Obamacare: A Health Care Rationing Scheme to Enrich Insurers, Drug Companies and Large Hospital Chains

Stephen Lendman
Global Research
July 20, 2009

On February 24, Barack Obama told a joint session of Congress that “we must….address the crushing cost of health care….caus(ing) a bankruptcy in America every thirty seconds. By the end of the year, it could cause 1.5 million Americans to lose their homes. In (each of) the last eight years….one million….Americans have lost their health insurance….Given these facts, we can no longer afford to put health care reform on hold….health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year.”

Staying alert is essential as Obamacare’s passage will shift more of the health care burden on those who can least afford it and prepare Americans for hazardous mandatory Swine Flu vaccinations in the fall.

Behind the facade of reform, Obama and leading Democrats ruled universal, single-payer coverage off the table before debate even began. Instead they’ve focused on taxing more, rationing care, placing profits above human need, disdaining vital change, shifting the cost burden to individuals and requiring everyone to be insured; imposing fines up to $1000 for non-compliance, and making a broken system even worse.

On June 10, Physicians for a National Health Program advisor Walter Tsou told the House Education and Labor Committee:

“Attempting to reconcile the dual imperatives of universal coverage and cost control through alternative methods besides single payer is an exercise in futility. When some congressional leaders declare that single payer is off the table, they are in effect saying that insurers will be protected, leaving the pain to patients, taxpayers and health care providers.”

At the same hearing, the California Nurses Association and National Nurses Organizing Committee co-president Geri Jenkins said:

“The current system rations care based on an ability to pay. Right now we are the only nation on earth that barters human life for money.”

The administration and lawmakers have been unresponsive in moving ahead with House and Senate legislation to enrich health insurers, Big Pharma, and large hospital chains. It will ration care, curb expensive treatments and surgeries for those who can’t afford them, leave millions in the country uncovered, deny it altogether to undocumented immigrants even though they pay income, payroll and other taxes, and claim it’s real reform like they always do.

On May 20, S. 1099: Patients’ Choice Act was introduced “to provide comprehensive solutions for the health care system of the United States, and for other purposes.” It was referred to the Senate Finance and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committees (HELP) for consideration.

The Senate Finance Committee may craft its own version. On July 15 along party lines, HELP voted 13 – 10 to approve a $615 billion Democrat-sponsored bill that’s substantially similar to House legislation with provisions that Obama wants.

On July 14, HR 3200: America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 was introduced “To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes.” It was referred to the following House committees for consideration: Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, Education and Labor, Oversight and Government Reform, and Budget.

House and Senate bills stress cost-containing “evidence-based” solutions with Obama appearing on a June 24 ABC News “Questions for the President: Prescription for America” infomercial touting his plan to carefully selected reporters and others invited to the White House East Room for a scripted Q & A.

Cutting costs and free-market solutions were emphasized, not real reform stressing human need with Obama saying “If we don’t drive down costs, then we’re not going to be able to achieve all of those other things.” Which ones he didn’t say before stressing the need for “evidence-based care,” meaning less is better for those unable to pay so that millions will be sacrificed on the alter of cost containment while enriching private insurers, Big Pharma, and large hospital chains that will flourish as community and public ones shut down for lack of enough resources.

Obama was callous in saying “Loading up on additional tests or additional drugs” must be curbed. “Maybe (some would be) better off not having….surgery, but taking (a) painkiller” instead. He showed disdain and indifference in stating that “the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80% of the total health care bill out there” – the inference being ration their care and let ‘em die to cut costs.

At the same time, he favored big insurers by saying that “One of the incentives for (them) to get involved in this process is that potentially they’re going to have a whole bunch of new customers, paying customers….insurance companies will thrive” under this plan.

As for a “public option” to fill holes, Obama was receptive to alternatives but adamantly against universal single-payer coverage in saying: “For us to completely change our system, root and branch, would be hugely disruptive.” Only market-based solutions will be considered along with huge cost-containment measures, mostly affecting millions of working Americans, the poor, elderly, and chronically ill.

Over the next decade, Medicare and Medicaid may lose over $600 billion in funding with recipients, of course, making up the difference or foregoing care. About $317 billion is proposed for “efficiencies” with another $313 billion in cuts for hospitals that treat the poor and uninsured. Many of them are already severely strapped as unemployment soars, charitable donations are down, expenses rise, vital services and staffs have to be cut to stay afloat, and growing numbers won’t make it as economic conditions worsen.

Instead of helping to fill budget gaps, Obama plans less aid to shut them down. It will leave some areas dependent on more distant ones for treatment, and let large chains consolidate for greater dominance. Accessible quality care will be less available and affordable so, of course, patients will lose out – mostly the elderly, chronically ill, those on society’s lower rungs, and all working Americans because an uncaring administration and Congress threw them overboard for profit and “efficiencies.”

If “Obamacare” passes, most working people, the disadvantaged, and those singled out as less important will experience large rollbacks in quality, readily accessible coverage. For them, future health problems will be more hazardous than ever because a callous nation doesn’t care.

On July 17 as expected, two of three key House committees passed HR 3200. Largely along party lines, Ways and Means voted 23 – 18. Education and Labor approved 26 – 22 with a Kucinich amendment that may not survive a floor vote or make it to the Senate.

It leaves HR 3200 intact but lets states create single-payer plans. Eight are now considering them – California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Missouri, and Washington with perhaps more to follow.

On June 11 in Pennsylvania, HealthCare4ALLPA organized over 400 people for a state capital rally, and its Executive Director Chuck Pennachio predicts pending legislation passage later in the year because bipartisan support backs it. So do most Pennsylvanians, and Governor Ed Rendell said he’ll sign what comes to his desk.

Kucinich hailed its importance in saying:

“There are many models of health care reform from which to choose around the world – the vast majority of which perform far better than ours. The one that has been the most tested here and abroad is single-payer. Under (it) everyone in the US would get a card that would allow access to any doctor at virtually any hospital. Doctors and hospitals would continue to be privately run, but the insurance payments would be in public hands. By getting rid of the for-profit insurance companies, we can save $400 billion per year and provide coverage for all medically necessary services for everyone in the US.”

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

Tens of billions more annually could be saved if the government negotiated drug prices like it does for the Veterans Administration and Medicaid. The Congressional Budget Office estimated it would be $110 billion over 10 years for Medicare recipients alone, comprising about 15% of Americans. For the entire population, it would be much greater even though over-aged 65 people use more prescription drugs than any other age group.

A Fly in Obamacare’s Ointment

One emerged on July 16 when Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf told the Senate Budget Committee that health care bills under consideration will raise, not cut costs. “We do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending. On the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs” even though much of it is shifted to individuals.

Reversing its earlier opposition, the influential American Medical Association (AMA) endorsed the House bill after a new payments provision was added to halt scheduled 2010 cuts to doctors under Medicare.

AMA’s president, Dr. James Rohack, said:

“We pledge to work with the House committees and leadership to build support for passage of health reform legislation to expand access to high quality affordable health care for all Americans.” The AMA calls it “an important step, but one of many steps in the process,” including income-increasing measures for their members and “individual responsibility for health insurance, including premium assistance for those who need it.”

Opposing Obamacare are advocates for universal single-payer coverage like Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP). On July 16, it said the House health reform bill is a “proven failure” and called for an amendment to overturn it and implement a Medicare-for-all system.

PNHP’s Dr. Quentin Young said similar state efforts repeatedly foundered. Citing Massachusetts’ experience, he explained that “The state is dumping 30,000 legal residents off insurance, and the largest safety-net hospital is suing the state for decimating the hospital’s budget to shore up reform. Meanwhile 1 in 6 (state) residents (can’t) pay their medical bills, and 18% (of them) with insurance skipped care last year because they couldn’t afford it. The Massachusetts model is no solution.” Neither are House and Senate bills that will make a broken system worse. It will backtrack from real reform and make it harder than ever to implement. The time to do it right is now.

That’s what Single Payer Action believes – “1,000,000 Strong for Single Payer, everybody in, nobody out.” They’re activists for “Medicare for all in our lifetimes.” They’re “sick that 22,000 Americans die every year from lack of health insurance; (that) health insurance companies (jack) up premiums while their….CEO’s make out like bandits.” They deplore pre-existing condition exclusions, “high deductibles, co-pays, and in-network, out-of-network Rube Goldberg” shenanigans in today’s system. They’ll keep confronting government and corporate officials until single-payer is the law of the land and America treats health care coverage like all other Western nations.

Democrats on Damage Control

After CBO Director Elmendorf’s cost alert, Rep. Mike Ross (D. Ark.) said “There’s no way they can pass this bill (as is) on the House floor. Not even close.” Other House and Senate Democrats also expressed unease. Damage control followed.

Speaker Pelosi said a bill is on track for a floor vote before the House and Senate August 10 through Labor Day weekend recess. “We’re in excellent shape,” she told reporters in response to questions about growing breaks in the ranks.

Obama was just as positive in saying “Those who are betting against this happening this year are badly mistaken.” In a lengthy prepared statement, he cited “unprecedented progress” so far “that will finally lower costs, guarantee coverage, and provide more choice….Let me repeat: Health insurance reform cannot add to our deficit over the next decade and I mean it….eventually this is going to happen.”

Perhaps so with New York Times backing. A March 7 editorial said “President Obama has shown both courage and sound judgment pressing for quick action on comprehensive health care reform, even in the midst of the country’s deep economic crisis. He has rightly stressed the urgency of reining in skyrocketing health care costs that are straining the budgets of families, businesses, and federal and state governments.” Unmentioned was that insurance and drug company profiteers cause the problem or that universal single-payer coverage is the obvious, fairest, and only solution.

In a July 6 editorial, The Times referred to the “bloated, inefficient health care system,” but stressed cost control on the backs of recipients, not providers, and perhaps raising taxes.

“The first task is to find savings. Some respected analysts suggest that as much as 30 percent of all health care spending in this country – some $700 billion a year – may be wasted on tests and treatments that do not improve the health of the recipients.”

Unconsidered was the right of doctors and patients to assess problems and choose treatments, not elected officials, bureaucrats, unnamed analysts, or Times editorial writers. Yet the paper stressed the importance of “reallocating hundreds of billions of dollars from projected spending on Medicare and Medicaid (and) impos(ing) additional cuts after a few years if savings are less than projected.” Again, The Times and other media sources stress market-based solutions and are mindless to the harm that Obama’s plan will cause.

Possible Intrusive Provisions in Obamacare

On July 16, CNSNews.com’s Editor-in-Chief Terence Jeffrey covered another concern that needs watching. He cited the “official summary” of the approved Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee’s version of S. 1099 that:

“Authorizes a demonstration program to improve immunization coverage. Under this program, CDC will provide grants to states to improve immunization coverage of children, adolescents, and adults through the use of evidence-based interventions.” The word “interventions” causes concern. “States may use funds to implement interventions that are recommended (or perhaps mandated) by the Community Preventive Services Task Force, such as reminders or recalls for patients or providers, or home visits.” Including “home visits” suggests that perhaps immunization teams will intervene at personal residences to assure everyone is vaccinated if federal mandates order it.

S. 1099’s Title III is also worrisome: “Improving the Health of the American People.” Under Subtitle C: “Creating Healthier Communities,” the Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary may “establish a demonstration program to award grants to states to improve the provision of recommended immunizations for children, adolescents, and adults through the use of evidence-based, population-based interventions for high-risk populations.”

Under one of Title III’s provisions, grant money may be used for home visit immunization “interventions.” Specifically:

“Funds received under a grant under this subsection (Title III, Method E) shall be used to implement interventions that are recommended by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (as established by the secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) or other evidence-based interventions, including:”

“(A) providing immunization reminders or recalls for target populations of clients, patients, and consumers; (B) educating target populations and health care providers concerning immunizations in combination with one or more other interventions; (C) reducing out-of-pocket costs for families for vaccines and their administration; (D) carrying out immunization-promoting strategies for participants or clients of public programs, including assessments of immunization status, referrals to health care providers, education, provision of on-site immunizations, or incentives for immunization; (E) providing for home visits that promote (or perhaps mandate) immunization through education, assessments of need, referrals, provision of immunizations, or other services; (F) providing reminders or recalls for immunization providers; (G) conducting assessments of, and providing feedback to, immunization providers; or (H) any combination of one or more interventions described in this paragraph.”

All Vaccines Are Hazardous

In three recent articles, this writer cited scientific evidence of hidden dangers in all vaccines. They contain squalene-based adjuvants that cause a host of annoying to life-threatening autoimmune diseases and must be avoided, even if mandated. It’s also known that vaccines don’t protect against diseases they’re designed to prevent and often cause them.

Currently at issue is concern over Swine Flu and WHO’s June 11 declaration of a global pandemic even though no forensic evidence links any deaths to H1N1. Yet experimental, untested, toxic and extremely dangerous vaccines are being rushed to market for potentially mandated immunizations globally as the fall flu season approaches. If enacted in time, Obamacare may provide cover, and if not, other US laws empower the HHS and Defense secretaries to declare a national emergency and compel everyone in the country to be vaccinated, even though submitting risks serious health consequences.

Staying alert is essential as Obamacare’s passage will shift more of the health care burden on those who can least afford it and prepare Americans for hazardous mandatory Swine Flu vaccinations in the fall. Grassroots opposition to both schemes is vital to the health and well-being of everyone.

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/obamacare-a-health-care-rationing-scheme-to-enrich-insurers-drug-companies-and-large-hospital-chains/

Mandatory Swine Flu Vaccination Alert

Stephen Lendman
Global Research
July 14, 2009

On July 13, a World Health Organization (WHO) Global Alert headlined, “WHO recommendations on pandemic (H1N1) 2009 vaccinations” suggest that universally mandated ones are coming. It stated that on July 7, the pharmaceutical industry-dominated Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immunization held an “extraordinary meeting in Geneva to discuss issues and make recommendations related to vaccine for the pandemic (H1N1) 2009.”

	It’s crucial to understand that these vaccines are experimental, untested, toxic and extremely dangerous to the human immune system.

There’s no pandemic. Yet WHO said the virus “is considered unstoppable,” while admitting little evidence of spread so far, most cases are mild, and many people recover unaided. Nonetheless, all countries will need vaccines and should follow these priorities as initial supplies will be limited:

– immunize health care workers “to protect the essential health care infrastructure;” then

– pregnant women; children over six months of age “with one of several chronic medical conditions;” healthy young adults aged 15 – 49; healthy children; healthy adults aged 50 – 64; and finally healthy adults aged 65 or older.

WTO suggested the risks in stating “new technologies are involved in the production of some pandemic vaccines, which have not yet been extensively evaluated for their safety in certain population groups…” As a result, “post-marketing surveillance” and “post-marketing safety and effectiveness studies” are essential so that countries can adjust their vaccination policies.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

WHO “recommendations” are binding on all 194 member countries in case a pandemic emergency is declared under the 2005 International Health Regulations Act and April 2009 WHO pandemic plan.

It’s crucial to understand that these vaccines are experimental, untested, toxic and extremely dangerous to the human immune system. They contain squalene-based adjuvants that cause a host of annoying to life-threatening autoimmune diseases. They must be avoided, even if mandated. It’s also known that vaccines don’t protect against diseases they’re designed to prevent and often cause them. They should be banned but proliferate anyway because they’re so profitable, and if globally mandated to the greatest extent ever.

Get ready because that’s precisely what’s coming – universal orders to risk toxic vaccine hazards. In the coming weeks, the dominant media globally will get into high gear fear-mongering mode to convince people voluntarily to submit to jeopardizing their health and well-being. It’s essential to refuse and be safe and international law absolutely protects us.

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/mandatory-swine-flu-vaccination-alert/

Obama’s Cap and Trade Carbon Emissions Bill – A Stealth Scheme to License Pollution and Fraud

Stephen Lendman
Global Research
July 10, 2009

On May 15, HR 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACESA) was introduced in the House purportedly “To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy.”

Speaker Pelosi praised the bill as “transformational legislation which takes us into the future” and added that after passage she took congratulatory calls from Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Al Gore.

In fact, it’s to let corporate polluters reap huge windfall profits by charging consumers more for energy and fuel as well as create a new bubble through carbon trading derivatives speculation. It does nothing to address environmental issues, yet on June 26 the House narrowly passed (229 – 212) and sent it to the Senate to be debated and voted on. More on that below.

On March 31, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman and Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Edward Markey released a “discussion draft” of the proposed legislation and falsely claimed:

– it’s “a comprehensive approach to America’s energy policy that charts a new course towards a clean energy economy;” it will

– create millions of clean energy jobs….that can’t be shipped overseas;

– put America on the path to energy independence;

– reduce our dependence on foreign oil;

– save money by the billions;

– unleash energy investment by the trillions;

– cut global warming pollution;

– strengthen our economy;” and

– make “America the world leader in new clean energy and energy efficiency technologies.”

Strong-arm pressure, threats and bribes got the bill through the House. Forty-four Democrats opposed it. Eight Republicans backed it. Over 1200 pages long, few if any lawmakers read it.

After passage, Chairman Markey said:

“It’s been an incredible six months to go from a point where no one believed we could pass this legislation to a point now where we can begin to say that we are going to send President Obama to Copenhagen in December as the leader of the world on climate change.”

Speaker Pelosi praised the bill as “transformational legislation which takes us into the future” and added that after passage she took congratulatory calls from Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Al Gore. The former vice-president has long-standing ties to Goldman Sachs (GS), and in 2004 he and David Blood, CEO of GS’s asset management division until 2003, co-founded Generation Investment Management LLC, a firm likely to profit greatly from cap and trade schemes.

In a prepared June 25 statement ahead of the House vote, Obama said:

“Right now, the House of Representatives is moving toward a vote of historic proportions on a piece of legislation that will open the door to a new, clean energy economy.”

After citing the same false claims as Waxman and Markey, he called the legislation “balanced and sensible” and “urge(d) every member of Congress – Democrats and Republicans – to come together and support” it.

Polluters love it. So does Wall Street and corporate-friendly environmental groups like the Environmental Defense Fund. The opposition, however, includes Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and Public Citizen.

In a joint May 13 press release, they were “extremely troubled (about) compromises to the already flawed American Clean Energy & Security Act.”

It contains enough loopholes to make its claimed performance standards worthless, one of which prohibits the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate future greenhouse gas emissions. That alone means they’ll proliferate beyond what new technology reduces on its own, and only then if it’s profitable to do it.

On June 23, Friends of the Earth president Brent Blackwelder said:

“Corporate polluters including Shell and Duke Energy helped write this bill, and the result is that we’re left with legislation that fails to come anywhere close to solving the climate crisis. Worse, the bill eliminates preexisting EPA authority to address global warming – that means it’s actually a step backward.”

A June 25 Greenpeace press release stated:

“As it comes to the floor, the Waxman-Markey bill sets emission reduction targets far lower than science demands, then undermines even those targets with massive offsets. The giveaways and preferences in the bill will actually spur a new generation of nuclear and coal-fired power plants to the detriment of real energy solutions.”

On June 27, Public Citizen (PC) called the bill “a new legal right to pollute (that) gives away 85 percent of (its) credits to polluters. (It) will not solve our climate crisis but will enrich already powerful oil, coal and nuclear power companies.” PC wants polluters to cut their emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 and pay for credits, not get them free. It also cited the American Wind Energy Association saying that the renewable standard will deliver “effectively zero” new ones.

PC wants consumers protected, not charged a “carbon tax….The bill doesn’t, but should, provide money to help homeowners pay for such things as weatherization or to receive rebates for rooftop solar.” Its main “consumer protection provision distributes free pollution allowances to electric and natural gas utilities (on the assumption) that the 50 different state utility commissions will redirect all that money back to consumers.” In fact, HR 2454 is a thinly-veiled scheme to let companies profit from polluted air, in part financed by a consumer “carbon tax.”

Big Coal gets a waiver until 2025. Agribusiness is exempt altogether even though it’s responsible for up to one-fourth of greenhouse gas emissions. The nuclear industry will benefit hugely from the free allowances provision. A leaked memo had Exelon, the nation’s largest nuclear power company, bragging that it will reap a $1 – $1.5 billion annual windfall.

Overall, carbon trading is a scam, first promoted in the 1980s under Reagan. Clinton made it a key provision of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. He signed it in 1998, but it was never ratified. As of February 2009, 183 nations did both, but independent scientists call it “miserable failure” needing to be scrapped and replaced by a meaningful alternative.

ACESA is about profits, not environmental remediation. Its emissions reduction targets are so weak, they effectively license pollution by creating a new profit center to do it.

The Next Bubble

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

Wall Street also will reap a huge bonanza through carbon trading derivatives speculation exploiting what Commodity Futures Trading commissioner Bart Chilton believes will be a $2 trillion market – “the biggest of any (commodities) derivatives product in the next five years.” Others see a future annual market potential of up to $10 trillion based on these schemes:

– government-issued cap and trading carbon allowance permits to let polluters emit a designated amount of greenhouse gases; those exceeding the limit can buy rights for more from companies below their limit;

– carbon offsets that let companies emit excess greenhouse gases provided they invest in projects purportedly cutting them elsewhere, either domestically or abroad; they can also fulfill their obligation by stretching out investments for up to 40 years – far enough ahead to avoid them altogether; and

– besides trading allowances and offsets, polluters and Wall Street can play the derivatives game, including with futures contracts for a designated number of allowances at an agreed on price for a specified date.

According to Robert Shapiro, former Undersecretary of Commerce in the Clinton administration: “We are on the verge of creating a new trillion dollar market (through) financial assets that will be securitized, derivatized, and speculated by Wall Street like the mortgage-backed securities market” and all others that inflated bubbles that burst. If cap and trade becomes law, this market will explode so Wall Street is pressuring senators to pass it.

According to the Center of Public Integrity (CPI), around “880 total businesses and groups….reported they were seeking to influence climate change policy” as addressed in HR 2454. Representing 770 of them are “an estimated 2340 lobbyists,” a 300% increase in the past five years, or more than “four climate lobbyists for every member of Congress.”

In 2003, Wall Street employed none on climate issues. CPI says it now has 130 representing the usual players like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and others, and why so is simple – to create a huge new revenue stream to make up for ones lost with perhaps others in the wings, thus far not revealed. Waxman – Markey delivered splendidly, setting the stage for another bubble if HR 2454 becomes law with huge pressure now on senators to assure it.

Warning: Cap and Trade Bubble Ahead

On July 1, Catherine Austin Fitts’ Solari.com blog headlined “The Next Really Scary Bubble” in stating:

“If you think the housing and credit bubble diminished your financial security and your community, or the bailouts, or the rising gas prices did as well, hold on to your hat” for what’s coming. “Carbon trading is gearing up to make the housing and derivative bubbles look like target practice.”

She quoted Rep. Geoff Davis calling it “a scam,” Rep. Devin Nunes saying it’s a “massive transfer of wealth” from the public to polluters and Wall Street, Rep. James Sensenbrenner stating “Carbon markets can and will be manipulated using the same Wall Street sleights of hand that brought us the financial crisis,” and Dennis Kuchinich citing “The best description to date (to) be found in Matt Taibbi’s….’The Great American Bubble Machine: From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs (GS) has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression – and they are about to do it again.’ ”

Taibbi calls GS the “world’s most powerful investment bank….a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.” It operates by positioning itself “in the middle of (every) speculative bubble, selling investments they know are crap.”

They control Washington and profit by extracting “vast sums from the middle and lower floors of society with the aid of a crippled and corrupt state that (lets it) rewrite the rules in exchange for the relative pennies (it)throws (back as) political patronage.”

When inflated bubbles burst “leaving millions of ordinary (people) broke and starving, they begin the entire process over again (inflating new bubbles and) lending us back our own money at interest….” They’ve been at this since the 1920s and are “preparing to do it again (with) what may be the biggest and most audacious bubble yet” – a new cap and trade derivatives scam written into HR 2454 with GS positioned to profit most from it. Taibbi calls its market edge a position of “supreme privilege (and) explicit advantage” ahead of all others on the Street.

Contributing $4,452,585 to Democrats in 2008 (around $1 million to Obama) was mere pocket change for what it can reap from scams like cap and trade disguised as an environmental plan. The scheme was devised. GS helped write it. The House passed it and sent it to the Senate. Unless stopped, it will transfer more of our wealth to corporate polluters and Wall Street on top of all they’ve stolen so far from derivatives fraud and the imploded housing and other bubbles. And Goldman will lead the way finding new ways to do it until there’s nothing left to extract.

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/obamas-cap-and-trade-carbon-emissions-bill-a-stealth-scheme-to-license-pollution-and-fraud/

Color Revolutions, Old and New

Stephen Lendman
Global Research
July 1, 2009

In his new book, “Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order,” F. William Engdahl explained a new form of US covert warfare – first played out in Belgrade, Serbia in 2000. What appeared to be “a spontaneous and genuine political ‘movement,’ (in fact) was the product of techniques” developed in America over decades.

	Ukraine’s “Orange Revolution” followed a similar pattern to Georgia and now Iran.

In the 1990s, RAND Corporation strategists developed the concept of “swarming” to explain “communication patterns and movement of” bees and other insects which they applied to military conflict by other means. More on this below.

In Belgrade, key organizations were involved, including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the International Republican Institute (IRI), and National Democratic Institute. Posing as independent NGOS, they’re, in fact, US-funded organizations charged with disruptively subverting democracy and instigating regime changes through non-violent strikes, mass street protests, major media agitprop, and whatever else it takes short of military conflict.

Engdahl cited Washington Post writer Michael Dobbs’ first-hand account of how the Clinton administration engineered Slobodan Milosevic’s removal after he survived the 1990s Balkan wars, 78 days of NATO bombing in 1999, and major street uprisings against him. A $41 million campaign was run out of American ambassador Richard Miles’ office. It involved “US-funded consultants” handling everything, including popularity polls, “training thousands of opposition activists and helping to organize a vitally important parallel vote count.”

Thousands of spray paint cans were used “by student activists to scrawl anti-Milosevic graffiti on walls across Serbia,” and throughout the country around 2.5 million stickers featured the slogan “Gotov Je,” meaning “He’s Finished.”

Preparations included opposition leader training in nonviolent resistance techniques at a Budapest, Hungary seminar – on matters like “organiz(ing) strike(s), communicat(ing) with symbols….overcom(ing) fear, (and) undermin(ing) the authority of a dictatorial regime.” US experts were in charge, incorporating RAND Corporation “swarming” concepts.

GPS satellite images were used to direct “spontaneous hit-and-run protests (able to) elude the police or military. Meanwhile, CNN (was) carefully pre-positioned to project images around the world of these youthful non-violent ‘protesters.’ ” Especially new was the use of the Internet, including “chat rooms, instant messaging, and blog sites” as well as cell phone verbal and SMS text-messaging, technologies only available since the mid-1990s.

Milosevic was deposed by a successful high-tech coup that became “the hallmark of the US Defense policies under (Rumsfeld) at the Pentagon.” It became the civilian counterpart to his “Revolution in Military Affairs” doctrine using “highly mobile, weaponized small groups directed by ‘real time’ intelligence and communications.”

Belgrade was the prototype for Washington-instigated color revolutions to follow. Some worked. Others failed. A brief account of several follows below.

In 2003, Georgia’s bloodless “Rose Revolution” replaced Edouard Shevardnadze with Mikhail Saakashvili, a US-installed stooge whom Engdahl calls a “ruthless and corrupt totalitarian who is tied (not only to) NATO (but also) the Israeli military and intelligence establishment.” Shevardnadze became a liability when he began dealing with Russia on energy pipelines and privatizations. Efforts to replace him played out as follows, and note the similarities to events in Iran after claims of electoral fraud.

Georgia held parliamentary elections on November 2. Without evidence, pro-western international observers called them unfair. Saakashvili claimed he won. He and the united opposition called for protests and civil disobedience. They began in mid-November in the capital Tbilisi, then spread throughout the country. They peaked on November 22, parliament’s scheduled opening day. While it met, Saakashvili-led supporters placed “roses” in the barrels of soldiers’ rifles, seized the parliament building, interrupted Shevardnadze’s speech, and forced him to flee for his safety.

Saakashvili declared a state of emergency, mobilized troops and police, met with Sherardnadze and Zurab Zhvania (the former parliament speaker and choice for new prime minister), and apparently convinced the Georgian president to resign. Celebrations erupted. A temporary president was installed. Georgia’s Supreme Court annulled the elections, and on January 4, 2004, Saakashvili was elected and inaugurated president on January 25.

New parliamentary elections were held on March 28. Saakashvili’s supporters used heavy-handed tactics to gain full control with strong US backing in plotting and executing his rise to power. US-funded NGOs were also involved, including George Soros’ Open Society Georgia Foundation, Freedom House, NED, others tied to the Washington establishment, and Richard Miles after leaving his Belgrade post to serve first as ambassador to Bulgaria from 1999 – 2002, then Georgia from 2002 – 2005 to perform the same service there as against Milosevic.

Ukraine’s “Orange Revolution” followed a similar pattern to Georgia and now Iran. After Viktor Yanukovych won the November 21, 2004 run-off election against Viktor Yushchenko, it erupted following unsubstantiated claims of fraud. Yanukovych favored openness to the West but represented a pro-Russian constituency and was cool towards joining NATO. Washington backed Yushchenko, a former governor of Ukraine’s Central Bank whose wife was a US citizen and former official in the Reagan and GHW Bush administrations. He favored NATO and EU membership and waged a campaign with the color orange prominently featured.

The media picked up on it and touted his “Orange Revolution” against the country’s Moscow-backed old guard. Mass street protests were organized as well as civil disobedience, sit-ins and general strikes. They succeeded when Ukraine’s Supreme Court annulled the run-off result and ordered a new election for December 26, 2004. Yushchenko won and was inaugurated on January 23, 2005.

In his book, “Full Spectrum Dominance,” Engdahl explained how the process played out. Under the slogan “Pora (It’s Time),” people who helped organize Georgia’s “Rose Revolution” were brought in to consult “on techniques of non-violent struggle.” The Washington-based Rock Creek Creative PR firm was instrumental in branding the “Orange Revolution” around a pro-Yushchenko web site featuring that color theme. The US State Department spent around $20 million dollars to turn Yanukovych’s victory into one for Yushchenko with help from the same NGOs behind Georgia’s “Rose Revolution” and others.

Myanmar’s August – September 2007 “Saffron Revolution” used similar tactics as in Georgia and Ukraine but failed. They began with protests led by students and opposition political activists followed by Engdahl’s description of “swarming mobs of monks in saffron, Internet blogs, mobile SMS links between protest groups, (and) well-organized (hit-and-run) protest cells which disperse(d) and re-form(ed).”

NED and George Soros’ Open Society Institute led a campaign for regime change in league with the State Department by its own admission. Engdahl explained that the “State Department….recruited and trained key opposition leaders from numerous anti-government organizations in Myanmar” and ran its “Saffron Revolution” out of the Chaing Mai, Thailand US Consulate.

Street protesters were “recruited and trained, in some cases directly in the US, before being sent back to organize inside Myanmar.” NED admitted funding opposition media, including the Democratic Voice of Burma radio.

Ahead of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Washington tried to embarrass and destabilize China with a “Crimson Revolution” in Tibet – an operation dating from when George Bush met the Dalai Lama publicly in Washington for the first time, awarded him the Congressional Gold Medal, and backed Tibetan independence.

On March 10, Engdahl reported that Tibetan monks staged “violent protests and documented attacks (against) Han Chinese residents….when several hundred monks marched on Lhasa (Tibet’s capital) to demand release of other monks allegedly detained for celebrating the award of the US Congress’ Gold Medal” the previous October. Other monks joined in “on the 49th anniversary of the Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule.”

The same instigators were involved as earlier – NED, Freedom House, and others specific to Tibet, including the International Committee for Tibet and the Trace Foundation – all with ties to the State Department and/or CIA.

The above examples have a common thread – achieving what the Pentagon calls “full spectrum dominance” that depends largely on controlling Eurasia by neutralizing America’s two main rivals – Russia militarily, China economically, and crucially to prevent a strong alliance between the two. Controlling Eurasia is a strategic aim in this resource-rich part of the world that includes the Middle East.

Iran’s Made-in-the-USA “Green Revolution”

After Iran’s June 12 election, days of street protests and clashes with Iranian security forces followed. Given Washington’s history of stoking tensions and instability in the region, its role in more recent color revolutions, and its years of wanting regime change in Iran, analysts have strong reasons to suspect America is behind post-election turbulence and one-sided Western media reports claiming electoral fraud and calling for a new vote, much like what happened in Georgia and Ukraine.

The same elements active earlier are likely involved now with a May 22, 2007 Brian Ross and Richard Esposito ABC News report stating:

“The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a ‘black’ operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com. The sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity….say President Bush has signed a ‘nonlethal presidential finding’ that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran’s currency and international financial transactions.”

Perhaps disruptions as well after the June 12 election to capitalize on a divided ruling elite – specifically political differences between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader/Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on one side and Mir Hossein Mousavi, former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, and Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri on the other with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard so far backing the ruling government. It’s too early to know conclusively but evidence suggests US meddling, and none of it should surprise.

Kenneth Timmerman provides some. He co-founded the right wing Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI) and serves as its executive director. He’s also a member of the hawkish Committee on the Present Danger (CPD) and has close ties to the equally hard line American Enterprise Institute, the same organization that spawned the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), renamed the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) for much the same purpose.

On the right wing newsmax.com web site, Timmerman wrote that the NED “spent millions of dollars during the past decade promoting color revolutions in places such as Ukraine and Serbia, training political workers in modern communications and organizational techniques.” He explained that money also appears to have gone to pro-Mousavi groups, “who have ties to non-governmental organizations outside Iran that (NED) funds.”

Pre-election, he elaborated about a “green revolution in Tehran” with organized protests ready to be unleashed as soon as results were announced because tracking polls and other evidence suggested Ahmadinejad would win. Yet suspiciously, Mousavi declared victory even before the polls closed.

It gets worse. Henry Kissinger told BBC news that if Iran’s color revolution fails, hard line “regime change (must be) worked for from the outside” – implying the military option if all else fails. In a June 12 Wall Street Journal editorial, John Bolton called for Israeli air strikes whatever the outcome – to “put an end to (Iran’s) nuclear threat,” despite no evidence one exists.

Iran’s rulers know the danger and need only cite Iraq, Afghanistan, and numerous other examples of US aggression, meddling, and destabilization schemes for proof – including in 1953 and 1979 against its own governments.

On June 17, AP reported that Iran “directly accused the United States of meddling in the deepening crisis.” On June 21 on Press TV, an official said “The terrorist Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) has reportedly played a major role in intensifying the recent wave of street violence in Iran. Iranian security officials reported (the previous day) that they have identified and arrested a large number of MKO members who were involved” in the nation’s capital.

They admitted to having been trained in Iraq’s camp Ashraf and got directions from MKO’s UK command post “to create post-election mayhem in the country.” On June 20 in Paris, MKO leader Maryam Rajavi addressed supporters and expressed solidarity with Iranian protesters.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

In 2007, German intelligence called MKO a “repressive, sect-like and Stalinist authoritarian organization which centers around the personality cult of Maryam and Masoud Rajavi.” MKO expert Anne Singleton explained that the West intends to use the organization to achieve regime change in Iran. She said its backers “put together a coalition of small irritant groups, the known minority and separatist groups, along with the MKO. (They’ll) be garrisoned around the border with Iran and their task is to launch terrorist attacks into Iran over the next few years to keep the fire hot.” They’re perhaps also enlisted to stoke violence and conduct targeted killings on Iranian streets post-election as a way to blame them on the government.

On June 23, Tehran accused western media and the UK government of “fomenting (internal) unrest.” In expelling BBC correspondent Jon Leyne, it accused him and the broadcaster of “supporting the rioters and, along with CNN,” of setting up a “situation room and a psychological war room.” Both organizations are pro-business, pro-government imperial tools, CNN as a private company, BBC as a state-funded broadcaster.

On its June 17 web site, BBC was caught publishing deceptive agitprop and had to retract it. It prominently featured a Los Angeles Times photo of a huge pro-Ahmadinejad rally (without showing him waving to the crowd) that it claimed was an anti-government protest for Mousavi.

Throughout its history since 1922, BBC compiled a notorious record of this sort of thing because the government appoints its senior managers and won’t tolerate them stepping out of line. Early on, its founder, John Reith, wrote the UK establishment: “They know they can trust us not to be impartial,” a promise faithfully kept for nearly 87 years and prominently on Iran.

With good reason on June 22, Iranian MPs urged that ties with Britain be reassessed while, according to the Fars news agency, members of four student unions planned protests at the UK embassy and warned of a repeat of the 1979 US embassy siege.

They said they’d target the “perverted government of Britain for its intervention in Iran’s internal affairs, its role in the unrest in Tehran and its support of the riots.” Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Hassan Ghashghavi, wouldn’t confirm if London’s ambassador would be expelled. On June 23, however, AP reported that two UK diplomats were sent home on charges of “meddling and spying.”

State TV also said hard-line students protested outside the UK embassy, burned US, British and Israeli flags, hurled tomatoes at the building and chanted: “Down with Britain!” and “Down with USA!” Around 100 people took part.

Britain retaliated by expelling two Iranian diplomats. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon demanded an immediate end to “arrests, threats and use of force.” Iran’s official news agency, IRNA, reported that the Iranian Foreign Ministry rejected Ban’s remarks and accused him of meddling. On June 23, Obama said the world was “appalled and outraged” by Iran’s violent attempt to crush dissent and claimed America “is not at all interfering in Iran’s affairs.”

Yet on June 26, USA Today reported that:

“The Obama administration is moving forward with plans to fund groups that support Iranian dissidents, records and interviews show, continuing a program that became controversial” under George Bush. For the past year, USAID has solicited funds to “promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Iran,” according to its web site.

On July 11, 2008, Jason Leopold headlined his Countercurrents.org article, “State Department’s Iran Democracy Fund Shrouded in Secrecy” and stated:

“Since 2006, Congress has poured tens of millions of dollars into a (secret) State Department (Democracy Fund) program aimed at promoting regime change in Iran.” Yet Shirin Abadi, Iran’s 2003 Nobel Peace prize laureate, said “no truly nationalist and democratic group will accept” US funding for this purpose. In a May 30, 2007 International Herald Tribune column, she wrote: “Iranian reformers believe that democracy can’t be imported. It must be indigenous. They believe that the best Washington can do for democracy in Iran is to leave them alone.”

On June 24, Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor to Gerald Ford and GHW Bush, told Al Jazeera television that “of course” Washington “has agents working inside Iran” even though America hasn’t had formal relations with the Islamic Republic for 30 years.

Another prominent incident is being used against Iran, much like a similar one on October 10, 1990. In the run-up to Operation Desert Storm, the Hill & Knowlton PR firm established the Citizens for a Free Kuwait (CFK) front group to sell war to a reluctant US public. Its most effective stunt involved a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl known only as Nayirah to keep her identity secret.

Teary eyed before a congressional committee, she described her eye-witness account of Iraqi soldiers “tak(ing) babies out of incubators and leav(ing) them on the cold floor to die.” The dominant media featured her account prominently enough to get one observer to conclude that nothing had greater impact on swaying US public opinion for war, still ongoing after over 18 years.

Later it was learned that Nayirah was the daughter of Saud Nasir al-Sabah, a member of Kuwait’s royal family and ambassador to the US. Her story was a PR fabrication, but it worked.

Neda (meaning “voice” in Farsi) Agha Soltani is today’s Nayirah – young, beautiful, slain on a Tehran street by an unknown assassin, she’s now the martyred face of opposition protesters and called “The Angel of Iran” by a supportive Facebook group. Close-up video captured her lying on the street in her father’s arms. The incident and her image captured world attention. It was transmitted online and repeated round-the-clock by the Western media to blame the government and enlist support to bring it down. In life, Nayirah was instrumental in Iraq’s destruction and occupation. Will Neda’s death be as effective against Iran and give America another Middle East conquest?

Issues in Iran’s Election

Despite being militant and anti-Western as Iran’s former Prime Minister, Mousavi is portrayed as a reformer. Yet his support comes from Iranian elitist elements, the urban middle class, and students and youths favoring better relations with America. Ahmadinejad, in contrast, is called hardline. Yet he has popular support among the nation’s urban and rural poor for providing vitally needed social services even though doing it is harder given the global economic crisis and lower oil prices.

Is it surprising then that he won? A Mousavi victory was clearly unexpected, especially as an independent candidate who became politically active again after a 20 year hiatus and campaigned only in Iran’s major cities. Ahmadinejad made a concerted effort with over 60 nationwide trips in less than three months.

Then, there’s the economy under Article 44 of Iran’s constitution that says it must consist of three sectors – state-owned, cooperative, and private with “all large-scale and mother industries” entirely state-controlled, including oil and gas that provides the main source of revenue.

In 2004, Article 44 was amended to allow more privatizations, but how much is a source of contention. During his campaign, Mousavi called for moving away from an “alms-based” economy – meaning Ahmadinejad’s policy of providing social services to the poor. He also promised to speed up privatizations without elaborating on if he has oil, gas, and other “mother industries” in mind. If so, drawing support from

Washington and the West is hardly surprising. On the other hand, as long as Iran’s Guardian Council holds supreme power, an Ahmadinejad victory was needed as a pretext for all the events that followed. At this stage, they suspiciously appear to be US-orchestrated for regime change. Thus far, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, Basij militia, and other security forces have prevailed on the streets to prevent it, but it’s way too early to declare victory.

George Friedman runs the private intelligence agency called Stratfor. On June 23 he wrote:

“While street protests in Iran appear to be diminishing, the electoral crisis continues to unfold, with reports of a planned nationwide strike and efforts by the regime’s second most powerful cleric (Rafsanjani) to mobilize opposition against (Ahmadinejad) from within the system. In so doing he could stifle (his) ability to effect significant policy changes (in his second term), which would play into the hands of the United States.”

Ahmadinejad will be sworn in on July 26 to be followed by his cabinet by August 19, but according to Stratfor it doesn’t mean the crisis is fading. It sees a Rafsanjani-led “rift within the ruling establishment (that) will continue to haunt the Islamic Republic for the foreseeable future.”

“What this means is that….Ahmadinejad’s second term will see even greater infighting among the rival conservative factions that constitute the political establishment….Iran will find it harder to achieve the internal unity necessary to complicate US policy,” and the Obama administration will try to capitalize on it to its advantage. Its efforts to make Iran into another US puppet state are very much ongoing, and for sure, Tehran’s ruling government knows it. How it will continue to react remains to be seen.

“Swarming” to Produce Regime Change

In his book, “Full Spectrum Dominance,” Engdahl explained the RAND Corporation’s groundbreaking research on military conflict by other means. He cited researchers John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt’s 1997 “Swarming & The Future of Conflict” document “on exploiting the information revolution for the US military. By taking advantage of network-based organizations linked via email and mobile phones to enhance the potential of swarming, IT techniques could be transformed into key methods of warfare.”

In 1993, Arquilla and Ronfeldt prepared an earlier document titled “Cyberwar Is Coming!” It suggested that “warfare is no longer primarily a function of who puts the most capital, labor and technology on the battlefield, but of who has the best information about the battlefield” and uses it effectively.

They cited an information revolution using advanced “computerized information and communications technologies and related innovations in organization and management theory.” They foresaw “the rise of multi-organizational networks” using information technologies “to communicate, consult, coordinate, and operate together across greater distances” and said this ability will affect future conflicts and warfare. They explained that “cyberwar may be to the 21st century what blitzkrieg was to the 20th century” but admitted back then that the concept was too speculative for precise definition.

The 1993 document focused on military warfare. In 1996, Arquilla and Ronfeldt studied netwar and cyberwar by examining “irregular modes of conflict, including terror, crime, and militant social activism.” Then in 1997, they presented the concept of “swarming” and suggested it might “emerge as a definitive doctrine that will encompass and enliven both cyberwar and netwar” through their vision of “how to prepare for information-age conflict.”

They called “swarming” a way to strike from all directions, both “close-in as well as from stand-off positions.” Effectiveness depends on deploying small units able to interconnect using revolutionary communication technology.

As explained above, what works on battlefields has proved successful in achieving non-violent color revolution regime changes, or coup d’etats by other means. The same strategy appears in play in Iran, but it’s too early to tell if it will work as so far the government has prevailed. However, for the past 30 years, America has targeted the Islamic Republic for regime change to control the last major country in a part of the world over which it seeks unchallenged dominance.

If the current confrontation fails, expect future ones ahead as imperial America never quits. Yet in the end, new political forces within Iran may end up changing the country more than America can achieve from the outside – short of conquest and occupation, that is.

A final point. The core issue isn’t whether Iran’s government is benign or repressive or if its June 12 election was fair or fraudulent. It’s that (justifiable criticism aside) no country has a right to meddle in the internal affairs of another unless it commits aggression in violation of international law and the UN Security Council authorizes a response. Washington would never tolerate outside interference nor should it and neither should Iran.

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/color-revolutions-old-and-new/

Obama’s Financial Reform Proposal: A Stealth Scheme for Global Monetary Control

Stephen Lendman
Global Research
June 23, 2009

When politicians plan reform, it’s wise to be skeptical and hold on to your wallets. So fixing the economy by bailing out Wall Street is wrecking it, and Obama’s proposed health care reform taxes more, provides less, places profits above human need, avoids the most vital solutions, and leaves a broken system in place.

	Instead of Real Financial Reform, Obama’s Plan capitulates to Wall Street.

Now there’s “Financial Regulatory Reform, A New Foundation: Rebuilding Financial Supervision and Regulation” – announced June 17 with Obama saying he’ll send Congress a plan to create new government agencies, give the private banking cartel Federal Reserve more power, and address five major problems needing regulatory and legislative measures to fix.

Addressing business executives in the White House East Room, he said:

“A culture of irresponsibility took root from Wall Street to Washington to Main Street” with no mention that months of it worsened on his watch. “A regulatory regime basically crafted in the wake of a 20th century economic crisis – the Great Depression – was overwhelmed by the speed, scope and sophistication of a 21st century global economy.” In fact, 30 years of deregulation since the late 1970s, not technology, caused speculative excesses, market bubbles, and inevitable collapses that always follow.

Of course, these problems are endemic under a system that’s crisis-prone, unstable, anarchic, ungovernable, and self-destructive through repeated cycles of booms creating bubbles, then busts, followed by recessions or depressions with today’s collapse grave enough for Michel Chossudovky to call it “far more serious than the Great Depression (because all) major sectors of the global economy are affected.”

Proposed Financial Reforms

An 89-page Treasury Department pdf is available online for those inclined to read it. Along with an introduction and summary of recommendations, its five major objectives are to:

I. “Promote Robust Supervision and Regulation of Financial Markets

II. Establish Comprehensive Regulation of Financial Markets

III. Protect Consumers and Investors from Financial Abuse

IV. Provide the Government with the Tools it Needs to Manage Financial Crises (and)

V. Raise International Regulatory Standards and Improve International Cooperation”

The introduction cites “the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression,” admits that its “roots….go back decades (and states that) the government could have done more to prevent many of” them. Proposed reforms include:

– a new regulatory “Financial Services Oversight Council;”

– more power to the Fed over “all firms that could pose a threat to financial stability, even those that do not own banks” such as insurance companies;

– stronger capital standards for all financial firms;

– a new “National Bank Supervisor” over all federally chartered banks;

– registering hedge fund advisors;

– new regulation of securitization and derivatives markets;

– increased market transparency and the effectiveness of credit ratings agencies;

– originators of loans packaged into securities to retain some of the credit risk;

– broker and loan originator compensation changes away from income up front to spreading it out over time and making it dependent on the performance of loans they make;

– a new “Consumer Financial Protection Agency” to safeguard them from potentially harmful complex financial products, including securities, mortgages and credit cards;

– “stronger regulations to improve the transparency, fairness, and appropriateness of consumer and investor products and services;”

– new ways to “resolve nonbank financial institutions whose failure could have serious systemic effects;”

– changing the Fed’s “emergency lending authority to improve accountability;”

– establishing “wind down” authority to take over large financial firms like AIG, Fannie and Freddie; and

– international reforms, including greater oversight of global financial markets and more control through a process whereby G-20 countries cooperate in regulating transnational companies. This looks like the most insidious, outlandish, and dangerous provision. More on it below and its likely importance.

The report suggests other proposals may follow and that “More can and should be done in the future.” So what to make of it all given that it’s still a plan, congressional and other critics are attacking some of its provisions, whatever emerges is still a ways off, and large banks, insurers and other influential financial firms have final say on new laws and regulations affecting them, so likely changes coming may further taint an already deeply corrupted system.

America has a legacy of failed public agencies as well as regulatory and legislative reform – for lack of teeth, oversight, and most important because financial and other industries end up self-regulating, consolidating, and growing more powerful at the expense of the public interest. Giving the Federal Reserve more power lets banking giants make their own rules, decide how and whether to enforce them, and thus mainly operate as they wish because no one in Washington dares challenge them.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

Michael Hudson agrees in his new article titled: “Instead of Real Financial Reform, Obama’s Plan capitulates to Wall Street.” He explains that supposed reforms promote “Wall Street’s ‘product,’ debt creation, at the expense of the economy at large, and lets financial chieftains continue to self-regulate the debt industry – and by the way, to keep all their gains from the past decade’s worth of fraudulent lending, scot-free….(He) achieved what no Republican could have: rescuing the Bush administration’s pro-creditor policies that fostered the Bubble Economy in the first place.”

The plan is laden with a “false diagnosis” and “fatal flaws,” so clearly what’s proposed are “wrong-headed cures (but hardly) by accident.” If it’s largely accepted as is, Wall Street will get precisely what it wants – a veneer of regulatory cover to keep wrecking the economy and stealing the public blind.

Simon Johnson is also critical. He’s a former IMF chief economist, now teaching at MIT’s Sloan School of Management. After reviewing Obama’s plan, he expressed great skepticism. Even though large banks and other financial institutions caused the global crisis, no wrongdoing on their part is cited nor are punitive measures proposed. He states:

“There appears to be no mention that corporate governance within these large banks failed totally. How on earth can you expect these banks to operate in a responsible manner unless and until you address the reckless manner in which they (a) compensate themselves, (b) destroy shareholder value, and (c) treat boards of directors as toothless wonders? The profound silence on this point from the administration – including some of our finest economic, financial, and legal thinkers – is breathtaking….”

“Based on what we see so far, there is little reason to be encouraged. The reform process appears to have been captured at any early stage – by design the lobbyists were let into the executive branch’s (planning process), so we don’t even get to have a transparent debate or to hear specious arguments about why we really need big banks.”

Johnson (like Hudson) added that financial giants are pleased with Obama’s plan, and why not. They or their lobbyists wrote it. On June 16, even The New York Times suggested it in Stephen Labaton’s article headlined: “Obama Sought a Range of Views on Finance Rules.” Over several weeks, “executives from an array of industries caught up in the financial crisis came to Washington….to make their case for how the new regulatory landscape should look. They came from big banks and small ones, insurance companies, stock exchanges, hedge funds and mutual funds” as well as consumer groups and labor for appearance sake only.

“Now lobbyists….will head to Congress to try to influence the final product” with no doubt they will so once again consumer interests will be shortchanged – perhaps globally given events reported earlier this year and discussed below.

Steps Toward Global Money and Banking Control

In her April 18, 2009 article titled “The Tower of Basel: Do We Really Want the Bank for International Settlements Issuing Our Global Currency,” Ellen Brown quoted Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the London Telegraph (April 7) saying:

On April 2, “A single clause in Point 19 of the communique issued by the G-20 leaders amounts to a revolution in the global financial order.”

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

“In effect, the G-20 leaders have activated the IMF’s power to create money and begin global ‘quantitative easing.’ In doing so, they are putting a de facto world currency into play. It is outside the control of any sovereign body.”

Brown agrees and highlighted the article’s subtitle: “The world is a step closer to a global currency, backed by a global central bank, running monetary policy for all humanity.” What might it be, she asked? The Bank of International Settlements (BIS) – the secretive 55-member nation, central bank of central bankers. Based in Basel, Switzerland, it’s run by the monetary authorities of six dominant nations – America, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Japan and Britain.

Objective V in Obama’s financial reform plan addresses “Rais(ing) International Standards and Improving International Cooperation” by promoting global control in a single paragraph:

“The United States is playing a strong leadership role in efforts to coordinate international policy through the G-20, the Financial Stability Board, and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. We will use our leadership position in the international community to promote (an) initiative compatible with the domestic regulatory reforms described in this report.”

Near the end of the plan, it recommends “Strengthen(ing) the Financial Stability Board….complet(ing) its restructuring and institutionaliz(ing) its new mandate to promote global financial stability by September 2009.” It also urges “work(ing) with the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and standard setters to develop macroprudential tools” with Obama asking other nations to follow America’s lead.

What is the FSB, and why is it important?

The Financial Stability Forum (FSF) Becomes the Financial Stability Board (FSB)

Founded at a Bonn, Germany meeting in 1999 when Bundesbank president, Hans Tietmeyer, recommend it to G-7 finance ministers and central bank governors, the FSF consists of central bankers and finance ministers of about a dozen key nations working together for their mutual self-interest.

A decade later at the G-20’s April 2 London Summit, these nations agreed to let a new Financial Stability Board (FSB) regulate their economies henceforth as stated in a concluding communique:

“In particular we agree:

– to establish a new Financial Stability Board (FSB) with a strengthened mandate, as a successor to the Financial Stability Forum (FSF), including all G-20 countries, FSF members, Spain, and the European Commission;

– that the FSB should collaborate with the IMF to provide early warning of macroeconomic and financial risks and the actions needed to address them; (and)

– to extend regulation and oversight to all systemically important financial institutions, instruments and markets.”

The G-20’s same day’s press release headlined: “Financial Stability Forum re-established as the Financial Stability Board (with an) expanded membership (and) a broadened mandate to promote financial stability.”

It “consists of a Chairperson, a Steering Committee, the Plenary with member countries, SSBs (standard setting bodies) and international financial institutions, and a Secretariat. The Chair oversees the Steering Committee, the Plenary and the Secretariat. The FSB Plenary is the decision making organ of the FSB.” It has a “full-time Secretary General and an enlarged Secretariat based in Basel (to) support the FSB.” Membership also obligates countries to “implement international financial standards (including 12 International Standards and Codes)….” with no elaboration about them except in broad terms left for outsiders to imagine what’s meant.

Plenary members include G-20 nations, Spain and the European Commission – represented by their central bankers, immediate deputies, heads of their main regulatory agency, deputy finance ministers, SSB chairs, central bank committees, and representatives of the IMF, World Bank, BIS and OECD – together the world’s monetary movers and shakers.

The FSB appears to be a step closer toward global monetary control under the direction of the G-7 dominated BIS, IMF and other international lending agencies. Given its inclusion in Obama’s financial reform proposal makes the entire package suspect and perhaps just cover for the above-outlined sinister scheme – as well as letting Wall Street be self-regulating.

In her June 21 article titled “Big Brother in Basel: Have We Traded Our National Sovereignty for Financial Stability,” Ellen Brown cites Internet rumors “that the new agency benignly called the Financial Stability Board (FSB) is the latest sinister development in the covert consolidation of global financial power in a few private hands,” – namely dominant G-7 central bankers controlling the BIS, IMF, and other international lending agencies.

So far, there’s still time to prevent it provided enough concerned people know the danger, spread the word to others, and urge them to pass it on. Otherwise, holding on to your wallets won’t matter because everything in them will be emptied the result of (banker-controlled) regulatory bodies pulling off the greatest ever financial heist – a global coup d’etat. The time to stop it is now and expose Obama as a frontman for grand theft and power.

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/obamas-financial-reform-proposal-a-stealth-scheme-for-global-monetary-control/

Iran’s Election and US – Iranian Relations

Stephen Lendman
Global Research
June 19, 2009

In the run-up to Iran’s June 12 presidential election, early indications suggested the media’s reaction if the wrong candidate won. On June 7, New York Times writer Robert Worth reported “a surge of energy (for) Mir Hussein Mousavi, a reformist who is the leading contender to defeat Mr. Ahmadinejad (and) a new unofficial poll (has him well ahead) with 54 percent of respondents saying they would vote for him compared with 39 percent for Mr. Ahmadinejad.” No mention of who conducted the poll, how it was done, what interests they represented, or if Mousavi winning might be the wrong result. More on that below.

	Although Iran is a theocracy with standards leaving a lot to be desired, it’s one of the few Middle East countries holding real elections, unlike regional monarchies or dictatorial states like Egypt where Hosni Mubarak has ruled for nearly 30 years and wins easily with well over 90% of the “vote” in little more than a sham process.

Writing for the influential far right Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Fariborz Ghadar described the contest as “pit(ting) the hard-line Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against two relatively moderate and one conservative challenger.” In spite of one or more independent polls showing Ahmadinejad way ahead, he suggested that “the outcome (isn’t) all that clear.” More on the poll results below.

The Wall Street Journal sounded a similar tone in calling Ahmadinejad’s opponents “two reformists and one conservative (who) criticized his government for its lack of tolerance. Each has promised more personal and social freedom if elected.”

Newsweek quoted Iranian historian Mohammed Javad Mozafar saying:

“The choice is….between democracy and an authoritarian government. If Ahmadinejad wins, that means the end of this reformist dream for a while. Many of these young people will be depressed and even leave the country. But if Mousavi wins, that means the citizens have won despite Ahmadinejad’s deceitful policies and the support he receives from above (meaning Iran’s Guardian Council and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei).”

The dominant US media repeated similar comments to the above ones, so their post-June 12 response was no surprise.

On June 13, Robert Worth and Nazila Fathi in The New York Times headlined: “Protests Flare in Tehran as Opposition Disputes Vote,” then described “the most intense protests in a decade….with riot police officers using batons and tear gas against opposition demonstrators who claimed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had stolen the presidential election.”

The Wall Street Journal called the election “a sham” and cited the AP reporting that “election authorities were miraculously able to count millions of paper ballots (in just hours) after the polls closed to hand Mr. Ahmadinejad his supposed victory.” It quoted writer Laura Secor in the New Yorker saying: “What is most shocking is not the fraud itself, but that it was brazen and entirely without pretext.”

Perhaps she meant “precedent,” but either way she ignored two stolen US elections for George Bush and the shameful media response to them.

Also disturbing are more moderate, supposedly even-handed, and progressive US voices. On June 13, Stephen Zunes asked “Has the Election Been Stolen in Iran?” Again with no evidence he wrote:

“….predictions of knowledgeable Iranian observers from various countries and from across the political spectrum were nearly unanimous in the belief that the leading challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi would (win) decisively..” Given the results, “the only reasonable assumption was that there has been fraud on a massive scale.”

Juan Cole admitted “difficulties of catching history on the run (and said evidence) may emerge for Ahmadinejad’s upset that does not involve fraud,” yet he concluded on first reaction that “this post-election situation looks to me like a crime scene.”

The Nation magazine has had a shameful record since inception. In more recent years, it called the US-led NATO Serbia-Kosovo aggression “humanitarian intervention.” Initially it supported the Afghanistan war and the Iraq war in its run-up and early months. In 2000 and 2004, it ignored blatant electoral fraud for George Bush. It attacks Hugo Chavez, and was hostile to Jean-Bertrand Aristide during his years as Haiti’s President. It called the 2008 US presidential campaign the “Obama Moment” for his “historic candidacy” and keeps supporting him despite his brazen betrayal of voters who elected him.

Now it’s at it again in a June 13 Robert Dreyfuss article headlined, “Iran’s Ex-Foreign Minister Yazdi: It’s a Coup” in which (without no substantiating evidence) he called the election “rigged,” referred to Ahmadinejad as “radical-right,” and said “his paramilitary backers were kept in office.” Now “Iran’s capital (is) steeped in anger, despair, and bitterness” as he almost cheerled for a “color revolution” with comments like:

“For years, the hardline clergy and their allies, including Ahmadinejad, have feared nothing more than an Iranian-style ‘color revolution.’ Now, Mousavi – with solid establishment credentials, an Islamic revolutionary pedigree second to none, and an outspoken pro-reform message – finds himself at the head of a green parade” in contrast to “Ahmadinejad’s Red Tide,” a reference to “the red-armband-wearing, virtual fascist movement in support of reelecting” him.

A lack of journalistic and analytical integrity on the left and right continues to hype fraud without a shred of supportive evidence, so something sinister may be visible on Iranian streets. If true, the Obama administration likely is behind it or at least in support, so Iranians need remember their history.

More on that below, but first some background. Four candidates participated, each of whom was vetted and approved by Iran’s Guardian Council and most importantly Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – a system similar to America where democracy is illusory because party bosses choose candidates, big money controls them, key outcomes are predetermined, horse race journalism and media hype substitute for honest coverage, independent voices are suppressed, vital issues go unaddressed, voter disenfranchisement is rife, and corporate-run electronic voting machines decide winners, not the electorate.

In Iran, the Guardian Counsel’s approved candidates seek closer relations with America and less confrontation. In deference to Iran’s business and elitist interests, they favor austerity measures against Iranian workers. In March, Ahmadinejad’s budget called for reduced spending by eliminating subsidies on water, fuel and electricity but kept “targeted” ones in place for the nation’s poor.

On November 6, Ahmadinejad congratulated Obama on his election and wrote: “The great civilization-building and justice-seeking nation of Iran would welcome major, fair and real changes, in policies and actions, especially in this region.” On February 10, he said he was willing to negotiate “in a fair atmosphere with mutual respect,” short of surrendering Iranian sovereignty. Given 30 years of confrontation since 1979, it’s doubtful that’s enough, despite recent hints of rapprochement from Washington.

The four candidates included:

– current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; in 2005, he scored a decisive second round victory over former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (61.69% – 35.93%), one of Iran’s wealthiest men, notoriously corrupt, and despised by Iranian workers and the poor; since elected, Ahmadinejad has been mischaracterized, misquoted, and vilified in Washington, Tel Aviv, and the West for supporting Palestine’s legitimate Hamas government, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iran’s right to peaceful commercial nuclear power development; he’s supported by Iran’s military, conservative elements, Iranian workers, and the nation’s urban and rural poor;

– Mir Hossein Mousavi served earlier (from 1981 – 1989) as Iran’s Prime Minister (before constitutional changes ended the position) and is currently president of the Iranian Academy of Arts and a member of the Expediency Discernment Council and High Council of Cultural Revolution; earlier he served as Foreign Minister; as Prime Minister, he was hardline and anti-Western during the Iran – Iraq war when he imposed austerity measures to finance it; today, he draws support from portions of Iran’s ruling elite and urban middle class, especially students and youths who favor better relations with America;

– Mohsen Rezaei is a politician, economist, and former Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) commander; he’s currently Secretary of the Expediency Discernment Council and drew sparse support in the June 12 election; and

– Mehdi Karroubi is a cleric and former parliamentary speaker; he’s currently chairman of the National Trust party and founding member and former chairman of the Association of Combatant Clerics party; he also scored poorly in election results that came down to a contest between the two leading candidates.

On June 13, Iran’s Interior Minister, Sadeq Mahsouli, announced the following results after which street protests erupted:

– turnout was 85% of eligible voters

– Ahmadinejad won with 62.63%

– Mousavi was second with 33.75%

– Rezaei got 1.73%

– Karroubi had 0.85%, and

– 1.04% of ballots were voided.

Pre-election polls suggest that Ahmadinejad Really Won

One or more independent pre-election polls conducted several weeks before June 12 provide evidence of Ahmadinejad’s strong victory, and it shouldn’t surprise. It was comparable to his sweeping 2005 runoff win in which he trounced former President Rafsanjani as explained above. This time, no second round was needed because only two dominant candidates contested. The others needn’t have bothered as final results showed.

Although Iran is a theocracy with standards leaving a lot to be desired, it’s one of the few Middle East countries holding real elections, unlike regional monarchies or dictatorial states like Egypt where Hosni Mubarak has ruled for nearly 30 years and wins easily with well over 90% of the “vote” in little more than a sham process.

Pre-Election Independent Poll Results

Ken Ballen is president of Terror Free Tomorrow: the Center for Public Opinion, a nonprofit institute that researches attitudes toward extremism. Patrick Doherty is deputy director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation Washington-based think tank chaired by Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

On June 15 in the Washington Post, they reported the results of their May 11 – 20 poll based on 1001 nationwide Iranian voter interviews (in all 30 provinces) with a 3.1% margin of error.

While Western media reported a surge for Mousavi, the results showed Ahmadinejad way ahead. “The breadth of Ahmadinejad’s support was apparent in our preelection survey. During the campaign, for instance, Mousavi emphasized his identity as an Azeri, (Iran’s second largest ethnic group after Persians), to woo Azeri voters.” Yet poll results showed they favored Ahmadinejad 2 – 1.

Also, 18 – 24 year-olds strongly supported Ahmadinejad while Mousavi scored well only among university students and graduates and Iran’s “highest-income” earners. The writers concluded “the possibility that the vote (was) not the product of widespread fraud” but reflected the electorate’s true choice. They also said:

“Before other countries, including the United States, jump to the conclusion that the Iranian presidential elections were fraudulent, with the grave consequences such charges could bring, they should consider all independent information. The fact may simply be that the reelection of President Ahmadinejad is what the Iranian people wanted.”

Perhaps so according to University of Michigan Professor Walter Mebane. He used statistical and computational “election forensics” to detect fraud in comparing 366 Iranian district results with those in the 2005 election and concluded that “substantial core” local results were in line with basic statistical trends. “In 2009, Mr. Ahmadinejad tended to do best in towns where his (2005) support was highest, and he tended to do worst (where) turnout surged the most.” He didn’t rule out the possibility of manipulation but found no evidence to prove it.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

Nonetheless, Washington may be capitalizing on a pretext to stir trouble with large protests continuing for days. Obama hinted it in a June 12 statement several hours before polls closed by saying: “….just as has been true in Lebanon, what can be true in Iran as well is that you’re seeing people looking for new possibilities” – perhaps aided by covert CIA mischief, comparable to earlier decades of subversion, beginning in Iran in 1953.

America’s Post-WW II Meddling in Iran

Before becoming Prime Minister in 1951, Mohammed Mossadegh served in parliament beginning in 1944 and also worked with other members of the National Front of Iran (Jebhe Melli) to establish democracy, free of foreign influence, especially with regard to oil.

In December 1944, he introduced a bill to bar foreign country oil negotiations, yet Britain retained control through its Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) at a time Iran’s southern region had the world’s largest known reserves. In late 1947, the government demanded a greater revenue share but Britain refused. In 1951, one month before Mossadegh became Prime Minister, Iran’s parliament nationalized the AIOC and paid fair compensation for it.

Economic sanctions and an oil embargo followed. Iranian assets were also frozen in British banks. Major Anglo-America oil interests supported London, while a CIA coup aimed to oust Mossadegh. Conceived by Theodore Roosevelt’s grandson Kermit, it took two attempts to succeed, and began each time by filling the streets with protesters against a leader The New York Times called “the most popular politician in the country.” Nonetheless, a military showdown followed against pro-Mossadegh officers with each side staking their careers on choosing the winning one.

Mossadegh was ousted. Reza Shah Pahlavi returned to power. Sanctions were lifted, and America and Britain regained their client state until February 1979 when the same Anglo-American interests turned on the Shah and deposed him.

F. William Engdahl explained it in his important book, “A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order.” In 1978, a White House Iran task force recommended ousting the Shah and replacing him with Ayatollah Khomeini, then living in France. It was part of a larger scheme to balkanize the Middle East along tribal and religious lines and create an “Arc of Crisis” from Central Asia to the Soviet Union.

Doing it in 1978 became urgent at a time the Shah was negotiating a 25-year oil agreement with British Petroleum (BP), but talks broke down in October. BP demanded exclusive rights to future output but refused to guarantee oil purchases. The Shah balked and looked for new buyers in continental Europe and elsewhere.

He also sought to create a modern energy infrastructure built around nuclear power generation to transform the region’s power needs. He envisioned 20 new reactors by 1995, wanted to diversity Iran’s dependence on oil to weaken Washington’s pressure to recycle petrodollars, and also increase investments in leading continental European companies.

Washington was alarmed, tried to block the plan but failed, and resorted instead to destabilization, starting with cutting Iranian purchases. Economic pressures and oil strikes followed along with US and UK agitators fanning religious discontent and other turmoil. The Carter administration urged Iran’s Savak secret police to crack down as a way to arouse anti-Shah sentiment. Western media highlighted it, gave Khomeini a public stage to speak and prevented the Shah from responding.

In January 1979, things came to a head. The Shah fled the country, Khomeini returned, and proclaimed a theocratic state. By May, he cancelled Iran’s nuclear plans. America thought it could control him and his nation’s oil but calculated wrongly. Tensions built, thirty years later they continue, and post-June 12 they may again be coming to a boil.

Iranian Street Protests and Their Ominous Possibilities

Leading up to and after the Iranian election, The New York Times played its customary role as lead media gatekeeper/instigator doing what it does best – sanitizing news, filtering out uncomfortable truths, and presenting distorted opinions for the powerful interests it represents.

Roger Cohen’s June 17 op-ed said 40 million Iranian “votes (were) flouted,” many of whom “have crossed over from reluctant acquiescence to the Islamic Republic into opposition. (The Republic) has lost legitimacy. It is fissured. It will not be the same again.” Does he know something we don’t?

He called Mousavi “the reformist of impeccable revolutionary credentials.” He’s “a credible vehicle for a reform regime that serves to preserve it – an acceptable compromise to most Iranians.” No matter that most of them apparently preferred Ahmadinejad, an outcome neither Cohen nor the Times accepts, or perhaps they and Washington do to be able to use his victory to incite trouble.

On June 17, The Times’ feature story highlighted “Iranians angry at the results of last week’s election (marshaled) tens of thousands (in) the streets (in spite of) signs of an intensified crackdown….the government expanded (it) with more arrests and pressure against journalists to limit coverage of the protests.”

Scant mention was made of huge pro-Ahmadinejad crowds in central Tehran nor has there been in other media reports, especially on television where, not surprisingly, coverage has been distorted, one-way, and hostile to the Iranian president and regime, much as it’s always been.

What’s going on? Are anti-Ahmadinejad protests spontaneous or are covert instigators inciting them?

The Pak Alert Press reported that former Pakistani Army General Mirza Aslam Beig claims that the CIA distributed around $400 million inside Iran to incite revolution. In a June 15 interview with Pashto Radio, he cited “undisputed” intelligence proving interference.

“The documents prove that the CIA spend $400 million inside Iran to prop up a colorful-hollow revolution following the election” to incite regime change for a pro-Western government. He called Ahmadinejad’s victory “a decisive point in regional policy and if Pakistan and Afghanistan unite with Iran, the US has to leave the area, especially (from) occupied Afghanistan.”

Writing in the New Yorker’s June 29, 2008 issue, Seymour Hersh said “Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership.”

Involved is support for Iranian dissidents and “gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program.” Perhaps later to disrupt the presidential election with Hersh saying Bush’s Finding “focussed on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change (by)working with opposition groups and passing money,” according to a person familiar with its contents. His account is a year old but may be relevant to today, hopefully something he’ll substantiate in a future report given what’s now playing out.

On June 16, Computerworld’s Robert McMillan reported more of it in writing about key Iranian web sites knocked offline. “On (June 15), sites belonging to Iranian news agencies, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran’s supreme leader (Khamenei) were knocked offline after activists opposed to the Iranian government posted tools designed to barrage these websites with traffic.”

“This type of attack, known as a denial of service (DoS) attack, has become a standard political protest tool, and has been used by grassroots protesters” in previous cyber-incidents, including Georgia in 2008. Initial efforts were to recruit Iranian protesters, but international users are now being targeted.

Dancho Danchev is a security consultant. He counted 12 Iranian sites under attack, including news agencies, the Foreign Affairs Ministry, National Police, and Ministries of Interior and Justice. Iranian officials have responded in kind to prevent protesters from social networking. Iran’s General Internet service was also disrupted for a short time. It’s again operating but anything may happen going forward. Computer World said Twitter “emerged as the major source of information on the protests, and is being” picked up in major media coverage.

Of interest is a June 18 Yaroslav Trofimov Wall Street Journal online article headlined “Some Israelis Prize Ahmadinejad’s Role.” He explained that some high level Israelis prefer him in power. One is Mossad chief, Meir Dagan, telling a closed Knesset committee hearing that his controversial reputation “makes it easier for Israel to enlist international support against Iran’s nuclear program.” Mousavi winning, however, would have created “a graver problem.”

Israeli officials said that in the 1980s, Mousavi “jump-started Iran’s nuclear drive” as prime minister. Both he and Ahmadinejad “pose the same threat. But it’s better for Israel that you have a leader with a very dangerous ideology who speaks clearly so that nobody can ignore him,” according to Knesset deputy speaker Danny Danon. A more soft-spoken president promising improved relations “would have made it harder for us to recruit the world to our side,” he added, and the same argument holds for America.

Addressing the issue of a stolen election, Dagan dismissed it out of hand in saying alleged ballot-stuffing in Iran is no worse than common electoral fraud in all democracies. In his judgment, protests will fizzle in several days.

Ardesir Ommni, co-founder and president of the American Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC), headlined his June 16 Mathaba.net article “Iran: Another Face of Velvet Revolution” in suggesting that Ahmadinejad’s opposition “is doing its utmost to create unrest and prepare the ground for a velvet takeover” much like others in Georgia and Ukraine as well as twice before in Iran.

It’s not “realizable in Iran,” he said, “because the workers and farmers, the millions who gave the lives of their children for the cause of independence and sovereignty, defend the Revolution and their real President who has frustrated the schemes and plots of the warmongers. (They’re proud that) Ahmadinejad has defied and resisted the war threats and sanctions by the same powers that have ruined the lives of” millions throughout the world and want no part of it themselves.

On June 15, Marxist.com editor Alan Woods expressed another view in headlining “Iran: the Revolution has begun.” He cited “dramatic events” with hundreds of thousands in Tehran and other city streets disputing the election results. Some marched silently. Others were vocal, angry and confronted by riot police crackdowns.

“The protests have marked the most serious display of discontent in the Islamic Republic in years. The breath of the mass movement is unprecedented (expressing) the accumulated rage and frustration that has been accumulating for the past 30 years….Power is slipping from the trembling hands of the leaders and passing to the streets….Nobody can say where events will end. But one thing is certain: Iran will never be the same again….the Iranian Revolution has begun!”

Woods sees it growing and suggests it’s progressing “through a whole series of stages before it has finally run its course. But in the end we are sure that it will triumph. When that moment comes, it will have explosive repercussions throughout the Middle East, Asia, and the whole world.”

Who can say if he, Ommni, or others are right or if Washington is plotting regime change, much like before in Iran and throughout the world. Thus far, events are fast moving with no clear outcome in sight. It remains to be seen whether Iranians or imperial America will prevail, then what happens next in this volatile part of the world.

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/irans-election-and-us-iranian-relations/

Afghanistan’s Operation Phoenix

Stephen Lendman
Global Research
June 17, 2009

On June 15, AP reported that “Gen. Stanley McChrystal, a four-star American general with a long history in special operations, took charge of US and NATO troops in Afghanistan (today), a change in command the Pentagon hopes will turn the tide in an increasingly violent eight-year war.”

	One person involved called Operation Phoenix a “depersonalized murder program” to remove opposition and terrorize the population into submission.

McChrystal is a hired gun, an assassin, a man known for committing war crime atrocities as head of the Pentagon’s infamous Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) – established in 1980 and comprised of the Army’s Delta Force and Navy Seals, de facto death squads writer Seymour Hersh described post-9/11 as an “executive assassination wing” operating out of Dick Cheney’s office.

A 2006 Newsweek profile called JSOC “part of what Vice President Dick Cheney was referring to when he said America would have to ‘work on the dark side’ after 9/11.” It called McChrystal then “an affable but tough Army Ranger” with no elaboration of his “dark side” mission.

In his May 17 article titled “Obama’s Animal Farm: Bigger, Bloodier Wars Equal Peace and Justice,” James Petras called him a “notorious psychopath” in describing him this way:

His rise through the ranks was “marked by his central role in directing special operations teams engaged in extrajudicial assassinations, systematic torture, bombing of civilian communities and search and destroy missions. He is the very embodiment of the brutality and gore that accompanies military-driven empire building.”

His resume shows contempt for human life and the rule of law – a depravity Conrad described in his classic work, “Heart of Darkness:” the notion of “exterminat(ing) all the brutes” to civilize them, and removing lesser people to colonize and dominate them by devising battle plans amounting to genocide.

In June 2001, McChrystal became Chief of Staff, XVIII Airborne Corp. After the Afghanistan invasion, he was appointed Chief of Staff, Combined Joint Task Force 180, Operation Enduring Freedom. In September 2003, he was Commanding General, Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). In February 2006, he became Commander, Joint Special Operations – Command/Commander, Joint Special Operations Command Forward, United States Special Operations, then in August 2008 General Director, the Joint Staff until his current appointment as US/NATO Afghanistan commander.

Detailed information of his role in these capacities is classified and unacknowledged, but Human Rights Watch (HRW) revealed some of what he directed in its July 22, 2006 report titled “No Blood, No Foul” – meaning short of drawing blood, all abuses were acceptable and wouldn’t result in investigations or prosecution.

HRW reported soldiers’ firsthand accounts of detainee abuse by Task Force 20/121/6-26/145 at Baghdad’s Camp Nama (an acronym for Nasty-Ass Military Area) and elsewhere in Iraq.

JSOC’s assignment was (and still is) to capture or kill “high-value” combatants, including Saddam Hussein, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, and many hundreds of Iraqis targeted in sweeping capture and extermination missions that include lots of collateral killings and destruction.

Through most of 2003 and 2004, detainees were held at interrogation facilities like Camp Nama at Baghdad International Airport (BIAP). With good reason, it was off-limits to the ICRC and most US military personnel. In summer 2004, it was moved to a new location near Balad and also had facilities in Fallujah, Ramadi and Kirkuk.

US personnel and former detainees reported torture and abuse as common practice, including beatings, confinement in shipping containers for 24 hours in extreme heat, exposure to extreme cold, death threats, humiliation, psychological stress, and much more.

Sergeant Jeff Perry (a pseudonym he requested to avoid recrimination) was a Camp Nama special interrogator during the first half of 2004. He said task force members were military special forces and CIA personnel, none of whom revealed ranks or last names to maintain secrecy.

Five interrogation rooms were used, the harshest called the “black room” where everything was black with speakers in the corners and on the ceiling. A table and chairs were in one corner for a boom box and computer.

Detainees were stripped naked and subjected to stress standing, sleep deprivation, loud noise, strobe lights, beatings, dousing with cold water, and other abuses.

Harshness levels were less severe in other rooms, the “soft room” being least extreme and used for cooperating detainees. However, throughout interrogations, they were shifted from one room to another, but those put in the “black room” were considered the most high-value.

Treatment authorization in writing or by computer came from the camp’s command structure – signed by “whoever was in charge at the time” reporting to McChrystal or one of his subordinates.

Sergeant Perry saw him visit Camp Nama several times, and said its commanding officer told interrogators that the White House or Donald Rumsfeld were briefed on the information they obtained. He also learned that the facility was “completely closed off” and secret, and that ICRC, other investigators, and the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command (CID) were forbidden access to it.

In March 2006, The New York Times published a feature article based on interviews with over a dozen US personnel who served at Camp Nama or were familiar with its operations. Their accounts corroborated Perry’s and included details of other abuses. Much of the same information came out about torture at Guantanamo and other overseas US prisons, including Camp Cropper, Iraq (near Baghdad Airport) now expanded to hold up to 2000 detainees.

HRW reviewed hundreds of “credible allegations of serious mistreatment and torture (as) standard operation procedure” at locations throughout Iraq involving special forces, CIA, and others. Its report is based on firsthand accounts from three locations between 2003 – 2005 when McChrystal was in charge of Special Ops.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

On March 31, 2009 on Democracy Now, Seymour Hersh said US forces conducted assassinations in a dozen or more countries, including in Latin and Central America. “And it’s been going on and on and on,” he said. George Bush “authorized these kinds of actions in the Middle East” and elsewhere….” Now Obama’s doing the same thing.

“And the idea that the American president would think he has the constitutional power or the legal right to tell soldiers….to go out and find people based on lists and execute them is just amazing to me….”

During his tenure, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld gave the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) authority to carry out killings anywhere on the globe. Hersh said “it operates out of Florida, and it involves a lot of wings.” One is “the Joint Special Op – JSOC. It’s a special (Navy Seals and Delta Force) unit….black units, the commando units….And they promote from within. It’s a unit that has its own promotion structure. And one of the elements….about getting ahead….is the number of kills you have,” especially high-value targets. Cheney was deeply involved. Robert Gates likely is now.

Targeting goes on in a lot of countries besides Iraq and Afghanistan, including Colombia, Eritrea, Madagascar, Kenya, or anywhere to “kill people who are believed….to be Al Qaeda….Al Qaeda-linked or anti-American” – fictitious outside enemies without which Obama’s wars can’t continue nor could they under George Bush..

In his book “America’s War on Terrorism,” Michel Chossudovsky uncovered evidence that Al Qaeda was a CIA creation from the Soviet-Afghan 1980s war, and in the 1990s Washington “consciously supported Osama bin Laden, while at the same time placing him on the FBI’s ‘most wanted list’ as the World’s foremost terrorist.”

He remains so today, even though David Ray Griffin’s new book (”Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?”) provides convincing evidence that he died in late 2001, a conclusion many US counterterrorism experts support and believe his conveniently timed video messages are fakes.

Capturing or Killing Bin Laden

In a January 2009 CBS television interview, Obama suggested that he’s dead by saying “whether he is technically alive or not, he is so pinned down that he cannot function. My preference (is) to capture of kill him. But if we have so tightened the noose that he’s in a cave somewhere and can’t even communicate with his operatives, then we will meet our goal of protecting America.”

Nonetheless, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs responded to the latest purported bin Laden statement that it’s “consistent with messages we’ve seen in the past from al Qaeda threatening the US and other countries that are involved in counterterrorism efforts.”

So it’s no surprise that top administration orders reach field commanders like McChrystal to capture or kill the usual suspects. From known reports about him, he carries them out with relish.

The Obama administration gave him carte blanche authority to choose his staff for their assigned mission – expand the Af-Pak war with more troops, funding, stepped up counterinsurgency, targeted killings, and secret drone and other attacks against any targets he chooses in either country. He’ll also have more political control, possibly with a Washington-appointed civilian authority to run the Afghanistan government day to day, making Hamid Karzai more of a figurehead than currently.

Obama’s war aims to pacify the country and Afghan/Pakistan border areas through scorched earth terror, targeted assassinations, and as much mass killing as it takes to prevail. McChrystal has the job, a man one observer said “comes from a world where killing by any means is the norm and a blanket of government secrecy provides the necessary protection.” All the greater with Obama’s endorsement.

Former 82nd Airborne Division commander General David Rodriquez, Defense Secretary Gates’ top military aide, will be his deputy. Gates praised McChrystal for his “unique skill set in counterinsurgency” and said the mission of both men and their team “requires new thinking and new approaches by our military leaders.” Clearly implied are the Special Ops skills they possess in what an unnamed Defense Department official called “unconventional warfare….to track and kill insurgents.”

These tactics kill many hundreds, displace hundreds of thousands, and enrage civilians on both sides of the Af-Pak border. Yet pursuing them is Obama’s top war strategy priority that may include Iraq as violence there heats up.

Operation Phoenix

From 1968 – 1973, the CIA ran or was involved in the Phoenix Program with US Special Forces and its own Military Assistance Command Vietnam-Special Operations Group (MACV-SOG) involving covert missions to crush the National Liberation Front (NLF resistance called the Viet Cong or VC). One person involved called the operation a “depersonalized murder program” to remove opposition and terrorize the population into submission.

In 1975, Counterspy magazine said it was “the most indiscriminate and massive program of political murder since the Nazi death camps of world war two.” It even targeted certain US military personnel considered security risks and members of the South Vietnamese government.

In simple terms, the program conducted mass killings and seizures of suspected NLF members and collaborators with special emphasis on high-value targets – by some estimates around 80,000 or more before it ended.

Wayne Cooper was a Foreign Service officer at the time. He spent 18 months in Vietnam, most of it as a Phoenix advisor at Cantho in the Mekong Delta. He called the operation a “disreputable, CIA-inspired effort, often deplored as a bloody-handed assassination program (and) a failure.”

In the mid-1960s, it began as a CIA “Counter Terror (CT) program “never recognized by the South Vietnamese government.” It “recruited, organized, supplied and directly paid CT teams whose function was to use Vietcong techniques, kidnappings and intimidation – against the Vietcong leadership.”

By 1968, the program was expanded and called Intelligence Coordination and Exploitation (ICEX), then Phoenix. From General William Westmoreland and “Ambassador-for-pacification Robert Komer” on down, “neutralizing” the VC was top priority.

Westmoreland took charge. A Civil Operations and Rural Development Support (CORDS) organization was established, under which Phoenix was run. Cooper cited numerous problems for its failure and criticized experts sifting through them to get it right next time. He called the program a “gimmick” unable to “compensate for South Vietnam’s” popular opposition to the war and concluded that no counterinsurgency can succeed under those circumstances.

Certainly not in Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries historically opposed to foreign occupations with a record of brave resistance to end them. They represent what the CIA called Vietnam during that earlier era – “the grand illusion of the American cause;” the latest Washington misadventures no matter how long they go on, whatever amounts are spent on them, or how much mass killing and destruction persist under any command. America hasn’t won a war (or fought a legal one) since WW II, something Obama might consider as he plans his next move.

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/afghanistans-operation-phoenix/

Readying Americans for Dangerous, Mandatory Vaccinations

Stephen Lendman
Global Research
June 10, 2009

At least three US federal laws should concern all Americans and suggest what may be coming – mandatory vaccinations for hyped, non-existant threats, like H1N1 (Swine Flu). Vaccines and drugs like Tamiflu endanger human health but are hugely profitable to drug company manufacturers.

In the wake of the hyped Swine Flu scare, media reports suggest mass vaccinations are coming.

The Project BioShield Act of 2004 (S. 15) became law on July 21, 2004 “to provide protections and countermeasures against chemical, radiological, or nuclear agents that may be used in a terrorist attack against the United States by giving the National Institutes of Health contracting flexibility, infrastructure improvements, and expediting the scientific peer review process, and streamlining the Food and Drug Administration approval process of countermeasures.”

In other words, the FDA may now recklessly approve inadequately tested, potentially dangerous vaccines and other drugs if ever the Secretaries of Health and Human Services (HHS) or Defense (DOD) declare a national emergency, whether or not one exists and regardless of whether treatments available are safe and effective. Around $6 billion or more will be spent to develop, produce, and stockpile vaccines and other drugs to counteract claimed bioterror agents.

The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act slipped under the radar when George Bush signed it into law as part of the 2006 Defense Appropriations Act (HR 2863). It lets the HHS Secretary declare any disease an epidemic or national emergency requiring mandatory vaccinations. Nothing in the Act lists criteria that warrant a threat. Also potential penalties aren’t specified for those who balk, but very likely they’d include quarantine and possible fines.

The HHS web site also says the Secretary may “issue a declaration….that provides immunity from tort liability (except for willful misconduct) for claims of loss caused, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from administration or use of (vaccine or other pharmaceutical) countermeasures to diseases, threats and conditions determined by the Secretary to constitute a present, or credible risk of a future public health emergency….”

The industry-run US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) notoriously rushes inadequately tested drugs to market, putting their efficacy and safety into question, and turning those who use them into lab rats. It includes everyone if a mass vaccination is ordered on the mere claim of a public emergency – no proof required.

The Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (S. 3678) is the other worrisome law, effective December 19, 2006. It amended “the Public Health Service Act with respect to public health security and all-hazards preparedness and response, and for other purposes.” Even its supporters worry about issues of privacy, liability, and putting profits over public health. Critics express greater concerns about dangerous remedies for exaggerated or non-existant threats as well as mass hysteria created for political purposes.

At least one other measure is also worrisome – The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA). So far it’s just a proposal by the Center for Law and the Public’s Health – “A Collaborative at Johns Hopkins and Georgetown Universities (as) a primary, international, national, state, and local resource on public health law (and) policy for public health practitioners, judges, academics, policymakers, and others.”

MSEHPA is now “track(ing) legal responses to the emerging international response to the 2009 H1N1 (swine flu) outbreak, including declarations of public health emergency at the international, national, state, and local levels….” even though forensic evidence can’t confirm any H1N1 deaths. No emergency exists anywhere, and reporting one is all hype to sell dangerous drugs to unsuspecting people globally.

On its web site, the ACLU says this about MSEHPA:

It’s “written in a way that doesn’t adequately protect citizens against the misuse of the tremendous powers that it would grant in an emergency. (It’s) replete with civil liberties problems. Its three top flaws are that:

(1) It fails to include basic checks and balances (by) grant(ing) extraordinary emergency powers (that) should never go unchecked. (It) could have serious consequences for individuals’ freedom, privacy, and equality.”

(2) “It goes well beyond bioterrorism (with) an overbroad definition of ‘public health emergency” that may be anything a local or national authority declares for any reason with no conclusive evidence for proof.

(3) “It lacks privacy protections (and) undercut(s) existing protections for sensitive medical information.”

MSEHPA worries other organizations besides the ACLU, both conservative and progressive – including the Free Congress Foundation, American Legislative Exchange Council, conservative association of state legislators, Human Rights Campaign, and Health Privacy Project.

The Real Threat of Dangerous, Mandatory Vaccinations

In the wake of the hyped Swine Flu scare, media reports suggest mass vaccinations are coming. The May 6 Kimberly Kindy – Ceci Connolly Washington Post one, for example, headlined “US May Add Shots for Swine Flu to Fall Regimen” without saying they’ll be mandatory but reading between the lines suggests the possibility this year or later.

The writers report that “The Obama administration is considering an unprecedented fall vaccination campaign” to include regular and Swine Flu shots, the latter because it’s “spreading across the globe.”

HHS’ Dr. Robin Robinson said “We are moving forward with making a vaccine,” and if the government proceeds with a national program, enough supply will be produced to provide two doses for all Americans with spokespersons like National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Anthony Fauci, claiming adverse reactions aren’t to be expected and adding another shot for Swine Flu “should not present a problem.”

The New York Times also hypes the scare with reports of city schools closed after unconfirmed Swine Flu cases, a few adult deaths blamed on H1N1 bringing the claimed total in the city to seven, and the World Health Organization (WHO) saying on June 3 that it’s moving closer to declaring a worldwide (Level 6) Swine Flu pandemic – even though none exists.

With all the hype, misinformation, and willful lies WHO’s Dr. Keiji Fukuda, in charge of flu, said only 117 deaths globally have been “blamed” on Swine Flu and any warning may include the caveat that the virus isn’t very lethal. A more accurate statement would explain that no forensic evidence links any deaths to H1N1, and influenza annually kills about 30,000 people in America alone – something the major media never report or that scattered accounts of any type flu deaths worldwide are no cause for alarm or reason for scary headlines.

It’s also unconscionable for the WHO, US and other nations’ officials to spread lies, deception, and hysteria so major pharmaceutical companies can foist dangerous vaccines and other drugs on unsuspecting people, harming their health and making them vulnerable to later diseases and possible early deaths.

Massachusetts May Be A Forerunner of What’s to Come

On April 28, the Massachusetts Senate unanimously passed a pandemic flu preparation bill that rises to the level of martial law. If approved by the House and signed into law, it will mandate among other measures:

– “vaccination, treatment, examination, or testing of” all individuals involved in providing health care – as perhaps step one before ordering the same process for all state residents;

– owners or occupiers of all premises “to permit entry into and investigation of the premises;”

– closure, evacuation, and decontamination of all suspected facilities; and

– restricting or prohibiting “assemblages of persons.”

Other states may be planning similar measures as precursors to mandatory nationwide vaccinations and overall suspension of civil liberty protections.

Adverse Vaccination Effects on Gulf War Troops

Before deploying to the Persian Gulf in 1990 – 91 (and thereafter to the present), all US troops got a standard series of inoculations against infectious diseases – the same ones given to all US citizens traveling to the region. After arriving, 150,000 also got anthrax vaccinations and 8000 botulinum toxoid ones even though concerns were raised about adverse long-term health consequences.

A National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine (IOM) study was conducted to assess them with results released in September 2000. In December 1997, the Department of Defense (DOD) announced that all US military forces would receive anthrax vaccinations. The Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP) began in March 1998 even though IOM found little published peer-reviewed scientific information on its safety.

In its study, IOM reported evidence of an association between vaccinations studied and transient acute common health effects, including redness, swelling, and fever commonly associated with other vaccinations. However, conclusive proof of long-term problems wasn’t determined – likely because study findings were skewed not to find them. More on that below.

IOM also studied botulinum toxoid vaccines and found evidence of an association between the vaccine and transient acute local and systemic effects similar to anthrax vaccinations. Again, conclusive proof of long-term adverse health effects wasn’t found – another very dubious conclusion as evidence below explains.

Military personnel usually get multiple vaccinations. IOM studied their effects but didn’t prove or disprove any long-term adverse effects. However several independent studies of British Gulf War veterans found some link between multiple vaccinations and later health problems.

Gary Matsumoto is a New York-based award-winning investigative journalist. His 2004 book, “Vaccine A: The Covert Government Experiment That’s Killing Our Soldiers and Why GIs are Only the First Victims” took sharp issue with IOM results and the Pentagon’s denial of Gulf War syndrome.

Investigating the shadowy vaccination development world, he discovered US military-employed doctors and scientists conducted secret medical experiments on US citizens in violation of the Nuremberg Code and fundamental medical ethics.

For its part, Nuremberg established legal medical experimental standards now incorporated into ethical medical codes, including:

– requiring voluntary consent of human subjects without coercion, fraud, deceit, and with full disclosure of known risks;

– experiments should avoid “all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury;”

– experiments should never be conducted if there’s “an a priori reason to believe death or disabling injury will occur;”

– risk “should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved..;” and

– experiments should be terminated if there’s reason to believe they’ll cause “injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.”

According to Matsumoto, the Pentagon violated these and other standards, betrayed the troops, and the fundamental duty of military and civilian leaders to protect them. Since at least 1987, biowarfare development trumped the welfare of tens of thousands of GIs used as human guinea pigs for inoculation with experimental unlicensed anthrax vaccines containing squalene – an oil-based adjuvant (to enhance immunity) known for decades to cause severe autoimmune diseases in lab animals, yet administered involuntarily without disclosure of its harmful effects to human health. Matsumoto wrote:

“The unethical experiments detailed in this book are ongoing, with little prospect of being self-limiting because they have been shielded from scrutiny and public accountability by national security concerns.” He suggested the “writing (was) on the wall” of what’s to come with prospects now it may be soon.

“When UCLA Medical School’s Michael Whitehouse and Frances Beck injected squalene combined with other materials into rats and guinea pigs back in the 1970s, few oils were more effective at causing the animal versions of arthritis and multiple sclerosis.” In 1999, immunologist Dr. Johnny Lorentzen at Sweden’s Karolinska Institute found that on injection, an “otherwise benign molecule like squalene can stimulate a self-destructive immune response,” even though it occurs naturally in the body.

Other research shows that squalene is the experimental anthrax vaccine ingredient that caused devastating autoimmune diseases and deaths for many Gulf War veterans from the US, UK, and Australia, yet it continues in use today and for new vaccines development in labs. There’s a “close match between the squalene-induced diseases in animals and those observed in humans injected with this oil: rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus erythematosus.”

Other autoimmune diseases are also linked to humans injected with squalene. “There are now data in more than two dozen peer-reviewed scientific papers, from ten different laboratories in the US, Europe, Asia and Australia, documenting that squalene-based adjuvants can induce autoimmune diseases in animals…observed in mice, rats, guinea pigs and rabbits. Sweden’s Karolinska Institute has demonstrated that squalene alone can induce the animal version of rheumatoid arthritis. The Polish Academy of Sciences has shown that in animals, squalene alone can produce catastrophic injury to the nervous system and the brain. The University of Florida Medical School has shown that in animals, squalene alone can induce production of antibodies specifically associated with systemic lupus erythematosus.”

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

Micropaleontologist Dr. Viera Scheibner conducted research into the adverse effects of adjuvants in vaccines and wrote:

Squalene “contributed to the cascade of reactions called “Gulf War syndrome. (GIs developed) arthritis, fibromyalgia, lymphadenopathy, rashes, photosensitive rashes, malar rashes, chronic fatigue, chronic headaches, abnormal body hair loss, non-healing skin lesions, aphthous ulcers, dizziness, weakness, memory loss, seizures, mood changes, neuropsychiatric problems, anti-thyroid effects, anaemia, elevated ESR (erythrocyte sedimentation rate), systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, ALS, Raynaud’s phenomenon, Sjorgren’s syndrome, chronic diarrhea, night sweats and low-grade fever.”

Matsumoto’s book includes numerous case studies of GIs afflicted with one or more of the above syndromes, their devastating effects, and the outlandish US government reaction – failing to acknowledge their existence or a connection between them and administered vaccines. Also denying the effects of other toxic Gulf theater exposures (like depleted uranium) as well as withholding meaningful treatments or protocols.

US Army Captain George L. Skypeck spoke eloquently for many when he said:

“Was the character of my valor less intense than those at Lexington? Was the pain of my wounds any less severe than those at Normandy? And was my loneliness any less sorrowful than those at Inchon? Then why am I forgotten amonst those remembered as ‘heros?’ ”

If mass vaccinations are ordered, millions of Americans may ask: Why do you keep using unsafe vaccines and other drugs when clear evidence shows their dangers? Why do you jeopardize all Americans by unleashing a future plague of serious illnesses, diseases, and disabilities? Why have you willfully and maliciously ruined my health?

Immunologist Dr. Pamela Asa first recognized autoimmune diseases showing up in GIs that mirrored those in lab animals injected with oil formulated squalene adjuvants. By 1997, hundreds of millions of dollars had been spent testing vaccines containing them, in animal studies since 1988 and human clinical trials since 1991 – by leading research institutes like NIH, the National Cancer Institute, and the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

According to Matsumoto, today, “Squalene adjuvants are a key ingredient in a whole new generation of vaccines intended for mass immunization around the globe” even though researchers at Tulane Medical School and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research proved “that the immune system responds specifically to the squalene molecule.”

The immune system “see(s) and recognizes it as an oil molecule native to the body. Squalene is not just a molecule found in a knee or elbow – it is found throughout the nervous system and the brain.” When injected in the body, the immune system attacks it as an enemy to be eliminated. Eating and digesting squalene isn’t a problem. But injecting it “galvanize(s) the immune system into attacking it, which can produce self-destructive cross reactions against the same molecule in the places where it occurs naturally in the body – and where it is critical to the health of the nervous system.”

Once self-destruction begins, it doesn’t stop as the body keeps making the molecule that the immune system is trained to attack and destroy.

Immunologist Dr. Bonnie Dunbar also did extensive research on hepatitis B-inflicted illnesses and found similar autoimmune processes involved in molecular mimicry in people with devastating neuroimmune syndromes after getting vaccine injections.

Matsumoto says “Squalene is a kind of trigger for (a) real biological weapon,” what Soviet researchers called “a biological time bomb!!” and Matsumoto says is “the immune system.” When its “full repertoire of cells and antibodies (attack) tissues they are supposed to protect, the results can be catastrophic.” He and Dr. Pam Asa conclude that “Oil adjuvants are the most insidious chemical weapon ever devised,” including ones with squalene – something the Soviets knew could be used as a weapon in the 1980s.

Matsumoto says that “the real problem with using squalene (isn’t) that it mimics a molecule found in the body; it is the same molecule. So what American scientists conceived as a vaccine booster (or what’s now being developed in labs) was another ‘nano-bomb,’ instigating chronic, unpredictable and debilitating disease. When the NIH….argued that squalene would be safe because it is native to the body, just the opposite was true,” and, of course, still is. “Squalene’s natural presence in the body made it one of the most dangerous molecules ever injected into man” and using it in vaccines is outlandish and criminal.

So why does Washington sanction its use? According to Matsumoto: “scientists in the United States are now literally invested in squalene. Army scientists who developed the second generation anthrax vaccine have reputations to protect and licensing fees to reap (as well as) worldwide rights to develop and commercialize the new recombinant vaccine for anthrax” and ones for other health threats.

Disturbingly, “Many of the cutting-edge vaccines currently in development by the NIH and its corporate partners contain squalene in one formulation or another. There is squalene in the prototype recombinant vaccines for HIV, malaria, herpes, influenza (including the swine strain), cytomegalovirus and human papillomavirus.” Some of these “are intended for mass immunization(s) around the globe” and that possibility should terrify everyone enough to refuse any mandate or doctor’s prescription to take them.

Another problem is that “Autoimmunity (takes) years to diagnose” because early symptoms (headaches, joint pain, etc.) are so vague they can easily be from other causes.

From inception, vaccines have always been dangerous enough for some experts to call them biological weapons undermining health, manipulating and crippling the immune system, and creating the possibility of future debilitating diseases. So Big Pharma’s solution is new, more potent genetically engineered vaccines and drugs that may end up harming or killing many who take them, especially people with weakened immune systems.

Matsumoto and others sounded the alarm to alert everyone to avoid these poisons masquerading as protective drugs. In fact, they benefit only the bottom lines of companies that manufacture them and scientists reaping generous royalties.

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/readying-americans-for-dangerous-mandatory-vaccinations/

Daniel Estulin’s “True Story of the Bilderberg Group” and What They May Be Planning Now

Stephen Lendman
Op-Ed News
June 1, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to Steering Committee rules:

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

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

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

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

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

Bilderberg Objectives

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

– “one international identify (observing) one set of universal values;”

– centralized control of world populations by “mind control;” in other words, controlling world public opinion;

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

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

– manufactured crises and perpetual wars;

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

– “centralized control of all foreign and domestic policies;” one size fits all globally;

– using the UN as a de facto world government imposing a UN tax on “world citizens;”

– expanding NAFTA and WTO globally;

– making NATO a world military;

– imposing a universal legal system; and
– a global “welfare state where obedient slaves will be rewarded and non-conformists targeted for extermination.”

Secret Bilderberg Partners

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

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

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

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

Their past and current members reflect their power:

– nearly all presidential candidates of both parties;

– leading senators and congressmen;

– key members of the fourth estate and their bosses; and
– top officials of the FBI, CIA, NSA, defense establishment, and other leading government agencies, including state, commerce, the judiciary and treasury.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dominant Media Partners

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

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

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

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

CFR Cabinet Control

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

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

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

Nearly all top generals and admirals have been CFR members.

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

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

Many Treasury Secretaries were/are CFR members, including Douglas Dillon, George Schultz, William Simon, James Baker, Nicholas Brady, Lloyd Bentsen, Robert Rubin, Henry Paulson, and Tim Geithner.

When presidents nominate Supreme Court candidates, the CFR’s “Special Group, Secret Team” or advisors vet them for acceptability. Presidents, in fact, are told who to appoint, including designees to the High Court and most lower ones.

Programming the Public Mind

According to sociologist Hadley Cantril in his 1967 book, The Human Dimension – Experiences in Policy Research:

Government “Psycho-political operations are propaganda campaigns designed to create perpetual tension and to manipulate different groups of people to accept the particular climate of opinion the CFR seeks to achieve in the world.”

Canadian writer Ken Adachi (1929 – 1989) added:

“What most Americans believe to be ‘Public Opinion’ is in reality carefully crafted and scripted propaganda designed to elicit a desired behavioral response from the public.”

And noted Australian academic and activist Alex Carey (1922 – 1988) explained the three most important 20th century developments – “The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.”

Web of Control

Numerous think tanks, foundations, the major media, and other key organizations are staffed with CFR members. Most of its life-members also belong to the TC and Bilderberg Group, operate secretly, and wield enormous power over US and world affairs.

The Rockefeller-Founded Trilateral Commission (TC)

On page 405 of his Memoirs, David Rockfeller wrote:

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

In alliance with Bilderbergers, the TC also “plays a vital role in the New World Order’s scheme to use wealth, concentrated in the hands of the few, to exert world control.” TC members share common views and all relate to total unchallengeable global dominance.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

Founded in 1973 and headquartered in Washington, its powerful US, EU and East Asian members seek its operative founding goal – a “New International Economic Order,” now simply a “New World Order” run by global elites from these three parts of the world with lesser members admitted from other countries.

According to TC’s web site, “each regional group has a chairman and deputy chairman, who all together constitute the leadership of the Committee. The Executive Committee draws together a further 36 individuals from the wider membership,” proportionately representing the US, EU, and East Asia in its early years, now enlarged to be broadly global.

Committee members meet several times annually to discuss and coordinate their work. The Executive Committee chooses members, and at any time around 350 belong for a three-year renewable period. Everyone is a consummate insider with expertise in business, finance, politics, the military, or the media, including past presidents, secretaries of state, international bankers, think tank and foundation executives, university presidents and selected academics, and former senators and congressmen, among others.

Although its annual reports are available for purchase, its inner workings, current goals, and operations are secret – with good reason. Its objectives harm the public so mustn’t be revealed. Trilaterals over Washington author Antony Sutton wrote:

“this group of private citizens is precisely organized in a manner that ensures its collective views have significant impact on public policy.”

In her book, Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management, Holly Sklar wrote:

Powerful figures in America, Europe, and East Asia let “the rich….safeguard the interests of Western capitalism in an explosive world – probably by discouraging protectionism, nationalism, or any response that would pit the elites of one against the elites of another,” in their common quest for global dominance.

Trilateralist Zbigniew Brzezinski (TC’s co-founder) wrote in his Between Two Ages – America’s Role in the Technotronic Era:

“people, governments and economies of all nations must serve the needs of multinational banks and corporations. (The Constitution is) inadequate….the old framework of international politics, with their sphere of influence….the fiction of sovereignty….is clearly no longer compatible with reality….”

TC today is now global with members from countries as diverse as Argentina, Ukraine, Israel, Jordan, Brazil, Turkey, China and Russia. In his Trilaterals Over America, Antony Sutton believes that TC’s aim is to collaborate with Bilderbergers and CFR in “establishing public policy objectives to be implemented by governments worldwide.” He added that “Trilateralists have rejected the US Constitution and the democratic political process.” In fact, TC was established to counter a “crisis in democracy” – too much of it that had to be contained.

An official TC report was fearful about “the increased popular participation in and control over established social, political, and economic institutions and especially a reaction against the concentration of power of Congress and of state and local government.”

To address this, media control was essential to exert “restraint on what newspapers may publish (and TV and radio broadcast).” Then according to Richard Gardner in the July 1974 issue of Foreign Affairs (a CFR publication):

CFR’s leadership must make “an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece,” until the very notion disappears from public discourse.

Bilderberg/CFR/Trilateralist success depends on finding “a way to get us to surrender our liberties in the name of some common threat or crisis. The foundations, educational institutions, and research think tanks supported by (these organizations) oblige by financing so-called ’studies’ which are then used to justify their every excess. The excuses vary, but the target is always individual liberty. Our liberty” and much more.

Bilderbergers, Trilateralists and CFR members want “an all-encompassing monopoly” – over government, money, industry, and property that’s “self-perpetuating and eternal.” In Confessions of a Monopolist (1906), Frederick C. Howe explained its workings in practice:

“The rules of big business: Get a monopoly; let Society work for you. So long as we see all international revolutionaries and all international capitalists as implacable enemies of one another, then we miss a crucial point….a partnership between international monopoly capitalism and international revolutionary socialism is for their mutual benefit.”

In the Rockefeller File, Gary Allen wrote:

“By the late nineteenth century, the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood that the most efficient way to gain a monopoly was to say it was for the ‘public good’ and ‘public interest.’ “

David Rockefeller learned the same thing from his father, John D., Jr. who learned it from his father, John D. Sr. They hated competition and relentlessly strove to eliminate it – for David on a global scale through a New World Order.

In the 1970s and 1980s, Trilateralists and CFR members collaborated on the latter’s “1980 Project,” the largest ever CFR initiative to steer world events “toward a particular desirable future outcome (involving) the utter disintegration of the economy.” Why so is the question?

Because by the 1950s and 1960s, worldwide industrial growth meant more competition. It was also a model to be followed, and “had to be strangled in the cradle” or at least greatly contained. In America as well beginning in the 1980s. The result has been a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, shrinkage of the middle class, and plan for its eventual demise.

The North American Union (NAU)

The idea emerged during the Reagan administration in the early 1980s. David Rockefeller, George Schultz and Paul Volker told the president that Canada and America could be politically and economically merged over the next 15 years except for one problem – French-speaking Quebec. Their solution – elect a Bilderberg-friendly prime minister, separate Quebec from the other provinces, then make Canada America’s 51st state. It almost worked, but not quite when a 1995 secession referendum was defeated – 50.56% to 49.44%, but not the idea of merger.

At a March 23, 2005 Waco, Texas meeting, attended by George Bush, Mexico’s Vincente Fox, and Canada’s Paul Martin, the Security and and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) was launched, also known as the North American Union (NAU). It was a secretive Independent Task Force of North America agreement – a group organized by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations, and CFR with the following aims:

– circumventing the legislatures of three countries and their constitutions;

– suppressing public knowledge or consideration; and
– proposing greater US, Canadian and Mexican economic, political, social, and security integration with secretive working groups formed to devise non-debatable, not voted on agreements to be binding and unchangeable.
In short – a corporate coup d’etat against the sovereignty of three nations enforced by hard line militarization to suppress opposition.

If enacted, it will create a borderless North America, corporate controlled, without barriers to trade or capital flows for business giants, mainly US ones and much more – America’s access to vital resources, especially oil and Canada’s fresh water.

Secretly, over 300 SPP initiatives were crafted to harmonize the continent’s policies on energy, food, drugs, security, immigration, manufacturing, the environment, and public health along with militarizing three nations for enforcement.

SPP represents another step toward the Bilderberg/Trilateralist/CFR goal for World Government, taking it one step at a time. A “United Europe” was another, the result of various treaties and economic agreements:

– the December 1951 six-nation European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC);

– the March 1957 six-nation Treaty of Rome establishing the European Economic Community (EEC);
also the European Atomic Energy Commission (EAEC) by a second Treaty of Rome;

– the October 1957 European Court of Justice to settle regional trade disputes;

– the May 1960 seven-nation European Free Trade Association (EFTA);

– the July 1967 European Economic Community (EEC) merging the ECSC, EAEC and EEC together in one organization;

– the 1968 European Customs Union to abolish duties and establish uniform imports taxing among EEC nations;

– the 1978 European Currency Unit (ECU);

– the February 1986 Single European Act revision of the 1957 Treaty of Rome; it established the objective of forming a Common Market by December 31, 1992;

– the February 1992 Maastricht Treaty creating the EU on November 1, 1993; and

– the name euro was adopted in December 1995; it was introduced in January 1999 replacing the European Currency Unit (ECU); euros began circulating on January 2002; they’re now the official currency of 16 of the 27 EU states.

Over half a century, the above steps cost EU members their sovereignty “as some 70 to 80 per cent of the laws passed in Europe involve just rubber stamping of regulations already written by nameless bureaucrats in ‘working groups’ in Brussels or Luxembourg.”

The EU and NAU share common features:

– advocacy from a influential spokesperson;

– an economic and later political union;

– hard line security, and for Europe, ending wars on the continent between EU member states;

– establishment of a collective consciousness in place of nationalism;

– the blurring of borders and creation of a “supra-government,” a superstate;

– secretive arrangements to mask real objectives; and

– the creation of a common currency and eventual global one.

Steps Toward a North American Union

– the October 4, 1988 Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the US and Canada, finalized the previous year;

– at the 1991 Bilderberg meeting, David Rockefeller got governor Bill Clinton’s support for NAFTA if he became president;

– on January 1, 1994, with no debate under “fast-track” rules, Congress approved WTO legislation;

– in December 1994 at the first Summit of the Americas, 34 Hemispheric leaders committed their nations to a Free Trade of the Americas agreement (FTAA) by 2005 – so far unachieved;

– on July 4, 2000, Mexican president Vincente Fox called for a North American common market in 20 years;

– on February 2001, the White House published a joint statement from George Bush and Vincente Fox called the “Guanajuato Proposal;” it was for a US-Canada-Mexico prosperity partnership (aka North American Union);

– in September 2001, Bush and Fox agreed to a “Partnership for Prosperity Initiative;”

– the September 11, 2001 attack gave cover to including “security” as part of a future partnership;

– on October 7, 2001, a CFA meeting highlighted “The Future of North American Integration in the Wake of Terrorist Attacks; for the first time, “security” became part of a future “partnership for prosperity;” also, Canada was to be included in a “North American” agreement;

– in 2002, the North American Forum on Integration (NAFI) was established in Montreal “to address the issues raised by North American integration as well as identify new ideas and strategies to reinforce the North American region;”

– in January 2003, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE – composed of 150 top CEOs) launched the “North American Security and Prosperity Initiative” calling for continental integration;

– in April 2004, Canadian prime minister Paul Martin announced the nation’s first ever national security policy called Securing an Open Society;

– on October 15, 2004, CFR established an Independent Task Force on the Future of North America – for a future continental union;
– in March 2005, a CFR report titled Creating a North American Community called for continental integration by 2010 “to enhance, prosperity, and opportunity for all North Americans;” and

– on March 23, 2005 in Waco, Texas, America, Canada and Mexico leaders launched the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) – aka North American Union (NAU).

Secretive negotiations continue. Legislative debate is excluded, and public inclusion and debate are off the table. In May 2005, the CFR Independent Task Force on the Future of North America published a follow-up report titled Building a North American Community – proposing a borderless three-nation union by 2010.

In June and July 2005, the Dominican Republic – Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) passed the Senate and House establishing corporate-approved trade rules to further impoverish the region and move a step closer to continental integration.

In March 2006, the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) was created at the second SPP summit in Cancun, Mexico. Composed of 30 top North American CEOs, it serves as an official trilateral SPP working group.

Secret business and government meetings continue so there’s no way to confirm SPP’s current status or if Barack Obama is seamlessly continuing George Bush’s agenda. In an earlier article, this writer said:

SPP efforts paused during the Bush to Obama transition, but “deep integration” plans remain. Canada’s Fraser Institute proposed renaming the initiative the North American Standards and Regulatory Area (NASRA) to disguise its real purpose. It said the “SPP brand” is tarnished so re-branding is essential – to fool the public until it’s too late to matter.

Bilderbergers, Trilaterists, and CFR leaders back it as another step toward global integration and won’t “stop until the entire world is unified under the auspices and the political umbrella of a One World Company, a nightmarish borderless world run by the world’s most powerful clique” – comprised of key elitist members of these dominant organizations.

In April 2007, the Transatlantic Economic Council was established between America and the EU to:

– create an “official international governmental body – by executive fiat;

– harmonize economic and regulatory objectives;
– move toward a Transatlantic Common Market; and

– a step closer to One World Government run by the world’s most powerful corporate interests.

Insights into the 2009 Bilderberg Group Meeting

From May 14 – 17, Bilderbergers held their annual meeting in Vouliagmeni, Greece, and according to Daniel Estulin have dire plans for global economies.

According to his pre-meeting sources, they’re divided on two alternatives:

“Either a prolonged, agonizing depression that dooms the world to decades of stagnation, decline and poverty (or) an intense but shorter depression that paves the way for a new sustainable world order, with less sovereignty but more efficiency.”

Other agenda items included:

– “the future of the US dollar and US economy;”

– continued deception about green shoots signaling an end to recession and improving economy later in the year;

– suppressing the fact that bank stress tests were a sham and were designed for deception, not an accurate assessment of major banks’ health;
– projecting headlined US unemployment to hit 14% by year end – way above current forecasts and meaning the true number will be double, at minimum, with all uncounted categories included; and

– a final push to get the Lisbon Treaty passed for pan-European (EU) adoption of neoliberal rules, including greater privatizations, fewer worker rights and social benefits, open border trade favoring developed over emerging states, and greater militarization to suppress civil liberties and human rights.

After the meeting, Estulin got a 73-page report on what was discussed. He noted that “One of Bilderberg’s primary concerns….is the danger that their zeal to reshape the world by engineering chaos (toward) their long term agenda could cause the situation to spiral out of control and eventually lead to a scenario where Bilderberg and the global elite in general are overwhelmed by events and end up losing their control over the planet.”

Estulin also noted some considerable disagreement between “hardliners” wanting a “dramatic decline and a severe, short-term depression (versus others) who think that things have gone too far” so that “the fallout from the global economic cataclysm” can’t be known, may be greater than anticipated, and may harm Bilderberger interests. Also, “some European bankers (expressed great alarm over their own fate and called the current) high wire act ‘unsustainable.’ “

There was a combination of agreement and fear that the situation remains dire and the worst of the crisis lies ahead, mainly because of America’s extreme debt level that must be resolved to produce a healthy, sustainable recovery.

Topics also included:

– establishing a Global Treasury Department and Global Central Bank, possibly partnered with or as part of the IMF;

– a global currency;

– destruction of the dollar through what longtime market analyst Bob Chapman calls “a stealth default on (US) debt by continuing to issue massive amounts of money and credit and in the process devaluing the dollar,” a process he calls “fraud;”

– a global legal system;
– exploiting the Swine Flu scare to create a WHO global department of health; and

– the overall goal of a global government and the end of national sovereignty.

In the past, Estulin’s sources proved accurate. Earlier, he predicted the housing crash and 2007 – 2008 financial market decline, preceded by the kind of financial crisis triggered by the Lehman Brothers collapse. Watch for further updates from him as new information leaks out on what the world’s power elites have planned going forward.

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/daniel-estulins-true-story-of-the-bilderberg-group-and-what-they-may-be-planning-now/

The Financial Storm

Stephen Lendman
Global Research
May 15, 2009

Reviewing Ellen Brown’s “Web of Debt:” Part III

This is the fourth in a series of articles on Ellen Brown’s superb 2007 book titled “Web of Debt,” now updated in a December 2008 third edition. It tells “the shocking truth about our money system, (how it) trapped us in debt, and how we can break free.” This article focuses on America’s “web of debt” entrapment.

The Debt Spider Captures America – American Workers Consigned to Debt Serfdom

America has been trapped for over two centuries, with today’s debt level way exceeding developing nations. Like bankrupt people staying “afloat by making the minimum payment(s) on (their) credit card(s), the government (avoids) bankruptcy by paying just the interest on its monster debt” – now double in size since Brown’s first edition and onerous enough for Controller of the Currency David Walker to warn earlier of its unaffordability by this year. If America can’t service the amount, it’s officially bankrupt and the economy will collapse. If it happens, IMF austerity will follow and turn America into Guatemala. Other vulnerable economies as well – permanent debt bondage and worker serfdom.

Catherine Austin Fitts was a former high-level Wall Street and government insider. She points to a “financial coup d’etat” conspiracy between the two to hollow out America, centralize power and knowledge, shift wealth to the top, destroy communities and local infrastructure, create new wealth by rebuilding them, and leave human wreckage in its wake.

She also calls today’s crisis “a criminal leveraged buyout of America (meaning) buying (the) country for cheap with its own money and then jacking up the rents and fees to steal the rest.” She calls it the “American Tapeworm” model:

It’s “to simply finance the federal deficit through warfare, currency exports, Treasury and federal credit borrowing and cutbacks in domestic ‘discretionary’ spending…This will then place local municipalities and local leadership in a highly vulnerable position – one that will allow them to be persuaded with bogus but high-minded sounding arguments to further cut resources. Then to ‘preserve bond ratings and the rights of creditors,’ our leaders can be persuaded to sell our water, national resources and infrastructure assets at significant discounts of their true value to global investors” – masquerading as a plan to “save America by recapitalizing it on a sound financial footing.”

In fact, it’s to loot the country by shifting wealth offshore and to the top. Also, to destroy the country’s middle class, consign US workers to serfdom, then meet expected civil disobedience with military force, followed by mass internment in over 800 FEMA detention camps in every state.

Today, the rich are getting richer while millions of Americans struggle daily to get by and live perilously from paycheck to paycheck, a mere one away from insolvent disaster.

Given where we’re heading, Warren Buffett warns that America is changing from an “ownership society” to a “sharecroppers’ ” one, no different than feudal serfdom. Economist Paul Krugman calls it “debt peonage,” much like the post-Civil War South that forced debtors to work for their creditors.

Make no mistake, it’s a corporate America scheme for a plentiful reserve army of labor no better off than in developing countries – at low wages, no benefits, weak unions if any, and government engineering the whole scheme. Even personal bankruptcy protection eroded under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection of 2005 – benefitting lenders at the expense of borrowers by keeping them chained to their debts.

It requires many more people “to file under Chapter 13, which does not eliminate debts but mandates that they be repaid under a court-ordered payment schedule over a three to five year period.” Homes, in some cases, may be seized and even owe a “deficiency, or balance due” if its sales price doesn’t cover it. This Act “eroded the protection the government once provided against (various) unexpected catastrophes (like job loss and high medical expenses) ensuring that working people (henceforth) are kept on a treadmill of personal debt.”

Even worse are loopholes in the law letting “very wealthy people and corporations….go bankrupt….and shield(ing) their assets from creditors…” This bill was written at the behest of credit card companies that entrap consumers in debt, charge usurious interest, and demand repayment no matter what besets them. In one respect, debt bondage is worse than slavery. As property, slaves had to be cared for. Debt slaves have to fend for themselves and pay tribute (interest) to their captors.

The Illusion of Home Ownership

In 2004, household home ownership rates were “touted” to be nearly 69%. In fact, only 40% of homes are debt-free, but that percentage fell given the amount of refinancing in recent years. As a result, “most mortgages on single-family properties today are less than four years old” meaning they’re many years away from free and clear ownership.

“The touted increase in home ownership actually means an increase in debt (and) Households today owe more relative to their disposable income than ever before,” although in recent months they’ve been repaying it and saving more.

Earlier, and still now, low “teaser rates” entrapped households in onerous debt, fueling the housing bubble as another Federal Reserve/lender ploy to pump “accounting-entry money into the economy,” set it up for trouble, then let financial predators exploit it for profit. The same strategies for Third World countries are playing out in America with too few people the wiser.

The 19th century “Homestead Laws that gave settlers their own plot of land (cost and debt free) have been largely eroded by 150 years of the ‘business cycle,’ in which bankers have periodically raised interest rates and called in loans, creating successive waves of defaults and foreclosures” – worst of all for subprime and other risky mortgage holders defaulting in record numbers with millions still ahead in what’s playing out as the nation’s worst ever housing crisis showing no signs of ending.

The Perfect Financial Storm

It looms in the form of inflation and deflation given the enormity of newly created money at the same time borrowers can’t repay loans that then default. When that happens, “the money supply contracts and deflation and depression result.”

When the housing market corrected between 1989 – 1991, “median home prices dropped by 17%, and 3.6 million mortgages” defaulted. The equivalent 2005 decline “would have produced 20 million defaults, because the average equity-to-debt ratio….had dropped dramatically” – from 37% in 1990 to 14% in 2005, a record low as a result of equity extracted refinancings.

“What would 20 million defaults do to the money supply?” Two trillion dollars would evaporate or about one-fifth of M3. The fallout would cause huge stock and home value declines, income taxes needing to be tripled, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits halved, and pensions and comfortable retirements gone for the vast majority of workers. And that’s assuming a modest housing price decline when it’s already far more severe and continuing, giving pause to the virtually certain calamity ahead and devastation for the millions affected.

Policy changes in 1979 – 1981 laid the groundwork for today’s crisis by “flood(ing) the housing market with even more new money,” and much more. They let Fannie and Freddie speculate in derivatives and mortgage-backed securities and by so doing assume enormous risk.

In June 2002, writer Richard Freeman warned of the impending dangers in an article titled: “Fannie and Freddie Were Lenders – US Real Estate Bubble Nears Its End.” He cited the largest housing bubble in history made all the greater by Fannie and Freddie manipulation and stated: ….”what started out as a simple home mortgage has been transmogrified into something one would expect to find at a Las Vegas gambling casino. Yet the housing bubble now depends on (highly speculative derivatives as new) sources of funds,” made all the riskier through leverage.

In 2003, Freddie was caught cooking its books to make its financial health look sound. In 2004, Fannie did the same thing. Meanwhile, housing peaked in 2006, then steadily imploded, bringing the economy down with it.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

Derivatives in the Eye of the Cyclone

In November 2006, financial expert and investor safety advocate Martin Weiss called the derivatives crisis:

“a global Vesuvius that could erupt at almost any time, instantly throwing the world’s financial markets into turmoil….bankrupting major banks….sinking big-name insurance companies….scrambling the investments of hedge funds (and) overturning the portfolios of millions of average investors.”

Gary Novak’s web site explains the derivatives crisis as follows: the banking system gridlocked because “pretended assets are fake and fake assets” consumed real ones. Deregulation, beginning in the 1980s, caused the problem. Once eliminated, “funny money became the order of the day (in the form) of very complex vehicles (called) derivatives, which were often made intentionally obscure and confusing.” Even financial experts don’t understand them, and that was the whole idea – to sell junk to the unsuspecting, profit hugely as a result, and let buyers handle the problems.

It was a Ponzi scheme disappearing money “down the derivatives hole.” Holders are now stuck with “pretend” values. They can’t sell and no one will buy. A global liquidity shortage resulted. “The very thing derivatives were designed to create – market liquidity – has been frozen to immobility in a gridlocked game.” Ironically, derivatives are sold as insurance “against something catastrophic going wrong.” The solution is now the problem writ large.

Something gone wrong makes counterparties (on the other side of the bet) “liable to fold their cards,” take losses, “and drop out of the game.”

In May 2005, early signs of a crisis emerged after GM and Ford debt was downgraded to junk. Dire warnings followed of “a derivatives crisis ‘orders of magnitude beyond LTCM” in 1998. To head it off, the Fed and other central banks covertly flooded the market with liquidity by no longer reporting M3 – “the main staple of money supply management and transparent disclosure for the last half-century, the figure on which the world has relied in determining the soundness of the dollar.”

Even worse is that the government isn’t doing it interest and inflation-free. The private Federal Reserve and banks are creating a massive amount of government debt, debasing the currency, and risking a future hyperinflation even though none is around today. When the Fed buys government bonds with newly issued money, they stay in circulation, “become the basis for generating many times their value in new loans; and the result is highly inflationary.”

Catherine Austin Fitts describes an Orwellian (pump and dump) scheme letting “the powers that be steal money by manipulation (then) keep this thing going, but in a way that leads to a highly totalitarian government and economy – corporate feudalism” with workers as serfs. Another observer said: “The only way government can function and maintain control in an economically collapsed state is through a military dictatorship,” where it looks like we’re heading with police state laws enacted and hundreds of concentration camps nationwide to handle expected civil disobedience disruptions once people realized they’ve been had.

Financial Market Rigging

The notion that markets move randomly and reflect investors’ sentiment is rubbish. There’s a “mechanism at work, like the Wizard of Oz behind a curtain, pulling on strings and pushing buttons.” Indeed there is with names.

In 1989, Reagan’s EO 12631 created the Working Group on Financial Markets (WGFM) in response to the 1987 market crash. It’s more commonly known as the Plunge Protection Team (PPT), including the president, Treasury secretary, Fed chairman, SEC chairman, and Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) chairman. Its purpose: to enhance “the integrity, efficiency, orderliness, and competitiveness of our Nation’s financial markets and (maintain) investor confidence.”

The plain truth is that the PPT rigs market performance up or down at Wall Street’s discretion because insiders profit both ways. Money used to manipulate markets is “Monopoly money, funds created from nothing and given for nothing” just to move markets as insiders wish.

In a June 2006 article titled “Plunge Protection or Enormous Hidden Tax Revenues,” Chuck Austin wrote bluntly stating:

“….Today the markets are, without a doubt, manipulated on a daily basis by the PPT. Government controlled ‘front companies’ such as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and many others collect incredible revenues through market manipulation. Much of this money is probably returned to government coffers, however, enormous sums….are undoubtedly skimmed off by participating companies and individuals.”

They’re no different from Mafia crime families but far larger and more profitable. Further, these banks are global crimes syndicates writ large, and, unlike the Mafia, have limitless Fed-supplied funds, free from accountability, investigation, and prosecution.

“The PPT not only cheats investors out of trillions of dollars, it also eliminates competition that refuses to be ‘bought’ through mergers. Very soon now, only global companies and corporations owned and controlled by the NWO (New World Order) elite will exist.” Wall Street giants sit atop that pyramid.

Along with the PPT, the “Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) exists – “authorized by Congress to keep sharp swings in the dollar’s exchange rate from ‘upsetting’ financial markets.” In a word, like the PPT, it operates by rigging markets for insiders, the usual suspects being major Wall Street firms – getting inside information on how to invest or the equivalent of tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal today.

Another organization exists for the same purpose – the so-called Counterparty Risk Management Policy Group (CRMPG), established in 1999 to handle the LTCM crisis and protect against future ones. According to one account, it was “set up to bail out its members from financial difficulty by combining forces to manipulate markets” with US government approval.

One of its devices is for the nation’s giant banks to collude in large-scale program trading, amounting to over half of all daily New York Stock Exchange volume and on some days much more. Knowing which way to bet puts them at odds with smaller firms and ordinary investors, vulnerable to losing out by a scam designed to defraud them – supported, however, by the full faith, credit, and muscle of the government.

But is an eventual day of reckoning coming? Hans Schicht believes so and says:

“In 2003, master spider David Rockefeller was 88 years old, so today,” he’ll be 94 in June. “(W)herever we look, his central command is seen to be fading. Neither is there a capable successor in sight to take over the reigns….Corruption is rife….Rivalry is breaking up the empire.”

“What has been good for Rockefeller, has been a curse for the United States. Its citizens, government and country indebted to the hilt, enslaved to his banks…The country’s industrial force lost to overseas in consequence of strong dollar policies (pursued for bankers not the country….)”

With Rockefeller leaving the scene, sixty years of dollar imperialism (is ending)….The day of financial reckoning is not far off any longer….With Rockefeller’s strong hand losing its grip and the old established order fading, the world has entered a most dangerous transition period, where anything could (and may) happen.”

Consider also the possibility that the “spider” moved to London where a “navy of pirate hedge funds….rule the world out of Cayman Islands” – an “epicenter for globalization and financial warfare” run by “Anglo-Dutch oligarchy” chosen officials allied with major global banks and shadow financial system players.

But even best laid plans at times fail, given how vulnerable even major banks are from their derivatives bets. As gold expert Adrian Douglas observed:

The system is so corrupted that if huge bets go wrong, the giants “have no other choice (than) to manipulate the price of underlying asset prices to prevent financial ruin….Instead of stopping this idiotic sham business from growing to galactic proportions, they’ve let it spin out of control (placing them) all on the hook….(This) sham is coming unglued because the huge excess liquidity (in the system ballooned to) asset bubbles all over the place.”

He concluded that when derivatives buyers catch on to the scam and “quit paying premiums for insurance that doesn’t exist, (they’ll be) a whole new definition of volatility….the financial equivalent of a hurricane Katrina hitting every US city on the same day….When the bubble(s collapse), the banking empire….built on (them) must collapse as well.”

To fend it off, Wall Street and its European partners are using desperate measures, “including a giant derivatives bubble that is jeopardizing the whole shaky system.” In a February 2004 article called “The Coming Storm,” the London Economist warned that “top banks around the world are now massively exposed to high-risk derivatives (posing a systemic) risk of an industry-wide meltdown.”

John Hoefle believes that “the Fed has been quietly rescuing banks ever since. (He) contends that the banking system went bankrupt in the late 1980s, with the collapse of the junk bond market and the real estate bubble.” The S & L crisis was “just the tip of the iceberg.”

The Fed secretly took over Citicorp in 1989,” arranged shotgun mergers for other giant banks, back door bailouts, and “bank examiners were ordered to ignore bad loans. These measures, coupled with a headlong rush into derivatives and other forms of speculation gave banks a veneer of solvency while actually destroying what was left of the US banking system.”

It got in trouble because big gambles failed, including Third World debt defaults as well as Enron and other corporate bankruptcies. Giant US banks “are masters at….counting trillions of dollars of worthless IOUs (like derivatives) on their books at face value (to make it look like they’re) solvent.”

Between 1984 – 2002, takeovers papered over failures by reducing bank numbers nearly in half and consolidating the top seven into three – Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, and Bank of America. According to Hoefle:

“The result of all these mergers is a group of much larger, and far more bankrupt giant banks. (A) similar process played out worldwide.” He added that “zombies have now taken over the asylum” and writer Michael Edward agreed in a 2004 article titled: “Cooking the Books – US Banks Are Giant Casinos (engaging in) smoke and mirror accounting,” then merging with each other to conceal their derivatives losses with “paper asset” bookkeeping. It means that “US banks have become (a giant) Ponzi scheme paying account holders with other account holder assets or deposits” – robbing Peter to pay Paul but promising to end very badly.

Does this “mark the inevitable end times of a Ponzi scheme that is inherently unstable?” Perhaps private banking as well, replaced by pension and mutual funds, and others able to operate efficiently at low cost.

Battling back, giants expanded into investment banking with repeal of Glass-Steagall, but profits continued to fall as the economic downturn accelerated, resulting in investment banks converting to commercial ones and retrenching temporarily from core businesses like M & A and corporate lending. “Meanwhile, banking as a public service has been lost to the all-consuming quest for profits,” the very strategy getting giants in trouble and needing periodic government bailouts.

Very few of their services involve “taking deposits, providing checking services, and making consumer or small business loans.” Instead, they concentrate on “dubious practices” responsible for a giant Ponzi scheme with “the entire economy in its death grip.” They created a “perilous derivatives bubble that has generated billions of dollars in short-term profits but has destroyed the financial system in the process.”

The “too big to fail” concept resulted from the S & L crisis when many of them collapsed and Citibank lost half its value. In 1989, Congress passed the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act, bailing S & Ls out with taxpayer money. It was a brushfire compared to today’s global conflagration, making it far harder to contain and effectively teetering all banks on bankruptcy. Considering the damage they’ve done, it’s time to cut them loose and let them survive or fail on their own. And if the latter, it will be a major step toward restoring economic health overall.

Banking services can more efficiently be provided than by parasites using us as their food source.”The irony is that our economic system is built on an illusion. We have been tricked into believing we are inextricably mired in debt, when the ‘debt’ was for an advance of ‘credit’ that was ours all along.” It’s high time we reclaimed it.

The next article focuses on taking back our money power.

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/the-financial-storm/