentional and behavioral compliance appear to be from another world—a diagnosable one.

I have found that most psychologists, psychiatrists, and othermental health professionals are not only extraordinarily compliant with authorities but also unaware of the magnitude of their obedience. And it also has become clear to me that the anti-authoritarianism of their patients creates enormous anxiety for these professionals, and their anxiety fuels diagnoses and treatments.  (emphasis added)

1-23-2015 12-01-30 PM

1-23-2015 12-02-58 PM

It is probably a good bet that a Haldol-addled Einstein wouldn’t have excelled at much. Well, he even looked crazy: theoretical physicist and reputed anti-authoritarian Albert Einstein, who invented a few unimportant little formulas like E=mc2. Rumor has it he also invented gravity, which we have been struggling against ever since.

Photo credit: Getty Images

As Dr. Levine points out, once they are diagnosed as mentally ill, anti-authoritarians are especially likely to become victims of a vicious cycle:

“Many anti-authoritarians who earlier in their lives were diagnosed with mental illness tell me that once they were labeled with a psychiatric diagnosis, they got caught in a dilemma.

Authoritarians, by definition, demand unquestioning obedienceand so any resistance to their diagnosis and treatment created enormous anxiety for authoritarian mental health professionalsand professionals, feeling out of control, labeled them “noncompliant with treatment,” increased the severity of their diagnosis, and jacked up their medications.”

(emphasis added)

Dr. Levine then concludes that the direction in which the system has evolved is indeed reminiscent of a “Sovietization”; just as the ruling classes once employed an authoritarian religious establishment to enforce compliance with the status quo, they can nowadays rely on psychiatry to do the job:

“What better way to maintain the status quo than to view inattention, anger, anxiety, and depression as biochemical problems of those who are mentally ill rather than normal reactions to an increasingly authoritarian society.

So authoritarians financially marginalize those who buck the system, they criminalize anti-authoritarianism, they psychopathologize anti-authoritarians, and they market drugs for their “cure.”

(emphasis added)

Evidently the system provides ample scope for both intentional and unintentional abuse.

Conclusion:

In order to prevent misunderstandings, we should point out that we don’t want to assert here that there exists no such thing as mental illness, or that psychiatry is completely useless in diagnosing it or providing effective treatment. The same holds for psychotropic medication: there certainly exist medications that can be helpful in alleviating symptoms of severe mental conditions and allow people to lead fairly normal lives that would otherwise be out of reach for them (i.e., we don’t fully agree with Stefan Molyneux’s conclusions; this is simply based on the fact that we personally know of two cases in which appropriate medication helped people exhibiting severe symptoms associated with schizophrenia).

However, it is important to realize that the sciences dealing with the human mind are thymological in nature and cannot make claims based on objectively measurable physical quantities. And yet, the field has turned into a “growth industry” in every respect; the number of behaviors regarded as “abnormal”, as well as the number of medications prescribed for treating such behaviors has grown exponentially. This is a dangerous development and the fact that almost every quirky personality trait is suddenly deemed a sign of disease is certainly giving one pause (it is dangerous in several respects: consider for instance the great number of mass murderers who were prescribed psychotropic drugs. Correlation is not always causation of course, but still…)

The psychopathologizing of anti-authoritarian behavior is yet another step on what looks like an increasingly slippery slope and it strikes us as especially harmful. As Dr. Levine inter alia points out: “It has been my experience that many anti-authoritarians labeled with psychiatric diagnoses usually don’t reject all authorities, simply those they’ve assessed to be illegitimate ones.”

In other words, the term “anti-authoritarian” does not necessarily stand for a blanket rejection of all authorities, but rather a healthy questioning of the legitimacy of existing authorities. This seems all the more necessary today, when governments in the name of providing all-encompassing security (a task at which they are predictably failing) are seeing fit to let individual liberty die a death of a thousand cuts.

1-23-2015 12-04-24 PMOLDDOGS COMMENTS 

YOU CAN COUNT ME AMONG THE INSANE, AND I’M KEEPING DAMN GOOD COMPANY THESE LAST DAYS

THE BATTLE FOR YOUR MIND

January 20th, 2015 by

http://personalliberty.com/battle-mind/

1-20-2015 11-47-40 AM

Who rules America? Not the people, but they believe that they do.

It is far easier for the establishment to rule as long as they can keep the people thinking that they rule themselves. U.S. elections are a sham, and U.S. politicians are a disgrace. But as long as people can vote, they feel convinced that they can influence government.

The recent win by the establishment in the vote to retain Weeper John Boehner as speaker, the revised proposal by Republican senators to bring in millions of immigrants for science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) jobs that do not exist, and the touting of Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush in the mainstream media as front-runners for the GOP presidential nomination should have put that lie to bed. But people don’t think for themselves. They think what the controlled media tells them to think.

We are imprisoned by our thoughts as they are prescribed by the elites. And sadly, most people have no clue that they don’t know or what they don’t know and believe they know far more than others in the crowd around them. They live their whole lives believing they make choices as they are free to do when they are making choices only as prescribed by the system and to the benefit of the state.

People often question my claim that the mass media is equally responsible for mass manipulation, together with the politicians and ecumenical religious leaders. What you may or may not know, however, is this simple fact: One-world government and one-world religion (this is something I will deal with in future articles) requires one-world propaganda. Until one understands this fact, one cannot read between the lines or otherwise decipher mass media reports, and thus begin to make sense of the “global loonies” and their “globaloney.”

Six mega-corporations control 90 percent of all that you read, watch or hear. This is down from more than 50 companies 30 years ago. Here is a graphic that shows how it works.

The so-called “journalists” from those organizations operate in an echo chamber founded by a left-wing activist, Billy Wimsatt.

More than 1,000 of these front-line “journalists” and editorialists from such organizations as CNNThe Huffington PostThe New York TimesThe Washington PostThomson ReutersThe NationAl Jazeera AmericaU.S. News & World Report, among others — along with members of progressive (i.e., socialist/communist) think tanks and activist organizations like the Center for Media and Democracy, the American Legislative Issue Campaign Exchange and the American Sustainable Business Council — are members of a secretive and closed Google group called Gamechanger Salon in which they meet online to exchange information, ideas and strategy to promote progressive ideas, policies and candidates.

Almost all major television media currently have strong ties to the Obama administration and government agencies. CBS News President David Rhodes and ABC News President Ben Sherwood both have siblings employed by Obama’s National Security Council working on policy issues. CNN’s Virginia Moseley is married to Tom Nides, former deputy secretary of State who worked under Hillary Clinton at the time of the Benghazi attacks. Former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney is married to ABC reporter Claire Shipman. Carney is now a contributor for CNN. NPR’s White House correspondent, Ari Shapiro, is married to Michael Gottlieb, who works in the White House counsel’s office. Vice President Joe Biden’s communications director is Shailigh Murray, a former reporter for The Washington Post who is married to Neil King, one of the Wall Street Journal’s top political reporters.

But it’s not confined to the Obama administration. George Stephanopoulos, the chief anchor and chief political reporter at ABC News, is a former Democrat operative and Bill Clinton communications director and senior policy adviser. He’s also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The CFR, according to the late Carroll Quigley (himself a CFR member) in his book “Tragedy and Hope,” “… is the American Branch of a society which originated in England, and which believes that national boundaries should be obliterated, and a one-world rule established.”

For more than eight decades, most cabinet posts for both Republican and Democrat presidents, as well as past presidents, vice presidents and presidential candidates are/were CFR members. These include Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Jack Kemp, Geraldine Ferraro, George H.W. Bush (who was also CIA), Bill Clinton, Gary Hart, Mario Cuomo, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Dick Cheney, John McCain, Bill Bradley, John Kerry, Al Gore, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, Newt Gingrich, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. The CFR’s membership list is a Who’s Who of the heads of the State Departments and senior presidential advisers past and present.

In the media, Fox News star Charles Krauthammer is a CFR member, as is Tom Brokaw, Katie Couric, Charlie Rose, Dan Rather, Diane Sawyer, Barbara Walters, Paula Zahn, Bill Moyers, James Zogby (of the Zogby poll) and Fox News CEO Roger Ailes.

Former George W. Bush Press Secretary Dana Perino is a Fox News co-host and political commentator. Nina Easton of Fortune Magazine and a frequent Fox News contributor is married to Russell Schriefer, a Republican operative who was Mitt Romney’s senior adviser in 2012.

The late Tim Russert, who hosted NBC’s “Meet the Press” for 17 years until his death in 2008, was a former Democrat operative and worked previously for Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and New York Gov. Mario Cuomo.

Under the Bush regime, we learned that syndicated broadcast host Armstrong Williams was paid $240,000 by the Department of Education to promote the No Child Left Behind Act. In 2004, the Department of Health and Human Services disseminated a propaganda video promoting the Medicare prescription drug law that ended with the tagline “In Washington, I’m Karen Ryan reporting.” This video and several like it were run by local television stations as news clips without disclosing its source. This was blatant government propaganda that violated U.S. law, and it was shut down by an inspector general.

In October, a German reporter revealed in a book titled “Gekaufte Journalisten” (translates to “Bought Journalism”) that most of the national journalists work for intelligence agencies like the CIA, Germany’s Bundasnachrichtendienst (BND), Israel’s Mossad and Great Britain’s MI6.

Dr. Udo Ulfkotte told American Free Press that “typically, intelligence agencies use ‘unofficial covers’ — people working for the agency but not actually on its payroll as agents. It is a broad, loose network of ‘friends,’ doing one another favors. Many are lead journalists from numerous countries. This informality provides plausible deniability for both sides, but it means an ‘unofficial cover,’ as Ulfkotte became, is on his own if captured.”

Reporters get large sums of money, gifts, public recognition, significant career advancement and open doors to the elite policymakers in the Trilateral Commission (an arm of the CFR), Atlantik-Brücke, the Aspen Institute and German Marshall Fund of the United States in exchange for information obtained through spying. Those who don’t cooperate are fired.

Utfkottee told RT: “We’re talking about puppets on a string, journalists who write or say whatever their masters tell them to say or write. If you see how the mainstream media is reporting about the Ukraine conflict and if you know what’s really going on, you get the picture. The masters in the background are pushing for war with Russia and western journalists are putting on their helmets… I’m ashamed I was part of it. Unfortunately I cannot reverse this. Although my superiors at the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung approved of what I did, I’m still to blame. But yes, to my knowledge I am the first to accuse myself and to prove many others are to blame.”

James Foley, the journalist allegedly beheaded by ISIS, was likely CIA and definitely had ties to the CIA front group USAID. If indeed he was beheaded, he learned firsthand what “on his own if captured” really means.

It is common knowledge that CNN’s Anderson Cooper was (is? It’s conventional wisdom that once one is CIA he is always CIA) CIA before he took his CNN gig. National Review founder William F. Buckley was also CIA (and a CFR member), and it’s likely the CIA funded the startup of his neocon publication, National Review. His son Christopher revealed in a book that Buckley maintained CIA ties after he began running the magazine.

So-called “feminist icon,” political activist and founder of Ms. magazine Gloria Steinem is also CIA — and a communist.

Fox News, the go-to site for most conservatives looking for “news” that is “fair and balanced,” is partially owned (7 percent stake) by Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. Talal has claimed in speeches that he’s made calls to Fox majority owner Rupert Murdock, a member of the CFR (who is Australian and whose British news agencies were involved in an illegal phone hacking scandal), to influence the network’s reporting on Muslim affairs.

The talking head commentators you see on television spinning the various pro-state, pro-war memes — particularly on Fox — are neocons and decepticons who earn paychecks from various think tanks funded by various corporations, co-ops and foreign governments, as are the “experts”testifying before Congressional committees and lobbyists buying favors from Congressweasels and government agencies.

Foreign relations, the key aim of the CFR, was the entry for globalism to destroy American sovereignty and independence.

Globalism as a permanent aspect of American government was enshrined in the 1920s, beginning with the Wilson administration and World War I and culminating in an irrevocable, imperialistic, military presence all over the world. Globalism is the ultimate form of collectivism.

This should help you to better understand why politicians and their media enablers continue to advocate for policies contrary to the best interests of America and its people.

The globalists plan to import great masses of Third World people to take American jobs at starvation wages and thus finish off the middle class once and for all. As part of the implementation, all sorts of Third World diseases are being introduced to the U.S., from West Nile virus to Ebola to the norovirus.

Also, as the Democrats discovered, and as the establishment branch of the Republicans seeks to take advantage of, Third Worlders make a wonderful voter base for the expansion of national collectivism. Coming from socialist hellholes, they clamor for nanny-state socialist programs and anti-gun legislation that are anathema to conservative Americans.

Unlimited immigration is phase two of the “free trade” movement, the first phase of which exported American manufacturing jobs and companies to Third World nations. By this method the globalists circumvent the American political process (another notorious CFR “end run around national sovereignty,” as CFR member Richard Gardner described it in 1974), for certainly very few Americans would vote to revolutionize America to create a nation that doesn’t speak English or embrace American values of hard work, independence and self-reliance.

The globalist mass media must be decoded on our terms — on the basis of our original politics, our original culture, our original beliefs and our original traditions. Unless one approaches the mass media in this way, one does not have the tools to keep from being brainwashed by globalism, even if it is called “democratic” globalism.

The need to conceal evil is becoming less necessary as the American people themselves continue to become more perverted. Democracy is all about the transformation of human beings to the animal farm of mass mental brutalization where they are conditioned to defend their worst betrayers.

There is a battle for your mind over who will control America. The truth is in plain sight for those who seek it. But none do inside the MSM because that is their death knell (see Helen Thomas and Sharyl Attkisson). That is why the elites want to control the Internet and shut down alternative media.

 10 13 11 flagbar

AMERICAN MATRIX HOW WE LOST OUR CONSTITUTION PART 2

January 16th, 2015 by

http://www.newswithviews.com/Barnewall/marilyn206.htm

By Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall
January 16, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

COLORABLE MONEY, COLORABLE LAW, COLORABLE LIBERTY

Before providing you with the following information, I must state that I am not an attorney and have not studied the law. I’m a retired banker who has done a lot of research on this subject.

What we learned in Part I is that federal, state, county and city governments and most of the departments and divisions that are part of them are incorporated. We learned that corporations function under Articles of Incorporation, not a Constitution and that’s how we lost our constitutional rights and courts that support them.

We learned that corporations are governed by business laws having to do with Maritime Law (also called Law of the Seas or Admiralty Law both of which are historically very old) and the Uniform Commercial Code. We learned that Constitutional Law is based on Common Law (which is based on substance and the will of the people — the Will of God, too, many people say). For example, under Common Law we are provided the alternative of not testifying against ourselves; that is not part of Maritime Law.

To understand the damage that has been done to our nation, we need to define the word “colorable” – its meaning, its impact on our currency, our courts, and our constitutional liberties and the limits the Constitution places on government. It is from the meaning of the word “colorable” that the virus of death infecting our nation breeds and keeps breeding… like Ebola, it dissolves every major life-giving organ in its path until death ensues.

COLORABLE MONEY – COLORABLE COURTS

To be “colorable,” is for something to appear to be what it is not. It looks real, you are told by your government that it is real and, in the example of currency, it is used or behaves as if it’s real, but it is not. Take what you are told is a dollar bill from your billfold. It looks like a dollar bill. You can spend it like a dollar bill. But it is not a dollar bill. It is a Federal Reserve Note. It says so, right on the face of it – at the top, above George Washington’s picture.

In the world of banking, what is a note? Answer: It is a loan. It is credit. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, fiat money has no value in and of itself, but it can be exchanged… like Monopoly money. A direct quote from the Minneapolis Fed: …(fiat currency can be exchanged) “for goods and services… because (the people) are confident it will be honored when they buy goods and services.”

Money and currency are not the same. We used to have money in America but when the dollar was no longer backed by gold or silver our “money” became a fiat currency. These things called a “Federal Reserve Note” became colorable currency, something that behaved like money because people could use it to buy groceries, cars, electronics, etc., and also pay for services like health care and life insurance. But it was not money. It was colorable… it just serves as a paper currency. Money is something of substance – like gold or silver. For Common Law to exist, money of substance must exist.

If a (colorable) Federal Reserve Note becomes part of a contract, the contract also becomes colorable. Colorable contracts, in turn, must be adjudicated under a “colorable” jurisdiction (system of justice – our courts). So when the colorable currency called Federal Reserve Notes was created, the government had to create a jurisdiction (court system) to cover colorable contracts. The incorporated governments called this new form of jurisdiction Statutory Law because though it was based on the Uniform Commercial Code which is based on Admiralty Law, “Statutory” is neither. Thus, Statutory Jurisdiction is colorable.

It sounds complicated, but if you think about it for a few minutes, it is really quite simple. Public Law was used in Common Law courts; Public Policy is used in Statutory courts… and that’s what gave bureaucrats control of our courtrooms. That’s what gave them the ability to prosecute members of the public because a regulation passed by a government agency rather than a law passed by Congress or your State Legislature, was violated.

So our courts have changed… how many times in the past years have you heard the term “The Petitioner does not have Standing to file this case… dismissed!” We have been unable to file cases against our government even when clear abuses of power exist. How many juries have been given rules they are told they must follow in determining a verdict, leaving them no choice other than “guilty” or “not guilty” regardless of what the evidence indicates? How many judges have withheld evidence from a jury? It has brought topics like “Nullification” to the forefront of the politically active. Nullification deals with a jury’s right to dismiss from its decision of guilt or innocence the judge’s directions as to what the jury may or may not consider in reaching its decision. Juries are empowered to nullify the judge’s directions if they feel it is justified.

All of this and more has been caused by the change from Common to a colorable form of Maritime Law called Statutory Law… a form of law required when our various governments incorporated — which, in turn, was required when the Federal Reserve System presented us with a “colorable currency.”

What have we Americans been taught by our government-subsidized education about the cause of our Revolutionary War? Mostly we were told about the Boston Tea Party, the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere, and other nice stories.

Many people say the Revolution began because of the Crown’s Declaratory Act which taxed tea, taxed stamps, forced colonists to quarter in their homes members of the English military, etc. No. It began because of the Rothschilds and their central bank system which, in today’s world, has driven us to the brink of another world war.

It’s true that all those things were great irritants, but the real core problem involved central banking – the Bank of England. The colonists were forced by England’s King to use a paper currency issued by the Bank of England which demanded we use it – and we were to cede our colonial banking and monetary systems and pay interest to the Bank of England for using their paper money.

It sounds eerily like the way the Federal Reserve System in America works today, doesn’t it? It is, in fact, quite similar. So we must start with the assumption that what made our ancestors go to war in the 1700s is quite acceptable to Americans today because we have embraced what they were willing to die to prevent: Central banks and a fiat currency.

The Rothschilds were around when America was a colony of Great Britain and the fact that we were founded on the basis of Common Law troubled them. Why? Common Law is based on substance and rejects “colorable money” and “colorable courts.” Article 1 Section 8 of our Constitution describes for you what “substance” relative to Common Law means: “Gold and silver,” not a meaningless fiat currency that has nothing backing it. That is a currency with no substance and violates Common Law.

Prior to the forming of the Federal Reserve System, America’s Constitutional Republic required the nation to pay its debts in gold or silver and Rothschild banks did not loan gold or silver. Thus they did not like our newly-formed government which rejected a fiat currency with nothing backing it (what we have today). As described above, the Rothschilds allowed the King of England to borrow paper money from them and got repaid in gold and silver.

Our Constitution declared gold and silver as the official currency of the United States of America and that’s why the Rothschilds financed the War of 1812. They wanted America as part of the United Kingdom so they could expand into the New World their Bank of England scam. They of course lost the War of 1812 and began seeking other ways to further their “we’ll loan you paper and you pay us back in gold and silver” scheme and began working on what we now have as a central banking system, the Federal Reserve, founded on December 23, 1913, 100 years after the War of 1812. And how legitimate is the Federal Reserve Act of 1913? Not very. Read the history.

Our ancestors in North America began to revolt against the Brits but we had Common Law in the Colonies at the time. When the King’s tax collectors made their rounds, however, they imposed Admiralty Law on the people. It enabled them to arrest and quickly try people, denying to what were mostly Englishmen and women the common rights due them as citizens of the Crown. That is what caused the Revolutionary War.

Perhaps the most interesting part of our history is that almost exactly the same thing has happened to us once again. What’s the old saying about what happens if we don’t learn from history? By incorporating federal, state, and county governments (because of the Federal Reserve’s colorable currency), the U.S. Government made it possible to remove the Common Law supported by our U.S. Constitution and implement a prostituted form of Maritime (or Admiralty) Law called Statutory Law. Our ancestors refused to tolerate it and it will be interesting to see if today’s society which seems more motivated by security and comfort than by right and wrong and liberty will accept the Law of the Seas.

To make sure we’re all on the same page, let’s start with some definitions and let them guide you to an understanding of how we got in our current mess. Only if we understand the history behind these massive problems will we be able to solve them.

To explain how the loss of Common Law robbed us of our independence and our Republic and how incorporating federal, state, and county governments made it possible, we need some definitions. You’re about to get a graduate school crash course in business and finance (and a little law):

JURISDICTION: 1. The right of a court to hear a particular case, based on the scope of its authority over the type of case and the parties to the case. 2. Authority or control. 3. The extent of authority or control. 4. The territorial range of authority or control.

While researching the jurisdiction of our courts, I came upon an article that was so well done, so easy for a non-lawyer to understand, I decided to reprint portions of it here. One of the difficult things about writing both Parts I and II of this article is stating things in a way that can be understood by non-bankers and non-lawyers. Since I’m not a lawyer, I particularly appreciated this article and recommend that you read it in its entirety HERE. I am not publishing the entire article below, just those parts that apply to this topic.

The article is a condensed story about a man named Howard Freeman and is based on a seminar Freeman gave in 1990. The article is written in ham and eggs English and is not filled with legal terminology that forces you to look every-other-word up in a legal dictionary. The following definition about Common Law, Equity Law, Admiralty/Maritime Law, Courts of Contract, Colorable Money and Colorable Courts, and the Uniform Commercial Code is taken from that seminar and the article written about it.

The Constitution of the United States mentions three areas of jurisdiction in which the courts may operate:

COMMON LAW

Common Law is based on God’s law. Anytime someone is charged under the Common Law, there must be a damaged party. You are free under the Common Law to do anything you please, as long as you do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. You have a right to make a fool of yourself provided you do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. The Common Law does not allow for any government action which prevents a man from making a fool of himself. For instance, when you cross over the state lines in most states, you will see a sign which says, ” BUCKLE YOUR SEAT BELTS – IT’S THE LAW. ” This cannot be Common Law, because who would you injure if you did not buckle up? Nobody. This would be compelled performance. But Common Law cannot compel performance. Any violation of Common Law is a CRIMINAL ACT, and is punishable.

EQUITY LAW

Equity Law is law which compels performance. It compels you to perform to the exact letter of any contract that you are under. So, if you have compelled performance, there must be a contract somewhere, and you are being compelled to perform under the obligation of the contract. Now this can only be a civil action – not criminal. In Equity Jurisdiction, you cannot be tried criminally, but you can be compelled to perform to the letter of a contract. If you then refuse to perform as directed by the court, you can be charged with contempt of court, which is a criminal action. Are our seatbelt laws Equity Laws? No, they are not, because you cannot be penalized or punished for not keeping to the letter of a contract. (BARNEWALL NOTE: You may have signed an insurance contract agreeing to always wear your seat belts or otherwise obey all traffic laws and, of course, your state requires automobile insurance coverage.)

ADMIRALTY/MARITIME LAW

This is civil jurisdiction of Compelled Performance which also has Criminal Penalties for not adhering to the letter of the contract, but this only applies to International Contracts. Now we can see what jurisdiction the seatbelt laws (all traffic codes, etc) are under. Whenever there is a penalty for failure to perform (such as willful failure to file), that is Admiralty/Maritime Law and there must be a valid international contract in force.

However, the courts don’t want to admit that they are operating under Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdictions, so they took the international law or Law Merchant and adopted it into our codes. That is what the Supreme Court decided in the Erie Railroad case (Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, Supreme Court, 1938) – that the decisions will be based on commercial law or business law and that it will have criminal penalties associated with it. Since they were instructed not to call it Admiralty Jurisdiction, they call it Statutory Jurisdiction.

COURTS OF CONTRACT

You must ask how we got into this situation where we can be charged with failure to wear seatbelts and be fined for it. Isn’t the judge sworn to up hold the Constitution? Yes, he is. But you must understand the Constitution, in Article I, § 10, gives us the unlimited right to contract, as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty or property of someone else. Contracts are enforceable, and the Constitution gives two jurisdictions where contracts can be enforced – Equity or Admiralty. But we find them being in Statutory Jurisdiction. This is the embarrassing part for the courts, but we can use this to box the judges into a corner in their own courts.

CONTRACTS MUST BE VOLUNTARY

Under the Common Law, every contract must be entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally by both parties or it is void and unenforceable. This is characteristic: It must be based on substance. For example, contracts used to read, “For one dollar and other valuable considerations, I will paint your house,” etc. That was a valid contract – the dollar was a genuine, silver dollar. Now, suppose you wrote a contract that said, “For one Federal Reserve Note and other considerations, I will paint your house….” And suppose, for example, I painted your house the wrong color. Could you go into a Common Law court and get justice? No, you could not. You see, a Federal Reserve Note is a “colorable” dollar, as it has no substance, and in a Common Law Jurisdiction, that contract would be unenforceable.

COLORABLE MONEY – COLORABLE COURTS

Colorable: That which exists in appearance only, and not in reality; not what it purports to be, hence counterfeit, feigned have the appearance of truth. Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

It is “colorable” Admiralty Jurisdiction the judges are enforcing because we are using “colorable money.” Colorable Admiralty is now known as Statutory Jurisdiction. Let’s see how we got under this Statutory Jurisdiction.

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

The government set up a “colorable” law system to fit the “colorable” currency. It used to be called the Law Merchant or the Law of Redeemable Instruments, because it dealt with paper which was redeemable in something of substance. But, once Federal Reserve Notes had become unredeemable, there had to be a system of law which was completely “colorable” from start to finish. This system of law was codified as the Uniform Commercial Code, and has been adopted in every state. This is “colorable” law, and it is used in all the courts.

(End of text from Howard Freeman’s seminar.)

Do you see how the Federal Reserve Notes were the basic cause of the problems we now see in our courts, our financial system, our Republic, our Independence as a people? They created a fiat currency backed by nothing. Keep in mind, the word “Note” means “Loan.” It is “colorable currency.”

The Common Law, as embodied in the US Constitution, for the protection and security of persons and property, is Substantive Common Law – [substantive right: a right {as of life, liberty, property, or reputation} held to exist for its own sake and to constitute part of the normal legal order of society] – the intention of the Founding Fathers being the assurance of access to this law by the people.

The most important thing we the people can work to achieve is Constitutional Counties. This system was imposed on us from the top down and must be unwound from the bottom up.

As I said in Part I of this article, corporations can be dissolved – and we need to do that. It’s not difficult to achieve… get enough signatures on a petition to get the initiative on your county ballot and vote the corporations out of existence.

It is, however, more difficult than it sounds. It requires extensive planning because you must remember how we got from a Constitutional Republic to Crony Capitalism. Here’s what I think happened.

The Federal Reserve came into being in 1913. Our money was turned into a fiat currency when President Nixon took us off of the gold standard. The U.S. Government was based on Common Law which made colorable money (money lacking substance – Common Law is based on substance) and that made it impossible for it to continue issuing Federal Reserve Notes. So the federal government incorporated itself which made it possible for them to continue with the issuance of Federal Reserve Notes. It became clear that the states could not accept colorable money from an incorporated federal government unless they, too, were incorporated – and the same thing happened to our counties. To gain access to a colorable currency, an entire system had to be created. How much simpler our lives would be if the Treasury Department had taken over America’s monetary system rather than build this octopus so the Federal Reserve System could be maintained! This attests to the power of the Rothschild central banking system. We might want to keep in mind that one of the primary problems in the Middle East is that Islam does not allow loan usury (interest) and not all of the nations in the Middle East have central banks. Libya didn’t have one – until Muammar Gaddafi was removed from office and killed. Libya now has a central bank. (The Stylebook at the Washington Post spells it “Gaddafi.” The Stylebook at the Associated Press spells it “Gadhafi.”)

Though it is not difficult to dissolve the corporations if it is the will of the people to regain their constitutional rights, a great deal of thought must go into how a county that dissolves its corporations will survive without federal and state dollars. Some of the questions that arise are:

  1. If Common Law is returned to our court system and our governing bodies, it requires a currency that has substance and contracts based on that substance. Fiat currency – Federal Reserve Notes – has no substance. How can those people being paid by the federal, state, or county governments get paid in a currency of substance? How about people receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits? How about veterans receiving retirement and VA benefits? They are being paid in Federal Reserve Notes (as we all are) which, since they are not redeemable in gold or silver, are deemed as having no substance and contracts with no substance are rejected by Common Law. This part of problem resolution is complex – but with good planning it can be done.
  2. Can fiat currency be used at all in a Constitutional County?
    3. Is there a way to reject the colorable Statutory Laws created by federal and state governments and build a bridge between Common Law and the Uniform Commercial Code, Admiralty/Maritime Law, Equity Law, etc.?

There are many other questions, but to ask and answer them requires a book, not an article. The purpose of this two-part article has been to explain to you what I believe happened and what I believe the solution to be. It will not be easy. Nor will it be free.

Liberty is never free. How much you value it will determine the price you are willing to pay to regain it.

[The book: The Coming Battle, published in 1899, documents how the politicians of that period didn’t want the debt to be paid off. They wanted the debt to be rolled over from generation to generation. It continues to this day. It’s a must read.]

Click here for part —–> 1,

© 2015 Marilyn M. Barnewall – All Rights Reserved

Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.

Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who of American Women, Who’s Who in Finance and Business, and Who’s Who in the World.

Web site: http://marilynwrites.blogspot.com

E-Mail: marilynmacg@juno.com

E-Mail: marilynwrites@bresnan.net

 

THE MOST CENSORED NEWS STORY OF 2014, WAS WHAT?

January 14th, 2015 by

http://www.blacklistednews.com/The_Most-Censored_News_Story_of_2014_Was_____%28What%3F%29_____./40851/0/38/38/Y/M.html

By  ERIC ZUESSE,

There is only one ongoing news story that’s being systematically censored out of virtually all U.S. news media. This has been the finding from a first-of-its-kind test of virtually all U.S. news media that report national and international news. The most-censored news story during 2014 will be identified here.

The method that I employed in order to determine how heavily the U.S. press censors out a particular news story is: Throughout 2014 I constantly submitted original news reports, regarding specifically the topics that were (and still are) most widely considered by journalists (and often also by historians, and by other interested segments of the American public) to be the most puzzling and the least coherently explained and reported ongoing news stories in the American press. Prominent recent examples of such news stories are (and most of the examples that are being cited here come from my own news reports on them, my actual tests of these stories, as was summarized by me in mid-2014 here, and so that’s where you’ll find the details on these ongoing heavily-censored stories):

— Barack Obama’s zero prosecutions of bank CEOs who were implicated by Senator Carl Levin’s Committee, and by the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Justice, and by other federal investigations, into the cause of the 2008 economic collapse and the resulting soaring Federal Government (i.e., taxpayer) indebtedness (bailouts) in order to recover from this collapse, which was clearly caused by an explosion in mortgage-backed-securities frauds, though none of the implicated CEOs — the people who were in command and who were making billions from these MBS frauds — was prosecuted for it;

— Obama’s zero prosecutions also of the individuals who participated in America’s illegal torture program after 9/11, including George W. Bush and possibly also Barack Obama himself (as being an accessory-after-the-fact for his covering up their crimes, if not possibly even as his being a continuer of some of those crimes);

— The failure of any of the State Department’s Environmental Impact studies of the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline to calculate, or even to employ investigators who possessed scientific backgrounds relevant to the calculation of, the likely impact that the proposed pipeline would have on raising the Earth’s mean temperature during coming centuries and millennia — the commonly called “global warming” impact of the pipeline, if built and used — and the amount of sheer corruption which was involved in those Federal studies;

— The massacre in Odessa Ukraine on 2 May 2014 of opponents of the coup that the U.S. had carried out via the State Deportment, CIA and other agencies, which coup had overthrown (on 22 February 2014) the Russia-friendly, democratically elected, Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych;

— The subsequent U.S.-sponsored Ukrainian ethnic cleansing program which has been carried out since then by the U.S.-backed new Ukrainian regime in order to eliminate the voters in the area of Ukraine called Donbass,which had voted 90% for Yanukovych and which voters therefore presented the threat of possibly electing out-of-office the Obama-installed leaders and thus of restoring a Russia-friendly person to Ukraine’s Presidency.

Those news stories are the main contestants that I have come up with as having been possibly the most-censored news story of 2014. I tested also other ongoing but under-reported news stories (by submitting, to virtually all national U.S. news media, the news reports I did regarding all of the various contesting ongoing suppressed news stories), but the few ongoing news stories, that are listed here, provide some sense of the sorts of news events and stories which I was testing, throughout this past year.

Without question, the most-censored news story of 2014, as determined by this test — a test that I have been constantly carrying out ever since the May 2nd massacre that the new Ukrainian Government perpetrated in Odessa — is precisely the Ukrainian news story: it’s the winner of my contest. This ongoing news story started with the February 22nd coup, then included the May 2nd massacre which led to Donbass’s secession from Ukraine, and it finally is continuing with this ethnic cleansing of Donbass. The purpose of the May 2nd massacre was, in fact, to terrify the pro-Russians in Ukraine’s southeast — especially in Donbass, the most pro-Russian area — so as to precipitate the secession of Donbass, so that there would then be an excuse for the Ukrainian Government to bomb it and so to get rid of the residents there, whose overwhelming votes had clearly made Yanukovych Ukraine’s President. The Obama regime doesn’t want the people there; it wants only the land on which they live. It needs this in order to be able to place nuclear missiles there, aimed against next-door Russia. The Obama Administration’s game-plan is to keep the land, and to kill the people who are living on it.

This sequence of events has been major news, and it’s been thoroughly suppressed in the U.S.

I have found that, whereas I was able to place, at some mainstream and some alternative-news sites, even news reports about President Obama’s violations of his publicly stated policy-commitments, and other such ‘controversial’ matters, only around a half-dozen news-media accepted even a single one of my numerous news-reports about the Ukrainian coup and its aftermaths — events that might even lead to a World War III, and that therefore are unquestionably important news events, which the public in a democracy ought to know about.

Not even President Obama’s promise in which he privately assured the assembled CEOs of Wall Street, at the beginning of his Administration, that he would not prosecute any of them, but instead would protect all of them from being prosecuted — and his following through with that secret promise — not even this protection by him of the mega-bank CEOs, has been as heavily censored out of the American press as has been the Ukrainian story.

Consequently, America’s press-lords are even more determined and united to suppress the reality in Ukraine than they are to suppress the reality about America’s 2008 economic crash and the resulting bailouts and soaring federal debt. There is something about the Ukrainian story that has caused virtually all owners of America’s news media to be determined to prohibit the American public from knowing the reality there. (See here how much in fear of losing their jobs the reporters throughout the West are, and how they are kept in line by their publishers and by the editors whom their publishers hire.)

This finding is, itself, like all of my news reports and commentaries, being distributed free of charge to virtually all U.S. national-news media (print, TV, and radio). The few media that will publish it are likely to be the same ones that have carried one or more of my news reports about the situation in Ukraine (and that’s fewer than ten). As regards all other American news media: those are the ones that are covering-up this important matter — not reporting it to their readers, viewers, and listeners.

It’s clear that they have been covering it up, because they certainly have been informed of the numerous events in this ongoing news-story about Ukraine after May 2nd: I and other investigative journalists have been submitting honest and well-researched and well-written news stories to them throughout that time regarding this U.S.-initiated and backed Ukrainian ethnic-cleansing program.

There is, for some reason, virtual unanimity among the owners of America’s press, that America’s public must be prohibited from knowing about the America Government’s operation in Ukraine. Perhaps one reason why this ongoing news story is so heavily censored is that the entire issue taking place in Ukraine could lead to something that might be far larger and potentially far more dangerous than merely a local ethnic-cleansing campaign. And Americans would then pay close attention to it. The importance of this news story is why it is being suppressed.


 

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,  and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

10 13 11 flagbar

The Police Threat Is Too High

January 12th, 2015 by

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/01/10/police-threat-high/

Paul Craig Roberts

The hypocrisy of American police is beginning to bother even law and order conservatives. The New York Police Department is rivaling the black community in Ferguson in keeping alive the murders of their community members.

We are constantly reminded of how dangerous it is to be a police officer. A total of 50 police officers were reportedly killed last year in the “line of duty,” but the police themselves managed to kill 1,029 Americans during the same time period, most of whom were unarmed and innocent of wrongdoings.

In other words, any encounter between the public and the police is more than 20 times more dangerous for the public than for the police.

That should raise questions about the absence of restraint on the ability of police to use deadly force as a first resort. Yet authorities and white communities invariably defend police violence against the public.

If Americans had half-decent educations, Americans would know that power comes from precedent. The police, like the executive branch, have now established themselves above the law. The laws that apply to the public do not apply to police, US presidents, presidential appointees, NSA, and CIA.

The URL below provides two short videos of Montana police officer Grant Morrison shooting to death in separate incidents two unarmed drivers pulled over by Morrison in routine traffic stops. In both cases, Morrison’s first actions are to scream obscenities and pull the trigger. Morrison comes across as completely crazed. It is inexplicable that Montana permits an armed lunatic to roam the streets pulling over cars. You try doing that.

Clearly the police are privileged and, thereby, unaccountable.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/09/1356607/-Montana-officer-Grant-Morrison-shoots-and-kills-his-second-unarmed-man-No-charges-in-either-case?detail=email

According to news reports, during eight years of what is called the Iraq War more US citizens were murdered by the police than US soldiers were killed in the war. In other words, US police are a greater threat to Americans than enemy forces are to US soldiers who have invaded a foreign country.

The other day I heard a NY police commissioner on NPR defend the NY police violence against Eric Garner that resulted in Garner’s death. The police commissioner said that Garner more or less brought on his own death by not quickly cooperating with police orders. When asked if selling single cigarettes out of a pack was a sufficiently dangerous act to justify police use of prohibited choke holds, the commissioner said Garner’s single cigarette sales were depriving NY City of hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenues that could be used for more and better schools and hospitals.

I was surprised to learn that selling “loosies” was a billion dollar business. Somehow that seems about as hard to believe as everything else authorities tell us.

Other countries manage to have police forces that do not indiscriminately gun down their citizens. Yet most Americans will support the police until it happens to them, but keep in mind that every time you get in your car you have placed yourself in far greater danger from police than you face from terrorists.

 10 13 11 flagbar

Oligarchy: America’s one party state

January 10th, 2015 by

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/oligarchy-americas-one-party-state?f=must_reads

1-10-2015 8-32-41 AM

By LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD

Oligarchy is defined as a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.

The oligarchy is composed of the Democrat and Republican establishments, the media and the financiers, who every four years hire a President.

The political system they operate is known as “totalitarian democracy“, one in which lawfully elected representatives rule a nation state whose citizens, although granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of government.

The main policy of the American oligarchy is malfeasance, the performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law.

Or as Ambrose Bierce, a 19th century political satirist, described Washington D.C. as a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles and the conduct of public affairs for private advantage.

How did, for example, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) manage to grow his net worth to $10 million while raising a large family, on a public official’s salary, and incurring the expenses associated with maintaining two residences on opposite sides of the country?

According to Peter Schweizer (“Throw them all out: how politicians and their friends get rich off insider stock tips, land deals, and cronyism that would send the rest of us to prison”):

“For the Government Rich, insider deals, insider trading, and taxpayer money have become a pathway to wealth. They get to walk this exclusive pathway because they get to operate by a different set of rules from the rest of us. And they get to do this while they are working for us, in the name of the “public service.”

“Crony capitalism unites these politicians with a certain class of businessmen who act as political entrepreneurs. They make their money from government subsidies, guaranteed loans, grants, and set-asides. They seek to steer the ship of state into profitable seas. Twenty-first-century privateers, they pursue wealth through political pull rather than by producing new products or services. In addition to these political entrepreneurs, big investors turn to lobbying and insider information from their sponsored politicians to make their investment decisions. And business is very good.”

During a December 6, 2014 speech, former Republican National Chairman and George W. Bush White House aide, Ed Gillespie spoke of the dangers that came from the massive growth of Big Government, creating what he called the “influence economy” as opposed to the long American tradition of a free market economy, as reported by the Wall Street Journal.

“We can see an influence economy starting to take shape. CEOs are becoming less concerned about inventing the right products, targeting the right markets and hiring the right people in hopes of making a respectable profit for investors-and more concerned about getting the right lobbyists, retaining the right lawyers and attending the right fundraisers in hopes of getting a hefty subsidy from taxpayers. Making the right campaign contributions are becoming as important to a company as its research and development budget, and federal-compliance lawyers will soon outnumber patent lawyers.”

The conduct of Congress is driven purely by political expediency and winning elections for the sole purpose of obtaining power and profit. There is, in fact, no difference between the aims of Big Government Republicans and Big Government Democrats.

Democrats attain and maintain power by practicing tribal politics, emphasizing and exploiting grievances based on race, ethnicity, gender and income.

In contrast, Republicans have no principles at all, but tactics for obtaining office as junior partners in a government ruling class from where they can perform their post-election rewarding of special interests, while ignoring the needs and desires of their constituents.

To maintain control, both parties foster a culture of dependency on the government. Democrats create dependency by expanding federal mandates and increasing entitlements. Republicans promote dependency by limiting voter choice and crushing or co-opting independent thinkers and grass roots movements like the Tea Party.

Both parties use campaign deception, practice political expediency, engage in crony capitalism and, when necessary, promote voter fraud to sustain the corrupt status quo.

The American media support the oligarchy by helping to preserve the illusion of democracy and, thereby, facilitate the very corruption the people’s “watchdog” was meant to prevent. They enable tyranny by misinforming and misleading citizens as purveyors of a conventional wisdom defined along narrow political lines determined by financial self-interest.

The United States is now governed by a combination of executive over-reach, legislative complicity, judicial partisanship and journalistic decadence.

All the traditional means for ordinary Americans to safeguard representative government have now been blocked by a self-absorbed permanent political elite unrestrained by the Constitution and the rule of law.

Welcome to the elective despotism of a de-facto-one-party-state.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution “. He receives email at lawrence.sellin@gmail.com.

10 13 11 flagbar

 

 

The Road To War With Russia-We’re Not Only On It We’ve Already Arrived

January 9th, 2015 by

http://beforeitsnews.com/war-and-conflict/2015/01/the-road-to-war-with-russia-were

-not-only-on-it-weve-already-arrived-2455268.html

1-9-2015 1-40-35 PM

 Chris Martenson

Peak Prosperity

For several weeks now the anti-Russian stance in the US press has quieted down. Presumably because the political leadership has moved its attention on to other things, and the media flock has followed suit. 

Have you read much about Ukraine and Russia recently?

I thought not, despite the fact that there’s plenty of serious action — both there as well as related activity in the US — going on that deserves our careful attention.

As I recently wrote, the plunging oil price is a potential catalyst for stock market turmoil and sovereign instability. Venezuela is already circling the drain, and numerous other oil exporters are in deep trouble as they foolishly expanded their national budgets and social programs to match the price of oil; something that is easy to do on the way up and devilishly tricky on the way down.

But consider the impact on Russia. From the Russian point of view, everything from their plunging ruble to bitter sanctions to the falling price of oil are the fault of the US, either directly or indirectly. Whether that is fair or not is irrelevant; that’s the view of the Russians right now. So no surprise,  it doesn’t dispose them towards much in the way of good-will towards the West generally, and the US specifically.

The fall in the price of oil is creating serious difficulties economically and financially for Russia. We’ll get to those facets in a minute. But right now, I want to focus on the continued belligerence of the US towards Russia — some of which is overt and some of which, you can be certain, is covert — which could very well end up provoking a more kinetic and dangerous response than the West is prepared for.

Russia Forced To Act

Before anyone jumps in to say “Why are you defending Putin? He’s a bad”, let me just say that I have been closely analyzing each move by Russia and the West since then President of Ukraine Yanukovych declined to sign the European Association Agreement back in November of 2013. 

Based on the preponderance of evidence, its’ clear to me that the West/US deserve the lion’s share of the blame for the conflict that now rages with Ukraine and between Russia and the western world.

It was the West that supported the unsavory assortment of thugs, neo-Nazis, and ultra-nationalists that seized power in a coup from the democratically-elected Yanukovych.  We can argue all we want about whether he was a good boy or not, but that’s irrelevant and plays into the hands of those at the US State Department who would like to deflect attention away from the very non-democratic events (shaped behind the scenes by our influence) that led to his overthrow.

The US did the same thing with Saddam, if you recall. It’s a simple deflection: away from the actions of the US, and towards the character of the person standing in the line of fire from those actions.

In my view, if Yanukovych had not been violently deposed, Ukraine would be peaceful right now, Russia would not have had to intervene, and there would be no civil war in Ukraine and far reduced tensions between the West and Russia.

So ham-handed were those efforts to intervene in Ukraine on the part of the Obama State department that no less an historically loathsome creature than Henry Kissinger even called the US’s actions a ‘fatal mistake’:

Kissinger warns of West’s ‘fatal mistake’ that may lead to new Cold War

Nov 10, 2014

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has given a chilling assessment of a new geopolitical situation taking shape amid the Ukrainian crisis, warning of a possible new Cold War and calling the West’s approach to the crisis a “fatal mistake.”

The 91-year-old diplomat characterized the tense relations as exhibiting the danger of “another Cold War.”

“This danger does exist and we can’t ignore it,” Kissinger said. He warned that ignoring this danger any further may result in a tragedy,” he told Germany’s Der Spiegel.

(Source)

When even Henry Kissinger thinks you’ve been too reckless in the application of raw power, you’ve over done it.

So given the timeline of the events that have led to the frostiest US-Russian relations since the depths of the cold war, I am of the view that Russia has been actually quite restrained and has not over reacted to any of the numerous provocations.

Despite the lull in front page reporting of the Russian situation, there remains a careful program of steady anti-Russian propaganda running through the western press.

It Takes Two To Tango

prop·a·gan·da

ˌpräpəˈɡandə/

Noun  – derogatory

Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

For propaganda to work well, there needs to be tight coordination between the State and the press.  The role of the press is to first publish the propaganda, and second, to neglect to look into it or report on anything that might call it into question. Sins of omission and commission are both required.

The good news is that the internet is a great equalizing force and we can readily unearth inconvenient facts with a little digging that blunt the propaganda. The bad news is that a lot of people still get all their news from so-called ‘official’ sources.

At any rate, here’s a first-rate piece of unadulterated propaganda courtesy of Bloomberg.  Note that it was printed on Dec 31, one of several very quiet news days where little debate is likely to happen:

Inside Obama’s Secret Outreach to Russia

President Barack Obama’s administration has been working behind the scenes for months to forge a new working relationship with Russia, despite the fact that Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown little interest in repairing relations with Washington or halting his aggression in neighboring Ukraine.

In several conversations with Lavrov, Kerry has floated an offer to Russia that would pave the way for a partial release of some of the most onerous economic sanctions. Kerry’s conditions included Russia adhering to September’s Minsk agreement and ceasing direct military support for the Ukrainian separatists. 

(Source)

The tenor of this piece is set. It’s the US that is trying to be reasonable, but Russia has shown little interest in repairing relations. That’s one assertion.

Another is that Russia has been providing direct military support for the separatists in neighboring Ukraine. And yet another that Putin himself has shown little interest in halting his aggression. 

That’s the main narrative that the US wants to put forward. Putin is a bad guy. Like Saddam…remember him?  The US is the one being reasonable here, according to this piece, and it is Russia that has been fomenting the troubles.

The US narrative goes further, repeatedly claiming that Russia has been supplying major arms to the separatists, as we see here from early December 2014:

U.S. Says Russia Arms Ukraine Rebels, OSCE Wary on Truce

Dec 2, 2014

North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg accused Russia of sending tanks, advanced air-defense systems and other heavy weapons across the border to Ukrainian rebels.

Russia denies involvement in the conflict.

“Since the Sept. 5 Minsk cease-fire agreement, Russia has funneled several hundred” tanks, armed personnel carriers, and other military vehicles directly to pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine, Kerry said.

Russian military forces still operate inside eastern Ukraine where they provide “command and control” for the separatists they back, he added.

(Source)

The charge from the Secretary General of NATO and from John Kerry of the US State department is that Russia has military forces inside Ukraine, and that they’ve funneled hundreds of tanks, APCs, and other military vehicles numbering in the hundreds.

As with the MH-17 disaster, we have to call this another case of the dog that did not bark.

Where are the pictures?

The sorts of weaponry being claimed here are impossible to conceal from the air.

Snapping high resolution photos of such things is child’s play for today’s military satellites, and even civilian ones, too.

Accusing a major world power of action this brash should require at least some demonstration of proof. Especially after the WMD warning fiasco that played out at the UN leading up to the Bush II Iraq invasion. The least you could do is provide a few pictures of said military vehicles and heavy weaponry.

But there are none.  And the reason none have been offered is because none exist.  If they did, you can be 100% certain they’d be released and replayed over and over again on CNN until everybody and their uncle could distinguish a T-72 tank outline from a Russian made APC.

About Those ‘Unwilling’ Russians

Let’s look more closely at the reasons why Russia may not exactly be in a conciliatory mood towards the US at this moment in time.

With just our short-term memories, we can recall that the US Congress passed a serious piece of anti-Russian resolution last month that can easily be seen as a declaration of war by a reasonable person.

This unfortunate piece of legislation, H.Res. 758, was passed on December 4, 2014 and is titled “Strongly condemning the actions of the Russian Federation, under President Vladimir Putin, which has carried out a policy of aggression against neighboring countries aimed at political and economic domination.”

Ron Paul expressed the problems with this resolution very well:

Reckless Congress ‘Declares War’ on Russia

These are the kinds of resolutions I have always watched closely in Congress, as what are billed as “harmless” statements of opinion often lead to sanctions and war. I remember in 1998 arguing strongly against the Iraq Liberation Act because, as I said at the time, I knew it would lead to war. I did not oppose the Act because I was not an admirer of Saddam Hussein – just as now I am not an admirer of Putin or any foreign political leader – but rather because I knew then that another war against Iraq would not solve the problems and would probably make things worse. We all know what happened next.

 

BATFE Ruling Creates New Hurdle To Private Gun Manufacture

January 7th, 2015 by

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/01/batfe-ruling-creates-new-hurdle-to.html

 

1-7-2015 12-06-11 PM

Brandon Turbeville

Activist Post

It only took two days before the anti-gun American bureaucracy began chipping away at the Second Amendment in areas where Congress and the President, despite being backed by billion dollar NGOs and Foundations, have so far been unsuccessful.

On January 2, 2015, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) issued its ruling regarding “whether Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL), or unlicensed machine shops, may engage in the business of completing, or assisting in the completion of, the manufacture of firearm frames or receivers for unlicensed individuals without being licensed as a manufacturer of firearms.”

The ruling that was made in order to address the issue that ATF Ruling 2015-1 has called into question – whether or not the ability of American citizens to produce their own weapons, pass them down, and modify those weapons in specific capacities will remain a viable option.

Thankfully, the BATFE is not attempting to entirely eliminate the ability of individuals to manufacture their own weapons, but the agency is attempting to limit that ability.

So far, the policy of the BATFE’s Firearms Technology Branch (now called the Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch) as it was enumerated in 2010 remains the same. The BATFE states that “For your information, per the provisions of the GCA, an unlicensed individual may make a ‘firearm’ as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution.” The FTB continued by stating “Also, based on the GCA, manufacturers’ marks of identification are not required on firearms that are produced by individuals for personal use.

Prince Law Offices analyzed the policy statement and concluded that “it is completely lawful, as acknowledged by ATF, for one to manufacture his/her/its own firearm, provided there is no intent to sell or distribute it.” However, the lawyers’ blog also asked another pertinent question, “but what about when that individual is incapable of turning a block of metal or 80% lower into a functioning firearm?

Regardless, the ruling from the BATFE was justified on the grounds that the agency had been receiving “inquiries from the public” on the issue of private gun manufacture. Of course, given the history of the BATFE, one would be justified in wondering whether or not these “inquiries” in fact existed.

Nevertheless, the BATFE began its ruling by explaining part of the issue at hand – that some individuals purchase “castings or machined/molded or other manufactured bodies (sometimes referred to as “blanks,” or “80% receivers”) that have not yet reached a stage of manufacture in which they are classified as ‘firearm frames or receivers’ under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA).” Many of these individuals are not able to complete the manufacture of the gun, particularly the fire control cavity, and, for that reason, seek out a Federal Firearm Licensee (FFL) or a machine shop in order to assist them in the remaining steps of the procedure.

True to form, the BATFE has ruled that not only are FFLs and gunsmiths not allowed to complete the process of manufacturing these guns, but private machine shops are not allowed to complete the process either, even if the machine shop is merely allowing its equipment to be used by the individual producing the gun.

The ruling states,

An FFL or unlicensed machine shop may also desire to make available its machinery (e.g., a computer numeric control or “CNC” machine), tools, or equipment to individuals who bring in raw materials, blanks, unfinished frames or receivers and/or other firearm parts for the purpose of creating operable firearms. Under the instruction or supervision of the FFL or unlicensed machine shop, the customers would initiate and/or manipulate the machinery, tools, or equipment to complete the frame or receiver, or entire weapon. The FFL or unlicensed machine shop would typically charge a fee for such activity, or receive some other form of compensation or benefit. This activity may occur either at a fixed premises, such as a machine shop, or a temporary location, such as a gun show or event.

A business (including an association or society) may not avoid the manufacturing license, marking, and recordkeeping requirements under the GCA simply by allowing individuals to initiate or manipulate a CNC machine, or to use machinery, tools, or equipment under its dominion or control to perform manufacturing processes on blanks, unfinished frames or receivers, or incomplete weapons. In these cases, the business controls access to, and use of, its machinery, tools, and equipment. Following manufacture, the business “distributes” a firearm when it returns or otherwise disposes a finished frame or receiver, or complete weapon to its customer. Such individuals or entities are, therefore, “engaged in the business” of manufacturing firearms even though unlicensed individuals may have assisted them in the manufacturing process.

Held, any person (including any corporation or other legal entity) engaged in the business of performing machining, molding, casting, forging, printing (additive manufacturing) or other manufacturing process to create a firearm frame or receiver, or to make a frame or receiver suitable for use as part of a “weapon … which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive,” i.e., a “firearm,” must be licensed as a manufacturer under the GCA; identify (mark) any such firearm; and maintain required manufacturer’s records.

Held further, a business (including an association or society) may not avoid the manufacturing license, marking, and recordkeeping requirements of the GCA by allowing persons to perform manufacturing processes on blanks or incomplete firearms (including frames or receivers) using machinery, tools, or equipment under its dominion and control where that business controls access to, and use of, such machinery, tools, or equipment.

Held further, this ruling is limited to an interpretation of the requirements imposed on persons under the GCA, and does not interpret the requirements of the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5801 et. seq.

While not a ruling on the level of a gun ban or a direct ban on the private production and manufacture of guns, it is nonetheless an example of the chipping away of the Second Amendment rights of American citizens bit by bit, minuscule ruling by minuscule ruling.

While I can understand the rationale behind the determination where the individual is under the “instruction or supervision ” of an unlicensed machine shop, as the machine shop or its employees would seemingly be causing the machine to perform the modifications to the 80% lower, I cannot understand or see any (legal) rationale, where the non-licensed machine shop only makes available the equipment and does not provide any instruction or supervision. If the machine shop merely offers individuals the opportunity to utilize its equipment for either a set fee or hourly rate, as a number of machine shops and vocation technical schools offer, the business or school is not involved in any distribution of the firearm nor is it engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms, as the individual retains absolute possession and control in the manufacture of the firearm. The ridiculousness of this determination and logical outgrowth suggests that any manufacturer of drills, drill presses, drill bits, CNC machines, 3d printers…etc is also involved in the distribution of firearms and engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms, even though they only sold a product that the end user elected to utilize in a particular way. If the machine shop only offers its equipment for rental, and does not provide any supervision or guidance, it is no different than the manufacturer of the equipment being utilized.

To be clear, this ruling does not end the practice of manufacturing one’s own firearm. It does, however, put a serious financial dent in the process not only for the individual producing their firearm but for the myriad of companies that produce what is known as “80% lowers.” By ruling that individuals must be able to complete the entire process with their own tools, the number of individuals able to do so (due to their lack of all the proper tools) is likely to go down drastically and thus, the amount of firearm parts and accessories sold and manufactured will be vastly reduced.

The Prince Law Offices, the organization that was largely responsible for revealing the recent BATFE ruling, commented further on the “plethora of concerns” raised by the ruling by asking,

What if the individual borrows a tool from a neighbor? What if the equipment utilized is jointly owned (such as marital property)? Can a company offer membership, whereby any member is entitled to utilize the company equipment for free, and the member complete his/her/its firearm on the company equipment since the business would not be engage in the business? Do machine shops now need to inquire of the individual as to what he/she/it is going to be utilizing the machinery for?

In addition to an analysis of the ruling from a legal standpoint, the blog for Prince Law Offices provides an excellent appraisal of the ruling from more personal, Constitutional perspective. The blog states,

Clearly, there is opportunity for anyone or entity aggrieved to challenge ATF’s Ruling but will anyone from the Industry step up to the plate? With a few recent exceptions, our Industry has generally declined to push-back against ATF’s overarching determinations. Many in the Firearms Industry believe that they can make a deal with the devil and not get burnt (ATF-41p anyone?) or that if they make any waves, they’ll be in the cross hairs of the out-of-control agency known as ATF. Unfortunately, both of those positions have led us to where we are today. We take it on the chin, time after time, and allow ATF to do as it wishes. Either, we need to start pushing back (as some are now doing) or there won’t be an Industry to fight for and our Industry isn’t just an industry, its the Second Amendment.

While the reports of this new ruling will undoubtedly produce a chorus of criticism against those concerned by and opposed to it, with proponents and apathetic observers suggesting that the ruling is no big deal and that, if you can afford to pay the machine shop you can afford the tools, it should be remembered that the issue is not owning tools or mere changes in minor details, it is the ability of free individuals who have a Constitutional and a natural right to own and produce guns for purposes of self-defense that we should be concerned with. What could not be accomplished (yet) with laws passed by Congress or even Executive Orders signed by the President is being accomplished bit by bit as a result of minute rule changes by any one of the myriad organizations that govern the private facets of gun ownership, transfer, and production.

1-7-2015 12-06-49 PM

The game is simple – what cannot be accomplished by law or decree can be accomplished through small and incremental rule changes that go largely unnoticed and unopposed at the time of their implementation. As time progresses, America acclimates to the “rules.” We may not like them but that’s the way it is. It should be clear enough by now that it is high time for Americans to straighten up their backs and change “the way it is.”

10 13 11 flagbar

 

1000 Plus people killed by cops in 2014 FBI Trying to Falsely Report Actual Numbers

January 3rd, 2015 by

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/01/1000-people-killed-by-cops-in-2014-fbi.html

1-3-2015 9-30-38 AM

Justin King
Activist Post

Another year has come to an end, which means another set of Unified Crime Reports (UCR) will be published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The reports are supposed to be the most authoritative set of data on crime in the US.

As has become the habit with most federal documents, the numbers are cooked. They could have honestly just made them up. In 2013, the FBI reported that there were 461 people killed by cops in the US.

461 seems to be a fairly good number. It fits with the estimates of 500 per year that most believe to be accurate. The problem is that the actual number of people killed by cops in 2013 is much higher.

On May 1st, 2013 activists began keeping track of

Corporate news reports of people killed by nonmilitary law enforcement officers, whether in the line of duty or not, and regardless of reason or method. 

Inclusion implies neither wrongdoing nor justification on the part of the person killed or the officer involved. The post merely documents the occurrence of a death.

 

Even though they missed the first four months of the year, they logged over 763 people killed by cops from May until the year’s end.

The results can be found here, complete with links to the stories about the individual killings.

2013 wasn’t an exceptionally high year. The website catalogs over 1000 people killed by police in 2014. The UCR has never reported anything even remotely close to this number.

Readers are left with choosing from three options:

  1. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, an agency known for investigating things, simply can’t count up news reports of people killed by cops.
  2. The FBI has set the criteria for inclusion in the report so narrowly that more than half of those people killed by cops just don’t make the cut.
  3. The FBI is intentionally lying about the number of people killed.

The answer is a combination of all three.

The FBI has no desire to publicize the number of people killed by cops. After all, this is the same government entity that has shot 150 people, and cleared themselves in every single case. Even in the case that resulted in US taxpayers having to fork over $1.3 million to the victim of an FBI shooting, it was deemed justified. If the government wanted to disclose accurate numbers, they could. It isn’t difficult. Apparently, literacy is not a requirement to work for the FBI because they certainly aren’t reading the papers.

The criteria is exceedingly narrow and vague all at the same time. To be included, the case must involve a justifiable homicide of a felon by a law enforcement officer while on duty. So when cops kill someone for selling loose cigarettes, it isn’t included because it’s a misdemeanor. When a cop guns down an unarmed kid in a Wal-Mart, it isn’t included because there was no crime being committed by the suspect. When an off-duty cop flips out and shoots a woman in the head because he didn’t like her driving, it isn’t included.

In other words, the report intentionally leaves out the cases most likely to be unjustified. People shot for committing petty crimes aren’t included, and those who were shot for committing no crime are not included.

The report is predetermined to only include good, old-fashioned, bad guys that were shot and killed by a cop wearing a white hat before he rode off into the sunset with Miss Kitty while his still-smoking peacemaker hung at his hip.

Given that the FBI has found a way to intentionally filter out cases, and has made no effort to reconcile their report with the facts, it must be concluded that they are intentionally lying to the American public and to the policy makers who rely on this data to make decisions.

If the reader is in the mood to have news of a killing by police hit their Facebook newsfeed about 3 times a day, the Killed by Police Facebook page posts incidents in real time as they are discovered.

Justin King writes for TheAntiMedia.org, where this first appeared. Tune-in to The Anti-Media radio show Monday-Friday @ 11pm EST, 8pm PST. Image credit: Christopher Dick 

 10 13 11 flagbar

7 Examples of Police State Technology Making Our Rights Obsolete as we Head into 2015

January 2nd, 2015 by

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/01/7-examples-of-police-state-technology.html

1-2-2015 10-09-01 AM

Mac Slavo
Activist Post

Things are not looking pretty for the land of the free.

The year 2014 has made it very clear that privacy is under threat, and the situation is not likely to improve. Mass surveillance – which became a national issue via theEdward Snowden leaks – is not subsiding or under reform; instead, it is becoming more bold and complex with each passing day.

It would take several books to catalog the myriad ways in which the rights of The People have been casually infringed upon by various levels of government just in years since 9/11 and the introduction of the PATRIOT Act.

And it’s not only federal agencies like the NSA, Homeland Security and the FBI that are taking liberties with our … umm … liberties; it is local police, too. The rise of technology is rapidly fueling these agencies with data and “intelligence” with very little oversight and even less pause for reflection to use these powerful abilities wisely and, yes, judiciously.

Here are just a few major areas where privacy has lost badly to surveillance technology in 2014. Not that anyone is paying attention, but they are worth reflecting upon soon – hopefully before it is too late to turn things back around:

1. Militarized Police and Weapons of War on American Streets:

True, this technology has been in use for several years now and has been demonstrated at protests such as the those held outside of the G20 in Pittsburgh, Toronto and other locales.

But the events in Ferguson really allowed this brand of crowd control to come of age. This and other key protests have seemingly justified a massive police response for just about anything now …but… you know, the first amendment is still respected and all.

 

The Daily Sheeple reported:

Ferguson police have stocked up on less-lethal ammunition in the last few months including “hornets nest” CS sting grenades, which shoot out dozens of rubber bullets and a powdered chemical agent upon detonation, tear gas, riot gear, plastic handcuffs and the like in the lead up to the decision which is expected to come any time now. St Louis County police have spent $172,669 on this stuff just since August.

The Pentagon’s 1033 surplus program, which hands out everything from MRAP armored vehicles, to bulletproof vests, assault rifles, and other military weapons to domestic law enforcement agencies, is one of the major reasons that ordinary police departments, including those in small towns, are gearing up as for battle … and that includes Ferguson:

The Department of Defense Excess Property Program (1033 Program) is authorized under federal law and managed through the Defense Logistics Agency’s Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) in Ft. Belvoir, Va. The 1033 Program provides surplus DoD military equipment to state and local civilian law enforcement agencies for use in counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism operations, and to enhance officer safety. The Missouri Department of Public Safety is the sponsoring state agency responsible for administration of the 1033 Program in Missouri.

  1. Biometrics Comes of Age:

    Fingerprints and iris scans are becoming normalized as identifiers on mobile phones, including the iPhone 5, computers and other platforms.

    Increasingly, technology – including devices used by police – areutilizing other bodily features (in addition to fingerprints and eyes) to identify you, including ears, noses, heart rate (via electrocardiogram), blood vein matching, your scent or smell  and even “butt biometrics” – no joke – which will allow smart car seats to identify the sitter based on their unique posture.

    While these are surely being integrated into law enforcement devices, they are also becoming the mainstays of “wearables,” the new trendy technology that is collecting data on all of those using it to track health progress, etc.

    Surveillance cameras have already been used to identify you by your walk for several years now, but advances have allowed technology to even identify the person wearing a camera, such as a police officer with a mounted body cam, by just 4 seconds of footage, revealing a ‘biometric fingerprint’of the individual.

    Of course, roadside blood draws have already entered the picture in law enforcement work, including numerous locales that have implemented mandatory policies during stops. This is sure to pick up. In Seattle, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently conducted a paid, voluntary survey of drivers who received up to $60 to give blood and breath samples at a roadside stopin an effort to study how many people drive impaired.

    3. Smart Phone Apps Know Everything About You:

    Vocative published a long and unsettling list of apps for smart phones and other similar devices that all collect untold amounts of information about you every day.

    Whether you realize it or not, permissions for apps routinely allow the collection and sharing of such information as your contact and address book, your text message, audio recorded from your device’s microphone, your call log and much more.

    Yes, this is really happening, so beware if you are using mobile apps including:

AntiVirus Security, Viber, Facebook, 360 Security (Antivirus), Tango Messenger, WhatsApp Messenger, Skype, GO Launcher EX, WeChat, CM Security, Waze Social GPS Maps & Traffic, BBM, LINE Free Calls & Messages, Clean Master Phone Boost, BU Battery Saver, Google’s Chrome Browser, Twitter, Maps, Instagram, YouTube, Dolphin Browser, Castle Clash and Trivia Crack.

…and be sure to actually read over the privacy policy and Terms of Service before accepting or installing anything.

Considering that Angry Birds and Candy Crush were admittedly used to collect surveillance data for the NSA (also revealed in 2014), and law enforcement now regularly investigate persons of interest based upon social media posts and cell phone data, there is no telling how many of these apps may be drawing unwanted suspicion your way … whether you have anything to hide or not.

Need we remind you of all the telecom and Internet firms who, according to the Edward Snowden leaks, shared data willingly with the NSA?

4. “StingRay” and “Dirtbox” Cell Phone Interceptors:

2014 is the year that much has come to light about the very secret and awfully quiet use of a data sweeping technology that has increasingly been used by agencies including the FBI, local law enforcement, and likelyprivate, public and foreign intelligence agencies and even military units … though, due to extreme secrecy, it is just too difficult to know for sure.

Moreover, it emerged in 2014 that the FBI has been pressuring police departments to keep quiet about the use of StingRay, which it has also not been obtaining warrants before putting to use:

Not only are local police departments across the United States increasingly relying on so-called StingRay devices to conduct surveillance on cell phone users, but cops are being forced to keep quiet about the operations, new documents reveal.

Recent reports have indicated that law enforcement agencies from coast to coast have been turning to IMSI-catcher devices, like the StingRay sold by Florida’s Harris Corporation, to trick ordinary mobile phones into communicating device-specific International Mobile Subscriber Identity information to phony cell towers — a tactic that takes the approximate geolocation data of all the devices within range and records it for investigators. Recently, the Tallahassee Police Department in the state of Florida was found to have used their own “cell site simulator” at least 200 times to collect phone data without once asking for a warrant during a three-year span, and details about the use of StingRays by other law enforcement groups continue to emerge on the regular.

Although the majority of the December 2012 document is redacted, a paragraph from FBI special agent Laura Laughlin to Police of Chief Donald Ramsdell reveals that Tacoma officers were told they couldn’t discuss their use of IMSI-catchers with anyone… police in Tacoma were forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA, with the Federal Bureau of Investigation before they could begin conducting surveillance on cell users with a Harris-sold StingRay.

It further emerged in 2014 that the Justice Department was overseeing the use of small Cessna aircraft using “dirtbox” technology to collect cell phone data over major urban centers across the nation to pinpoint suspects while scooping up information from thousands of cell phone users. Here’s what the Wall Street Journal revealed:

The Justice Department is scooping up data from thousands of mobile phones through devices deployed on airplanes that mimic cellphone towers, a high-tech hunt for criminal suspects that is snagging a large number of innocent Americans, according to people familiar with the operations.

The U.S. Marshals Service program, which became fully functional around 2007,operates Cessna aircraft from at least five metropolitan-area airports, with a flying range covering most of the U.S. population, according to people familiar with the program.

  1. Radar Sweeps of Residential Homes:

    The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals made a decision on the use of doppler radar technology for use in the execution of an arrest warrant. The Washington Postconsidered: 

the “grave” Fourth Amendment issues raised by use of a “Doppler radar device capable of detecting from outside the home the presence of human breathing and movement within”

But it is also fair to ask, who is watching the watchers for the use of this technology, anyway? Is this (and much more) being used frequently by authorities or private agencies to collect data in pursuit of investigations, including before the burden of “reasonable suspicion” has been met?

Is such a radar sweep a violation of the 4th Amendment and other rights if the police don’t already have “reasonable suspicion”? The possibilities are foggy … and a bit unnerving.

We don’t normally encounter this question because we normally understand the uses and limits of investigatory tools. If the officer looked through the window and didn’t see any other people, for example, we could intuitively factor that into the reasonable suspicion inquiry without having to think about burdens of proof. I’m less sure what we’re supposed to do when the government use a suspicion-testing technological device with unknown capabilities. The opinion relies on the language from Buie that “the sweep lasts no longer than is necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger,” and thus asks whether there was evidence that the Doppler device “dispel[led]” the reasonable suspicion. But it’s not clear to me that this language from Buie applies here, as it was referring to evidence after reasonable suspicion was established and the entry was made rather than before.

But for the average person, the potential for abuse is pretty clear here. One commenter noted:

Use of this technology on a home is a search. The police don’t know what or who is in the house – they use this technology to survey (i.e. search) the house to determine information that they can’t ascertain without the home owners permission.

  1. Pre-crime “Threat Assessment” Database:

    The 9-1-1 emergency infrastructure now carries a real time “threat assessment” database known as “Beware,”that gives police and first responders a color-coded threat level, with green signifying no threat, yellow identifying a valid threat and red urging immediate caution. The catch? The threat assessment is not just based on the obvious stuff like prior arrests and criminal history, but also compiles billions of consumer records and, yes, social media. In fact, the majority of police now use social mediain their investigations … the Beware database just makes it instant and universal.

    Even worse, the co-founder of the technology said it flags “offensive speech” in its threat assessment … you don’t even have to make an online threat to be considered a threat, you just have be considered “offensive”! And who decides that, anyway?

    Not you. You aren’t even allowed to know what has been entered in your privately-held records:

Your local police department is likely using numerous tools and applications that might determine how you get treated during a routine traffic stop, or in response to your neighbor’s call about loud music. One such application, Beware, has been sold to police departments since 2012. It can be accessed on any Internet-enabled device, including tablets, smartphones, laptop and desktop computers, while responders are en route to, or at the location of a call.

This app explores billions of records in social media postings, commercial and public databases for law enforcement needs, churning out “risk profiles” in real time. ‘Beware’ algorithm assigns a score and “threat rating” to a person — green, yellow or red – and sends that rating to a requesting officer. Worst of all, this information is not made available to the very person whose “threat rating” is being appraised. You have no ability to dispute being wrongly designated a high-risk potential offender.

And it stands to reason that this concerning database is going to be used against more than just serious criminals. The potential for abuse and use against gun owners and those exercising political speech, including offensive or less-than-responsible online rhetoric, is perhaps inevitable and unavoidable with this system, which as been in use for now for several years.

What’s worse? So-called “predictive policing” is just in its infancy … there are multiple platforms still finding a market, and their invasive capabilities are sure to grow in magnitude as the years go on.

A federally-mandated network called FirstNet is being constructed, “using federal funding, are set to begin building a $7-billion nationwide first-responder wireless network” that will incorporate these emergency powers into every agency and locale across the country.

7. License Plate Scanning and Traffic Monitoring:

There are already issues for gun owners in Maryland, where concealed carry permits issued by other states are not recognized. Traffic cops there recently pulled over a licensed gun owner in good legal standing from Florida to search his vehicle for a s specific firearm – his Kel-Tec .38 semi-automatic handgun – while he and his family were traveling through the state. As it turned out, the gun was locked in a safe at home in Florida, and the incident ended in a traffic warning for speeding. But what prompted the preemptive search, and how did police know know this man was a concealed carry?

Likely the stop-and-search was the result of police work involving routine license scanning, traffic monitoring and database threat assessment using software like Beware, which has already been used in some 38 million emergency calls across the country.

Only a few days ago, the mainstream rehashed the fact that the EZ Pass and other toll road transponders are not just used for collecting toll information, but are used for traffic surveillance and police investigations as well.

Forbes’ privacy advocate Kashmir Hill wrote about an electronics tinkerer who

did an analysis of the many ways his car could be tracked and stumbled upon something rather interesting: his E-ZPass, which he obtained for the purpose of paying tolls, was being used to track his car in unexpected places, far away from any toll booths.

Police subsequently copped to the use of this device in surveillance and tracking activities:

It’s part of Midtown in Motion, an initiative to feed information from lots of sensors into New York’s traffic management center. A spokesperson for the New York Department of Transportation, Scott Gastel, says the E-Z Pass readers are on highways across the city, and on streets in Manhattan, Brooklyn and Staten Island, and have been in use for years. The city uses the data from the readers to provide real-time traffic information, as for this tool… Notably, the fact that E-ZPasses will be used as a tracking device outside of toll payment, is not disclosed anywhere that I could see in the terms and conditions.

They are also used by toll companies themselves, as USA Today disclosed:

Warning to motorists: Don’t speed in the toll lanes. E-Z Pass is watching.

Several states, including New York, Maryland and Pennsylvania, say they monitor speeds through the fast pass toll lanes and will suspend your E-Z Pass for multiple speeding violations.

Years ago, a hacker explained how the the California DOT and law enforcement were able to use toll transponders as an active homing beacon capable of zeroing in on a suspect or monitoring the total flow of traffic over a given period of time:

Each radio frequency id (RFID) transponder sends a unique identification code to scanners positioned at toll booths. A tolling authority computer matches this ID code with credit card and other payment information to collect the toll… [even] an inexpensive RFID scanner [can be used] to read the ID code of any vehicle remotely, essentially turning the transponder into a homing beaconwith a maximum range of about 100 yards.

“You can use it for tracking,” Lawson said. “Once you’ve seen the car, you can pick it out in a crowd.”

That is exactly what California’s 511 system does. Scanners placed throughout the highway network track the movement of motorists with toll transponders as a means of monitoring traffic flow. According to the California Department of Transportation,the system tracks individual ID codes, storing a movement history for each particular car in a database for 24 hours.

Additionally, both Homeland Security and the IRS were in the news this year regarding their use of data collected by both public and private agencies using license-plate tracking systems:

The Department of Homeland Security wants a private company to provide a national license-plate tracking system that would give the agency access to vast amounts of information from commercial and law enforcement tag readers, according to a government proposal that does not specify what privacy safeguards would be put in place.

“It is important to note that this database would be run by a commercial enterprise, and the data would be collected and stored by the commercial enterprise, not the government,” she said.

Fox News carried further details:

In June 2012, the IRS awarded Vigilant a $1,188 contract for “access to nationwide data,” according to federal procurement records compiled by the news agency. The contract ended in May 2013, according to the records.

Especially with the IRS, I don’t know why these agencies are getting access to this kind of information,” Lynch said. “These systems treat every single person in an area as if they’re under investigation for a crime — that is not the way our criminal justice system was set up or the way things work in a democratic society.”

You can read more from Mac Slavo at his site SHTFplan.com, where this first appeared

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

This Olddog has concluded that American freedom is gone forever because, in every conflict those who have the fire-power and information are impossible to defeat. Think about it! If you are accused of doing something in America today, most likely you will be the last person to know you are under suspicion and your first awareness will be when confronted by armed hostile’s, and it’s too late to prepare. 

10 13 11 flagbar

The Four Things You Can Count On Following the Collapse of the Dollar

January 1st, 2015 by

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2015/01/01/four-

things-can-count-following-collapse-dollar/

1-1-2015 2-57-26 PM

 Jan 1 2015 by Dave Hodges

It is easy to misinterpret the signals of our economy from afar when we see people driving cars everywhere and we tend to think that our economy as not being that bad. However, the fact remains that 40 years ago Americans owned those cars that we see them driving. Today, we are renting them as 40% of us are leasing our vehicles. As we drive up and down our neighborhoods, we see people living in houses and we lie to ourselves and use this as a  false barometer to convince ourselves that everything is OK. However, many of these homes we see people living in, have lost all of their equity. The logical answer to the question “When will we have a depression”, should be answered by stating “We have an $18 trillion dollar annual deficit and that is the good news. We have $240 trillion dollars of debt from unfunded liabilities and we have a stunning $1.5 quadrillion dollar debt. So, you better grab all the food, water, guns and ammunition that you can and run for the hills”!  But as long we see people driving in cars and living in houses, most Americans are going to deny the truth. And the last thing that I wanted to do on the first day of a new year, was to be the harbinger of doom and gloom. Yet, I feel compelled to speak the truth, on this New Year’s Day, because I might be able to get one more person to take the steps necessary to help increase the odds of their survival in response to what is coming. History shows that one can count on four things occurring following the collapse of the dollar.

 The Last Great American Garage Sale

On multiple occasions in this column, I have thoroughly documented the following facts which demonstrate that the banksters are stealing our assets in preparation for them to economically survive what is coming:

  1. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appealsruled that when you put money into the bank, you have transferred ownership of that money to the bank. This ruling represents government sponsored theft in the highest order, yet most of us are unaware that this happened.
  2. TheG20 nationsdeclared the money in your bank account to not be money. Therefore, the FDIC insurance for your savings.
  3. The MERS mortgage fraud is ongoing and homeowners are still having their homes stolen without legal justification.
  4. The Federal Reserve, in 2012, began to print money to the tune of $40 billion dollars a month in order to purchase mortgage backed securities.
  5. The banksters have practiced stealing the secured accounts of American in the MF Global (MFG) scandal, resulting in the loss of $6.3 billion dollars of secured investment funds.Nobody went to jail.
  6. In April of 2013,  the banksters are manipulating the price of gold as evidenced by the actions of “Goldman Sachswho told their clients earlier that they recommend initiating a short COMEX gold position.” After investors were duped into panic selling, the banksters bought up massive sums of gold. The banksters were buying gold while getting out the American Stock Market and the megabanks. Why? Because the dollar is on the verge of collapse.
  7. This past week, the banksters signaled that they were no longer attempting to gain control of any more gold as they began to repatriate goldwith their rightful owners in Europe. This means that the crash could happen at any time.

The only thing left to do is for the banksters to steal your bank accounts. The correct “crisis” will bring about the collapse of the dollar now that the wealth transfer has largely been accomplished.

What America Will Look Like Following the Collapse of the Dollar

The aftermath of an economic collapse can take different forms, however, history demonstrates that there are some universal things you can count on:

#1 Obamavilles

1-1-2015 2-59-54 PM

1-1-2015 3-00-49 PM

#2 Dramatic Food Shortages

1-1-2015 3-05-33 PM

Because of “Just In Time” deliveries, the American food industry operates on quick and multiple deliveries and survives only as the result of the rapid payment of invoices. As the failing economy reaches to the service industry, most of these business will fail in very large numbers. Who then, will be delivering the food?

#3 Food Riots

1-1-2015 3-08-08 PM

1-1-2015 3-09-08 PM

Because of the food shortages, riots and organized gang violence will occur. The military is trained to isolate these areas, but will not intervene. If you call 911, nobody will be answering. This will be the time that you wished you had listened to many in the alternative media because this is the time that America will begin to see a large loss of life.

  1. Martial Law Will Be Declared

DHS and the military have already practiced for this development. Travel will be limited and it will stopped all together in areas where the civil unrest is at its worst.

The  2012 and 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), will allow government officials to “disappear” anyone they want to and for any reason, or no reason at all.  The NDAA suspends habeas corpus, provides for indefinite detention and this is done on the premise that certain kinds of Americans are threats (e.g. Second Amendment supporters, Bible-believing Christians). This is where the present harassment of Christians will turn into the outright persecution of Christians.

I think the public has a right to know how its government plans to handle future protests. Is America the new Venezuela, Egypt, or Ukraine?  A previously secret document which was leaked online; entitled FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations (PDF).

RIOT FORMATIONS

H-42. Quick-reaction force teams should be established with a minimum response time. Because of the physical nature of riot control, individuals in riot control formations should not carry rifles. Nonlethal attachments should follow closely behind the riot control formation. Lethal coverage must be provided for this entire formation. (See FM 3-22.40.)

DESIGNATED MARKSMEN

H-43. During a nonlethal engagement, the use of designated marksmen provides confidence and safety to those facing a riot. If a lethal threat is presented, the designated marksmen in overwatch positions (armed with appropriate sniper weapons mounted with high-powered scopes) can scan a crowd and identify agitators and riot leaders for apprehension and fire lethal rounds if warranted. Additionally, they are ideally suited for flank security and countersniper operations. (See FM 3-22.40.).

1-1-2015 3-11-22 PM

Travel restrictions will be a part of this process.

Government Control Over All Fuel and Transportation

These are some of the things that government can do to you courtesy of several executive orders.

Executive Order 10990

Allows the government to take control over all modes of transportation, highways, and seaports.

Executive Order 11003

Allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

Executive Order 11005

Allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities.

Executive Order 10997

Allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.

Government Control Over All Food and Water

Executive Order 10998

Allows the government to take over all food resources and farms

 The Ability to Enslave the American People

Executive Order 11000

Allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

Executive Order 11001

Allows the government to take over all health, education, and welfare functions.

Executive Order 11002

Designates the Postmaster General to operate national registration of all persons.

Executive Order 11004

Allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

Ability to Grant the President Total Dictatorial Control

Executive Order 11051

Specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

Executive Order 11310

Grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

Executive Order 11049

Assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.

There are more examples, but I think you get the idea. Your government has practiced to subjugate and even murder you in times such as these.

Conclusion

Is there anything that can be done to stop the egregious violations of our civil liberties? The short answer is no! However, there are some things that can be done to mitigate the threat and to soften the landing following an economic collapse and this will be the subject of my next article in this series.

 

Data Shows Cops Kill Three People a Day in America

December 30th, 2014 by

http://www.activistpost.com/2014/12/data-shows-cops-kill-three-people-day.html

Melissa Melton

Activist Post 

Take a look at this screen capture of the recent news on police shootings in America:

12-29-2014 7-14-55 PM

It was taken yesterday. The ten stories on this list range from December 21st to December 28th, 2014 and provide a snapshot of the average week in the American police state.

All of these stories are from different states as follows from top to bottom:

  1. East Baltimore, Maryland
    2. Jacksonville, Florida (deceased)
    3. Texas City, Texas (deceased)
    4. (Protest story from prior police shooting)
    5. Washington, D.C. (two shootings; one deceased)
    6. Berkeley, MO (deceased)
    7. Rotterdam, NY
    8. Bedford, OH (deceased)
    9. Los Angeles, CA
    10. Las Vegas, NV

Half of the ten people shot by police in the last week died from their wounds. Others ranged from serious condition to stable, while one story had not been updated since the man was in surgery. One story not on the list was that of Craig Schiffer, a pedestrian who was randomly struck and killed by officers responding to a non-related 9-1-1 call in Islip, New York.
One man was shot and wounded for reportedly “holding something shiny” and not heeding police commands. One man was shot by police 21 times in a dark corridor where police thought he might have a gun in his hand. One person was shot for fitting the description of a burglar and running away from police. In another case, an armed teen was shot by a cop who, curiously, did not have his body or dash cams on for unknown reasons (and five miles from Ferguson, Missouri, too). Another was accused of committing “suicide by cop,” and yet another man was shot because he threw trash at an officer during a routine traffic stop and sped off. After chasing him across three counties, police shot and killed him under what they claim was suspicion he was armed. And they were right, he was armed … with a sword. The guy who was shot in Vegas was the 16th person shot by police in Vegas in 2014 alone.

Again, this is just what is being reported, but at least six people were killed by police this week across the country.

Were all of these shootings truly justified?

While the mainstream media attempts to portray it differently, not nearly as many police officers are shot and/or killed in the line of duty as people might think.

For example, if you look at data from the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, only 31 officers were shot in the line of duty in 2013. The fund’s data spans 2004 to 2013, and approximately 55 police officers have been shot and killed in the line of duty each year in America during that time.

That data, however, does not tell the whole story.

First of all, depending on where you look at and what factors you consider (part- or full-time, etc.), there are somewhere between 780,000 and 900,000 or more police in this country in over 18,000 police departments (more by far than any other nation on the planet). Secondly, not all of those fatal wounds were homicide-induced. Some were accidents. According to the FBI, only 27 officers were fatally wounded last year, while another 49 officers’ deaths were accidental in nature. Overall, officer deaths in 2013 were the lowest reported in 54 years in this country.

In fact, “police officer” didn’t even make the top ten list of the deadliest jobs in America.

And yet, in the age of “big data,” apparently none is consistently being kept anywhere on how many citizens are shot by police in this country each year.
According to the Facebook page  “Killed by Police” which aims to do just that, at least 1,848 people have been killed by cops since May 1, 2013 when the page was formed (key words “at least”).

Of those, 1,089 were killed just this year alone. Although the year doesn’t end for another two days (and one of those is a holiday known for its alcohol-fueled celebrations), if we go with that figure, that means nearly 21 people are killed by police on average every week in America.

That means cops kill an average of three people every day here.

Again, are all of these deaths truly justifiable? (Oh, and if they aren’t keeping data on the number of people killed by cops, then suffice it to say we truly have no idea at all how many family pets are killed by cops on a regular basis…)

It certainly seems excessive in a country where crime rates have dropped drastically in the last two decades and continue to do so.

Yet, after the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice and more, citizens are looking for answers. Protests against police brutality continue in cities across America as our ever-more-militarized law enforcement agencies go on the defensive.

Related Activist Post Article: 
5 Reasons Police Body Cameras Are a Terrible Idea 

Melissa Melton is a writer, researcher, and analyst for The Daily Sheeple,where this first appeared, and a co-creator of Truthstream Media with Aaron Dykes, a site that offers teleprompter-free, unscripted analysis of The Matrix we find ourselves living in. Melissa also co-founded Nutritional Anarchy with Daisy Luther of The Organic Prepper, a site focused on resistance through food self-sufficiency. Wake the flock up!

10 13 11 flagbar

 

False Flagging the World towards War The CIA Weaponizes Hollywood

December 29th, 2014 by

http://www.globalresearch.ca/false-flagging-the-world-towards-war/5421649

 By Larry Chin

 Almost all wars begin with false flag operations.

The coming conflicts in North Korea and Russia are no exception.

Mass public hysteria is being manufactured to justify aggression against Moscow and Pyongyang, in retaliation for acts attributed to the North Korean and Russian governments, but orchestrated and carried out by the CIA and the Pentagon.

The false flagging of North Korea: CIA weaponizes Hollywood

The campaign of aggression against North Korea, from the hacking of Sony and the crescendo of noise over the film, The Interview, bears all the markings of a CIA false flag operation.

The hacking and alleged threats to moviegoers has been blamed entirely on North Korea, without a shred of credible evidence beyond unsubstantiated accusations by the FBI. Pyongyang’s responsibility has not been proven. But it has already been officially endorsed, and publicly embraced as fact.

The idea of “America under attack by North Korea” is a lie.

The actual individuals of the mysterious group responsible for the hacking remain conveniently unidentified. A multitude of possibilities—Sony insiders, hackers-for-hire, generic Internet vandalism—have not been explored in earnest. The more plausible involvement of US spying agencies—the CIA, the NSA, etc. , their overwhelming technological capability and their peerless hacking and surveillance powers—remains studiously ignored.

Who benefits? It is illogical for Pyongyang to have done it. Isolated, impoverished North Korea, which has wanted improved relations with the United States for years (to no avail), gains nothing by cyberattacking the United States with its relatively weak capabilities, and face the certainty of overwhelming cyber and military response. On the other hand, Washington benefits greatly from any action that leads to regime change in North Korea.

But discussion about Pyongyang’s involvement—or lack of—risks missing the larger point.

This project, from the creation of The Interview to the well-orchestrated international incident, has been guided by the CIA, the Pentagon, and the State Department from the start. It is propaganda. It is a weapon of psychological warfare. It is an especially perverted example of military-intelligence manipulation of popular culture for the purpose of war.

There is nothing funny about any of it.

The Interview was made with the direct and open involvement of CIA and Rand Corporation operatives for the express purpose of destabilizing North Korea. Star and co-director Seth Rogen has admitted that he worked “directly with people who work in the government as consultants, who I’m convinced are in the CIA”. Originally conceived to be a plot taking place in an “unnamed country”, Sony Pictures co-chairman Michael Lynton, who also sits on the board of the Rand Corporation, encouraged the film makers to make the movie overtly about murdering Kim Jong-Un. Bruce Bennett, the Rand Corporation’s North Korean specialist, also had an active role, expressing enthusiasm that the film would assist regime change and spark South Korean action against Pyongyang. Other government figures from the State Department, even operatives connected to Hillary Clinton, read the script.

The infantile, imbecilic, tasteless, reckless idiots involved with The Interview, including the tasteless Rogen and co-director Evan Goldberg, worked with these military-intelligence thugs for months. “Hung out” with them. They do not seem to have had any problem being the political whores for these Langley death merchants. In fact, they had fun doing it. They seem not to give a damn, or even half a damn, that the CIA and the Pentagon have used them, and co-opted the film for an agenda far bigger than the stupid movie itself. All they seem to care about was that they are getting publicity, and more publicity, and got to make a stupid movie. Idiots.

The CIA has now succeeded in setting off a wave of anti-North Korea war hysteria across America. Witness the ignorant squeals and cries from ignorant Americans about how “we can’t let North Korea blackmail us”, “we can’t let Kim take away our free speech”. Listen to the ridiculous debate over whether Sony has the “courage” to release the film to “stand up to the evil North Koreans” who would “blackmail America” and “violate the rights” of idiot filmgoers, who now see it as a “patriotic duty” to see the film.

These mental midgets—their worldviews shaped by the CIA culture ministry with its endorsed pro-war entertainment, violent video games, and gung-ho shoot ‘em ups—are hopelessly brain-curdled, irretrievably lost. Nihilistic and soulless, as well as stupid, most Americans have no problem seeing Kim Jong-Un killed, on screen or in reality. This slice of ugly America is the CIA’s finest post-9/11 army: violent, hate-filled, easily manipulated, eager to obey sheeple who march to whatever drumbeat they set.

And then there are the truly dumb, fools who are oblivious to most of reality, who would say “hey lighten up, it’s only a comedy” and “it’s only a movie”. Naïve, entitled, exceptionalist Americans think the business of the war—the murderous agenda they and their movie are helping the CIA carry out —is all just a game.

The CIA’s business is death, and that there are actual assassination plans in the files of the CIA, targeting heads of state. Kim Jong-Un is undoubtedly on a real assassination list. This is no funny, either.

The real act of war

The provocative, hostile diplomatic stance of the Obama administration speaks for itself. Washington wanted to spark an international incident. It wants regime change in Pyongyang, does not care what North Korea or China think, and does not fear anything North Korea will do about it.

On the other hand, imagine if a film were about the assassination of Benjamin Netanyahu and the toppling of the government in Tel Aviv. Such a film, if it would ever be permitted even in script form, would be stopped cold. If it made it through censors that “magically” never slowed down The Interview (and yes, there is censorship in America, a lot of it) Obama would personally fly to Tel Aviv to apologize. At the very least, Washington would issue statements distancing themselves from the film and its content.

Not so in the case of The Interview. Because American elites actually want the Kim family murdered.

Despite providing no proof of North Korean involvement, President Barack Obama promised a “proportional response”. Promptly, North Korea’s Internet was mysteriously shut down for a day.

Unless one is naïve to believe in this coincidence, all signs point to US spy agencies (CIA, NSA, etc.) or hackers working on behalf of Washington and Langley.

Given the likelihood that North Korea had nothing to do with either the hacking of Sony, the initial pulling of the movie (a big part of the publicity stunt, that was not surprisingly reversed) or the “blackmailing” of moviegoers, the shutting down of North Korea’s Internet was therefore a unilateral, unprovoked act of war. Washington has not officially taken responsibility. For reasons of plausible denial, it never will.

Perhaps it was a dry run. A message. The US got to test how easily it can take down North Korea’s grid. As we witnessed, given overwhelming technological advantage, it was very easy. And when a war against Pyongyang begins in earnest, American forces will know exactly what they will do.

The US is flexing its Asia-Pacific muscles, sending a message not only to Pyongyang, but to China, a big future target. Some of the other muscle-flexing in recent months included the anti-Beijing protests in Hong Kong (assisted by the CIA and the US State Department), ongoing provocations in the South China Sea over disputed oil, and new defense agreements that place new anti-missile systems and missile-guided naval vessels to the region.

The bottom line is that America has once again been mobilized into supporting a new war that could take place soon. The CIA and Sony have successfully weaponized a stupid movie, making it into a cause and a battle cry.

If and when bombs fall on North Korea, blood will be on the hands of the makers of The Interview, every single executive who allowed it to be made, and the hordes who paid to see it.

If America were a decent, sane society, The Interview would be exposed, roundly denounced, boycotted and shunned. Instead it is celebrated.

The CIA should be condemned. Instead, Seth Rogen hangs out with them. America, increasingly dysfunctional, loves them. Obeys them.

The false flagging of Russia

Regarding The Interview, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich issued a statement in sympathy with North Korea, correctly calling the film’s concept aggressive and scandalous, and decried the US retaliatory response as counterproductive and dangerous to international relations.

Of course. Washington has no interest in improved international relations.

The Russians should know.

Like Kim Jong-Un, Vladimir Putin has been vilified, demonized and false-flagged, incessantly. If Kim is today’s object of ridicule, Putin is Evil Incarnate.

Consider the hysterical, desperate provocations by Washington in recent months.

A US-NATO coup, engineered by the CIA, toppled the government of Ukraine, planting a pro-US neo-Nazi criminal apparatus on Russia’s doorstep. The CIA and its worldwide network of propagandists pinned the blame on Putin and Russia for aggression, and for obstructing “democracy”.

The MH-17 jetliner is downed by Ukrainian operatives, with the support of the CIA, Mi-6, etc. etc. This false flag operation was blamed on Russia— “Putin’s Missile”. The US and NATO are still trying to pin these murders on Putin.

The war against the Islamic State—a massive CIA false flag operation—seeks to topple with the the Assad government as well as to militarily counter Russia. The ongoing Anglo-American conquest of regional oil and gas supplies, and energy transport routes is also aimed at checkmating Russia and China across the region.

The US and NATO have attacked the Russian federation with sanctions. The US and Saudi Arabia have collapsed oil prices, to further destroy the Russian economy. Full-scale military escalations are being planned. The US Congress is pushing new legislation tantamount to an open declaration of war against Russia.

What next? Perhaps it is time for the CIA to produce a Seth Rogen-James Franco movie about assassinating Putin. Another “parody”. Or how about a movie about killing Assad, or anyone else the United States wants to make into a Public Enemy? Don’t think Langley isn’t working on it.

The return of the Bushes (who were never gone)

In the midst of all escalating war hysteria comes news that Jeb Bush is “actively exploring” running for president in 2016. The long predicted return of the Bush family, the kings of terrorism, the emperors of the false flag operation, back to the White House appears imminent.

The CIA will have its favorite family back in the Oval Office, with true CIA scion to manage the apocalyptic wars are likely to be launched in earnest in the next two years: Russia/Ukraine, North Korea, the Middle East.

Jeb Bush will “finish the job”.

The 2016 presidential “contest” will be a charade. It is likely to put forth two corrupt establishment political “friends” posing as adversaries, when in fact, they are longtime comrades and conspirators. On one side, Hillary (and Bill) Clinton. On the other side, Jeb Bush, with George H.W., George W. and all of the Bush cronies crawling back out of the rotten woodwork. The fact is that the Clintons and Bushes, and their intertwined networks, have run the country since the 1980s, their respective camps taking turns in power, with Obama as transitional figurehead (his administration has always been run by neoliberal elites connected to the Clintonistas, including Hillary Clinton herself).

The collective history of the Bushes stretches back to the very founding of the American intelligence state. It is the very history of modern war criminality. The resume is George H.W. Bush—the CIA operative and CIA Director—is long and bloody, and littered with cocaine dust. The entire Bush family ran the Iran-Contra/CIA drug apparatus, with the Clintons among the Bush network’s full partners in the massive drug/weapons/banking frauds of that era, the effects of which still resonate today. And we need not remind that the Bush clan and 9/11 are responsible for the world of terror and false flag foreign policy and deception that we suffer today.

While it remains too early to know which way the Establishment will go with their selection (and it depends on how world war shakes out between now and 2016), it is highly likely that Jeb

Bush would be the pick.

Hillary Clinton has already been scandalized—“Benghazi-ed”. Jeb Bush, on the other hand, has ideal Establishment/CIA pedigree. He has waited years for the stupid American public to forget the horrors that his family—Georges H.W. and W.— brought humanity. And now Americans , with their ultra-short memories, have indeed forgotten, if they had ever understood it in the first place.

And the American public does not know who Jeb Bush is, beyond the last name. Jeb Bush, whom Barbara Bush always said was the “smart one”, has been involved in Bush narco-criminal business since Iran-Contra. His criminal activities in Florida, his connection with anti-Castro Cuban terrorists and other connections are there, for those who bother to investigate them. His Latin American connections—including his ability to speak fluent Spanish, a Latin wife and a half-Latin son (George P. Bush, the next up and coming political Bush)—conveniently appeals to the fastest-growing demographic, as well as those in the southern hemisphere drug trade. Recent Obama overtures towards the Latino demographic—immigration, Cuba—appear to be a Democratic Party move to counter Jeb Bush’s known strengths in the same demographic.

Today, in the collective American mind, Kim Jong-Un and Vladimir Putin are “the bad guys”. But the mass murdering war criminal Bushes are saints. “Nice guys”.

A Jeb Bush presidency will be a pure war presidency, one that promises terror, more unspeakable than we are experiencing now, lording it over a world engulfed in holocaust.

This is not a movie.

Copyright © 2014 Global Research

 10 13 11 flagbar

Germany Files War Crimes Against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld And Other CIA Officials

December 27th, 2014 by

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2014/12/24/germany-files-war-

crimes-against-bush-cheney-rumsfeld-and-other-cia-officials/?utm

_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign

=Feed%3A+pakalert+%28Pak+Alert+Press%29

12-27-2014 9-07-23 AM

 

In an interview with “Democracy Now,” Michael Ratner, p

If President Obama won’t do it, someone else will. Thankfully, a human rights group in Berlin, The European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, has begun the process of indicting members of the Bush Administration by filing criminal complaints against the architects of the Admin’s torture program.

Calls for an immediate investigation by the German human rights group was started after outrage ensued on the case of a German citizen, Khalid El-Masri, who had been captured by CIA agents in 2004  because of a mistaken identity mix-up and was tortured at a secret prison in Afghanistan.

Wolfgang Kaleck, the general secretary of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, said:

“By investigating members of the Bush administration, Germany can help to ensure that those responsible for abduction, abuse and illegal detention do not go unpunished.”

resident emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights and chairman of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, said that he believes Cheney, among others, have no defense for torturous actions and should be indicted:

“I strongly disagree that Bush, Cheney, et al., would have a defense. This wasn’t like these memos just appeared independently from the Justice Department. These memos were facilitated by the very people — Cheney, etc. — who we believe should be indicted. This was part of a conspiracy so they could get away with torture. But that’s not the subject here now.”

“Secondly, whatever we think of those memos, they’re of uselessness in Europe. Europe doesn’t accept this, quote, ‘golden shield’ of a legal defense. Either it’s torture or it’s not. Either you did it or you didn’t. And that’s one of the reasons, among others, why we’re going to Europe and why we went to Europe to bring these cases through the European Center.”

Ratner then hit the nail on the head regarding America’s dangerous exceptionalism path down the road:

“But, of course, you know, Cheney just showed us exactly why you have to — have to prosecute torture. Because if you don’t prosecute it, the next guy down the line is going to torture again. And that’s what Cheney said: ‘I would do it again.’”

Khalid El-Masri was on vacation in Skopje, in Macedonia, when he was pulled off of a bus by government agents, sodomized with a drug, and taken to the secret base that was identified only as Cobalt in the CIA torture report. After four months, and after the United States learned of the mistaken identity, they left him there and continued to torture him. They held him further because the U.S. realized they had been torturing the wrong man. Afterwards, they released him, dropping him off somewhere to resume his life.

El-Masri in his own words, in the same interview with “Democracy Now:”

[translated] I was the only one in this prison in Kabul who was actually treated slightly better than the other inmates. But it was known among the prisoners that other prisoners were constantly tortured with blasts of loud music, exposed to constant onslaughts of loud music. And they were—for up to five days, they were just sort of left hanging from the ceiling, completely naked in ice-cold conditions. The man from Tanzania, whom I mentioned before, had his arm broken in three places. He had injuries, trauma to the head, and his teeth had been damaged. They also locked him up in a suitcase for long periods of time, foul-smelling suitcase that made him vomit all the time. Other people experienced forms of torture whereby their heads were being pushed down and held under water.

He finished the interview with some pretty damning words that should make George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld shudder:

“And let me just say, Germany — whatever happened before, between the NSA spying on Germany and the fact that their citizen has now been revealed to have been kept in a torture place, when it was known that he was innocent, I’m pretty sure that Germany is going to take this very seriously.

 10 13 11 flagbar

 

US Power Centers Splinter as Chaos Rises

December 24th, 2014 by

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/35933/US-Power-Centers-Splinter-as-Chaos-Rises/

By Staff News & Analysis

Investigators Said to Seek No Penalty for C.I.A.’s Computer Search … A panel investigating the Central Intelligence Agency’s search of a computer network used by staff members of the Senate Intelligence Committee who were looking into the C.I.A.’s use of torture will recommend against punishing anyone involved in the episode, according to current and former government officials. Its decision not to recommend anyone for disciplinary action is likely to anger members of the Intelligence Committee, who have accused the C.I.A. of trampling on the independence of Congress and interfering with its investigation of agency wrongdoing. The computer searches occurred late last year while the committee was finishing an excoriating report on the agency’s detention and interrogation program. – New York Times

Dominant Social Theme: Government officials should have more legal leeway than the average person because they make more important decisions.

Free-Market Analysis: The US is splitting apart: Some 60 years of expanding authoritarianism has created political and economic facilities that are now beginning to face off against each other.

There are dozens of intel agencies, hundreds of military specializations, vast bureaucracies at local, state and federal levels – all supported by a worldwide dollar economy that virtually forces other nations to hold dollars in order to buy oil.

Increasingly, as the struggle for resources grows more pronounced, each of these entities will involve themselves in growing “turf wars.” It is not, of course, just a Western problem. Europe has similar woes and its fringe parties are becoming more extreme.

What is going on in the US is both significant and rapid. We can see that the CIA is now in a confrontational position regarding Congress, according to the New York Times. In fact, CIA officials who wiretapped Senators will not be punished.

This is just one of several newsworthy items reported over the weekend. Another was the aggregate shooting of three policemen over the weekend, two in New York and one in Tarpon Springs Florida.

While these are terrible tragedies from a purely human perspective, there is good evidence that such incidents are increasingly being used as fodder for power struggles. The New York Times reported on tensions between the Mayor and police in the aftermath of the New York Shooting:

For de Blasio, Attack Comes Amid Tension Over Police … Mayor Bill de Blasio spoke in sober terms at a news conference on Saturday at Woodhull Hospital after two police officers were shot and killed in Brooklyn … It is the sequence that every mayor dreads: the ominous report, the scramble to the hospital and the confirmation that, yes, an attack against the police has proved fatal.

But for Mayor Bill de Blasio, the tragedy on Saturday — when two police officers were shot and killed in an ambush in Brooklyn, according to the authorities — arrived at a particularly trying moment, amid an already fractious relationship with the police.

Police union leaders and officers could be seen turning their backs to the mayor and the police commissioner, William J. Bratton, as they walked past, in a video taken at the hospital where the two held a news conference on Saturday.

A written message from Edward Mullins, president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association, addressed the mayor directly. “Mayor de Blasio,” it read in part, “the blood of these two officers is clearly on your hands.”

The anger seems unusually fierce between the mayor and the police. Meanwhile, the tension between police and local communities, especially communities of color, seems to be growing. AP reported the following yesterday:

New Jersey‘s state police union has issued an email alert to the group’s 33,000 members warning them to take extra caution after two NYPD officers were murdered.

New Jersey State PBA Executive Vice President Marc Kovar said in the email Sunday morning that all members and officers should take extra caution and change up routines in the coming weeks.

He cites heightened hostility from nationwide protests that he says has led to a “fever pitch of anti-police sentiment.”

Our interpretation involves dominant social themes and what we call “directed history.” To be blunt: In our view, the West is being leveled by historical forces as well as elite determination to expand global governance.

For over a decade the BRICS have been celebrated as a group of increasingly powerful countries capable of creating a kind of capitalism that can compete with if not win out over Western capitalism. In fact, recently, China surpassed the US in various measures of industrialization and output.

The US dollar is gradually being replaced in Asia and, of course, Russia, too, as tensions rise between the US and Russia over Ukraine and other military and industrial issues.

Various measures such as NAFTA and CAFTA have drained US industrial might while an increasingly intrusive regulatory and tax regime has further splintered US industrialism and entrepreneurialism.

The US now seeks to collect taxes from its citizens all over the world and to penalize banks that don’t cooperate with its new policies. Is it unfair to conclude that US political and banking elites are actually working against the best interest of the US as a successful country? Is that too harsh?

We have believed for a long time that US political, economic and military problems are in some sense manufactured and then exacerbated. The mainstream media, for instance, inflames problems by reporting on them copiously and repetitively.

And the system itself, corrupt as it is, is yet borne up on tidal waves of money. The Pentagon has never even made an effort to discover the US$2 trillion Donald Rumsfeld admitted to losing before 9/11. Meanwhile, US intel continues to multiply with some 16 separate spy agencies, many of them focused on the citizenry itself.

The FBI and Homeland Security have issued advisories declaring certain “constitutionalist” views to be questionable and even suspicious. The upshot of all of this is an alienated citizenry and increasing governmental paranoia. Here’s more from The New York Times:

The computer search raised questions about the separation of powers and caused one of the most public rifts in years between the nation’s intelligence agencies and the Senate oversight panel, which conducts most of its business in secret. It led to an unusually heated and public rebuke by Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who is the committee’s chairwoman.

Three C.I.A. technology officers and two lawyers had faced possible punishment. In their defense, some pointed to documents — including notes of a phone call with Mr. Brennan — that they said indicated that the director supported their actions, according to interviews with a half dozen current and former government officials and others briefed on the case.

… The panel’s specific conclusions are still being finalized, and it could be weeks before they present a report to the C.I.A. But officials said that the five agency employees had been informed that the panel would recommend that they not be disciplined. …

“What did he know? When did he know it? What did he order?” said Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is a member of the Intelligence Committee, said in an interview last week. “They haven’t answered those basic questions.”

There have been other times in US history when the nation and its institutions seemed to be divided against themselves. Most notably, of course, the Civil War comes to mind. But today’s adversarial situations are complicated, in our view, by the Internet.

As a result, those who have in mind socioeconomic destabilization of the US can create the necessary elements but they cannot control the outcomes.

As events unfold, the potential is for more chaos not less. Lately, we’ve been writing about various ways that people ought to position themselves and their loved ones given Western societies’ evolving difficulties.

Second passports, purchases of precious metals, overseas business and residential locations are all suggestions that people are acting on as Western economic progress continues to sputter while social stresses build. (See other article this issue for more on High Alert’s planned expat community in Colombia.)

People – especially those with means – increasingly anticipate urban unrest and diminishing domestic economies; but what has not been clear until recently is the possibility that the US’s many elaborate sociopolitical and economic power centers may take to quarreling with each other.

The result will surely be even more chaos and polarization, where people gradually give up the concept of fair outcomes under the law and expect increased levels of authoritarianism.

As governance begins to fail, there will arise cries for yet more authoritarianism and this will surely further the expansion of a kind of police state, not just in the US but throughout the West.

Conclusion

The failure of governmental legislative and enforcement agencies will likely feed on itself and the outcomes cannot be seen as positive.

5-24-2014 8-56-32 AM

10 13 11 flagbar

The Devil’s Bargain The Illusion of a Trouble Free Existence in the American Police State

December 12th, 2014 by

http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=f6eb78f457b7b82

887b643445&id=99f205dd00&e=84f74f6a6a

 

By John W. Whitehead
November 10, 2014

Whether the mask is labeled fascism, democracy, or dictatorship of the proletariat, our great adversary remains the apparatus—the bureaucracy, the police, the military. Not the one facing us across the frontier of the battle lines, which is not so much our enemy as our brothers’ enemy, but the one that calls itself our protector and makes us its slaves. No matter what the circumstances, the worst betrayal will always be to subordinate ourselves to this apparatus and to trample underfoot, in its service, all human values in ourselves and in others.—Simone Weil, French philosopher and political activist

It’s no coincidence that during the same week in which the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Yates v. United States, a case in which a Florida fisherman is being threatened with 20 years’ jail time for throwing fish that were too small back into the water, Florida police arrested a 90-year-old man twice for violating an ordinance that prohibits feeding the homeless in public.

Both cases fall under the umbrella of over-criminalization, that phenomenon in which everything is rendered illegal and everyone becomes a lawbreaker. As I make clear in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, this is what happens when bureaucrats run the show, and the rule of law becomes little more than a cattle prod for forcing the citizenry to march in lockstep with the government.

John Yates, a commercial fisherman, was written up in 2007 by a state fish and wildlife officer who noticed that among Yates’ haul of red grouper, 72 were apparently under the 20-inch minimum legal minimum. Yates, ordered to bring the fish to shore as evidence of his violation of the federal statute on undersized catches, returned to shore with only 69 grouper in the crate designated for evidence. A crew member later confessed that, on orders from Yates, the crew had thrown the undersized grouper overboard and replaced them with larger fish. Unfortunately, they were three fish short. Sensing a bait-and-switch, prosecutors refused to let Yates off the hook quite so easily. Unfortunately, in prosecuting him for the undersized fish under a law aimed at financial crimes, government officials opened up a can of worms.

Arnold Abbott, 90 years old and the founder of a nonprofit that feeds the homeless, is facing a fine of $1000 and up to four months in jail for violating a city ordinance that makes it a crime to feed the homeless in public. Under the city’s ordinance, clearly aimed at discouraging the feeding of the homeless in public, organizations seeking to do so must provide portable toilets, be 500 feet away from each other, 500 feet from residential properties, and are limited to having only one group carry out such a function per city block.  Abbott has been feeding the homeless on a public beach in Ft. Lauderdale every Wednesday evening for the past 23 years. On November 2, 2014, moments after handing out his third meal of the day, police reportedly approached the nonagenarian and ordered him to “‘drop that plate right now,’ as if I were carrying a weapon,” recalls Abbott. Abbott was arrested and fined. Three days later, Abbott was at it again, and arrested again.

That both of these incidents occurred in Florida is no coincidence. Remember, this is the state that arrested Nicole Gainey for letting her 7-year-old son walk to the park alone, even though it was just a few blocks from their house. If convicted, Gainey could have been made to serve up to five years in jail.

This is also the state that a few years back authorized police raids on barber shops in minority communities, resulting in barbers being handcuffed in front of customers, and their shops searched without warrants. All of this was purportedly done in an effort to make sure that the barbers’ licensing paperwork was up to snuff.

As if criminalizing fishing, charity, parenting decisions, and haircuts wasn’t bad enough, you could also find yourself passing time in a Florida slammer for such inane activities as singing in a public place while wearing a swimsuit, breaking more than three dishes per day, farting in a public place after 6 pm on a Thursday, and skateboarding without a license.

Despite its pristine beaches and balmy temperatures, Florida is no less immune to the problems plaguing the rest of the nation in terms of over-criminalization, incarceration rates, bureaucracy, corruption, and police misconduct. In fact, the Sunshine State has become a poster child for how a seemingly idyllic place can be transformed into a police state with very little effort. As such, it is representative of what is happening in every state across the nation, where a steady diet of bread and circuses has given rise to an oblivious, inactive citizenry content to be ruled over by an inflexible and highly bureaucratic regime.

This transformation of the United States from being a beacon of freedom to a locked down nation illustrates perfectly what songwriter Joni Mitchell was referring to when she wrote:

Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone.
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.

Only in our case, sold on the idea that safety, security and material comforts are preferable to freedom, we’ve allowed the government to pave over the Constitution in order to erect a concentration camp. The problem with these devil’s bargains, however, is that there is always a catch, always a price to pay for whatever it is we valued so highly as to barter away our most precious possessions.

We’ve bartered away our right to self-governance, self-defense, privacy, autonomy and that most important right of all—the right to tell the government to “leave me the hell alone.” In exchange for the promise of safe streets, safe schools, blight-free neighborhoods, lower taxes, lower crime rates, and readily accessible technology, health care, water, food and power, we’ve opened the door to militarized police, government surveillance, asset forfeiture, school zero tolerance policies, license plate readers, red light cameras, SWAT team raids, health care mandates, over-criminalization and government corruption.

In the end, such bargains always turn sour.

We asked our lawmakers to be tough on crime, and we’ve been saddled with an abundance of laws that criminalize almost every aspect of our lives. So far, we’re up to 4500 criminal laws and 300,000 criminal regulations that result in average Americans unknowingly engaging in criminal acts at least three times a day. For instance, the family of an 11-year-old girl was issued a $535 fine for violating the Federal Migratory Bird Act after the young girl rescued a baby woodpecker from predatory cats.

We wanted criminals taken off the streets, and we didn’t want to have to pay for their incarceration. What we’ve gotten is a nation that boasts the highest incarceration rate in the world, with more than 2.3 million people locked up, many of them doing time for relatively minor, nonviolent crimes, and a private prison industry fueling the drive for more inmates, who are forced to provide corporations with cheap labor. A special report by CNBC breaks down the national numbers:

One out of 100 American adults is behind bars — while a stunning one out of 32 is on probation, parole or in prison. This reliance on mass incarceration has created a thriving prison economy. The states and the federal government spend about $74 billion a year on corrections, and nearly 800,000 people work in the industry.

We wanted law enforcement agencies to have the necessary resources to fight the nation’s wars on terror, crime and drugs. What we got instead were militarized police decked out with M-16 rifles, grenade launchers, silencers, battle tanks and hollow point bullets—gear designed for the battlefield, more than 80,000 SWAT team raids carried out every year (many for routine police tasks, resulting in losses of life and property), and profit-driven schemes that add to the government’s largesse such as asset forfeiture, where police seize property from “suspected criminals.”

Justice Department figures indicate that as much as $4.3 billion was seized in asset forfeiture cases in 2012, with the profits split between federal agencies and local police. According to the Washington Post, these funds have been used to buy guns, armored cars, electronic surveillance gear, “luxury vehicles, travel and a clown named Sparkles.” Police seminars advise officers to use their “department wish list when deciding which assets to seize” and, in particular, go after flat screen TVs, cash and nice cars. In Florida, where police are no strangers to asset forfeiture, Florida police have been carrying out “reverse” sting operations, where they pose as drug dealers to lure buyers with promises of cheap cocaine, then bust them, and seize their cash and cars. Over the course of a year, police in one small Florida town seized close to $6 million using these entrapment schemes.

We fell for the government’s promise of safer roads, only to find ourselves caught in a tangle of profit-driven red light cameras, which ticket unsuspecting drivers in the so-called name of road safety while ostensibly fattening the coffers of local and state governments. Despite widespread public opposition, corruption and systemic malfunctions, these cameras—used in 24 states and Washington, DC—are particularly popular with municipalities, which look to them as an easy means of extra cash. One small Florida town, population 8,000, generates a million dollars a year in fines from these cameras. Building on the profit-incentive schemes, the cameras’ manufacturers are also pushing speed cameras and school bus cameras, both of which result in heft fines for violators who speed or try to go around school buses.

This is just a small sampling of the many ways in which the American people continue to get duped, deceived, double-crossed, cheated, lied to, swindled and conned into believing that the government and its army of bureaucrats—the people we appointed to safeguard our freedoms—actually have our best interests at heart.

Yet when all is said and done, who is really to blame when the wool gets pulled over your eyes: you, for believing the con man, or the con man for being true to his nature?

It’s time for a bracing dose of reality, America. Wake up and take a good, hard look around you, and ask yourself if the gussied-up version of America being sold to you—crime free, worry free and devoid of responsibility—is really worth the ticket price: nothing less than your freedoms.

10 13 11 flagbar

 

OBAMA, AN ANATOMY OF A LIAR AND A TRAITOR

December 10th, 2014 by

http://www.newswithviews.com/Ewart/ron182.htm

By Ron Ewart
December 10, 2014
NewsWithViews.com

12-10-2014 12-09-14 PM

“Obama is a tyrant the same way FDR was a tyrant. He has a view of presidential power that states: the government is in control of the country, and the president is in charge of the government. He’s taken an imperial view of the presidency.” David Mamet, American playwright, screenwriter and film director

Every president puts his own mark on the presidency, as a reflection of his beliefs, political ideology and philosophy that are shaped by early childhood, parental and peer influences and education, along with personal, business and academic associations. But the mark each man puts on the presidency is further shaped by their perception of what America stands for in the grand scheme of history, what America means to Americans and what America means to the rest of the world.

America has had its share of weak presidents and strong presidents. History has recorded how each president has performed in reacting to changing events in a largely dynamic world, dogged by relentless, unforeseeable events. Many presidents stand out because of specific events to which they must react, or not react as the case may be. Some presidents stand out for positive reasons where positive relates to the perpetuation of American ideals and principles. Others stand out for negative reasons for being in opposition to those ideals, or a radical distortion of those ideals.

We covered some of the influences on presidents, as well as the average citizen, in our article entitled “The Little Black Box Theory and Obama“, written and published on October 28, 2012. The article can be viewed at this link.

Quoting from the article we wrote:

“Obama’s early life was shaped by his somewhat promiscuous white biological mother; a black biological father that abandoned Obama within two years of his birth; a Muslim stepfather from Indonesia where Obama lived for several years and attended Islam schools; his white grandparents that Obama lived with for quite some time because apparently, his mother didn’t want him any more, or perhaps because she couldn’t handle that he was black; a family friend of his grandparents, one Frank Marshall Davis, a known and active communist; several Muslim and mostly black friends while in college and those Muslims he met when he visited Pakistan in 1981; a radical, Chicago pastor, the very reverend and Black Liberation Theologist, Jeremiah Wright; a slum landlord, one Tony Rezko now in jail; and a domestic terrorist by the name of Bill Ayers who used bombs to punctuate a radical political agenda. Who knows how many other radical influences shaped Obama’s early years and young adult life, due to its fractured and convoluted nature?”

How any person could be construed to be normal, black or white, after enduring such a tragic and wretched past, is beyond comprehension. Obama is obsessed with his own self-righteous indignation, as a direct result of that past.

Obama is a special case when it comes to his performance as president, shaped by his early, tortured, mix-raced childhood, parental and peer influences, education and personal and academic associations. His business associations or leadership positions were and are sorely lacking to assume the difficult office of President of the United States. Anyone with any intellect, including the media, knew about his background and inexperience but went ahead and promoted this anomaly that came from out of nowhere to a position of prominence on the national political scene. It remains to be seen whether he was a product of his own making and just plain lucky, or the fascination because he was black, or whether he was groomed by shadowy, powerful, radical forces that kept appearing and re-appearing out of his ghostly past?

The issue of being black in a largely white world obviously had a direct influence on his belief system and political ideology. (Evidence of that pathology is being played out ad nauseam nationally, over the police shooting or strangling off two very large black people, one in Ferguson, MO and one in Staten Island, NY, acting outside of the law.) Obama’s broken family, a socialist mother and radical religious and communist influences, further shaped his beliefs. All of those influences and lack of experience were directly transferred to his governing style, or lack thereof. He was suddenly thrust into a dynamic world for which he was ill prepared. America has witnessed the results of that inexperience and racial bias play out over the last six years.

History will record that Obama truly was the proverbial fish out of water, to the detriment of America, America’s standing on the world stage and America’s hallowed ideals of individual freedom and liberty. Obama is a prime example of a man that rose to the level of his incompetence.

It certainly wasn’t Obama’s fault. He was who he was, warts and all, for all to see and those who chose not to see. It was those who promoted him for political reasons and those that voted for him because he was black, or for whatever other reason, that can take credit for what they and Obama have wrought.

Since he was elected president in 2008, we have written article after article about Obama, probably at the expense of boring some of our readers. However, with each of those articles we created an image to go along with the article to give a pictorial representation of what the article was about, sometimes effectively and sometimes not. We’ll let the reader decide on that score. Nevertheless, it is hard to find an author who creates an image for each of his or her articles. It takes a considerable amount of time to create those images.

As an experiment, we took over 40 of those images that were put together for our articles and created a video with the title shown below, that represents a kaleidoscope of the Obama presidency. We wanted to demonstrate that he was and is both a liar and a traitor. We then added some unique background music from silent movies and overlaid the background music with Obama sound bites, mostly of him lying. The video should be both informative and entertaining. Share it at your discretion.

Obama, An Anatomy of a Liar and Traitor!”

After Obama has served out his second term and steps aside, never-ending examinations of his presidency will go on, well into the future. Sadly, with Obama being the first black president in which he divided the country even more than it was, set back race relations for decades and made decisions that irreparably damaged America and its reputation abroad, it could be generations before America ever sees its second black president.

Americans will rue the day, well into future generations, that they allowed a racially disturbed man, bearing an irrational political ideology, to ever become the most powerful man in the world. As all presidents leave their individual mark on the presidency, America will wear the “mark” of Obama for a very long time and America and Americans may never fully recover from that mark. Hopefully, Obama will retain the reputation as being America’s worst president, forever more. It is unlikely that America could survive a president worse than Obama.

If you have the courage, don’t forget to sign our petition “Declaring Open Resistance” against Obama and government tyranny.

Who are the “Exclosers”?

[NOTE: The following article represents the opinion of the author and is not necessarily shared by the owners, employees, representatives, or agents of the publisher.]

© 2014 Ron Ewart — All Rights Reserved

Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property issues and author of his weekly column, “In Defense of Rural America”, is the President of the National Association of Rural Landowners, (NARLO) (http://www.narlo.org) a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State, an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners. He can be reached for comment atinfo@narlo.org.

Website: www.narlo.org

E-Mail: info@narlo.org

10 13 11 flagbar

 


SEO Powered By SEOPressor