See original article at:
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump greets his supporters before speaking during a campaign rally at the Nugget Hotel and Casino in Sparks on Oct. 29, 2015.
Donald J. Trump |Jan 28, 2016
The United States of America is a land of laws, and Americans value the rule of law above all. Why, then, has our Congress allowed the president and the executive branch to take on near-dictatorial power? How is it that we have a president who will not enforce some laws and who encourages faceless, nameless bureaucrats to manage public lands as if the millions of acres were owned by agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Energy? In Nevada, the lack of enforcement of immigration laws and the draconian rule of the BLM are damaging the economy, lowering the standard of living and inhibiting natural economic growth. The only way to change these circumstances is to bring to Washington a president who will rein in the federal government and get Congress to do its job. It’s not that we don’t have talented people in D.C. It’s that we have no leadership there.
The BLM controls over 85 percent of the land in Nevada. In the rural areas, those who for decades have had access to public lands for ranching, mining, logging and energy development are forced to deal with arbitrary and capricious rules that are influenced by special interests that profit from the D.C. rule-making and who fill the campaign coffers of Washington politicians. Far removed from the beautiful wide open spaces of Nevada, bureaucrats bend to the influence that is closest to them. Honest, hardworking citizens who seek freedom and economic independence must beg for deference from a federal government that is more intent on power and control than it is in serving the citizens of the nation. In and around Clark County, the situation is even worse.
Because the BLM is so reluctant to release land to local disposition in Nevada, the cost of land has skyrocketed and the cost of living has become an impediment to growth. Where are the city and county to get the land for schools, roads, parks and other public use areas if they have to beg Washington for the land and then pay a premium price for it? How are people who see a future in Nevada to find housing and employment if the federal government is inhibiting economic development? How are businesses to find the employees to fill the jobs that could be created if there were better leadership in Washington? Unfortunately, many of the jobs are filled by those who came to this country illegally.
Illegal immigration costs the people of Nevada over $1.2 billion a year. That is nearly $6,000 for every man, woman and child in the state. Those are tax dollars that could go to build those schools, roads, sewers, water treatment plants and all the other services needed for a growing economy. Illegal immigrants absorb tax dollars from public schools, public health and public safety. Illegal immigration suppresses wages and undermines the ability of workers to organize and seek better working conditions. Illegal immigration is an affront to the very rule of law valued by all Americans and most assuredly by all Nevadans.
What is needed in Washington is a president who will rein in the executive branch and work with Congress to make sure the legislative branch does its job. What is needed in Washington is a president who has the will, strength and courage to lead. What is needed in Washington is a president who is not beholden to special interests and who is only interested in putting America and Americans first.
When I am elected president, I will bring the executive branch back inside the Constitution and will work with Congress to put America first. I will lead the effort to gain meaningful tax reform, trade reform and education reform. I will lead the effort to protect your right to worship as you see fit and your right to protect your family and property with the right to keep and bear arms. Together, we will make America great again.
Donald J. Trump, a Republican, is a businessman and a candidate for president of the United States.
See featured article at:
This is where excessive government spending leads to. Excessive taxation. And confiscatory tax rates. Taking as much from the wealth creators as possible to fund the welfare state. And as progressive tax systems fail to generate the desired tax revenue they will turn to every other tax they can. Until there is no more wealth to tax. Or to confiscate. When the wealth creators finally say enough is enough. And refuse to create any more wealth for the government to tax or to confiscate. Leaving the government unable to meet their spending obligations. As the critical mass of people turn from taxpayers to benefit recipients. Heralding the end of the republic.
Read more >>
Please donate to support our research! Thank you!
Globalism was exposed to the world in neon colors during the 2016 US election year and the world seems to be following the fashion trend. I must give credit to those across the pond in the U.K. for their Brexit as well! We still have a lot of work to do, but the paradigm shift was well needed.
Donald J. Trump invited Ted Cruz to speak at the Republican National Convention, to celebrate the unity of the party, and to join him in their fight against Hillary Clinton, but Ted just could not step up to the plate. He rudely failed to endorse Trump, and got booed off the stage, as his wife scurried for the exit signs. Bush establishment types like him and Paul Ryan just cannot accept defeat. Humanity clearly had endured enough, this was evident. The nationalism of red, white, and blue seems to be the new black, but with the harsh awakening of what our republic really means to us in the eleventh hour, with the possibility of losing it all.
What the press failed to understand about the “non establishment” Presidential Republican Nominee Donald J. Trump, seemed to be a lot… still, as they have stumbled through his campaign only to be outwitted repeatedly. The more they attack him, Americans take each blow personally, and the stronger his long awaited anti globalist populism spreads into the hearts and minds of others world wide.
This is a fight against these “globalists” that have tried to “fundamentally change America.”
From GHW Bush’s talk of a NWO, to Bill Clinton’s crime wave, GW Bush’s illegitimate wars, the unconstitutional Patriot Act, Barack Obama’s staged shootings to appease the UN’s NDAA (an assault on the Second Amendment), the open borders -NAFTA policies that have hurt and endangered the lives of Americans, and finally Hillary Clinton the wrecking ball. the chosen one by the elite to finish us off … people simply have had enough, everywhere!
It was a matter of choice for Ted Cruz, to graciously endorse the nominee as promised, or to prove to the world that he really is a stooge for the “cabal” that has been running the globalist agenda… AND America into the ground with it. Donald J.Trump merely gave him a platform, a rope so to speak, and Ted Cruz chose to hang himself with the opportunity. Finally, many mislead Cruz voters, along with press and the rest of the world, now know the true meaning and origin of the term ‘Lyin Ted’. Ted is far from alone as we have seen in one scandal after another, the press complicit, and our De facto government is finally unable to carry on the charade any longer.
Just as the EU woke up in a fascist state, the US could see it coming, though some are still slow to awaken, Trump created a movement that has shaken them to the core, while simultaneously providing a light in the darkness with a brighter vision for what lays ahead. Many Americans had forgotten what it felt like to have someone advocate for them, to care. It had brought us together in the silent revolution taking place, and it felt great, despite being attacked by paid rioters, trolls, and the press !
It is my observation, that through these last few years of confusion and change, many of us wanted to blame one person or one event for the globalist elite’s attack on humanity, and the attempted destruction of the US. As I dug deeper, and chased history into the rabbit hole of deception, I realized it was many events over many years, and many people in this group of ‘globalists that are responsible. Ted Cruz is one of the many and could not have announced it louder than he did that night on a world stage. The reaction was a clear dismissal of global policy by the people of this country.
Say ain’t so… was the stance we all took on the road to our awakening, to the fact that so many people could be bought and sold to commit treasonous acts against our homeland. We wanted to think it was just one thing that went wrong, or one person that sold us out. In the end we have unraveled a tightly woven lplan that is very severe toward humanity, not just America. It is a vast potpourri of puppet masters, that have outgrown the soil that they once prospered from.
It has taken Donald J. Trump, a man with enough courage to stir the pot up, and start a movement across the world, by simply saying NO to these people.
He proven to be adaptable and has stamina that leaves us breathless.
Those that live in fear of their government will continue to be tyrannized by them, and be booed off the stage in the future. For those of us that refuse to fear a lawless and oppressive regime, the sky is the limit, and America still stands as a beacon of Freedom. There is a lot of hope, and it’s “HUGE”!!! MC
Please donate to support our research! Thank you!
Please view and share the Declaration of July 4, 2016, that has been sent to the US government, courts, and other agencies below:
By Paul Craig Roberts
As readers know, I have seen some optimism in voters support for Trump and Sanders as neither are members of the corrupt Republican and Democratic political establishments. Members of both political establishments enrich themselves by betraying the American people and serving only the interest of the One Percent. The American people are being driven into the ground purely for the sake of more mega-billions for a handful of super-rich people.
Neither political party is capable of doing anything whatsoever about it, and neither will.
The optimism that I see is that the public’s support of outsiders is an indication that the insouciant public is waking up. But Americans will have to do more than wake up, as they cannot rescue themselves via the voting booth. In my opinion, the American people will remain serfs until they wake up to Revolution.
Today Americans exist as a conquered people. They have lost the Bill of Rights, the amendments to the Constitution that protect their liberty. Anyone, other than the One Percent and their political and legal servants, can be picked up without charges and detained indefinitely as during the Dark Ages, when government was unaccountable and no one had any rights. Only those with power were safe. In America today anyone not politically protected can be declared “associated with terrorism” and taken out by a Hellfire missile from a drone on the basis of a list of human targets drawn up by the president’s advisers. Due process, guaranteed by the US Constitution, no longer exists in the United States of America. Neither does the constitutional prohibition against the government spying on citizens without just cause and a court warrant. The First Amendment itself, whose importance was emphasized by our Founding Fathers by making it the First Amendment, is no longer protected by the corrupt Supreme Court. The Nine who comprise the Supreme Court, like the rest of the bought-and-paid-for-government, serve only the One Percent. Truth-tellers have become “an enemy of the state.” Whistleblowers are imprisoned despite their legal protection in US law.
The United States government has unaccountable power. Its power is not accountable to US statutory law, to international law, to the Congress, to the judiciary, to the American people, or to moral conscience. In the 21st century the war criminal US government has murdered, maimed, and dislocated millions of people based on lies and propaganda. Washington has destroyed seven countries in whole or part in order to enrich the American elite and comply with the neoconservative drive for US world hegemony.
Americans live in a propaganda-fabricated world in which a brutal police state is cloaked in nice words like “freedom and democracy.” “Freedom and democracy” is what Washington’s war machine brings with sanctions, bombs, no-fly zones, troops, and drones to countries that dare to cling to their independence from Washington’s hegemony.
Only two countries armed with strong military capability and nuclear weapons—Russia and China—stand between Washington and Washington’s goal of hegemony over the entire world.
If Russia or China falter, the evil ensconced in Washington will rule the world. America will be the Anti-Christ. The predictions of the Christian Evangelicals preaching “end times” will take on new meaning.
Russia is vulnerable to becoming a vassal state of Washington. Despite a legion of betrayals by Washington, the Russian government has just proposed a joint US/Russia cooperation against terrorists.
One wonders if the Russian government will ever learn from experience. Has Washington cooperated with the agreement concerning Ukraine? Of course not. Has Washington cooperated in the investigation of MH-17? Of course not. Has Washington ceased its propaganda about a Russian invasion of Crimera and Ukraine? Of course not. Has Washington kept any agreement previous US governments made with Russia? Of course not.
So why does the Russian government think Washington would keep any agreement about a joint effort against terrorism?
The Russian government and the Russian people are so unaware of the danger that they face from Washington that they let foreigners control 20 percent of their media! Is Russia unaware that Washington has Russia slated for vassalage or destruction?
China is even more absurd. According to the Chinese government itself, China has 7,000
foreign-financed NGOs operating in China! Foreign financed NGOs are what Washington used to destabilize Ukraine and overthrow the elected government.
What does the Chinese government think these NGOs are doing other than destabilizing China?
Both Russia and China are infected with Western worship that creates a vulnerability that Washington can exploit. Delusions can result in inadequate response to threat.
All of Europe, both western, eastern and southern, the British Pacific such as Australia and New Zealand, Japan and other parts of Asia are vassal states of Washington’s Empire. None of these allegedly “sovereign” countries have an independent voice or an independent foreign or economic policy. All of Latin America is subject to Washington’s control. No reformist government in Latin America has ever survived Washington’s disapproval of putting the interests of the domestic populations ahead of American corporate and financial profits. Already this year
Washington has overthrown the female presidents of Argentina and Brazil. Washington is currently in the process of overthrowing the government in Venezuela, with Ecuador and Bolivia waiting in the wings. In 2009 Killary Clinton and Obama overthrew the government of Honduras, an old Washington habit.
As Washington pays the UN’s bills, the UN is compliant. No hand is ever raised against Washington. So why does anyone on the face of the earth think that an American election can change anything or mean anything?
We know that Killary is a liar, a crook, an agent for the One Percent, and a warmonger. Let’s now look at Trump.
Are there grounds for optimism about Trump? In the West “news reporting” is propaganda, so it is difficult to know. Moreover, we do know that, at least initially, the response of the Republican Establishment to Trump is to demonize him, so we do not know the veracity of the news reports about Trump.
Without belaboring the issue, two news reports struck me. One is the Washington Post report that the Zionist multi-billionaire US casino owner Sheldon Adelson has endorsed Donald Trump for President. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sheldon-adelson-i-endorse-donald-trump-for-president/2016/05/12/ea89d7f0-17a0-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html
Other reports say that Adelson has mentioned as much as $100 million as his political campaign contribution to Trump.
Anyone who gives a political campaign $100 million dollars expect something in exchange, and the recipient is obligated to provide whatever is desired. So are we witnessing the purchase of Donald Trump? The initial Republican response to Trump, encouraged by the crazed neoconservatives, was to abandon the Republican candidate and to vote for Killary.
Is Adelson’s endorsement a signal that Trump can be bought and brought into the establishment?
Additional evidence that Trump has sold out his naive supporters is his latest statement that Wall Street should be deregulated: https://ourfuture.org/20160519/populist-trump-wants-to-deregulate-wall-street
It is extraordinary that Trump’s advisers have not told him that Wall Street was deregulated back in the 20th century during the Clinton regime. The repeal of Glass-Steagall deregulated Wall Street. One source of the 2008 financial crisis is the deregulated derivative market. When Brooksley Born attempted to fulfill the responsibility of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and regulate over-the-counter derivatives, she was blocked by the Federal Reserve, the US Treasury, the SEC, and the US Congress.
Nothing has been done to correct the massive mistake of financial deregulation. The Dodd-Frank legislation did not correct the massive financial concentration that produced banks too big to fail, and the legislation did not stop Wall Street’s reckless casino gambling with the US economy. Yet Trump says he will dismantle even the weak Dodd-Frank restrictions.
The American print and TV media are so corrupt that these reports could be false stories, the purpose of which is to demoralize Trump’s supporters. On the other hand, should we be surprised if a billionaire aligns with the One Percent?
Elections are an unlikely means of restoring government that is accountable to the people rather than to the One Percent. Even if Trump is legitimate, he does not have the experience in foreign and economic affairs to know who to appoint to his government in order to implement change. Moreover, even if he knew, unless Trump candidates also replace the Senate, Trump could not get his choices confirmed by a Senate accountable only to the One Percent.
Americans are a conquered people. We see this in the appeal from RootsAction to the rest of the world to come to the aid of the American people. Unable to stop the lawlessness of their own “democratic” government, Americans plea for help from abroad: http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=12247
The plea from RootsAction indicates that committed activists now acknowledge that change in America cannot be produced by elections or be achieved internally through peaceful means.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.
See featured article at:
Planet Earth, and all that live on it, are in the throws of unimaginable and immediate upheavals. Even at this late hour, with the walls closing in from every side, the vast majority are completely oblivious to the tidal wave that is towering above our heads. Earth’s climate and life support systems are unraveling at unimaginable speed as we free fall into the 6th great mass extinction on our planet. In spite of all this verifiably and undeniably occurring,for the vast majority the immediate threat of a lifeless planet is not even on the radar as the graph below clearly indicates.
The total moral depravity, deception and betrayal by mainstream media has now ensured that the population as a whole has no idea how close the current reality is to completely and permanently disintegrating.
Our planet is dying, this is a statistical and mathematical fact. The life that Earth has supported for untold millions of years will soon perish if there is not an immediate and total change of direction for the human race.
In the last 40 years over half of Earth’s wildlife had been killed off while thehuman population has doubled in the same period. How long can such a trend possibly continue?
As anthropogenic activity began to overburden and heat the biosphere (since the onset of the industrial revolution), some 70+ years ago those in power made the fateful decision to attempt the engineering of Earth’s climate system in the self-serving and suicidal effort to keep “business as usual” and to use the weather as a weapon of war. Aside from the inarguable destruction ofweather warfare, the ever expanding global geoengineering/solar radiation management/ocean fertilization programs have now manifested into the greatest and most immediate threat to life on Earth short of nuclear cataclysm. Recent studies confirm that geoengineering and ocean fertilization CAN’T WORK. After 70+ years of climate engineering and weather warfare, the planet now appears to be descending into a runaway greenhouse event, an “abrupt climate shift” that could lead to “Venus Syndrome“.
2015 was the warmest year since record keeping began, breaking the record just set in 2014. 2016 will break the record again and is already on path to do so. January 2016 was the warmest month ever recorded on our planet, February 2016 completely shattered that record again. Global Geoengineering is not mitigating global warming, it is helping to fuel it overall. Short term (toxic) cool-downs can be achieved at the cost of an even worse overall warming. The“global warming slowdown” narrative was a carefully crafted and well funded lieto help the geoengineers sell their programs of destruction as successful, a complete fallacy.
How fast is the far North warming? At an astounding and completely unprecedented pace.
We are in uncharted territory as the Arctic meltdown spirals out of control spawning numerous climate feedback loops.
The Northern Hemisphere is warming at an even faster pace than the Southern Hemisphere. This is astounding considering the constant record heat that is occurring in locations like Australia.
The deployment of global climate engineering was deployed at a significant scale just after WWll. Though there was an initial cooling effect as is clearly visible on the graph above, the rapid buildup of greenhouse gasses like Co2 and methane, and the countless negative consequences of solar radiation management built up rapidly. These factors soon overwhelmed the initial cooling effect of climate engineering and the planetary warming continued upward in the mid 70s, this trend is now accelerating. As previously mentioned, the ever more massive geoengineering assault is now only making an already horrific climate scenario far worse overall in addition to contaminating the entire surface of the planet. Geoengineering is also a form of biological warfare.
In the completely misguided and unimaginably destructive attempt to temporarily and toxically cool some regions of the US, the climate engineers are heavily spraying (aerosolizing) massive flows of moisture that are pouring into the country from the west and the south. The brighter the reflection of the cloud cover on the combination satellite radar map below, the more aerosolized it is. The more moisture the geoengineers have to work with, the more spraying they carry out. The goal of solar radiation management is to broadcast out the available moisture into the most expansive cloud canopy possible. The planetary decimation from the ongoing climate intervention grows by the day,the creation of record drought in some regions, record deluge in others, and lethal ozone layer destruction, are only a few of the endless list of known consequences.
The atmospheric aerosol saturation tends to create an amorphous featureless cloud canopy when viewed from the ground below the flow of “storms” and atmospheric moisture currents.
The electrically conductive heavy metal aerosols that are saturated into the incoming moisture flows can then be scattered into a much wider region with the use of ground based radio frequency transmissions. The image below was taken on 3-9-2016 as the moisture streams in over the Pacific Northwest from the record warm Pacific Ocean. The transmitter location is northeast of Portland Oregon. The radio frequency transmissions are utilized to scatter the available moisture into vast regions of mostly rainless overcast skies as show in many locations on the previous map.
The process of manipulating atmosphere moisture (for creating SRM cloud canopy over the largest possible regions) is wreaking havoc on the climate and ecosystems.
What is the effect of using the flow of moisture from the west for a form of “evaporative cooler” ? As already mentioned, the climate engineers can temporarily and toxically cool some regions at the cost of a worsened warming overall. If the NOAA “forecast” map below does not alarm you, it should. Each shade of color represents a 2-4 degree variance of temperature, above or below “normal”, depending on the color hue. Record shattering warmth will continue in much of the country ( adding to what is already the warmest US winter on record ) as the West gets the toxic cool-down complete with constant chemical ice nucleation of the incoming moisture flow.
Extreme and unprecedented imbalances like those shown in the map above are telltale signs of a climate system that is completely unraveling. Though there are countless sources of anthropogenic damage to the biosphere and climate system, global geoengineering is mathematically the most destructive of all.
Mainstream media is not the only group that has completely betrayed humanity, the climate science community has done the same. Though a constant parade of false headlines from well funded sources has convinced many that the climate change threat is being exaggerated, the exact opposite is true. What we face is far more grave and immediate than any of the “worst case predictions” from completely controlled organizations like the IPCC (the largest scientific panel ever created in human history). The most severe betrayal is now coming from “science organizations” like “AMEG” (the Arctic Methane Emergency Group). Though AMEG’s assessment of the threat from thawing and releasing methane deposits is valid, AMEG’s call for global geoengineering are nothing short of criminal tyranny.
Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG) -Blog of AMEG, the Arctic Methane Emergency Group, discussing the situation in the Arctic and the action necessary to avoid catastrophic warming, including the need for geoengineering to be accepted as an indispensable part of a comprehensive plan of action to cool the Arctic and to bring the atmosphere and oceans back to their pre-industrial state.
In regard to AMEG’s call for emergency geoengineering to be immediately deployed (as if it has not already been going on for 70 years with catastrophic consequences), there are only two possibilities, either they are criminally ignorant of the very subject of which they claim to be experts, or they are lying. In either case, their calls for the commencement of climate engineering is criminal and should be publicly confronted. Taking the time to locate public email contacts for AMEG members, mainstream media and meteorological personnel, is essential. These contacts should then be circulated to others so that a constraint stream of communications calling for their accountability can be unleashed by the public. Such communications must be articulate and peaceful. This being said, the communications can and should point out that the public is rapidly waking up to the climate engineering crimes and will certainly soon hold legally and morally accountable ALL THOSE that directly or indirectly participated in these crimes. This includes all the journalists, scientists, and meteorologists that helped to hide the ongoing geoengineering assault by deceiving the public about the issue. There can be NO LEGITIMATE DISCUSSION about the state of the climate without first and foremost addressing the ongoing global climate engineering insanity. As the climate system continues to implode, the power structure will be more dangerous than ever before. Will WWlll be their final option as populations awaken to their crimes? There is much work to be done in this critical fight for the greater good, all of us must make our voices heard while we yet have time to do so.
See featured article at Geoengineeringwatch.org
The book is called Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment and the suggestions made by Holdren are completely chilling, like something only a Hitler-like madman could dream up.
Although authored in 1977 and now denounced by Holdren, one can only think that ‘once a madman always a madman’. Overpopulation is a myth propagaged by those who seek to control the Earth. While it might seem self-evident that our population is indeed growning and there is only so much space around, the reality is that by 2030 the world population will start dropping.
Take a look at the excerpts from Holdren’s book below.
Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal
Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.
As noted in the FrontPage article cited above, Holdren “hides behind the passive voice” in this passage, by saying “it has been concluded.” Really? By whom? By the authors of the book, that’s whom. What Holdren’s really saying here is, “Ihave determined that there’s nothing unconstitutional about laws which would force women to abort their babies.” And as we will see later, although Holdren bemoans the fact that most people think there’s no need for such laws, he and his co-authors believe that the population crisis is so severe that the time has indeed come for “compulsory population-control laws.” In fact, they spend the entire book arguing that “the population crisis” has already become “sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions
One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.
Holdren and his co-authors once again speculate about unbelievably draconian solutions to what they feel is an overpopulation crisis. But what’s especially disturbing is not that Holdren has merely made these proposals — wrenching babies from their mothers’ arms and giving them away; compelling single mothers to prove in court that they would be good parents; and forcing women to have abortions, whether they wanted to or not — but that he does so in such a dispassionate, bureaucratic way. Don’t be fooled by the innocuous and “level-headed” tone he takes: the proposals are nightmarish, however euphemistically they are expressed.
Holdren seems to have no grasp of the emotional bond between mother and child, and the soul-crushing trauma many women have felt throughout history when their babies were taken away from them involuntarily.
This kind of clinical, almost robotic discussion of laws that would affect millions of people at the most personal possible level is deeply unsettling, and the kind of attitude that gives scientists a bad name. I’m reminded of the phrase “banality of evil.”
Not that it matters, but I myself am “pro-choice” — i.e. I think that abortion should not be illegal. But that doesn’t mean I’m pro-abortion — I don’t particularly like abortions, but I do believe women should be allowed the choice to have them. But John Holdren here proposes to take away that choice — to force women to have abortions. One doesn’t need to be a “pro-life” activist to see the horror of this proposal — people on all sides of the political spectrum should be outraged. My objection to forced abortion is not so much to protect the embryo, but rather to protect the mother from undergoing a medical procedure against her will. And not just any medical procedure, but one which she herself (regardless of my views) may find particularly immoral or traumatic.
There’s a bumper sticker that’s popular in liberal areas which says: “Against abortion? Then don’t have one.” Well, John Holdren wants to MAKE you have one, whether you’re against it or not.
Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn’t harm livestock
Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.
OK, John, now you’re really starting to scare me. Putting sterilants in the water supply? While you correctly surmise that this suggestion “seems to horrify people more than most proposals,” you apparently are not among those people it horrifies. Because in your extensive list of problems with this possible scheme, there is no mention whatsoever of any ethical concerns or moral issues. In your view, the only impediment to involuntary mass sterlization of the population is that it ought to affect everyone equally and not have any unintended side effects or hurt animals. But hey, if we could sterilize all the humans safely without hurting the livestock, that’d be peachy! The fact that Holdren has no moral qualms about such a deeply invasive and unethical scheme (aside from the fact that it would be difficult to implement) is extremely unsettling and in a sane world all by itself would disqualify him from holding a position of power in the government.
Page 786-7: The government could control women’s reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control
Involuntary fertility control
A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.
Note well the phrase “with official permission” in the above quote. Johh Holdren envisions a society in which the government implants a long-term sterilization capsule in all girls as soon as they reach puberty, who then must apply for official permission to temporarily remove the capsule and be allowed to get pregnant at some later date. Alternately, he wants a society that sterilizes all women once they have two children. Do you want to live in such a society? Because I sure as hell don’t.
Page 838: The kind of people who cause “social deterioration” can be compelled to not have children
If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.
To me, this is in some ways the most horrifying sentence in the entire book — and it had a lot of competition. Because here Holdren reveals that moral judgments would be involved in determining who gets sterilized or is forced to abort their babies. Proper, decent people will be left alone — but those who “contribute to social deterioration” could be “forced to exercise reproductive responsibility” which could only mean one thing — compulsory abortion or involuntary sterilization. What other alternative would there be to “force” people to not have children? Will government monitors be stationed in irresponsible people’s bedrooms to ensure they use condoms? Will we bring back the chastity belt? No — the only way to “force” people to not become or remain pregnant is to sterilize them or make them have abortions.
But what manner of insanity is this? “Social deterioration”? Is Holdren seriously suggesting that “some” people contribute to social deterioriation more than others, and thus should be sterilized or forced to have abortions, to prevent them from propagating their kind? Isn’t that eugenics, plain and simple? And isn’t eugenics universally condemned as a grotesquely evil practice?
We’ve already been down this road before. In one of the most shameful episodes in the history of U.S. jurisprudence, the Supreme Court ruled in the infamous 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the State of Virginia had had the right to sterilize a woman named Carrie Buck against her will, based solely on the (spurious) criteria that she was “feeble-minded” and promiscuous, with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluding, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Nowadays, of course, we look back on that ruling in horror, as eugenics as a concept has been forever discredited. In fact, the United Nations now regards forced sterilization as a crime against humanity.
The italicized phrase at the end (“providing they are not denied equal protection“), which Holdren seems to think gets him off the eugenics hook, refers to the 14th Amendment (as you will see in the more complete version of this passage quoted below), meaning that the eugenics program wouldn’t be racially based or discriminatory — merely based on the whim and assessments of government bureaucrats deciding who and who is not an undesirable. If some civil servant in Holdren’s America determines that you are “contributing to social deterioration” by being promiscuous or pregnant or both, will government agents break down your door and and haul you off kicking and screaming to the abortion clinic? In fact, the Supreme Court case Skinner v. Oklahoma already determined that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment distinctly prohibits state-sanctioned sterilization being applied unequally to only certain types of people.
No no, you say, Holdren isn’t claiming that some kind of people contribute to social deterioration more than others; rather, he’s stating that anyone who overproduces children thereby contributes to social deterioration and needs to be stopped from having more. If so — how is that more palatable? It seems Holdren and his co-authors have not really thought this through, because what they are suggesting is a nightmarish totalitarian society. What does he envision: All women who commit the crime of having more than two children be dragged away by police to the government-run sterilization centers? Or — most disturbingly of all — perhaps Holdren has thought it through, and is perfectly OK with the kind of dystopian society he envisions in this book.
Sure, I could imagine a bunch of drunken guys sitting around shooting the breeze, expressing these kinds of forbidden thoughts; who among us hasn’t looked in exasperation at a harried mother buying candy bars and soda for her immense brood of unruly children and thought: Lady, why don’t you just get your tubes tied already? But it’s a different matter when the Science Czar of the United States suggests the very same thing officially in print. It ceases being a harmless fantasy, and suddenly the possibility looms that it could become government policy. And then it’s not so funny anymore.
Page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size
In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?
Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?
I’ll tell you why, John. Because the the principle of habeas corpus upon which our nation rests automatically renders any compulsory abortion scheme to be unconstitutional, since it guarantees the freedom of each individual’s body from detention or interference, until that person has been convicted of a crime. Or are you seriously suggesting that, should bureaucrats decide that the country is overpopulated, the mere act of pregnancy be made a crime?
I am no legal scholar, but it seems that John Holgren is even less of a legal scholar than I am. Many of the bizarre schemes suggested in Ecoscience rely on seriously flawed legal reasoning. The book is not so much about science, but instead is about reinterpreting the Constitution to allow totalitarian population-control measures.
Page 942-3: A “Planetary Regime” should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born
Toward a Planetary Regime
Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.
In case you were wondering exactly who would enforce these forced abortion and mass sterilization laws: Why, it’ll be the “Planetary Regime”! Of course! I should have seen that one coming.
The rest of this passage speaks for itself. Once you add up all the things the Planetary Regime (which has a nice science-fiction ring to it, doesn’t it?) will control, it becomes quite clear that it will have total power over the global economy, since according to Holdren this Planetary Regime will control “all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable” (which basically means all goods) as well as all food, and commerce on the oceans and any rivers “that discharge into the oceans” (i.e. 99% of all navigable rivers). What’s left? Not much.
Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force
If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involvespartial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.
The other shoe drops. So: We are expected to voluntarily surrender national sovereignty to an international organization (the “Planetary Regime,” presumably), which will be armed and have the ability to act as a police force. And we saw in the previous quote exactly which rules this armed international police force will be enforcing: compulsory birth control, and all economic activity.
It would be laughable if Holdren weren’t so deadly serious. Do you want this man to be in charge of science and technology in the United States? Because he already is in charge.
Page 749: Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism
Another related issue that seems to encourage a pronatalist attitude in many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or ethnic groups. Many people seem to be possessed by fear that their group may be outbred by other groups. White Americans and South Africans are worried there will be too many blacks, and vice versa. The Jews in Israel are disturbed by the high birth rates of Israeli Arabs, Protestants are worried about Catholics, and lbos about Hausas. Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all. This is another case of the “tragedy of the commons,” wherein the “commons” is the planet Earth. Fortunately, it appears that, at least in the DCs, virtually all groups are exercising reproductive restraint.
This passage is not particularly noteworthy except for the inclusion of the odd phrase “pronatalist attitude,” which Holdren spends much of the book trying to undermine. And what exactly is a “pronatalist attitude”? Basically it means the urge to have children, and to like babies. If only we could suppress people’s natural urge to want children and start families, we could solve all our problems!
What’s disturbing to me is the incredibly patronizing and culturally imperialist attitude he displays here, basically acting like he has the right to tell every ethnic group in the world that they should allow themselves to go extinct or at least not increase their populations any more. How would we feel if Andaman Islanders showed up on the steps of the Capitol in Washington D.C. and announced that there were simply too many Americans, and we therefore are commanded to stop breeding immediately? One imagines that the attitude of every ethnic group in the world to John Holdren’s proposal would be: Cram it, John. Stop telling us what to do.
Page 944: As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000
Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants’ destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world.
This is the final paragraph of the book, which I include here only to show how embarrassingly inaccurate his “scientific” projections were. In 1977, Holdren thought we were teetering on the brink of global catastrophe, and he proposed implementing fascistic rules and laws to stave off the impending disaster. Luckily, we ignored his warnings, yet the world managed to survive anyway without the need to punish ourselves with the oppressive society which Holdren proposed. Yes, there still is overpopulation, but the problems it causes are not as morally repugnant as the “solutions” which John Holdren wanted us to adopt.
See featured article and videos at: truthandaction.org
US General claims Russia and Syria are “weaponizing” migration to destabilize the continent
IMAGE CREDITS: JASON MRACHINA / FLICKR.
“A collection of materials is currently under way, the police are conducting an internal investigation.”
German police have reportedly launched an investigation into the cops who leaked internal reports of mass harassment and assaults on New Year’s Eve in Cologne to the media. The German press only learned about the outrageous sex attacks four days after the incidents.
According to Süddeutsche Zeitung, Cologne police recently launched an investigation to find those who had spread the “secret” information without permission. The authorities are determined to find out how internal police reports became public.
“A collection of materials is currently under way, the police are conducting an internal investigation,” a spokesman for the Cologne prosecutor’s office told Süddeutsche Zeitung.
‘New form of criminality’: Sex attacks on NYE in 12 German states – leaked police report http://on.rt.com/72lw
FEBRUARY 2, 2016
THE EVIDENCE OF FRAUD IN BOTH PARTY CAUCUSES IS OVERWHELMING
Hillary Clinton has allegedly beaten Bernie Sanders in the Iowa Democratic Caucus by only 2/10th of a percent, 49.8% to 49.6%, with all precincts reporting, according to the state party.
In six Democratic counties, the winner was decided by a coin flip, and in each instance the coin toss was reportedly won by Clinton over Sanders, a probability of only 1 in 64 or 1.56%.
Even with Clinton being awarded the victory, however, the fact she didn’t dominate the caucus leaves the Democratic establishment nervous and raises questions whether she is still a sellable candidate.
Interestingly, Sanders won Des Moines precinct No. 42 by two delegates, yet voters could not find anyone at party headquarters on Tuesday morning to disclose their tally.
“It’s important considering how close the race is,” Sanders supporter Jill Joseph said. “We need to be sure everyone has our accurate count.”
The evidence of fraud in both party caucuses is overwhelming.
For one thing, it’s a conflict of interest for Microsoft, a top Marco Rubio donor, to count the caucus votes.
It was certainly strange how prior to the caucus, Marco Rubio was polling at a distant third, yet the caucus results show Rubio barely behind Trump.
But ultimately, the Iowa GOP results don’t matter as much as the mainstream media claims because the Iowa caucus was restricted to registered Republicans who toe the party line, whereas Trump has unprecedented support from independents and even many Democrats.
“The Democrat establishment knows a lot of registered Democrats favor Trump,” Kurt Nimmo wrote. “According to The Upshot by Civis Analytics, a Democratic data firm, Democrats in the South, Appalachia and the industrial North support Trump.”
“In early January Mercury Analytics, a research company with clients that include MSNBC and Fox News, conducted an online poll, and it revealed a full 20% of Democrats said they would go against the party line and vote for Trump in a general election.”
“Independents are a large factor as well.”
FOLLOW for more BREAKING news:https://www.facebook.com/RealKitDaniels
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
FOLLOW on Twitter:
Editor Dustin Bond/MCN
See featured article here: INFOWARS
Editor Dustin Bond MC News
While the Washington snowstorm dominated news coverage this week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was operating behind the scenes to rush through the Senate what may be the most massive transfer of power from the Legislative to the Executive branch in our history. The senior Senator from Kentucky is scheming, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham, to bypass normal Senate procedure to fast-track legislation to grant the president the authority to wage unlimited war for as long as he or his successors may wish.
The legislation makes the unconstitutional Iraq War authorization of 2002 look like a walk in the park. It will allow this president and future presidents to wage war against ISIS without restrictions on time, geographic scope, or the use of ground troops. It is a completely open-ended authorization for the president to use the military as he wishes for as long as he (or she) wishes. Even President Obama has expressed concern over how willing Congress is to hand him unlimited power to wage war.
President Obama has already far surpassed even his predecessor, George W. Bush, in taking the country to war without even the fig leaf of an authorization. In 2011 the president invaded Libya, overthrew its government, and oversaw the assassination of its leader, without even bothering to ask for Congressional approval. Instead of impeachment, which he deserved for the disastrous Libya invasion, Congress said nothing. House Republicans only managed to bring the subject up when they thought they might gain political points exploiting the killing of US Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi.
It is becoming more clear that Washington plans to expand its war in the Middle East. Last week the media reported that the US military had taken over an air base in eastern Syria, and Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said that the US would send in the 101st Airborne Division to retake Mosul in Iraq and to attack ISIS headquarters in Raqqa, Syria. Then on Saturday, Vice President Joe Biden said that if the upcoming peace talks in Geneva are not successful, the US is prepared for a massive military intervention in Syria. Such an action would likely place the US military face to face with the Russian military, whose assistance was requested by the Syrian government. In contrast, we must remember that the US military is operating in Syria in violation of international law.
The prospects of such an escalation are not all that far-fetched. At the insistence of Saudi Arabia and with US backing, the representatives of the Syrian opposition at the Geneva peace talks will include members of the Army of Islam, which has fought with al-Qaeda in Syria. Does anyone expect these kinds of people to compromise? Isn’t al-Qaeda supposed to be our enemy?
The purpose of the Legislative branch of our government is to restrict the Executive branch’s power. The Founders understood that an all-powerful king who could wage war at will was the greatest threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is why they created a people’s branch, the Congress, to prevent the emergence of an all-powerful autocrat to drag the country to endless war. Sadly, Congress is surrendering its power to declare war.
Let’s be clear: If Senate Majority Leader McConnell succeeds in passing this open-ended war authorization, the US Constitution will be all but a dead letter.
See featured article here:
“Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?” – Henry David Thoreau Editor Dustin Bond MC News
By Justin Gardner on January 23, 2016
Witnessing the slavery and imperialism being carried out by government during the mid-nineteenth century, Henry David Thoreau was compelled to apply his transcendental philosophy to challenge the fallacies of the state. Civil Disobedience is one of the greatest American texts, and was a prime influence for Martin Luther King, Jr., who said, “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
Civil disobedience is a familiar concept to those who realize that government does not possess a greater wisdom and justice than the individual simply because it is government. As Thoreau wrote, we have a duty to resist when the state is recognized as an agent of injustice.
This is sometimes even embraced by those working within the system. Rep. Allen Peake, a Georgia lawmaker, admitted that he defies unjust cannabis prohibition by bringing medical cannabis into Georgia from states where it is legal, such as Colorado. He recently delivered medical cannabis to a mother whose son suffers from seizures.
“I got a text this morning from the mother of a young child who I delivered product to,” said Peake. “And the heartfelt thanks from this mother, the difference in this child – the increase in cognitive ability, the reduction in seizures, has been worth every bit of risk that I’ve taken.”
Georgia residents have just begun their struggle to gain the freedom to treat their medical conditions with a plant that is proven to be effective for many ailments. The ability of medical cannabis to reduce or eliminate epileptic seizures—without harmful side effects—is astounding and is recognized by medical professionals. The biggest news at the last American Epilepsy Society conference was a landmark study showing that a cannabis extract vastly reduces seizures in children.
Yet this miracle treatment is denied to people in more than half of U.S. states and is still completely banned by the federal government as a Schedule 1 drug with “no currently accepted medical use.”
In the face of such injustice, some are moving to states with legal medical cannabis, some continue suffering or rely on prescription pills, and some engage in civil disobedience. Allen Peake is a model of virtue among a cesspool of state corruption.
He routinely visits former Georgians who now live in Colorado so they can treat their conditions without the fear of being locked in a cage.
“Listen, I made a commitment to these families when I got involved, that I was willing to do whatever it took to make sure they had access to a product from a reputable manufacturer. I’ve made good on that promise. If it involved civil disobedience, it’s been absolutely worth it,” said Peake.
Rep. Peake has also introduced a bill in the Georgia House of Representatives that would expand the number of diseases and conditions for which cannabis oil can be prescribed, and also calls for “a minimum of two and a maximum of six in-state manufacturers for the production of all medical cannabis within the state by Dec. 1, 2016.” More than 100 House members have signed the bill.
The proposed bill follows up on Georgia’s first step taken last year to decriminalize medical cannabis, called the Haleigh’s Hope Act. It gave limited protections to those who use or administer cannabis oil, such as desperate parents who witness their child having endless seizures.
An Atlanta mom is having to resort to the black market to get the only thing that works to stop her daughter’s violent autistic episodes—medical cannabis. She showed a heartbreaking video to the local Channel 2 station of the father trying to restrain his 5-year-old daughter so she doesn’t severely bite herself. After trying 30 different supplements and medicines unsuccessfully, cannabis is the only thing that prevents the violent episodes and allows here daughter to engage in normal tasks. She buys cannabis on the black market and makes the oil extract at home.
Mike Buffington is editor of the Jackson County Herald, a self-professed conservative, and father to a 21-year-old son who has suffered seizures for 15 years. He wrote a column last month called I’m Growing Marijuana.
“My pot plant is really something of a civic protest against absurd state policies that prevent children who suffer from seizure disorders from getting help,” said Buffington.
He found a variety of cannabis that is low in psychoactive properties and high in seizure-fighting substances. He is going to plant the seed and use an indoor grow kit, hoping to gain a green thumb through his act of defiance. Buffington will post pictures of the progress.
“I’m making a political statement, but I’m trying to show that it’s just a plant. If it has the potential to help people, why not open the door and see what we can do with it?” said Buffington. “Obviously, if you’re going to do civil disobedience, you know what the penalties potentially are, and you’ve got to be willing to take those penalties.”
In his case, possessing one plant would be a misdemeanor. No cops have come knocking on his door yet. Law enforcement must be in a quandary here, as charging Buffington would showcase the absurdity of “just doing their job.”
These acts of civil disobedience are enraging state prosecutors, who are undoubtedly working to derail Rep. Peake’s proposed House bill to expand medical cannabis access. The governor has already made his opposition clear, and there will be resistance in the Senate. Cannabis prohibition is too profitable for law enforcement and prison industries to give up easily.
The tide against these agents of injustice may already be too great for them to resist. Civil disobedience is among us and growing. Thoreau would be proud.
See featured article here:
In the last years of the 20th century fraud entered US foreign policy in a new way. On false pretenses Washington dismantled Yugoslavia and Serbia in order to advance an undeclared agenda. In the 21st century this fraud multiplied many times. Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Libya were destroyed, and Iran and Syria would also have been destroyed if the President of Russia had not prevented it. Washington is also behind the current destruction of Yemen, and Washington has enabled and financed the Israeli destruction of Palestine. Additionally, Washington operated militarily within Pakistan without declaring war, murdering many women, children, and village elders under the guise of “combating terrorism.” Washington’s war crimes rival those of any country in history.
I have documented these crimes in my columns and books (Clarity Press).
Anyone who still believes in the purity of Washington’s foreign policy is a lost soul.
Russia and China now have a strategic alliance that is too strong for Washington. Russia and China will prevent Washington from further encroachments on their security and national interests. Those countries important to Russia and China will be protected by the alliance. As the world wakes up and sees the evil that the West represents, more countries will seek the protection of Russia and China.
America is also failing on the economic front. My columns and my book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism, which has been published in English, Chinese, Korean, Czech, and German, have shown how Washington has stood aside, indeed cheering it on, while the short-term profit interests of management, shareholders, and Wall Street eviscerated the American economy, sending manufacturing jobs, business know-how, and technology, along with professional tradeable skill jobs, to China, India, and other countries, leaving America with such a hollowed out economy that the median family income has been falling for years. Today 50% of 25 year-old Americans are living with their parents or grandparents because they cannot find employment sufficient to sustain an independent existance. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-27/why-are-half-all-25-year-olds-still-living-their-parents-federal-reserve-answers This brutal fact is covered up by the presstitute US media, a source of fantasy stories of America’s economic recovery.
The facts of our existence are so different from what is reported that I am astonished. As a former professor of economics, Wall Street Journal editor and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy, I am astonished at the corruption that rules in the financial sector, the Treasury, the financial regulatory agencies, and the Federal Reserve. In my day, there would have been indictments and prison sentences of bankers and high government officials.
In America today there are no free financial markets. All the markets are rigged by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. The regulatory agencies, controlled by those the agencies are supposed to regulate, turn a blind eye, and even if they did not, they are helpless to enforce any law, because private interests are more powerful than the law.
Even the government’s statistical agencies have been corrupted. Inflation measures have been concocted in order to understate inflation. This lie not only saves Washington from paying Social Security cost-of-living adjustments and frees the money for more wars, but also by understating inflation, the government can create real GDP growth by counting inflation as real growth, just as the government creates 5% unemployment by not counting any discouraged workers who have looked for jobs until they can no longer afford the cost of looking and give up. The official unemployment rate is 5%, but no one can find a job. How can the unemployment rate be 5% when half of 25-year olds are living with relatives because they cannot afford an independent existence? As John Williams (shadowfacts) reports, the unemployment rate that includes those Americans who have given up looking for a job because there are no jobs to be found is 23%.
The Federal Reserve, a tool of a small handful of banks, has succeeded in creating the illusion of an economic recovery since June, 2009, by printing trillions of dollars that found their way not into the economy but into the prices of financial assets. Artificially booming stock and bond markets are the presstitute financial media’s “proof” of a booming economy.
The handful of learned people that America has left, and it is only a small handful, understand that there has been no recovery from the previous recession and that a new downturn is upon us. John Williams has pointed out that US industrial production, when properly adjusted for inflation, has never recovered its 2008 level, much less its 2000 peak, and has again turned down.
The American consumer is exhausted, overwhelmed by debt and lack of income growth. The entire economic policy of America is focused on saving a handful of NY banks, not on saving the American economy.
Economists and other Wall Street shills will dismiss the decline in industrial production as America is now a service economy. Economists pretend that these are high-tech services of the New Economy, but in fact waitresses, bartenders, part time retail clerks, and ambulatory health care services have replaced manufacturing and engineering jobs at a fraction of the pay, thus collapsing effective aggregate demand in the US. On occasions when neoliberal economists recognize problems, they blame them on China.
It is unclear that the US economy can be revived. To revive the US economy would require the re-regulation of the financial system and the recall of the jobs and US GDP that offshoring gave to foreign countries. It would require, as Michael Hudson demonstrates in his new book, Killing the Host, a revolution in tax policy that would prevent the financial sector from extracting economic surplus and capitalizing it in debt obligations paying interest to the financial sector.
The US government, controlled as it is by corrupt economic interests, would never permit policies that impinged on executive bonuses and Wall Street profits. Today US capitalism makes its money by selling out the American economy and the people dependent upon it.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books areThe Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.
In “freedom and democracy” America, the government and the economy serve interests totally removed from the interests of the American people. The sellout of the American people is protected by a huge canopy of propaganda provided by free market economists and financial presstitutes paid to lie for their living.
When America fails, so will Washington’s vassal states in Europe, Canada, Australia, and Japan. Unless Washington destroys the world in nuclear war, the world will be remade, and the corrupt and dissolute West will be an insignificant part of the new world.
Sunday, January 10, 2016 by: Daniel Barker
Editor Dustin Bond MC News
(NaturalNews) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) performed its duties aggressively this year, handing out a number of prison sentences and multi-million dollar fines to polluters.
However, the agency failed to apply its enforcement techniques to its own employees and the contractors responsible for a massive toxic spill caused during the botched Gold King Mine cleanup in Colorado – which poisoned rivers and waterways in three states and also within the Navajo Nation.
From The Daily Caller:
“Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforcers helped convict 185 Americans of environmental crimes this year, with each of these eco-convicts getting sentenced to eight months in prison on average for crimes ranging from biofuel fraud to illegally removing asbestos.
“EPA enforcement data for 2015 shows the agency opened 213 environmental cases which resulted in 185 people convicted and sentenced to 129 years in prison. EPA has been opening fewer cases in recent years to focus more on ‘high impact’ cases.”
The agency was responsible for levying more than $88 million in fines, $112 million in restitution and $4 billion in court ordered environmental projects.
The biggest of these cases was against Duke Energy, which was charged with violating the Clean Water Act for spilling coal ash into Virginia and North Carolina rivers. The guilty verdict resulted in the largest settlement ever paid under the Clean Water Act: $68 million in fines and $34 million for environmental projects in both affected states.
So, how can the EPA justify its zealous prosecution of companies like Duke Energy, when its own environmental screw-ups go unpunished?
“Republican lawmakers were quick to criticize EPA for not taking any disciplinary action against contractors or employees involved in the Colorado mine spill. Lawmakers noted that while EPA drags its feet, a private company, like Duke, would have been fined quickly if it had spilled mine waste.
“The Department of the Interior’s outside review of the spill incident found EPA could have avoided a blowout if it had taken precautions agency workers had used while opening other sealed Colorado mines.”
Not only could the blowout have been avoided, there is evidence that the agency was warned beforehand that such an incident might occur – and even worse, it now appears that the agency may be attempting to “taint” the investigation, according to Representatives Rob Bishop of Utah and Louie Gohmert of Texas, both Republicans.
Bishop and Gohmert wrote to the inspector general of the EPA:
“[T]he Committee on Natural Resources is troubled by the EPA’s disclosure last week that it had recently interviewed two material witnesses to the EPA’s activities at Gold King Mine.
“Specifically, the Committee is concerned that the EPA’s interview did not follow best investigative practices and may have interfered with the OIG’s ongoing investigation.”
Meanwhile, the EPA continues in its efforts to whitewash the incident, according to Paul Driesen of the Heartland Institute. “Congress and state legislatures should further investigate the Gold King disaster, and compel witnesses to testify under oath,” he wrote. “They should also improve relevant laws, ensure that agency personnel are truly qualified to do their tasks, and hold agency incompetents and miscreants accountable.”
And as the Gold King Mine cleanup efforts drag on, suicides are on the increase in the Navajo Nation – a fact which many blame on the spill.
It seems abundantly clear that the EPA is unwilling to take full responsibility for their role in the Gold King Mine spill, even though the incident continues to have a devastating impact on the environment and the people living in the region.
And as it doggedly pursues “high profile” cases, while levying record fines against private companies, the agency apparently believes that its own environmental mistakes are somehow forgivable and that it should not be held accountable for them.
See featured article here:
It isn’t as if we haven’t seen this coming. For years now I have pointed out the shallowness and flimsiness of condemnations of terror by American Islamic groups, and noted that American mosques and schools have no programs to teach against the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism, as one might have expected them to institute after 9/11 if they really stood where they claimed they stood.
And in 1999, the Naqshbandi Sufi Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani testified before a State Department open forum that eighty percent of American mosques had extremist leadership. And then there was the January 2005 report from the Center for Religious Freedom, “Saudi publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques” (pdf here).
“Study: 3 in 4 U.S. mosques preach anti-West extremism,” from WorldNetDaily (thanks to TCS):
An undercover survey of more than 100 mosques and Islamic schools in America has exposed widespread radicalism, including the alarming finding that 3 in 4 Islamic centers are hotbeds of anti-Western extremism, WND has learned.The Mapping Sharia in America Project, sponsored by the Washington-based Center for Security Policy, has trained former counterintelligence and counterterrorism agents from the FBI, CIA and U.S. military, who are skilled in Arabic and Urdu, to conduct undercover reconnaissance at some 2,300 mosques and Islamic centers and schools across the country.
“So far of 100 mapped, 75 should be on a watchlist,” an official familiar with the project said.
Many of the Islamic centers are operating under the auspices of the Saudi Arabian government and U.S. front groups for the radical Muslim Brotherhood based in Egypt.
Frank Gaffney, a former Pentagon official who runs the Center for Security Policy, says the results of the survey have not yet been published. But he confirmed that “the vast majority” are inciting insurrection and jihad through sermons by Saudi-trained imams and anti-Western literature, videos and textbooks.
The project, headed by David Yerushalmi, a lawyer and expert on sharia law, has finished collecting data from the first cohort of 102 mosques and schools. Preliminary findings indicate that almost 80 percent of the group exhibit a high level of sharia-compliance and jihadi threat, including:
* Ultra-orthodox worship in which women are separated from men in the prayer hall and must enter the mosque from a separate, usually back, entrance; and are required to wear hijabs.
* Sermons that preach women are inferior to men and can be beaten for disobedience; that non-Muslims, particularly Jews, are infidels and inferior to Muslims; that jihad or support of jihad is not only a Muslim’s duty but the noblest way, and suicide bombers and other so-called “martyrs” are worthy of the highest praise; and that an Islamic caliphate should one day encompass the U.S.
* Solicitation of financial support for jihad.
* Bookstores that sell books, CDs and DVDs promoting jihad and glorifying martyrdom.
Though not all mosques in America are radicalized, many have tended to serve as safe havens and meeting points for Islamic terrorist groups. Experts say there are at least 40 episodes of extremists and terrorists being connected to mosques in the past decade alone.
Some of the 9/11 hijackers, in fact, received aid and counsel from one of the largest mosques in the Washington, D.C., area. Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center is one of the mosques indentified by undercover investigators as a hive of terrorist activity and other extremism.
It was founded and is currently run by leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. Imams there preach what is called “jihad qital,” which means physical jihad, and incite violence and hatred against the U.S.
Dar al-Hijrah’s ultimate goal, investigators say, is to turn the U.S. into an Islamic state governed by sharia law.
Another D.C.-area mosque, the ADAMS Center, was founded and financed by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and has been one of the top distributors of Wahhabist anti-Semitic and anti-Christian dogma.
Even with such radical mosques operating in its backyard, the U.S. government has not undertaken its own systematic investigation of U.S. mosques….
Which is an ongoing scandal.
See featured article at:
Additional info by MCN:
One hundred years ago European civilization, as it had been known, was ending its life in the Great War, later renamed World War I. Millions of soldiers ordered by mindless generals into the hostile arms of barbed wire and machine gun fire had left the armies stalemated in trenches. A reasonable peace could have been reached, but US President Woodrow Wilson kept the carnage going by sending fresh American soldiers to try to turn the tide against Germany in favor of the English and French.
The fresh American machine gun and barbed wire fodder weakened the German position, and an armistice was agreed. The Germans were promised no territorial losses and no reparations if they laid down their arms, which they did only to be betrayed at Versailles. The injustice and stupidity of the Versailles Treaty produced the German hyperinflation, the collapse of the Weimar Republic, and the rise of Hitler.
Hitler’s demands that Germany be put back together from the pieces handed out to France, Belgium, Denmark, Lithuania, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, comprising 13 percent of Germany’s European territory and one-tenth of her population, and a repeat of French and British stupidity that had sired the Great War finished off the remnants of European civilization in World War II.
The United States benefitted greatly from this death. The economy of the United States was left untouched by both world wars, but economies elsewhere were destroyed. This left Washington and the New York banks the arbiters of the world economy. The US dollar replaced British sterling as the world reserve currency and became the foundation of US domination in the second half of the 20th century, a domination limited in its reach only by the Soviet Union.
The Soviet collapse in 1991 removed this constraint from Washington. The result was a burst of American arrogance and hubris that wiped away in over-reach the leadership power that had been handed to the United States. Since the Clinton regime, Washington’s wars have eroded American leadership and replaced stability in the Middle East and North Africa with chaos.
Washington moved in the wrong direction both in the economic and political arenas. In place of diplomacy, Washington used threats and coercion. “Do as you are told or we will bomb you into the stone age,” as Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told President Musharraf of Pakistan. Not content to bully weak countries, Washington threatens powerful countries such as Russia, China, and Iran with economic sanctions and military actions. Consequently, much of the non-Western world is abandoning the US dollar as world currency, and a number of countries are organizing a payments system, World Bank, and IMF of their own. Some NATO members are rethinking their membership in an organization that Washington is herding into conflict with Russia.
China’s unexpectedly rapid rise to power owes much to the greed of American capitalism. Pushed by Wall Street and the lure of “performance bonuses,” US corporate executives brought a halt to rising US living standards by sending high productivity, high value-added jobs abroad where comparable work is paid less. With the jobs went the technology and business knowhow. American capability was given to China. Apple Computer, for example, has not only offshored the jobs but also outsourced its production. Apple does not own the Chinese factories that produce its products.
The savings in US labor costs became corporate profits, executive remuneration, and shareholder capital gains. One consequence was the worsening of the US income distribution and the concentration of income and wealth in few hands. A middle class democracy was transformed into an oligarchy. As former President Jimmy Carter recently said, the US is no longer a democracy; it is an oligarchy.
In exchange for short-term profits and in order to avoid Wall Street threats of takeovers, capitalists gave away the American economy. As manufacturing and tradeable professional skill jobs flowed out of America, real family incomes ceased to grow and declined. The US labor force participation rate fell even as economic recovery was proclaimed. Job gains were limited to lowly paid domestic services, such as retail clerks, waitresses, and bartenders, and part-time jobs replaced full-time jobs. Young people entering the work force find it increasingly difficult to establish an independent existence, with 50 percent of 25-year old Americans living at home with parents.
In an economy driven by consumer and investment spending, the absence of growth in real consumer income means an economy without economic growth. Led by Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve in the first years of the 21st century substituted a growth in consumer debt for the missing growth in consumer income in order to keep the economy moving. This could only be a short-term palliative, because the growth of consumer debt is limited by the growth of consumer income.
Another serious mistake was the repeal of financial regulation that had made capitalism functional. The New York Banks were behind this egregious error, and they used their bought-and-paid-for Texas US Senator, whom they rewarded with a 7-figure salary and bank vice chairmanship to open the floodgates to amazing debt leverage and financial fraud with the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
The repeal of Glass-Steagall destroyed the separation of commercial from investment banking. One result was the concentration of banking. Five mega-banks now dominate the American financial scene. Another result was the power that the mega-banks gained over the government of the United States. Today the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve serve only the interests of the mega-banks.
In the United States savers have had no interest on their savings in eight years. Those who saved for their retirement in order to make paltry Social Security benefits liveable have had to draw down their capital, leaving less inheritance for hard-pressed sons, grandsons, daughters and granddaughters.
Washington’s financial policy is forcing families to gradually extinguish themselves. This is “freedom and democracy “ America today.
Among the capitalist themselves and their shills among the libertarian ideologues, who are correct about the abuse of government power but less concerned with the abuse of private power, the capitalist greed that is destroying families and the economy is regarded as the road to progress. By distrusting government regulators of private misbehavior, libertarians provided the cover for the repeal of the financial regulation that made American capitalism functional. Today dysfunctional capitalism rules, thanks to greed and libertarian ideology.
With the demise of the American middle class, which becomes more obvious each day as another ladder of upward mobility is dismantled, the United States becomes a bipolar country consisting of the rich and the poor. The most obvious conclusion is that the failure of American political leadership means instability, leading to a conflict between the haves—the one percent—and the dispossessed—the 99 percent.
The failure of leadership in the United States is not limited to the political arena but is across the board. The time horizon operating in American institutions is very short term. Just as US manufacturers have harmed US demand for their products by moving abroad American jobs and the consumer income associated with the jobs, university administrations are destroying universities. As much as 75 percent of university budgets is devoted to administration. There is a proliferation of provosts, assistant provosts, deans, assistant deans, and czars for every designated infraction of political correctness.
Tenure-track jobs, the bedrock of academic freedom, are disappearing as university administrators turn to adjuncts to teach courses for a few thousand dollars. The decline in tenure-track jobs heralds a decline in enrollments in Ph.D. programs. University enrollments overall are likely to decline. The university experience is eroding at the same time that the financial return to a university education is eroding. Increasingly students graduate into an employment environment that does not produce sufficient income to service their student loans or to form independent households.
Increasingly university research is funded by the Defense Department and by commercial interests and serves those interests. Universities are losing their role as sources of societal critics and reformers. Truth itself is becoming commercialized.
The banking system, which formerly financed business, is increasingly focused on converting as much of the economy as possible into leveraged debt instruments. Even consumer spending is reduced with high credit card interest rate charges. Indebtedness is rising faster than the real production in the economy.
Historically, capitalism was justified on the grounds that it guaranteed the efficient use of society’s resources. Profits were a sign that resources were being used to maximize social welfare, and losses were a sign of inefficient resource use, which was corrected by the firm going out of business. This is no longer the case when the economic policy of a country serves to protect financial institutions that are “too big to fail” and when profits reflect the relocation abroad of US GDP as a result of jobs offshoring. Clearly, American capitalism no longer serves society, and the worsening distribution of income and wealth prove it.
None of these serious problems will be addressed by the presidential candidates, and no party’s platform will consist of a rescue plan for America. Unbridled greed, short-term in nature, will continue to drive America into the ground.
See featured article at:
By Rick Wells
Editor Dustin Bond / MC News
George Soros is playing a major role in enabling and orchestrating the Islamic invasion of Europe and North America and with it the social chaos and degradation that now threatens the very nature and survival of civilization across the globe. For him it’s somehow personal, having taken a lead advocacy and funding position and laid out his own six-step plan for the invasion to continue and grow. He argues for the unimpeded march to full Islamist domination of the planet, or at a minimum to the level that suits the achievement of whatever devious schemes of his are in the works.
He appears to recognize that the opposition to his destruction of our nation, our continents and whatever planetary harmony remains is building and identified the primary threats to his anti-American efforts. It’s not surprising that those he is targeting are among the leadership of the political outsiders, those he has no control over, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.
It’s ironic that the premise of his op-ed against rational self-defense and in support of submission to the invasion is predicated upon an insistence that we not give in to the instinct to survive. He admits that even he, the most pervasive of political predators could only stop himself from an urge to respond to the terrorist threat that he is creating by remembering that it must be irrational to follow the wishes of your enemies. He makes that ironic statement as a component of his effort to persuade us to do nothing; to simply wait to be victimized by the hordes of terrorists he and his UN, EU elitist comrades are pouring across the civilized West. Liberal Marxists seem to be blind to their hypocrisy or to at a minimum believe their victims are.
Soros is the enemy of free men everywhere. It’s almost laughable that he urges us to follow his wishes as he applauds not following his wishes. But it’s not funny. What he and his comrades are up to is quite serious and immensely threatening to our relatively peaceful civilized world. The fundamental change he promised through his surrogate Hussein Obama is upon us and we’re not going to like it.
In a Monday op-ed published in The Guardian, Soros equated those who respond in a natural, survivalist manner to terrorism with the terrorists, offering up the nonsense that the only logical response to the murderous thugs he’s enlisting as his “agents of change” is to ignore them and hope they’ll grow tired of killing, raping, stealing and brutalizing their way to power.
Somehow that doesn’t seem like a viable option for continuing to enjoy a full and productive life, but Soros never claimed that our survival was a consideration. In fact he goes so far as to suggest that acting to save your life is an irrational response to fear.
He gets into a little psycho-analysis of the civilized world in the process, encouraging us to ignore the instinctive urge to survive in the interest of the greater, more enlightened, collective good. The Marxist would-be king of the world wrote:
Open societies are always endangered. This is especially true of America and Europe today, as a result of the terrorist attacks in Paris and elsewhere, and the way that America and Europe, particularly France, have reacted to them.
Jihadi terrorist groups such as Islamic State and al-Qaida have discovered the Achilles heel of our western societies: the fear of death. Through horrific attacks and macabre videos, the publicists of Isis magnify this fear, leading otherwise sensible people in hitherto open societies to abandon their reason.
Scientists have discovered that emotion is an essential component of human reasoning. That discovery explains why jihadi terrorism poses such a potent threat to our societies: the fear of death leads us and our leaders to think – and then behave – irrationally.
Science merely confirms what experience has long shown: when we are afraid for our lives, emotions take hold of our thoughts and actions, and we find it difficult to make rational judgments. Fear activates an older, more primitive part of the brain than that which formulates and sustains the abstract values and principles of open society.
The open society is thus always at risk from the threat posed by our response to fear. A generation that has inherited anopen society from its parents will not understand what is required to maintain it until it has been tested and learns to keep fear from corrupting reason. Jihadi terrorism is only the latest example. The fear of nuclear war tested the last generation, and the fear of communism and fascism tested my generation.
The jihadi terrorists’ ultimate goal is to convince Muslim youth worldwide that there is no alternative to terrorism. And terrorist attacks are the way to achieve that goal, because the fear of death will awaken and magnify the latent anti-Muslim sentiments in Europe and America, inducing the non-Muslim population to treat all Muslims as potential attackers.
And that is exactly what is happening. The hysterical anti-Muslim reaction to terrorism is generating fear and resentment among Muslims living in Europe and America. The older generation reacts with fear, the younger one with resentment; the result is a breeding ground for potential terrorists. This is a mutually reinforcing, reflexive process.
The hysterical anti-Muslim reaction to terrorism is generating fear and resentment among Muslims in Europe and America
How can it be stopped and reversed? Abandoning the values and principles underlying open societies and giving in to an anti-Muslim impulse dictated by fear certainly is not the answer, though it may be difficult to resist the temptation. I experienced this personally when I watched the last Republican presidential debate; I could stop myself only by remembering that it must be irrational to follow the wishes of your enemies.
To remove the danger posed by jihadi terrorism, abstract arguments are not enough; we need a strategy for defeating it. The challenge is underscored by the fact that the jihadi phenomenon has been with us for more than a generation. Indeed, gaining a proper understanding of it may be impossible. But the attempt must be made.
Consider the Syrian conflict, which is the root cause of the migration problem that is posing an existential threat to the European Union as we know it. If it was resolved, the world would be in better shape. It is important to recognize that ISIS is operating from a position of weakness. While it is spreading fear in the world, its hold on its home ground is weakening. The United Nations Security Council has unanimously adopted a resolution against it, and the leaders of ISIS are aware that their days in Iraq and Syria are numbered.
Of course, the outlook for Syria remains highly uncertain, and the conflict there cannot be understood or tackled in isolation. But one idea shines through crystal clear: it is an egregious mistake to do what the terrorists want us to do. That is why, as 2016 gets underway, we must reaffirm our commitment to the principles of open society and resist the siren song of the likes of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, however hard that may be.
Since those siren songs are part of the human DNA and critical to our survival, it may be hard for people to choose tyranny and death over the songs of survival. Soros understands that lemmings who think and act in their own interests are no longer truly lemmings and only of limited usefulness to their masters.
His echoing of his UN/US comrade Hussein Obama’s claims that ISIS is operating from a position of weakness are intended to persuade us into complacency, to believe and accept their deception rather than the truth presented by our own “lying eyes” and rational thought.
His claim that everything is fine, we’re safe because the UN Security Council is on the job only serves to expose another aspect of the nature of his message, to build trust in the global government enemy as they work towards our destruction.
Soros is, in fact, helping to expand the level of trust on the part of the American people, but not in the way he intended. We’re increasingly more confident of the motivations of the very individuals he’s vilifying. They’re becoming more evident as being the few national leaders, aside from Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), who truly have our best interest at heart. If George Soros is against Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, there’s a strong chance they are on the right side of things, that they are among the handful in our leadership who truly care about our future and the future of our nation.
His is a backhanded political endorsement we’ll be sure to make appropriate note of.
I’m Rick Wells – a conservative writer who recognizes that our nation, our Constitution and our traditions are under a full scale assault from multiple threats. I’m not PC; I call it like I see it. – Please “Like” me on Facebook, “Follow” me on Twitter or visit www.rickwells.us & www.truthburgers.com.
See featured article at:
The following text is an excerpt of a chapter by Peter Dale Scott from the Global Research Publishers, “The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century.” first published in 2010.
The U.S. Treasury’s Financial Bailout
The bailout measures of late 2008 may have consequences at least as grave for an open society as the response to 9/11 in 2001. Many members of Congress felt coerced at the time into voting against their inclinations, and the normal procedures for orderly consideration of a bill were dispensed with.
The excuse for bypassing normal legislative procedures was the existence of an emergency. But one of the most reprehensible features of the legislation, that allowed Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to permit bailed-out institutions to use public money for exorbitant salaries and bonuses, was inserted by Paulson after the immediate crisis had passed.
According to Congressman Peter Welch (D-Vermont) the bailout bill originally called for a cap on executive salaries, but Paulson changed the requirement at the last minute. Welch and other members of Congress were enraged by “news that banks getting taxpayer-funded bailouts are still paying exorbitant salaries, bonuses, and other benefits.” In addition, as the Associated Press reported in October 2008, “Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. questioned allowing banks that accept bailout bucks to continue paying dividends on their common stock. ‘There are far better uses of taxpayer dollars than continuing dividend payments to shareholders,’ he said.”
Even more reprehensible is the fact that after the bailouts, Paulson and the Treasury Department refused to provide details of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) spending of hundreds of billions of dollars, while the New York Federal Reserve refused to provide information about its own bailout (using government-backed loans) that amounted to trillions. This lack of transparency was challenged by Fox TV in a FOIA suit against the Treasury Department, and a suit by Bloomberg News against the Fed.
The financial bailout legislation of September 2008 was only passed after members of both Congressional houses were warned that failure to act would threaten civil unrest and the imposition of martial law.
U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., both said U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson brought up a worst-case scenario as he pushed for the Wall Street bailout in September. Paulson, former Goldman Sachs CEO, said that might even require a declaration of martial law, the two noted.
Here are the original remarks by Senator Inhofe:
Speaking on Tulsa Oklahoma’s 1170 KFAQ, when asked who was behind threats of martial law and civil unrest if the bailout bill failed, Senator James Inhofe named Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson as the source. “Somebody in D.C. was feeding you guys quite a story prior to the bailout, a story that if we didn’t do this we were going to see something on the scale of the depression, there were people talking about martial law being instituted, civil unrest… who was feeding you guys this stuff?,” asked host Pat Campbell. “That’s Henry Paulson,” responded Inhofe. “We had a conference call early on, it was on a Friday I think – a week and half before the vote on Oct. 1. So it would have been the middle… what was it – the 19th of September, we had a conference call. In this conference call – and I guess there’s no reason for me not to repeat what he said, but he said – he painted this picture you just described. He said, ‘This is serious. This is the most serious thing that we faced.’”
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA 27th District) reported the same threat on the Congressional floor:
The only way they can pass this bill is by creating a panic atmosphere… Many of us were told that the sky would fall… A few of us were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no. That’s what I call fear-mongering, unjustified, proven wrong.
So it is clear that threats of martial law were used to get this reprehensible bailout legislation passed. It also seems clear that Congress was told of a threat of martial law, not itself threatened. It is still entirely appropriate to link such talk to the Army’s rapid moves at the time to redefine its role as one of controlling the American people, not just protecting them. In a constitutional polity based on balance of powers, we have seen the emergence of a radical new military power that is as yet completely unbalanced.
Continuity of Operations (COOP)
The Army’s New Role in 2001: Not Protecting American Society, but Controlling It. This new role for the Army is not wholly unprecedented. The U.S. military had been training troops and police in “civil disturbance planning” for the last three decades. The master plan, Department of Defense Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2, or “Operation Garden Plot,” was developed in 1968 in response to the major protests and disturbances of the 1960s.
But on January 19, 2001, on the last day of the Clinton administration, the U.S. Army promulgated a new and permanent Continuity of Operations (COOP) Program. It encapsulated its difference from the preceding, externally oriented Army Survival, Recovery, and Reconstitution System (ASRRS) as follows:
a. In 1985, the Chief of Staff of the Army established the Army Survival, Recovery, and Reconstitution System (ASRRS) to ensure the continuity of essential Army missions and functions.
ASRRS doctrine was focused primarily on a response to the worst case 1980’s threat of a massive nuclear laydown on CONUS as a result of a confrontation with the Soviet Union.
b. The end of the Cold War and the breakup of the former Soviet Union significantly reduced the probability of a major nuclear attack on CONUS but the probability of other threats has increased. Army organizations must be prepared for any contingency with a potential for interruption of normal operations.
To emphasize that Army continuity of operations planning is now focused on the full all-hazards threat spectrum, the name “ASRRS” has been replaced by the more generic title “Continuity of Operations (COOP) Program.
This document embodied the secret Continuity of Government (COG) planning conducted secretly by Rumsfeld, Cheney and others through the 1980s and 1990s. This planning was initially for continuity measures in the event of a nuclear attack, but soon called for suspension of the Constitution, not just “after a nuclear war” but for any “national security emergency”. This was defined in Reagan’s Executive Order 12656 of November 18, 1988, as “any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States.” The effect was to impose on domestic civil society the extreme measures once planned for a response to a nuclear attack from abroad. In like fashion, ARR 500-3 Regulation clarified that it was a plan for “the execution of mission-essential functions without unacceptable interruption during a national security or domestic emergency.”
Donald Rumsfeld, who as a private citizen had helped author the COG planning, promptly signed and implemented the revised ARR 500-3. Eight months later, on 9/11, Cheney and Rumsfeld implemented COG, a significant event of which we still know next to nothing. What we do know is that plans began almost immediately – as foreseen by COG planning the 1980s – to implement warrantless surveillance and detention of large numbers of civilians, and that in January 2002 the Pentagon submitted a proposal for deploying troops on American streets.
Then in April 2002, Defense officials implemented a plan for domestic U.S. military operations by creating a new U.S. Northern Command (CINC-USNORTHCOM) for the continental United States. In short, what were being implemented were the most prominent features of the COG planning which Oliver North had worked on in the 1980s.
“Deep Events” and Changes of Party in the White House
Like so many other significant steps since World War Two towards a military-industrial state, the Army’s Regulation 500-3 surfaced in the last days of a departing administration (in this case the very last day). It is worth noticing that, ever since the 1950s, dubious events – of the unpublic variety I have called deep events – have marked the last months before a change of party in the White House. These deep events have tended to a) constrain the incoming president, if he is a Democrat or, alternatively, b) to pave the way for the incomer, if he is a Republican.
Consider, in the first category, the following (when a Republican was succeeded by a Democrat):
– In December 1960 the CIA secured approval for the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, and escalated events in Laos into a crisis for which the Joint Chiefs proposed sending 60 000 troops. These events profoundly affected President Kennedy’s posture towards Cuba and Indochina.
– In 1976 CIA Director George H.W. Bush installed an outside Team B intelligence unit to enlarge drastically estimates of the Soviet threat to the United States, eventually frustrating and reversing presidential candidate Jimmy Carter’s campaign pledge to cut the U.S. defense budget.
Equally important were events in the second category (when a Democrat was succeeded by a Republican):
– In late 1968 Kissinger, while advising the Johnson administration, gave secret information to the Nixon campaign that helped Nixon to obstruct the peace agreement in Vietnam that was about to be negotiated at the peace talks then taking place in Paris. (According to Seymour Hersh, “The Nixon campaign, alerted by Kissinger to the impending success of the peace talks, was able to get a series of messages to the Thieu government” in Saigon, making it clear that a Nixon presidency would offer a better deal. This was a major factor in securing the defeat of Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey. Kissinger was not the kind of person to have betrayed his president on his own personal initiative. At the time Nixon’s campaign manager, John Mitchell (one of the very few in on the secret), told Hersh, “I thought Henry [Kissinger] was doing it because Nelson [Rockefeller] wanted him to. Nelson asked Henry to help and he did.”
– In 1980 the so-called October Surprise, with the help of people inside the CIA, helped ensure that the Americans held hostage in Iran would not be returned before the inauguration of Reagan. This was a major factor in securing the defeat of incumbent Jimmy Carter. Once again, the influence of the Rockefellers can be discerned. A CIA officer later reported hearing Joseph V. Reed, an aide to David Rockefeller, comment in 1981 to William Casey, the newly installed CIA Director, about their joint success in disrupting Carter’s plans to bring home the hostages.
Both the financial bailout, extorted from Congress and the escalated preparations for martial law can be seen as transitional events of the first category. Whatever the explanations for their timing, they constrained Obama’s freedom to make his own policies. Moreover they have the consequence of easing this country into unforeseen escalations of the Afghan war.
The Intensive Quiet Preparations for Martial Law
Let us deal first with the preparations for martial law. In late September 2008, at the height of the financial meltdown, The Army Times announced the redeployment of an active Brigade Army Team from Iraq to America, in a new mission that “may become a permanent part of the active Army”:
The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.
Now they’re training for the same mission – with a twist – at home.
Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks… After 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one… They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control.
This announcement followed by two weeks the talk of civil unrest and martial law that was used to panic the Congress into passing Paulson’s bailout legislation. Not only that, the two unprecedented events mirror each other: the bailout debate anticipated civil unrest and martial law, while the announced positioning of an active Brigade Combat Team on U.S. soil anticipated civil unrest (such as might result from the bailout legislation).
Then on December 17, 2008, U.S. Northern Command chief General Renuart announced that “the US military plans to mobilize thousands of troops to protect Washington against potential terrorist attack during the inauguration of president-elect Barack Obama.”
The U.S. Army War College also raised the possibility of the U.S. Army being used to control civil unrest, according to the Phoenix Business Journal:
A new report by the U.S. Army War College talks about the possibility of Pentagon resources and troops being used should the economic crisis lead to civil unrest, such as protests against businesses and government or runs on beleaguered banks.
“Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security,” said the War College report.
The study says economic collapse, terrorism and loss of legal order are among possible domestic shocks that might require military action within the U.S.
It is clear that there has been a sustained move in the direction of martial law preparations, a trend that has been as continuous as it has been unheralded. Senator Leahy was thus right to draw our attention to it on September 29, 2006, in his objections to the final form of the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, which gave the president increased power to call up the National Guard for law enforcement:
It… should concern us all that the Conference agreement includes language that subverts solid, longstanding Posse Comitatus statutes that limit the military’s involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law. There is good reason for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations.
This quiet agglomeration of military power has not “just growed”, like Topsy, through inadvertence. It shows sustained intention, even if no one has made a public case for it.
1. WCAX, Burlington, Vermont, http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S= 9567271, 22 December 2008; Cf. CNBC,http://www.cnbc.com/id/27423117, 30 October 2008: ” ‘You can get paid $30 million under this program’, says Michael Kesner, who heads Deloitte Consulting executive compensation practice, ‘There’s no limit on what you can get paid.’ “
2. John Dunbar, AP, http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081025/meltdown_evolving_bailout.html, 25 October 2007.
3. David Hirst, “Fox Joins Battle cry for Details of US Bail-out”, BusinessDay,http://www.businessday.com.au/business/fox-joins-battle-cry-for-details-of-us-bailout-20081223-74eh.html?page=-1, 24 December 2008.
4. Mike Sunnucks, “Ariz. Police say they are Prepared as War College warns Military must prep for Unrest; IMF warns of Economic Riots”, Phoenix Business Journal, http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/12/15/daily34.html, 17 December 2008.
5. 1170 KFAQ, “Paulson Was Behind Bailout Martial Law Threat”, Blacklisted News,http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-2367-0-13-13–.html, 23 November 2008.
6. Rep. Brad Sherman, in the House, 8:07 EST PM, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaG9d_4zij8&NR=1, 2 October 2008; Rep. Sherman later issued the following clarification: “I have no reason to think that any of the leaders in Congress who were involved in negotiating with the Bush Administration regarding the bailout bill ever mentioned the possibility of martial law – again, that was just an example of extreme and deliberately hyperbolic comments being passed around by members not directly involved in the negotiations.” See Rep. Sherman, Alex Jones Show,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bH1mO8qhCs.
7. Army Regulation 500-3, “Emergency Employment of Army and Other Resources”, Army Continuity Of Operations (COOP) Program, http://www.wikileaks.org/leak/us-army-reg-500-3-continuity-2001.pdf, emphasis added; Tom Burghardt, “Militarizing the ‘Homeland’ in Response to the Economic and Political Crisis: NORTHCOM’s Joint Task Force-Civil Support”, Global Research, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10534, 11 October 2008.
8. Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America, Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press, 2007, p. 183-87; James Mann, The Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet, New York, Viking, 2004, p. 138-45.
9. Peter Dale Scott, Road to 9/11, op. cit., p. 183-87.
10. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, 9/11 Commission Report, p. 38, 326; 555, footnote 9; Peter Dale Scott, Road to 9/11, op. cit., p. 228-30.
11. Ritt Goldstein, “Foundations are in Place for Martial Law in the US”, Sydney Morning Herald,http://www.smh.com.au/articles/ 2002/07/27/10274974183 39.html, 27 July 2002.
12. Peter Dale Scott, Road to 9/11, op. cit., p. 240-41.
13. Ibid., p. 60-61.
14. Robert Parry, “Henry Kissinger, Eminence Noire”, ConsortiumNews,http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/122808.html, 28 December 2008: “Kissinger… – while serving as a peace-talk adviser to the Johnson administration – made obstruction of the peace talks possible by secretly contacting people working for Nixon, according to Seymour Hersh’s 1983 book, The Price of Power”, p. 21.
15. Seymour Hersh, The Price of Power, 1983, p. 18; Jim Hougan, Spooks: The Haunting of America, New York, William Morrow, 1978, p. 435: “Kissinger, married to a former Rockefeller aide, owner of a Georgetown mansion whose purchase was enabled only by Rockefeller gifts and loans, was always the protégé of his patron, Nelson R[ockefeller], even when he wasn’t directly employed by him.”
16. Peter Dale Scott, Road to 9/11, op. cit., p. 93-118.
17. Ibid. p. 82-87, 91, 104-05.
18. Gina Cavallaro, “Brigade Homeland Tours Start Oct. 1″, Army Times,http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland _090708w/, 30 September 2008; Michel Chossudovsky, “Pre-election Militarization of the North American Homeland, US Combat Troops in Iraq Repatriated to ‘Help with Civil Unrest’”, Global Research, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? context= va&aid=10341, 26 September 2008.
19. AFP, Agence France-Presse,http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iTBOy3JF8pVAthIthq8C1NrMf4Cg, 17 De- cember 2008.
20. Mike Sunnucks, “Ariz. Police say they are Prepared as War College warns Military must prep for Unrest; IMF warns of Economic Riots”, Phoenix Business Journal, http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/12/15/daily34.html, 17 December 2008.
21. Remarks Of Sen. Patrick Leahy, “National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2007 Conference Report”, Congressional Record, http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html, 29 September 2006.
While the left continues to demagogue conservatives for calling for a “pause” in Muslim migration, until we can ensure that our vetting process is working, they seem strangely silent about their own bigoted behavior.
America’s liberals seem excited to receive several hundred thousand Muslim Syrians over the next few years, but when asked to take in a handful of Christians they become rather more reticent.
America is about to accept 9000 Syrian Muslims, refugees of the brutal war between the Assad regime and its Sunni opposition, which includes ISIS, Al Qaeda, and various other militias. That number is predicted to increase each year. There are no Christian refugees that will be admitted.
Why? Because the Department of State is adhering with all the rigidity of a Soviet era bureaucracy to the rule that only people at risk from massacres launched by the regime qualify for refugee status. The rapes of Christian women and the butchery of Christian children do not count. No matter how moved Americans were this Christmas season by the plight of their fellow Christ followers in Syria and Iraq, no matter how horrific the visuals of beheadings, enslavement, and mass murder, the Christians fleeing death do not engender the compassion of this president.
The Christians are being raped, tortured, and murdered by militias, not by the Syrian government. This technicality condemns them to continue to be victims without hope. And this technicality is being adhered to with all the tenacity with which President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s State Department manipulated quotas and created subterfuges to keep out the Jews fleeing the oppression of Nazi Germany. Obama no more wants the Middle East’s Christian refugees than Roosevelt wanted Europe’s Jewish refugees.
It is deplorable, even monstrous, that the group most affected by the evils of ISIS (and other Muslim groups) are the one groups receiving the least amount of consideration from the Obama administration. Christians are being eradicated in historic numbers, an entire population is being systematically wiped from the earth… and the Obama administration (and their liberal cronies) does nothing. We conservatives may get the bad rap for being willing to speak honestly about the dangers of Muslim migration, but the true bigots are the liberals who are allowing , nay encouraging by their inaction, the genocide of an entire people.
See featured article at:
By Tom Hall
At least 1,160 people have been killed by US police in 2015, according to an online aggregator of police killings, exceeding last year’s figure of 1,108. The statistics, compiled by killedbypolice.net, show that the wave of police violence has only intensified despite nationwide mass protests by tens of thousands this year against police brutality.
A more detailed database of killings by US police beginning in January 2015 compiled by the Guardian newspaper, which broadly corresponds with figures from killedbypolice.net, demonstrates that the epidemic of police violence affects broad layers of the American population from all ethnic backgrounds. While African-Americans were killed at nearly 2.5 times the rate of whites, the total number of white victims of police killings, 537 by the Guardian’s figures, was larger than the total number of either black or Hispanic victims.
Eighteen people in the Guardian’s database were minors. Two hundred-twelve people, or around one-fifth of all people killed by police in 2015, were unarmed, and 40 were killed while in custody.
According to statistics kept by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, widely acknowledged to radically undercount the real number of police killings, “justifiable homicides” by police officers have reached record highs in recent years, while the number of police officers killed in the line of duty has reached their lowest levels in decades. Thus, while it is impossible to be certain due to the government’s refusal to compile accurate data, it is highly likely that police killings for 2015 have been at or above record levels.
On Saturday morning, police in Los Angeles beat and tasered 26-year-old Ruben Herrera to death. Herrera had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Just hours earlier, an off-duty cop in Baltimore shot and killed Edel Cato Moreland for wielding a toy gun. In Amarillo, Texas on Sunday, police shot and killed Mark Ramirez, a 31-year-old suicidal man, in his own home, in what appears to be yet another police killing during a routine “welfare check.”
Also over the weekend, Andrew Thomas, who was shot in the neck last month by a police officer in Paradise, California after wrecking his car, died in a California hospital. Citing the officer’s claim that the shooting was “accidental,” the district attorney in that case declined to press charges, declaring the shooting “not justified, but also not criminal.”
Yesterday the Guardian newspaper released surveillance footage and an eyewitness account of the fatal shooting in Chicago last June of 23-year-old Alfontish “Nunu” Cockerham, who police claimed brandished a weapon at them. Video from a private security camera shows Cockerham was unarmed at the time he was shot, and a pistol allegedly belonging to him suddenly appearing on the ground several feet from where he was shot as police closed in.
Also late Monday evening, a grand jury in Texas decided not to return any indictments in the death of Sandra Bland, the 28-year-old black woman and police violence protester found dead in her cell in Waller County, Texas, after being detained for three days following a routine traffic stop. While police claimed that Bland had hanged herself with a plastic trash bag, numerous holes in the police version of events suggest that Bland was the victim of a police lynching, possibly due to her political views.
The ruling in Texas continues the nationwide trend of grand juries refusing to indict police officers in murder cases, which have often been deliberately manipulated by prosecutors in order to let police off the hook.
Only in rare instances, such as when overwhelming video evidence becomes public, have police officers been charged with any crime. No officer in the most high-profile police killings that occurred in 2015, including those of Walter Scott, Freddie Gray, Zachary Hammond, and Sandra Bland, has been convicted.
Officers who were charged and later acquitted this year include Chicago police officer Dante Servin, charged over the 2012 shooting death of Rekia Boyd; Cleveland officer Michael Brelo, who used his “Marine training” in 2012 to unload dozens of rounds at two unarmed motorists at point-blank range; and Chicago police commander Glenn Evans, acquitted last week for an incident in which he jammed a gun down a suspect’s throat. With the mistrial declared last week in the case of William Porter, charged for his role in the Freddie Gray murder, the odds that some or all of the six officers in that case will be acquitted are significantly raised.
The Obama administration has led the drive by the political establishment to shield killer cops from prosecution. The White House has sided with the police in every use of force case to appear before the Supreme Court, and the Justice Department has not brought any charges against officers in numerous civil rights investigations, notably in the killing of Michael Brown last August in Ferguson.
In the case of Laquan McDonald, the Justice Department carried out a sham “investigation” for more than a year while sitting on the incontrovertible proof of police misconduct contained in the police dash-cam video. Mayor Rahm Emanuel, the former Obama White House chief of staff, fought for months against the video’s release on the grounds that it would disrupt this “investigation.”
Meanwhile the White House worked behind the scenes to coordinate the military-style crackdowns on protesters in Ferguson and Baltimore, while Obama took to the mass media to denounce protesters as “thugs.” The flow of military-grade hardware from the federal government to local police departments, including assault rifles and armored vehicles, has expanded considerably under Obama and has continued after the program sparked popular outrage during the protests in Ferguson, Missouri last year.
The ongoing wave of police violence in the United States and the defense of killer cops are the outcome of the continuous strengthening of the repressive apparatus of the state under conditions of ever-growing inequality and continued mass poverty. Having no solutions to any of the mounting social problems facing the country, the ruling elite turns ever more to the defense of arbitrary state violence as the means to bolster its continued domination over American society.
See featured article at:
By John W. Whitehead
December 07, 2015
“No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices.”—Edward R. Murrow, broadcast journalist
America is in the midst of an epidemic of historic proportions.
The contagion being spread like wildfire is turning communities into battlegrounds and setting Americans one against the other.
Normally mild-mannered individuals caught up in the throes of this disease have been transformed into belligerent zealots, while others inclined to pacifism have taken to stockpiling weapons and practicing defensive drills.
This plague on our nation—one that has been spreading like wildfire—is a potent mix of fear coupled with unhealthy doses of paranoia and intolerance, tragic hallmarks of the post-9/11 America in which we live.
Everywhere you turn, those on both the left- and right-wing are fomenting distrust and division. You can’t escape it.
We’re being fed a constant diet of fear: fear of terrorists, fear of illegal immigrants, fear of people who are too religious, fear of people who are not religious enough, fear of Muslims, fear of extremists, fear of the government, fear of those who fear the government. The list goes on and on.
The strategy is simple yet effective: the best way to control a populace is through fear and discord.
Fear makes people stupid.
Confound them, distract them with mindless news chatter and entertainment, pit them against one another by turning minor disagreements into major skirmishes, and tie them up in knots over matters lacking in national significance.
Most importantly, divide the people into factions, persuade them to see each other as the enemy and keep them screaming at each other so that they drown out all other sounds. In this way, they will never reach consensus about anything and will be too distracted to notice the police state closing in on them until the final crushing curtain falls.
This is how free people enslave themselves and allow tyrants to prevail.
This Machiavellian scheme has so ensnared the nation that few Americans even realize they are being manipulated into adopting an “us” against “them” mindset. Instead, fueled with fear and loathing for phantom opponents, they agree to pour millions of dollars and resources into political elections, militarized police, spy technology and endless wars, hoping for a guarantee of safety that never comes.
All the while, those in power—bought and paid for by lobbyists and corporations—move their costly agendas forward, and “we the suckers” get saddled with the tax bills and subjected to pat downs, police raids and round-the-clock surveillance.
Turn on the TV or flip open the newspaper on any given day, and you will find yourself accosted by reports of government corruption, corporate malfeasance, militarized police and marauding SWAT teams.
America has already entered a new phase, one in which children are arrested in schools, military veterans are forcibly detained by government agents because of the content of their Facebook posts, and law-abiding Americans are having their movements tracked, their financial transactions documented and their communications monitored
These threats are not to be underestimated.
Yet even more dangerous than these violations of our basic rights is the language in which they are couched: the language of fear. It is a language spoken effectively by politicians on both sides of the aisle, shouted by media pundits from their cable TV pulpits, marketed by corporations, and codified into bureaucratic laws that do little to make our lives safer or more secure.
Fear, as history shows, is the method most often used by politicians to increase the power of government. Even while President Obama insists that “freedom is more powerful than fear,” the tactics of his administration continue to rely on fear of another terrorist attack in order to further advance the agenda of the military/security industrial complex.
An atmosphere of fear permeates modern America. However, with crime at a 40-year low, is such fear of terrorism rational?
Even in the wake of the shootings in San Bernardino and Paris, statistics show that you are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack. You are 11,000 times more likely to die from an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane. You are 1,048 times more likely to die from a car accident than a terrorist attack. You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack. You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocating in bed than from a terrorist attack. And you are 9 more times likely to choke to death in your own vomit than die in a terrorist attack.
Indeed, those living in the American police state are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist. Thus, the government’s endless jabbering about terrorism amounts to little more than propaganda—the propaganda of fear—a tactic used to terrorize, cower and control the population.
So far, these tactics are working.
The 9/11 attacks, the Paris attacks, and now the San Bernardino shooting have succeeded in reducing the American people to what commentator Dan Sanchez refers to as “herd-minded hundreds of millions [who] will stampede to the State for security, bleating to please, please be shorn of their remaining liberties.”
I am not terrified of the terrorists; i.e., I am not, myself, terrorized. Rather, I am terrified of the terrorized; terrified of the bovine masses who are so easily manipulated by terrorists, governments, and the terror-amplifying media into allowing our country to slip toward totalitarianism and total war…
I do not irrationally and disproportionately fear Muslim bomb-wielding jihadists or white, gun-toting nutcases. But I rationally and proportionately fear those who do, and the regimes such terror empowers. History demonstrates that governments are capable of mass murder and enslavement far beyond what rogue militants can muster. Industrial-scale terrorists are the ones who wear ties, chevrons, and badges. But such terrorists are a powerless few without the supine acquiescence of the terrorized many. There is nothing to fear but the fearful themselves…
Stop swallowing the overblown scaremongering of the government and its corporate media cronies. Stop letting them use hysteria over small menaces to drive you into the arms of tyranny, which is the greatest menace of all.
As history makes clear, fear leads to fascistic, totalitarian regimes.
It’s a simple enough formula. National crises, reported terrorist attacks, and sporadic shootings leave us in a constant state of fear. Fear prevents us from thinking. The emotional panic that accompanies fear actually shuts down the prefrontal cortex or the rational thinking part of our brains. In other words, when we are consumed by fear, we stop thinking.
A populace that stops thinking for themselves is a populace that is easily led, easily manipulated and easily controlled.
As I document in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the following are a few of the necessary ingredients for a fascist state:
The parallels to modern America are impossible to ignore.
“Every industry is regulated. Every profession is classified and organized,” writes Jeffrey Tucker. “Every good or service is taxed. Endless debt accumulation is preserved. Immense doesn’t begin to describe the bureaucracy. Military preparedness never stops, and war with some evil foreign foe, remains a daily prospect.”
For the final hammer of fascism to fall, it will require the most crucial ingredient: the majority of the people will have to agree that it’s not only expedient but necessary. In times of “crisis,” expediency is upheld as the central principle—that is, in order to keep us safe and secure, the government must militarize the police, strip us of basic constitutional rights and criminalize virtually every form of behavior.
Not only does fear grease the wheels of the transition to fascism by cultivating fearful, controlled, pacified, cowed citizens, but it also embeds itself in our very DNA so that we pass on our fear and compliance to our offspring.
It’s called epigenetic inheritance, the transmission through DNA of traumatic experiences.
For example, neuroscientists observed how quickly fear can travel through generations of mice DNA. As The Washington Post reports:
In the experiment, researchers taught male mice to fear the smell of cherry blossoms by associating the scent with mild foot shocks. Two weeks later, they bred with females. The resulting pups were raised to adulthood having never been exposed to the smell. Yet when the critters caught a whiff of it for the first time, they suddenly became anxious and fearful. They were even born with more cherry-blossom-detecting neurons in their noses and more brain space devoted to cherry-blossom-smelling.
The conclusion? “A newborn mouse pup, seemingly innocent to the workings of the world, may actually harborgenerations’ worth of information passed down by its ancestors.”
Now consider the ramifications of inherited generations of fears and experiences on human beings. As the Post reports, “Studies on humans suggest that children and grandchildren may have felt the epigenetic impact of such traumatic events such as famine, the Holocaust and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.”
In other words, fear, trauma and compliance can be passed down through the generations.
Fear has been a critical tool in past fascistic regimes, and it now operates in our contemporary world—all of which raises fundamental questions about us as human beings and what we will give up in order to perpetuate the illusions of safety and security.
In the words of psychologist Erich Fromm:
[C]an human nature be changed in such a way that man will forget his longing for freedom, for dignity, for integrity, for love—that is to say, can man forget he is human? Or does human nature have a dynamism which will react to the violation of these basic human needs by attempting to change an inhuman society into a human one?
We are at a critical crossroads in American history, and we have a choice: freedom or fascism.
Let’s hope the American people make the right choice while we still have the freedom to choose.
See featured article at:
Debate around the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) continues to mount. Therecently-released 6,000 page agreement, encompassing 18,000 categories of goods and services and a region that accounts for 40 percent of the global economy, hasn’t been ratified by the U.S. Congress or Senate. Yet, the U.S. President has made his support clear with statements such as,“We are both soon to be signatories to the TPP agreement,” a comment Obama made on Nov. 19, 2015, after his bilateral meeting with new Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Barack Obama’s confidence stems partially from the Trade Promotion Authority fast-tracking bill, which passed the U.S. Senate in May 2015, with a vote of 65-33. What has led to such strong support of the agreement?
Part is the work of U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, who is one of the biggest supporters of the TPP on Capitol Hill. He’s been very effective in selling U.S. Senators on the pretense that the TPP will economically benefit the U.S., although many believe that the benefits really fall to U.S. corporations and not the country’s citizens.
Just to make sure corporations extract every pound of flesh, any public law interpreted by corporations as impeding projected profit, even a law designed to protect the environment or consumers, will be subject to challenge in an entity called the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) section. The ISDS, bolstered and expanded under the TPP, will see corporations paid massive sums in compensation from offending governments for impeding their “right” to further swell their bank accounts. Corporate profit effectively will replace the common good. ~ Chris Hedges, Truthdig (source)
Aside from the debate over what the TPP will actually accomplish, corporate payoffs to U.S. Senators played an important role in the fast-track bill, as they do with most U.S. political matters. Looking at the money trail, it once again becomes clear that U.S. corporations are running the U.S. government, with little regard to the people’s interests. Here’s what the corporate cash spigot looks like:
Using data from the Federal Election Commission, this chart shows all donations that corporate members of the US Business Coalition for TPP made to US Senate campaigns between January and March 2015, when fast-tracking the TPP was being debated in the Senate:
Out of the total $1,148,971 given, an average of $17,676.48 was donated to each of the 65 “yea” votes.
- The average Republican member received $19,673.28 from corporate TPP supporters.
- The average Democrat received $9,689.23 from those same donors.
Note: The amounts above are corporate donations to the campaigns of US Senators between January and March of 2015, from corporations affiliated with the U.S. Business Coalition for TPP. Research compiled by Taylor Channing. Source
The fast-track bill gave Obama the authority to speed the TPP through Congress, without having its contents available for debate or amendments. Critics argue that the TPP will “favor big business but harm US jobs, fail to secure better conditions for workers overseas and undermine free speech online.” (Source)
How can we expect politicians who routinely receive campaign money, lucrative job offers, and lavish gifts from special interests to make impartial decisions that directly affect those same special interests? As long as this kind of transparently corrupt behavior remains legal, we won’t have a government that truly represents the people. ~ Mansur Gidfar, spokesman for the anti-corruption group Represent.Us (Source)
The TPP is being rammed down our throats by paid off politicians, and our sovereignty is being further destroyed in favor of a new kind of global fascism. Is this the reason why we need government in our lives?
Read more articles from Alex Pietrowski.
Alex Pietrowski is an artist and writer concerned with preserving good health and the basic freedom to enjoy a healthy lifestyle. He is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com and Offgrid Outpost, a provider ofstorable food and emergency kits. Alex is an avid student of Yoga and life.
This article (This is How Much Big Business Paid US Senators to Fast-Track the TPP Deal) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Alex Pietrowski and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.
See featured article at: