[The following article by "Ken" of the website www.basicfraud.com argues that former British colonies, Australia, New Zealand and Canada never actually achieved independence. World government is an extension of the "British Empire" and independence would have been a step in the wrong direction. So they faked it]
Their "elected Government and entire Judicial Systems are totally unlawful, fraudulent and invalid...This has enormous ramifications when considering International Treaties entered into by the these Governments, any political appointments, the banking laws, the whole Court System, taxation, just to name a few, have NO legitimacy and are totally null and void."
"The governments participating in this fraudulent cover up, do not want the general public to know the true situation, as it is part of their overall hidden agenda to manipulate and control the citizens of these countries.
"Also consider the global ramifications against Queen Elizabeth II and the Royal Family who have knowingly participated greatly in this massive fraud.
"Regarding the New World Order, are then the UN Treaties signed by these Countries valid, as they are not Nations??"
Aloysius Fozdyke, senior member of the satanic Alpha Lodge of Sydney, which controls the Australian government, wants to "make contact with [Ken] as he obviously has special knowledge."
Aloysius continues: "The people behind the website are irritants, that's all. We've already destroyed them. There is not a journalist in the world who will publish their boring material. Shortly their website will cease to exist. Accidents happen! Indeed, sometime ago I was attempting to lure journalists, checking the water temperature, so to speak. No one was interested then or now. QEII is controlled by our people; as is her system."]
Here is a new article from the people at www.basicfraud.com
If the British ship of State is the Titanic, it's about to hit its iceberg. Like all icebergs this one has a tip, but the reality of its size and destructive capacity remains largely hidden.
The Great War (1914-1918) left more than 15 millions dead. The exact number and that of the wounded, virgin soldiers or the broken families and spoiled lives is unknown. Many things are lost to history.
Towards the end of the War, To End All Wars, the British made a calculated decision to cut their colonies adrift. Officially, 103 000 from New Zealand engaged in the war. 16 697 died and 41 3176 were wounded. A 58% casualty rate. A rough guess is that Canada lost 67 000 with 173 000 wounded. From an Australian population of fewer than five million, 416,809 men enlisted, of which over 60,000 were killed and 156,000 wounded, gassed, or taken prisoner.
Because American President, Woodrow Wilson was pushing for an international body to try to prevent future bloodbaths and because it looked increasingly like he'd get his way, the British government decided to grant its Dominions full freedom, independence and sovereignty. That way Canada, New Zealand and Australia amongst other counties now given their independence, would each get a vote on the international body which became the League of Nations. They would vote with Mother Britain. And they did.
The problem remains that Britain's former colonies were left in a legal and political No Man's Land. Of course, there are many who doubt this, but the doubters do not include various governments or professors of law at the Universities of Lausanne, Paris (the Sorbonne), the Humboldt, Trinity College in Dublin, the Italian University of La Sapienza (Rome), the Complutense de Madrid (Spain), the British universities of Cambridge and London or the American universities of Stanford, Cornell, California (Berkley) and Harvard.
This by no means is a complete list. The Japanese and Chinese governments are well aware of the issues. For these reasons there will be no anti-whaling case brought by the Australian government in the International Court of Justice. For these reasons if you are using an Australian, Canadian or New Zealand passport and you run into trouble outside of a (British) Commonwealth country, Good Luck! Think about Stern Hu or Peter Bethune.
If the governments of Britain, Canada, Australia or New Zealand make a nuisance of themselves, they can and are easily quietened down by a threat to publish the contents of www.basicfraud.com
Even the Iranian government knows about the issues, together with Sri Lanka and the Union of Myanmar. Even the government of Fiji knows! So why don't you? So much for a free, independent and robust media!
One interesting detail - amongst many - that isn't included on the basicfraud website is the fact that a Commission for a Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia was forged by then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw.
This is easily provable by the fact that Jack used an out of date Royal Seal and the public record clearly shows that Queen Elizabeth II wasn't anywhere near the place of signing as is specified upon the face of the document! Is the media interested? Do they understand the consequences of this breach of the provisions of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act, 1981 (UK)?
The facts are that politics in a representative democracy is neither representative nor democratic; it is smoke and mirrors. In 2001 Australians celebrated their 'Centenary of Federation'. Why didn't they celebrate their 'Centenary of Independence'?
On 30th June 1997, Hong Kong was a colony of the United Kingdom. It had a monarch - Queen Elizabeth II, a Governor - Christopher Pattern, a Chief Secretary - Sir Joseph Ford, a constitution, a 60 member Legislative Council and Letters Patent from the monarch. All Bills required the assent of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and the Queen's Representative - the Governor.
On 1st July 1997, Hong Kong was NO longer a colony of the United Kingdom. It no longer had a monarch - Elizabeth II, a Governor - Christopher Pattern, a Chief Secretary - Sir Joseph Ford, a constitution, a 60 member Legislative Council or Letters Patent from the monarch. Bills no longer required the assent of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom or the Queen's Representative - the Governor.
On 9th January 1920, the Commonwealth of Australia was a self-governing Dominion or Colony of the United Kingdom. It had a monarch - King George V, a Governor General, six governors, six State Parliaments, one Federal Parliament, a constitution and Letters Patent from the monarch to the governors and the Governor General. All Bills required the assent of the Governor in the case of a State or the Governor General in the case of the Commonwealth, plus the assent of the monarch.
On 10th January 1920, Australia was NO longer a Dominion or Colony of the United Kingdom. In 2010, Australia STILL has a monarch - Elizabeth II, six governors, six State Parliaments, one Federal Parliament, a constitution and Letters Patent to the six governors and the Governor General from the monarch. All Bills require the assent of the Governor in the case of a State or the Governor General in the case of the Commonwealth plus the assent of the monarch.
China and Australia were Member States of the League of Nations which became part of international law on 10th January 1920. Their sovereign nation status was guaranteed under Article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp
China and Australia are Member States of the United Nations - an organisation which became part of international law on 26th June 1945.
The League of Nations was terminated in 1946. China's and Australia's sovereign nation status are guaranteed by Article 2 paragraphs 1 and 4 of the Charter of the United Nations. www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml
Everyone of average intelligence knows the above is true or can easily verify it. Even Australian politicians, judges, lawyers and members of the Legal Academe all agree the above is 100% historically accurate and Australia has been an independent sovereign nation for most of the twentieth century. Same with Canada and New Zealand!
How can Australian Law, State and Federal be dependent upon the current validity of British laws in Australian sovereign territory? The Australian High Court stated in 1988, "Despite the historic link with the British Crown, the United Kingdom was still a foreign power". www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1988/22.html
The British Government states their laws are not valid in Australia. The chief law officer of the Office of Legal Affairs of the Secretary General of the United Nations states "British Laws are not valid in Australia after Australian independence on 10th January 1920". Who then says they are? You guessed it - Australian politicians and their minions! So Who do you believe?
www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/republic/subs/sub61.pdf
Our information - not all of which is available via the Internet - could bring down the New World Order - so if you are or know an above average journalist please have them contact us. We promise them the story that will define their career and for which they'll be remembered. Contact us please via our email address: webform@basicfraud.com
Source
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Let Us All Solemnly Praise Wikileaks
Arthur Silber
July 26, 2010
We properly should offer recognition and honor to the great heroism of the people at Wikileaks:
We properly should offer recognition and honor to the great heroism of the people at Wikileaks:
A huge cache of secret US military files today provides a devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan, revealing how coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents, Taliban attacks have soared and Nato commanders fear neighbouring Pakistan and Iran are fuelling the insurgency.
The disclosures come from more than 90,000 records of incidents and intelligence reports about the conflict obtained by the whistleblowers' website Wikileaks in one of the biggest leaks in US military history. The files, which were made available to the Guardian, the New York Times and the German weekly Der Spiegel, give a blow-by-blow account of the fighting over the last six years, which has so far cost the lives of more than 320 British and more than 1,000 US troops.
The leaders of America's Death State reacted in the manner typical of imperial murderers:
In a statement, the White House said the chaotic picture painted by the logs was the result of "under-resourcing" under Obama's predecessor, saying: "It is important to note that the time period reflected in the documents is January 2004 to December 2009."
The White House also criticised the publication of the files by Wikileaks: "We strongly condemn the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organisations, which puts the lives of the US and partner service members at risk and threatens our national security. Wikileaks made no effort to contact the US government about these documents, which may contain information that endanger the lives of Americans, our partners, and local populations who co-operate with us."
On the first point -- the White House contention that these failures were "the result of 'under-resourcing'" and that everything is different now, under the wise leadership of Obama: this is complete, and completely evil, bullshit.
It is bullshit because, to begin with, Obama's "new" strategy is not "new" in any significant respect at all. See two articles for the details: "A Deadly Liar and Manipulator," and "Wherein We Gaze Into Our Inerrant Crystal Ball and Espy A Deadly Rat."
It is also bullshit because Obama's "surge" strategy in Afghanistan is intentionally patterned after the "surge" strategy in Iraq, which allegedly led to great success -- or, as Obama himself expressed it, to an "extraordinary achievement." This, too, is a monstrous and sickening lie. See "The Blood-Drenched Darkness of American Exceptionalism" for the excessively bloody details. The White House's contention that the "new" strategy in Afghanistan, which is not new, will lead to any kind of "success" as recognized by sane, healthy human beings is thus a complete and evil lie. More may be more in terms of numbers of American troops alone. More is not "new" or "better." It certainly may be even deadlier -- especially insofar as innocent civilians are concerned -- and this is the only germ of truth such arguments might contain. Perhaps this is, in fact, precisely the meaning Obama intends.
On the White House's second point -- where the White House "strongly condemn[s]" the leak -- let us keep squarely in the front of our minds the actual nature of U.S. foreign policy, and the actual nature of what the U.S. is doing in Afghanistan. As I expressed it recently:
It is bullshit because, to begin with, Obama's "new" strategy is not "new" in any significant respect at all. See two articles for the details: "A Deadly Liar and Manipulator," and "Wherein We Gaze Into Our Inerrant Crystal Ball and Espy A Deadly Rat."
It is also bullshit because Obama's "surge" strategy in Afghanistan is intentionally patterned after the "surge" strategy in Iraq, which allegedly led to great success -- or, as Obama himself expressed it, to an "extraordinary achievement." This, too, is a monstrous and sickening lie. See "The Blood-Drenched Darkness of American Exceptionalism" for the excessively bloody details. The White House's contention that the "new" strategy in Afghanistan, which is not new, will lead to any kind of "success" as recognized by sane, healthy human beings is thus a complete and evil lie. More may be more in terms of numbers of American troops alone. More is not "new" or "better." It certainly may be even deadlier -- especially insofar as innocent civilians are concerned -- and this is the only germ of truth such arguments might contain. Perhaps this is, in fact, precisely the meaning Obama intends.
On the White House's second point -- where the White House "strongly condemn[s]" the leak -- let us keep squarely in the front of our minds the actual nature of U.S. foreign policy, and the actual nature of what the U.S. is doing in Afghanistan. As I expressed it recently:
To put the actual point very bluntly: the Russians, along with the Iranians, along with everyone else in the world, are entirely justified in thinking that, if they are not on their guard and if they do not take all possible precautions, the United States will fuck up their shit. This is what it means to be devoted to a policy of American worldwide hegemony, enabled by, among other elements, a global empire of bases. The United States is intent, to the fullest extent it can, on fucking up everyone's shit. That's what the U.S. has been doing for more than a century.
Given that the U.S. today continues to follow the course upon which it embarked over a century ago, i.e., that it intends to fuck up everyone's shit in the name of American global hegemony, leaks such as these embody a singularly great allegiance to the value of innocent human life, and to the pursuit of genuine peace. The U.S. government cares about neither. Oh, it says that it does, with the compulsive, nauseating repetitiveness of the most vicious murderer -- and when exactly are murderers notably open and honest about their true motives and goals, especially when they are so devotionally intent upon viewing themselves and making certain that all others view them as noble fighters on behalf of the liberation of all mankind? Do not ever credit in even the smallest degree what is the most obvious and most obviously sickening propaganda and public relations.
The Guardian story provides evidence from the Wikileaks material concerning the U.S.'s (and other coalition troops') utter disregard for innocent human life:
The Guardian story provides evidence from the Wikileaks material concerning the U.S.'s (and other coalition troops') utter disregard for innocent human life:
The logs detail, in sometimes harrowing vignettes, the toll on civilians exacted by coalition forces: events termed "blue on white" in military jargon. The logs reveal 144 such incidents.
Some of these casualties come from the controversial air strikes that have led to Afghan government protests, but a large number of previously unknown incidents also appear to be the result of troops shooting unarmed drivers or motorcyclists out of a determination to protect themselves from suicide bombers.
At least 195 civilians are admitted to have been killed and 174 wounded in total, but this is likely to be an underestimate as many disputed incidents are omitted from the daily snapshots reported by troops on the ground and then collated, sometimes erratically, by military intelligence analysts.
Bloody errors at civilians' expense, as recorded in the logs, include the day French troops strafed a bus full of children in 2008, wounding eight. A US patrol similarly machine-gunned a bus, wounding or killing 15 of its passengers, and in 2007 Polish troops mortared a village, killing a wedding party including a pregnant woman, in an apparent revenge attack.
See the Guardian report for many additional details.
And with regard to Wikileaks' actions which the U.S. government strongly condemns, you may be certain that neither the government nor the many others who will rush to condemn Wikileaks will note the following, also from the Guardian story:
And with regard to Wikileaks' actions which the U.S. government strongly condemns, you may be certain that neither the government nor the many others who will rush to condemn Wikileaks will note the following, also from the Guardian story:
Most of the material, though classified "secret" at the time, is no longer militarily sensitive. A small amount of information has been withheld from publication because it might endanger local informants or give away genuine military secrets. Wikileaks, whose founder, Julian Assange, obtained the material in circumstances he will not discuss, said it would redact harmful material before posting the bulk of the data on its "uncensorable" servers.
When you face a genocidal serial murderer, a murderer without conscience or soul, it is your obligation as a minimally decent human being to oppose him in any way you can. Through its leak of material such as that now made public, Wikileaks seeks to fulfill this solemn responsibility.
Long may it thrive, until the blessed day when its services are no longer required.
Long may it thrive, until the blessed day when its services are no longer required.
Economics in Freefall
By Paul Craig Roberts
I admire Joseph E. Stiglitz, because he has a social conscience and a sense of justice, the absence of which turns economists into monsters. Despite his virtues and Nobel Prize, Stiglitz sometimes falls down as an economist. Readers of my new book, How The Economy Was Lost, will be aware that I take him to task for the Solow-Stiglitz production function, which seriously misleads economics about the scarcity of nature’s capital.
Another of Stiglitz’s shortcomings, one that he shares with most economists, is his habit of reifying the market economy. The market is a social organization. The results of market activity reflect the behavior of the human participants in the market. When economists reify the market, they attribute the behavior, ethics, and morality—or lack thereof—of humans to the market itself. Thus, Stiglitz describes human failures as "market failures," and he asks in his new book, Freefall, "why didn’t the market exercise discipline on bad corporate governance and bad incentive structures?"
Social institutions are inanimate. They do not possess life and cannot impose good outcomes on human action.
Libertarians also reify markets, but instead of blaming markets for human failures, they imbue the market with human virtues and even with the super-human virtue of producing results that human intelligence cannot improve upon. Economists’ "risk models" for which Nobel Prizes have been awarded and Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan attributed the social institution with economic wisdom beyond man’s.
It is likely that the practice of reifying the market economy developed as a form of shorthand. It was convenient to say that the market did this and that rather than to have to describe the human interactions that produced the results. The market was transformed from an abstraction into a life form and became the actor instead of the humans operating within the institution.
If the outcomes are good, libertarians attribute the good results to the market’s virtues; if bad, libertarians blame human interference—government regulation. Economists of Stiglitz’s persuasion see it in the opposite way. Good results are produced by regulation; bad results are the result of allowing the market to make decisions on its own.
This way of thinking, which reifies a social institution, is ingrained in economics. It is the source of enormous confusion and has resulted in a pointless long-running ideological battle that Stiglitz calls "a battle of ideas."
It is possible to clear away the confusion. First, understand that a free market is one in which prices are free to respond to supply and demand. Economists of all persuasions understand that to fix a price below the price at which supply and demand equate results in shortages. Economists have learned this from rent control. Fixing a price above the price at which supply and demand equate results in surpluses. Economists have learned this from agricultural subsidies. A free market does not mean a market in which human behavior is not regulated. A free market is one in which supply and demand are permitted to equate.
Second, understand that regulation regulates human behavior, not the market. It is the actors in the market who are charged with regulatory infractions, not the institution itself. Regulation is necessary because of human faults, such as greed, fraud, carelessness, not because of market faults. Regulation is necessary because of human failure, not because of market failure.
Third, understand that the problem of regulation is that it is done by flawed humans. Human flaws do not disappear by moving human action from the economy to government. Most likely the flaws worsen as government decisions are often unaccountable. Many economists assume that regulators act in the public interest. However, as George Stigler, another Nobel Prizewinner, pointed out several decades ago, regulators are invariably captured by the industries that they regulate.
There are endless examples of regulators—indeed, entire governments—captured by the private interests that they are supposed to regulate. For example, in a recent subscriber’s edition of CounterPunch (June 16-30), Jeffrey St. Clair describes in detail the incestuous relationship between the government’s Minerals Management Service and the oil industry. An agency charged with regulating the impact of oil drilling on the environment became "a bureaucratic facilitator of big oil." Thus, the environmental catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico and looming catastrophes along Alaska’s fragile coastline.
Indeed, economists themselves and academics are often captured by private interest groups and turned into shills. In How The Economy Was Lost, I accuse economists of shilling for transnational corporations when they falsely describe jobs offshoring as the beneficial workings of free trade. Like the Israel Lobby, corporations have found that money will purchase professors, academic departments and think tanks, as well as journalists.
Offshoring transforms American workers’ wages into performance bonuses for executives, capital gains for shareholders, and honoraria and research grants for economists who shill for the practice.
The problem that the US economy faces is far more serious than the financial crisis resulting from financial deregulation. The reason that traditional monetary and fiscal policies cannot produce an economic recovery is that so much of the US economy has been moved offshore. As the jobs have departed, there is no work to which low interest rates and massive government spending can recall workers.
This is the real freefall.
Source
I admire Joseph E. Stiglitz, because he has a social conscience and a sense of justice, the absence of which turns economists into monsters. Despite his virtues and Nobel Prize, Stiglitz sometimes falls down as an economist. Readers of my new book, How The Economy Was Lost, will be aware that I take him to task for the Solow-Stiglitz production function, which seriously misleads economics about the scarcity of nature’s capital.
Another of Stiglitz’s shortcomings, one that he shares with most economists, is his habit of reifying the market economy. The market is a social organization. The results of market activity reflect the behavior of the human participants in the market. When economists reify the market, they attribute the behavior, ethics, and morality—or lack thereof—of humans to the market itself. Thus, Stiglitz describes human failures as "market failures," and he asks in his new book, Freefall, "why didn’t the market exercise discipline on bad corporate governance and bad incentive structures?"
Social institutions are inanimate. They do not possess life and cannot impose good outcomes on human action.
Libertarians also reify markets, but instead of blaming markets for human failures, they imbue the market with human virtues and even with the super-human virtue of producing results that human intelligence cannot improve upon. Economists’ "risk models" for which Nobel Prizes have been awarded and Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan attributed the social institution with economic wisdom beyond man’s.
It is likely that the practice of reifying the market economy developed as a form of shorthand. It was convenient to say that the market did this and that rather than to have to describe the human interactions that produced the results. The market was transformed from an abstraction into a life form and became the actor instead of the humans operating within the institution.
If the outcomes are good, libertarians attribute the good results to the market’s virtues; if bad, libertarians blame human interference—government regulation. Economists of Stiglitz’s persuasion see it in the opposite way. Good results are produced by regulation; bad results are the result of allowing the market to make decisions on its own.
This way of thinking, which reifies a social institution, is ingrained in economics. It is the source of enormous confusion and has resulted in a pointless long-running ideological battle that Stiglitz calls "a battle of ideas."
It is possible to clear away the confusion. First, understand that a free market is one in which prices are free to respond to supply and demand. Economists of all persuasions understand that to fix a price below the price at which supply and demand equate results in shortages. Economists have learned this from rent control. Fixing a price above the price at which supply and demand equate results in surpluses. Economists have learned this from agricultural subsidies. A free market does not mean a market in which human behavior is not regulated. A free market is one in which supply and demand are permitted to equate.
Second, understand that regulation regulates human behavior, not the market. It is the actors in the market who are charged with regulatory infractions, not the institution itself. Regulation is necessary because of human faults, such as greed, fraud, carelessness, not because of market faults. Regulation is necessary because of human failure, not because of market failure.
Third, understand that the problem of regulation is that it is done by flawed humans. Human flaws do not disappear by moving human action from the economy to government. Most likely the flaws worsen as government decisions are often unaccountable. Many economists assume that regulators act in the public interest. However, as George Stigler, another Nobel Prizewinner, pointed out several decades ago, regulators are invariably captured by the industries that they regulate.
There are endless examples of regulators—indeed, entire governments—captured by the private interests that they are supposed to regulate. For example, in a recent subscriber’s edition of CounterPunch (June 16-30), Jeffrey St. Clair describes in detail the incestuous relationship between the government’s Minerals Management Service and the oil industry. An agency charged with regulating the impact of oil drilling on the environment became "a bureaucratic facilitator of big oil." Thus, the environmental catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico and looming catastrophes along Alaska’s fragile coastline.
Indeed, economists themselves and academics are often captured by private interest groups and turned into shills. In How The Economy Was Lost, I accuse economists of shilling for transnational corporations when they falsely describe jobs offshoring as the beneficial workings of free trade. Like the Israel Lobby, corporations have found that money will purchase professors, academic departments and think tanks, as well as journalists.
Offshoring transforms American workers’ wages into performance bonuses for executives, capital gains for shareholders, and honoraria and research grants for economists who shill for the practice.
The problem that the US economy faces is far more serious than the financial crisis resulting from financial deregulation. The reason that traditional monetary and fiscal policies cannot produce an economic recovery is that so much of the US economy has been moved offshore. As the jobs have departed, there is no work to which low interest rates and massive government spending can recall workers.
This is the real freefall.
Source
Monday, July 26, 2010
The United States Remains a British Colony:
By Dr. Paul Drockton
"In the mid-1700s the American Colonies were prospering, in part because they were issuing their own money called "Colonial Scrip," which was strictly regulated and did not require the payment of any interest. When the bankers in Great Britain heard this, they turned to the British Parliament, which passed a law prohibiting the Colonial Scrip, forcing the colonists to accept the "debt" or "fiat" money* issued by the Bank of England. Contrary to what history teaches, the American Revolution was not ignited by a tax on tea. According to Benjamin Franklin, it was because "the conditions [became] so reversed that the era of prosperity ended." He said:
"The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament, which has caused in the Colonies hatred of England and the Revolutionary War." (Source)
When the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783, most Americans thought that total Independence from England had been won. The fact of the matter, however, is that true Independence from England never really materialized:
"Working with Hamilton, (Aaron) Burr helped raise subscriptions (shares) for a private company to improve the water supply of pestilence-ridden Manhattan, but Hamilton and Burr also secured a charter (underwriting) from the Bank of England. New Yorkers were shocked to learn that the surplus capital from the venture had been used to establish the Bank of Manhattan, as the BNY was first known.
Twenty-five thousand shares were issued, of which 18,000 were held by investors in England. The Bank of England loaned the United States money in exchange for securities of the United States.
Now the creditors of the United States, which included the Bank of England, wanted to be paid the interest on the loans that were granted to the United States. So Hamilton came up with the bright idea of taxing alcohol. Consumers resisted, so President Washington sent out the militia to collect the tax — which they did. That episode became known as the Whiskey Rebellion." (Source)
In essence, the "Whiskey Rebellion" was fought to oppose the first version of the Internal Revenue Service. That is, the first attempt by the government of the United States to collect interest for the "Banksters" through the use of force. Note that the first unofficial Bank of the United States was 72% owned by "investors" in Great Britain. I have argued in past articles that this was the true price of peace with England, allowing the Crown and the Banksters to continue to profit from our labors through the use of loans and currencies.
Under the "Articles of Confederation", the government was too weak to collect taxes from its citizens. This was one of the gaping flaws exposed by the "Whiskey Rebellion". It was also a reason not to invest in an American Chartered Bank. After the passage of the Constitution, this was no longer an issue. Yet, we still see the creation of the First National Bank with 40% foreign ownership by the Banksters of England.
Going from 72% to 40% foreign ownership can be seen as a partial victory. Yet, it was hardly enough to placate those that wanted a clean break from the British and their Bank of England. In 1811 the First Bank of the United States was dissolved. The primary argument being that "States Rights" gave the States, not the Federal government, the right to control currency.
Interestingly enough, this move gave more power to Bank of New York and its British Investors. At least in the commerce capital of the United States, New York City. But, banksters being banksters, they wanted the whole enchilada. The British instigated for War through kidnapping American sailors and impressing them into the British Navy. The War of 1812 had begun.
The British won and the 2nd National Bank was created. Again, the British owned a significant share in the operation and charged interest for using their worthless paper currency.
"The Second BUS was still controlled by the Bank of England and foreign investors, who not only profited greatly by charging interest for the use of their paper American currency, but England still resented American independence." (Source)
With the demise of the 2nd National Bank and the creation of state chartered institutions, the balance of power still remained in the hands of the British Banksters through the Bank of New York and other foreign owned banking institutions. They were behind the "Panic of 1837" by insisting on payment to them be made in gold and silver. Much of the State and local Currencies were backed by real-estate. This demand for gold and silver forced local banks to foreclose on real-estate. The result was gross devaluations of land that was sold for the only real wealth in America, gold and silver.
Abraham Lincoln favored a National Bank, but without the foreign ownership and political manipulation:
"The Eastern banks had agreed to a $150 million government loan package just after the Civil War commenced in 1861. They would resell U.S. bonds in England with the Barings and Rothschilds, putting the United States at the mercy of the British aristocracy.
In December 1861, President Lincoln's own financial plan was presented by Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase (a free-trade liberal sweating and agonizing in the President's harness), and by Lincoln himself. Its measures included:
* a nationally regulated private banking system, which would issue cheap credit to build industry;
* the issuance of government legal-tender paper currency;
* the sale of low-interest bonds to the general public and to the nationally chartered banks;
* the increase of tariffs until industry was running at full tilt;
* government construction of railroads into the middle South, promoting industrialism over the Southern plantation system.
Lincoln was no friend to the "Banksters". This, more than anything else, led the British to support the Southern States in the Civil War. We will continue this discussion in the next article.
2011: The Year Of The Tax Increase
By Michael T Snyder
Unless the U.S. Congress acts, there is going to be a massive wave of tax increases in 2011. In fact, some are already calling 2011 the year of the tax increase. A whole host of tax cuts that Congress established between 2001 and 2003 are set to expire in January unless Congress chooses to renew them. But with Democrats firmly in control of both houses that appears to be extremely unlikely. These tax increases are going to affect every single American (at least those who actually pay taxes). But this will be just the first wave of tax increases. Another huge slate of tax increases passed in the health care reform law is scheduled to go into effect by 2019. So Americans that are already infuriated by our tax system are only going to become more frustrated in the years ahead. The reality is that the U.S. government will soon be digging much deeper into our wallets.
The following are some of the tax increases that are scheduled to go into effect in 2011….
1 – The lowest bracket for the personal income tax is going to increase from 10 percent to 15 percent.
2 – The next lowest bracket for the personal income tax is going to increase from 25 percent to 28 percent.
3 – The 28 percent tax bracket is going to increase to 31 percent.
4 – The 33 percent tax bracket is going to increase to 36 percent.
5 – The 35 percent tax bracket is going to increase to 39.6 percent.
6 – In 2011, the death tax is scheduled to return. So instead of paying zero percent, estates of $1 million or more are going to be taxed at a rate of 55 percent.
7 – The capital gains tax is going to increase from 15 percent to 20 percent.
8 – The tax on dividends is going to increase from 15 percent to 39.6 percent.
9 – The “marriage penalty” is also scheduled to be reinstated in 2011.
It is being estimated that the total cost of these tax increases to U.S. taxpayers will be $2.6 trillion through the year 2020.
Ouch!
But wait, there are even more tax increases coming.
The “health care reform law” contains over a dozen new taxes that will be implemented in stages over the next decade. When you add all of these taxes to the taxes that were mentioned earlier, the result is going to be absolutely devastating. According to an analysis by the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation the health care reform law will generate $409.2 billion in additional taxes by the year 2019.
Double ouch!
So is it any wonder why the public has such a low opinion of the U.S. Congress?
Every single major poll done on the topic shows that approval ratings for Congress are at record lows.
For example, Gallup’s 2010 Confidence in Institutions poll found Congress ranking dead last out of the 16 institutions rated this year.
Of course there are a whole host of reasons why the American people are upset with Congress, but one of the big ones is the fact that we are literally being taxed to death.
However, it is not just federal income taxes that are killing us.
In a previous article entitled “Taxed Enough Already!”, we listed just a few of the taxes that Americans have to pay each year….
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines (indirect taxes)
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax
Gift Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Payroll Taxes
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
School Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Toll Bridge Taxes
Toll Tunnel Taxes
Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
Trailer registration tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
Are you dizzy yet?
The reality is that the American people are being drained in dozens and dozens of different ways.
But what did you expect?
Did you think that our politicians would pile up the biggest debt in the history of the world and never ask you to pay for it?
Did you think that we could run deficits equivalent to about 10 percent of GDP without ever seeing tax increases?
The truth is that the U.S. government needs a whole lot more money than even these new tax increases will bring in.
After all, it is being projected that the U.S. government will be spending $2 trillion on the interest on the national debt alone by the year 2020.
To put that in perspective, the entire budget for the U.S. government is less than $4 trillion for 2010.
Are you starting to get the picture?
In the years ahead the IRS is going to be digging deeper and deeper into our pockets and a gigantic chunk of that money is going to go directly into the pockets of those who own our debt.
But very few Americans wanted to listen when this problem was actually somewhat fixable 20 or 30 years ago.
So now we are all going to pay the price – literally.
Source
Unless the U.S. Congress acts, there is going to be a massive wave of tax increases in 2011. In fact, some are already calling 2011 the year of the tax increase. A whole host of tax cuts that Congress established between 2001 and 2003 are set to expire in January unless Congress chooses to renew them. But with Democrats firmly in control of both houses that appears to be extremely unlikely. These tax increases are going to affect every single American (at least those who actually pay taxes). But this will be just the first wave of tax increases. Another huge slate of tax increases passed in the health care reform law is scheduled to go into effect by 2019. So Americans that are already infuriated by our tax system are only going to become more frustrated in the years ahead. The reality is that the U.S. government will soon be digging much deeper into our wallets.
The following are some of the tax increases that are scheduled to go into effect in 2011….
1 – The lowest bracket for the personal income tax is going to increase from 10 percent to 15 percent.
2 – The next lowest bracket for the personal income tax is going to increase from 25 percent to 28 percent.
3 – The 28 percent tax bracket is going to increase to 31 percent.
4 – The 33 percent tax bracket is going to increase to 36 percent.
5 – The 35 percent tax bracket is going to increase to 39.6 percent.
6 – In 2011, the death tax is scheduled to return. So instead of paying zero percent, estates of $1 million or more are going to be taxed at a rate of 55 percent.
7 – The capital gains tax is going to increase from 15 percent to 20 percent.
8 – The tax on dividends is going to increase from 15 percent to 39.6 percent.
9 – The “marriage penalty” is also scheduled to be reinstated in 2011.
It is being estimated that the total cost of these tax increases to U.S. taxpayers will be $2.6 trillion through the year 2020.
Ouch!
But wait, there are even more tax increases coming.
The “health care reform law” contains over a dozen new taxes that will be implemented in stages over the next decade. When you add all of these taxes to the taxes that were mentioned earlier, the result is going to be absolutely devastating. According to an analysis by the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation the health care reform law will generate $409.2 billion in additional taxes by the year 2019.
Double ouch!
So is it any wonder why the public has such a low opinion of the U.S. Congress?
Every single major poll done on the topic shows that approval ratings for Congress are at record lows.
For example, Gallup’s 2010 Confidence in Institutions poll found Congress ranking dead last out of the 16 institutions rated this year.
Of course there are a whole host of reasons why the American people are upset with Congress, but one of the big ones is the fact that we are literally being taxed to death.
However, it is not just federal income taxes that are killing us.
In a previous article entitled “Taxed Enough Already!”, we listed just a few of the taxes that Americans have to pay each year….
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines (indirect taxes)
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax
Gift Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Payroll Taxes
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
School Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Toll Bridge Taxes
Toll Tunnel Taxes
Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
Trailer registration tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
Are you dizzy yet?
The reality is that the American people are being drained in dozens and dozens of different ways.
But what did you expect?
Did you think that our politicians would pile up the biggest debt in the history of the world and never ask you to pay for it?
Did you think that we could run deficits equivalent to about 10 percent of GDP without ever seeing tax increases?
The truth is that the U.S. government needs a whole lot more money than even these new tax increases will bring in.
After all, it is being projected that the U.S. government will be spending $2 trillion on the interest on the national debt alone by the year 2020.
To put that in perspective, the entire budget for the U.S. government is less than $4 trillion for 2010.
Are you starting to get the picture?
In the years ahead the IRS is going to be digging deeper and deeper into our pockets and a gigantic chunk of that money is going to go directly into the pockets of those who own our debt.
But very few Americans wanted to listen when this problem was actually somewhat fixable 20 or 30 years ago.
So now we are all going to pay the price – literally.
Source
MI5 agent told me that David Kelly had been ‘exterminated'
Glenn Owen – Daily Mail July 25, 2010
The mystery over the death of David Kelly took a further twist last night after a former KGB officer said he had evidence that the scientist did not commit suicide.
Boris Karpichkov, who worked as a Russian spy for 15 years before fleeing to Britain, has sent a dossier to Attorney General Dominic Grieve in which he claims to relay information from an ‘MI5 agent’ that Dr Kelly had been ‘exterminated’.
His move comes amid increasing calls from within the Coalition Government for a full, independent investigation into Dr Kelly’s death.
Mr Grieve has indicated that he is ‘concerned’ by the growing scepticism among experts about the official version of events.
Dr Kelly was found dead in woods near his Oxfordshire home in July 2003, after the Government exposed him as the source of a BBC report questioning Tony Blair’s case for war in Iraq.
There was no full coroner’s inquest – instead, Lord Hutton chaired a public inquiry which concluded Dr Kelly died from loss of blood after slashing his left wrist with a blunt garden pruning knife.
A number of doctors have since come forward to say that the incision could not have caused his death.
Mr Karpichkov, who sought political asylum in the UK in 1998 and now has British nationality, says he met the ‘agent’, Peter Everett, on dozens of occasions while carrying out work for Mr Everett’s company Group Global Intelligence Services, which hiredex-MI5 operatives for corporate detective work and infiltration.
In the document sent to Mr Grieve, Mr Karpichkov says that during one of their meetings, two days after
Dr Kelly’s body was found, Mr Everett told him that Dr Kelly had been ‘exterminated’ for his ‘reckless behaviour’.
Mr Karpichkov, who says that Mr Everett indicated that he was an ‘active field operative’ for MI5, writes: ‘He told me that it was extremely uncomfortable, inconsistent and unusual for Dr Kelly to slash his arm in the way he did. He would have lost some blood, but it would not have been fatal.
‘He also claimed that it was not a coincidence that Special Branch officers were the ones who first appeared on the scene – they moved Dr Kelly’s body to another location, changed the original position of his corpse and took away incriminating evidence.
‘He added that the scene where Dr Kelly’s body was found was carefully arranged and completely “washed out”, including the destruction of all fingerprints. When I asked who was behind his death, he [Mr Everett] answered indirectly, saying the “competing firm”, which I took to mean MI6.’
Last night, Mr Everett – who is believed to be in his late 50s and whose former company was registered to his home address in Dulwich, South-East London – admitted meeting Mr Karpichkov on a number of occasions, and recalled discussing the manner of Dr Kelly’s death.
He said: ‘We had a general conversation about the David Kelly case, in which I said that it was very unusual for him to have slashed his wrist in that way.
'That is all I said. I do not have any particular inside knowledge on it.’
Asked whether he was a current, or former, MI5 operative, he said: ‘I am not commenting on that.’
Asked if he had carried out work on behalf of the agency, he said: ‘I have spent a number of years working in the world of intelligence.’
Associates indicated that his work on behalf of security agencies was indirect, rather than as a paid operative.
Mr Karpichkov’s testimony reflects the continuing debate in the intelligence community and associated agencies over Dr Kelly’s death.
He fled to Britain from Latvia with his wife and two sons after being accused of stealing £310,000 from a failed bank, although he claims that he was framed by the Russian mafia.
According to Latvian newspaper reports, he was recruited by the regional KGB in 1981, trained at the Secret Services School and served as a special forces operative during the war in Afghanistan.
After the Cold War, he was assigned to undercover work in Latvia.
Mr Everett’s former company, Group Global Intelligence Services, which was dissolved in 2006, normally operated in the shadows.
But in 2004, it was accused of placing six members of its staff at Manchester United’s Annual General Meeting as ‘plants’ to ask embarrassing questions about manager Sir Alex Ferguson’s transfer dealings.
At the time, Sir Alex’s business rival John Magnier was known to be hiring private eyes to investigate the United manager.
When confronted by journalists, Mr Everett said: ‘I was nothing to do with that side of the alleged operation.’
Ministers increasingly believe that the continuing speculation about Dr Kelly’s death – fanned by the fact that he emailed a friend on the morning he died to warn that there were ‘many dark actors playing games’ – will not end until a proper inquest is held.
Earlier this month, one of Dr Kelly’s close female colleagues, Mai Pedersen, wrote to Mr Grieve reiterating what she had first revealed in an interview in The Mail on Sunday in August 2008, saying that Dr Kelly had been too weak to cut his own wrist – because a hand and arm injury meant he even had trouble ‘cutting his own steak’, and he would have to have been a ‘contortionist’ to have killed himself.
She demanded a ‘formal, independent and complete’ review of the case.
Her claims are backed by 13 specialist doctors, who have compiled a dossier rejecting the Hutton conclusion on the grounds that the cut to the ulnar artery could not have caused death.
In addition, it was recently disclosed that Dr Kelly’s death certificate was not properly completed.
It was not signed by a doctor or coroner and does not state a place of death, leaving open the possibility he died somewhere other than where his body was found.
Furthermore, the pruning knife has been revealed to have had no fingerprints on it.
Campaigners are aggrieved by a mysterious decision to classify all evidence relating to the post-mortem for 70 years.
But they are encouraged by the fact that one of their most vocal supporters, Lib Dem MP Norman Baker, who has written a book questioning the Hutton verdict, is now a member of the Coalition as a Transport Minister.
A spokeswoman for Dominic Grieve said last night: ‘Mr Grieve expressed concerns about this issue when in opposition and has, since taking office as Attorney General, been exploring with ministerial colleagues any actions that may be taken
Read the rest...
The mystery over the death of David Kelly took a further twist last night after a former KGB officer said he had evidence that the scientist did not commit suicide.
Boris Karpichkov, who worked as a Russian spy for 15 years before fleeing to Britain, has sent a dossier to Attorney General Dominic Grieve in which he claims to relay information from an ‘MI5 agent’ that Dr Kelly had been ‘exterminated’.
His move comes amid increasing calls from within the Coalition Government for a full, independent investigation into Dr Kelly’s death.
Mr Grieve has indicated that he is ‘concerned’ by the growing scepticism among experts about the official version of events.
Dr Kelly was found dead in woods near his Oxfordshire home in July 2003, after the Government exposed him as the source of a BBC report questioning Tony Blair’s case for war in Iraq.
There was no full coroner’s inquest – instead, Lord Hutton chaired a public inquiry which concluded Dr Kelly died from loss of blood after slashing his left wrist with a blunt garden pruning knife.
A number of doctors have since come forward to say that the incision could not have caused his death.
Mr Karpichkov, who sought political asylum in the UK in 1998 and now has British nationality, says he met the ‘agent’, Peter Everett, on dozens of occasions while carrying out work for Mr Everett’s company Group Global Intelligence Services, which hiredex-MI5 operatives for corporate detective work and infiltration.
In the document sent to Mr Grieve, Mr Karpichkov says that during one of their meetings, two days after
Dr Kelly’s body was found, Mr Everett told him that Dr Kelly had been ‘exterminated’ for his ‘reckless behaviour’.
Mr Karpichkov, who says that Mr Everett indicated that he was an ‘active field operative’ for MI5, writes: ‘He told me that it was extremely uncomfortable, inconsistent and unusual for Dr Kelly to slash his arm in the way he did. He would have lost some blood, but it would not have been fatal.
‘He also claimed that it was not a coincidence that Special Branch officers were the ones who first appeared on the scene – they moved Dr Kelly’s body to another location, changed the original position of his corpse and took away incriminating evidence.
‘He added that the scene where Dr Kelly’s body was found was carefully arranged and completely “washed out”, including the destruction of all fingerprints. When I asked who was behind his death, he [Mr Everett] answered indirectly, saying the “competing firm”, which I took to mean MI6.’
Last night, Mr Everett – who is believed to be in his late 50s and whose former company was registered to his home address in Dulwich, South-East London – admitted meeting Mr Karpichkov on a number of occasions, and recalled discussing the manner of Dr Kelly’s death.
He said: ‘We had a general conversation about the David Kelly case, in which I said that it was very unusual for him to have slashed his wrist in that way.
'That is all I said. I do not have any particular inside knowledge on it.’
Asked whether he was a current, or former, MI5 operative, he said: ‘I am not commenting on that.’
Asked if he had carried out work on behalf of the agency, he said: ‘I have spent a number of years working in the world of intelligence.’
Associates indicated that his work on behalf of security agencies was indirect, rather than as a paid operative.
Mr Karpichkov’s testimony reflects the continuing debate in the intelligence community and associated agencies over Dr Kelly’s death.
He fled to Britain from Latvia with his wife and two sons after being accused of stealing £310,000 from a failed bank, although he claims that he was framed by the Russian mafia.
According to Latvian newspaper reports, he was recruited by the regional KGB in 1981, trained at the Secret Services School and served as a special forces operative during the war in Afghanistan.
After the Cold War, he was assigned to undercover work in Latvia.
Mr Everett’s former company, Group Global Intelligence Services, which was dissolved in 2006, normally operated in the shadows.
But in 2004, it was accused of placing six members of its staff at Manchester United’s Annual General Meeting as ‘plants’ to ask embarrassing questions about manager Sir Alex Ferguson’s transfer dealings.
At the time, Sir Alex’s business rival John Magnier was known to be hiring private eyes to investigate the United manager.
When confronted by journalists, Mr Everett said: ‘I was nothing to do with that side of the alleged operation.’
Ministers increasingly believe that the continuing speculation about Dr Kelly’s death – fanned by the fact that he emailed a friend on the morning he died to warn that there were ‘many dark actors playing games’ – will not end until a proper inquest is held.
Earlier this month, one of Dr Kelly’s close female colleagues, Mai Pedersen, wrote to Mr Grieve reiterating what she had first revealed in an interview in The Mail on Sunday in August 2008, saying that Dr Kelly had been too weak to cut his own wrist – because a hand and arm injury meant he even had trouble ‘cutting his own steak’, and he would have to have been a ‘contortionist’ to have killed himself.
She demanded a ‘formal, independent and complete’ review of the case.
Her claims are backed by 13 specialist doctors, who have compiled a dossier rejecting the Hutton conclusion on the grounds that the cut to the ulnar artery could not have caused death.
In addition, it was recently disclosed that Dr Kelly’s death certificate was not properly completed.
It was not signed by a doctor or coroner and does not state a place of death, leaving open the possibility he died somewhere other than where his body was found.
Furthermore, the pruning knife has been revealed to have had no fingerprints on it.
Campaigners are aggrieved by a mysterious decision to classify all evidence relating to the post-mortem for 70 years.
But they are encouraged by the fact that one of their most vocal supporters, Lib Dem MP Norman Baker, who has written a book questioning the Hutton verdict, is now a member of the Coalition as a Transport Minister.
A spokeswoman for Dominic Grieve said last night: ‘Mr Grieve expressed concerns about this issue when in opposition and has, since taking office as Attorney General, been exploring with ministerial colleagues any actions that may be taken
Read the rest...
Afghan War Leaks Expose Costly Folly
By Ray McGovern
The brutality and fecklessness of the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan have been laid bare in an indisputable way just days before the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on whether to throw $33.5 billion more into the Afghan quagmire, when that money is badly needed at home.
On Sunday, the Web site Wikileaks posted 75,000 reports written mostly by U.S. forces in Afghanistan during a six-year period from January 2004 to December 2009. The authenticity of the material - published under the title "Afghan War Diaries" - is not in doubt.
The New York Times, which received an embargoed version of the documents from Wikileaks, devoted six pages of its Monday editions to several articles on the disclosures, which reveal how the Afghan War slid into its current morass while the Bush administration concentrated U.S. military efforts on Iraq.
Wikileaks also gave advanced copies to the British newspaper, The Guardian, and the German newsmagazine, Der Spiegel, thus guaranteeing that the U.S. Fawning Corporate Media could not ignore these classified cables the way it did five years ago with the "Downing Street Memo," a leaked British document which described how intelligence was "fixed" around President George W. Bush's determination to invade Iraq.
The Washington Post also led its Monday editions with a lengthy article about the Wikileaks' disclosure of the Afghan War reports.
Still, it remains to be seen whether the new evidence of a foundering war in Afghanistan will lead to a public groundswell of opposition to expending more billions of dollars there when the money is so critically needed to help people to keep their jobs, their homes and their personal dignity in the United States.
But there may be new hope that the House of Representatives will find the collective courage to deny further funding for feckless bloodshed in Afghanistan that seems more designed to protect political flanks in Washington than the military perimeters of U.S. bases over there.
Assange on Pentagon Papers
Wikileaks leader Julian Assange compared the release of "The Afghan War Diaries" to Daniel Ellsberg's release in 1971 of the Pentagon Papers. Those classified documents revealed the duplicitous arguments used to justify the Vietnam War and played an important role in eventually getting Congress to cut off funding.
Ellsberg's courageous act was the subject of a recent Oscar-nominated documentary, entitled "The Most Dangerous Man in America," named after one of the less profane sobriquets thrown Ellsberg's way by then-national security adviser Henry Kissinger.
I imagine Dan is happy at this point to cede that particular honorific to the Wikileaks' leaker, who is suspected of being Pfc. Bradley Manning, a young intelligence specialist in Iraq who was recently detained and charged with leaking classified material to Wikileaks.
An earlier Wikileaks' disclosure - also reportedly from Manning - revealed video of a U.S. helicopter crew cavalierly gunning down about a dozen Iraqi men, including two Reuters journalists, as they walked along a Baghdad street.
Wikileaks declined to say whether Manning was the source of the material. However, possibly to counter accusations that the leaker (allegedly Manning) acted recklessly in releasing thousands of secret military records, Wikileaks said it was still withholding 15,000 reports "as part of a harm minimization process demanded by our source."
After Ellsberg was identified as the Pentagon Papers leaker in 1971, he was indicted and faced a long prison sentence if convicted. However, a federal judge threw out the charges following disclosures of the Nixon administration's own abuses, such as a break-in at the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist.
In public speeches over the past several years, Ellsberg has been vigorously pressing for someone to do what he did, this time on the misbegotten wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ellsberg also has praised Assange for providing a means for the documents to reach the public.
Ellsberg and other members of The Truth Telling Coalition established on Sept. 9, 2004, have been appealing to government officials who encounter "deception and cover-up" on vital issues to opt for "unauthorized truth telling." [At the end of this story, see full text of the group's letter, which I signed.]
Emphasizing that "citizens cannot make informed choices if they do not have the facts," the Truth Telling Coalition challenged officials to give primary allegiance to the Constitution, and noted the readiness of groups like the ACLU and The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) to offer advice and support.
What's New?
In a taped interview, Assange noted in his understated way that, with the Internet, the "situation is markedly different" from Pentagon Papers days. "More material can be pushed to bigger audiences, and much sooner."
Also, the flow of information can evade the obstructions of traditional news gatekeepers who failed so miserably to inform the American people about the Bush administration's deceptions before the Iraq War.
People all over the world can get "the whole wad at once" and put the various reports into context, which "is not something that has previously occurred; that is something that can only be brought about as a result of the Internet," Assange said.
However, Assange also recognized the value of involving the traditional news media to ensure that the reports got maximum attention. So, he took a page from Ellsberg's experience by creating some competitive pressure among major news outlets, giving the 75,000 reports to the New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel. Beginning Sunday afternoon, all three posted articles about the huge dump of information.
Assange noted that the classified material includes many heart-rending incidents that fit into the mosaic of a larger human catastrophe. These include one depicted in Der Spiegel's reportage of accidental killings on June 17, 2007, when U.S. Special Forces fired five rockets at a Koran school in which a prominent al-Qaeda functionary was believed to be hiding.
When the smoke cleared, the Special Forces found no terrorist, but rather six dead children in the rubble of the school and another who died shortly after.
Role of Pakistan
Perhaps the most explosive revelations disclose the double game being played by the Pakistani Directorate for Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI). Der Spiegel reported: "The documents clearly show that this Pakistani intelligence agency is the most important accomplice the Taliban has outside of Afghanistan."
The documents also show ISI envoys not only are present when insurgent commanders hold war councils, but also give specific orders to carry out assassinations - including, according to one report, an attempt on the life of Afghan President Hamid Karzai in August 2008.
Former Pakistani intelligence chief, Gen. Hamid Gul, is depicted as an important source of aid to the Taliban, and even, in another report, as a "leader" of the insurgents. The reports show Gul ordering suicide attacks, and describe him as one of the most important suppliers of weaponry to the Talban.
Though the Pakistani government has angrily denied U.S. government complaints about Gul and the ISI regarding secret ties to the Taliban and even to al-Qaeda, the new evidence must raise questions about what the Pakistanis have been doing with the billions of dollars that Washington has given them.
Two Ex-Generals Got It Right
We have another patriotic truth-teller to thank for leaking the texts of cables that Ambassador (and former Lt. Gen.) Karl Eikenberry sent to Washington on Nov. 6 and 9, 2009, several weeks before President Barack Obama made his fateful decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.
In a somewhat condescending tone, Eikenberry described the request from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, then commander of allied forces in Afghanistan, for more troops as "logical and compelling within his narrow mandate to define the needs" of the military campaign.
But then Eikenberry warned repeatedly about "unaddressed variables" like militants' "sanctuaries" in Pakistan. For example, the ambassador wrote:
"More troops won't end the insurgency as long as Pakistan sanctuaries remain ... and Pakistan views its strategic interests as best served by a weak neighbor."
In Eikenberry's final try at informing the White House discussion (in his cable of Nov. 9), the ambassador warned pointedly of the risk that "we will become more deeply engaged here with no way to extricate ourselves."
At the time, it seemed that Eikenberry's message was getting through to the White House. On Nov. 7, Der Spiegel published an interview with National Security Adviser (former Marine General) James Jones, who was asked whether he agreed with Gen. McChrystal that a substantial troop increase was needed. Jones replied:
"Generals always ask for more troops; I believe we will not solve the problem with more troops alone. You can keep on putting troops in, and you could have 200,000 troops there and Afghanistan will swallow them up as it has done in the past."
However, McChrystal and his boss, then-Central Command chief Gen. David Petraeus pressed the case for more troops, a position that had strong support from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, former Vice President Dick Cheney, key hawks in Congress and Washington's neoconservative-dominated opinion circles.
After months of internal debate, President Obama finally caved in and gave McChrystal nearly all the troops that he had requested. (McChrystal has since been replaced by Petraeus as commander of forces in Afghanistan.)
Despite the fact that the Wikileaks disclosures offer fresh support for the doubters on the Afghan War escalation, Jones acted as the good soldier on Sunday, decrying the unauthorized release of classified information, calling Wikileaks "irresponsible."
Jones also lectured the Pakistanis:
"Pakistan's military and intelligence services must continue their strategic shift against insurgent groups. The balance must shift decisively against al-Qaeda and its extremist allies. U.S. support for Pakistan will continue to be focused on building Pakistani capacity to root out violent extremist groups."
[Note: Okay; he's a general. But the grammatical mood is just a shade short of imperative. And the tone is imperial/colonial through and through. I'll bet the Pakistanis are as much swayed by that approach as they have been by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's admonitions not to be concerned about India - just terrorists.]
And regarding "progress" in Afghanistan? Jones added that "the U.S. and its allies have scored several significant blows against the insurgency."
However, that's not the positive spin that Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen was offering just four weeks ago. On his way to Kabul, again, Mullen spoke of "recent setbacks in the Afghan campaign."
"We underestimated some of the challenges" in Marja, the rural area of Helmand province that was cleared in March by U.S. Marines, only to have Taliban fighters return. "They're coming back at night; the intimidation is still there," Mullen said.
Of the much more ambitious (and repeatedly delayed) campaign to stabilize the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar, Mullen said: "It's going to take until the end of the year to know where we are there."
Would you say yes to an additional $33.5 billion for this fool's errand?
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years and now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Profesionals for Sanity.
Source
The brutality and fecklessness of the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan have been laid bare in an indisputable way just days before the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on whether to throw $33.5 billion more into the Afghan quagmire, when that money is badly needed at home.
On Sunday, the Web site Wikileaks posted 75,000 reports written mostly by U.S. forces in Afghanistan during a six-year period from January 2004 to December 2009. The authenticity of the material - published under the title "Afghan War Diaries" - is not in doubt.
The New York Times, which received an embargoed version of the documents from Wikileaks, devoted six pages of its Monday editions to several articles on the disclosures, which reveal how the Afghan War slid into its current morass while the Bush administration concentrated U.S. military efforts on Iraq.
Wikileaks also gave advanced copies to the British newspaper, The Guardian, and the German newsmagazine, Der Spiegel, thus guaranteeing that the U.S. Fawning Corporate Media could not ignore these classified cables the way it did five years ago with the "Downing Street Memo," a leaked British document which described how intelligence was "fixed" around President George W. Bush's determination to invade Iraq.
The Washington Post also led its Monday editions with a lengthy article about the Wikileaks' disclosure of the Afghan War reports.
Still, it remains to be seen whether the new evidence of a foundering war in Afghanistan will lead to a public groundswell of opposition to expending more billions of dollars there when the money is so critically needed to help people to keep their jobs, their homes and their personal dignity in the United States.
But there may be new hope that the House of Representatives will find the collective courage to deny further funding for feckless bloodshed in Afghanistan that seems more designed to protect political flanks in Washington than the military perimeters of U.S. bases over there.
Assange on Pentagon Papers
Wikileaks leader Julian Assange compared the release of "The Afghan War Diaries" to Daniel Ellsberg's release in 1971 of the Pentagon Papers. Those classified documents revealed the duplicitous arguments used to justify the Vietnam War and played an important role in eventually getting Congress to cut off funding.
Ellsberg's courageous act was the subject of a recent Oscar-nominated documentary, entitled "The Most Dangerous Man in America," named after one of the less profane sobriquets thrown Ellsberg's way by then-national security adviser Henry Kissinger.
I imagine Dan is happy at this point to cede that particular honorific to the Wikileaks' leaker, who is suspected of being Pfc. Bradley Manning, a young intelligence specialist in Iraq who was recently detained and charged with leaking classified material to Wikileaks.
An earlier Wikileaks' disclosure - also reportedly from Manning - revealed video of a U.S. helicopter crew cavalierly gunning down about a dozen Iraqi men, including two Reuters journalists, as they walked along a Baghdad street.
Wikileaks declined to say whether Manning was the source of the material. However, possibly to counter accusations that the leaker (allegedly Manning) acted recklessly in releasing thousands of secret military records, Wikileaks said it was still withholding 15,000 reports "as part of a harm minimization process demanded by our source."
After Ellsberg was identified as the Pentagon Papers leaker in 1971, he was indicted and faced a long prison sentence if convicted. However, a federal judge threw out the charges following disclosures of the Nixon administration's own abuses, such as a break-in at the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist.
In public speeches over the past several years, Ellsberg has been vigorously pressing for someone to do what he did, this time on the misbegotten wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ellsberg also has praised Assange for providing a means for the documents to reach the public.
Ellsberg and other members of The Truth Telling Coalition established on Sept. 9, 2004, have been appealing to government officials who encounter "deception and cover-up" on vital issues to opt for "unauthorized truth telling." [At the end of this story, see full text of the group's letter, which I signed.]
Emphasizing that "citizens cannot make informed choices if they do not have the facts," the Truth Telling Coalition challenged officials to give primary allegiance to the Constitution, and noted the readiness of groups like the ACLU and The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) to offer advice and support.
What's New?
In a taped interview, Assange noted in his understated way that, with the Internet, the "situation is markedly different" from Pentagon Papers days. "More material can be pushed to bigger audiences, and much sooner."
Also, the flow of information can evade the obstructions of traditional news gatekeepers who failed so miserably to inform the American people about the Bush administration's deceptions before the Iraq War.
People all over the world can get "the whole wad at once" and put the various reports into context, which "is not something that has previously occurred; that is something that can only be brought about as a result of the Internet," Assange said.
However, Assange also recognized the value of involving the traditional news media to ensure that the reports got maximum attention. So, he took a page from Ellsberg's experience by creating some competitive pressure among major news outlets, giving the 75,000 reports to the New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel. Beginning Sunday afternoon, all three posted articles about the huge dump of information.
Assange noted that the classified material includes many heart-rending incidents that fit into the mosaic of a larger human catastrophe. These include one depicted in Der Spiegel's reportage of accidental killings on June 17, 2007, when U.S. Special Forces fired five rockets at a Koran school in which a prominent al-Qaeda functionary was believed to be hiding.
When the smoke cleared, the Special Forces found no terrorist, but rather six dead children in the rubble of the school and another who died shortly after.
Role of Pakistan
Perhaps the most explosive revelations disclose the double game being played by the Pakistani Directorate for Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI). Der Spiegel reported: "The documents clearly show that this Pakistani intelligence agency is the most important accomplice the Taliban has outside of Afghanistan."
The documents also show ISI envoys not only are present when insurgent commanders hold war councils, but also give specific orders to carry out assassinations - including, according to one report, an attempt on the life of Afghan President Hamid Karzai in August 2008.
Former Pakistani intelligence chief, Gen. Hamid Gul, is depicted as an important source of aid to the Taliban, and even, in another report, as a "leader" of the insurgents. The reports show Gul ordering suicide attacks, and describe him as one of the most important suppliers of weaponry to the Talban.
Though the Pakistani government has angrily denied U.S. government complaints about Gul and the ISI regarding secret ties to the Taliban and even to al-Qaeda, the new evidence must raise questions about what the Pakistanis have been doing with the billions of dollars that Washington has given them.
Two Ex-Generals Got It Right
We have another patriotic truth-teller to thank for leaking the texts of cables that Ambassador (and former Lt. Gen.) Karl Eikenberry sent to Washington on Nov. 6 and 9, 2009, several weeks before President Barack Obama made his fateful decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.
In a somewhat condescending tone, Eikenberry described the request from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, then commander of allied forces in Afghanistan, for more troops as "logical and compelling within his narrow mandate to define the needs" of the military campaign.
But then Eikenberry warned repeatedly about "unaddressed variables" like militants' "sanctuaries" in Pakistan. For example, the ambassador wrote:
"More troops won't end the insurgency as long as Pakistan sanctuaries remain ... and Pakistan views its strategic interests as best served by a weak neighbor."
In Eikenberry's final try at informing the White House discussion (in his cable of Nov. 9), the ambassador warned pointedly of the risk that "we will become more deeply engaged here with no way to extricate ourselves."
At the time, it seemed that Eikenberry's message was getting through to the White House. On Nov. 7, Der Spiegel published an interview with National Security Adviser (former Marine General) James Jones, who was asked whether he agreed with Gen. McChrystal that a substantial troop increase was needed. Jones replied:
"Generals always ask for more troops; I believe we will not solve the problem with more troops alone. You can keep on putting troops in, and you could have 200,000 troops there and Afghanistan will swallow them up as it has done in the past."
However, McChrystal and his boss, then-Central Command chief Gen. David Petraeus pressed the case for more troops, a position that had strong support from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, former Vice President Dick Cheney, key hawks in Congress and Washington's neoconservative-dominated opinion circles.
After months of internal debate, President Obama finally caved in and gave McChrystal nearly all the troops that he had requested. (McChrystal has since been replaced by Petraeus as commander of forces in Afghanistan.)
Despite the fact that the Wikileaks disclosures offer fresh support for the doubters on the Afghan War escalation, Jones acted as the good soldier on Sunday, decrying the unauthorized release of classified information, calling Wikileaks "irresponsible."
Jones also lectured the Pakistanis:
"Pakistan's military and intelligence services must continue their strategic shift against insurgent groups. The balance must shift decisively against al-Qaeda and its extremist allies. U.S. support for Pakistan will continue to be focused on building Pakistani capacity to root out violent extremist groups."
[Note: Okay; he's a general. But the grammatical mood is just a shade short of imperative. And the tone is imperial/colonial through and through. I'll bet the Pakistanis are as much swayed by that approach as they have been by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's admonitions not to be concerned about India - just terrorists.]
And regarding "progress" in Afghanistan? Jones added that "the U.S. and its allies have scored several significant blows against the insurgency."
However, that's not the positive spin that Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen was offering just four weeks ago. On his way to Kabul, again, Mullen spoke of "recent setbacks in the Afghan campaign."
"We underestimated some of the challenges" in Marja, the rural area of Helmand province that was cleared in March by U.S. Marines, only to have Taliban fighters return. "They're coming back at night; the intimidation is still there," Mullen said.
Of the much more ambitious (and repeatedly delayed) campaign to stabilize the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar, Mullen said: "It's going to take until the end of the year to know where we are there."
Would you say yes to an additional $33.5 billion for this fool's errand?
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years and now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Profesionals for Sanity.
Source
Oliver Stone: Jewish Lobby has distorted United States foreign policy for years
Latest update 09:48 26.07.10
Oliver Stone: Jewish control of the media is preventing free Holocaust debate
Outspoken Hollywood director says new film aims to put Adolf Hitler, who he has called an ‘easy scapegoat’ in the past, in his due historical context.
By Haaretz Service
Jewish control of the media is preventing an open discussion of the Holocaust, prominent Hollywood director Oliver Stone told the Sunday Times, adding that the U.S. Jewish lobby was controlling Washington’s foreign policy for years.
In the Sunday interview, Stone reportedly said U.S. public opinion was focused on the Holocaust as a result of the “Jewish domination of the media,” adding that an upcoming film of him aims to put Adolf Hitler and Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin “in context.”
“There’s a major lobby in the United States,” Stone said, adding that “they are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington.”
The famed Hollywood director of such films as Platoon and JFK, also said that while “Hitler was a Frankenstein,” there was also a “Dr Frankenstein.”
“German industrialists, the Americans and the British. He had a lot of support,” Stone told the Sunday Times, adding that “Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people, 25 or 30 [million killed].”
Referring to the alleged influence of the powerful Jewish lobby on U.S. foreign policy, Stone said that Israel had distorted “United States foreign policy for years,” adding he felt U.S. policy toward Iran was “horrible.”
“Iran isn’t necessarily the good guy,” Stone said, insisting that Americans did not “know the full story.”
Stone’s comments to the Sunday times echo pervious remarks by the Hollywood director, regarding what he conceives as the distorted view of figures such as Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin in U.S. media.
Earlier this year, Stone, speaking at the at the Television Critics Association’s semi-annual press tour in Pasadena said that “Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and it’s been used cheaply.”
“He’s the product of a series of actions. It’s cause and effect … People in America don’t know the connection between World War I and World War II, Stone said adding that through his documentary work he has been able to “walk in Stalin’s shoes and Hitler’s shoes to understand their point of view.”
“We’re going to educate our minds and liberalize them and broaden them. We want to move beyond opinions … Go into the funding of the Nazi party. How many American corporations were involved, from GM through IBM. Hitler is just a man who could have easily been assassinated,” Stone said.
Source
Oliver Stone: Jewish control of the media is preventing free Holocaust debate
Outspoken Hollywood director says new film aims to put Adolf Hitler, who he has called an ‘easy scapegoat’ in the past, in his due historical context.
By Haaretz Service
Jewish control of the media is preventing an open discussion of the Holocaust, prominent Hollywood director Oliver Stone told the Sunday Times, adding that the U.S. Jewish lobby was controlling Washington’s foreign policy for years.
In the Sunday interview, Stone reportedly said U.S. public opinion was focused on the Holocaust as a result of the “Jewish domination of the media,” adding that an upcoming film of him aims to put Adolf Hitler and Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin “in context.”
“There’s a major lobby in the United States,” Stone said, adding that “they are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington.”
The famed Hollywood director of such films as Platoon and JFK, also said that while “Hitler was a Frankenstein,” there was also a “Dr Frankenstein.”
“German industrialists, the Americans and the British. He had a lot of support,” Stone told the Sunday Times, adding that “Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people, 25 or 30 [million killed].”
Referring to the alleged influence of the powerful Jewish lobby on U.S. foreign policy, Stone said that Israel had distorted “United States foreign policy for years,” adding he felt U.S. policy toward Iran was “horrible.”
“Iran isn’t necessarily the good guy,” Stone said, insisting that Americans did not “know the full story.”
Stone’s comments to the Sunday times echo pervious remarks by the Hollywood director, regarding what he conceives as the distorted view of figures such as Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin in U.S. media.
Earlier this year, Stone, speaking at the at the Television Critics Association’s semi-annual press tour in Pasadena said that “Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and it’s been used cheaply.”
“He’s the product of a series of actions. It’s cause and effect … People in America don’t know the connection between World War I and World War II, Stone said adding that through his documentary work he has been able to “walk in Stalin’s shoes and Hitler’s shoes to understand their point of view.”
“We’re going to educate our minds and liberalize them and broaden them. We want to move beyond opinions … Go into the funding of the Nazi party. How many American corporations were involved, from GM through IBM. Hitler is just a man who could have easily been assassinated,” Stone said.
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)