PARANOID? Read posts about UFOs & ETs, Suppressed Science & Hidden History, Secret Societies & the New World Order, Politics, Armageddon & the Apocalypse... From the CIA to the NSA, the FBI to the DEA, and all the other alphabet soup agencies. (Graphic by Don Grabau)
Search This Blog, All Links Referenced In All Posts, & Paranoid Links At The Bottom Of The Page
19 March, 2009
Fed Caused Great Depression
Hedge Funds May Be Getting a Bailout via AIG's Payments
*******************
by: Dow Jones | Visit article original @ Dow Jones
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200903181338DOWJONESDJONLINE000826_FORTUNE5.htm
New York - The fact that some payments made by American International Group Inc. (AIG) to hedge funds are coming from government bailout money raises a question: Are hedge funds receiving a de facto bailout?
If the answer is yes, it would signify the first taxpayer money yet to reach hedge funds since the financial crisis began back in late 2007. Hedge funds - investment pools made up primarily of high net worth individuals, pension funds and university endowments - have suffered like most during the crisis, but have pointed out with pride that as of yet their industry hasn't requested any government handouts.
Officially, of course, any payments made by AIG to hedge funds wouldn't change that fact. It was AIG that requested the bailout, not the hedge funds. The insurance giant is now simply meeting its contractual obligations.
In some cases, AIG has already paid out fairly hefty amounts to hedge funds with U.S. taxpayer funds. AIG said in a press release Sunday that it paid $200 million each in "public aid" to Citadel Investment Group and Paloma Securities. These payments were made to settle short-term trades last year in which the hedge funds loaned AIG cash in exchange for bonds.
Also, as reported Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, AIG reportedly may be paying out many different hedge funds for bets in which the hedge funds waged that the housing market would crater against AIG's bets that it would remain robust.
It isn't clear how much in total that hedge funds stand to gain through the AIG payments, but the payments call into question the government's decision, whether out of haste or for any other reason, to allow the AIG bailout money to be dispersed to any counterparties, including hedge funds.
"Taxpayer money is being paid to hedge funds by a Treasury that could have limited the payments to domestic banks but decided not to risk letting anyone big fail," said John Coffee, a professor of securities law at Columbia University. "In short, everyone of importance is being protected."
The Real AIG Scandal
It's not the bonuses. It's that AIG's counterparties are getting paid back in full.
http://www.slate.com/id/2213942/
Everybody is rushing to condemn AIG's bonuses, but this simple scandal is obscuring the real disgrace at the insurance giant: Why are AIG's counterparties getting paid back in full, to the tune of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars?
For the answer to this question, we need to go back to the very first decision to bail out AIG, made, we are told, by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, then-New York Fed official Timothy Geithner, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke last fall. Post-Lehman's collapse, they feared a systemic failure could be triggered by AIG's inability to pay the counterparties to all the sophisticated instruments AIG had sold. And who were AIG's trading partners? No shock here: Goldman, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Barclays, and on it goes. So now we know for sure what we already surmised: The AIG bailout has been a way to hide an enormous second round of cash to the same group that had received TARP money already.
It all appears, once again, to be the same insiders protecting themselves against sharing the pain and risk of their own bad adventure. The payments to AIG's counterparties are justified with an appeal to the sanctity of contract. If AIG's contracts turned out to be shaky, the theory goes, then the whole edifice of the financial system would collapse.
But wait a moment, aren't we in the midst of reopening contracts all over the place to share the burden of this crisis? From raising taxes - income taxes to sales taxes - to properly reopening labor contracts, we are all being asked to pitch in and carry our share of the burden. Workers around the country are being asked to take pay cuts and accept shorter work weeks so that colleagues won't be laid off. Why can't Wall Street royalty shoulder some of the burden?
Why did Goldman have to get back 100 cents on the dollar? Didn't we already give Goldman a $25 billion capital infusion, and aren't they sitting on more than $100 billion in cash? Haven't we been told recently that they are beginning to come back to fiscal stability? If that is so, couldn't they have accepted a discount, and couldn't they have agreed to certain conditions before the AIG dollars - that is, our dollars - flowed?
The appearance that this was all an inside job is overwhelming. AIG was nothing more than a conduit for huge capital flows to the same old suspects, with no reason or explanation.
So here are several questions that should be answered, in public, under oath, to clear the air:
• What was the precise conversation among Bernanke, Geithner, Paulson, and Blankfein that preceded the initial $80 billion grant?
• Was it already known who the counterparties were and what the exposure was for each of the counterparties?
• What did Goldman, and all the other counterparties, know about AIG's financial condition at the time they executed the swaps or other contracts? Had they done adequate due diligence to see whether they were buying real protection? And why shouldn't they bear a percentage of the risk of failure of their own counterparty?
• What is the deeper relationship between Goldman and AIG? Didn't they almost merge a few years ago but did not because Goldman couldn't get its arms around the black box that is AIG? If that is true, why should Goldman get bailed out? After all, they should have known as well as anybody that a big part of AIG's business model was not to pay on insurance it had issued.
• Why weren't the counterparties immediately and fully disclosed?
Failure to answer these questions will feed the populist rage that is metastasizing very quickly. And it will raise basic questions about the competence of those who are supposedly guiding this economic policy.
18 March, 2009
Obama Administration mangles the U.S. Constitution!
Yes, the “sovereign” can stop AIG from paying bonuses on contracts!…
As stated below:
“the law is clear that the United States has the authority to impose significant restrictions on the administration of both public and private contracts to ensure that the expenditure of federal funds is consistent with the public interest.”
************************************
The Obama administration's assertion that the federal government had no power to stop A.I.G. from awarding $165 million in bonuses to the derivatives traders in its financial products unit, whose reckless decisions both destroyed the company and exacerbated the collapse of the international banking and insurance industries, rests on a faulty interpretation of the US Constitution. Speaking on ABC's "This Week," Lawrence H. Summers, director of the National Economic Council, explained that the United States could not block payment of the bonuses, despite A.I.G.'s receipt of more than $170 billion in federal TARP funds, because "We are a country of law. There are contracts. The government cannot just abrogate contracts."
Although, it is true that the "government cannot just abrogate contracts" for no good reason, the law is clear that the United States has the authority to impose significant restrictions on the administration of both public and private contracts to ensure that the expenditure of federal funds is consistent with the public interest. Although, it is too late to void the A.I.G. bonuses, the administration's narrow reading of the law should not deter Congress from amending the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of October 2008, the legislation that created TARP, to authorize the president or the secretary of the treasury to modify executive compensation agreements that are contrary to the purposes of the Act.
Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution provides that "No State ... shall pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts," but the Supreme Court has held that the contracts clause is limited to state actions and is inapplicable to the federal government. Actions by the United States that allegedly impair contracts are governed instead by the Fifth Amendment's directive that no person "shall be deprived of ... property without due process of law." The Supreme Court's cases interpreting the due process clause distinguish between federal laws that may impair private contracts and laws that allegedly abrogate contracts to which the United States itself is a party. Under both sets of cases, the United States could have prevented A.I.G.'s use of TARP funds to pay executive bonuses, despite A.I.G.'s compensation agreements with its derivatives traders.
[…]
There are, in fact, myriad reasons for the United States to prohibit A.I.G. from awarding bonuses to the members of its financial products unit, and the Supreme Court's precedents would require the courts to defer to these regulatory judgments. As President Obama explained on Monday, these policies include ensuring that the TARP funds are spent to increase financial liquidity throughout the lending and insurance system, deterring future malfeasance by not rewarding bad business judgments and disastrous financial performance and preventing the loss of political support for the financial bailout and regulatory reform program - a risk that the administration is now struggling to contain.
If the administration's concern is that blocking the executive bonuses would violate the contracts by which the United States has awarded A.I.G. its $170 billion in TARP funds, a different constitutional standard would apply. The Supreme Court has held that the sovereign power of the United States is an "enduring presence that governs all contracts subject to the sovereign's jurisdiction and will remain intact unless surrendered in unmistakable terms. Therefore, contractual arrangements, including those to which a sovereign itself is a party, 'remain subject to subsequent legislation' by the sovereign."
Continue reading at:
http://www.truthout.org/031809A
Is Israel assassinating Iran nuclear scientists?
By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent
Israel is assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists as part of a covert war against the Islamic Republic's illicit weapons program, the Daily Telegraph on Tuesday quoted Western intelligence analysts as saying.
The British daily said Israel's Mossad espionage agency was rumored to be behind the death of Ardeshire Hassanpour, a top nuclear scientist at Iran's Isfahan uranium plant, who died in mysterious circumstances from reported "gas poisoning" in 2007.
Other recent deaths of important figures in the procurement and enrichment process in Iran and Europe have been the result of Israeli "hits", intended to deprive Tehran of key technical skills at the head of the program, according to the analysts.
The Telegraph also quoted United States intelligence sources as saying Israel is using sabotage, front companies and double agents to disrupt the regime's illicit weapons project as an alternative to direct military strikes.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that Israel has been carrying out similar covert activities for about a decade, ever since Iran was first suspected of seeking nuclear weapons. The U.S. journalist James Risen has written recently that the CIA and the Mossad have planned together a number of sabotage operations against the Iranian program, including damaging power lines to nuclear sites in order to cause harm to computer systems and equipment.
The Telegraph also quoted Israeli officials as privately acknowledging the new U.S. administration is unlikely to sanction an air attack on Iran's nuclear installations and that President Barack Obama's offer to extend a hand of peace to Tehran puts any direct military action beyond reach for now.
As such, the reported goal of Israel's covert campaign is to delay or interrupt the Iranian research program, without engaging in a direct confrontation that could lead to a wider war.
"Disruption is designed to slow progress on the program, done in such a way that they don't realize what's happening. You are never going to stop it," a former CIA officer on Iran was quoted as saying.
"The goal is delay, delay, delay until you can come up with some other solution or approach," he added. "We certainly don't want the current Iranian government to have those weapons. It's a good policy, short of taking them out militarily, which probably carries unacceptable risks."
Reva Bhalla, a senior analyst with Stratfor, the U.S. private intelligence company with strong government security connections, was quoted by the paper as saying the strategy was to take out key people.
"With co-operation from the United States, Israeli covert operations have focused both on eliminating key human assets involved in the nuclear programme and in sabotaging the Iranian nuclear supply chain," she was quoted as saying.
"As US-Israeli relations are bound to come under strain over the Obama administration's outreach to Iran, and as the political atmosphere grows in complexity, an intensification of Israeli covert activity against Iran is likely to result."
March Against Corporate Greed!
http://takebacktheeconomy.org
Take Action against Corporate Excess!
Join the movement on March 19.
16 March, 2009
Time Mag Pans Pentagon Book
Blank Spots on the Map
By Gilbert Cruz
Blank Spots on the Map: The Dark Geography of the Pentagon's Secret World
By Trevor Paglen
324 pages; Dutton
The Gist:
From Area 51 to the once-secret prisons of Afghanistan, there are certain places that the U.S. government has tried its best to erase from most maps. But as author and geographer Trevor Paglen writes early on in his book, the absence of such places — the titular blank spots —inherently inform us of their exact locations: "Secrets, in other words, often inevitably announce their own existence." Over the next 250 pages, Paglen goes on to sketch out a survey of the dark corners of the United States' national security apparatus from the early 20th century to today.
Highlight Reel:
1. On the sheer breadth of the Pentagon's secret world: "Every year, the United States spends more than $50 billion to fund a secret world of classified military and intelligence activities, a world of secret airplanes and unacknowledged spacecraft, 'black' military units and covert prisons, a secret geography that military and intelligence insiders call the 'black world'...Approximately four million people in the United States hold security clearances to work on classified projects in the black world. By way of contrast, the federal government employs approximately 1.8 million civilians in the 'white' world."
2. On the "Black Chamber," America's first codebreaking agency founded in 1919, and its head, Herbert Yardley: "When Herbert Hoover took control of the White House and named Henry L. Stimson secretary of state, the existence of the Black Chamber remained secret even to the incoming administration...After a few months had passed, Yardley decided that Stimson had settled in well enough to be informed and provided the secretary of state with a handful of decrypted Japanese messages...Outraged, he famously exclaimed, 'Gentlemen do not read each other's mail,' and sought to immediately shut down Yardley's operation....Or so it seemed. Just as the Black Chamber was shutting down, the Army tapped William Frederick Friedman to continue its mission under the guise of a secret military unit."
3. On the Red Cross's complicity with the Bush Administration's secret imprisonment of terror suspects: "I knew that the Red Cross isn't supposed to talk about the work they do. The reports they issue aren't meant for public consumption — the Red Cross is supposed to discreetly visit prisoners and submit reports only to host governments. In the case of prisoners held by the United States in the war on terror, that would be the executive branch. The point of the Red Cross's discreet approach is to ensure that the organization remains neutral in a given conflict and doesn't jeopardize its access to prisoners by publicly embarrassing governments...The Red Cross relies on secrecy as much as the CIA does. It might be called a Faustian bargain, but it's easy to understand the logic."
The Lowdown:
Paglen's concern is the "black world," that parallel government bureaucracy funded by billions in taxpayer dollars, the allocation of which is never revealed. It would be misleading to take the book's subtitle at face value — the "geography" to which Paglen refers is as much metaphorical and legal as physical. (Sorry conspiracy theorists, he does not actually infiltrate any hangars at Area 51). "Blank spots on the map begat dark spaces in the law," he writes, in reference to a raft of shady government incidents from NSA wiretapping to extraordinary renditions to secret CIA missions in 1980's Latin America.
It's a lot to string together, and Paglen has a slight tendency towards stunts — holing up in a Las Vegas hotel in an attempt to track workers flying to and from a secret military installation, for example —and digressions, writing of the exploratory history of inner Nevada, or delving deep into the minutiae of amateur satellite hunting. That's not to suggest that those discussions aren't good reading, for they are — Paglen somehow manages to make the movements of a spy satellite riveting — but rather to say that many of his parts are more intriguing than a somewhat diffuse whole.
The Verdict: Skim
POLICE CHIEF SANCHEZ: MORE ON ABUSE
POLICE CHIEF SANCHEZ: MORE ON ABUSE
by Robert Eringer
Last week’s column on Police Chief Camerino Sanchez’s abuse of authority evoked an avalanche of e-mail to The Investigator. The Wayne Scoles trial, and the apparent misconduct of Chief Sanchez, has clearly touched a community nerve.
Anecdotes starring Chief Sanchez as a bully filled our mailbox, with several correspondents requesting we keep their names and stories confidential for fear of reprisal. (At what point did Santa Barbara enter a time warp and land in the former Soviet Union?)
Others corroborated eardrum erosion from a line that seems to be the chief’s menacing mantra: “I’m not someone you want to mess with.”
Chief Sanchez also reportedly yelled, “Get the f--- out of my city!” at his elderly father-in-law, Danny Gonzales, after allegedly coming up from behind and pushing the 77 year-old at a Santa Barbara rehabilitation center, to which Mr. Gonzales had traveled from Los Angeles to visit his ailing wife, Amida.
Mr. Gonzales’s son, Daniel, who witnessed this assault and battery, told The Investigator: “As my father left a conference room after talking to a hospital administrator, he was followed down the hallway by Cam Sanchez, who then pushed my father in the back while yelling at him ‘to get the f--- out of my city.’ My father, although nearly falling, was able to keep on his feet. As Cam Sanchez is police chief, my father thought it would be futile to file a report.”
Mr. Gonzales and his son are estranged from their daughter/sister Olivia Guadalupe Sanchez and her husband, Cam Sanchez, stemming from an incident 10 years ago when Mr. and Mrs. Sanchez allegedly attempted to fleece them out of their 50 percent share of an LA real estate investment.
"My mom and dad forgot to have a deed recorded,” Daniel Gonzales told The Investigator. “Time passed. Cam and Lupe took advantage of them and, in a case of elder abuse, fraudulently embezzled their 50 percent share of the property by creating a new deed that he signed and deeded to himself. The embezzlement was not discovered until years later. When Cam and Lupe were confronted with what they had done, they refused to remedy the situation.”
Continued Daniel Gonzales: “My mom and dad wanted the property sold, and fought with Cam and Lupe about selling it. Finally, Cam and Lupe would only agree to sell the property and split the proceeds 50/50 if mom and dad would sign a new deed showing that Cam and Lupe held 75 percent interest. I imagine this was done for tax fraud purposes so Cam and Lupe could show 75 percent ownership interest yet receive only 50 percent of the proceeds. Cam and Lupe did a 1031 tax deferred exchange with their proceeds and purchased a property in Lompoc."
We revert to the Lompoc property later in this column.
First, a sampling of missives from readers conveyed to The Investigator:
"The Wayne Scoles trial shows the police chief’s true colors, often law-bending in favor of Hispanics. One example is the sympathy he shows to gang members, thus the lack of introduction of a gang injunction here. I have seen him try to buddy-up to congregating gang members on numerous occasions, once telling them to pour out their beer at a beach instead of arresting them or writing tickets, which is the rule of law."
And: “Hauling Mr. Scoles off to the station where Detective Hunter tried to intimidate him into a confession is even more bothersome. Are we becoming Guantanamo-by-the-Pacific?”
This refers to Jaycee Hunter, who last year was prepared to Taser a Critical Mass bicyclist for running a red light--a transgression this peace officer depicted as “terrorist-type behavior.” Detective Hunter has now taken to writing City Council members to say that Wayne Scoles is not innocent.
Dear Jaycee: Innocent until proven guilty is a basic tenet of our legal system. Which means that if a jury found Mr. Scoles “not guilty” (as it did), he remains, in fact, “innocent.” Perhaps you are confusing the state of your policing with police state.
But we digress. Back to missives on Cam Sanchez: “Collusion, lies and cover-ups seem to be the hallmark of law enforcement in Santa Barbara.”
And: “The police chief’s behavior should be investigated by the DA’s office or a grand jury.”
And: “It is too bad Santa Barbara cannot do better than to hire someone so out of his league.”
And: “He arrests an advocate for the elderly because he can’t take the heat when a citizen displays displeasure with the poor job he is doing fighting crime in the Mesa area. He should resign or be removed.”
We also received a curious tip-off regarding Chief Sanchez’s property holdings—a lead we investigated and confirmed.
Some context: On July 20th, 2001, in response to a request from Cam Sanchez, City Council approved a low-interest “sweetheart” loan of $500,000 for him to purchase a house in Santa Barbara. This was due to Santa Barbara’s relatively high cost of living and requirement that a police chief resides within city limits.
Now our finding: Several years after assuming the position of police chief, Mr. Sanchez and his wife purchased two additional California houses, which they utilize as rental-income properties.
The first, purchased on December 24th, 2003, is in Lompoc.
The second, purchased on November 8th, 2005, is in La Habra.
An obvious question: If Chief Sanchez could afford to buy two houses and lease them to tenants for rental income, why did he request a sweetheart mortgage loan from the City—and why did City Council feel obliged to provide it?
Surely, the City required Mr. Sanchez to submit a financial disclosure statement to qualify for such a loan.
Guess again.
We e-mailed City Administrator Jim Armstrong with a request to see such disclosure.
“No,” replied Marcelo Lopez, Administrative Services Director. There is nothing to see because City Council sought no financial disclosure.
Which means the City conducted no due diligence to determine if a sweetheart loan was warranted.
We requested to see the Chief’s employment contract.
“City Heads do not have employment contracts,” Mr. Lopez told The Investigator. “They work at will.”
This means there is no fixed term to Chief Sanchez’s tenure as police chief.
It also means he can be dismissed “at will,” for any reason, at any time, by the City Administrator.
Next, rule of scofflaw: Chief Sanchez has an unpaid bill (since early 2007) with Pueblo Radiology. He did not show up for a hearing in Civil & Small Claims Court to contest this bill, just ignored it--despite having received a summons. So on July 17th, 2008 a default judgment/lien in the amount of $1,917.71 was awarded to CMRE Financial Services Inc. against him.
It begs this question: Does Chief Sanchez, who is sworn to uphold the law, consider himself personally above the law with regard to a) showing up in court when properly served with a summons and b) paying his medical bills?
Finally, a bizarre comment from Mayor Marty Blum after we enquired about Chief Sanchez’s employment with reference to allegations of misconduct: “I hope,” she wrote, “that you also investigate allegations of good conduct on behalf of Chief Sanchez.”
Excuse us?
Wasn’t it the City’s responsibility to conduct due diligence to establish Cam Sanchez’s “good conduct” before hiring him to be police chief—and to verify his neediness to receive a low- interest home loan, courtesy of the tax-paying public?
Madame Mayor, with all due respect, it is the role of investigative journalism to prod and test for misconduct, not to supplement the City’s due diligence—which, in this case, was diddlysquat. In any case, you need not fret; we haven’t received any “allegations of good conduct on behalf of Chief Sanchez” to investigate—only allegations pertaining to embezzlement, tax fraud, elder abuse, assault & battery, and behavior befitting a deadbeat.
And it smells worse than El Estero Wastewater Treatment Plant on a dog day the morning after Fiesta.
If you have a story for The Investigator, you can contact him at eringer33@aol.com. State if your query is confidential.
Robert Eringer's blog is:
http://www.roberteringer.com/col_030709.htm
14 March, 2009
Staged Synchronicities
Another repetitive trend of the last 10 years leading up to the election of President Obama was the appearance of African-American men casted as President in various TV shows or films. The most popular one was Fox's 24 which premiered in 2001. For the first five seasons actor Dennis Haybert played Democratic President David Palmer. Haybert's portrayal of an African-American president had such an impact that the actor himself even felt that his role helped Americans become "comfortable" with the idea. Political commentators even referred to Obama's election as the "Palmer Effect".
Compelling evidence that the future is revealed in the mass media before it manifests itself, was exposed in the NBC show "The West Wing". There were striking similarities between the shows 2006 season "election" and the actual 2008 U.S. Presidential election. Jimmy Smits played Matt Santos, a young minority Democratic candidate who is pitted against an aging "maverick" Senator named Arnold Vinick(Alan Alda). Santos is telegenic and a popular forty-something with two young children. An "inspirational speaker" he announces his candidacy by telling supporters: "I am here to tell you that hope is real. In a life of trial, in a world of challenges, hope is real." Sound familiar anyone? I suppose if the writers had the crowd shout "Yes we can!" it would be too obvious. His "opponent" is Arnold Vinick, a white-haired Senator(McCain) with a reputation for declaring "straight talk" to the press. Even the vice-presidential picks are similar: the Democrat selects a Washington veteran, while the Republican chooses a staunchly evangelical governor to shore up the base. President Obama likes the music of Bob Dylan and "coincidentally" so does Matt Santos in the show. When the press starts asking where Vinick attends church, he tells his staff "I haven't gone to church for a while." Asked in July 2008 by the NY Times about his church attendance, McCain said: "Not as often as I should." In Britain, where the series remains popular in syndication the newspaper The Telegraph declared: "Barack Obama will win: It's all in The West Wing."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/arts/television/30wing.html?_r=2&em=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
Another odd strand of synchronicity began on April 4, 2007 with the leading news story of "shock-jock" Don Imus being castigated for describing the University of Rutger's women's basketball team as "ho's." For about two straight weeks on the local and national media outlets this silliness was the major news item dwarfing everything else as the nation followed the saga of Imus apologizing and being fired. During the ongoing continuous coverage of this "news", on April 14 the Hawaiian-American pop-singer Don Ho, famous for his hit "Tiny Bubbles"(#8Billboard, 1966) passed away. Then on April 16th, the culmination of "ho" coincidences transpired when Seung-Hui Cho, a South Korean student at Virginia Tech went on a shooting rampage killing 32 people and himself.
And to top it all, in November 2001 the hip-hop group "The Coup" released their album "Party Music". The intended, original CD cover art, created in June 2001 depicts the WTC Twin Towers exploding, months before the 9-11 "Islamic terrorist attacks".
13 March, 2009
Executive Assassination Ring
At a "Great Conversations" event at the University of Minnesota last night, legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh may have made a little more news than he intended by talking about new alleged instances of domestic spying by the CIA, and about an ongoing covert military operation that he called an "executive assassination ring."
Hersh spoke with great confidence about these findings from his current reporting, which he hasn't written about yet.
In an email exchange afterward, Hersh said that his statements were "an honest response to a question" from the event's moderator, U of M Political Scientist Larry Jacobs and "not something I wanted to dwell about in public."
Hersh didn't take back the statements, which he said arise from reporting he is doing for a book, but that it might be a year or two before he has what he needs on the topic to be "effective...that is, empirical, for even the most skeptical."
The evening of great conversation, featuring Walter Mondale and Hersh, moderated by Jacobs and titled "America's Constitutional Crisis," looked to be a mostly historical review of events that have tested our Constitution, by a journalist and a high government officials who had experience with many of the crises.
And it was mostly historical, and a great conversation, in which Hersh and Mondale talked about the patterns by which presidents seem to get intoxicated by executive power, frustrated by the limitations on that power from Congress and the public, drawn into improper covert actions that exceed their constitutional powers, in the belief that they can get results and will never be found out. Despite a few references to the Founding Fathers, the history was mostly recent, starting with the Viethnam War with much of it arising from the George W. Bush administration, which both men roundly denounced.
At the end of one answer by Hersh about how these things tend to happen, Jacobs asked: "And do they continue to happen to this day?"
Replied Hersh: "Yuh. After 9/11, I haven't written about this yet, but the Central Intelligence Agency was very deeply involved in domestic activities against people they thought to be enemies of the state. Without any legal authority for it. They haven't been called on it yet. That does happen.
"Right now, today, there was a story in the New York Times that if you read it carefully mentioned something known as the Joint Special Operations Command -- JSOC it's called. It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. They did not report to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or to Mr. [Robert] Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him. ...
"Congress has no oversight of it. It's an executive assassination ring essentially, and it's been going on and on and on. Just today in the Times there was a story that its leaders, a three star admiral named [William H.] McRaven, ordered a stop to it because there were so many collateral deaths.
"Under President Bush's authority, they've been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That's been going on, in the name of all of us.
"It's complicated because the guys doing it are not murderers, and yet they are committing what we would normally call murder. It's a very complicated issue. Because they are young men that went into the Special Forces. The Delta Forces you've heard about. Navy Seal teams. Highly specialized.
"In many cases, they were the best and the brightest. Really, no exaggerations. Really fine guys that went in to do the kind of necessary jobs that they think you need to do to protect America. And then they find themselves torturing people.
"I've had people say to me -- five years ago, I had one say: 'What do you call it when you interrogate somebody and you leave them bleeding and they don't get any medical committee and two days later he dies. Is that murder? What happens if I get before a committee?'
"But they're not gonna get before a committee."
Continue reading this fantastic article at:
http://www.minnpost.com/ericblackblog/2009/03/11/7310/investigative_reporter_seymour_hersh_describes_executive_assassination_ring
11 March, 2009
Happy Birthday Jack Kerouac - March 12
Happy Birthday Jack Kerouac – 87 years born, 40 years gone
March 12, 1922 – October 21, 1969
http://www.myspace.com/tikibunker
March is Jack Kerouac Birthday month at TikiBunker.
Please join us for virtual drinks and music throughout the month of March.
Send your post-Apocalyptic or Road Song requests to TikiBunker DJ, Joan d'Arc. I also accept drinking songs if they're good.
Please read a Kerouac book this month! Happy Birthday Jack!
http://www.myspace.com/bluesandhaikus
Is Israel Pushing Our Buttons?
“Let there be no doubt: If there is an American war with Iran, it is a war that was made in Israel and nowhere else.” - Scott Ritter, Senior UN Weapons Inspector
Washington - Iran does not yet have any highly enriched uranium, the fuel needed to make a nuclear warhead, two top U.S. intelligence officials told Congress Tuesday, disputing a claim by an Israeli official.
U.S. National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Michael Maples said Tuesday that Iran has only low-enriched uranium - which would need to be refined into highly enriched uranium before it can fuel a warhead. Neither officials said there were indications that refining has occurred.
Their comments disputed a claim made last weekend by Israel's top intelligence military official, who said Iran has crossed a technical threshold and is now capable of producing atomic weapons.
The claim made by Israeli Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin runs counter to estimates by U.S. intelligence that the earliest Iran could produce a weapon is 2010, with some analysts saying it is more likely that it is 2015.
Maples said the United States and Israel are interpreting the same facts, but arriving at different conclusions.
"The Israelis are far more concerned about it," Maples told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Continue reading at:
http://www.truthout.org/031109L
See also:
http://www.forward.com/articles/9734/
Book Review: Israel, Lobby Pushing Iran War by Scott Ritter
A former United Nations weapons inspector and leading Iraq War opponent has written a new book alleging that Jerusalem is pushing the Bush administration into war with Iran, and accusing the pro-Israel lobby of dual loyalty and “outright espionage.”
In the new book, called “Target Iran,” Scott Ritter, who served as a senior U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998 and later became one of the war’s staunchest critics, argues that the United States is readying for military action against Iran, using its nuclear program as a pretext for pursuing regime change in Tehran.
“The Bush administration, with the able help of the Israeli government and the pro-Israel Lobby, has succeeded,” Ritter writes, “in exploiting the ignorance of the American people about nuclear technology and nuclear weapons so as to engender enough fear that the American public has more or less been pre-programmed to accept the notion of the need to militarily confront a nuclear armed Iran.”
Later in the book, Ritter adds: “Let there be no doubt: If there is an American war with Iran, it is a war that was made in Israel and nowhere else.”
Czech Papers Question Whether Contaminated Baxter Vaccine Was ‘Attempt to Provoke Pandemic’
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Czech newspapers are questioning if the shocking discovery of vaccines contaminated with the deadly avian flu virus which were distributed to 18 countries by the American company Baxter were part of a conspiracy to provoke a pandemic.
The claim holds weight because, according to the very laboratory protocols that are routine for vaccine makers, mixing a live virus biological weapon with vaccine material by accident is virtually impossible.
“The company that released contaminated flu virus material from a plant in Austria confirmed Friday that the experimental product contained live H5N1 avian flu viruses,” reports the Canadian Press.
Baxter flu vaccines contaminated with H5N1 - otherwise known as the human form of avian flu, one of the most deadly biological weapons on earth with a 60% kill rate - were received by labs in the Czech Republic, Germany, and Slovenia.
Initially, Baxter attempted to stonewall questions by invoking “trade secrets” and refused to reveal how the vaccines were contaminated with H5N1. After increased pressure they then claimed that pure H5N1 batches were sent by accident. This was seemingly an attempt to quickly change the story and hide the fact that the accidental contamination of a vaccine with a deadly biological agent like avian flu is virtually impossible and the only way it could have happened was by wilful gross criminal negligence.
According to a compiled translation from Czech newspaper stories, the media over there is asking tough questions about whether the contamination was part of a deliberate attempt to start a pandemic.
“Was this just a criminal negligence or it was an attempt to provoke pandemia using vaccination against flu to spread the disease - as happened with the anti-B hepatitis vaccination with vaccines containing the HIV virus in US? - and then cash for the vaccines against H5N1 which Baxter develops? How could on Earth a virus as H5N1 come to the ordinary flu vaccines? Don’t they follow even basic precautions in the american pharma companies?” states the translation.
The fact that Baxter mixed the deadly H5N1 virus with a mix of H3N2 seasonal flu viruses is the smoking gun. The H5N1 virus on its own has killed hundreds of people, but it is less airborne and more restricted in the ease with which it can spread. However, when combined with seasonal flu viruses, which as everyone knows are super-airborne and easily spread, the effect is a potent, super-airbone, super deadly biological weapon.
As the Canadian Press article explains, “While H5N1 doesn’t easily infect people, H3N2 viruses do. If someone exposed to a mixture of the two had been simultaneously infected with both strains, he or she could have served as an incubator for a hybrid virus able to transmit easily to and among people.”
There can be little doubt therefore that this was a deliberate attempt to weaponize the H5N1 virus to its most potent extreme and distribute it via conventional flu vaccines to the population who would then infect others to a devastating degree as the disease went airborne.
The Canadian Press article states, “That mixing process, called reassortment, is one of two ways pandemic viruses are created,” but then claims that there is no evidence that this is what Baxter were doing, despite there being no clear explanation as to why Baxter has samples of the live avian flu virus on its premises in the first place.
However, to reiterate, the key aspect of this story is that it is virtually impossible for live avian flu virus to find its way into a vaccine by “accident”.
As health expert Mike Adams points out, “The shocking answer is that this couldn’t have been an accident. Why? Because Baxter International adheres to something called BSL3 (Biosafety Level 3) - a set of laboratory safety protocols that prevent the cross-contamination of materials.”
As explained on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosaf…):
“Laboratory personnel have specific training in handling pathogenic and potentially lethal agents, and are supervised by competent scientists who are experienced in working with these agents. This is considered a neutral or warm zone. All procedures involving the manipulation of infectious materials are conducted within biological safety cabinets or other physical containment devices, or by personnel wearing appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment. The laboratory has special engineering and design features.”
Under the BSL3 code of conduct, it is impossible for live avian flu viruses to contaminate production vaccine materials that are shipped out to vendors around the world.
This leaves only two possibilities that explain these events:
Possibility #1: Baxter isn’t following BSL3 safety guidelines or is so sloppy in following them that it can make monumental mistakes that threaten the safety of the entire human race. And if that’s the case, then why are we injecting our children with vaccines made from Baxter’s materials?
Possibility #2: A rogue employee (or an evil plot from the top management) is present at Baxter, whereby live avian flu viruses were intentionally placed into the vaccine materials in the hope that such materials might be injected into humans and set off a global bird flu pandemic.
Spreading bird flu would create an instantaneous surge of demand for bird flu vaccines. The profits that vaccine companies such as Baxter International could reap out of such a panic are astronomical.
In addition, as we have previously reported, those that have a stake in the Tamiflu vaccine include top globalists and BIlderberg members like George Shultz, Lodewijk J.R. de Vink and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Authorities in both Europe and the U.S. have openly detailed plans for martial law, quarantine and internment should a bird flu pandemic occur.
The other motivation, as we have exhaustively documented on this website for years, is the fact that elites throughout history have openly stated that they want to see a world population reduction of around 80 per cent. Shocking stories like this take the plausibility of that narrative out of the realms of conspiracy theory and into the dangerous reality of conspiracy fact.
“Baxter is acting a whole lot like a biological terrorism organization these days, sending deadly viral samples around the world. If you mail an envelope full of anthrax to your Senator, you get arrested as a terrorist. So why is Baxter — which mailed samples of a far more deadly viral strain to labs around the world — getting away with saying, essentially, “Oops?”, Adams concludes.
This is not the first time that vaccine companies have been caught distributing vaccines contaminated with deadly viruses.
In 2006 it was revealed that Bayer Corporation had discovered that their injection drug, which was used by hemophiliacs, was contaminated with the HIV virus. Internal documents prove that after they positively knew that the drug was contaminated, they took it off the U.S. market only to dump it on the European, Asian and Latin American markets, knowingly exposing thousands, most of them children, to the live HIV virus. Government officials in France went to prison for allowing the drug to be distributed. The documents show that the FDA colluded with Bayer to cover-up the scandal and allowed the deadly drug to be distributed globally. No Bayer executives ever faced arrest or prosecution in the United States.
Continue reading at prisonplanet.com
http://www.prisonplanet.com/accidental-contamination-of-vaccine-with-live-avian-flu-virus-virtually-impossible.html
09 March, 2009
Missing From the Afghan "Surge": A Congressional Debate
No War = No "Surge"!
With 17,000 more troops headed for Afghanistan, this mini-documentary by Robert Greenwald's Brave New Foundation calls the Afghanistan "surge" into question.
So, if you want to "replicate the success of the surge in Iraq" in Afghanistan, it seems pretty clear that you are going to have to come to some arrangements with some armed groups that are currently considered "Taliban." If you're not talking to Taliban, you're not replicating the Iraq surge.
But another key element is missing with regard to Afghanistan that was present in 2006 to 2007 with regard to Iraq: public and Congressional debate. An escalating sequence of political events, including the Lamont Senate campaign, the recapture of the Congress by a Democratic majority, the Congressional fight in the spring of 2007 over a timetable for withdrawal - all sent a clear message to the Bush administration, the US military, the Iraqi government, Parliament and Iraqi society generally that time was running out for the US occupation, and that was a key cause of the change in policies. Even Defense Secretary Gates, while opposing a timetable for withdrawal, acknowledged that Congressional pressure was helpful in bringing about change in Iraq.
This public and Congressional pressure is missing today. President Obama has ordered more troops to Afghanistan. But while Obama administration officials have made suggestions in the direction of other elements - working to get the assistance of Iran and other neighbors, working with elements of the Taliban - the actual change we've seen so far in Afghanistan is: more troops.
If there were more pressure, the Obama administration would be moving more quickly to put these other elements in place. If there were a public and Congressional debate about an exit strategy, about a timetable for withdrawal, about blocking the Pentagon from building permanent military bases in Afghanistan, real change in US policy towards Afghanistan would be happening faster.
Robert Greenwald's Brave New Foundation is working to spark that debate. They've produced a ten-minute "mini-documentary" questioning the wisdom of sending more troops in support of the same failed policy.
Read more at:
http://www.truthout.org/030209T
Office of Grift Supervision?
Darrel Dochow - Office of Grift Supervision - allowed IndyMac bank to cook its books, investigators say.
The man at the center of a fraud scandal at the Treasury Department has been allowed to quietly quit and retire from his job as a government regulator, despite allegations that he allowed a bank to falsify financial records and amidst outcries from investigators who say the case shows how cozy government regulators have become with the banks and savings and loans they are supposed to be checking on.
Darrel Dochow, the West Coast regional director at the Office of Thrift Supervision (sic) who investigators say allowed IndyMac to backdate its deposits to hide its ill health, quit last Friday. Prior to his leaving, Dochow was removed from his position but remained on the government payroll while the Inspector General's Office investigates the allegations against him.
Treasury Department Inspector General Eric Thorson announced in November his office would probe how Dochow allowed the IndyMac bank to essentially cook its books, making it appear in government filings that the bank had more deposits than it really did. But Thorson's aides now say IndyMac wasn't the only institution to get such cozy assistance from the official who should have been the cop on the beat.
Read more here:
http://www.truthout.org/030809A
06 March, 2009
Ordo ab Chao
Fed (Traitor) wants to keep AIG secrets
Fed vice chairman Donald Kohn said the names of AIG trading partners shouldn't be revealed. ... tells Congress he opposes unmasking the Wall Street firms that have pocketed tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer bailout funds.
An apparent relation of Joseph McCarthy sidekick Roy Cohn's?
Let’s get pictures of all these asswipes!
The faces of these traitors SHOULD BE REVEALED!
NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Officials shouldn't reveal which Wall Street firms pocketed billions of dollars in the government's bailout of AIG, a top Federal Reserve official said.
Firms that did business with the troubled insurer did so "expecting confidentiality," Fed Vice Chairman Donald Kohn told the Senate Banking Committee in testimony Thursday.
He said publishing a list of the firms that benefited from government support of AIG -- as lawmakers have been demanding -- could undermine trust in the markets and increase financial instability.
"I would be very concerned if we started revealing lists of names of companies that did transactions" with AIG or with the government on AIG's behalf, Kohn said in response to questions. Doing so, Kohn added, could "undermine confidence" in the financial system.
The comment was met with incredulity by senators who said the government must do a better job explaining how its actions over the past six months have benefited all Americans, and not simply troubled big companies and their trading partners. AIG has received more than $150 billion in federal aid since its brush with bankruptcy last fall.
"Public confidence in what we're doing is at stake, and the public right now is deeply deeply troubled," said committee chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn. "I understand the legal arguments you've given me, but that kind of answer undermines public trust."
Continue reading here:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/05/news/fed.transparency.fortune/index.htm
04 March, 2009
Declassified Memos Provide Look Into Bush Policies
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101389729
The Obama administration declassified nine Justice Department legal memos on Monday that asserted a sweeping view of presidential power, including authorizing the military to search Americans' homes without a warrant and sending detainees to other countries regardless of congressional statutes that might dictate otherwise.
Now civil liberties groups are pushing for the release of dozens of similar memos that remain classified.
About a month ago, the American Civil Liberties Union sent the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel a letter and a chart. The chart listed 55 classified Bush administration legal memos on national security issues. The letter basically said, "release these memos."
Some of the memos that the Justice Department declassified Monday were not even on the ACLU's list.
"So there are dozens of memos that are still secret," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's national security project. They include "memos that provided the basis for the national security agency's warrantless wiretapping program and memos that provided the basis for the CIA's torture program."
"Those are critical memos, and they're all still secret," he said. Jaffer knows they exist because the government has summarized or listed them in court documents.
Some secret memos have been mentioned with no description of their contents. And presumably some memoranda have never been mentioned at all. So, to paraphrase former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns.
Surprises in the Memos
One reason there's a lot of interest in these documents is that they could contain some surprises. For example, one memo declassified Monday is dated Oct. 23, 2001. It asserts that the military can ignore Americans' Fourth Amendment privacy rights and conduct searches against suspected terrorists without a warrant. It's a controversial claim, but the public learned about the assertion years ago in a footnote to another Justice Department document. The public did not know about a line in the same memo that said: "First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully."
The Justice Department withdrew all nine of the newly released memos in January. The acting head of the office of legal counsel, Steven Bradbury, formally repudiated them five days before President Bush left office.
Duke Law Professor Chris Schroeder was acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration, and he was on the Obama administration's Justice Department transition team. He called the wholesale overturning of legal opinions such as these, "Absolutely unprecedented. I know of no comparable experience that comes remotely close."
Liberal activists say the Bush administration's last-minute about-face is evidence of how far off the rails the Justice Department went in the last eight years. Conservatives say it's a sign that things are going off the rails right now.
David Rivkin worked at the Justice Department under President Reagan and the first President Bush. He says he never would have written these legal memos, and he might have even withdrawn them, but not like this.
"In a normal environment," Rivkin says, "you gently pull it back. In an abnormal environment, you engage in recrimination, vilification, demonization and public repudiation - almost show-trial like. That's a very, very bad way to proceed."
I can think of another way to proceed, Mr. Rivkin.
A REAL TRIAL?
You may read all of the declassified memos and presumably more after they are declassified at the US Department of Justice website:
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/olc-memos.htm
So far on the list are the following:
Memorandum Regarding Status of Certain OLC Opinions Issued in the Aftermath of the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (01-15-2009)
Memorandum Regarding Constitutionality of Amending Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to Change the "Purpose" Standard for Searches (09-25-2001)
Memorandum Regarding Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities within the United States (10-23-2001)
Memorandum Regarding Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Provisions of the ABM Treaty (11-15-2001)
Memorandum Regarding the President's Power as Commander in Chief to Transfer Captured Terrorists to the Control and Custody of Foreign Nations (03-13-2002)
Memorandum Regarding Swift Justice Authorization Act (04-08-2002)
Memorandum Regarding Determination of Enemy Belligerency and Military Detention (06-08-2002)
Memorandum Regarding Applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a) to Military Detention of United States Citizens (06-27-2002)
Memorandum Regarding October 23, 2001 OLC Opinion Addressing the Domestic Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities (10-06-2008)
Where's Devin?
The nurse was nice enough to let me use one of their terminals.
In the meantime...eveybody take care and keep your teeth in good repair!
- Devin LaRue
03 March, 2009
02 March, 2009
American policy on medical marijuana to change
Speaking at a press conference on Feb 25 with DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart, and reiterating a position made by the White House following DEA raids in California on February 4, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters that ending federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries "is now American policy." The Attorney General's comments are the latest sign of a sea change in federal policy that prohibits the use of medical cannabis in the thirteen states that have enacted such laws.
25 February, 2009
Obama: Freeing up resources for more war

"the mission could outlive all of us"
He "asked" for your vote and People, he really socked it to ya.
"Hope" you're happy now.
Written by Norman Solomon, graphic by Joan d'Arc
http://www.truthout.org/022509A
Hours after President Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress, The New York Times printed the news that he plans to gradually withdraw "American combat forces" from Iraq during the next 18 months. The newspaper reported that the advantages of the pullout will include "relieving the strain on the armed forces and freeing up resources for Afghanistan."
The president's speech had little to say about the plans for escalation, but the few words will come back to haunt: "With our friends and allies, we will forge a new and comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat Al Qaida and combat extremism, because I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens halfway around the world. We will not allow it."
Obama didn't mention the additional number of US troops - 17,000 - that he has just ordered to Afghanistan. But his pledge that he "will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people" and his ringing declaration, "We will not allow it," came just before this statement: "As we meet here tonight, our men and women in uniform stand watch abroad and more are readying to deploy."
Get the message? In his first speech to Congress, the new president threw down a 90-month-old gauntlet, reaffirming the notion that committing to war halfway around the world - in Afghanistan and now in Pakistan too - will make Americans safer. With drumrolls like that, the mission could outlive all of us.
And so, a colossal and fateful blunder, made by a very smart leader, arguably our best and brightest, is careening forward with the help of silence that defers all too readily to power. This is how the war in Vietnam escalated, while individuals and groups muted their voices. Many people will pay with their lives.
The reasons the war in Afghanistan cannot be won are directly connected to why the war is wrong. In essence, people do not like their country occupied for years on end, especially when the occupiers are routinely killing civilians (whatever the rationale). Monochrome words like Taliban and "terrorists" might seem tidy and clear enough as they appear in media coverage, or as they roll off a president's tongue, but in the real Afghan world the opponents of the US war are diverse and wide-ranging. With every missile strike that incinerates a household or terrorizes a village, the truly implacable "extremists" can rejoice at Uncle Sam's assistance to their recruiting efforts.
Those who are fond of talking and writing about President Obama's admirable progressive values will, sooner or later, need to come to terms with the particulars of his actual policies. In foreign affairs, the realities now include the ominous pairing of his antiterrorism rhetoric and his avowed commitment to ratchet up the US war effort in Afghanistan.
I don't often make predictions, but I'm confident about this one: Within a few years, some members of Congress, and leaders of some progressive groups with huge email lists, will look back with regret as they recall their failure to clearly and openly oppose the pivotal escalation of the Afghan war.
They could save themselves a lot of shame, and save others their lives, by speaking out sooner rather than later. In the process, they might help save the Obama presidency from running aground in Afghanistan.
Compendium
24 February, 2009
Obama's Trilateral Connection
February 21, 2009 12:00 AM
With spring nearly upon us, the Trilateral Commission will soon blossom into its annual conference -- scheduled for Tokyo, the weekend of April 24-26. This networking elite of politicians, bankers, industrialists and intellectuals from North America, Europe, Japan, and South Korea strives to shape foreign and economic policies of nations from behind the scenes. Who are these Commissioners -- and who commissioned them?
The notion of a tri-sphere concept, combining movers and shakers from three geographic regions, was first broached at a Bilderberg conference.
So what is Bilderberg -- and from where does it derive its authority?
It is an elite group of self-appointed global manipulators -- from North America and Europe -- who have met privately since 1954 to quietly influence governments.
Bilderberger banking bigwig David Rockefeller tapped Zbigniew Brzezinski to attend the April 1972 Bilderberg meeting in Knokke, Belgium, having taken a fancy to "Tripartite Studies" produced by the then-obscure Colombia University professor.
Appearing before Bilderbergers, Dr. Brzezinski made a pitch for inviting the Japanese into their secretive coterie on the basis that Japan had morphed into an economic powerhouse entitling it to play with the big boys. (South Korea joined that "sphere" much later.)
But the burghers of Bilderberg declined to integrate the Japanese into their own forum, a bilateral success for 22 years (by then) that had succeeded in fashioning a new order in Europe -- the Common Market and European unity. Instead, attendees sanctioned a new league and, thus, the Trilateral Commission was born.
Mr. Rockefeller and Zbiggy launched themselves through Europe and Japan on a recruiting drive.
Their "planning group" convened on July 23rd and 24th at Pocantico Hills, a Rockefeller estate overlooking the Hudson River. Mr. Rockefeller underwrote the expense from his own (deep) pocket, having discovered, decades earlier, that investing in high-level networking paid huge dividends.
With approval from "the highest political and financial circles" (an internal Commission memo), the trio selected chairmen and directors to represent each sphere of the tri.
The Commission quickly became a springboard for the presidency of Jimmy Carter. Mr. Carter, as governor of Georgia, had caught Mr. Rockefeller's eye as a potential president and, consequently, Zbiggy and Mr. Rockefeller lunched Jimmy in October 1972 at the Connaught Hotel in London, where they signed him on the spot to be a Commissioner. Jimmy also became David and Zbiggy's presidential candidate -- and the Commission bestowed him the power elite support (influence and money) he needed to "arise from nowhere."
The Trilateral Commission was not nowhere -- just nowhere (back then) to be found in the newspapers.
So Jimmy the peanut farmer got elected president in 1976, and Zbig became his national security adviser, the job he had coveted from the outset. Other Commissioners in the Carter Administration included Vice President Walter Mondale, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, Defense Secretary Harold Brown and Treasury Secretary Michael Blumenthal -- 18 in all, from 54 original members from the American sphere.
Together, this elitist clique messed things up real good: Soaring inflation, interest rates at 20 percent, and the world chessboard a horrible mess. President Carter's poor judgment caused confusion among our allies, laughter in the Soviet Union, and led, ultimately, to the hostage crisis in Iran.
"It completely justified our belief," a former senior CIA official told The Investigator, "that left to its own devices, the power elite is fully capable of causing another world war, not unlike their predecessors last century."
The CIA descended into decline, having had to endure Stansfield Turner as its director.
Said our CIA source: "Admiral Turner was more concerned about intelligence officers abroad engaging in extra-marital affairs than Iran imploding from within. He apparently mistook our agency for a missionary group."
As if things were not bad enough, Trilateral Commissioners David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger pushed President Carter into allowing the ailing Shah of Iran into the United States, a political miscalculation that precipitated the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Teheran and the resulting hostage crisis that sealed the fate of Jimmy Carter's one-term presidency.
Mr. Rockefeller quietly bailed from the monster he'd created, putting his money behind another horse from the Commission stable: George Bush, a privileged East-coast preppie who had moved to Texas to prove his manhood in the oil biz.
But Mr. Bush lost to Ronald Reagan -- partly because the former California governor took a few jibes at "Trilateral Commission elitists" during his campaign to woo voters away from Mr. Bush in New Hampshire, where Commission membership had been whipped into a major issue just before its decisive primary.
Having enjoyed 15 minutes of fame during Jimmy Carter's presidency, the Commission then shriveled into just another think-tank opportunity for young men and women wishing entry to an international "Old Boy" network.
But now they're back!
Many of President Obama's picks for premier positions in his administration are Trilateral Commissioners (read: Beltway Establishment insiders). These include:
• Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner;
• National Security Adviser James Jones;
• Deputy National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon;
• Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair;
• State Department special envoys Richard Holbrooke. Dennis Ross, and Richard Haas;
• Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice;
• Lawrence Summers, Director of the National Economic Council;
• Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg;
• Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell;
• Paul Volcker, chairman of the Economic Recovery Committee.
(Gee, maybe President Obama will break Jimmy Carter's record?)
Ten days ago Adm. Blair clearly demonstrated how the "Old Boy" network functions: He tapped fellow Commissioner John Deutch to sit upon a spy satellite advisory panel.
Mr. Deutch, you may recall, was CIA director under Bill Clinton. "The worst director in CIA history," a former senior agency official told the The Investigator. You may also remember this: Soon after Mr. Deutch's departure from that job in 1996, he was discovered to have grossly mishandled government secrets. Mr. Deutch, it transpired, had downloaded 74 top secret documents onto four computers used at his home by other family members and connected by modem to the Internet -- on which Mr. Deutch also accessed Russian porn sites through his AOL account.
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence investigated and produced a report to Congress stating: "Despite this knowledge (the risk of keeping secrets on un-encrypted computers), Deutch processed a large volume of highly classified information on these unclassified computers, taking no steps to restrict access to the information and thereby placing national security information at risk."
A senior CIA official privy to the classified version of the Senate Committee's report put it more bluntly for The Investigator: "Deutch allowed the Russians access to our biggest secrets."
Mr. Deutch was stripped of his security clearances. (They have now been restored.)
Anyone else would have been investigated for espionage. But an Old Boy like Mr. Deutch? Janet Reno's Justice Department worked out a gentle plea bargain. But while Mr. Deutch was in the midst of pleading guilty to a mere misdemeanor, brazen Bill, on the last day of his presidency, pardoned him, thereby vanquishing even a mild slap on the wrist for his fellow Commissioner. (Did we mention William Jefferson Clinton was a member of the Trilateral Commission when elected president in 1992?)
So excuse our suspicions about this so-called "power elite." Not because they're in charge again, but because they don't know what the heck they're doing. Conspiracy theorists yearn to believe these uber networkers rule the world. Truth is, our Beltway Establishment -- Democratic or Republican -- couldn't organize a binge in a brewery. These are the folks responsible, through negligence and profit taking, for where we are today -- ripped off by banksters and Wall Street, and Madoffs who made off.
"Obama for Change"? Maybe President Rhetoric meant spare change.
The opinions in the column are Robert Eringer's and not necessarily those of the Santa Barbara News Press. Readers may write Robert Eringer c/o the News Press. P.O. Box 1359, Santa Barbara 93102-1359.
23 February, 2009
Phosphorus Bombs US-Made; Raytheon Bomb Hits Gaza
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5792182.ece
Jerusalem - Detailed evidence has emerged of Israel's extensive use of US-made weaponry during its war in Gaza last month, including white phosphorus artillery shells, 500lb bombs and Hellfire missiles.
In a report released today, Amnesty International detailed the weapons used and called for an immediate arms embargo on Israel and all Palestinian armed groups. It called on the Obama administration to suspend military aid to Israel.
The human rights group said that those arming both sides in the conflict "will have been well aware of a pattern of repeated misuse of weapons by both parties and must therefore take responsibility for the violations perpetrated".
The US has long been the largest arms supplier to Israel; under a current 10-year agreement negotiated by the Bush administration the US will provide $30bn (£21bn) in military aid to Israel.
"As the major supplier of weapons to Israel, the USA has a particular obligation to stop any supply that contributes to gross violations of the laws of war and of human rights," said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty's Middle East and North Africa programme director. "To a large extent, Israel's military offensive in Gaza was carried out with weapons, munitions and military equipment supplied by the USA and paid for with US taxpayers' money."
For their part, Palestinian militants in Gaza were arming themselves with "unsophisticated weapons" including rockets made in Russia, Iran and China and bought from "clandestine sources", it said. About 1,300 Palestinians were killed and more than 4,000 injured during the three-week conflict. On the Israeli side 13 were killed, including three civilians. Amnesty said Israel's armed forces carried out "direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects in Gaza, and attacks which were disproportionate or indiscriminate". The Israeli military declined to comment yesterday.
Palestinian militants also fired "indiscriminate rockets" at civilians, Amnesty said. It called for an independent investigation into violations of international humanitarian law by both sides.
Amnesty researchers in Gaza found several weapon fragments after the fighting. One came from a 500lb (227kg) Mark-82 fin guided bomb, which had markings indicating parts were made by the US company Raytheon. They also found fragments of US-made white phosphorus artillery shells, marked M825 A1.
Continue reading at Guardian UK:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/23/military-aid-israel-amnesty
21 February, 2009
Argentina: Another Fireball Over Patagonia
Date: 02.20.09
Argentina: Another Argentinean Fireball in Patagonia
Witnesses to the phenomenon in Esquel and El Bolsón (Chubut Province) claim that the “night was completely lit” – it occurred last Saturday and research is ongoing to determine if it was a meteorite that entered the atmosphere and disintegrated, or if it was a UFO.
The strange “fireball” that crossed the skies over the Cordillera in Chubut between the towns of Esquel and El Bolsón is being investigated to see if it was an Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) or a meteorite that entered the atmosphere and burned up before striking the ground.
The episode took place at midnight last Saturday – although it only became known today – and was seen by at least a dozen people driving along the road that links El Bolsón with Esquel.
Those who witnessed the phenomenon claimed that the dark night was almost entirely illuminated for a few seconds, leaving eyewitnesses “flabbergasted”
“On Saturday, between 23:00 and midnight, personnel on duty saw a fireball-type light,” said Ramon Lotero, second commander of the 36ths Squadron of the National Gendarmes.
“The duty officer went out to survey the vicinity, because we first thought it was a private plane, but nothing could be seen,” Lotero said in a statement reproduced by www.paginasdelsur.com.ar website. While there wasn’t much certainty about what occurred, the Air Force wasn’t able to explain it either. Lotero leaned toward the meteorite theory.
“In theory, it was a fireball. We speculated that it was a meteorite. We cannot say this but in theory we believe it was a meteorite. Had it been a small plane, it would have left some traces, and we looked for the spot where it could’ve fallen, but there was nothing there,” he added.
Drivers transiting at that time at the entrance to Esquel “also saw the same”.
The second commander estimated – based on the observations – that “the fireball” fell between El Bolsón and San Carlos de Bariloche, although he could not be more specific. “When the object was seen, Air Force personnel working at the local airport was contacted, but no further information was obtained,” Loreto pointed out.
(Translation (c) 2009. S. Corrales, IHU. Special thanks to INFOBAE and Guillermo Gimenez, Planeta UFO)
20 February, 2009
FBI Finds Allen Stanford in Virginia
Notice how Class divisions rule treatment of crooks. He didn’t steal money. He “spooked international investors.” No “manhunt” for SIR Allen Stanford, but rather “the subject of intense speculation.”
And with what was SIR Allen Stanford “served” when he was finally caught? A glass of white wine and a filet mignon? La Dee Da. Any other crook would have been served with plastic handcuffs and a fine tasering.
This guy wasn’t even picked up. “He is making arrangements to surrender his passport …” Oh really. Here’s a guy charged with “massive ongoing fraud” and he’s free to run around clipping people’s wallets?
People, we’re through the looking glass here. The time for Revolution is HERE!
*******************************
Washington / St. John's - Texas billionaire Allen Stanford, accused of an $8 billion fraud that spooked investors around the world, was found in Virginia on Thursday and FBI agents served him with a complaint from U.S. regulators.
FBI spokesman Richard Kolko said the Federal Bureau of Investigation had acted at the request of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and that Stanford had not been arrested. A law enforcement official said Stanford was making arrangements to surrender his passport.
The whereabouts of jet-setting, 58-year-old Stanford had been the subject of intense speculation since he failed to respond to a subpoena from the SEC to answer questions about his company's operations. Stanford has homes in the United States and the Caribbean.
The SEC filed civil charges in Dallas, Texas, on Tuesday against Stanford, two colleagues and three Stanford companies, accusing them of a "massive ongoing fraud". Earlier this week, U.S. federal agents raided Stanford Group Co offices in Miami, Houston and other U.S. cities.
Five Latin American countries have acted against Stanford businesses, and Britain's Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is monitoring a possible U.K. link after media reports that Stanford's books were audited in Britain.
Stanford was found in the area of Fredericksburg, Virginia, about 50 miles south of Washington, D.C. The fallout from the SEC charges against the financier and sports entrepreneur prompted investigations in the United States, Latin America and Europe.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that U.S. federal prosecutors were investigating whether Stanford was operating a Ponzi scheme. In a Ponzi scheme, money from new investors is used to pay earlier investors.
The SEC has accused Stanford of fraudulently selling $8 billion in certificates of deposit with impossibly high interest rates from his Antiguan affiliate, Stanford International Bank Ltd (SIB).
The scandal, emerging hard on the heels of allegations that Wall Street veteran Bernard Madoff carried out a $50 billion fraud spooked international investors and sharply increased public distrust of investment plans.
In Caracas, Venezuela, the government of socialist President Hugo Chavez seized Stanford Bank Venezuela, one of the country's smallest commercial banks, to stem massive online withdrawals.
Here’s his picture:
http://www.truthout.org/022009L
18 February, 2009
Meet the Ameros
http://www.marketwatch.com/search/?value=amero%20currency
What was once relegated by the Establishment as a 'conspiracy theory' is now being disseminated by the mainstream CIA media as a potential reality. The article proposes the possibility that the U.S., Canada and Mexico might coalesce their money into the 'Amero', as a consequence of the 'economic collapse'. Of course what he doesn't tell the people is that this 'crisis' is a coordinated plan intentionally impelled by the machinations of the central banking families, (just as they engineered the 1929 Great Depression) to despoil people's assets and induce social change. Mr. Harrison remarks:
"The New World Order is upon us, full of hope, promise and a fair amount of fear. The ability to combine Canadian natural resources, American ingenuity and cheap Mexican labor would allow North America to compete better on a global scale."
Just as the global central bankers united the numerous European nations into the European Union with the Euro, now they may attempt a similar scheme in North America according to the Rupert Murdoch controlled Wall Street Journal. If they succeed in implementing this hypothetical design, then the ultimate conclusion will be the transformation of America/Canada over the ensuing decades into a pervasive third-world socioeconomic environment.
17 February, 2009
The Word of Rahm
Their inane book is rife with mawkish utopianism and cornball idealism. They write: "We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparations and community service."
This is intended to become their civilian 'thought police', who after completing their mandatory service will be conditionally commissioned to monitor the populace for any 'terrorist' ideas or statements hostile to the State. As Mr. "Emanuel" remarks on pg. 61: "We have no problem with spying on terrorists, here or elsewhere." Oh that's good to know Rahm, of course 'terrorist' is a subjective word, dependent upon who is in power and whom they consider to be 'enemies of the state'. According to these pseudo-communists like Rahm, a terrorist would be anyone who vociferates or protests against their government.
These Machiavellian operators then go on to write: "The United States needs to establish a first-class domestic counter terrorism force. A new Domestic Defense Division that would resemble Britain's successful domestic counter terrorism agency MI5. The sole mission would be to prevent and preempt terrorism at home." Oh yeah, I can imagine how they are going to 'preempt' terrorism--by shooting missiles from drone planes upon American citizens just like they do to the innocent people of Pakistan.
Eliot Spitzer's lawsuit against Glaxo-Smith-Kline
What happened to this lawsuit after Eliot Spitzer was “taken out”?
Did it get dropped? Anyone know?
Glaxo faces criminal action in Britain over ‘suicide’ pills
Paul Durman and Dominic Rushe
GLAXO SMITH KLINE is facing a potential criminal prosecution for allegedly failing to inform British health regulators about the suicide risks associated with Seroxat, its blockbuster anti-depressant.
Officials at the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) launched an investigation into Glaxo because of concerns that Britain’s biggest pharmaceutical group had withheld important data from clinical trials.
This showed that Seroxat could cause an increased risk of suicide and “self-harm” if prescribed to depressed teenagers.
The MHRA and the Committee on Safety of Medicines only received full details of the trials in May last year. Within two weeks, the MHRA announced a ban on giving Seroxat to children under 18 — the first regulator in the world to take such a step. Shortly afterwards, the US Food and Drug Administration issued similar, though less categorical, advice to doctors.
The MHRA investigation is expected to report its findings shortly. This weekend the MHRA said it “treats very seriously any failure to comply with the law. Last year, the MHRA announced that it would investigate Glaxo to make sure the company had complied with its legal obligations under UK and European law.” Drug companies are obliged to report new evidence that changes the balance of risks and benefits of using their products.
Depending on its findings, the MHRA could choose to prosecute either Glaxo as a company or go after named individuals. If found guilty, the penalties could include fines or imprisonment.
The MHRA action comes when Glaxo is still reeling from allegations last week that it had “engaged in repeated and persistent fraud by misrepresenting, concealing and otherwise failing to disclose” important information about the safety and efficacy of Seroxat, which is known as Paxil in America. The company must defend itself against a lawsuit from Eliot Spitzer, the New York attorney-general who first came to prominence after taking on the abuses of Wall Street banks during the technology boom.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/article441644.ece
These are all 2004 news reports! What happened to this lawsuit?
http://www.youclaim.co.uk/Personal_Injury_News.asp?spid=143
I can't find anything newer than 2004 on this story! What happened to it? The trail has gone as cold as Eliot Spitzer!