Serious Realities We Face As A Civilization


What You Can Do
By Frosty Wooldridge
9-3-10

Every day around the planet, more and more ‘symptoms’ of a failing bio-sphere jump out at the human race. Environmental calamities erupt on every continent. Weather forecasters report on aberrant storms that flood countries like Pakistan-killing and destroying countless humans and animals.

Environmentalist warn us about our ‘carbon footprint’ accelerating beyond manageable levels and its long term effects such as acidifying our oceans-will kill more plankton and disrupt “ph” levels. Biologists report on artificial hormones created by humans causing fish to feature male/female characteristics.

CBS anchor Katie Couric recently reported that, “Twenty years ago, one child in 2,000 suffered Autism; today, it’s one child in 110 births.” That dramatic change tells us something must be dreadfully wrong as to how we poison our civilization with pesticides, insecticides, genetically modified seeds, polluted air, chemicalized foods, unsafe water, and carbon footprint raging across our bio-sphere.

All the while, top national figures like Dr. Albert Bartlett, Dr. William Catton, Dr. Diana Hull, Kathleene Parker, Governor Richard Lamm, Dr. Jack Alpert, William Ryerson, Dr. John Tanton, Mr. Roy Beck, Dr. Joseph Tainter, Dr. Otis Graham, Mark Krikorian, Don Collins, Marilyn Hempel, Brenda Walker, MaryLou Tanton, Richard Heinberg, William Dickinson, David Paxson, Chris Clugston, Edward C. Hartman, John Rohe and a growing army of scientists raise their voices-only to be drowned out by the latest Paris Hilton arrest or ‘surge’ in Iraq. As Shakespeare said, we busy ourselves with “Much ado about nothing!”

But, as we and our political leaders pitter and patter, blither and blather-this planet’s messages continue growing in their intensity. As we continue not paying attention to those ‘lessons’, you may plan on harsher lessons to come.

Let’s look at a few of the top scientists and writers:

“A simple look at the upward path of global greenhouse emissions indicates we will continue to squeeze the trigger on the gun we have put to our own head.” Eugene Linden, The Winds of Change: Climate, Weather and the Destruction of Civilization

“The cheap oil age created an artificial bubble of plentitude for a period not much longer than a human lifetime….so I hazard to assert that as oil ceases to be cheap and the world reserves move toward depletion, we will be left with an enormous population…that the ecology of the earth will not support. The journey back toward non-oil population homeostasis will not be pretty. We will discover the hard way that population hyper growth was simply a side-effect of the oil age. It was a condition, not a problem with a solution. That is what happened and we are stuck with it.” James Howard Kunstler

“The ship is already starting to spin out of control. We may soon lose all chance of grabbing the wheel. Humanity faces a genuinely new situation. It is not an environmental crisis in the accepted sense. It is a crisis for the entire life-support system for our civilization and our species.” Fred Pearce, The Last Generation: How Nature Will take Her Revenge for Climate Change

“We must alert and organize the world’s people to pressure world leaders to take specific steps to solve the two root causes of our environmental crises – exploding population growth and wasteful consumption of irreplaceable resources. Over-consumption and overpopulation underlie every environmental problem we face today.” Jacques-Yves Cousteau

“At this point, it’s almost certainly too late to manage a transition to sustainability on a global or national scale, even if the political will to attempt it existed, which it clearly does not. Our civilization is in the early stages of the same curve of decline and fall as so many others have followed before it. What likely lies in wait for us is a long, uneven decline into a new Dark Age from which, centuries from now, the civilizations of the future will gradually emerge.”

“As we go from this happy hydrocarbon bubble we have reached now to a renewable energy resource economy, which we do this century, will the “civil” part of civilization survive? As we both know there is no way that alternative energy sources can supply the amount of per capita energy we enjoy now, much less for the 9 billion expected by 2050. And energy is what keeps this game going. We are involved in a Faustian bargain-selling our economic souls for the luxurious life of the moment, but sooner or later the price has to be paid.” Walter Youngquist

“Imagine we live on a planet. Not our cozy, taken for granted planet, but a planet, a real one, with melting poles and dying forests and a heaving, corrosive sea, raked by winds, strafed by storms, scorched by heat. And inhospitable place. It needs a new name, Eaarth.” Bill McKibben, Eaarth: Making a life on a Tough new Planet

“The U.S. will set a record in the rate of rise-and fall of an empire. Between wide open borders and fall of the dollar and growing population against a declining resource base, the US will be defeated from within. Mobs will rule the streets in the nation that is now the third largest in the world and unable to support its population except by taking resources from other countries.” Arnold Toynbee

“We are strong and adaptable animals and can certainly make a new life on the hotter Earth, but there will only be a fraction of inhabitable land left. Soon we face the appalling question of who m can we let aboard the lifeboats? And who must we reject? There will be great clamor from climate refugees seeking a safe haven in those few parts where the climate is tolerable and food available. We will need a new set of rules for limiting the population in climate oases.” James Lovelock, The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A final Warning

“If present growth trends in population, industrialization, pollution, food production and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth will be reached sometime in the next 100 years.” The Club of Rome 1972

“The power of population is so superior to the power of earth to produce subsistence to humanity that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race.” Thomas Malthus 1798 [For the past 40 years, people said that Malthus' theory proved incorrect with the Green Revolution. Well, that's over! Unfortunately, his theory proves correct and only his timing proved a bit off.]

Every time I write a column like this one, I present you with websites to take action. I hope you take action for your kids’ sake.

_____

Frosty Wooldridge has bicycled across six continents – from the Arctic to the South Pole – as well as six times across the USA, coast to coast and border to border. In 2005, he bicycled from the Arctic Circle, Norway to Athens, Greece. He presents “The Coming Population Crisis in America: and what you can do about it” to civic clubs, church groups, high schools and colleges. He works to bring about sensible world population balance atwww.frostywooldridge.com He is the author of: America on the Brink: The Next Added 100 Million Americans. Copies available: 1 888 280 7715

Possibly Related Posts:


North Carolina governor suspends gun rights

  • September 2nd, 2010 12:09 pm ET

In satellite image provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Hurricane Earl moves through the Atlantic Ocean toward the U.S. coast, leading three Governors to declare states of emergency.

Photo: (Photo by NOAA via Getty Images)

State of emergency order makes criminals of concealed handgun permit-holders, sport shooters and hunters.

[Raleigh] Yesterday, North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue signed Executive Order No. 62, declaring a State of Emergency in advance of Hurricane Earle. In doing so, Perdue suspended the right of state residents to use or carry firearms outside their premises.

At issue is N.C. General Statute 14-288.7, which prohibits transporting a “dangerous weapon” during a state of emergency:

§ 14 288.7. Transporting dangerous weapon or substance during emergency; possessing off premises; exceptions.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to transport or possess off his own premises any dangerous weapon or substance in any area:
(1) In which a declared state of emergency exists; or
(2) Within the immediate vicinity of which a riot is occurring.
(b) This section does not apply to persons exempted from the provisions of G.S. 14 269 with respect to any activities lawfully engaged in while carrying out their duties.
(c) Any person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. (1969, c. 869, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 192; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

According to § 14 288.1 (10), a state of emergency exists “whenever, during times of public crisis, disaster, rioting, catastrophe, or similar public emergency, public safety authorities are unable to maintain public order or afford adequate protection for lives or property, or whenever the occurrence of any such condition is imminent.”

Violation of the order is a Class I misdemeanor, punishable by up to 120 days in jail. Those impacted include concealed handgun permit-holders, sport-shooters, and anyone else carrying a firearm outside their home or business. Critics note that dove-hunting season begins on Saturday (September 4), potentially making criminals of thousands of hunters.

NC DEMOCRATS REFUSE TO RECTIFY PROBLEM

In recent years, two North Carolina bills could have prevented infringement on individual rights under state of emergency laws. Under Section 3 of House Bill 257: “No Seizure of Lawful Firearms in Emergency,” sponsored by Rep. George Cleveland (R-Onslow) and three other legislators, lawfully possessed firearms and ammunition would have been exempted from the state of emergency law.

Despite support from the state’s primary gun group, Grass Roots North Carolina*, and others the bill died when it was denied a committee hearing by Democrat leadership, including Speaker Joe Hackney (D-Chatham, Moore, Orange) House Majority Leader Hugh Holliman (D-Davidson) and Judiciary Committee Chairman Representative Ronnie Sutton (D-Robeson).

The issue became more urgent in February, when the town of King declared a state of emergency in response to an impending snowstorm and posted the entire town against the sale and purchase of firearms and ammunition.

In response, GRNC worked with Rep. Mark Hilton (R-Catawba) to revamp the bill and introduce it again, with stronger language on the state of emergency issue, during the second year of the legislature’s two-year session as HB 2031. Referred to the House Judiciary I Committee, chaired by anti-gun Rep. Deborah Ross, that bill too died when Democrats denied it a hearing.

LAWSUIT PENDING ON STATE OF EMERGENCY LAW

Ironically, in June GRNC joined Michael Bateman, Virgil Green, Forrest Minges, Jr., and the Second Amendment Foundation in a lawsuit against the state’s emergency powers gun ban.

Named in the suit are North Carolina Gov. Beverly Perdue; Reuben Young, secretary of the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety; Stokes County and the City of King.

Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, the official title is Bateman et al v. Perdue et al, Case No. 5:10-cv-265. It contends that state statutes forbidding carrying of firearms and ammunition during declared states of emergency, as well as laws enabling government officials to prohibit purchase, sale and possession of firearms and ammunition are unconstitutional because they forbid the exercise of Second Amendment rights as affirmed by the Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. Chicago.

Plaintiffs are represented by attorney Alan Gura, who won the recent McDonald v. Chicago Second Amendment case and the landmark D.C. v. Heller case preceding it. Local counsel includes Andrew Tripp and Kearns Davis of Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLC.

After GRNC issued an alert to its members, word of the implications of Perdue’s order spread on the Internet, including being featured on thetruthaboutguns.com. It is widely anticipated that the order will add impetus to the Bateman lawsuit.

*Author F. Paul Valone is president and a co-founder of Grass Roots North Carolina.

Possibly Related Posts:


30 Statistics That Prove The Elite Are Getting Richer, The Poor Are Getting Poorer And The Middle Class Is Being Destroyed

Published on 09-02-2010

By Michael Snyder – BLN Contributing Writer

Not everyone has been doing badly during the economic turmoil of the last few years.  In fact, there are some Americans that are doing really, really well.  While the vast majority of us struggle, there is one small segment of society that is seemingly doing better than ever.  This was reflected in a recent article on CNBC in which it was noted that companies that cater to average Americans are doing rather poorly right now while companies that market luxury goods and services are generally performing exceptionally well.  So why aren’t all American consumers jumping on the spending bandwagon?  Well, it seems that there are a large number of Americans who either can’t spend a lot of money right now or who are very hesitant to.  A stunningly high number of Americans are still unemployed, and for many other Americans, there is a very real fear that hard economic times will return soon.  On the other hand, there is a significant percentage of Americans who are blowing money on luxury goods and services as if the economy has fully turned around and it is time to let the good times roll.  So exactly what in the world is going on here?

Well, in 2010 life is very, very different depending on whether you are a “have” or a “have not”.  The recent article on CNBC referenced above described it this way….

Consumer spending in the U.S. has turned into a tale of two cities in 2010, with an entire segment of consumers splurging confidently on the finer things in life, while another segment, concerned about unemployment and with little or no discretionary income, spends only on bare necessities.

So why is this happening?

It is happening because the rich are getting richer and they have plenty of money to buy stuff and the poor are getting poorer and have less money to spend than ever.

In case you haven’t been paying attention over the past couple of decades, what we have in America today is a system that is designed to funnel as much wealth into the hands of the elite as possible.

This isn’t capitalism that we have in America in 2010.  Instead, what we have created is a system where the laws are set up so that the power elite and their big, dominant corporations always win.

Why do you think so many of America’s largest corporations pay so little in taxes?

Why do you think so many of them are showered with government subsidies, tax breaks and bailouts?

It’s not about competition anymore.

It’s about rigging the game in your favor.

The power elite and the giant corporations they control spend millions and millions on lobbying and campaign contributions and they expect a big return on that investment.

Let’s take a look at one example.  Many people think that Barack Obama and the Democrats are supposed to be anti-business, right?

Well then why are some of Barack Obama’s biggest donors the very same corporations that are receiving giant bailouts, making record profits and paying their employees billions in bonuses?

Goldman Sachs was Barack Obama’s second biggest donor.  Microsoft was number four.  Citigroup was number six.  JPMorgan Chase was number seven.  Time Warner was number eight.

Are you starting to get the picture?

Every single year, the U.S. Congress passes law after law after law that makes it easier for big corporations to dominate and makes it easier for the rich to get even richer.

America’s economy is not about competition anymore.

It is about eliminating competition.

And unfortunately for middle class Americans, the giant predator corporations that now dominate our economy are realizing that they don’t really need nearly as many American workers anymore.

Instead, they are slowly but surely shipping our jobs off to the other side of the world where workers are willing to work for about a tenth as much.

And yet we still run out to the “big box” stores and fill up our carts with a bunch of plastic crap made on the other side of the world by these giant corporations.

Meanwhile, those giant corporations are taking the profits they make out of our communities and they are taking our jobs and are shipping them overseas.

So in the final analysis, is it any wonder why the income inequality gap is growing?

Without small businesses having a legitimate chance to compete and without good jobs for American workers, the middle class in America is going to continue to get chewed up and spit out.

The following are 30 statistics that prove that the elite are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is being destroyed in 2010….

The Rich Are Getting Richer

1 - As of 2007, the top 1 percent of all Americans was taking home 24 percent of the national income.  This was a level that had not been seen since the days of the Great Depression.

2 – Incomes have been growing in the United States, but those at the very top of the pyramid have been gobbling up almost all of the income growth.  According to Harvard Magazine, 66% of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.

3 – Even official government figures bear out the fact that the rich are getting richer.  An analysis of income-tax data by the Congressional Budget Office a few years ago found that the top 1% of all American households own nearly twice as much of the corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.

4- Most Americans have suffered during the last few years, but not the boys and girls down on Wall Street.  New York state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli says that Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.

5 – Even as the number of Americans living in poverty skyrockets, the number of millionaires just keeps growing.  In fact, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million during 2009.

6 – The amount of money some of these Wall Street hotshots are making is incredible.  Back in 2005, the top 25 hedge fund managers earned a total of 9 billion dollars.  That would be bad enough, but even in these hard economic times the rich just keep getting richer.  One year after the recent financial collapse the top 25 hedge fund managers earned a total of approximately $25 billion.  That breaks down to an average of $1 billion each.  The truth is that the United States has been experiencing uneven prosperity for quite some time and things just seem to get worse with each passing year.

The Poor Are Getting Poorer

7 – Government anti-poverty programs are exploding in size in response to the recent economic difficulties.  USA Today is reporting that a record one in six Americans are now being served by at least one government anti-poverty program.

8Over 50 million Americans are on now Medicaid.  That figure is up more than 17 percent since the beginning of the recession.

9 – The number of Americans in the food stamp program rose to a new all-time record of 40.8 million in May.  That number is up almost 50 percent since the beginning of the recession.

10 – The number of Americans who cannot afford even the basic necessities is absolutely staggering.  A whopping 50 million Americans could not afford to buy enough food in order to stay healthy at some point over the last year.

11 – Compared to other industrialized nations, the United States is doing very poorly.  The U.S. poverty rate is now the third worst among the developed nations tracked by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

12 – The saddest part of this is what we are doing to our children.  According to one recent study, approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010.

13 – But the American people cannot provide for their families if they don’t have jobs.  Today there are not nearly enough jobs for everyone.  In 2010, it takes the average unemployed American worker over 8 months to find a job.

14 – Approximately 10 million Americans are currently receiving unemployment insurance, which is a number that is nearly four times higher than what it was at back in 2007.

15 – The truth is that we are creating a permanent underclass of Americans that cannot get jobs.  The number of Americans receiving long-term unemployment benefits has increased over 60 percent in just the past year.

16 – Increasingly, the wealth of the United States is being held in fewer and fewer hands.  One study found that as of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets.

17 – It is not a good time to be living in “the bottom half” in America.  The size of “the pie” being divided up among those at the low end of the wage scale is becoming really, really small.  In fact, the bottom 40 percent of all income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.

The Middle Class Is Being Destroyed

18 – Even those Americans that still do have decent jobs are seeing their wealth fade rapidly.  For example, U.S. families have $6 trillion less in housing wealth than they did just three years ago.

19 – Home ownership used to be a sign that one had arrived in the middle class, but in 2010 an increasing number of Americans are finding out that they simply can’t afford their homes anymore.  One out of every seven mortgages were either delinquent or in foreclosure during the first quarter of 2010.

20 – The reality is that incomes have just not kept up with housing costs.  This has put an incredible amount of pressure on the middle class.  Just how much pressure?  Well, only the top 5 percent of all U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.

21 – The debt binge middle class Americans have been on over the past couple of decades has drained many of them completely dry, and now more Americans than ever have bad credit scores.  Over 25 percent of Americans now have a credit score below 599, which means that they are a very bad credit risk.

22 – A rapidly rising number of Americans are actually choosing bankruptcy as a way out of their financial problems.  Nationwide, bankruptcy filings rose 20 percent in the 12 month period ending this past June 30th.

23 – The middle class manufacturing jobs that once defined so many American cities are rapidly disappearing.  Despite the fact that the U.S. population has dramatically increased, less Americans are employed in manufacturing today than in 1950.

24 – These days it seems like almost everyone is looking for a good job, but very few people are finding them.  According to one recent survey, 28% of all U.S. households have at least one member that is looking for a full-time job.

25 – Even many of those Americans that still have decent jobs have been hit hard by this economic downturn.  A recent Pew Research survey found that 55 percent of the U.S. labor force has experienced either unemployment, a pay decrease, a reduction in hours or an involuntary move to part-time work since the recession began.

26 – The number of jobs that are evaporating is absolutely stunning.  According to one analysis, the United States has lost a total of 10.5 million jobs since 2007.

27 – So where are the jobs going?  It doesn’t take a genius to figure it out.  China’s trade surplus (much of it with the United States) climbed 140 percent in June compared to a year earlier.

28 – The truth is that “globalism” and “free trade” have put middle class American workers in direct competition with the cheapest labor in the world.  This is what middle class American workers must now compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour.

29 – Due to these difficult economic conditions, the middle class is being squeezed as never before.  According to a poll taken in 2009, 61 percent of Americans ”always or usually” live paycheck to paycheck.  That was up significantly from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.

30 – So what kind of future do our young people have in front of them?  Unfortunately, things don’t look pretty.  Many fresh college graduates can’t even get a job that will allow them to be independent.  One recent survey of last year’s college graduates discovered that 80 percent moved right back home with their parents after graduation.  That was up significantly from 63 percent in 2006.

Possibly Related Posts:


by Prof James Petras
Global Research, September 3, 2010
Dissident Voice – 2010-09-01

Any serious effort to understand the extraordinary influence of the Zionist power configuration over US foreign policy must examine the presence of key operatives in strategic positions in the government and the activities of local Zionist organizations affiliated with mainstream Jewish organizations and religious orders.

There are at least 52 major American Jewish organizations actively engaged in promoting Israel’s foreign policy, economic and technological agenda in the US (see the appendix). The grassroots membership ranges from several hundred thousand militants in the Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA) to one hundred thousand wealthy contributors, activists and power brokers in the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). In addition scores of propaganda mills, dubbed think tanks, have been established by million dollar grants from billionaire Zionists including the Brookings Institute (Haim Saban) and the Hudson Institute among others. Scores of Zionist funded political action committees (PAC) have intervened in all national and regional elections, controlling nominations and influencing election outcomes. Publishing houses, including university presses have been literally taken over by Zionist zealots, the most egregious example being Yale University, which publishes the most unbalanced tracts parroting Zionist parodies of Jewish history.1 New heavily funded Zionist projects designed to capture young Jews and turn them into instruments of Israeli foreign policy includes “Taglit-Birthright” which has spent over $250 million dollars over the past decade sending over a quarter-million Jews (between 18-26) to Israel for 10 days of intense brainwashing.2 Jewish billionaires and the Israeli state foot the bill. The students are subject to a heavy dose of Israeli style militarism as they are accompanied by Israeli soldiers as part of their indoctrination; at no point do they visit the West Bank, Gaza or East Jerusalem.2 They are urged to become dual citizens and even encouraged to serve in the Israeli armed forces. In summary, the 52 member organizations of the Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations which we discuss are only the tip of the iceberg of the Zionist Power Configuration: taken together with the PACs, the propaganda mills, the commercial and University presses and mass media we have a matrix of power for understanding the tremendous influence they have on US foreign and domestic policy as it affects Israel and US Zionism.

While all their activity is dedicated first and foremost in ensuring that US Middle East policy serves Israel’s colonial expansion in Palestine and war aims in the Middle East, what B’nai B’rth euphemistically calls a “focus on Israel and its place in the world”, many groups ‘specialize’ in different spheres of activity. For example, the “Friends of the Israel Defense Force” is primarily concerned in their own words “to look after the IDF”, in other words provide financial resources and promote US volunteers for a foreign army (an illegal activity except when it involves Israel). Hillel is the student arm of the Zionist power configuration claiming a presence in 500 colleges and universities, all affiliates defending each and every human rights abuse of the Israeli state and organizing all expenses paid junkets for Jewish student recruits to travel to Israel where they are heavily propagandized and encouraged to ‘migrate’ or become ‘dual citizens’.

Method: Studying Zionist Power:

There are several approaches for measuring the power of the combined Zionist organizations and influential occupants of strategic positions in government and the economy. These include (a) reputational approach (b) self claims (c) decision-making analysis (d) structural inferences. Most of these approaches provide some clues about Zionist potential power. For example, newspaper pundits and journalists frequently rely on Washington insiders, congressional staff and notables to conclude that AIPAC has the reputation for being one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. This approach points to the need to empirically examine the operations of AIPAC in influencing Congressional votes, nomination of candidates, defeating incumbents who do not unconditionally support the Israeli line. In other words analyzing the Congressional and Executive decision-making process is one key to measuring Zionist power. But it is not the only one. Zionist power is a product of a historical context, where media ownership and wealth concentration and other institutional levers of power come into play and shape the current decision-making framework. Cumulative power over time and across institutions creates a heavy bias in the political outcomes favorable to Israel’s organized agents in America. Once again the mere presence of Jews or Zionists in positions of economic, cultural and political power does not tell us how they will use their resources and whether they will have the desired effect. Structural analysis, the location of Zionists in the class structure, is necessary but not sufficient for understanding Zionist power. One has to proceed and analyze the content of decisions made and not made regarding the agenda of Israel’s backers operating in the USA. The 52 major Zionists organizations are very open about their claims to power, their pursuit of Israel’s agenda and their subservience to each and every Israeli regime.

Those who deny Zionist power over US Middle East foreign policy are left-Zionists. They never analyze the legislative process, executive decision-making, the structures and activity of the million member Zionist grassroots and the appointments and background of key policy makers deciding strategic policies in the Middle East. Instead they resort to superficial generalizations and political demagogy, imputing policy to “Big Oil” and the “military-industrial complex” or “US imperialism”. Categories devoid of empirical content and historical context about real existing policy making regarding the Middle East.

The Making of Zionist Power in the US Government

To understand US submission to Israeli war policies in the Middle East one has to look beyond the role of lobbies pressuring Congress and the role of political action committees and wealthy Zionist campaign contributions. A much neglected but absolutely essential building block of Zionist power over US foreign economic, diplomatic and military policy is the Zionist presence in key policy positions, including the Departments of Treasury and State, the Pentagon, the National Security Council and the White House.

Operating within the top policymaking positions, Zionist officials have consistently pursued policies in line with Israel’s militarist policies, aimed at undermining and eliminating any country critical of the Jewish States’ colonial occupation of Palestine, its regional nuclear monopoly, its expansion of Jews only settlements and above all its strident efforts to remain the dominant power in the Arab East. The Zionist policymakers in Government are in constant consultation with the Israeli state, ensuring coordination with the Israeli military (IDF) command, its Foreign Office and secret police (MOSSAD) and compliance with the Jewish State’s political line. Over the past 24 months not a single Zionist policymaker has voiced any criticism of Israel’s most heinous crimes, ranging from the savaging of Gaza to the massacre of the humanitarian flotilla and the expansion of new settlements in Jerusalem and the West Bank. A record of loyalty to a foreign power which even exceeds the subservience of the Stalinist and Nazi fellow travelers in Washington during the 1930’s and 1940’s.

Zionist policymakers in strategic positions depend on the political backing and work closely with their counterparts in the “lobbies” (AIPAC) in Congress and in the national and local Jewish Zionist organizations. Many of the leading Zionist policymakers rose to power through a deliberate strategy of infiltrating the government to shape policy promoting Israel’s interest over and above the interests of the US populace. While a degree of cohesion resulting from a common allegiance to Tel Aviv can account for suspected nepotism and selection, it is also the case that the powerful Jewish lobbies can play a role in creating key positions in Government and ensuring that one of their own will occupy that position and pursue Israel’s agenda.

Stuart Levey: Israel’s Foremost Operative in the US Government

In 2004, AIPAC successfully pressured the Bush Administration to create the office of Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (UTFI) and to name its protégé Princeton graduate Stuart Levey to that position. Before, but especially after his appointment, Levey was in close collaboration with the Israeli state and was known as an over the top Zionist zealot with unbounded energy and blind worship of the Israeli state.

Within the confines of his Zionist ideological blinders, Levey applied his intelligence to the singular task of turning his office into the major foreign policy venue for setting US policy toward Iran. Levey more than any other appointed official in government or elected legislator, formulates and implements policies which profoundly influence US, European Union and UN economic relations with Iran. Levey elaborated the sanctions policies, which Washington imposed on the EU and the Security Council. Levey, organizes the entire staff under his control at Treasury to investigate trade and investment policies of all the world’s major manufacturing, banking, shipping, petroleum and trading corporations. He then criss-crosses the US and successfully pressures pension funds, investment houses, oil companies and economic institutions to disinvest from any companies dealing with Iran’s civilian economy. He has gone global, threatening sanctions and blackballing dissident companies in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and North America which refuse to surrender economic opportunities. They all understood Levey operated at the behest of Israel, services Levey has proudly performed.

Levey coordinates his campaign with Zionist leaders in Congress. He secures sanctions legislation in line with his campaigns. His policies clearly violate international law and national sovereignty, pressing the limits of extra territorial enforcement of his administrative fiats against a civilian economy. His violation of economic sovereignty parallels Obama’s announcement that US Special Forces would operate in violation of political sovereignty on four continents. For all intents and purposes, Levey makes US policy toward Iran. At each point he designs the escalation of sanctions, and then passes it on to the White House, which shoves it down the throats of the Security Council. Once new sanctions approved by Levey and staff are in place they are there to enforce them: identifying violators and implementing penalties. Treasury has become an outpost of Tel Aviv. Not a single leftist, liberal or social democratic publication highlights the role of Levey or even the terrible economic pain this Old Testament fanatic is inflicting on 75 million Iranian civilian workers and consumers. Indeed like Israel’s Judeo-fascist rabbis who preach a “final solution” for Israel’s enemies, Levey announces new and harsher “punishment” against the Iranian people.3 Perhaps at the appropriate moment the Jewish State will name a major avenue through the West Bank for his extraordinary services to this most unholy racist state.

The Strategic Role of Local Power

The Israel Lobby Archive recently released declassified documents of the American Zionist Council (AZC) subpoenaed during a US Senate investigation between 1962-63. The documents reveal how the Israeli state through its American Jewish conduits – the mainstream Zionist organizations – penetrated the US mass media and propagated its political line, unbeknownst to the American public. Stories written by a host of Jewish Zionist journalists and academics were solicited and planted in national media such as The Readers Digest, The Atlantic Monthly, Washington Post among others, including regional and local newspapers and radio stations.4 While the national Zionist organizations procured the journalists and academic writers and editors, it was the local affiliates who carried the message and implemented the line. The level of infiltration the Senate subpoenaed Zionist documents in the 1960’s reveal has multiplied a hundred fold over the past 50 years in terms of financing, paid functionaries and committed militants and above all in structural power and coercive capability.

While the national leaders in close consultation with Israeli officials receive instructions on which issues are of high priority, the implementation follows a vertical route to regional and local leaders, politicians, and notables who in turn target the local media and religious, academic and other opinion leaders. When national leaders ensure publication of pro Israeli propaganda, the locals reproduce and circulate it to local media and non-Zionist influentials on their “periphery”. Letter campaigns orchestrated at the top are implemented by thousands of militant Zionist doctors, lawyers and businesspeople. They praise pro-Israel scribes and attack critics; they pressure newspapers, publishing houses and magazines not to publish dissidents. The national and local leaders promote hostile reviews of books not promoting the Israeli line, influence library decisions to pack their shelves with pro Israeli books and censor and exclude more balanced or critical histories. Local militants in co-ordination with Israeli consuls saturate the public with thousands of public meetings and speakers targeting Christian churches, academic audiences and civic groups; at the same time local Zionist militants and, especially millionaire influentials, pressure local venues (university administrators, church authorities and civic associations) to disinvite any critic of Israel and their supporters from speaking. In the last resort, local Zionists demand that a pro-Israel propagandist be given equal time, something unheard of when an Israel apologist is scheduled to speak.

Local Zionist organizations make yeoman efforts to recruit mayors, governors, local celebrities, publishers, church people and promising young ethnic and minority leaders by offering them all expenses paid propaganda junkets to Israel and then to write or give interviews parroting what they were fed by Israeli officials. Local leaders mobilize thousands of militant activist Zionists to attack anti-Zionist Jews in public and private. They demand they be excluded from any media roundtables on the Middle East.

Local Zionist functionaries form rapid response committees to visit and threaten any local publisher and editorial staff publishing editorials or articles questioning the Israeli party line. Local leaders police (“monitor”) all local meetings, speaker invitations, as well as the speeches of public commentators, religious leaders and academics to detect any “anti-Zionist overtones’ (which they label “covert anti-Semitism”). Most of the major Jewish religious orders are lined up as the clerical backbone of local Israeli fundraising, including the financing of new “Jews only” settlements in the Palestinian West Bank.

Local functionaries are in the forefront of campaigns to deny independent Middle East specialists and public policy academics, appointments, tenure or promotion, independently of the quality of their scholarship. On the other hand, academic hacks who toe the pro-Israel line, by publishing books with blanket attacks on Israeli critics among Christians and Muslims and countries like Turkey, Iran or whoever is a target of Israeli policy, are promoted, lauded and put on the best seller list. Any book or writer critical of Zionist Power or Israel is put on a local and national ‘index’ and subject to an inquisition by slander from a stable of Jewish Torquemadas.

Conclusion

The power of Israel in the US does not reside only in the influence and leadership of powerful Washington based “pro-Israel lobbies”, like AIPAC. Without the hundreds of thousands of militant locally based dentists, podiatrists, stockbrokers, real estate brokers, professors and others, the “lobby” would be unable to sustain and implement its policy among hundreds of millions of Americans outside the major metropolises. As we have seen from the Senate declassified documents, over a half-century ago, local Zionist organizations began a systematic campaign of penetration, control and intimidation that has reached its pinnacle in the first decade of the 21st century. It is no accident or mere coincidence that University officials in Northern Minnesota or upstate New York are targeted to exclude speakers or fire faculty members critical of Israel. Local Zionists have computerized databanks operating with an index of prohibited speakers, as the Zionists themselves admit and flaunt in contrast to “liberal” Zionists who are prone to label as “anti-Semitic” or “conspiracy theorists” writers who cite official Zionist documents demonstrating their systematic perversion of our democratic freedoms.

Over the decades, the distinction between Zionist power exercised by a “lobby” outside the government and operatives “inside” the government has virtually vanished. As we have seen, in our case study, AIPAC secured the undersecretary position in Treasury, dictated the appointment of a key Zionist operative (Stuart Levey) and accompanies his global crusade to sanction Iran into starvation and destitution. The planting of operatives within key Middle East positions in government is not the simple result of individual career choices. The ascent of so many pro-Israel Zionist to government posts is part of their mission to serve Israel’s interest at least for a few years of their careers. Their presence in government precludes any Senate or Congressional investigations of Zionists organizations acting as agents of a foreign power as took place in the 1960’s.

As the major Zionist organizations and influentials have accumulated power and abused the exercise of power on behalf of an increasingly bloody racist state, which flaunts its dominance over US institutions, public opposition is growing. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign is gaining strength even in the US (see Harvard divestment in Israeli companies). US public support for Israel, by all measures, has dropped below 50%, while polls in Western Europe show a marked increase in hostility to Israel’s ultra-rightist regime. Anti-Zionist Jews are growing in influence especially among young Jews who are appalled by the Israeli slaughter in Gaza and assault on the humanitarian flotilla. Equally important the presence of anti-Zionist Jews on panels and forums has given courage to many otherwise intimidated non-Jews who heretofore were fearful of being labeled “anti-Semitic”.

The Zionist power configuration rests on a declining population base: most young Jews marry outside the confines of the ethno-religious Jewish-Israeli nexus and many of them are not likely to form the bases for rabid campaigns on behalf of a racist state. The Zionist leadership’s high intensity and heavily endowed effort to fence in young people of Jewish ancestry via private schools, subsidized “summer programs” in Israel etc. are as much out of fear and recognition of the drift away from clerical chauvinism as it is an attempt to recruit a new generation of Israel First militants.

The danger is that the US Zionist support for the ultra-rightist and racist regime in Israel is leading them to join forces with the far right in the US. Today Jewish and Christian Manhattan rednecks are fermenting mass Islamic hatred (the so called “Mosque controversy”) as a distraction from the economic crises and rising unemployment. Zionist promotion of mass Islamofobia, so near to Wall Street, where many of their fat cats who profit from plundering the assets of America operate, is a dangerous game. If the same enraged masses turn their eyes upward toward the wealthy and powerful instead of downward to blacks and Muslims, some unpleasant and unanticipated surprises might rebound against, not only Israel’s operatives, but all those wrongly identified as related to a misconstrued Jewish Motherland.

Appendix

Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations
Member Organizations

1. Ameinu
2. American Friends of Likud
3. American Gathering/Federation of Jewish Holocaust Survivors
4. America-Israel Friendship League
5. American Israel Public Affairs Committee
6. American Jewish Committee
7. American Jewish Congress
8. American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee
9. American Sephardi Federation
10. American Zionist Movement
11. Americans for Peace Now
12. AMIT
13. Anti-Defamation League
14. Association of Reform Zionists of America
15. B’nai B’rith International
16. Bnai Zion
17. Central Conference of American Rabbis
18. Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America
19. Development Corporation for Israel/State of Israel Bonds
20. Emunah of America
21. Friends of Israel Defense Forces
22. Hadassah, Women’s Zionist Organization of America
23. Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society
24. Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life
25. Jewish Community Centers Association
26. Jewish Council for Public Affairs
27. The Jewish Federations of North America
28. Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
29. Jewish Labor Committee
30. Jewish National Fund
31. Jewish Reconstructionist Federation
32. Jewish War Veterans of the USA
33. Jewish Women International
34. MERCAZ USA, Zionist Organization of the Conservative Movement
35. NA’AMAT USA
36. MCSK” Advocates on behalf of Jews in Russia, Ukraine, the Baltic States & Eurasia
37. National Council of Jewish Women
38. National Council of Young Israel
39. ORT America
40. Rabbinical Assembly
41. Rabbinical Council of America
42. Religious Zionists of America
43. Union for Reform Judaism
44. Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
45. United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
46. WIZO
47. Women’s League for Conservative Judaism
48. Women of Reform Judaism
49. Workmen’s Circle
50. World ORT
51. World Zionist Executive, US
52. Zionist Organization of America

Notes

1Financial Times book review section August 28/29 2010.
2Boston Globe August 26, 2010.

3. Stuart Levey, “Iran’s New Deceptions at Sea Must be Punished” FT 8/16/2010, p. 9.
4. Israel Lobby Archive, August 18, 2010.

Possibly Related Posts:


Flying the Flag, Faking the News

Loud noises from Washington about a US pull-out from Iraq are a poor disguise for America’s determination to keep waging war. And the same sort of spin is at work in Britain

by John Pilger

Edward Bernays, the American nephew of Sigmund Freud, is said to have invented modern propaganda. During the First World War, he was one of a group of influential liberals who mounted a secret government campaign to persuade reluctant Americans to send an army to the bloodbath in Europe. In his book Propaganda, published in 1928, Bernays wrote that the “intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society”, and that the manipulators “constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power in our country”. Instead of propaganda, he coined the euphemism “public relations”.

The American tobacco industry hired Bernays to convince women that they should smoke in public. By associating smoking with women’s
liberation, he made cigarettes “torches of freedom”. In 1954, he conjured a communist menace in Guatemala as an excuse for overthrowing the democratically elected government, whose social reforms were threatening the United Fruit Company’s monopoly of the banana trade. He called it a “liberation”.

Bernays was no rabid right-winger. He was an elitist liberal who believed that “engineering public consent” was for the greater good. This could be achieved by the creation of “false realities” which then became “news events”. Here are examples of how it is done these days.

False reality The last US combat troops have left Iraq “as promised, on schedule”, according to President Barack Obama. The TV news has been filled with cinematic images of the “last US soldiers”, silhouetted against the dawn light, crossing the border into Kuwait.

Fact They have not left. At least 50,000 troops will continue to operate from 94 bases. American air assaults are unchanged, as are special forces’ assassinations. The number of “military contractors” is 100,000 and rising. Most Iraqi oil is now under direct foreign control.

False reality BBC presenters have described the departing US troops as a “sort of victorious army” that has achieved “a remarkable change in [Iraq's] fortunes”. Their commander, General David Petraeus, is a “celebrity”, “charming”, “savvy” and “remarkable”.

Fact There is no victory of any sort. There is a catastrophic disaster, and attempts to present it as otherwise are a model of Bernays’s campaign to “rebrand” the slaughter of the First World War as “necessary” and “noble”. In 1980, Ronald Reagan, running for president, rebranded the invasion of Vietnam, in which up to three million people died, as a “noble cause”, a theme taken up enthusiastically by Hollywood. Today’s Iraq war movies have a similar purging theme: the invader as both idealist and victim.

False reality It is not known how many Iraqis have died. They are “countless”, or maybe “in the tens of thousands”.

Fact As a direct consequence of the Anglo-American-led invasion, a million Iraqis have died. This figure, from Opinion Research Business, follows peer-reviewed research by Johns Hopkins University in Washington, DC, whose methods were secretly affirmed as “best practice” and “robust” by the Blair government’s chief scientific adviser. This is rarely reported or presented to “charming” American generals. Neither is the dispossession of four million Iraqis, the malnourishment of most Iraqi children, the epidemic of mental illness, or the poisoning of the environment.

False reality The British economy has a deficit of billions which must be reduced with cuts in public services and regressive taxation, in a spirit of “we’re all in this together”.

Fact We are not in this together. What is remarkable about this PR triumph is that only 18 months ago, the diametric opposite filled TV screens and front pages. Then, in a state of shock, truth became unavoidable, if briefly. The Wall Street and City of London trough was on full view for the first time, along with the venality of once-celebrated snouts. Billions in public money went to inept and crooked organisations known as banks, which were spared debt liability by their Labour government sponsors.

Within a year, record profits and personal bonuses were posted and the “black hole” was no longer the responsibility of the banks, whose debt is to be paid by those not in any way responsible: the public. The received media wisdom of this “necessity” is now a chorus, from the BBC to the Sun. A masterstroke, Bernays would surely say.

False reality Ed Miliband offers a “genuine alternative” as leader of the Labour Party.

Fact Miliband, like his brother and almost all those standing for the Labour leadership, is immersed in the effluent of New Labour. As a New Labour MP and minister, he did not refuse to serve under Blair or to speak out against Labour’s persistent warmongering. He now calls the invasion of Iraq a “profound mistake”. Calling it a mistake insults the memory and the dead. It was a crime, of which the evidence is voluminous. He has nothing new to say about the other colonial wars, none of them mistakes. Neither has he demanded basic social justice – that those who caused the recession clear up the mess and that Britain’s fabulously rich corporate minority be taxed seriously, starting with Rupert Murdoch.

The good news is that false realities often fail when the public trusts its own critical intelligence. Two classified documents recently released by WikiLeaks express the CIA’s concern that the populations of European countries, which oppose their governments’ war policies, are not succumbing to the usual propaganda spun through the media.

For the rulers of the world, this is a conundrum, because their unaccountable power rests on the false reality that no popular resistance works. And it does.

© 2010 New Statesman

John Pilger was born and educated in Sydney, Australia. He has been a war correspondent, film-maker and playwright. Based in London, he has written from many countries and has twice won British journalism’s highest award, that of “Journalist of the Year,” for his work in Vietnam and Cambodia.

Possibly Related Posts:


The ‘Ground-Zero Mosque’ and Grand Staircase Escalante

Mises Daily: Thursday, September 02, 2010 by

With no end in sight, the controversy surrounding the so-called ground-zero mosque continues to bring out the worst in all of us. As the controversy continues, I’m struck by a parallel between this proposed mosque and another American monument established in 1996.

Background

Almost 15 years ago, President Bill Clinton designated a large expanse of land in Utah as the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument. Seen largely as a political ploy to win favor among voting environmentalists, the designation of this national monument immediately halted business development in the area, including a proposed coal mine, and stifled Utah’s ability to make use of lands designated to help pay for the state’s school system.

Creation of the monument also sparked a conflict between local county officials and the federal Bureau of Land Management over which authorities have jurisdiction over the dirt roads throughout the monument. This controversy continues to this day and is quite emblematic of the frustration felt by many of us in the more rural western United States over BLM practices and fair use of what we see as “our own land.”

Make no mistake: these matters are conflicts of law with no easy solutions. The controversy over Grand Staircase Escalante is very much alive in Utah today, with local ranchers and miners still angry about what they see as federal usurpation of important economic resources, and local environmental activists equally as passionate in their support of the monument. However, we must pause to note that this issue no longer has a place on the national stage.

Our Right to Resolve Local Issues Locally

One root of the issue is the question of why the use of local land that most Americans will never see in their entire lives was elevated to the national stage. At the time, I recall wondering why people from such places as California, Chicago, New York, and Washington had such strong opinions on land about which they knew nothing and in which they had no stake. Fifteen years later, I still don’t know. Nevertheless, President Clinton was able to leverage a national appetite for environmental protection toward the resolution of an entirely local land-use issue.

Many locals rightly felt that their views were trounced by far-away opinions that were completely distanced from the very real local issues Utahns were living every day. Their question rings as true today as it did in 1996: How much weight does “national opinion” carry with regard to local issues, especially when it comes to land use?

I ask this question now because the fundamental issue is very similar in New York City today. Put to a local vote, it seems virtually guaranteed that the majority of New Yorkers would back the mosque’s right to exist. As a result, the controversy today — as it was in Utah 15 years ago — is being generated and exploited by a national public with no immediate connection to the particular lands in question. Of what relevance, really, are the opinions of Utahns, Arizonans, Californians, Washingtonians, et al., in matters of private property in New York City? The obvious answer is none, of course.

And yet, as a former resident of Utah, I cannot help but feel that some in New York City are now getting their just desserts for weighing in on far-away private property issues. Herein lies a lesson to be learned by all of us: one day, you are the one determining what some distant group should do with their own land; the next day, they may very well be determining how you use yours!

This is the inherent danger of elevating local matters to the national stage. What right does any New Yorker have to object to a national discourse on this mosque, when they were so quick to weigh in on analogous controversies elsewhere in the country?

Civic Duty and Personal Responsibility

If it is not already clear, let us take a moment to be unequivocal: The use of one’s own private property is determined by the owner, subject to local zoning laws. What this means is that if a religious group purchases land fair and square with the intention of constructing a religious building, they are well within their rights to do so. On this point, all sides agree. So let that be the end of the question.

There is a confusion about land value at work here. To wit, if what is now known as “Ground Zero” is hallowed ground for our country, then where are all the patriots willing to put their money where their mouths are? Throughout the Amazon rainforest, environmental groups and green-minded individuals have purchased great expanses of land because they, as private individuals, wish to see that land untouched by developers. Rather than coerce the locals through the machinery of government, they simply (and peacefully) purchase what they value so that the land may continue to exist in a way that they prefer. If it is important to some Americans that “Ground Zero” remains free of monuments to Islam, then one may very well ask how much New York City land they have purchased to ensure that it exists as a patriotic monument consistent with their own preferences.

Ironically, this argument was just as easy to apply to environmentalists in 1996, who decided to use the federal government as a tool to determine land use, rather than peacefully purchasing land and using it in accordance with their values.

It is easy to see the discrepancy between what people claim to value and what values they are truly willing to stand behind (e.g., financially). Those who wish to conserve natural landmarks or patriotic hallowed ground are certainly free to exercise their rights, purchase property, and invest themselves in the values they hold dear. Those who elect not to exercise this right have no place criticizing those who do, no matter to what legal use the land is eventually put.

Conclusion

In an ideal world, we could transcend allegedly “polarizing” issues like this and exist in a harmonious, free society. Rather than rushing to condemn a monument to Islam near the former World Trade Center, concerned Americans could financially contribute to the erection of such a monument with the proviso that the eventual landmark properly reflects their values. Those in charge of erecting the landmark would then be eager to create a monument to the peaceful, free, and cooperative society that America has always been.

In the real world, pundits fan the flames. It is tempting to participate in the controversy, lending our own unique take on a multifaceted issue. When left-liberals label their opponents bigots, and conservatives become enemies of private property, it is important for libertarians to adhere to principle. At issue is more than just private property and the freedom to worship, but one of the most attractive and important principles of classical liberalism: civic duty.

Of course all Americans have a right to worship as they please. Of course all Americans have a right to use private property as they see fit. Beyond that cursory glance lie the more important concepts of putting our money where our mouths are if we wish to see land used the way we want it to be, and letting local people sort out their own local issues on the local stage.

Possibly Related Posts:


AFGHANISTAN, PATHS TO PEACE

September 1, 2010 posted by Gordon Duff

CHILDREN OF AFGHANISTAN

HISTORY IS ABOUT TO TAKE A MONUMENTAL TURN IN AFGHANISTAN

By Mohammed Abdullah Gul, STAFF WRITER, Editor

History is about to take a monumental turn in the rugged, desolate hills and dales of Afghanistan where the world’s sole superpower leads an alliance facing defeat at the hands of the nameless resistance fighters of al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

The impact of this enormous defeat will be felt across the globe.

The bloody conflict in Afghanistan has been going on for almost nine years, since October 2001.

The Taliban, who appeared to have been defeated at the beginning of the war, have since grown from strength to strength, particularly after 2003 when the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the US army started recruiting more troops to bring the Afghan countryside under their sway.

From Operation Anaconda in March 2002 (when the US military, CIA paramilitary officers, and other NATO and non-NATO forces attempted to destroy al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Shahi-Kot) to Operation Khanjar in July 2009 – after US President Barack Obama’s first “surge” of 21,000 additional troops (when 4,000 US marines and 650 Afghan troops moved into the Helmand Valley), Taliban fighters have scored numerous victories in minor skirmishes and medium intensity encounters with the occupation forces.

Unbeaten and unbeatable

Today the Taliban stand unbeaten and seemingly unbeatable. Their ranks have swelled and their morale is high.

Obama’s speech of December 1, 2009, was a strong indicator of fatigue and exhaustion on the part of the US and, consequently, signalled an influx of young, enthusiastic Afghan recruits into Taliban ranks.

The political environment of the country, on the other hand, deteriorated further as a result of the heavily-manipulated victory of Hamid Karzai in recent presidential elections.

Karzai’s choice of cabinet is equally disastrous. He refilled ministries with the same corrupt and inefficient warlords who are simply unable to defend against a Taliban onslaught when it comes – possibly in the autumn of 2010.

An additional 30,000 American troops ordered to Afghanistan by Obama, in order to shore up the tottering puppet regime, are unlikely to be of any advantage. In all probability, the occupation forces will be confined to their garrisons and will seldom venture out to face the Taliban in the countryside.

This strategy will enhance the use of air power, whose collateral damage is likely to further annoy the Afghan people. The Afghan army still has fewer than 90,000 members and has reportedly been penetrated by pro-Taliban elements.

Requirements for a political solution

The Afghan narcotics trade proceeds unabated under the very noses of NATO and US forces. Last year’s raw opium production stood at 6,200 tonnes – which accounts for 92 per cent of the world’s consumption of the drug.

A substantial amount of the billions of dollars earned through this trade is funnelled to Taliban cadres whose support is required by the governors and warlords for them to maintain their positions.

The Taliban’s claims that it controls over 80 per cent of Afghan territory may be exaggerated, but Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, has publicly conceded that 11 provinces out of 32 are under the control of opposition forces.

Given this scenario, one can conclude that a military solution to the Afghan imbroglio is out of the question. It now remains for the world community to find a political solution that will be able to meet the following requirements:

  1. A graceful withdrawal of the occupation forces from Afghanistan;
  2. A workable system of governance after the withdrawal; and
  3. Continued interest and engagement in Afghanistan’s rehabilitation and reconstruction.

Thus far, these objectives have not been crystallised. The countries which will be most severely affected as a result of the US defeat – i.e. other countries in the region and the countries of the Muslim world – are completely marginalised and seem not to be involved in any kind of peace process which must begin before matters run out of control.

Before we delve into the exercise of examining paths to peace, there are certain critical factors which must be considered: the role of external players; the ethnic make-up of Afghanistan and the role of al-Qaeda.

External players

On taking over the American administration, Obama outlined his Afghan policy and created a contact group of four countries: Russia, China, Iran and India.

He conveniently omitted Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, without whose participation peace in Afghanistan will remain illusory. China and Russia are important but peripheral to any serious attempt at Afghan reconciliation.

Iran’s influence is limited to the Shia communities who do not exercise any sizeable politico-cultural influence. India, in spite of its $1.2bn investment in Afghanistan, remains very much alien to the mainstream Afghan society. Its clout can work only with a few hundred influential individuals in the present regime but not with any of the social or political cadres.

The Taliban, in particular, would be averse to any kind of Indian involvement in the future of Afghanistan. The Afghan nation will not forget that India was an ally of the USSR when the latter invaded and wreaked havoc in Afghanistan. India is now piggy-backing on the US – against the will of the Afghan people.

Ethnic composition

Afghan society is comprised of 58 per cent Pashtuns (who are the main supporters of the Taliban), 22 per cent Tajiks, eight per cent Uzbeks, seven per cent Hazaras (mostly Shia) and five per cent of other ethnicities, including Kyrgyz, Baluch, Aimak and Arabs.

The Pashtuns, due to their numerical superiority, will hold a virtual veto in any future Afghan political setting. Presently, members of this ethnic group feel marginalised and discriminated against.

Even though the Afghan national sentiment is remarkably cohesive, ethnic divisions continue to vitiate the socio-political scene. Afghan history is testimony to the fact that a strong-willed ruler with a loose system of governance is the only recipe for a lasting peace.

The future therefore points to a dominant role for the Taliban who have, in the past, shown strength of character, sterling political will and adherence to legal justice in accordance with the Shariah.

Despite their several mistakes with regard to the treatment of women and the use of force in shaping cultural behaviour, the Taliban remain very relevant to Afghan society. According to one estimate, 70 per cent of the Afghan nation is waiting for Taliban to return to power – albeit with a reformed code of conduct.

Al-Qaeda is no longer a monolithic organisation; it has converted itself into a global franchise. Its cadres have been relocated, and there is currently only a small al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan.

The Western claim that its leadership is hiding in parts of Pakistan is ridiculous and meant only to pressurise Pakistan into “doing more”.

Most al-Qaeda field operatives have moved out and found new battlegrounds in the Middle East and Africa as they have succeeded in bleeding and debilitating the American might in the Afghan theatre of war.

Possible way out

Obama has, at least, opened the door for negotiations by announcing a timeline for the commencement of troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. Nevertheless, other parties who are affected by the Afghan conflict need to rally to find a solution before time runs out.

The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) could be an effective forum if it were to close ranks and not be content only with taking the cue from America.

An independent OIC stance will open a vista of possibilities if its efforts were to be combined with a powerful delegation of ulama (religious scholars) from Muslim countries. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran will have to take the lead role in this regard.

A visible paradigm shift in US policy would be a basic prerequisite for initiation of any meaningful dialogue to resolve this conflict. Once a change of heart becomes evident and the US demonstrates irreversible movement towards allowing Afghans to control their own destiny, other matters will fall into place rather quickly. But if ambivalence continues to show in the US’ stance, the Afghan imbroglio could stretch out for years to come. Some of the imperatives that must be addressed to proceed with the beginning of meaningful dialogue in Afghanistan are:

  1. A US declaration of the final date of evacuation from Afghanistan;
  2. The removal of the “terrorist” label from the Afghan resistance movement; and
  3. The unconditional release of all Afghan prisoners inside and outside the country.

While searching for a solution, the following points must be kept in mind:

  1. Afghanistan is an ideological conflict, and any attempt to find a diversionary approach will not succeed;
  2. A coalition government brokered by outside forces will have a short lifespan;
  3. An imposed solution will be counter-productive – just as the Bonn dispensation turned out to be a disaster. The solution must be a purely Afghan solution arrived at on Afghan soil;
  4. Any effort to find accommodation for marginal interests or to create an American proxy will fail to achieve results; and
  5. Finally, it must be remembered that Afghans are a fiercely independent people, and they will never compromise on their freedom, faith and honour. But if a settlement takes place on fair and equitable terms, they can easily be assimilated into the global community. They are capable of progressing and developing rather quickly if left to their own devices.

Muhammad Abdullah Gul is a researcher whose work focuses on South Asia.

Possibly Related Posts:


by Barry Grey
Global Research, September 2, 2010

Recent weeks have seen a collapse in US home sales, a weakening of manufacturing activity, an upward trend in jobless benefit claims and, on Friday, a downward revision of second-quarter gross domestic product growth from 2.4 percent to 1.6 percent.

The latter figure is far below the rate of economic expansion needed to bring down unemployment, now at its highest levels since the Great Depression. On the contrary, the sharp slowdown in economic growth heralds a further rise in the jobless rate.

Month after month of mass unemployment, compounded by sweeping cuts in social services at the state and local level and wage cutting in both the private and public sectors, have already produced a social disaster for tens of millions of Americans. One million families are losing their homes to foreclosure every year. Hunger and homelessness are on the rise.

USA Today reported Monday that the recession has resulted in one in six Americans relying on government assistance to survive. Over 50 million people are on Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for the poor and disabled. That is an increase of at least 17 percent since the recession began in December 2007.

Over 40 million are receiving food stamps, an increase of nearly 50 percent since the slump began. Close to 10 million are getting unemployment benefits, nearly four times the number in 2007. More than 4.4 million people are on welfare, an 18 percent jump since the recession began.

While the vast majority of workers are struggling to make ends meet or are sinking into poverty, the rich are doing better than ever. Corporate profits are up sharply, driven by downsizing and cost cutting. The stock market has recovered from its lows in the spring of 2009, and executives are continuing to award themselves seven- and eight-digit compensation packages.

Two years after the eruption of the financial crisis, precipitated by the recklessness and criminality of Wall Street, the chasm separating the financial elite and everyone else has grown wider than ever. The New York Times reported Tuesday that the rebound on Wall Street has led to a further polarization between rich and poor in New York City. While the median pay of managerial workers was up 11 percent from three years ago, the median weekly pay of non-managers had fallen 10.4 percent, to $472.

The latter figure is barely above the official poverty line for a family of four of $22,000 a year, an absurdly low plateau that, in New York, means something close to destitution.

The response of the Obama administration and the entire political establishment to the collapse of the so-called “recovery” is to reject out of hand any significant spending to generate jobs.

Speaking from the White House Rose Garden on Monday, Obama sought to lay the blame on the Republicans for holding up his $30 billion small business bill—a token measure consisting mainly of tax cuts and other incentives for small and large businesses and so-called “community” banks. Beyond that, he spoke vaguely about more tax cuts for business and incentives for renewable energy projects, adding that there is no “silver bullet” to revive the economy.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs acknowledged there would be no major initiatives, saying, “There’s only so much that can be done.” He went on to reassure big business that there would be no use of public funds to hire unemployed workers, saying the administration’s “targeted initiatives” would aim to “create an environment where the private sector is not simply investing but also hiring.”

In an op-ed piece on Sunday, the New York Times wrote: “[I]n the political realm a rare consensus has emerged: The future is now so colored in red ink that running up the debt seems politically risky in the months before the congressional elections, even in the name of creating jobs and generating economic growth. The result is that Democrats and Republicans have foresworn virtually any course that involves spending serious money.”

Just one year ago, Obama was emphatic in declaring that he would do “whatever it takes” to bail out the banks. He did precisely that, allocating trillions in taxpayer dollars to cover Wall Street’s gambling debts. At the same time, he opposed any measures to restrict CEO pay or hold the corporate criminals responsible for the catastrophe they had created.

He then intervened to force General Motors and Chrysler into bankruptcy and impose a 50 percent pay cut on newly hired workers. That was the signal for a wave of corporate and government wage cutting that is intensifying.

Now there is supposedly “no money” for jobs—or schools, or housing, or relief for the unemployed. This at a time when US banks and corporations are sitting on a cash hoard of more than $1 trillion.

The media universally asserts that the administration and congressional Democrats are constrained from pursuing any serious stimulus measures by public demands for austerity in advance of the November elections. This is a fraud.

Far from there being a popular groundswell for austerity, the opposite is the case, as indicated by a Gallop poll taken in June which found that 60 percent favored more government stimulus to create jobs, and a poll this month showing that 85 percent opposed to cutting Social Security to reduce the deficit.

There is no contradiction between Obama’s $862 billion stimulus package of 2009 and his administration’s overt shift to austerity today. Both represent the implementation of the ruthless class policy of the American financial-corporate elite.

Last February’s stimulus bill—consisting largely of tax cuts and other incentives for business—was a carefully calibrated measure designed to prevent a collapse in consumer spending, avert a social explosion by creating the impression that the government was doing something for “Main Street,” buy time to carry through the bank bailout and create conditions for a revival of corporate profits and the stock market.

These goals having been largely achieved, at least for the present, the ruling class is intent on keeping unemployment high and using mass joblessness to permanently drive down the wages and conditions of the American working class to those that existed in the 1930s, and to narrow the labor cost differential between American workers and super-exploited workers in China and other “emerging economies.”

That, in a nutshell, is the policy of the Obama administration and, whatever their tactical differences, both big business parties. They have relied on the trade unions to suppress the mounting anger and opposition in the working class and block any mass resistance. The unions completely support the class-war policy of the ruling class, as demonstrated in the announcement by the AFL-CIO and Service Employees International Union last week that they were teaming up to raise $80 million for the Democrats in the midterm elections.

The unions will not be able to prevent the eruption of mass social struggles. Already the first signs of coming upheavals are emerging, showing that workers will move into action in opposition to the corporatist union apparatuses. That is the significance of last month’s rejection by auto workers at General Motors’ Indianapolis stamping plant of the United Auto Workers’ attempt to impose a 50 percent wage cut.

The Socialist Equality Party calls on workers to break with the unions and establish democratic rank-and-file action committees to organize factory occupations and strikes against layoffs and plant closures and mobilize the support of the entire working class. This industrial action must be combined with a political struggle against Obama and both parties of big business, based on a socialist program to break the stranglehold of the financial aristocracy.

We call for an emergency public works program to provide every unemployed worker with a decent-paying job. Millions should be hired to build schools, affordable housing and hospitals and rebuild the public infrastructure. The resources for such a program can and should be obtained by confiscating the wealth of the capitalist class—beginning with the bankers, hedge fund owners and corporate CEOs—and reorganizing economic life to serve the needs of the people, not private profit.

Possibly Related Posts:


More War Lies


By David Swanson
Global Research, September 1, 2010
Lies aren’t used just to start wars, but also to escalate them, continue them, and even reduce or end them. And we got a pile of war lies from the president Tuesday evening.

Obama claimed the war on Iraq was initially a war to disarm a state. Really? And then “terrorist” Iraqis attacked our troops in their country. Yet if they had done that in our country, I suspect they would still be the terrorists. And then it became a civil war which we were innocently caught up in. Uh huh.

U.S. participants in this crime are heroes, always and everywhere. That’s sacred. The troops’ mission has involved protecting the Iraqi people, and by golly they’ve done a superb job, as long as we don’t mention the complete devastation of Iraq, the million dead, the millions of refugees, and the intense resentment of those remaining toward our country for what we’ve done to theirs.

The Iraqi people now (dead, in exile, in a ruined nation) have a chance that they supposedly didn’t have before we destroyed their country, a country that was actually a better place to live in in every way in 2003 than it is now, and in 1989 than in 2003. To hear President Obama, this war has been for the benefit of the Iraqi people, and these wars have been about al Qaeda and 9-11.

Obama slid into nonsense about al Qaeda after discussing Iraq and before mentioning Afghanistan, a Bushian maneuver if ever I saw one:

“No challenge is more essential to our security than our fight against al Qaeda.”

Never mind that al Qaeda barely existed before these wars became recruiting tools. “We will disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda” in Afghanistan, the president promised, even though al Qaeda isn’t there. Troop reductions in Afghanistan will begin next August, he said, although the prepared transcript said July, and will be determined by conditions on the ground, even though Afghanistan is not yet as bad as Iraq is.

Obama modeled the future bloodletting in Afghanistan on the myth of the successful escalation in Iraq, ignoring factors that have contributed to the reduction of violence in Iraq, including the promise of complete withdrawal, the beginning of withdrawal, and prior to those factors the incredible level of death and displacement, negotiations and bribes. The test for a “surge” in Afghanistan failed in Marja, and Obama simply behaves as if it succeeded.

And here at home “it is time to turn the page.” Never mind the commission of the supreme international crime of aggression. Never mind the mass murder. Obama said he talked with George W. Bush earlier in the day. Obama lied that the two of them had never agreed on the war, a war Obama voted to fund repeatedly in the Senate. And he lied that Bush was committed to U.S. security, knowing full well that this war has made us all less safe.

“There were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hope for Iraq’s future.”

Except for the majority of Americans who believe the war never should have begun, that it should be immediately ended, and that its architects — starting at the top with Bush, not the bottom with the troops — must be held criminally accountable. Participation in this crime is not a service to anyone.

The most honest part of the speech was this:

“We have spent over a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas. This, in turn, has short-changed investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits. For too long, we have put off tough decisions on everything from our manufacturing base to our energy policy to education reform. As a result, too many middle class families find themselves working harder for less, while our nation’s long-term competitiveness is put at risk.”

That’s a remarkable point for the president to dare to make. But there was no mention of the hundreds of billions yet in the works to be wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Pakistan and numerous other countries deserving of our favors.

The big lie, of course, is that the combat mission is, once again, completed. The soldiers in Iraq and the mercenaries and contractors are there for combat. That there are fewer soldiers is movement very much in the right direction, and very much to be applauded, but pretending that those remaining are something else is not accurate. Many of them may see less combat, but I’ll believe they’re not there for combat when their weapons are taken away.

The big question, of course, is what will be done about the deadline of December 31, 2011. Here’s what Obama said on this key point:

“Going forward, a transitional force of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq with a different mission: advising and assisting Iraq’s Security Forces; supporting Iraqi troops in targeted counter-terrorism missions; and protecting our civilians. Consistent with our agreement with the Iraqi government, all U.S. troops will leave by the end of next year. As our military draws down, our dedicated civilians — diplomats, aid workers, and advisors — are moving into the lead to support Iraq as it strengthens its government, resolves political disputes, resettles those displaced by war, and builds ties with the region and the world. And that is a message that Vice President Biden is delivering to the Iraqi people through his visit there today. This new approach reflects our long-term partnership with Iraq — one based upon mutual interests, and mutual respect. Of course, violence will not end with our combat mission.”

Violence will not end. We just won’t call it combat. It’ll be an overseas contingency. But what about all U.S. troops leaving by the end of next year? Obama doesn’t seem to hedge on this the way he does later in the speech on a future withdrawal from Afghanistan, saying that will be “subject to conditions on the ground.” And that’s a good thing. The same day as this speech, the war-loving Washington Post printed a column by Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq from 2007 to 2009, which pushed for a longer occupation with these words:

“And it may be that a new Iraqi government will request a U.S. military presence beyond the end of 2011. If so, I hope we will listen carefully.”

Maybe we should start listening very careful right now. The president speaks of a long-term partnership with Iraq. How do you have that if you’re gone? The answer may be that you aren’t gone, that you maintain a significant military force in the country consisting of mercenaries employed by the State Department.

Here’s what the Bush-Maliki Unconstitutional Treaty says:

“All U.S. forces are to withdraw from all Iraqi territory, water and airspace no later than the 31st of December of 2011.”

However, the same document, as Raed Jarrar pointed out to me, carefully defines U.S. forces to allow exceptions:

“Definition of Terms . . .

‘U.S. Forces’ refers to the entity that includes all the personnel of the American Armed Forces, the civilian personnel connected to them and all their possessions, installations and equipment present on Iraqi territory.

‘Member of the U.S. Forces’ refers to any person that belongs to the army of the United States, its navy, air force, marine force or coast guard.

‘Civilian element member’ refers to any civilian working for the U.S. Department of Defense. And this term does not include the personnel usually resident in Iraq.”

The trick is that not all imaginable U.S. forces have to work for the so-called Department of Defense. If they work for any other department, they’re in the clear. But Iraqis are in their gun sights.

David Swanson is the author of “Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union”

http://davidswanson.org

http://warisacrime.org

http://facebook.com/pages/David-Swanson/297768373319

http://twitter.com/davidcnswanson

http://youtube.com/afterdowningstreet

Possibly Related Posts:


Federal Reserve Bank (Inc.) A Murderous History?


Banksters, the Worlds Worst Gangsters

  • May 1, 1776 Jesuit Professor Adam Weishaupt who was retained by Rothschild’s completes world dominance plan.
  • 1776-1790: U.S. Independence – Free Banking -no formal central bank.
  • 1791-1811: First Bank of the United States.
  • 1816-1836: Second Bank of the United States.
  • 1837-1862: Free Banking Era -no formal central bank.
  • 1862-1913: System of National Banks (Consequence of Lincoln’s War).
  • 1914-crrent: A consortium of 12 privately held banks called the Federal Reserve Bank.  The largest share holder of the bank are the Rothschild’s of London.

The accomplishments of the Rothschild’s and fellow banksters is nothing short of astonishing.  They have literally got the world to hand them the right to manufacture money out of nothing and then to turn around and lend the mammon back to the world plus usurious interest!  Almost single handedly, this small group of men have dominated the world.  However, in their efforts to dominate the world they have caused extraordinary pain and agony and even potentially the complete destruction of life on earth.

The Federal Reserve Bank is a consortium of twelve private banks which are not part of the United States Government. These private banks purchase paper notes from the U.S. mint for printing cost or simply enter digital money into their computer then lend back the money plus interest to the people through member banks.  The profits go into the share holders of the bank’s pocket’s, the U.S. public receives no benefit.

The Primary Owners of the Federal Reserve Bank Are:
1. Rothschild’s of London and Berlin
2. Lazard Brothers of Paris
3. Israel Moses Seaf of Italy
4. Kuhn, Loeb & Co. of Germany and New York
5. Warburg & Company of Hamburg, Germany
6. Lehman Brothers of New York
7. Goldman, Sachs of New York
8. Rockefeller Brothers of New York
All the primary owners are branches of European establishments.  Foreigners, almost entirely Jewish, control the United States Money supply.  They literally own exclusive rights to the dollar and simply enter dollars into their banks books to make money which they then lend back to us at a profit.  For them money does not grow on trees, it is simply a data entry into their account.  Clearly the private ownership of the U.S. Dollar is by far The Greatest Crime of the Century.  The owners of this bank have been responsible for instigating all the major wars and depressions in the last 100 years.  They own the bank, they own the dollar and they own all the major media channels, the military industrial complex and most politicians, judges and cops.

Sometimes the bank pays an arbitrary ‘franchise fee’ to the U.S. government to keep the politicians paid off.

The first two private National Banking Systems lasted about 20 years before being eliminated.  The current Federal Reserve Bank private National Bank has lasted nearly 100 years.

In Producer Aaron Russo’s must see Movie “AMERICA: Freedom to Fascism”, when interviewing Congressman Ron Paul, Aaron asks: “So the Federal Reserve is actually an illegal entity functioning within the Federal Government?”  Ron Paul’s response: “It’s illegal.  And what we have given to this so-called agency is the authority to counterfeit money.”

The cost of this system to the U.S. public is hundreds of billions of dollars every year while holding the nation and people in a constant state of debt.

There have been assassination attempts on every President who attempted to eliminate these private National Banks.  The privately held Federal Reserve Bank has not once been audited and never pays any income tax on their astonishing income.

The bank is supposed to bring stability to the economy, however, almost every major marked crash and war can be attributed to the Federal Reserve Bank, including the Great Depression, WW I, WW II, the Gulf War etc.

In 1913 in exchange for paying for his Presidential campaign, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act handing over the U.S. currency to twelve regional private banks.  In 1933 Roosevelt confiscated citizens gold and handed it to these private banks.

Arguably the formation of the Federal Reserve Bank is
The Crime of the Century

The Federal Reserve Banking Act, passed in 1913 is categorically unconstitutional, it is unlawful.

The Federal Reserve Bank’s money fraud has devalued the dollar to about four percent of its worth in 1930

Henry Ford once said “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning”.

Article 1, section 8, of the Constitution reads:
The Congress shall have the Power…..To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof,….
Congress has no authority to delegate this responsibility to third parties.As a show of audacity and control, the Federal Reserve Bank prints their Notes with the faces of Presidents who adamantly opposed having a private National Bank, and Presidents the bank either tried to or did kill.

There will never be world peace, there will never be economic stability, there will never be a free economy as long as these banksters control the worlds money supply. Their goal is to achieve a socialist one world government – a “New World Order”, as is printed in Latin on their $1 Note.

Meyer Amchel Rothschild said:
“Let me issue and control a nation’s money, and I care not who writes its laws”
(1743-1812)
In 1773, Rothschild, formerly Bauer, pulled together 12 other investors to join in his plan to dominate the world.  On May 1, 1776 Adam Weishaupt retained by Rothschild’s completed their world dominance plan.

After the battle of Waterloo, his son Nathan Mayer in England deceptively crashed the stock exchange and made a fortune.  He sponsored George Peabody who’s business JP Morgan took over.

The Rothschild’s funded Woodrow Wilson’s Presidential campaign on condition Wilson pass the Federal Reserve Banking Act.  Today the Rothschild’s are the primary owners of the Federal Reserve Bank.  They control most of the world and through the control of central banks have instigated more wars and horror than any other family throughout history.

Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson was adamantly opposed to the idea of a privately owned federal bank and said:  “I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies” “the principle of spending money to be paid by prosperity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale“If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency.. the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Thomas Jefferson believed the National Bank was unconstitutional because it was an unauthorized extension of federal power. Congress, Jefferson argued, possessed only delegated powers which were specifically enumerated in the constitution.


James Madison said the Bank was “condemned by the silence of the constitution”.

Alexander Hamilton however lobbied for the first privately owned Federal Bank.  Hamilton conceded that the constitution was silent on banking, however, he asserted, that Congress had the power to tax, to borrow money, and to regulate interstate and foreign commerce and suggested that Congress could charter a private corporation to assist in carrying out these powers.In 1790 Hamilton persuaded Congress to pass the Assumption Act where the Federal Government assumed States debts. In 1791 Congress chartered the Bank of The United States. Congress passes the Coinage Act in 1792 which establishes a U.S. mint.  Hamilton resigned as Secretary of the Treasury in 1793.   It is reported that Hamilton was paid by the Rothschild family for this service.

In 1811 Congress Refused to renew the charter for the Bank of the United States & the bank is closed.1812-1815 War breaks out with Britain.


1815 President James Madison proposed a second privately owned Bank of the United States which was chartered in 1816 and opened in 1817.

President Andrew Jackson said regarding bankers: “The bank, is trying to kill me, but I will kill it!” “You are a den of vipers and thieves.  I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God I will rout you out.”“I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money, are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies.”
“Paper is poverty… it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself.”
“If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency… the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
In December of 1834, President Jackson declared that the national debt will be paid off.  The next month there was an assassination attempt on Jackson.

In 1836 overriding Congress, Jackson closed the Bank of the United States commenting: The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it.”

In 1836 The Bank of the United States charter expired.  Congressional Bills to establish a new national bank were twice vetoed by President Tyler in 1841.  In 1846 The Independent Treasury Act is approved.


Following Lincoln’s threat of invasion if States refused to pay the 52% Morrill tax, ten southern States lawfully secede from the Union between December 1860 and February 1861:
“The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.” – Abraham Lincoln in his Inaugural Address Monday, March 4, 1861

Against the advice of his generals and congress, Lincoln initiated the so-called “Civil War” in April of 1861, one month after Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated. In his inaugural speech Lincoln promised to do nothing about slavery: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”  It was only when Lincoln was loosing the war that he issued the emancipation proclamation where he proclaimed that slaves in the Nations of the Confederate States were free.

To pay for the ‘civil war, on the 5th of August 1861, Congress passes the first National income tax and by the 21st of that month the first paper currency was issued.

Lincoln said, “The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe. Corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow. The money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.”

In February 1863, Congress established another National Banking system. The bankers were intending to charge between 24% and 36% interest rates for money to finance the war. To avoid the interest, Lincoln ordered the printing of $450 million in bank notes guaranteed by the U.S. government.  “The government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency. Creating and issuing money is the supreme prerogative of government and is its greatest creative opportunity.  Adopting these principles will save the taxpayers immense sums of interest and money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity.”  The notes were called “Greenbacks” and effectively eliminated the interest the private banks charged on notes they issued.

On April 9, 1865 following Lincoln’s brutal, immoral and cruel scorched earth war policy, Lee surrendered at Appomattox. Johnston’s army surrendered on April 26, 1865.

On Apr 14, 1865, Lincoln was assassinated and Congress revoked the Greenback Law and enacted, in its place, the National Banking Act supporting privately owned national banks.  The associates of the President Lincoln’s assassin were according to many, on the payroll of the Rothschild’s.  The Nation was thrown into a state of constant debt, paying interest to bankers who created cash.

More U.S. citizens died from Lincoln’s war than all the wars combined up to, but not including the Bush’s wars.

Lincoln was arguably one of the most dishonest and disastrous Presidents this Nation has seen, running tie perhaps with Franklin Delaware Roosevelt and George W. Bush.  The Federal government naturally gives Lincoln great importance because it was Lincoln who established large central federal government positions paid for by taxing the people.  State run schools go as far as to teach students that Abraham Lincoln was a honest hero.

Portrait of Andrew JohnsonFollowing Lincoln’s assassination, Andrew Johnson, whom many have shown was involved in the assassination, became President. On December 18, 1865, a new Thirteenth Amendment was ratified ignoring the existing properly ratified 13th Amendment which eliminated citizenship of persons who swore allegiance to other Nations or secret societies. (On July 27, 1866, the Second Atlantic cable was completed).

On February 24, 1868 President Johnson was impeached by the House however his trial in the Senate failed.

On July 21, 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment was questionably adopted (In 1969 the  Pacific Railroad was completed)

Portrait of Ulysses Grant Ulysses S. Grant, the barbarous Union general was elected President in 1869 he served till 1877 and was the subject of many government scandals.

The Black Friday financial crisis in 1869 was caused by Wall Street scam artists Jay Gould and James Fisk when they attempted to corner the gold market, Grant’s government sat idly by.

On March 30, 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified.

In February of 1873 Congress demonetized silver (i.e. refused silver as payment) resulting in Financial panic.

Jay Cooke’s bank who helped fund the Civil War went bankrupt on September 18, 1873.  The depression lasted till 1877.

January 1875, Congress passed the Specie Resumption Act which stipulated that beginning in January 1879 the federal government would redeem (legally exchange) greenbacks with gold.

Under President Portrait of Rutherford HayesRutherford B. Hayes, in 1878, Congress enacted the Bland-Allison Act, a compromise bill which specified limited amount of silver to be coined annually. President James A. Garfield was inaugurated in 1881, he said “Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce”.  On July 2, 1881 Garfield was shot, he dies on September 19. On September 6, 1901 President McKinley is shot by an assassin, he dies on September 14. Theodore Roosevelt becomes President.

In exchange for financial support for his presidential campaign, Woodrow Wilson’s agreed that if elected, he would sign the Federal Reserve Act. In December 1913, while many members of Congress were home for Christmas, the Federal Reserve Act was rammed through Congress and signed by President Wilson. Regarding his actions Wilson later admitted. “I have unwittingly ruined my country”. The Fed became law the day before Christmas Eve, in the year 1913, and shortly afterwards, the German International bankers, Kuhn, Loeb and Co. sent one of their partners here to run it.

PRESIDENT WOODROW WILSON: “A great industrial Nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the Nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men… who necessarily, by very reasons of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom.”  “We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world – no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men”. (Just before he died, Wilson is reported to have stated to friends that he had been “deceived” and that “I have betrayed my Country”. He referred to the Federal Reserve Act passed during his Presidency.)

The un-ratified 16th Amendment
The Constitution only allowed direct apportioned taxation amongst the States, so indirect Income Tax was initiated through the 16th Amendment so as to allow Congress to pay the bankers interest on our money and for any other whim.  The 16th Amendment was pushed through without proper ratification in February of 1913.

According to the two volume work by Bill Benson and Red Beckman , “The Law That Never Was” the 16th amendment, which created the IRS, was never properly ratified, not even by one state! These gentlemen traveled the then 48 states to verify that fact. So in a very real sense the income tax isn’t legal, as many have proclaimed, but try not paying it and see how far you get before the Feds come after you and confiscate everything you own.

World War I Started on June 28, 1914 as a direct consequence of the Formation of the Federal Reserve Bank.  It would not have been possible to start World War I without the formation of the Federal Reserve Bank.  The primary beneficiaries of WWI were the owners of the Federal Reserve Bank.

After World War I had turned the United States from a debtor nation into a creditor nation. In the aftermath of the war, both the victorious Allies and the defeated Central Powers owed the United States more money than it owed to foreign nations.  The Republican administrations of the 1920s insisted on payments in gold bullion, but the world’s gold supply was limited and by the end of the 1920s, the United States, itself, controlled much of the world’s gold supply. Besides gold, which was increasingly in short supply, countries could pay their debts in goods and services. However, protectionism and high tariffs kept foreign goods out of the United States. The Hawley-Smoot Act (1930) set the highest schedule of tariffs to date.

In the January 13, 1918 issue of New York World William Boyce Thompson, Federal Reserve Bank director and founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations applauded Russia for their “sweeping world changes.”.  The primary shareholders of the Federal Reserve Bank, the Rothschild’s, funded the Bolshevik revolution.  They literally sent a train with 50 million dollars worth of gold and fifty or so trained Jewish insurgents to instigate the communist revolution.

The Great Federal Depression.  Within 15 years of the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank the U.S. experienced it’s worst depression. The depression was initiated when the Federal Reserve Bank changed the valuation of the dollar then refused to provide banks with dollar bills causing a panic and a run on the banks.  The primary beneficiaries of the depression were the owners of the bank and their colleagues.  In the ensuing panic, the bankers brought one of their own out of retirement from the Morgan/Rothschild banking cartel and made him president.  FDR has arguably, along with GWB and Lincoln have been the nations worst presidents.

April 5th 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued a treasonous Franklin D. RooseveltExecutive Order ordering citizens to hand their gold and gold certificates to the private Federal Reserve Bank: Executive Order 6102:  “Section 2. All persons are hereby required to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, to a Federal Reserve Bank or a branch or agency thereof or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System all gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates now owned by them or coming into their ownership on or before April 28, 1933″
“Section 9. Whoever willfully violates any provision of this Executive Order or of these regulations or of any rule, regulation or license issued thereunder may be fined not more than $10,000, or, if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both
FDR proceeded to implement the “New Deal” which converted the United States of America to the United Socialist States of America.  Instituting pure socialism in Social Security, the FCC to control the airwaves, the SEC to control banking and eliminate any potential competitors to the private Federal Reserve Bank.

We are still suffering the consequences of FDR’s criminal “New Deal”, a central government based on Fascist Socialism.  Does F.D. Roosevelt earn the title of the worst president ever?  Read the revealing article exposing the real deal by Robert Higgs

World War II

The war-driven economic expansion increased demand for credit: earnings from rediscounts in the Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank alone rose from $141,774 in 1916 to $1,758,000 in 1918, for example.

The Atlanta Fed saw its government securities portfolio burgeon from nothing in 1915 to $19.5 million by 1918. Earnings, fed by the securities, were strong enough in 1917 for the Bank to pay all dividends due and still have $80,000 left, of which $40,000 was used to start a surplus account and $40,000 paid to the Treasury as a “franchise tax”, the Bank’s first transfer of earnings to the federal Treasury. From 1919 earnings the Bank was able to put $3 million in its surplus.

By instigating WWII, the Banksters were able to destroy eight monarchies throughout Europe while at the same time making extraordinary profits from their armaments companies.  U.S. bombing runs on Germany were often specifically targeted at factories of competitors to the Banksters while carefully not bombing factories owned by the Banksters.

On June 4, 1963, President Kennedy signed a Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110.  This order virtually stripped the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Government at interest.  President Kennedy declared the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business.  This order gave the Treasury Department the authority to issue silver certificates against any silver in the treasury.  This executive order still stands today. In less than five months after signing that executive order President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963.

The United States Notes (silver certificates) he had issued were taken out of circulation immediately. Federal Reserve Notes continued to serve as the legal currency of this nation. It is estimated that 99% of all U.S. paper currency circulating in 1999 are Federal Reserve Notes.

Who Shot Ronald Reagan?
When Ronald Reagan attempted to address the problem with the Federal Reserve Bank another mysterious gunman attempted to assassinate him.
Nine American Presidents have been the targets of assassination:- Andrew Jackson in 1835 (opposed a private national bank), Abraham Lincoln in 1865 (opposed a private national bank), James Garfield in 1881  (opposed a private national bank), William McKinley in 1901, Harry S. Truman in 1950, John F. Kennedy in 1963 (opposed a private national bank), Richard Nixon in 1974, Gerald Ford twice in 1975, and Ronald Reagan in 1981 (opposed a private national bank):

.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/assassinations.cfm

“Whether money is metal, paper or digital, is not the issue, the issue is interest.  The function of currency is to provide a trading mechanism for the barter of real assets and services.  There can be no interest charged for the mere provision of a mechanism to barter.  A service fee, yes, but interest, absolutely not.” – Clive Boustred, Founder, Chairman & CEO InfoTelesys & Chairman of Liberty For Life Association

SEE: InfoTelesys BankInfoTelesys/CopperCards_Bank_Press_Release

InfoTelesys was building a next generation Internet that would incorporate interest free currency accessible anywhere in the world through the satellite network the company was building. The InfoTelesys team consisted of numerous extraordinarily qualified individuals including many top banking technology and satellite experts. While working for Sun Microsystems, Clive provided the systems architecture for one of the worlds largest banking systems and consulted to many of the top banks around the world.

After returning home from the Courthouse, while waiting for his home garage door to open, on March 10, 2003 a shooting instructor for the Santa Cruz Sheriffs ran up to Clive’s car and shot at Clive from a point blank range of two meters. The shot missed Clive and his children who were also in the car.  The government followed up with a massive malicious prosecution campaign against Clive, filing seven false cases against him and repeatedly throwing him in jail without any right to bail, thereby eliminating InfoTelesys and potential competition to the Federal Reserve Bank.

“Our misunderstanding is the belief that money is a real asset, to the extent where we have allowed this deception to become reality.  Money, cash, currency is only a tool, a Note that represents real assets or services in a transaction.

The ability to manufacture money, whether the note is printed on metal, paper or digitally is something that must be in the free domain.  Just as corporations are free to offer notes representing the ownership or stock of a corporation.

If we give any person or entity the exclusive right to control the representation or production of notes representing assets and services, we give that person complete control of everything, unless we specifically dictate that the note may bear no interest and the valuation of assets and services remain free and dynamic.

Our lack of understanding of money has resulted in centuries of servitude and the last hundred years of violent wars.” – CLive.

At first notes were printed on paper or wood, then kings realized they could dominate their subjects by forcing them to only use their notes exclusively.  To make it more difficult to counterfeit their notes, kings started printing their notes on meta instead of wood – hence the introduction of the “Gold Standard“.  Gold and silver certainly have intrinsic value, just as paper does. When it comes to monetary notes, the issue is not the intrinsic value of the material on which the money is representedThe real issue is the acceptance of the note as a form of barter, the stability of the note, and the national and international consequences of employing that specific note.

One can just as easily use stock certificates in a respectable company to purchase a house, so long as the seller is able to exchange those stock certificates for other assets.  This is why the banksters key player, FDR, instituted the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC).  There really is no need for the SEC.  Fraud has always been on the law books.  Buyers of a corporate stock have to evaluate the value and integrity of the corporation themselves.  Any company wanting to attract buyers to their stock will readily provide all the information the SEC supposedly dictates.  In all reality the SEC is merely a mechanism to eliminate competitors to the privately held Federal Reserve Bank’s notes.  For the same reason, FDR committed treason when he ordered citizens to hand their gold to that private bank.

According to Congressional record the U.S. Government can buy back the FED at any time for $450 million.  That’s about half the amount of money we pay them daily.

As of March 6, 2006, the national debt stands at 8.2 trillion dollars. The American taxpayers have paid the FED banking system $173,875,979,369.66 in interest on that debt in just five short months, from October, 2005, through February, 2006.  No con artist or group of con artists in history has ever perpetrated a scam that even approaches the scope of this one.

The Fed allows Congress to spend all they want that’s why your Congressperson does nothing.

“Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation’s debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over. …. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Fed and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it. ” – Congressman McFadden on the Federal Reserve Corporation Remarks in Congress, 1934  Floor of the House of Representatives by the Honorable Louis T. McFadden of Pennsylvania. Mr. McFadden served as Chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee for more than 10 years.  There were two assassination attempts against McFadden.

“Why did we give a monopoly of creating money out of thin air to a private corporation?  The result is exactly the same as if someone was picking your pocket every year, because that is exactly what they [the Federal Reserve Bank] are doing.” Franklin Sunders, Author, Tax Honesty.

“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it.  The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” – Paul Warburg, Council on Foreign Relations and Architect of the Federal Reserve System: Feb 17, 1950 in an address to the U.S. Senate.  See also US World Dominance Plan

“Who controls money controls the word”. – Henry Kissinger Counsel on Foreign Relations

Ron Paul introduces bill to eliminate Federal Reserve Bank: see GovTrack.us. H.R. 2755–110th Congress (2007): To abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve.

Nazi SS Ring & Federal Reserve Note Eagle: A coincidence or not?:

Who funded Hitler?
On Oct 24, 1942 The U.S. Gov seized Nazi Assets Belonging to Prescott Bush, grandfather of President G.W.B. Jr.

see Fed Instability and U.S. Banking Timeline

C-Live, Love Oppose Evil. Novus Ordo Seclorum.

Possibly Related Posts:


    Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes
    Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE