A video from the beginning of 2011, and I thought I'd post it since Joe Rogan came up again on my radar recently. He is one person who is awake and has a voice that could reach many - if they were willing to listen.
Warning: following video contains some coarse language.
P.S. Did you watch the bonus bit after the credits? This was referring to World Trade Center Tower 7, a 47 story sky scraper that collapsed on 9/11 at free fall speed, and was not hit by any airplane. It was not one of the twin towers, but a separate building.
Most people have no idea about this collapse because the media resolutely disallowed any coverage.
Inquiring minds might like to explore this issue, learn about it and google it. Make your own assessment. Does it make sense to you that a building not hit by a plane, and that sustained just some small office fires, would collapse at freefall speed right into its own footprint? What was inside that building? Who were the tenants? If you do a little research, the answers to these questions might just raise a few more bigger questions, they did for me.
Friday, December 23, 2011
FBI Says Activists Who Investigate Factory Farms Can Be Prosecuted as Terrorists
Great, lets lock them up without trial and send them to Guantanamo...
From Green Is The New Red:
The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force has kept files on activists who expose animal welfare abuses on factory farms and recommended prosecuting them as terrorists, according to a new document uncovered through the Freedom of Information Act.
Read more...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
From Green Is The New Red:
The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force has kept files on activists who expose animal welfare abuses on factory farms and recommended prosecuting them as terrorists, according to a new document uncovered through the Freedom of Information Act.
Read more...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Friday, December 16, 2011
Obama moves to authorize US citizens to be detained indefinitely without trial.
From The Guardian...
Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial
Civil rights groups dismayed as Barack Obama abandons commitment to veto new security law contained in defence bill
Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay.
Human rights groups accused the president of deserting his principles and disregarding the long-established principle that the military is not used in domestic policing. The legislation has also been strongly criticised by libertarians on the right angered at the stripping of individual rights for the duration of "a war that appears to have no end".
Read more...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial
Civil rights groups dismayed as Barack Obama abandons commitment to veto new security law contained in defence bill
Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay.
Human rights groups accused the president of deserting his principles and disregarding the long-established principle that the military is not used in domestic policing. The legislation has also been strongly criticised by libertarians on the right angered at the stripping of individual rights for the duration of "a war that appears to have no end".
Read more...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Thursday, November 10, 2011
CIA Drones Kill Large Groups Without Knowing Who They Are
Via Wired
CIA Drones Kill Large Groups Without Knowing Who They Are
The expansion of the CIA’s undeclared drone war in the tribal areas of Pakistan required a big expansion of who can be marked for death. Once the standard for targeted killing was top-level leadership in al-Qaeda or one of its allies. That’s long gone, especially as the number of people targeted at once has grown.
This is the new standard, according to a blockbuster piece in the Wall Street Journal: “men believed to be militants associated with terrorist groups, but whose identities aren’t always known.” The CIA is now killing people without knowing who they are, on suspicion of association with terrorist groups. The article does not define the standards are for “suspicion” and “association.”
Read more...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
CIA Drones Kill Large Groups Without Knowing Who They Are
The expansion of the CIA’s undeclared drone war in the tribal areas of Pakistan required a big expansion of who can be marked for death. Once the standard for targeted killing was top-level leadership in al-Qaeda or one of its allies. That’s long gone, especially as the number of people targeted at once has grown.
This is the new standard, according to a blockbuster piece in the Wall Street Journal: “men believed to be militants associated with terrorist groups, but whose identities aren’t always known.” The CIA is now killing people without knowing who they are, on suspicion of association with terrorist groups. The article does not define the standards are for “suspicion” and “association.”
Read more...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Monsanto's Net Profit up 77%
I wonder if the following article might just have something to do with Obama's appointment of a Monsanto representative to a key agriculture position (Chief Agricultural Negotiator, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative). That's fascism, by definition, no question.
Source: Bloomberg
Monsanto Co. (MON), the world’s largest seed company, raised its full-year profit forecast and posted third-quarter earnings that topped analysts’ estimates on higher sales of Roundup weed killer and genetically modified seeds.
Net income climbed 77 percent to $680 million, or $1.26 a share, in the three months through May 31, from $384 million, or 70 cents, a year earlier, St. Louis-based Monsanto said today in a statement. That beat the $1.10 average estimate of 17 analysts in a Bloomberg survey.
Profit excluding some items will rise to $2.84 to $2.88 a share in the fiscal year through August, compared with a previous prediction of $2.72 to $2.82. The average estimate of 20 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg was $2.82. Monsanto also said the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating customer incentives for Roundup.
read more...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Source: Bloomberg
Monsanto Co. (MON), the world’s largest seed company, raised its full-year profit forecast and posted third-quarter earnings that topped analysts’ estimates on higher sales of Roundup weed killer and genetically modified seeds.
Net income climbed 77 percent to $680 million, or $1.26 a share, in the three months through May 31, from $384 million, or 70 cents, a year earlier, St. Louis-based Monsanto said today in a statement. That beat the $1.10 average estimate of 17 analysts in a Bloomberg survey.
Profit excluding some items will rise to $2.84 to $2.88 a share in the fiscal year through August, compared with a previous prediction of $2.72 to $2.82. The average estimate of 20 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg was $2.82. Monsanto also said the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating customer incentives for Roundup.
read more...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Obama's Hypocrisy - Whistleblowers Line Up to Take Back Transparency Award
Another brilliant report from corbettreport.com. You will never see actual, real reporting like this in the main stream media.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Monday, May 30, 2011
79 Senators vote to trash the Constitution: The “War of Terror” on the US grows
From Activist Post
Marti Oakley
Saturday, May 28, 2011
If you haven’t received the memo yet, let me update you on your status as it pertains to the Constitution and your civil liberties; you have neither. 79 Senators who snickered as they swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, voted to render you guilty in advance, with no chance of proving your innocence. The unlawful data mining and collection, the compilation of dossiers on virtually every person in the US, the unwarranted wire-tapping, the rifling through personal records of all kinds for no other reason than to collect information to be used at a later date if the government decides to prosecute you for whatever reasons, was extended.
The Patriot Acts were sold to the public as part of the war of terror perpetrated by the Bush administration after the false flag attacks of 9/11. A “War of Terror” is being perpetrated by our own government against its own people and is blessed by both Democrat and Republican alike. “We the people” are the terrorists the government fears. The Constitution be damned.
Nothing in the Patriot acts is remotely connected to fighting terrorism from foreign invaders. It is a precisely targeted bill which amounted to a massive assault on liberty and freedom right here at home.
We had more than 1500 laws already on the books (never invoked) to fight terrorism prior to this Act, and even these could not stop an attack; what makes anyone think or believe the Patriot Acts could perform such a feat? If you think this Act could prevent terrorism, try waving a copy at a TSA agent and see if he (or, she) runs away in fear.
Had the intent of the Patriot Act actually been to fight terrorism, the federal government would have had to turn its efforts inward and waged “war” on itself.
The Patriot Acts are the systematic criminalization of American citizens. Terrorists, and terrorism are only mentioned when the assaults on Constitutional rights and civil liberties were so egregious, so blatantly obvious that the veiled threat of another attack, if we objected, was ever present.
No true terrorist gives a rat’s behind what laws we pass; if they did, they wouldn’t be terrorists. Nothing in the Patriot Acts will stop terrorism especially when it emanates from within.
These Acts will however:
- Stop YOU from traveling unmolested by government agents.
- Will also violate your right to privacy and to be,
Secure from illegal search and seizure - Makes legal (not lawful) warrantless searches
- Allows unwarranted data mining of any and all information on you, including:
- Any comments, beliefs, political opinions, social positions, religious beliefs, political party affiliation, and any other belief system or political view not approved by government.
- These Acts are the foundation of the police state being systematically assembled and implemented by Homeland Security
The hunting of the American people
They aren’t looking for terrorists…..they are looking for you.
There is far more to this police state Act than we can go into here. We all know this Act for what it is: The end of our Constitutional Republic and the rise of the police state. And 79 of our Senators took it upon themselves to vote away our liberty and to allow this monster to grow.
Too many of us dutifully comply with the sexual assaults perpetrated by TSA agents across the country. As passengers mewl and whine about how they “are just trying to keep us safe” I have to wonder just how egregious the invasion of our property and most especially the invasion of our persons has to become before we admit that what TSA is doing has nothing to do with your safety. It has everything to do with conditioning and training you to submit and comply, and god knows there are plenty of perverts more than willing to spend their days fondling the genitals of compliant passengers or watching the naked body scanner images. The sexual assaults perpetrated on the public have produced not ONE terrorist unless of course you count the TSA agents.
TSA is now planned for public buildings, malls, train stations and stadiums. And bunches of you sheeple will whine about how they are just trying to keep you safe! And to add insult to injury, the 2002 homeland Security Act has been amended to include a snitching-for-dollars program which we like to call “The Stool Pigeon Protection Act”.
Fusion Centers are proliferating across the country. These centers do nothing but data mine, snoop, and collect any and all data they can, indiscriminately and without regard to your liberty or civil protections. These are manned by your friends, neighbors and family members who lack morality and any sense of patriotism; people who quickly forgot who they are and where they come from.
Obama and several state senators and governors are contemplating a “per mile” surveillance tax system to be paid for by taxpayers. This new system would require surveillance equipment to be installed on your vehicle, not so much to generate revenue, but more to track your movements so that information could be added to your CIA/FBI/NSA dossier. Once identified in this new system, your ability to purchase gas could be shut off instantly simply by deactivating your vehicle ID number. It could shut off access for one vehicle . . . or all vehicles.
Our police and sheriff departments have been militarized under Homeland Security. Our police and sheriff department vehicles no longer have the words “To protect and Serve” emblazoned on the sides. This, thanks to a SCOTUS ruling that said law enforcement was under no obligation to protect us unless they arrest us, and then only in a limited fashion . . . and besides . . . they are essentially military units now.
Read More...
Marti Oakley is a political activist and former op-ed columnist for the St Cloud Times in Minnesota. She was a member of the Times Writer’s Group until she resigned in September of 07. She is neither Democrat nor Republican, since neither party is representative of the American people. She says what she thinks, means what she says, and is known for being outspoken. She is hopeful that the American public will wake up to what is happening to our beloved country . . . little of it is left. Her website is The PPJ Gazette
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Monday, April 11, 2011
Flashback 2006: Obama On Raising The Debt Ceiling
Great flashback from The Daily Bail.
In 2006, Senator Obama argued and voted against raising the debt ceiling. In 2007 and 2008, he didn't even bother to vote.
In 2006:
Democrats in control of Congress, including then-Sen. Obama (Ill.), blasted President George W. Bush for failing to contain spending when he oversaw increased deficits and raised the debt ceiling.
"Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.”
-- Senator Barack Obama in 2006
Obama later joined all Dems in voting en bloc against raising the debt increase.
In 2010:
Behind closed doors and with no cameras present, President Obama signed into law Friday afternoon the bill raising the public debt limit from $12.394 trillion to $14.294 trillion.
The current national debt is $12.3 trillion. Check out the National Debt Clock, which tells you your share of that -- roughly $40,000 per citizen, $113,000 per taxpayer.
The bill also establishes a statutory Pay-As-You-Go procedure requiring that new non-emergency legislation affecting tax revenue or mandatory spending not increase the Federal deficit – in other words, that any new spending or tax cuts be paid for with new taxes or spending cuts.
Today:
WH: Obama regrets vote against raising debt limit
WASHINGTON – The White House said Monday that President Barack Obama regrets his vote as a senator in 2006 against raising the debt limit — the same kind of increase he's now pressuring Congress to approve.
Obama "thinks it was a mistake," presidential spokesman Jay Carney told reporters. "He realizes now that raising the debt ceiling is so important to the health of this economy and the global economy that it is not a vote that, even when you are protesting an administration's policies, you can play around with."
The country will reach its debt limit of $14.3 trillion by May 16. If Congress doesn't raise it by then or shortly thereafter, the government would not be able to make debt payments, leading to an unprecedented default of the national debt and driving up borrowing costs for the government, U.S. companies and consumers, the Treasury Department warns.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
In 2006, Senator Obama argued and voted against raising the debt ceiling. In 2007 and 2008, he didn't even bother to vote.
In 2006:
Democrats in control of Congress, including then-Sen. Obama (Ill.), blasted President George W. Bush for failing to contain spending when he oversaw increased deficits and raised the debt ceiling.
"Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.”
-- Senator Barack Obama in 2006
Obama later joined all Dems in voting en bloc against raising the debt increase.
In 2010:
Behind closed doors and with no cameras present, President Obama signed into law Friday afternoon the bill raising the public debt limit from $12.394 trillion to $14.294 trillion.
The current national debt is $12.3 trillion. Check out the National Debt Clock, which tells you your share of that -- roughly $40,000 per citizen, $113,000 per taxpayer.
The bill also establishes a statutory Pay-As-You-Go procedure requiring that new non-emergency legislation affecting tax revenue or mandatory spending not increase the Federal deficit – in other words, that any new spending or tax cuts be paid for with new taxes or spending cuts.
Today:
WH: Obama regrets vote against raising debt limit
WASHINGTON – The White House said Monday that President Barack Obama regrets his vote as a senator in 2006 against raising the debt limit — the same kind of increase he's now pressuring Congress to approve.
Obama "thinks it was a mistake," presidential spokesman Jay Carney told reporters. "He realizes now that raising the debt ceiling is so important to the health of this economy and the global economy that it is not a vote that, even when you are protesting an administration's policies, you can play around with."
The country will reach its debt limit of $14.3 trillion by May 16. If Congress doesn't raise it by then or shortly thereafter, the government would not be able to make debt payments, leading to an unprecedented default of the national debt and driving up borrowing costs for the government, U.S. companies and consumers, the Treasury Department warns.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Why We the People will win the new American Revolution against US fascism
Carl Herman, Examiner.com, April 11th, 2011
Whether you like it or not, whether you want it or not, you are within a new American Revolution.
The “emperor has no clothes” obvious facts that expose US political/economic “leadership” crimes center on US wars that are nowhere close to lawful and all based on lies, and trillions of dollars transferred from the American public to these political/economic “leaders.”
There are many other related crimes. I do my part as a professional educator of government and economics to walk people through the relatively simple explanations and documentation. I offer a professional academic paper, and one with my “citizen voice”:
Open proposal for US revolution: end unlawful wars, parasitic economics
Common Sense for new American Revolution: revolt from US government by dicts
The path of We the People is set: critical mass is embracing the intellectual integrity and moral courage to declare our fascist emperors are without a shred of constitutional or legal clothing.
Your role as an individual American is your call. I respectfully suggest that you claim your unique, powerful, and beautiful self-expression to participate in rejecting the fascists’ murder of multiple millions of your fellow beings on this planet and forced suffering of billions. The solutions in government and economics in the links above are literally peace and trillions of dollars of annual benefits to propel humanity forward into an unimaginably bright future.
What self-expression will give you the most joy, the most strength, the greatest pride for all you hold dear?
In support of your choice, a cogent explanation for this Revolution and victory is given by Benjamin Fulford(I do not argue Mr. Fulford’s entire message and background because his factual claims are outside my ability and/or immediate interest to research):
Story continues here
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Whether you like it or not, whether you want it or not, you are within a new American Revolution.
The “emperor has no clothes” obvious facts that expose US political/economic “leadership” crimes center on US wars that are nowhere close to lawful and all based on lies, and trillions of dollars transferred from the American public to these political/economic “leaders.”
There are many other related crimes. I do my part as a professional educator of government and economics to walk people through the relatively simple explanations and documentation. I offer a professional academic paper, and one with my “citizen voice”:
Open proposal for US revolution: end unlawful wars, parasitic economics
Common Sense for new American Revolution: revolt from US government by dicts
The path of We the People is set: critical mass is embracing the intellectual integrity and moral courage to declare our fascist emperors are without a shred of constitutional or legal clothing.
Your role as an individual American is your call. I respectfully suggest that you claim your unique, powerful, and beautiful self-expression to participate in rejecting the fascists’ murder of multiple millions of your fellow beings on this planet and forced suffering of billions. The solutions in government and economics in the links above are literally peace and trillions of dollars of annual benefits to propel humanity forward into an unimaginably bright future.
What self-expression will give you the most joy, the most strength, the greatest pride for all you hold dear?
In support of your choice, a cogent explanation for this Revolution and victory is given by Benjamin Fulford(I do not argue Mr. Fulford’s entire message and background because his factual claims are outside my ability and/or immediate interest to research):
What the megalomaniac financial elite need to realize is that the men with the guns and the senior civil servants and other top intellectuals who were not part of the inbred elite are now awake, aware and angry. They are not going to be lulled back to sleep this time.
Story continues here
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Washington Post and CBS receiving money from Obamacare slush fund
From: Daily Caller
April 6th, 2011
Two mainstream news organizations are receiving hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars from Obamacare’s Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP) — a $5 billion grant program that’s doling out cash to companies, states and labor unions in what the Obama administration considers an effort to pay for health insurance for early retirees. The Washington Post Company raked in $573,217 in taxpayer subsidies and CBS Corporation secured $722,388 worth of Americans’ money.
“It is fine with me if they continue covering the ObamaCare debate,” said Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, in an e-mail to The Daily Caller. “When NBC used to cover energy issues, they identified themselves as a subsidiary of General Electric. CBS and Washington Post just have to disclose that they are subsidiaries of the Obama Administration.”
The ERRP, which Republicans call a slush fund, provides taxpayer money to Obama administration-selected states, companies and labor unions with already-in-place early retiree health insurance programs, and aims to make certain that their employees who retire early still have health insurance coverage before they reach Medicare eligibility age. Almost $2 billion of the $5 billion fund, which was supposed to last until 2014, has already been distributed to corporations. New projections expect the funding to run out before the end of 2012, if not sooner.
Story continues here.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
April 6th, 2011
Two mainstream news organizations are receiving hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars from Obamacare’s Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP) — a $5 billion grant program that’s doling out cash to companies, states and labor unions in what the Obama administration considers an effort to pay for health insurance for early retirees. The Washington Post Company raked in $573,217 in taxpayer subsidies and CBS Corporation secured $722,388 worth of Americans’ money.“It is fine with me if they continue covering the ObamaCare debate,” said Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, in an e-mail to The Daily Caller. “When NBC used to cover energy issues, they identified themselves as a subsidiary of General Electric. CBS and Washington Post just have to disclose that they are subsidiaries of the Obama Administration.”
The ERRP, which Republicans call a slush fund, provides taxpayer money to Obama administration-selected states, companies and labor unions with already-in-place early retiree health insurance programs, and aims to make certain that their employees who retire early still have health insurance coverage before they reach Medicare eligibility age. Almost $2 billion of the $5 billion fund, which was supposed to last until 2014, has already been distributed to corporations. New projections expect the funding to run out before the end of 2012, if not sooner.
Story continues here.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
10 Reasons Obama is Just As Bad or Worse Than Bush
From Activist Post:
April 5th, 2011
George W. Bush was clearly a mentally-challenged puppet of the military/banking/oil elite. The policies put it in place at breakneck speed after 9/11 were provably predetermined by think tanks well in advance. Not that other presidents were any less controlled by this hidden agenda, but there was a noticeable in-your-face quickening of corporate-government tyranny under Bush.
These policies like wars of aggression, illegal surveillance of Americans, torture of detainees indefinitely held without formal charges, unfair "free trade" agreements, and bank bailouts rightfully enraged many progressives during the Bush years. Yet, not only have these policies accelerated under Obama, even more of the draconian playbook is unfolding.
After 8 years of Bush's reign that ended with a record low presidential approval rating in the low 20s, Obama's promise of hope and change inspired many beyond mainline progressives. His campaign speeches were so powerful that they landed him the Nobel Peace Prize without having done anything for world peace except to offer the idea in order to get elected. As a Constitutional law professor and attorney, Obama appeared to have a greater understanding of rights and the balance of power than did flunky Bush.
Although policies being implemented under Obama's leadership exhibit the continuation of Bush's tyrannical agenda, his stunning betrayal of populist and Constitutional principles in support of these actions makes him the ultimate hypocrite. Additionally, because Obama is a much more influential orator than Bush, his service to the puppet masters is far more dangerous to the American people he's supposed to serve.
There have been many articles written about Obama's unkept promises and outright lies, but here are 10 actions that prove Obama is just as bad if not worse than Bush:
Click here to see the full list.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
April 5th, 2011
George W. Bush was clearly a mentally-challenged puppet of the military/banking/oil elite. The policies put it in place at breakneck speed after 9/11 were provably predetermined by think tanks well in advance. Not that other presidents were any less controlled by this hidden agenda, but there was a noticeable in-your-face quickening of corporate-government tyranny under Bush.
These policies like wars of aggression, illegal surveillance of Americans, torture of detainees indefinitely held without formal charges, unfair "free trade" agreements, and bank bailouts rightfully enraged many progressives during the Bush years. Yet, not only have these policies accelerated under Obama, even more of the draconian playbook is unfolding.
After 8 years of Bush's reign that ended with a record low presidential approval rating in the low 20s, Obama's promise of hope and change inspired many beyond mainline progressives. His campaign speeches were so powerful that they landed him the Nobel Peace Prize without having done anything for world peace except to offer the idea in order to get elected. As a Constitutional law professor and attorney, Obama appeared to have a greater understanding of rights and the balance of power than did flunky Bush.
Although policies being implemented under Obama's leadership exhibit the continuation of Bush's tyrannical agenda, his stunning betrayal of populist and Constitutional principles in support of these actions makes him the ultimate hypocrite. Additionally, because Obama is a much more influential orator than Bush, his service to the puppet masters is far more dangerous to the American people he's supposed to serve.
There have been many articles written about Obama's unkept promises and outright lies, but here are 10 actions that prove Obama is just as bad if not worse than Bush:
Click here to see the full list.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
How a big US bank laundered billions from Mexico's murderous drug gangs
From The Guardian / Observer
Ed Vulliamy
Sunday 3 April 2011
As the violence spread, billions of dollars of cartel cash began to seep into the global financial system. But a special investigation by the Observer reveals how the increasingly frantic warnings of one London whistleblower were ignored
A soldier guards marijuana that is being incinerated in Tijuana, Mexico. Photograph: Guillermo Arias/AP
On 10 April 2006, a DC-9 jet landed in the port city of Ciudad del Carmen, on the Gulf of Mexico, as the sun was setting. Mexican soldiers, waiting to intercept it, found 128 cases packed with 5.7 tons of cocaine, valued at $100m. But something else – more important and far-reaching – was discovered in the paper trail behind the purchase of the plane by the Sinaloa narco-trafficking cartel.
During a 22-month investigation by agents from the US Drug Enforcement Administration, the Internal Revenue Service and others, it emerged that the cocaine smugglers had bought the plane with money they had laundered through one of the biggest banks in the United States: Wachovia, now part of the giant Wells Fargo.
The authorities uncovered billions of dollars in wire transfers, traveller's cheques and cash shipments through Mexican exchanges into Wachovia accounts. Wachovia was put under immediate investigation for failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering programme. Of special significance was that the period concerned began in 2004, which coincided with the first escalation of violence along the US-Mexico border that ignited the current drugs war.
Criminal proceedings were brought against Wachovia, though not against any individual, but the case never came to court. In March 2010, Wachovia settled the biggest action brought under the US bank secrecy act, through the US district court in Miami. Now that the year's "deferred prosecution" has expired, the bank is in effect in the clear. It paid federal authorities $110m in forfeiture, for allowing transactions later proved to be connected to drug smuggling, and incurred a $50m fine for failing to monitor cash used to ship 22 tons of cocaine.
More shocking, and more important, the bank was sanctioned for failing to apply the proper anti-laundering strictures to the transfer of $378.4bn – a sum equivalent to one-third of Mexico's gross national product – into dollar accounts from so-called casas de cambio (CDCs) in Mexico, currency exchange houses with which the bank did business.
"Wachovia's blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations," said Jeffrey Sloman, the federal prosecutor. Yet the total fine was less than 2% of the bank's $12.3bn profit for 2009. On 24 March 2010, Wells Fargo stock traded at $30.86 – up 1% on the week of the court settlement.
The conclusion to the case was only the tip of an iceberg, demonstrating the role of the "legal" banking sector in swilling hundreds of billions of dollars – the blood money from the murderous drug trade in Mexico and other places in the world – around their global operations, now bailed out by the taxpayer.
Story continues, read more...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Ed Vulliamy
Sunday 3 April 2011
As the violence spread, billions of dollars of cartel cash began to seep into the global financial system. But a special investigation by the Observer reveals how the increasingly frantic warnings of one London whistleblower were ignored
A soldier guards marijuana that is being incinerated in Tijuana, Mexico. Photograph: Guillermo Arias/AP
On 10 April 2006, a DC-9 jet landed in the port city of Ciudad del Carmen, on the Gulf of Mexico, as the sun was setting. Mexican soldiers, waiting to intercept it, found 128 cases packed with 5.7 tons of cocaine, valued at $100m. But something else – more important and far-reaching – was discovered in the paper trail behind the purchase of the plane by the Sinaloa narco-trafficking cartel.
During a 22-month investigation by agents from the US Drug Enforcement Administration, the Internal Revenue Service and others, it emerged that the cocaine smugglers had bought the plane with money they had laundered through one of the biggest banks in the United States: Wachovia, now part of the giant Wells Fargo.
The authorities uncovered billions of dollars in wire transfers, traveller's cheques and cash shipments through Mexican exchanges into Wachovia accounts. Wachovia was put under immediate investigation for failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering programme. Of special significance was that the period concerned began in 2004, which coincided with the first escalation of violence along the US-Mexico border that ignited the current drugs war.
Criminal proceedings were brought against Wachovia, though not against any individual, but the case never came to court. In March 2010, Wachovia settled the biggest action brought under the US bank secrecy act, through the US district court in Miami. Now that the year's "deferred prosecution" has expired, the bank is in effect in the clear. It paid federal authorities $110m in forfeiture, for allowing transactions later proved to be connected to drug smuggling, and incurred a $50m fine for failing to monitor cash used to ship 22 tons of cocaine.
More shocking, and more important, the bank was sanctioned for failing to apply the proper anti-laundering strictures to the transfer of $378.4bn – a sum equivalent to one-third of Mexico's gross national product – into dollar accounts from so-called casas de cambio (CDCs) in Mexico, currency exchange houses with which the bank did business.
"Wachovia's blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations," said Jeffrey Sloman, the federal prosecutor. Yet the total fine was less than 2% of the bank's $12.3bn profit for 2009. On 24 March 2010, Wells Fargo stock traded at $30.86 – up 1% on the week of the court settlement.
The conclusion to the case was only the tip of an iceberg, demonstrating the role of the "legal" banking sector in swilling hundreds of billions of dollars – the blood money from the murderous drug trade in Mexico and other places in the world – around their global operations, now bailed out by the taxpayer.
Story continues, read more...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Charlie Sheen, or Washington - Who is more fiscally responsible?
From: Bankrupting America
Source List:
"Last year, Charlie made $30 million."
Source: Parade Magazine - What Celebrities Earn
"Last year, Washington brought in 2.3 trillion dollars in taxes."
Source: Washington Posts's Federel Eye blog
"What's not funny is that they [Washington] spent 30 million..."
Source: White House Historical Tables
"It took over 200 years, and every President from George Washington through Bill Clinton, to rack up a gross debt of 6 trillion dollars."
Source: White House Historical Tables
"In the last 10 years, we have more than doubled it. "
Source: White House Historical Tables
"And at $14 trillion in 2011, it looks like we'll only need another ten...to nearly double it again."
Source: White House Summary Tables
"14 trillion is more than 130,000 dollars per US household."
Source: White House Summary Tables
Projections on interest on the debt:
Source: White House Summary Tables
"After World War II, the US government cut spending from 44 percent of the economy, to a mere 11 percent. What followed was one of the largest economic booms in US history."
Source: White House Historical Tables
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Source List:
"Last year, Charlie made $30 million."
Source: Parade Magazine - What Celebrities Earn
"Last year, Washington brought in 2.3 trillion dollars in taxes."
Source: Washington Posts's Federel Eye blog
"What's not funny is that they [Washington] spent 30 million..."
Source: White House Historical Tables
"It took over 200 years, and every President from George Washington through Bill Clinton, to rack up a gross debt of 6 trillion dollars."
Source: White House Historical Tables
"In the last 10 years, we have more than doubled it. "
Source: White House Historical Tables
"And at $14 trillion in 2011, it looks like we'll only need another ten...to nearly double it again."
Source: White House Summary Tables
"14 trillion is more than 130,000 dollars per US household."
Source: White House Summary Tables
Projections on interest on the debt:
Source: White House Summary Tables
"After World War II, the US government cut spending from 44 percent of the economy, to a mere 11 percent. What followed was one of the largest economic booms in US history."
Source: White House Historical Tables
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
What’s the difference between Obama’s Libyan war and neoconservatism?
From: The New Republic
Just Like Bush
What’s the difference between Obama’s Libyan war and neoconservatism?
David Rieff April 1, 2011
Well, that was quick! It usually takes some time for the gap between how a White House justifies a military adventure to the public, and the reality of what is really going on to be revealed. It took the fall of Saddam Hussein for the Bush administration’s pretext for war—the threat of weapons of mass destruction—to be shown up as a fabrication. But from President Obama’s televised address on the evening of March 29, in which he claimed that the intervention in Libya was not about regime change, to the Reuters story revealing that he had signed an order allowing covert U.S. operations in Libya at least a week before the speech, and possibly longer, took—what?—24 hours. And so in we go to Libya, as both neoconservatives and liberal interventionists have been pressing for all along.
In his speech, the president insisted that there was no comparison between Iraq and Libya, and that broadening the U.S. military mission “to include regime change would be a mistake.” In reality, of course, that is exactly what Washington has done. President Obama made much of U.N. sanction and the multinational nature of the no-fly zone, and boasted that the United States had now handed over the lead role to our “allies and partners in NATO.” But this is disingenuous nonsense. From a military perspective, NATO without U.S. military assets is not a particularly redoubtable force. It is true that, politically, the French government pressed hard for more aggressive military moves to support the Libyan insurgency. But despite President Obama’s assertions to the contrary, the overwhelming preponderance of bombs, missiles, and bullets fired at Colonel Qaddafi’s forces have been from U.S. ships and aircraft.
The figures tell the story: As of March 28, that is, the day before the president’s speech, the United States had fired 199 Tomahawk missiles at Libyan targets in Operation Odyssey Dawn. The sum total launched by the armed forces of all other countries participating in what President Obama is pleased to call “the coalition” is seven. And, according to the Department of Defense, out of 600 precision-guided bombs dropped up through that same date, 455 were from American warplanes. At a press conference given at the Pentagon by Vice-Admiral Bill Gortney of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, a reporter pointed out to the admiral that the AC-130 gunships and the A-10 “tank busting” aircraft he had announced American forces were using in the operations were usually described as “combat support aircraft.” Gortney’s response was a priceless piece of Pentagon obfuscation. “I don’t call them combat support,” he said. “They’re combat aircraft and they deliver a precision effect.”
Read More...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Just Like Bush
What’s the difference between Obama’s Libyan war and neoconservatism?
David Rieff April 1, 2011
Well, that was quick! It usually takes some time for the gap between how a White House justifies a military adventure to the public, and the reality of what is really going on to be revealed. It took the fall of Saddam Hussein for the Bush administration’s pretext for war—the threat of weapons of mass destruction—to be shown up as a fabrication. But from President Obama’s televised address on the evening of March 29, in which he claimed that the intervention in Libya was not about regime change, to the Reuters story revealing that he had signed an order allowing covert U.S. operations in Libya at least a week before the speech, and possibly longer, took—what?—24 hours. And so in we go to Libya, as both neoconservatives and liberal interventionists have been pressing for all along.In his speech, the president insisted that there was no comparison between Iraq and Libya, and that broadening the U.S. military mission “to include regime change would be a mistake.” In reality, of course, that is exactly what Washington has done. President Obama made much of U.N. sanction and the multinational nature of the no-fly zone, and boasted that the United States had now handed over the lead role to our “allies and partners in NATO.” But this is disingenuous nonsense. From a military perspective, NATO without U.S. military assets is not a particularly redoubtable force. It is true that, politically, the French government pressed hard for more aggressive military moves to support the Libyan insurgency. But despite President Obama’s assertions to the contrary, the overwhelming preponderance of bombs, missiles, and bullets fired at Colonel Qaddafi’s forces have been from U.S. ships and aircraft.
The figures tell the story: As of March 28, that is, the day before the president’s speech, the United States had fired 199 Tomahawk missiles at Libyan targets in Operation Odyssey Dawn. The sum total launched by the armed forces of all other countries participating in what President Obama is pleased to call “the coalition” is seven. And, according to the Department of Defense, out of 600 precision-guided bombs dropped up through that same date, 455 were from American warplanes. At a press conference given at the Pentagon by Vice-Admiral Bill Gortney of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, a reporter pointed out to the admiral that the AC-130 gunships and the A-10 “tank busting” aircraft he had announced American forces were using in the operations were usually described as “combat support aircraft.” Gortney’s response was a priceless piece of Pentagon obfuscation. “I don’t call them combat support,” he said. “They’re combat aircraft and they deliver a precision effect.”
Read More...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Afghanistan "Kill Team"
Afghanistan "Kill Team" Rolling Stone report on "Morning Joe"
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Monday, March 28, 2011
With Obama, What Are The Republicans Complaining About?
From Forbes (blog):
First, no one can accuse President Obama of not cutting federal spending; he cut a half-trillion-dollars from Medicare without reforming it. Top Administration aides and the Republican congressional leadership are now conspiring to extend this cuts-without-reform approach to Social Security. House Republican Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling opines publicly that Social Security cannot be preserved without major benefit cuts while the president’s debt commission is on the record saying “benefit adjustments” will be required, and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner also pushes hard in secret talks for benefit cuts.
The bipartisan scheme being cooked up would convert Social Security into the world’s biggest welfare program by means testing it and forcing everyone to work into their seventies. There are indications that “means testing” would include not only determining benefit levels by the retiree’s wealth and income, but also would include both raising the FICA payroll tax cap on workers’ taxable earnings and increasing the tax on Social Security benefits for “upper-income” beneficiaries. By abandoning any effort to transform Social Security into a compulsory, actuarially sound, market-based, retirement-saving program, the bipartisan welfare approach to Social Security “reform” would actually increase dependency on government and make an already bad deal much worse for most workers. Pay more; get less — doubling down on a Ponzi Scheme.
Second, no one can fault the president for partisanship; he embraced the Republican proto-type for a state-run health care system (including an individual health-insurance mandate and centralized medical planning) and jammed through the Congress a national version of it partially funded by the Medicare cuts. The Godfather of ObamaCare, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, is among the GOP’s front-runners for president in 2012.
Third, no one can accuse President Obama of standing in the way of “bipartisan tax reform.” He allowed the Bush tax cuts to be extended as a good-faith gesture to pave the way for negotiating tax reform within a bipartisan framework. Rather than scrapping the tax code as the Kemp Commission recommended more than a decade ago, Republicans and the president are operating together inside a bi-partisan paradigm that would preserve the oppressive and economically destructive progressive income tax rather than replacing it with a pro-growth, pro-family system that taxes only income consumed at a single, low rate.
Story continues here.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
First, no one can accuse President Obama of not cutting federal spending; he cut a half-trillion-dollars from Medicare without reforming it. Top Administration aides and the Republican congressional leadership are now conspiring to extend this cuts-without-reform approach to Social Security. House Republican Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling opines publicly that Social Security cannot be preserved without major benefit cuts while the president’s debt commission is on the record saying “benefit adjustments” will be required, and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner also pushes hard in secret talks for benefit cuts.
The bipartisan scheme being cooked up would convert Social Security into the world’s biggest welfare program by means testing it and forcing everyone to work into their seventies. There are indications that “means testing” would include not only determining benefit levels by the retiree’s wealth and income, but also would include both raising the FICA payroll tax cap on workers’ taxable earnings and increasing the tax on Social Security benefits for “upper-income” beneficiaries. By abandoning any effort to transform Social Security into a compulsory, actuarially sound, market-based, retirement-saving program, the bipartisan welfare approach to Social Security “reform” would actually increase dependency on government and make an already bad deal much worse for most workers. Pay more; get less — doubling down on a Ponzi Scheme.
Second, no one can fault the president for partisanship; he embraced the Republican proto-type for a state-run health care system (including an individual health-insurance mandate and centralized medical planning) and jammed through the Congress a national version of it partially funded by the Medicare cuts. The Godfather of ObamaCare, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, is among the GOP’s front-runners for president in 2012.
Third, no one can accuse President Obama of standing in the way of “bipartisan tax reform.” He allowed the Bush tax cuts to be extended as a good-faith gesture to pave the way for negotiating tax reform within a bipartisan framework. Rather than scrapping the tax code as the Kemp Commission recommended more than a decade ago, Republicans and the president are operating together inside a bi-partisan paradigm that would preserve the oppressive and economically destructive progressive income tax rather than replacing it with a pro-growth, pro-family system that taxes only income consumed at a single, low rate.
Story continues here.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
More on tax dodgers
While we're at it:
Ten giant U.S. companies avoiding income taxes: Sen. Bernie Sanders list
In the UK, 500,000 protested this weekend over spending cuts and corporate tax dodgers.
At the same time, 60 Minutes in USA ran a story on tax dodging corporations.
Ten giant U.S. companies avoiding income taxes: Sen. Bernie Sanders list
In the UK, 500,000 protested this weekend over spending cuts and corporate tax dodgers.
At the same time, 60 Minutes in USA ran a story on tax dodging corporations.
Friday, March 25, 2011
New York Day of Rage
Slowly, very, very slowly, Americans are just starting to wake up.
Let's note that this follows events in Wisconsin and Michigan. Let's see where it spreads and how. I'm just posting this here as something I can refer back to.
Let's note that this follows events in Wisconsin and Michigan. Let's see where it spreads and how. I'm just posting this here as something I can refer back to.
GE, World's Largest Corporation, Paid Zero Dollars in U.S. Taxes Last Year
Update:
White House defends embrace of G.E. CEO despite report company didn't owe taxes in 2010
---------
From AlterNet
You know how we've been covering the efforts of U.S. Uncut, the growing campaign to stop corporate tax dodgers from exploiting overseas tax havens? Well here's an excellent example of why such efforts are desperately needed, from the front page of the New York Times:
How can that be, you ask?
If that doesn't make your blood boil, I don't know what would.
Story continues here...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
White House defends embrace of G.E. CEO despite report company didn't owe taxes in 2010
---------
From AlterNet
You know how we've been covering the efforts of U.S. Uncut, the growing campaign to stop corporate tax dodgers from exploiting overseas tax havens? Well here's an excellent example of why such efforts are desperately needed, from the front page of the New York Times:
General Electric, the nation’s largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010.
The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.
Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.
How can that be, you ask?
The company has been cutting the percentage of its American profits paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower rate than at most multinational companies.
Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore. G.E.’s giant tax department, led by a bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world’s best tax law firm....The team includes former officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress.
If that doesn't make your blood boil, I don't know what would.
Story continues here...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Obama creates indefinite detention system for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay
Here's another one for the "If Bush had done this there would have been outrage" category.
From Washington Post (thanks to Cryptogon)
President Obama signed an executive order Monday that will create a formal system of indefinite detention for those held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who continue to pose a significant threat to national security. The administration also said it will start new military commission trials for detainees there.
The announcements, coming more than two years after Obama vowed in another executive order to close the detention center, all but cements Guantanamo Bay's continuing role in U.S. counterterrorism policy.
Administration officials said the president is still committed to closing the prison, although he made no mention of that goal in a short statement Monday.
----
Just as a reminder...
Here was Obama on Guantanamo Bay before he was elected. This is candidate Obama talking...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
From Washington Post (thanks to Cryptogon)
President Obama signed an executive order Monday that will create a formal system of indefinite detention for those held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who continue to pose a significant threat to national security. The administration also said it will start new military commission trials for detainees there.
The announcements, coming more than two years after Obama vowed in another executive order to close the detention center, all but cements Guantanamo Bay's continuing role in U.S. counterterrorism policy.
Administration officials said the president is still committed to closing the prison, although he made no mention of that goal in a short statement Monday.
----
Just as a reminder...
Here was Obama on Guantanamo Bay before he was elected. This is candidate Obama talking...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Eight years to the day
Eight years to the day since Bush invaded Iraq, Obama launches a new war in Libya.
This from a President who campaigned on a platform of "change" and "hope".
The silence from Obama supporters is deafening.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
This from a President who campaigned on a platform of "change" and "hope".
The silence from Obama supporters is deafening.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Obama And Family Vacation In Rio While World Goes To Hell
Bush was deplored by so-called liberals for taking vacations and ignoring disasters. But they are notably silent when Obama jets off to Rio as the world faces multiple serious crises.
Obama And Family Vacation In Rio While World Goes To Hell
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Obama And Family Vacation In Rio While World Goes To Hell
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Monday, March 14, 2011
The clarifying Manning/Crowley controversy
From: Salon.com
By Glenn Greenwald
The forced "resignation" of State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley -- for the mortal sin of denouncing the abusive detention of Bradley Manning -- has apparently proven to be a clarifying moment for many commentators about what the President is and how he functions in these areas. Writing at Time's Swampland, Mark Benjamin identifies the real crux of the controversy:
It's long been obvious that the Obama administration's unprecedented war on whistleblowers "comes from the President himself," notwithstanding his campaign decree -- under the inspiring title "Protect Whistleblowers" -- that "such acts of courage and patriotism should be encouraged rather than stifled." The inhumane treatment of Manning plainly has two principal effects: it intimidates future would-be whistleblowers into knowing that they, too, will be abused without recourse, and it will break him psychologically (as prolonged solitary confinement and degrading treatment inevitably do) to render him incapable of a defense and to ensure he provides whatever statements they want about WikiLeaks. Other than Obama's tolerance for the same detainee abuse against which he campaigned and his ongoing subservience to the military that he supposedly "commands," it is the way in which this Manning/Crowley behavior bolsters the regime of secrecy and the President's obsessive attempts to destroy whistleblowing that makes this episode so important and so telling.
Read more at Salon.com
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
By Glenn Greenwald
The forced "resignation" of State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley -- for the mortal sin of denouncing the abusive detention of Bradley Manning -- has apparently proven to be a clarifying moment for many commentators about what the President is and how he functions in these areas. Writing at Time's Swampland, Mark Benjamin identifies the real crux of the controversy:Free speech advocates are shocked, and, as I wrote last week on TIME.com, concerned over Obama's record as the most aggressive prosecutor of suspected government leakers in U.S. history.
Those advocates have wondered whether the penchant for secrecy in the Obama administration comes from the President, or those around him. Obama's statement on Manning, followed by Crowley's resignation, seem to suggest some of this comes from the President himself.
It's long been obvious that the Obama administration's unprecedented war on whistleblowers "comes from the President himself," notwithstanding his campaign decree -- under the inspiring title "Protect Whistleblowers" -- that "such acts of courage and patriotism should be encouraged rather than stifled." The inhumane treatment of Manning plainly has two principal effects: it intimidates future would-be whistleblowers into knowing that they, too, will be abused without recourse, and it will break him psychologically (as prolonged solitary confinement and degrading treatment inevitably do) to render him incapable of a defense and to ensure he provides whatever statements they want about WikiLeaks. Other than Obama's tolerance for the same detainee abuse against which he campaigned and his ongoing subservience to the military that he supposedly "commands," it is the way in which this Manning/Crowley behavior bolsters the regime of secrecy and the President's obsessive attempts to destroy whistleblowing that makes this episode so important and so telling.
Read more at Salon.com
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Revolt: Obama escalates Bush policies of unlawful wars, economic looting
From: Examiner.com
By Carl Herman
Lifting the Veil is a two-hour film that documents how the Obama Administration is continuing and escalating the policies of the Bush Administration in the unlawful areas of US wars and economic fraud.
These policies are easily shown as Orwellian unlawful, as I explain and document here.
The American response will be revolution because:
the "emperor has no clothes" facts are right in front of us,
Americans will choose the US Constitution over their fear to act, and
Americans will reject psychopathic "leadership" that murders millions and steals trillions under our flag and honor.
Continue reading on Examiner.com: Revolt: Obama escalates Bush policies of unlawful wars, economic looting - National Nonpartisan | Examiner.com
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
By Carl Herman
Lifting the Veil is a two-hour film that documents how the Obama Administration is continuing and escalating the policies of the Bush Administration in the unlawful areas of US wars and economic fraud.
These policies are easily shown as Orwellian unlawful, as I explain and document here.
The American response will be revolution because:
the "emperor has no clothes" facts are right in front of us,
Americans will choose the US Constitution over their fear to act, and
Americans will reject psychopathic "leadership" that murders millions and steals trillions under our flag and honor.
Continue reading on Examiner.com: Revolt: Obama escalates Bush policies of unlawful wars, economic looting - National Nonpartisan | Examiner.com
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Obama signs Patriot Act extension into law
From: The Hill
President Obama on Friday signed into law a bill that extends three Patriot Act surveillance authorities until late May.
Obama signed the "FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011," which refers to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Surveillance authorities under that act were extended in part by amending the USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act.
With Obama's signature, the ability of the United States to access business records, conduct roving wiretaps and monitor individual terrorists is maintained until May 27. The administration has said it supports a longer extension, and the Senate next week will begin working on a three-year extension.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
President Obama on Friday signed into law a bill that extends three Patriot Act surveillance authorities until late May.
Obama signed the "FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011," which refers to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Surveillance authorities under that act were extended in part by amending the USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act.
With Obama's signature, the ability of the United States to access business records, conduct roving wiretaps and monitor individual terrorists is maintained until May 27. The administration has said it supports a longer extension, and the Senate next week will begin working on a three-year extension.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
As The Obamas And The Ultra-Wealthy Live The High Life Most Americans Are Going Through Economic Hell
From: Economic Collapse
Barack Obama recently made the following statement to American families that are struggling to survive in this economy: "If you’re a family trying to cut back, you might skip going out to dinner, or you might put off a vacation." A few days after making that statement Obama sent his wife and children off on yet another vacation, this time to a luxury ski hotel in Vail, Colorado. But the Obamas are not the only ones enjoying the high life. Wealthy corporate executives and greedy Wall Street fatcats insist that profit margins are too tight to hire more American workers, and yet sales of luxury cars, private jets and vacation homes are soaring. Meanwhile, most American families are going through economic hell right now. In 2010, more Americans than ever before were living below the poverty line. Over 4 million Americans have been unemployed for more than a year, and over 5 million Americans are at least two months behind on their mortgage payments. As the Obamas and wealthy corporate executives jet off to fancy ski resorts, half of all American workers are earning $505 or less per week and 55 percent of American families are living paycheck to paycheck. Something is very wrong with this picture.
Continue Reading...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Barack Obama recently made the following statement to American families that are struggling to survive in this economy: "If you’re a family trying to cut back, you might skip going out to dinner, or you might put off a vacation." A few days after making that statement Obama sent his wife and children off on yet another vacation, this time to a luxury ski hotel in Vail, Colorado. But the Obamas are not the only ones enjoying the high life. Wealthy corporate executives and greedy Wall Street fatcats insist that profit margins are too tight to hire more American workers, and yet sales of luxury cars, private jets and vacation homes are soaring. Meanwhile, most American families are going through economic hell right now. In 2010, more Americans than ever before were living below the poverty line. Over 4 million Americans have been unemployed for more than a year, and over 5 million Americans are at least two months behind on their mortgage payments. As the Obamas and wealthy corporate executives jet off to fancy ski resorts, half of all American workers are earning $505 or less per week and 55 percent of American families are living paycheck to paycheck. Something is very wrong with this picture.Continue Reading...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Hillary Hypocrisy?
The Orwellian nature of this incident is truly distrubing...
From Dissident Voice;
While the Secretary Calls for Free Speech, Veteran is Arrested and Abused Before Her Eyes for Exercising Free Speech
by Kevin Zeese / February 18th, 2011
On Tuesday, February 15th Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a speech on the importance of Freedom of Speech in the Internet age. She focused her attention on foreign countries and chided them for curtailing the speech of their citizens.
During that speech Ray McGovern, a veteran who also served for 27 years as a CIA analyst, exercised his freedom of speech by standing and silently turning his back on Secretary Clinton. He was protesting the ongoing wars, the treatment of Bradley Manning and the militarism of U.S. foreign policy. He did not shout at the Secretary of State or interrupt her speech. He merely stood in silence.
McGovern’s action was a powerful one and it threatened the Secretary of State. Two police officers roughed him up, pulled him from the audience and arrested him. As you can see from the pictures, the 71 year old McGovern, was battered and bruised; indeed, his attorney reports he was left in jail bleeding.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
From Dissident Voice;
While the Secretary Calls for Free Speech, Veteran is Arrested and Abused Before Her Eyes for Exercising Free Speech
by Kevin Zeese / February 18th, 2011
On Tuesday, February 15th Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a speech on the importance of Freedom of Speech in the Internet age. She focused her attention on foreign countries and chided them for curtailing the speech of their citizens.
During that speech Ray McGovern, a veteran who also served for 27 years as a CIA analyst, exercised his freedom of speech by standing and silently turning his back on Secretary Clinton. He was protesting the ongoing wars, the treatment of Bradley Manning and the militarism of U.S. foreign policy. He did not shout at the Secretary of State or interrupt her speech. He merely stood in silence.
McGovern’s action was a powerful one and it threatened the Secretary of State. Two police officers roughed him up, pulled him from the audience and arrested him. As you can see from the pictures, the 71 year old McGovern, was battered and bruised; indeed, his attorney reports he was left in jail bleeding.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Are you awake
There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
We better stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, now, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Pentagon is the ONLY agency of the federal government that cannot be audited
Of the federal government's discretionary spending, about half goes to the pentagon - yest the pentagon is the ONLY agency of the federal government that cannot be audited.
Does anyone see the problem with this picture?
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Does anyone see the problem with this picture?
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
State of the Union Speech Reflects U.S. Plutocracy
From Dissident Voice
The State of the Union speech has become a well-scripted event full of nice words but few ideas that will really benefit the public. This sad situation results from our political system being corrupted by big money. This corruption almost guarantees that the public interest will be trumped by the interest of the rich and powerful.
To change this sorry state of affairs, it would take a courageous leader who was willing to put the interests of the country over the interests of a few. If there were such a leader, the speech could then be used to rally the American people behind this leader’s vision. However, we haven’t had a peoples’ champion as president in a very long time. This situation is due to a political system that pretty well ensures the nominees of both major parties have been vetted by the rich and powerful. Even if there were a candidate not acceptable to those pulling the strings, the corporate-dominated media would work to marginalize or destroy the candidate’s campaign.
Thus it is not shocking President Obama’s State of the Union address offered few if any proposals that threatened the interests of the rich and powerful. In reality, Obama, as is his custom, offered few specifics on most of his ideas or vision. This lack of specifics allowed viewers to put their own interpretation on his words. As a result, the speech resonated with many.
However, for me, the speech was more an attempt to assure the American people that the state of the union is not really that bad and, in fact, it is pretty darn good and will continue to improve. In essence, Obama led a big pep rally claiming over and over that the U.S. is number one. Thus no major policy changes are required. Perhaps providing this assurance is his role as President under our plutocracy.
Read more...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
The State of the Union speech has become a well-scripted event full of nice words but few ideas that will really benefit the public. This sad situation results from our political system being corrupted by big money. This corruption almost guarantees that the public interest will be trumped by the interest of the rich and powerful.
To change this sorry state of affairs, it would take a courageous leader who was willing to put the interests of the country over the interests of a few. If there were such a leader, the speech could then be used to rally the American people behind this leader’s vision. However, we haven’t had a peoples’ champion as president in a very long time. This situation is due to a political system that pretty well ensures the nominees of both major parties have been vetted by the rich and powerful. Even if there were a candidate not acceptable to those pulling the strings, the corporate-dominated media would work to marginalize or destroy the candidate’s campaign.
Thus it is not shocking President Obama’s State of the Union address offered few if any proposals that threatened the interests of the rich and powerful. In reality, Obama, as is his custom, offered few specifics on most of his ideas or vision. This lack of specifics allowed viewers to put their own interpretation on his words. As a result, the speech resonated with many.
However, for me, the speech was more an attempt to assure the American people that the state of the union is not really that bad and, in fact, it is pretty darn good and will continue to improve. In essence, Obama led a big pep rally claiming over and over that the U.S. is number one. Thus no major policy changes are required. Perhaps providing this assurance is his role as President under our plutocracy.
Read more...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Friday, January 21, 2011
The Vanishing Anti-War Movement
Even as President Obama maintains close to 50,000 troops in Iraq and continues to escalate and expand the war in Afghanistan, the antiwar movement in America continues to shrink.
So, what happened?
Reason.tv visited two antiwar protests—one left-leaning, one libertarian—in an attempt to answer that question. Author and historian Thaddeus Russell and Reason Senior Editor Brian Doherty also weigh in.
War, it seems, is a bipartisan venture, which is reflected by the fact that Democrats have a favorable view of Obama's foreign policy, despite its remarkable similarity to George W. Bush's foreign policy. And though there have been rumblings of antiwar sentiment from some on the Right, Republicans remain strongly in favor of an interventionist foreign policy.
Although public sentiment is turning against the war in Afghanistan, the always-shifting withdrawal deadlines and the unwillingness to touch defense spending mean that this bipartisan war is likely to continue far into the future.
Approximately 7 minutes. Written and Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Senior Producer: Ted Balaker.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
So, what happened?
Reason.tv visited two antiwar protests—one left-leaning, one libertarian—in an attempt to answer that question. Author and historian Thaddeus Russell and Reason Senior Editor Brian Doherty also weigh in.
War, it seems, is a bipartisan venture, which is reflected by the fact that Democrats have a favorable view of Obama's foreign policy, despite its remarkable similarity to George W. Bush's foreign policy. And though there have been rumblings of antiwar sentiment from some on the Right, Republicans remain strongly in favor of an interventionist foreign policy.
Although public sentiment is turning against the war in Afghanistan, the always-shifting withdrawal deadlines and the unwillingness to touch defense spending mean that this bipartisan war is likely to continue far into the future.
Approximately 7 minutes. Written and Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Senior Producer: Ted Balaker.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
Obama Uses The Dead For Political Gain In Staged Psychological Operation
Source: www.roguegovernment.com - By Lee Rogers
Yesterday's memorial service for the victims of the Arizona shooting massacre was turned into a disgusting staged political rally by Barack Obama. It should be entirely obvious that this event was scripted as a means for political gain. Ever since the shooting which appears to have been a staged operation in its own right we have seen calls for more gun control and limits on free speech. It was entirely ridiculous to see Obama delivering supposed breaking news that Representative Gabby Gifford who was shot in the head during the rampage and in critical condition since the shooting had opened her eyes. This obviously staged moment of Obama delivering this news in front of a live televised audience caused all of the Obama cult members in attendance to cheer wildly like a bunch of brain dead zombies.
If all of that wasn't ridiculous enough, the powers that be managed to deliver thousands of propaganda t-shirts that said "Together We Thrive" that were given to many who attended the memorial service. One has to wonder how these people were able to get thousands of these t-shirts printed off and delivered in only a matter of days considering that the shooting only occurred this past weekend. Could this be more evidence that the rampage shooting over the weekend was staged? Even though that is suspicious enough in its own right, this public relations stunt coupled with the insane t-shirt slogan is proof enough that the Obama administration was using this event only as a means to promote the collective political ideology of the globalists.
Beyond all of this, it is entirely hypocritical for Obama to be using the dead in a cheap political stunt. This guy is responsible for continuing the fraudulent endless terror war which has resulted in an untold number of dead in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He has even authorized attacks from unmanned aerial vehicles in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region which has also resulted in the death of many people including women and children. Yet, we are supposed to believe that this guy is sincere when he grandstands at this memorial service acting as if he cares about the victims of this shooting? It is funny how the government and corporate media humanize the victims of this shooting and other staged terror events like the 9/11 attacks but when a bunch of people are killed in a U.S. military drone attack these stories might only get a 30 second mention on the nightly news broadcasts. They only humanize these events if they have an ulterior motive behind it. The harsh reality is that none of these people really give a shit about any of the people who got killed in these shootings.
Maybe if Obama wasn't destroying everything that at one time made this country great there wouldn't be so many Americans pissed off at him. Everything Obama has done since he got into office has been against the people and against the principles of individual freedom. Look at what his Department of Homeland Security has done with airport security in its justification of naked body scanners and the molestation of passengers. Or look at the phony health care bill Obama signed into law which gives draconian government authority over health care and forces people to buy health insurance. Then later on the Obama administration grants exemptions to this law to big corporations like McDonalds. Yet despite all of this and so much more he wants us to thrive together in some sort of show of unity? Maybe we should ask the family members of the dead women and children he's responsible for killing overseas and ask them how they feel about that.
The bottom line is that Obama is a complete shit bag for transforming a memorial event into a political rally. How much do you want to bet that people in the Obama administration actually had wished Representative Giffords had died. It would have been better for their unity propaganda trash that they are trying to shovel down our throats. Can you imagine how much legislation they could pass in the name of a dead House Representative versus one that is still amongst the living?
But regardless of all of that, there is no question that this rampage shooting is going to be used for quite sometime to push ahead a massive restriction on individual freedom. So as a result Obama and the terrorist clowns in his administration that seek to do this deserve nothing less than a big middle finger shoved right in their face. They're the ones being divisive by justifying all of this assorted anti-freedom nonsense.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Yesterday's memorial service for the victims of the Arizona shooting massacre was turned into a disgusting staged political rally by Barack Obama. It should be entirely obvious that this event was scripted as a means for political gain. Ever since the shooting which appears to have been a staged operation in its own right we have seen calls for more gun control and limits on free speech. It was entirely ridiculous to see Obama delivering supposed breaking news that Representative Gabby Gifford who was shot in the head during the rampage and in critical condition since the shooting had opened her eyes. This obviously staged moment of Obama delivering this news in front of a live televised audience caused all of the Obama cult members in attendance to cheer wildly like a bunch of brain dead zombies.
If all of that wasn't ridiculous enough, the powers that be managed to deliver thousands of propaganda t-shirts that said "Together We Thrive" that were given to many who attended the memorial service. One has to wonder how these people were able to get thousands of these t-shirts printed off and delivered in only a matter of days considering that the shooting only occurred this past weekend. Could this be more evidence that the rampage shooting over the weekend was staged? Even though that is suspicious enough in its own right, this public relations stunt coupled with the insane t-shirt slogan is proof enough that the Obama administration was using this event only as a means to promote the collective political ideology of the globalists.
Beyond all of this, it is entirely hypocritical for Obama to be using the dead in a cheap political stunt. This guy is responsible for continuing the fraudulent endless terror war which has resulted in an untold number of dead in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He has even authorized attacks from unmanned aerial vehicles in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region which has also resulted in the death of many people including women and children. Yet, we are supposed to believe that this guy is sincere when he grandstands at this memorial service acting as if he cares about the victims of this shooting? It is funny how the government and corporate media humanize the victims of this shooting and other staged terror events like the 9/11 attacks but when a bunch of people are killed in a U.S. military drone attack these stories might only get a 30 second mention on the nightly news broadcasts. They only humanize these events if they have an ulterior motive behind it. The harsh reality is that none of these people really give a shit about any of the people who got killed in these shootings.
Maybe if Obama wasn't destroying everything that at one time made this country great there wouldn't be so many Americans pissed off at him. Everything Obama has done since he got into office has been against the people and against the principles of individual freedom. Look at what his Department of Homeland Security has done with airport security in its justification of naked body scanners and the molestation of passengers. Or look at the phony health care bill Obama signed into law which gives draconian government authority over health care and forces people to buy health insurance. Then later on the Obama administration grants exemptions to this law to big corporations like McDonalds. Yet despite all of this and so much more he wants us to thrive together in some sort of show of unity? Maybe we should ask the family members of the dead women and children he's responsible for killing overseas and ask them how they feel about that.
The bottom line is that Obama is a complete shit bag for transforming a memorial event into a political rally. How much do you want to bet that people in the Obama administration actually had wished Representative Giffords had died. It would have been better for their unity propaganda trash that they are trying to shovel down our throats. Can you imagine how much legislation they could pass in the name of a dead House Representative versus one that is still amongst the living?
But regardless of all of that, there is no question that this rampage shooting is going to be used for quite sometime to push ahead a massive restriction on individual freedom. So as a result Obama and the terrorist clowns in his administration that seek to do this deserve nothing less than a big middle finger shoved right in their face. They're the ones being divisive by justifying all of this assorted anti-freedom nonsense.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Does “Change” Mean Anything?
From Dissident Voice
by Frank Scott / January 14th, 2011
"What is government if words have no meaning?"
— Jared Loughner
Two years ago Americans voted for change. Two years later Americans again voted for change. This voting ritual is generations old but the only change we’ve seen is in the skin tone, ethnicity, gender or sexuality of those selected by one minority to be elected by another. The word has no meaning. Absolutely nothing has changed about the substance of our problem.
A dysfunctional system is destroying democracy, faith, sanity, morality and the natural environment in which they all exist.
The recent tragedy in Arizona was a direct result of that social dysfunction but ignorance purveyors have used it to indict only that state, or small groups, or individual personalities, finding them guilty of creating a frustrating climate easily manipulated to bring angry division to the American public, thereby making that public easier to control.
The people at the top of a political economy that exports costly jobs while importing cheap labor remain secure while scapegoats are blamed for being unemployed natives, employed illegals or overburdened taxpayers. The wars that have cost thousands of lives, billions of dollars and created threats to Americans that never existed before are expanding to new nations. Those bloody actions are opposed by a majority, which also calls for tax increases on the richest Americans, but government consistently rules against them and for its minority owners.
The corporate state provides brainless entertainment to help control the national consciousness, and news and political commentary that make the entertainment seem brilliant by comparison. We are all but guaranteed misguided reaction at best, and homicidal lunacy at worst. If the Arizona terrorist had chosen broadcasting instead of violence, he might have had his own show on Fox, CNN or MSNBC.
The present congress will be even worse than the previous group that was of the ineffectual president’s own party. He no longer has the majority with which he did nothing but obey his corporate employers, so he can be even more bipartisan and further enrich billionaires and their servants who privately profit from all our public loss. No less a teacher of capitalist economics than Bernie Madoff reminded his investors that a profit on one side always means a loss on the other. He practiced what he preached to create fabricated billions and was sent to prison, but those who locked him up are still doing it to create fabricated trillions. Instead of being in jail, they are running the global empire. Their private profits are our social loss. Meanwhile, we are distracted by self-serving and often near imbecilic ravings that pass for political democracy as our society disintegrates while creating new billionaires. Is it any wonder that some people seem to be losing their minds?
Story continues. Read more...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
by Frank Scott / January 14th, 2011
"What is government if words have no meaning?"
— Jared Loughner
Two years ago Americans voted for change. Two years later Americans again voted for change. This voting ritual is generations old but the only change we’ve seen is in the skin tone, ethnicity, gender or sexuality of those selected by one minority to be elected by another. The word has no meaning. Absolutely nothing has changed about the substance of our problem.
A dysfunctional system is destroying democracy, faith, sanity, morality and the natural environment in which they all exist.
The recent tragedy in Arizona was a direct result of that social dysfunction but ignorance purveyors have used it to indict only that state, or small groups, or individual personalities, finding them guilty of creating a frustrating climate easily manipulated to bring angry division to the American public, thereby making that public easier to control.
The people at the top of a political economy that exports costly jobs while importing cheap labor remain secure while scapegoats are blamed for being unemployed natives, employed illegals or overburdened taxpayers. The wars that have cost thousands of lives, billions of dollars and created threats to Americans that never existed before are expanding to new nations. Those bloody actions are opposed by a majority, which also calls for tax increases on the richest Americans, but government consistently rules against them and for its minority owners.
The corporate state provides brainless entertainment to help control the national consciousness, and news and political commentary that make the entertainment seem brilliant by comparison. We are all but guaranteed misguided reaction at best, and homicidal lunacy at worst. If the Arizona terrorist had chosen broadcasting instead of violence, he might have had his own show on Fox, CNN or MSNBC.
The present congress will be even worse than the previous group that was of the ineffectual president’s own party. He no longer has the majority with which he did nothing but obey his corporate employers, so he can be even more bipartisan and further enrich billionaires and their servants who privately profit from all our public loss. No less a teacher of capitalist economics than Bernie Madoff reminded his investors that a profit on one side always means a loss on the other. He practiced what he preached to create fabricated billions and was sent to prison, but those who locked him up are still doing it to create fabricated trillions. Instead of being in jail, they are running the global empire. Their private profits are our social loss. Meanwhile, we are distracted by self-serving and often near imbecilic ravings that pass for political democracy as our society disintegrates while creating new billionaires. Is it any wonder that some people seem to be losing their minds?
Story continues. Read more...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Obama's Promise to immediately close Guantanamo
Mmmmm Hmmmm
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Obama Threatens Veto of Intelligence Budget if a *Real* Anthrax Investigation Goes Forward
Obama Threatens Veto of Intelligence Budget if a *Real* Anthrax Investigation Goes Forward
I found the above page linked in this excellent audio discussion below, all about the anthrax attacks. Remember those? Back in the day, we were told that the source of the anthrax was without a shadow of doubt, Saddam Hussein, case closed. It was the sucker-punch that pushed us into the so-called "war on terrorism".
Well we now now the source of that anthrax was the US government - the government openly admits it. But the media has since buried the entire story, a scapegoat "committed suicide" and the story is finished. Obama will veto any request for funding to pursue the issue. WTF?
Inquiring minds might want to listen to the excellent audio discussion below.
Media Roots Radio- The Anthrax Attacks, From The Memory Hole by Media Roots
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
I found the above page linked in this excellent audio discussion below, all about the anthrax attacks. Remember those? Back in the day, we were told that the source of the anthrax was without a shadow of doubt, Saddam Hussein, case closed. It was the sucker-punch that pushed us into the so-called "war on terrorism".
Well we now now the source of that anthrax was the US government - the government openly admits it. But the media has since buried the entire story, a scapegoat "committed suicide" and the story is finished. Obama will veto any request for funding to pursue the issue. WTF?
Inquiring minds might want to listen to the excellent audio discussion below.
Media Roots Radio- The Anthrax Attacks, From The Memory Hole by Media Roots
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Consumer bankruptcies hit 5-year high in 2010
From Reuters:
(Reuters) - The number of U.S. consumers who filed for bankruptcy protection in 2010 was the highest in five years, and the figure could rise as Americans struggle with excess debt in an uncertain economy, a report issued Monday said.
Roughly 1.53 million consumer bankruptcy petitions were filed in 2010, up 9 percent from 1.41 million in 2009, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute, citing data from the National Bankruptcy Research Center.
Read more...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
