Nixon was keenly aware that Kennedy’s battle with powerful internal elements had preceded JFK’s demise. After all, governments everywhere have historically faced the reality that the apparatus of state security might have the chief of state in its gun sights – and that it certainly possesses the ability to act – Russ Baker, from his book, “Family of Secrets – The Bush Dynasty, the Powerful Forces that Put it in the White House, and What their Influence Means for America”.
The Warren Commission conclusion that the assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, was the work of a lone gunman was based in large part on autopsy evidence pertaining to the two bullet wounds that Kennedy received that day. The autopsy evidence was purported to show that the two bullets that caused those wounds were shot from behind the President – that is, from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository, where evidence placed Lee Harvey Oswald at the time of the shooting.
But that autopsy evidence was starkly contradicted by testimony of the doctors and nurses who attempted to save Kennedy’s life at Parkland Memorial Hospital shortly following the shooting.
The Parkland doctors and one nurse characterized the throat wound as an entrance wound – which would mean that the bullet that caused it came from the front, in the general area of the grassy knoll, rather than from the Texas School Book Depository behind the President. The autopsy doctors did not see the throat wound in its original state because it had been surgically obliterated in the effort to save the President’s life.
The fatal head wound was judged to be an exit wound by both the Parkland doctors and the Bethesda autopsy doctors. But the two groups of doctors saw (according to their descriptions) the head wound in a very different location in Kennedy’s head. Assuming it to be an exit wound, as both groups of doctors agreed, if it was located where the Parkland doctors said they saw it (in the back or back-right of the head), that means that the bullet that caused it came from the front. Conversely, an exit wound where the autopsy doctors described it would have been consistent with a bullet from behind.
So that leaves two basic possibilities: Either the Parkland doctors and nurses were way off base in their observations and testimony, or else the President’s wounds were surgically altered prior to the autopsy.
This post is my second of a three part series on the JFK assassination. In this post, based mostly on David Lifton’s book, “Best Evidence – Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy”, I discuss the medical evidence as testified to by the Parkland doctors and nurses, while pointing out some of the major differences between what they said they saw and what the autopsy doctors said they saw. Then in my third and final post on this subject, I’ll discuss additional evidence that the President’s body was surgically altered between the time that it left Parkland Hospital and the time that it arrived in the autopsy room, along with a critique of Vincent Bugliosi’s critique of Lifton’s book.
THE THROAT WOUND
The throat wound was made by the first of the two (or possibly more) bullets that struck Kennedy. It was not the fatal wound.
The physicians who performed the autopsy did not see this wound in its original state, because it was obliterated by one of the Parkland doctors, Dr. Malcolm Perry, when he made a surgical incision over it in order to perform a tracheotomy. Therefore, only the doctors and nurses at Parkland hospital had a view of this wound in its original state.
All of the Parkland doctors and the nurse who offered an opinion on the throat wound characterized it as an entrance wound.
It is also important to note that the “single bullet theory” depends upon the throat wound being an exit wound. That is because the “single bullet theory” alleges that a single bullet hit Kennedy in the back, exited the front of his neck, and then continued on to hit Governor John Connally (sitting in the front seat of the car, in front of Kennedy) in the back, wrist and leg.
Characterization as an entrance wound by the Parkland doctors
Here are the descriptions of the throat wound by the doctors and one nurse at Parkland hospital:
Dr. Malcolm Perry
Lifton describes the initial news accounts of the opinions of the Parkland doctors, particularly Dr. Malcolm Perry:
On November 22, 1963, millions of Americans heard radio and TV networks report that Dr. Malcolm Perry, a Dallas Physician who was with the President in the emergency room when he died, said there was a bullet entrance wound situated on the front of Kennedy’s neck.
Because Perry later changed his mind about the direction of the bullet, after receiving a visit from the Secret Service, and denied what he had originally said, Lifton goes to much effort to document Perry’s initial accounts. Here is some of that documentation:
UPI report at 3:10 p.m. CST on 11-22 (1):
Dr. Malcolm Perry, thirty-four, said “there was an entrance wound below the Adam’s apple.”
Tom Wicker with the New York Times (2):
Dr. Malcolm Perry, an attending surgeon, and Dr. Kemp Clark, chief of neurosurgery at Parkland Hospital, gave more details. Mr. Kennedy was hit by a bullet in the throat, just below the Adam’s apple, they said. This wound had the appearance of a bullet’s entry…
Dallas News reporter John Geddie (3):
Dr. Perry said, “in the lower portion of Kennedy’s neck, right in the front, there was a small puncture.”
Lifton explains why he felt confidant that Perry had not been misquoted, as he later claimed:
Another factor reinforcing my conviction that Dr. Perry had not been misquoted was his reaction to the news that the shots were all fired from a building located behind the motorcade. Faced with that fact, Dr. Perry did not change his opinion about the wound; on the contrary, he simply assumed that President Kennedy was turned toward the rear when the bullet struck… He told the Boston Globe’s medical editor, Herbert Black (4):
“It may have been that the President was looking up or sideways with his head thrown back when the bullet or bullets struck him”.
However, we know from the Zapruder film that the President’s head was in fact facing forward when the fatal bullet struck his head.
Dr. Ronald Jones
In his Warren Commission deposition, Dr. Jones explained why the doctors considered the throat wound to be an entrance wound:
The hole was very small and relatively clean-cut as you would see in a bullet that is entering rather than exiting from a patient. (5)
Many of the doctors initially thought that the throat and head wound were caused by the same bullet, entering through the throat and exiting through the back of the head. Dr. Jones explained to the Warren Commission his initial thoughts:
With no history as to the number of times that the President had been shot or knowing the direction from which he had been shot, and seeing the wound in the midline of the neck (which Jones characterized as an entrance wound in his medical report) and what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull, the only speculation that I could have as … to how this could occur with a single wound (bullet) would be that it would enter the anterior neck and possibly strike a vertebral body and then change its course and exit in the region of the posterior portion of the head… if I accounted for it (both wounds) on the basis of one shot, that would have been the way I (would have) accounted for it. (6)
Dr. Paul Peters
Dr. Peters testified at the Warren Commission Hearings (7):
We saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound, and it is a known fact that high velocity missiles often have a small wound of entrance and a large wound of exit…
Dr. Charles Baxter
Lifton notes that despite Arlen Specter’s aggressive efforts to get the Parkland physicians to equivocate on their characterization of the throat wound, some of them argued back against him. Dr. Baxter, for example, noted that such a wound (to have been an exit wound) would be “unusual… ordinarily there would have been a rather large wound of exit.” (8)
Dr. Charles Carrico
On the afternoon of November 22, Dr. Charles Carrico described the throat wound in his medical report as “a small penetrating wound of the ant. (front) neck in the lower 1/3”. (9)
Nurse Margaret Henchliffe
Margarette Hencliffe testified to the Warren Commission (10):
It was just a little hole in the middle of his neck… about as big around as the end of my little finger… that looked like an entrance bullet hole…
Lifton describes Ms. Henchliffe’s exchange with Arlen Specter:
When asked by Specter if it could “have been an exit bullet hole,” Nurse Henchliffe insisted that she had “never seen an exit bullet hole… that looked like that… It was just a small wound and wasn’t jagged like most of the exit bullet wounds that I have seen…”
Immediately following this exchange, attorney Specter began a series of questions designed to establish that Nurse Henchliffe did not have qualifications to render such an opinion. Nurse Henchliffe answered that her experience was limited to five years in the ER at Parkland Memorial Hospital and, more generally, her twelve years as a registered nurse. “We take care of a lot of bullet wounds down there – I don’t know how many a year,” she testified (11).
Read the rest...
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Israel’s New Land Grab Master Plan by Stephen Lendman
July 24, 2010
The new plan updates older ones, going back to the first, what Israeli historian Ilan Pappe documented in his 2006 book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, on David Ben-Gurion’s Plan D (Dalet in Hebrew), his final master plan following Plans A, B and C, what Palestinians call the Nakba, the catastrophe, commemorated annually to never forget.
By bombarding and besieging villages and population centers, destroying communities, and expelling or killing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, it planned an exclusive Jewish state, excluding Arabs by any means, including mass-murder, dispossession, and persecution, ongoing to this day, what Palestinians heroically resist.
It took six months to complete, expelling or slaughtering about 800,000 people, and destroying 531 villages and 11 urban neighborhoods in Tel-Aviv, Haifa, Jerusalem and other cities. It was barbarous ethnic cleansing, Palestinians shown no mercy, including women and children, yet it was just the beginning, much more yet to come, including new ethnic cleaning plans.
Old and New Master Plans
The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) is an Israeli policy research organization, its president Dore Gold, a notorious right-wing extremist, hostile to democratic principles and Palestinian rights.
It’s recent report is titled "Demography, Geopolitics, and the Future of Israel’s Capital: Jerusalem’s Proposed Master Plan," explaining that on October 7, 2008, the District Planning and Construction Commission for the Jerusalem region proposed one, approved by Mayor Nir Barkat, then revised "to create and preserve a stable Jewish majority in the unified capital," assure the city always stays unified, and follows Ben-Gurion’s idea:
to "bring Jews to eastern Jerusalem at any cost. We must settle tens of thousands of Jews in a brief time. Jews will agree to settle in eastern Jerusalem even in shacks. We cannot await the construction of orderly neighborhoods. The essential thing is that Jews will be there."
In large numbers they’re displacing Palestinians, destroying their homes, seizing their land, and fulfilling Ben-Gurion’s dream to make Israel exclusively Jewish, Jerusalem its capital.
The city’s 1968 Master Plan recommended accelerated Jewish population growth. In 1973, Prime Minister Golda Meir planned to increase it by 3.7% by 1982. Various other plans followed.
Master Plan 2000 aimed to preserve a Jewish majority, its planners apprehensive about Arab population growth. As a result, they proposed "intervention tools" to counter it by:
a sufficient supply of housing by building new neighborhoods and reinforcing and increasing the density of veteran Jewish (ones), as well as adding places of employment and services on a quantitative and qualitative basis.
The June 2009 Arbel Report proposed annexing part of Ramat Rahel, located on a hilltop halfway between Jerusalem’s Old City and Bethlehem, to accommodate a growing Jewish population.
A July 2009 Master Plan for Transportation in Jerusalem revealed 13,300 newly approved housing units and another 15,000 at other stages of planning, suggesting an urgency to complete them and add more based on population growth forecasts.
Planned land seizures weren’t mentioned. However, Jerusalem’s Master Plan 2000 said the following:
"The most severe problem in eastern Jerusalem is the absence of a system to resolve land ownership. This problem, in combination with a deliberate policy by both nationalist and criminal elements, has led to a huge volume of illegal construction (without required permits) on lands that were intended for public purposes and a takeover of privately owned lands…. In order to solve the problem, a special judicial system should be established in the municipality to regulate the registration of land ownership" to assure Jews are preferentially treated.
Jerusalem Master Plan 2010
On June 28, Haaretz writers Akiva Eldar and Nir Hasson headlined, "Jerusalem master plan: Expansion of Jewish enclaves across the city," saying it calls for expanding Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, "a move largely based on construction on privately owned Arab property," meaning Palestinians will be removed to accommodate them.
On July 10, Haaretz writer Don Futterman headlined, "The Jerusalem Master Plan for destruction," saying it plans "to relocate as many Arabs as possible to the margins of the municipal boundaries; to promote overcrowding (in their areas) in the hope (they) will leave the city of their own accord," develop their own neighborhoods, encouraged by "accelerate(d) evictions and house demolitions."
The plan plays into both the settler-led campaign to (de-Arabize) the Old City, and the government’s efforts to make sure Jerusalem will never be the capital of a Palestinian state….
Will it work? Before he died, Edward Said said: "There is no way for Israel to get rid of Palestinians. (They) shar(e) the land that has thrust (them) together (and must do it jointly) in a truly democratic way, with equal rights for (all) citizen(s)," Jews, Arabs, Christians, and others. No master plan will prevent it.
Yet Israel’s new one includes accelerated home demolitions and land seizures, Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein telling the High Court that the government plans to apply the 1950 Absentees’ Property Law (ABL), authorizing the state to seize abandoned properties. At risk are thousands of acres worth billions of dollars, land legally held by Arabs.
Haaretz writer Akiva Eldar said:
"The state intends to assume control over properties of people who moved to 'enemy states’ during the War of Independence (now refugees denied the right of return), as well as structures in East Jerusalem," belonging to West Bank and Gaza residents.
They’ll be used for new Jewish developments besides others underway or planned, sparking protests met with attacks and arrests, a recent Silwan one assaulted with live fire, tear gas, and percussion grenades. One Palestinian lost an eye. A woman miscarriaged from tear gas, another also after her home was invaded.
Five Palestinians were arrested, including a 12-year old child. Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, Secretary General of al-Mubadara Palestinian National Initiative, accused Israel of attempting to Judaize East Jerusalem with "bulldozers, the expansion of the settlement units, (and) changing the demographic composition of the city to favor" Jews over Arabs, the final plan to make Jerusalem exclusively Jewish by any means.
Israel acts ruthlessly, does what it pleases with no regard for the law, internal or external pressure, or the rights and needs of indigenous Palestinians, being systematically removed for Jewish expansion, a Palestinian official saying it’s to "decapitate" East Jerusalem’s Arab identity by building thousands of Jewish-only apartments and homes on Arab-owned land.
They’re being squeezed into narrower spaces, currently confined to about 13% of the city, the rest seized since 1967 when East Jerusalem was occupied. Palestinian Authority (PA) official Ghassan Al-Khatib called it "more than a provocation. It is actually a decapitation of the peace process. (It won’t) withstand the reported plan to expand Jewish settlements in Jerusalem." Others say it’s a prescription for resistance and violence. A recently released blueprint calling for expanding Jewish neighborhoods on privately owned Palestinian land assures it, especially if as widespread as envisioned to Judaize the entire city.
On July 20, the International Middle East Media Center’s Brian Ennis headlined, "Palestinians in East Jerusalem Feeling Abandoned," given the "specter of more housing demolition and (Judaization) of East Jerusalem," the international community doing nothing to prevent it, or help Israeli Arabs — Israel’s Blacks and Latinos, lawlessly persecuted, shamelessly denied their rights.
Targeting Israeli Arabs
On July 20, London Observer writer Harriet Sherwood headlined, "Jaffa’s Arab haven of coexistence resists influx of Israeli hardliners," saying:
Its Ajami neighborhood, south of Tel-Aviv, has seen "every stone and blade of grass" bitterly contested, now "the centre of a struggle that touches on social, religious, nationalist, economic and legal questions and which — whatever the outcome — will inevitably result in further strife."
Until recently, it was one of Israel’s few areas where Jews and Muslims coexisted for decades, though never easily. However, destabilization and strife threatens to erupt if a 20-apartment development is approved, an Israeli High Court ruling imminent, the result of a case brought by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), claiming it discriminates against Arabs and non-religious Jews in favor of Zionist extremists demanding it go ahead to create "a religious community free from non-Jewish and secular influences," their own exclusive gated community.
Historian Sami Abu Shehadeh said if they succeed, "the (neighborhood) will be polarized. (People who) say Jaffa is a model of coexistence will be silenced." Judaization will assure it and encourage more in Israel, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
He called the whole neighborhood "a construction site. We — the Arabs — are being forced out again, but we have nowhere else to go." Building permits aren’t granted, and locals say 500 families have been issued eviction or demolition orders. Others got huge fines. The entire Arab population faces an uncertain future, like other Israeli Arabs, not wanted, denied their rights, and being systematically pressured to make way for Jews.
Another way is a proposed measure requiring they pledge loyalty to a "Jewish and Democratic state," mainly Palestinian men and women who marry Israeli citizens (an estimated 25,000), then seek citizenship on the basis of family reunification, the latter already denied without Interior Ministry approval, for most impossible to get.
On July 19, Jerusalem Post writer Herb Keinon said the measure hadn’t yet passed, contrary to other accounts. He called it a way to "deter Palestinians from asking for citizenship." The government said it’s only for "illegal residents," not Israeli Arabs, but if extremist Yisrael Beitneinu party officials prevail, including David Rotem, Chairman of the Knesset Constitution and Avigdor Lieberman, Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, all Israeli Arabs will have to pledge loyalty to a "Jewish, Zionist, and democratic State," its emblems and values, and perform military or equivalent service as a condition for a national ID card signifying citizenship and right to stay in the country legally.
Final Comments
Palestinians and Israeli Arabs have reason to worry, Haaretz writer Amira Hass providing more evidence in her July 21 article headlined, "IDF destroys West Bank village after declaring it a military zone," saying that the army demolished an entire Jordan Valley village after declaring it within a closed military zone, 55 structures and 120 farmers, workers, and their families left without homes in Farasiya. Earlier the Civil Administration cut off their water, and before that the military destroyed a distribution pipe from a nearby stream, what residents built for irrigation.
Last year, they were prohibited from connecting to wells belonging to Mekorot, Israel’s National Water Company, forcing them to use saltwater for their livestock and buy expensive private water for themselves, what most can’t afford.
B’Tselem photographer Atef Abu, arriving hours after the demolition, said "mattresses, pipes and broken furniture were lying on the ground in the debris."
On July 18, 10 Bardala village families (north of Farasiya) also got demolition orders, a farmer with 300 sheep "told to leave in 24 hours or his herd would be confiscated."
In Israel and throughout the Territories, millions of Palestinians are endangered, their lives and livelihoods threatened by Israel’s longstanding plan to Judaize all "Eretz Yisrael," no matter that indigenous Arabs lived there for centuries and have legal right to their homes and property.
No wonder Haaretz writer Gideon Levy sees Israel "sinking into a strident, nationalistic atmosphere and darkness is beginning to cover everything, (evidenced by) jingoism, ruthlessness and vengeance, (its extremist voices) now expressing its heart," Palestinians feeling the affects, collectively punished for being Muslims under Jewish domination — racist, lawless and merciless, for Levy, a "sign of how we have lost our senses and humanity," for historians, a prescription for self-destruction.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. Contact him at: lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM-1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.
Source
The Israelis Never Fail To Disgust Me
Oldest Palestinian woman in detention subjected to cruel interrogation rounds
RAMALLAH, (PIC)-- Fathiya Suwais, 57, has been subjected to cruel interrogation rounds and severe torture at the hands of Israeli investigators in Jalama detention center ever since her incarceration five days ago, the Ahrar center for prisoners' studies and human rights reported.
Fuad Al-Khafsh, the center's director, said in a press release on Saturday, that the Shabak investigators deprived the old woman from sleep and forced her to stand for long hours while blindfolded and handcuffed without any consideration for her age or health condition.
He said that Suwais, who was taken from her home in Tulkarem city on 19th July, was daily and violently interrogated, adding that the interrogators threatened to arrest her sisters and to keep her in custody if she did not confess to the charges leveled against her.
Khafsh said, "Israel is an unethical entity that does not respect human beings", referring to the detention of an old mother in a small cell and interrogating her over "trivial issues" while threatening her with detaining close relatives, which only point to the sadistic and inhuman nature of those who detain her.
He urged the international institutions and human rights groups to swiftly intervene to protect the detainee.
Souce
Imagine they treated your grandmother this way.
RAMALLAH, (PIC)-- Fathiya Suwais, 57, has been subjected to cruel interrogation rounds and severe torture at the hands of Israeli investigators in Jalama detention center ever since her incarceration five days ago, the Ahrar center for prisoners' studies and human rights reported.
Fuad Al-Khafsh, the center's director, said in a press release on Saturday, that the Shabak investigators deprived the old woman from sleep and forced her to stand for long hours while blindfolded and handcuffed without any consideration for her age or health condition.
He said that Suwais, who was taken from her home in Tulkarem city on 19th July, was daily and violently interrogated, adding that the interrogators threatened to arrest her sisters and to keep her in custody if she did not confess to the charges leveled against her.
Khafsh said, "Israel is an unethical entity that does not respect human beings", referring to the detention of an old mother in a small cell and interrogating her over "trivial issues" while threatening her with detaining close relatives, which only point to the sadistic and inhuman nature of those who detain her.
He urged the international institutions and human rights groups to swiftly intervene to protect the detainee.
Souce
Imagine they treated your grandmother this way.
AIPAC Backed Traitors Okay Israeli Attack On Iran
Republicans in the US House of Representatives have introduced a measure that would green-light a possible Israeli bombing campaign against Iran.
Resolution 1553 provides explicit support for military strikes against Iran, stating that Congress backs Israel's use of 'all means necessary' against Iran, "including the use of military force," BBC Persian reported.
The introduction of the measure coincides with a pattern of renewed calls for military strikes that have escalated since President Obama signed Congressional Iran sanctions into law.
Neoconservatives who were instrumental in orchestrating the Iraq War, such as Bill Kristol and Reuel Marc Gerecht, have led the stepped up calls for military action.
Hawkish former Bush administration official John Bolton recently laid out the game plan to prod Israel into attacking Iran, arguing that outsiders can "create broad support" for a strike by framing it as an issue of Israel's right to self-defense.
Supporters for military strikes, Bolton says, should "defend the specific tactic of pre-emptive attacks" against Iran.
He said that Congress can 'make it clear' that it supports such strikes and that 'having visible congressional support in place at the outset will reassure' Israel.
In spite of support from the neocons, top US military leaders have warned of the many dangers of military strikes against Iran.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has argued "Another war in the Middle East is the last thing we need. In fact, I believe it would be disastrous on a number of levels."
Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has expressed his own serious reservations about an attack on Iran.
The US, which is already providing billions of dollars worth of arms to Israel every year, describes Tel Aviv's military edge in the region as being in America's interest.
Source
Resolution 1553 provides explicit support for military strikes against Iran, stating that Congress backs Israel's use of 'all means necessary' against Iran, "including the use of military force," BBC Persian reported.
The introduction of the measure coincides with a pattern of renewed calls for military strikes that have escalated since President Obama signed Congressional Iran sanctions into law.
Neoconservatives who were instrumental in orchestrating the Iraq War, such as Bill Kristol and Reuel Marc Gerecht, have led the stepped up calls for military action.
Hawkish former Bush administration official John Bolton recently laid out the game plan to prod Israel into attacking Iran, arguing that outsiders can "create broad support" for a strike by framing it as an issue of Israel's right to self-defense.
Supporters for military strikes, Bolton says, should "defend the specific tactic of pre-emptive attacks" against Iran.
He said that Congress can 'make it clear' that it supports such strikes and that 'having visible congressional support in place at the outset will reassure' Israel.
In spite of support from the neocons, top US military leaders have warned of the many dangers of military strikes against Iran.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has argued "Another war in the Middle East is the last thing we need. In fact, I believe it would be disastrous on a number of levels."
Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has expressed his own serious reservations about an attack on Iran.
The US, which is already providing billions of dollars worth of arms to Israel every year, describes Tel Aviv's military edge in the region as being in America's interest.
Source
The US Government is Dying
The US Government is dying. Its ultimate fate was sealed the moment the Federal Reserve Fiat money system was put into place. Like a recreational drug user enjoying that first chemical rush, those who created the federal Reserve luxuriated in the seemingly endless flow of money pouring forth from the Federal Reserve, money used to prolong and consolidate power, money spent without worry in the full knowledge that it was going to be someone else's problem to pay it all back.
But now the US Government is paying the price for that glorious free-spending time of so long ago. Like a recreational drug user now turned hopeless addict, the government has taxed profitable businesses into seeking friendlier homes in other lands, and has turned to looting trust funds and playing bookkeeping games trying to hold off the final collapse...
The U.S. Government is Dying: No longer able to conceal the financial losses, the US Government, like a desperate addict, is turning to crime as a source of funds, crime on a global scale, conquest, war for profit, call it what you will, an invasion and looting of a nation is different from an invasion and looting of a home only in scale.
The US Government has been making bad decisions since at least the 80s. In hindsight, a government composed almost entirely of lawyers should not have been expected to know anything about how to run an economy based on manufacturing. As a result, legislation was passed that encouraged manufacturing to leave this nation. The lawyer/politicians, rather than admit error, tried to conceal this loss by inventing the "service economy", a ridiculous notion that one can prosper a nation by doing each others' laundry for a fee. The service economy did not bring money into the nation, it merely moved what was left around faster, increasing opportunities for taxation. The effect of this was that cash flowed from the people to the government, good for government struggling with a crushing debt load, but bad for the people for the nation, 80% of whom suffered and continue to suffer a steady decline of living standards throughout the 80s, 90s, and into the 21st Century.
Minus the manufacture of actual products, investors flocked to more speculative ventures, many of which turned out to be gigantic stock manipulation swindles.
But rather than address the problems, the government started playing its own bookkeeping games, looting Social Security and claiming it was a budget surplus. Knowing that the stock market was in trouble, the "Plunge Protection Team" was created to use government sanctioned rigging to keep the numbers high, as a political banner, even though such activity made the underlying problem of over-valuation much, much worse.
The loss of manufacturing to other nations meant that Americans had to buy more and more products once made in the USA from companies in other nations. This created the present $1.5 billion a DAY trade deficit. Normally, such a trade imbalance would drive the value of the dollar down, but a devalued dollar makes that portion of the government debt held by foreign interests increase, since the debt is held in the currency of the lending institution.
This was the rock and hard place the US Government found itself in. So deep in debt it cannot even make the interest payments, unable to sell products to generate revenues to pay that debt because manufacturing was taxed into relocating, and a threatened collapse of the dollar that would force a default on the debt and ruin the standard of living Americans had worked so hard to achieve.
From that perspective, a war of conquest to grab oil and to force the conquered nations to use the dollar to keep demand for the dollar high looks like the best option for a bankrupted government.
But is it best for the people?
Let us say for a moment that we do go to war. Let us say we conquer several nations and force them to use the dollar. How does that change life here in the United States? We would still have a totalitarian government deeply in debt. To maintain its legitimacy, that government would still have to shackle you and your children to that debt. We still would not have a tax system conducive to creation of new manufacturing in this country. In other words, even winning the war would not improve our lives. All that would be accomplished after all the blood was shed and the money was spent was that the very same people who got us all into this mess would continue in power.
Let's try the other option. Let's say that the US Government, unable to initiate a war, or starting one but unable to carry it out, watches as the world switches to the Euro, and the over-valued and frankly worthless debt-stricken dollar collapses. The Federal Reserve collapses. The people will not tolerate another "bail out" especially of an institution which has been such a curse on the common man. As the banks and stock markets collapse, the US Government will get dragged down with the whole mess.
But the people will still be here. Those 288 million Americans and their skills, will still be here. And like our Founding Fathers they will simply form a new government, one that starts out free of the huge debts run up by 100 years of reckless spending by the old government, a government made up, not of lawyers, but of teachers, engineers, doctors, the people who KNOW how to make a civilization work. Yes, there will be a time of confusion, as was the case when the USSR collapsed. But as was demonstrated in the new Russia, following that confusion will be a time of opportunity for all the people with the strength and courage to take advantage of it.
Bush wants a war to save the present government. And by supporting his war with our money and the blood of our children, all we buy is more of that same government.
Is it really worth the price?
WRH
But now the US Government is paying the price for that glorious free-spending time of so long ago. Like a recreational drug user now turned hopeless addict, the government has taxed profitable businesses into seeking friendlier homes in other lands, and has turned to looting trust funds and playing bookkeeping games trying to hold off the final collapse...
The U.S. Government is Dying: No longer able to conceal the financial losses, the US Government, like a desperate addict, is turning to crime as a source of funds, crime on a global scale, conquest, war for profit, call it what you will, an invasion and looting of a nation is different from an invasion and looting of a home only in scale.
The US Government has been making bad decisions since at least the 80s. In hindsight, a government composed almost entirely of lawyers should not have been expected to know anything about how to run an economy based on manufacturing. As a result, legislation was passed that encouraged manufacturing to leave this nation. The lawyer/politicians, rather than admit error, tried to conceal this loss by inventing the "service economy", a ridiculous notion that one can prosper a nation by doing each others' laundry for a fee. The service economy did not bring money into the nation, it merely moved what was left around faster, increasing opportunities for taxation. The effect of this was that cash flowed from the people to the government, good for government struggling with a crushing debt load, but bad for the people for the nation, 80% of whom suffered and continue to suffer a steady decline of living standards throughout the 80s, 90s, and into the 21st Century.
Minus the manufacture of actual products, investors flocked to more speculative ventures, many of which turned out to be gigantic stock manipulation swindles.
But rather than address the problems, the government started playing its own bookkeeping games, looting Social Security and claiming it was a budget surplus. Knowing that the stock market was in trouble, the "Plunge Protection Team" was created to use government sanctioned rigging to keep the numbers high, as a political banner, even though such activity made the underlying problem of over-valuation much, much worse.
The loss of manufacturing to other nations meant that Americans had to buy more and more products once made in the USA from companies in other nations. This created the present $1.5 billion a DAY trade deficit. Normally, such a trade imbalance would drive the value of the dollar down, but a devalued dollar makes that portion of the government debt held by foreign interests increase, since the debt is held in the currency of the lending institution.
This was the rock and hard place the US Government found itself in. So deep in debt it cannot even make the interest payments, unable to sell products to generate revenues to pay that debt because manufacturing was taxed into relocating, and a threatened collapse of the dollar that would force a default on the debt and ruin the standard of living Americans had worked so hard to achieve.
From that perspective, a war of conquest to grab oil and to force the conquered nations to use the dollar to keep demand for the dollar high looks like the best option for a bankrupted government.
But is it best for the people?
Let us say for a moment that we do go to war. Let us say we conquer several nations and force them to use the dollar. How does that change life here in the United States? We would still have a totalitarian government deeply in debt. To maintain its legitimacy, that government would still have to shackle you and your children to that debt. We still would not have a tax system conducive to creation of new manufacturing in this country. In other words, even winning the war would not improve our lives. All that would be accomplished after all the blood was shed and the money was spent was that the very same people who got us all into this mess would continue in power.
Let's try the other option. Let's say that the US Government, unable to initiate a war, or starting one but unable to carry it out, watches as the world switches to the Euro, and the over-valued and frankly worthless debt-stricken dollar collapses. The Federal Reserve collapses. The people will not tolerate another "bail out" especially of an institution which has been such a curse on the common man. As the banks and stock markets collapse, the US Government will get dragged down with the whole mess.
But the people will still be here. Those 288 million Americans and their skills, will still be here. And like our Founding Fathers they will simply form a new government, one that starts out free of the huge debts run up by 100 years of reckless spending by the old government, a government made up, not of lawyers, but of teachers, engineers, doctors, the people who KNOW how to make a civilization work. Yes, there will be a time of confusion, as was the case when the USSR collapsed. But as was demonstrated in the new Russia, following that confusion will be a time of opportunity for all the people with the strength and courage to take advantage of it.
Bush wants a war to save the present government. And by supporting his war with our money and the blood of our children, all we buy is more of that same government.
Is it really worth the price?
WRH
Shadow Elite: Selling Out Uncle Sam & Outsourcing American Power
This is the first of a Shadow Elite series, investigating the game-changing effects of government contracting on the most vital government functions.
It’s one of those ideas that might seem sensible at first-glance: retired military officers hired to serve as “senior mentors” to the armed forces. Only on closer inspection are the potential conflicts of interest revealed: the retired officers were paid by contractors, advising on military services even as they were consulting for companies seeking to sell military products, as reported by USA Today. When news of the program came to light, Defense Secretary Robert Gates ordered changes, but the paper reported Tuesday that “senior mentors will not have to disclose their business ties or finances to the public, under a [July 8 Defense] directive…That falls below what [Defense Secretary Gates] initially called for….”
This Pentagon program is not simply an isolated conflict of interest story, or “coincidence of interest”–where players craft roles across organizations to serve their own agendas, instead of those of the organizations for which they supposedly work. It illustrates the perils of a governing landscape that has transformed in recent years: where once federal employees executed most government work, today more than 75 percent of that work, measured in terms of jobs, is contracted out and many of these jobs involve government functions. Many contractors are integrally involved in formulating and influencing policy on issues ranging from defense (as seen in the mentoring program), to the economy and energy to homeland security and intelligence. Even when many, if not most, of these contractors perform admirably, whether contractors always have the public interest at heart, or whether, beholden to shareholders, they might have their own, is a crucial question.
The Washington Post reported this week on the influence of contractors and the unmanageable growth of the intelligence community since 9/11. I also studied this development (in the area of intelligence and beyond) as part of my research for my book Shadow Elite and in a follow-on study (supported by the Ford Foundation), Selling Out Uncle Sam: How the Myth of Small Government Undermines National Security, soon to be released. In addition to interviews with government and contractor officials, I poured through piles of Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports, inspectors general audits,and congressional testimony evaluating the role of contractors in federal agencies. And a key finding that emerges is that information that once was or should be in official hands is being privatized, ceded to government contractors, at a time when government oversight is increasingly overwhelmed and undercut.
When information that is supposedly of and for government is in private hands, it is not just that government often isn’t kept in the loop. The information, and the power that goes with it, can be used to serve private agendas with the risk of corporate and private players influencing policy to suit those agendas. This is far more insidious than simply hiring a contractor to provide food service or even contracting security assistance in a war-zone like Iraq. Contractors are now routinely carrying out what’s known as “inherently governmental functions,” the work so fundamental to the public interest that only federal workers should conduct. The privatization of information is especially dangerous when these core functions are outsourced.
Take the case of the Pentagon senior mentors. Under that program, the selection of mentors, the identity of their defense clients, and the mentors’ pay levels were locked in a black box beyond government and public scrutiny. The latest news suggests that mentors won’t have to disclose financial interests, but even if that changes, and the officers eventually adhere to new ethics regulations, or are hired directly by the Pentagon as part-timers, this will only chip away at the margins of the information deficit. The fact is that, while contributing their invaluable experience, these officers also glean invaluable inside information. It is hard to imagine that they erase what they learn as mentors when they conduct their work as defense industry executives or consultants, and vice-versa.
In the area of the economy, contractors manage – and more – taxpayer stimulus and bailout money, giving them access to should-be government information. With regard to the $700 billion so-called TARP money, the Treasury Department hired several contractors to set up a process to disburse the bailout funds. The government also enlisted money manager BlackRock to help advise and manage the Bear Stearns and AIG rescues. BlackRock also won a bid to help the Federal Reserve evaluate hard-to-price assets of Freddie Mac and Morgan Stanley. The Wall Street Journal said:
BlackRock’s multiple hats put it in the enviable position of having influence on setting the prices of both the assets it is buying and selling.
Another big area of concern is in the outsourcing of information technologies. An estimated upwards of three-quarters of governmental IT was outsourced even before the major Iraq war-related push to contract out. While outsourcing certain IT functions, such as computer network services, may be unproblematic or even desirable, IT often can’t be separated from other mission-critical operations. Contractors often control crucial databases. For instance, in a 2004 Homeland Security mega-contract, Accenture LLP was granted up to $10 billion to supervise and enlarge a mammoth government project to track foreign citizens entering and exiting the U.S.
How did private and corporate interests seize the upper hand from government? A key reason for the information deficit is the sharp decline in the number of government oversight officials, relative to contractors. In theory, contracts and contractors are overseen by government employees. But the number of civil servants who could potentially oversee contractors fell during the Clinton administration and continued to drop during the Bush years. The contracting business boomed under Bush, while what is commonly called the “acquisition work force”–government workers charged with the conceptualization, design, awarding, use, or quality control of contracts and contractors–has remained virtually constant.
The paucity of oversight is the reason large procurement operations are identified by the GAO as “high risk” due to “their greater susceptibility to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement.” It also leaves government officials dangerously in the dark about what’s going on, since contractors frequently control the information. Government officials are often reliant on what the contractors report and recommend, especially when a sole contractor carries out a given program or project (as is often the case).
As a top GAO official, Katherine Schinasi reported that, in many cases, government deciders scarcely supervise the companies on their payrolls. (And routinely, contractors are also hiring and overseeing other contractors.) Nearly a year before the 2003 Iraq combat began, the army reported to Congress that its best guess was that it directly or indirectly employed between 124,000 and 605,000 service contract workers–a discrepancy of half a million workers. And, as the GAO’s director of acquisition and sourcing management reported,
At this point, DOD [the Defense Department] does not know how well its services acquisition processes are working, which part of its mission can best be met through buying services, and whether it is obtaining the services it needs while protecting DOD’s and the taxpayers’ interests.
When contractors have superior information, they have the edge over their government overseers. Disincentives for contractors to share unbiased information are many, ranging from extra work required to the possibility that the information could become available to potential competitors or that it could lead to discovery of contractor activities that might be disapproved. And when officials receive incomplete or skewed information, the public interest easily can be compromised. Even when government officials approve projects and decisions, they sometimes may be merely rubber stamping the work of contractors.
With regard to many arenas of government, government investigators have raised questions about who drives policy–government or contractors?–and whether government has the information, expertise, institutional memory, and personnel to manage contractors. Or is it the other way around?
A few years ago, the Wall Street Journal asked in a headline whether the U.S. government was “outsourcing its brain.” With contractors able to hoard public information, influence policy, and put blinders on government supervision, the unavoidable answer to that question appears to be “yes’. Government that literally doesn’t know what it is doing can scarcely be operating effectively. Moreover, it is vulnerable on all fronts.
Linda Keenan edits the Shadow Elite column.
WarOnYou
It’s one of those ideas that might seem sensible at first-glance: retired military officers hired to serve as “senior mentors” to the armed forces. Only on closer inspection are the potential conflicts of interest revealed: the retired officers were paid by contractors, advising on military services even as they were consulting for companies seeking to sell military products, as reported by USA Today. When news of the program came to light, Defense Secretary Robert Gates ordered changes, but the paper reported Tuesday that “senior mentors will not have to disclose their business ties or finances to the public, under a [July 8 Defense] directive…That falls below what [Defense Secretary Gates] initially called for….”
This Pentagon program is not simply an isolated conflict of interest story, or “coincidence of interest”–where players craft roles across organizations to serve their own agendas, instead of those of the organizations for which they supposedly work. It illustrates the perils of a governing landscape that has transformed in recent years: where once federal employees executed most government work, today more than 75 percent of that work, measured in terms of jobs, is contracted out and many of these jobs involve government functions. Many contractors are integrally involved in formulating and influencing policy on issues ranging from defense (as seen in the mentoring program), to the economy and energy to homeland security and intelligence. Even when many, if not most, of these contractors perform admirably, whether contractors always have the public interest at heart, or whether, beholden to shareholders, they might have their own, is a crucial question.
The Washington Post reported this week on the influence of contractors and the unmanageable growth of the intelligence community since 9/11. I also studied this development (in the area of intelligence and beyond) as part of my research for my book Shadow Elite and in a follow-on study (supported by the Ford Foundation), Selling Out Uncle Sam: How the Myth of Small Government Undermines National Security, soon to be released. In addition to interviews with government and contractor officials, I poured through piles of Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports, inspectors general audits,and congressional testimony evaluating the role of contractors in federal agencies. And a key finding that emerges is that information that once was or should be in official hands is being privatized, ceded to government contractors, at a time when government oversight is increasingly overwhelmed and undercut.
When information that is supposedly of and for government is in private hands, it is not just that government often isn’t kept in the loop. The information, and the power that goes with it, can be used to serve private agendas with the risk of corporate and private players influencing policy to suit those agendas. This is far more insidious than simply hiring a contractor to provide food service or even contracting security assistance in a war-zone like Iraq. Contractors are now routinely carrying out what’s known as “inherently governmental functions,” the work so fundamental to the public interest that only federal workers should conduct. The privatization of information is especially dangerous when these core functions are outsourced.
Take the case of the Pentagon senior mentors. Under that program, the selection of mentors, the identity of their defense clients, and the mentors’ pay levels were locked in a black box beyond government and public scrutiny. The latest news suggests that mentors won’t have to disclose financial interests, but even if that changes, and the officers eventually adhere to new ethics regulations, or are hired directly by the Pentagon as part-timers, this will only chip away at the margins of the information deficit. The fact is that, while contributing their invaluable experience, these officers also glean invaluable inside information. It is hard to imagine that they erase what they learn as mentors when they conduct their work as defense industry executives or consultants, and vice-versa.
In the area of the economy, contractors manage – and more – taxpayer stimulus and bailout money, giving them access to should-be government information. With regard to the $700 billion so-called TARP money, the Treasury Department hired several contractors to set up a process to disburse the bailout funds. The government also enlisted money manager BlackRock to help advise and manage the Bear Stearns and AIG rescues. BlackRock also won a bid to help the Federal Reserve evaluate hard-to-price assets of Freddie Mac and Morgan Stanley. The Wall Street Journal said:
BlackRock’s multiple hats put it in the enviable position of having influence on setting the prices of both the assets it is buying and selling.
Another big area of concern is in the outsourcing of information technologies. An estimated upwards of three-quarters of governmental IT was outsourced even before the major Iraq war-related push to contract out. While outsourcing certain IT functions, such as computer network services, may be unproblematic or even desirable, IT often can’t be separated from other mission-critical operations. Contractors often control crucial databases. For instance, in a 2004 Homeland Security mega-contract, Accenture LLP was granted up to $10 billion to supervise and enlarge a mammoth government project to track foreign citizens entering and exiting the U.S.
How did private and corporate interests seize the upper hand from government? A key reason for the information deficit is the sharp decline in the number of government oversight officials, relative to contractors. In theory, contracts and contractors are overseen by government employees. But the number of civil servants who could potentially oversee contractors fell during the Clinton administration and continued to drop during the Bush years. The contracting business boomed under Bush, while what is commonly called the “acquisition work force”–government workers charged with the conceptualization, design, awarding, use, or quality control of contracts and contractors–has remained virtually constant.
The paucity of oversight is the reason large procurement operations are identified by the GAO as “high risk” due to “their greater susceptibility to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement.” It also leaves government officials dangerously in the dark about what’s going on, since contractors frequently control the information. Government officials are often reliant on what the contractors report and recommend, especially when a sole contractor carries out a given program or project (as is often the case).
As a top GAO official, Katherine Schinasi reported that, in many cases, government deciders scarcely supervise the companies on their payrolls. (And routinely, contractors are also hiring and overseeing other contractors.) Nearly a year before the 2003 Iraq combat began, the army reported to Congress that its best guess was that it directly or indirectly employed between 124,000 and 605,000 service contract workers–a discrepancy of half a million workers. And, as the GAO’s director of acquisition and sourcing management reported,
At this point, DOD [the Defense Department] does not know how well its services acquisition processes are working, which part of its mission can best be met through buying services, and whether it is obtaining the services it needs while protecting DOD’s and the taxpayers’ interests.
When contractors have superior information, they have the edge over their government overseers. Disincentives for contractors to share unbiased information are many, ranging from extra work required to the possibility that the information could become available to potential competitors or that it could lead to discovery of contractor activities that might be disapproved. And when officials receive incomplete or skewed information, the public interest easily can be compromised. Even when government officials approve projects and decisions, they sometimes may be merely rubber stamping the work of contractors.
With regard to many arenas of government, government investigators have raised questions about who drives policy–government or contractors?–and whether government has the information, expertise, institutional memory, and personnel to manage contractors. Or is it the other way around?
A few years ago, the Wall Street Journal asked in a headline whether the U.S. government was “outsourcing its brain.” With contractors able to hoard public information, influence policy, and put blinders on government supervision, the unavoidable answer to that question appears to be “yes’. Government that literally doesn’t know what it is doing can scarcely be operating effectively. Moreover, it is vulnerable on all fronts.
Linda Keenan edits the Shadow Elite column.
WarOnYou
Pentagon workers tied to child porn
WASHINGTON — Federal investigators have identified several dozen Pentagon officials and contractors with high-level security clearances who allegedly purchased and downloaded child pornography, including an undisclosed number who used their government computers to obtain the illegal material, according to investigative reports.
The investigations have included employees of the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency — which deal with some of the most sensitive work in intelligence and defense — among other organizations within the Defense Department.
The number of offenders is a small percentage of the thousands of people working for sensitive Pentagon-related agencies. But the fact that offenders include people with access to government secrets puts national security agencies “at risk of blackmail, bribery, and threats, especially since these individuals typically have access to military installations,’’ according to one report by the Defense Criminal Investigative Service from late 2009.
Some of the individuals have been prosecuted and other cases have been dropped, while more have languished several years without resolution, according to the previously undisclosed documents about the investigations.
The more than 50 pages, compiled by the investigative service, part of the Pentagon’s Inspector General’s Office, contain summaries of investigations initiated since 2002, including some cases that remain open.
The uneven discipline reflects difficulties in bringing prosecutions, according to specialists. The evidentiary standards are high for prosecution in child pornography cases, according to child welfare specialists, including positively identifying victims as underage or known victims of abuse. In others, evidence was lost or misplaced and investigators said they lacked sufficient resources to complete all of them.
Gary Comerford, a spokesman for the Pentagon’s Inspector General, said the agency takes such cases very seriously but said he could not comment on individual investigations.
Many of those apprehended were swept up in a much broader probe initiated by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency in 2006. Operation Flicker identified an estimated 5,000 people who had paid money over the Internet to access websites operated overseas. But until now, it has not been disclosed that a sizable number of cases were referred to the Defense Department for investigation because they involved military personnel, intelligence officials, or defense contractors.
The investigative documents were provided to the Globe by a government official after they were approved for public release.
The exact numbers of cases involving Defense Department personnel were not contained in the reports and officials at DCIS could not immediately provide statistics. But the official reports indicate that more than 30 government employees were investigated.
Purchasing child pornography is a crime; accessing it on a government computer is also a violation of laws governing the misuse of government property.
At least two of the cases were contractors with top secret clearances at the National Security Agency, which eavesdrops on foreign communications, according to the documents. When one of the contractors was indicted two years ago, he fled the country and is believed to be hiding in Libya, according to a summary of the investigation from last year. The other was sentenced in 2008 to more than five years in prison and lifetime probation.
Continued...
Osama: Dead or Alive?
By: Yasmeen Ali
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on her recent visit to Pakistan that she believed Osama bin Laden was still in Pakistan, in a television interview between high-level talks in Islamabad.
“I believe (bin Laden) is here in Pakistan and it would be very helpful if we could take them (al-Qaeda leaders),” Clinton said. The US secretary of state sought tougher action from Islamabad to combat militants ahead of a key conference in Afghanistan.
The information that Osama Bin Laden is dead, first came from sources in Afghanistan and Pakistan many years ago,the fugitive died in December [2001] and was buried in the mountains of southeast Afghanistan.
With an ego the size of Mount Everest, Osama bin Laden would not have, could not have, remained silent for so long if he were still alive. He always liked to take credit even for things he had nothing to do with. Would he remain silent for nine months and not trumpet his own survival? [New York Times. July 11, 2002]. Bin Laden has often been reported to be in poor health. Some accounts claim that he is suffering from Hepatitis C, and can expect to live for only two more years. According to Le Figaro, lin [2000] he ordered a mobile dialysis machine to be delivered to his base at Kandahar in Afghanistan. [Guardian]. FBI: Bin Laden ‘probably’ dead; The US Federal Bureau of Investigation’s counter-terrorism chief, Dale Watson, says he thinks Osama bin Laden is “probably” dead. [BBC]. The editor-in-chief of a London-based Arab news magazine said a purported will it published in the year [2001] by Osama bin Laden, and shows “he’s dying or he’s going to die soon.” [CNN]. Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader. “The Coalition troops are engaged in a mad search operation but they would never be able to fulfill their cherished goal of getting Usama alive or dead,” the source said. [FOX News].
Yet, Secretary Clinton, has decided, to claim, that not only Osama Bin Laden is alive and kicking, but in Pakistan. Yet, Secretary Clinton gives no proof as to why, suddenly, she thinks he is alive. If there are clues, they must surely be shared with Pakistan for them to not only ascertain the veracity of the claim but to help them “find” Osama.
Secretary Clinton is in a position where irresponsible statements can be ill afforded.
Many claim, this desire to revive Osama is to justify the continuation of the War on Terrorism. Gordon Duff, Senior Editor Veteran News, USA, in a recent article states,” Has the United States established exactly what its strategic interests are in the region? Oil is flowing freely as is heroin. Money is flowing into the region by the plane load and back out, into banks in Dubai, Tel Aviv and Switzerland. Is $500 billion a year being spent to defend Israel from invasion by, well, we aren’t sure? What is being spent to secure Israel, or empower Israeli recklessness, is nearly one third of America’s entire budget. Wouldn’t it simply be cheaper to give Israel the United States or do they own it already? “
The Pakistani public is wary of these statements, as issued by Secretary Clinton, and are widely interpreted as self serving and nothing to do with ground realities.
Pakistan is a country that has suffered tremendously in this War on Terror. If America has a genuine appreciation of the sacrifices made by Pakistan, she should make an effort to solve the issues being faced by Pakistan. One of the foremost is to intercede and stop India from violating the 1960 Indus Water Treaty. To this, Secretary Clinton has given her flat denial.
The West needs to review its arrogant policies followed in this part of the world. They need to answer some questions: what has been the ratio of suicide attempts since the invasion of Afghanistan? How sharply have the terrorist attacks risen since then? How many US soldiers have actually been killed on ground as compared to the soldiers, civilians: women, old people and children from other side of the fence?
At the end of the day, what political and military victory has USA achieved by attacking and invading Afghanistan? USA is once again contemplating reaching an understanding with the Taliban in Afghanistan. So what were these eight years all about? Or is, Gordon Duff, right after all?
Source
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on her recent visit to Pakistan that she believed Osama bin Laden was still in Pakistan, in a television interview between high-level talks in Islamabad.
“I believe (bin Laden) is here in Pakistan and it would be very helpful if we could take them (al-Qaeda leaders),” Clinton said. The US secretary of state sought tougher action from Islamabad to combat militants ahead of a key conference in Afghanistan.
The information that Osama Bin Laden is dead, first came from sources in Afghanistan and Pakistan many years ago,the fugitive died in December [2001] and was buried in the mountains of southeast Afghanistan.
With an ego the size of Mount Everest, Osama bin Laden would not have, could not have, remained silent for so long if he were still alive. He always liked to take credit even for things he had nothing to do with. Would he remain silent for nine months and not trumpet his own survival? [New York Times. July 11, 2002]. Bin Laden has often been reported to be in poor health. Some accounts claim that he is suffering from Hepatitis C, and can expect to live for only two more years. According to Le Figaro, lin [2000] he ordered a mobile dialysis machine to be delivered to his base at Kandahar in Afghanistan. [Guardian]. FBI: Bin Laden ‘probably’ dead; The US Federal Bureau of Investigation’s counter-terrorism chief, Dale Watson, says he thinks Osama bin Laden is “probably” dead. [BBC]. The editor-in-chief of a London-based Arab news magazine said a purported will it published in the year [2001] by Osama bin Laden, and shows “he’s dying or he’s going to die soon.” [CNN]. Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader. “The Coalition troops are engaged in a mad search operation but they would never be able to fulfill their cherished goal of getting Usama alive or dead,” the source said. [FOX News].
Yet, Secretary Clinton, has decided, to claim, that not only Osama Bin Laden is alive and kicking, but in Pakistan. Yet, Secretary Clinton gives no proof as to why, suddenly, she thinks he is alive. If there are clues, they must surely be shared with Pakistan for them to not only ascertain the veracity of the claim but to help them “find” Osama.
Secretary Clinton is in a position where irresponsible statements can be ill afforded.
Many claim, this desire to revive Osama is to justify the continuation of the War on Terrorism. Gordon Duff, Senior Editor Veteran News, USA, in a recent article states,” Has the United States established exactly what its strategic interests are in the region? Oil is flowing freely as is heroin. Money is flowing into the region by the plane load and back out, into banks in Dubai, Tel Aviv and Switzerland. Is $500 billion a year being spent to defend Israel from invasion by, well, we aren’t sure? What is being spent to secure Israel, or empower Israeli recklessness, is nearly one third of America’s entire budget. Wouldn’t it simply be cheaper to give Israel the United States or do they own it already? “
The Pakistani public is wary of these statements, as issued by Secretary Clinton, and are widely interpreted as self serving and nothing to do with ground realities.
Pakistan is a country that has suffered tremendously in this War on Terror. If America has a genuine appreciation of the sacrifices made by Pakistan, she should make an effort to solve the issues being faced by Pakistan. One of the foremost is to intercede and stop India from violating the 1960 Indus Water Treaty. To this, Secretary Clinton has given her flat denial.
The West needs to review its arrogant policies followed in this part of the world. They need to answer some questions: what has been the ratio of suicide attempts since the invasion of Afghanistan? How sharply have the terrorist attacks risen since then? How many US soldiers have actually been killed on ground as compared to the soldiers, civilians: women, old people and children from other side of the fence?
At the end of the day, what political and military victory has USA achieved by attacking and invading Afghanistan? USA is once again contemplating reaching an understanding with the Taliban in Afghanistan. So what were these eight years all about? Or is, Gordon Duff, right after all?
Source
Friday, July 23, 2010
BP Coverup and the Criminal Pursuit of Profit: Deepwater Horizon Workers knew of Problems before Explosion
by Josué Olmos
Two internal Transocean reports obtained by The New York Times shed further light on the criminal negligence of both BP and Transocean in the lead-up to the April 20 explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, which killed 11 workers and set off one of the most devastating environmental catastrophes in human history.
The reports reveal that Deepwter Horizon workers were well aware of mechanical and safety problems aboard the rig, but they feared reprisal should they speak out. The documents also strongly indicate that BP and Transocean knowingly disregarded basic safety and maintenance.
The first, a 33-page report, details confidential surveys of at least 40 workers aboard the rig, carried out by a third party and commissioned by Transocean, the owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig. The surveys, conducted from March 12-16—just one month before the blowout—reveal serious concerns among workers about safety procedures and the reliability of rig equipment.
According to the Times, workers told surveyors that they “often saw unsafe behaviors on the rig” and that “company plans were not carried out properly.” Some workers raised concerns that “drilling priorities [took] precedence over planned maintenance” and that this had resulted in poor equipment reliability. Another worker said that the rig had not been to dry dock, where it would go to receive thorough maintenance, in the nine years of its existence.
The investigators also documented workers’ fears of reprisals from executives on the mainland, who were said to consistently use “fear tactics” when workers reported “risky” situations. The Times notes the reports showed that “only about half of the workers interviewed said they felt they could report actions leading to a potentially ‘risky’ situation without reprisal.”
Additionally, workers indicated that they often falsified data to be entered into the safety system known as START (See, Think, Act, Reinforce, Track) because “nearly everyone” viewed the system as “counter-productive.” START is an example of the sort of self-regulation pushed for decades by industry and politicians alike.
The second report, a 112-page equipment assessment also commissioned by Transocean, verified the workers’ concerns. The Times notes that the report stated that at least 26 components and systems on the rig were in “bad” or “poor” condition. Additionally, the Times notes, “many key components—including the blowout preventer rams and failsafe valves—had not been fully inspected since 2000, even though guidelines require inspection of the preventer every three to five years.”
The equipment assessment also revealed other mechanical problems that may have been directly related to the April 20 accident. At least one of the rig’s mud pumps was said by investigators to be in “bad condition.”
Experts have speculated that a lack of mud weight used to seal the exploratory well played a role in the blowout. Even in the last hours before the disaster, BP and Transocean officials aboard the rig had argued over the question of replacing drilling mud with much lighter salt water, which experts have criticized as particularly risky. (See “BP had prior warning of Deepwater Horizon blowout”)
Investigators also noted that the rig’s ballast system, which helps to ensure the stability of the ship, was impaired. Numerous other equipment problems are detailed in the reports.
Lou Colasuonno, a spokesman for Transocean, responded to the Times revelations in an email to the AP, stating that most of the 26 components said to have been in “bad” or “poor” condition in the released reports were minor.
Colasuonno flatly denied the revelation that maintenance was disregarded, claiming that all maintenance had been carried out according to the original manufacturer specifications. “A fair reading of those detailed third-party reviews indicates clearly that while certain areas could be enhanced, overall rig maintenance met or exceeded regulatory and industry standards,” he argued.
That the oil rig’s maintenance met or exceeded government regulatory standards does not at all indicate that the Deepwater Horizon was safe. Indeed, it has been the decades-long gutting of industry regulation under both Republican and Democratic administration that set the stage for the disaster.
In 2007, under the Bush administration, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) carried out three studies of the potential environmental impact of deep sea drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, including one that pertained specifically to the area where the Deepwater Horizon was ultimately deployed. The MMS’s results, largely dictated by BP, determined that a “deepwater spill” would not reach the coast and would not exceed 4,600 barrels.
In April 2009 the Obama administration granted BP a special exemption from a legal requirement that it produce a detailed environmental impact study on the possible effects of its Deepwater Horizon drilling operation. (See “Obama sheltered BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig from regulatory requirement”)
The newly revealed reports add to an overwhelming body of evidence that demonstrates the Deepwater Horizon blowout was caused by the criminal pursuit of profit.
Global Research
Two internal Transocean reports obtained by The New York Times shed further light on the criminal negligence of both BP and Transocean in the lead-up to the April 20 explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, which killed 11 workers and set off one of the most devastating environmental catastrophes in human history.
The reports reveal that Deepwter Horizon workers were well aware of mechanical and safety problems aboard the rig, but they feared reprisal should they speak out. The documents also strongly indicate that BP and Transocean knowingly disregarded basic safety and maintenance.
The first, a 33-page report, details confidential surveys of at least 40 workers aboard the rig, carried out by a third party and commissioned by Transocean, the owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig. The surveys, conducted from March 12-16—just one month before the blowout—reveal serious concerns among workers about safety procedures and the reliability of rig equipment.
According to the Times, workers told surveyors that they “often saw unsafe behaviors on the rig” and that “company plans were not carried out properly.” Some workers raised concerns that “drilling priorities [took] precedence over planned maintenance” and that this had resulted in poor equipment reliability. Another worker said that the rig had not been to dry dock, where it would go to receive thorough maintenance, in the nine years of its existence.
The investigators also documented workers’ fears of reprisals from executives on the mainland, who were said to consistently use “fear tactics” when workers reported “risky” situations. The Times notes the reports showed that “only about half of the workers interviewed said they felt they could report actions leading to a potentially ‘risky’ situation without reprisal.”
Additionally, workers indicated that they often falsified data to be entered into the safety system known as START (See, Think, Act, Reinforce, Track) because “nearly everyone” viewed the system as “counter-productive.” START is an example of the sort of self-regulation pushed for decades by industry and politicians alike.
The second report, a 112-page equipment assessment also commissioned by Transocean, verified the workers’ concerns. The Times notes that the report stated that at least 26 components and systems on the rig were in “bad” or “poor” condition. Additionally, the Times notes, “many key components—including the blowout preventer rams and failsafe valves—had not been fully inspected since 2000, even though guidelines require inspection of the preventer every three to five years.”
The equipment assessment also revealed other mechanical problems that may have been directly related to the April 20 accident. At least one of the rig’s mud pumps was said by investigators to be in “bad condition.”
Experts have speculated that a lack of mud weight used to seal the exploratory well played a role in the blowout. Even in the last hours before the disaster, BP and Transocean officials aboard the rig had argued over the question of replacing drilling mud with much lighter salt water, which experts have criticized as particularly risky. (See “BP had prior warning of Deepwater Horizon blowout”)
Investigators also noted that the rig’s ballast system, which helps to ensure the stability of the ship, was impaired. Numerous other equipment problems are detailed in the reports.
Lou Colasuonno, a spokesman for Transocean, responded to the Times revelations in an email to the AP, stating that most of the 26 components said to have been in “bad” or “poor” condition in the released reports were minor.
Colasuonno flatly denied the revelation that maintenance was disregarded, claiming that all maintenance had been carried out according to the original manufacturer specifications. “A fair reading of those detailed third-party reviews indicates clearly that while certain areas could be enhanced, overall rig maintenance met or exceeded regulatory and industry standards,” he argued.
That the oil rig’s maintenance met or exceeded government regulatory standards does not at all indicate that the Deepwater Horizon was safe. Indeed, it has been the decades-long gutting of industry regulation under both Republican and Democratic administration that set the stage for the disaster.
In 2007, under the Bush administration, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) carried out three studies of the potential environmental impact of deep sea drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, including one that pertained specifically to the area where the Deepwater Horizon was ultimately deployed. The MMS’s results, largely dictated by BP, determined that a “deepwater spill” would not reach the coast and would not exceed 4,600 barrels.
In April 2009 the Obama administration granted BP a special exemption from a legal requirement that it produce a detailed environmental impact study on the possible effects of its Deepwater Horizon drilling operation. (See “Obama sheltered BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig from regulatory requirement”)
The newly revealed reports add to an overwhelming body of evidence that demonstrates the Deepwater Horizon blowout was caused by the criminal pursuit of profit.
Global Research
No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority
I.
The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is:
It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any right or power, to bind their "posterity" to live under it. It does not say that their "posterity" will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquillity, liberty, etc.
Suppose an agreement were entered into, in this form:
We, the people of Boston, agree to maintain a fort on Governor's Island, to protect ourselves and our posterity against invasion.
This agreement, as an agreement, would clearly bind nobody but the people then existing. Secondly, it would assert no right, power, or disposition, on their part, to compel their "posterity" to maintain such a fort. It would only indicate that the supposed welfare of their posterity was one of the motives that induced the original parties to enter into the agreement.
When a man says he is building a house for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of binding them, nor is it to be inferred that he is so foolish as to imagine that he has any right or power to bind them, to live in it. So far as they are concerned, he only means to be understood as saying that his hopes and motives, in building it, are that they, or at least some of them, may find it for their happiness to live in it.
So when a man says he is planting a tree for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of compelling them, nor is it to be inferred that he is such a simpleton as to imagine that he has any right or power to compel them, to eat the fruit. So far as they are concerned, he only means to say that his hopes and motives, in planting the tree, are that its fruit may be agreeable to them.
So it was with those who originally adopted the Constitution. Whatever may have been their personal intentions, the legal meaning of their language, so far as their "posterity" was concerned, simply was, that their hopes and motives, in entering into the agreement, were that it might prove useful and acceptable to their posterity; that it might promote their union, safety, tranquillity, and welfare; and that it might tend "to secure to them the blessings of liberty." The language does not assert nor at all imply, any right, power, or disposition, on the part of the original parties to the agreement, to compel their "posterity" to live under it. If they had intended to bind their posterity to live under it, they should have said that their objective was, not "to secure to them the blessings of liberty," but to make slaves of them; for if their "posterity" are bound to live under it, they are nothing less than the slaves of their foolish, tyrannical, and dead grandfathers.
It cannot be said that the Constitution formed "the people of the United States," for all time, into a corporation. It does not speak of "the people" as a corporation, but as individuals. A corporation does not describe itself as "we," nor as "people," nor as "ourselves." Nor does a corporation, in legal language, have any "posterity." It supposes itself to have, and speaks of itself as having, perpetual existence, as a single individuality.
Moreover, no body of men, existing at any one time, have the power to create a perpetual corporation. A corporation can become practically perpetual only by the voluntary accession of new members, as the old ones die off. But for this voluntary accession of new members, the corporation necessarily dies with the death of those who originally composed it.
Legally speaking, therefore, there is, in the Constitution, nothing that professes or attempts to bind the "posterity" of those who established it.
If, then, those who established the Constitution, had no power to bind, and did not attempt to bind, their posterity, the question arises, whether their posterity have bound themselves. If they have done so, they can have done so in only one or both of these two ways, viz., by voting, and paying taxes.
Read More...
The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is:
We, the people of the United States (that is, the people then existing in the United States), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any right or power, to bind their "posterity" to live under it. It does not say that their "posterity" will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquillity, liberty, etc.
Suppose an agreement were entered into, in this form:
We, the people of Boston, agree to maintain a fort on Governor's Island, to protect ourselves and our posterity against invasion.
This agreement, as an agreement, would clearly bind nobody but the people then existing. Secondly, it would assert no right, power, or disposition, on their part, to compel their "posterity" to maintain such a fort. It would only indicate that the supposed welfare of their posterity was one of the motives that induced the original parties to enter into the agreement.
When a man says he is building a house for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of binding them, nor is it to be inferred that he is so foolish as to imagine that he has any right or power to bind them, to live in it. So far as they are concerned, he only means to be understood as saying that his hopes and motives, in building it, are that they, or at least some of them, may find it for their happiness to live in it.
So when a man says he is planting a tree for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of compelling them, nor is it to be inferred that he is such a simpleton as to imagine that he has any right or power to compel them, to eat the fruit. So far as they are concerned, he only means to say that his hopes and motives, in planting the tree, are that its fruit may be agreeable to them.
So it was with those who originally adopted the Constitution. Whatever may have been their personal intentions, the legal meaning of their language, so far as their "posterity" was concerned, simply was, that their hopes and motives, in entering into the agreement, were that it might prove useful and acceptable to their posterity; that it might promote their union, safety, tranquillity, and welfare; and that it might tend "to secure to them the blessings of liberty." The language does not assert nor at all imply, any right, power, or disposition, on the part of the original parties to the agreement, to compel their "posterity" to live under it. If they had intended to bind their posterity to live under it, they should have said that their objective was, not "to secure to them the blessings of liberty," but to make slaves of them; for if their "posterity" are bound to live under it, they are nothing less than the slaves of their foolish, tyrannical, and dead grandfathers.
It cannot be said that the Constitution formed "the people of the United States," for all time, into a corporation. It does not speak of "the people" as a corporation, but as individuals. A corporation does not describe itself as "we," nor as "people," nor as "ourselves." Nor does a corporation, in legal language, have any "posterity." It supposes itself to have, and speaks of itself as having, perpetual existence, as a single individuality.
Moreover, no body of men, existing at any one time, have the power to create a perpetual corporation. A corporation can become practically perpetual only by the voluntary accession of new members, as the old ones die off. But for this voluntary accession of new members, the corporation necessarily dies with the death of those who originally composed it.
Legally speaking, therefore, there is, in the Constitution, nothing that professes or attempts to bind the "posterity" of those who established it.
If, then, those who established the Constitution, had no power to bind, and did not attempt to bind, their posterity, the question arises, whether their posterity have bound themselves. If they have done so, they can have done so in only one or both of these two ways, viz., by voting, and paying taxes.
Read More...
New World Order or Occult Secret Destiny?
by Terry Melanson
The New Age Movement and Service to The Plan
The New World Order as envisioned by the Elite is hardly a recent undertaking. Theirs is a philosophy rooted in ancient occult traditions. Success is near, and the infiltration of society by New Age occultism is the reason for this success. The New World Order has never been solely about world government, rather, from the beginning its proponents have been privy to secret doctrines and it is a spiritual plan more than anything.
If one failed to take into account the occult nature of the New World Order, they would be remiss. The UN and the New Age have been bed-fellows since the beginning. America's secret destiny is the product of Rosicrucian and Freemason forefathers. The New Atlantis as proposed in Francis Bacon's work is almost at hand. The Ancient Mysteries are being studied for illumination and enlightenment by the New World Order's elite. Not to mention the New Age gurus — dutifully recruiting on behalf of the Secret Brotherhood.
In 1980, Marylin Ferguson compiled and espoused a synthesis involving the theories of transformation and the secret plan of the Aquarian Age. In her studies of the scientific advancements of this age involving entropy and syntropy, holism, holographs, paradigm shifts, the uncertainty principle and evolution, she discovered that, "for the first time an American renaissance is taking place in all disciplines, breaking the boundaries between them, transforming them at their farthest reaches—where they all converge." (The Aquarian Conspiracy, p.12)
Speaking of the networks and web of influence, Ferguson proclaimed: "There are legions of conspirators... in corporations, universities, hospitals, on the faculties of public schools, in factories, in doctors' offices, in state and federal agencies, on city councils and the White House staff, in state organizations, in virtually all arenas of policy making in the country [U.S.]...[including] at the cabinet level of the United States Government." (ibid. p.24) However, other New Age proponents said that this is innacurate, in that she had understated the influence of the New Age worldwide, especially in the UN and the EEC.
It is no coincidence that America has become the center of New Age and New World Order conspiracies. The Theosophical and Rosicrucian traditions hold that every nation has a spiritual destiny guided by a hierarchy of beings using all ethical (or un-ethical) means of manifesting the "divine plan" through the will of the nation's leaders.
A proponent of the New Age and the Secret Brotherhood's plan for a New World Order is Robert Hieronimus. In his book America's Secret Destiny, he traced the spiritual vision of America's founding fathers and the plan's eventual fruition in what we call the New World Order and the New Age Movement (both of which are synonymous). He stresses that the founding fathers of America had the equivalent of "Masters" and were pupils in a sense, much like today's powerful Elite have Masters and Gurus, following the teachings of the Great Plan.
Another writer, from the opposite camp, confirms the assertions of Hieronimus. Willy Peterson writes:
These people are called the torchbearers or lightbearers of the New World Order. A spiritual plan that has been traced to the time of Nimrod and the Tower of Babel, up through to the Illuminati and onwards. "A loosely-knit world conspiracy," David Allen Lewis writes, "a so called Network of Illuminists." "Whether the Illuminati has one special organization that is its orginal descendant... we can be very sure that its philosophical torchbearers are represented by literally hundreds of organizations and individuals in many diverse realms." (Dark Angels of Light)
A Blueprint For Destiny
Robert Heironomus says that "America's Great Seal may be seen as a blueprint for the elevation of consciousness. It says, in part, that we must transform ourselves before we can change the world, and that it is during the process of self-transformation that we can catch a glimpse of what part we are to play in national and global transformation."
The mandala of the New World Order and Illuminati control. "Annuit Coeptis—He has Blessed our Beginning", "Novus Ordo Seclorum—New Order of the Ages". The All-Seeing Eye of Horus, the resurrected Egyptian Sun God, biblically refered to as Lucifer, the angel of light.
In occult doctrine it is thought that "from the union of spirit and matter (the pyramid is made of stone, rock, and earth—and represents the unconscious. The capstone is made of an immaterial substance—light or spirit—and is conscious), a new being—a transformed being—is created. The seal's reverse depicts a separation state in the separation of the eye the triangle."
"The pyramid exemplifies the initiation stage,... it is the house of initiation, in which the candidate confronts the world of darkness and enters the world of spirit. By passing the tests of the elements, the candidate is initiated into the realm of higher consciousness." (Hieronimus ibid., p.92) After succesfully completing the initiation process, the candidate is reborn, and joins the single eye in the pyramid.
The New World Order, or rather the philosophy its deliverers hold to be true, is one and the same as the New Age ideal of man's divinity and self-transformation. In order to partake in this gnostic fufillment of "The Great Plan" one must awaken to the original sin of Lucifer, as proposed to Eve in the Garden of Eden, that "we can be as Gods." (Gen. 3:5) So it is not suprising to find that Christians, specifically, are cited as the main obstacle hindering the success of this New Age-New World Order.
The reason for this, is the New Age belief in many "saviors" and "enlightened teachers", masters and gurus—it's all good and fine when the goal is the false teaching of man's divinity. The New Agers see many ways to salvation; Christians proclaim that there is only one Way - Jesus Christ. "For the gate is small, and narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it." (Matt. 7:14) The Bible states that this is in reality the "broad way that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter it." (Matt. 7:13) Therefore, the only religion not compatible with The New Age, and hence the coming New World Order, is the belief and strict adherence in the Word God – with traditional Christianity being looked upon as particularly pernicious.
In Dark Secrets of the New Age, Texe Marrs wrote:
The Guardians of the Mysteries
Freemasonry, by its own accord, practices the ancient mysteries of Egypt, and has as a primary goal, the re-instatement of this mystery religion for the coming World Order.
Back in 1927, Freemason W.L. Wilmhurst saw the dawning of the Aquarian Age as the fufillment of the "Plan". In The Meaning of Masonry, p.4, he writes:
He would be well proud, I'm sure, of today's mainstream acceptance of those very same occult mysteries. Another passage on page 46-47, proves the teaching of Freemasonry is the same as New Age beliefs:
Freemasonry, through its mysteries, will soon usher in a New World Religion for the New World Order. A modern day Tower of Babel and the ultimate unification of the world's religions. The New Age welcomes these goals and looks to the "light" of Masonry as its esoteric basis for occult initiation into the New World Order. Benjamin Creme writes:
Freemason and co-founder of Lucifer Publishing Company (now called Lucis Trust), Foster Bailey, concurs, "Is it not possible from a contemplation of this side of Masonic teaching that it may provide all that is necessary for the formulation of a universal religion?"(The Spirit of Masonry, p.113) Foster Bailey states that Masonry "is the descendant of, or is founded upon, a divinely imparted religion..." This religion he explains, "...was the first United World Religion. Then came the era of separation of many religions and sectarianism. Today we are working again towards a World Universal Religion." (ibid p.31)
To biblical students these are shocking admissions and it adds fuel to the charge of a Masonic Antichrist in our midst. "It is these Mysteries which Christ will restore upon His reapearance," Alice Bailey reveals, "thus reviving the churches in a new form, and restoring the hidden Mystery." (The Reappearance of the Christ, p. 122) Bailey is giving these "revelations" by her channeled Master Djwhal Khul — a disembodied "Ascended Master". Her "Christ" is indeed the Antichrist in the strictest sense of the word. Antichrist means substitute for or in place of Christ. She goes on to say that "These ancient Mysteries were originally given to humanity by the Hierarchy [of which Djwhal Khul is a part of] and contain the entire clue to the evolutionary process, hidden in numbers, in ritual, in words and in symbology; these veil the secret of man's origin and destiny, picturing to him in rite and ritual, the long, long path which he must tread, back into the light." (ibid, p.121-22)
So what do we have here?
Source
The New Age Movement and Service to The Plan
The New World Order as envisioned by the Elite is hardly a recent undertaking. Theirs is a philosophy rooted in ancient occult traditions. Success is near, and the infiltration of society by New Age occultism is the reason for this success. The New World Order has never been solely about world government, rather, from the beginning its proponents have been privy to secret doctrines and it is a spiritual plan more than anything.
If one failed to take into account the occult nature of the New World Order, they would be remiss. The UN and the New Age have been bed-fellows since the beginning. America's secret destiny is the product of Rosicrucian and Freemason forefathers. The New Atlantis as proposed in Francis Bacon's work is almost at hand. The Ancient Mysteries are being studied for illumination and enlightenment by the New World Order's elite. Not to mention the New Age gurus — dutifully recruiting on behalf of the Secret Brotherhood.
In 1980, Marylin Ferguson compiled and espoused a synthesis involving the theories of transformation and the secret plan of the Aquarian Age. In her studies of the scientific advancements of this age involving entropy and syntropy, holism, holographs, paradigm shifts, the uncertainty principle and evolution, she discovered that, "for the first time an American renaissance is taking place in all disciplines, breaking the boundaries between them, transforming them at their farthest reaches—where they all converge." (The Aquarian Conspiracy, p.12)
Speaking of the networks and web of influence, Ferguson proclaimed: "There are legions of conspirators... in corporations, universities, hospitals, on the faculties of public schools, in factories, in doctors' offices, in state and federal agencies, on city councils and the White House staff, in state organizations, in virtually all arenas of policy making in the country [U.S.]...[including] at the cabinet level of the United States Government." (ibid. p.24) However, other New Age proponents said that this is innacurate, in that she had understated the influence of the New Age worldwide, especially in the UN and the EEC.
It is no coincidence that America has become the center of New Age and New World Order conspiracies. The Theosophical and Rosicrucian traditions hold that every nation has a spiritual destiny guided by a hierarchy of beings using all ethical (or un-ethical) means of manifesting the "divine plan" through the will of the nation's leaders.
A proponent of the New Age and the Secret Brotherhood's plan for a New World Order is Robert Hieronimus. In his book America's Secret Destiny, he traced the spiritual vision of America's founding fathers and the plan's eventual fruition in what we call the New World Order and the New Age Movement (both of which are synonymous). He stresses that the founding fathers of America had the equivalent of "Masters" and were pupils in a sense, much like today's powerful Elite have Masters and Gurus, following the teachings of the Great Plan.
According to the Rosicrucians and Theosophists, supporting the divine plan are great beings refered to as masters of the physical and spiritual planes. The evolution of America owes much to the seed thoughts of four masters—Kuthumi, El Morya, Rogoczy, and Djwhal Khul. Some of the founders of America may have been consciously or unconsciously students of these teachers, just as some contemporary Americans are pupils of these masters. In fact, the motto of the heirarchy of world teachers is identical with America's destiny—the brotherhood of man and the Fatherhood of God. (p. 95)
Another writer, from the opposite camp, confirms the assertions of Hieronimus. Willy Peterson writes:
In order to reach their aims of world unity and thus engage the whole world in service to the Plan, "enlightened" Freemasons and New Agers have been pushing for collectivist motifs that promote monistic pantheism and unity. This is why the chief instigators to the globalist League of Nations and the United Nations have been Theosophists, trying to work out the plan. This is why the verbiage and aims at the U.N. is for world peace and brotherhood. It is a spiritual undertaking in a secular world. Lucis Trust has had three think-tanks located at the U.N. Plaza in New York for around fifty years. No wonder the former Assistant Secretary General to the U.N., Robert Muller, is a devoted disciple of Alice Bailey, whose book, A Treatise on White Magic, forms the basis for the Robert Muller schools. (The Leavening)
These people are called the torchbearers or lightbearers of the New World Order. A spiritual plan that has been traced to the time of Nimrod and the Tower of Babel, up through to the Illuminati and onwards. "A loosely-knit world conspiracy," David Allen Lewis writes, "a so called Network of Illuminists." "Whether the Illuminati has one special organization that is its orginal descendant... we can be very sure that its philosophical torchbearers are represented by literally hundreds of organizations and individuals in many diverse realms." (Dark Angels of Light)
A Blueprint For Destiny
Robert Heironomus says that "America's Great Seal may be seen as a blueprint for the elevation of consciousness. It says, in part, that we must transform ourselves before we can change the world, and that it is during the process of self-transformation that we can catch a glimpse of what part we are to play in national and global transformation."
The mandala of the New World Order and Illuminati control. "Annuit Coeptis—He has Blessed our Beginning", "Novus Ordo Seclorum—New Order of the Ages". The All-Seeing Eye of Horus, the resurrected Egyptian Sun God, biblically refered to as Lucifer, the angel of light.
In occult doctrine it is thought that "from the union of spirit and matter (the pyramid is made of stone, rock, and earth—and represents the unconscious. The capstone is made of an immaterial substance—light or spirit—and is conscious), a new being—a transformed being—is created. The seal's reverse depicts a separation state in the separation of the eye the triangle."
"The pyramid exemplifies the initiation stage,... it is the house of initiation, in which the candidate confronts the world of darkness and enters the world of spirit. By passing the tests of the elements, the candidate is initiated into the realm of higher consciousness." (Hieronimus ibid., p.92) After succesfully completing the initiation process, the candidate is reborn, and joins the single eye in the pyramid.
The New World Order, or rather the philosophy its deliverers hold to be true, is one and the same as the New Age ideal of man's divinity and self-transformation. In order to partake in this gnostic fufillment of "The Great Plan" one must awaken to the original sin of Lucifer, as proposed to Eve in the Garden of Eden, that "we can be as Gods." (Gen. 3:5) So it is not suprising to find that Christians, specifically, are cited as the main obstacle hindering the success of this New Age-New World Order.
The reason for this, is the New Age belief in many "saviors" and "enlightened teachers", masters and gurus—it's all good and fine when the goal is the false teaching of man's divinity. The New Agers see many ways to salvation; Christians proclaim that there is only one Way - Jesus Christ. "For the gate is small, and narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it." (Matt. 7:14) The Bible states that this is in reality the "broad way that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter it." (Matt. 7:13) Therefore, the only religion not compatible with The New Age, and hence the coming New World Order, is the belief and strict adherence in the Word God – with traditional Christianity being looked upon as particularly pernicious.
In Dark Secrets of the New Age, Texe Marrs wrote:
The New Age is a universal open-arms religion that excludes from its ranks only those who believe in Jesus Christ and a Personal God. Buddhists, Shintoist, Satanists, Secular Humanists, witches, witch doctors and shamans — All who reject Christianity are invited to become trusted members of the New Age family. Worshippers of separate faiths and denominations are to be unified in a common purpose: THE GLORIFICATION OF MAN.
The Guardians of the Mysteries
Freemasonry, by its own accord, practices the ancient mysteries of Egypt, and has as a primary goal, the re-instatement of this mystery religion for the coming World Order.
“The magical mystery religion of Ancient Egypt exercised a great fascination over Renaissance man, which was incorporated into—the newly formed—Lodges at that time. The mysterious heiroglyphs were considered to be symbols of hidden knowledge. Symbols and gestures became a means of conveying secrets and "truths". The cosmos was seen as an organic unity. It was peopled by a hierarchy of spirits which exercised all kinds of influences and sympathies. The practice of magic became a holy quest.”
- Michael Rogge, New Age Spirituality: The roots of the New Age Movement Part I
Back in 1927, Freemason W.L. Wilmhurst saw the dawning of the Aquarian Age as the fufillment of the "Plan". In The Meaning of Masonry, p.4, he writes:
In this new Aquarian age, when many individuals and groups are working in various ways for the eventual restoration of the mysteries, an increasing number of aspirants are beginning to recognize that Freemasonry may well be the vehicle for this achievement
He would be well proud, I'm sure, of today's mainstream acceptance of those very same occult mysteries. Another passage on page 46-47, proves the teaching of Freemasonry is the same as New Age beliefs:
He begins his Masonic career as the natural man; he ends it by becoming through its discipline, a regenerated man... This the evolution of man into superman—was always the purpose of the ancient Mysteries, and the real purpose of modern Masonry is, not the social and charitable purposes to which so much attention is paid, but the expediting of the spiritual evolution of those who aspire to perfect their own nature and transform it into a more god-like quality.
Freemasonry, through its mysteries, will soon usher in a New World Religion for the New World Order. A modern day Tower of Babel and the ultimate unification of the world's religions. The New Age welcomes these goals and looks to the "light" of Masonry as its esoteric basis for occult initiation into the New World Order. Benjamin Creme writes:
“The New Religion will manifest, for instance,through organizations like Masonry. In Freemasonry is embedded the core or the secret heart of the occult mysteries, wrapped up on number, metaphor and symbol ...”
- The Reappearance of the Christ and the Masters of Wisdom, p.87
Freemason and co-founder of Lucifer Publishing Company (now called Lucis Trust), Foster Bailey, concurs, "Is it not possible from a contemplation of this side of Masonic teaching that it may provide all that is necessary for the formulation of a universal religion?"(The Spirit of Masonry, p.113) Foster Bailey states that Masonry "is the descendant of, or is founded upon, a divinely imparted religion..." This religion he explains, "...was the first United World Religion. Then came the era of separation of many religions and sectarianism. Today we are working again towards a World Universal Religion." (ibid p.31)
To biblical students these are shocking admissions and it adds fuel to the charge of a Masonic Antichrist in our midst. "It is these Mysteries which Christ will restore upon His reapearance," Alice Bailey reveals, "thus reviving the churches in a new form, and restoring the hidden Mystery." (The Reappearance of the Christ, p. 122) Bailey is giving these "revelations" by her channeled Master Djwhal Khul — a disembodied "Ascended Master". Her "Christ" is indeed the Antichrist in the strictest sense of the word. Antichrist means substitute for or in place of Christ. She goes on to say that "These ancient Mysteries were originally given to humanity by the Hierarchy [of which Djwhal Khul is a part of] and contain the entire clue to the evolutionary process, hidden in numbers, in ritual, in words and in symbology; these veil the secret of man's origin and destiny, picturing to him in rite and ritual, the long, long path which he must tread, back into the light." (ibid, p.121-22)
So what do we have here?
- The New Age tells its disciples that they are working for the Hierarchy.
- The teachings of the New Age are giving by the Hierarchy.
- The movement for the installement of the Antichrist is giving the go-ahead by the Hierarchy — Djwhal Khul's number one message for New Age disciples is "prepare men for the reappearance of the Christ. This is your first duty." (The Externalization of the Hierarchy, p.614)
- The Ancient Mysteries, being practiced by both Freemasonry and the New Age, were giving to humanity by the Hierarchy.
- The real purpose of Masonry — taught to man, from the Hierarchy — is the expediting of the spiritual evolution, to transform their nature into a god-like superman.
- The Serpent caused the Fall in the Garden of Eden by giving Eve this very same message.
“Man is a god in the making. And as the mystic myths of Egypt, on the potter's wheel, he is being molded. When his light shines out to lift and preserve all things, he receives the triple crown of godhood.”
- Manly P. Hall, The Lost Keys of Freemasonry, p. 92
“European mysticism was not dead at the time the United States of America was founded. The hand of the mysteries controlled in the establishment of the new government for the signature of the mysteries may still be seen on the Great Seal of the United states of America. Careful analysis of the seal discloses a mass of occult and masonic symbols chief among them, the so-called American Eagle. ... the American eagle upon the Great Seal is but a conventionalised phoenix ...”
“Not only were many of the founders of the United States government Masons, but they received aid from a secret and august body existing in Europe which helped them to establish this country for A PECULIAR AND PARTICULAR PURPOSE known only to the intiated few.”
- Manly P. Hall, The Secret Teachings of All Ages, pp. XC and XCI
Source
JFK's Secret Societies Speech
The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:
I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.
You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.
You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.
We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."
But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.
If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.
I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.
It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.
Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.
Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.
If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.
On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.
It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.
My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.
I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.
This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
I
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.
Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.
The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.
On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.
I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.
And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.
Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.
II
It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.
No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.
I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.
III
It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.
And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.
Censored Gulf news: People bleeding internally, millions poisoned says 'EPA whistleblower'
"...we have dolphins that are hemorrhaging. People who work near it are hemorrhaging internally. And that’s what dispersants are supposed to do... Congressman Markey and Nadler, as well as Senator Mikulski, have been heroes... Mark Kaufman, EPA whistleblower, Democracy Now!
Poisoning millions of people
In its report, EPA Whistleblower Accuses Agency of Covering Up Effects of Dispersant in BP Oil Spill Cleanup, Democracy Now! states that "many lawmakers and advocacy groups say the Obama administration is not being candid about the lethal effects of dispersants," so Amy Goodman interviewed Hugh Kaufman, a senior policy analyst at the EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and a leading critic of the decision to use Corexit" who disclosed how the officials are lying about many things related to the catastrophe poisoning "millions of people." (Listen: Real Audio Strea or MP3 Download)
The rushed transcript includes Kaufman saying, "And I think the media now has to follow the money, just as they did in Watergate, and tell the American people who’s getting money for poisoning the millions of people in the Gulf. (Emphasis added)
"While concerns over the impact of chemical dispersants continue to grow, Gulf Coast residents are outraged by a recent announcement that the $20 billion government-administered claim fund will subtract money cleanup workers earn by working for the cleanup effort from any future claims.
The "Vessels of Opportunity" program has employed hundreds of Gulf Coast out of work people because of the spill which Kaufman says is viewed as yest another way "to limit the number of lawsuits against BP."
"And the government—both EPA, NOAA, etc.—have been sock puppets for BP in this cover-up. (Emphasis added)
Kaufman concurs with MSNBC's report last week, that "sole purpose in the Gulf for dispersants is to keep a cover-up going for BP to try to hide the volume of oil that has been released and save them hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars of fines... not to protect the public health or environment. Quite the opposite.."
He says to follow the money, and that leads to individuals in the Obama Administration, naming Mr. Geithner, Mr. Summers with close ties to Larry Fink who owns BlackRock that owns most BP shares.
He commented on the children being poisoned:
"...you know, when you’re on the sand with your children and they dig, and there’s a little water?—they documented there was over 200 parts per million of oil waste in the water, and it’s not noticeable to the human eye... On top of it, the contamination in one of the samples was so high that when they put the solvent in, as a first step in identifying how much oil may be in the water, the thing blew up, just as he said, probably because there was too much Corexit in that particular sample."
When Goodman asked Kaufman to comment on the similarities between the Ground Zero of the Gulf catastrophe and what happened at Ground Zero of 911, he explained that he did the ombudsman investigation on Ground Zero, "where EPA made false statements about the safety of the air" ... since proven to be false.
Read More...
Poisoning millions of people
In its report, EPA Whistleblower Accuses Agency of Covering Up Effects of Dispersant in BP Oil Spill Cleanup, Democracy Now! states that "many lawmakers and advocacy groups say the Obama administration is not being candid about the lethal effects of dispersants," so Amy Goodman interviewed Hugh Kaufman, a senior policy analyst at the EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and a leading critic of the decision to use Corexit" who disclosed how the officials are lying about many things related to the catastrophe poisoning "millions of people." (Listen: Real Audio Strea or MP3 Download)
The rushed transcript includes Kaufman saying, "And I think the media now has to follow the money, just as they did in Watergate, and tell the American people who’s getting money for poisoning the millions of people in the Gulf. (Emphasis added)
"While concerns over the impact of chemical dispersants continue to grow, Gulf Coast residents are outraged by a recent announcement that the $20 billion government-administered claim fund will subtract money cleanup workers earn by working for the cleanup effort from any future claims.
The "Vessels of Opportunity" program has employed hundreds of Gulf Coast out of work people because of the spill which Kaufman says is viewed as yest another way "to limit the number of lawsuits against BP."
"And the government—both EPA, NOAA, etc.—have been sock puppets for BP in this cover-up. (Emphasis added)
Kaufman concurs with MSNBC's report last week, that "sole purpose in the Gulf for dispersants is to keep a cover-up going for BP to try to hide the volume of oil that has been released and save them hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars of fines... not to protect the public health or environment. Quite the opposite.."
He says to follow the money, and that leads to individuals in the Obama Administration, naming Mr. Geithner, Mr. Summers with close ties to Larry Fink who owns BlackRock that owns most BP shares.
He commented on the children being poisoned:
"...you know, when you’re on the sand with your children and they dig, and there’s a little water?—they documented there was over 200 parts per million of oil waste in the water, and it’s not noticeable to the human eye... On top of it, the contamination in one of the samples was so high that when they put the solvent in, as a first step in identifying how much oil may be in the water, the thing blew up, just as he said, probably because there was too much Corexit in that particular sample."
When Goodman asked Kaufman to comment on the similarities between the Ground Zero of the Gulf catastrophe and what happened at Ground Zero of 911, he explained that he did the ombudsman investigation on Ground Zero, "where EPA made false statements about the safety of the air" ... since proven to be false.
Read More...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)