The Real Truth

Australian PM calls for new economic order

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus) — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 00:04:00 +0000

Australian PM calls for new economic order

SYDNEY (AFP) — Australia's prime minister has called for a "new world order" of government intervention and regulation, blaming capitalist greed for the global economic crisis.

Kevin Rudd's administration came to power in November 2007, ending more than a decade of conservative, free-market rule, and has already launched a series of stimulus measures in response to the crisis.

"The time has come, off the back of the current crisis, to proclaim that the great neo-liberal experiment of the past 30 years has failed; that the emperor has no clothes," said Rudd in an essay previewed here Saturday.

"Neo-liberalism and the free-market fundamentalism it has produced has been revealed as little more than personal greed dressed up as an economic philosophy," he wrote, in a 7,000-word essay to be published next week in The Monthly magazine.

Aligning his views with those of new US President Barack Obama, and drawing on the experiences of Depression-era US leader Franklin D Roosevelt, the centre-left leader called for a "new contract for the future that eschews the extremism of both the left and right."

"Minor tweakings of long established orthodoxies will not do," Rudd said, advocating instead a new era of "social capitalism" involving the regulation and intervention of an "activist state."

But he urged his democratic colleagues not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" by returning to a model of the all-providing state, and said there was a place for open competitive markets, both at home and abroad.

Rudd is expected next week to announce a second major stimulus package in response to the global economic crisis, which has already slashed thousands of jobs in Australia and eroded billions from government revenues.

Measures launched so far include a one-off 10.4 billion dollar cash injection aimed mainly at families and first-home buyers to boost consumer spending.

Recession is the birth pangs of a new global order, says Brown

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus) — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 00:01:00 +0000

Recession is the birth pangs of a new global order, says Brown

Information Liberation
By Kirsty Walker
Originally posted on Feb 07 2009, 10:07 PM

Gordon Brown has insisted that the recession was just the 'difficult birth pangs of a new global order'.

As a poll showed more voters are turning against him, the Prime Minister warned that countries must see the financial crisis as the chance to forge a new financial system.

Setting the scene for April's G20 talks in London, Mr Brown said: 'If what happens to a bank in one country can within minutes have devastating effects for banks on a different continent, then only a truly international response of policy and governance can be effective.'

He said current 'threats and challenges' to the world economy should be seen as 'the difficult birth pangs of a new global order'.

'Our task now is nothing less than making the transition to a new internationalism with the benefits of an expanding global economy, not muddling through as pessimists, but making the necessary adjustment to a better future and setting new rules for this new global order', he said.

Mr Brown and Chancellor Alistair Darling are aware the G20 summit of developing countries and business leaders on April 4, could decide further stimulus measures that could alter the of this year's Budget. The Prime Ministeris pinning his hopes on other countries, in particular the U.S., following Britain's lead by pumping cash into their economies.

The Treasury rejected suggestions that Mr Darling is already working on a third economic rescue. Ministers want to give the Government time to see if its £410billion rescue plan has had any impact on the economy. But a poll last night found most voters believe Labour's attempts to kick-start the economy are doomed to failure.

The Guardian/ICM poll found that two-thirds of voters believe that the banking bailout packages will achieve nothing or make things worse.

It also shows more signs that David Cameron has seen off the 'Brown bounce'. The Conservatives have opened up a 12-point margin on 44 per cent, up six on last month, while Labour is on 32 and the Liberal Democrats are on 16.

The poll, carried out after last week's bank bailouts and sharp falls in share values, found that public confidence in Labour's economic team has plunged by 11 per cent since November, with the Conservatives seen as more trusted on the economy by a margin of two points.

There is support for the VAT cut (63 per cent) and a programme of public works (85 per cent). But only 43 per cent support the decision to buy large stakes in some banks and only 40 per cent back outright nationalisation. Voters are slightly more enthusiastic about Labour attempts to underwrite bank lending, backed by 52 per cent.

If the poll were replicated at a General Election, the Tories would win 360 seats - a majority of 70. The LibDems will be disturbed by their fall to the lowest level in any ICM poll since August.

Emerging global elite to use new global media to educate 'global citizens'

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus) — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 23:56:00 +0000

Emerging global elite to use new global media to educate 'global citizens'

Information Liberation
Article posted Feb 21 2009, 11:19 AM

The following is based on a report by Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media.

Elite members of the World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, Switzerland, recently considered a proposal for a new global television network to usher in a state of “global governance.” The concept strikes some as authoritarian, even totalitarian. But the parent company of Fox News was one of the sponsors of this year's gathering. ShareThis

The media proposal, which was included in “The Global Agenda 2009” report, is to create “a new global network” with “the capacity to connect the world, bridging cultures and peoples, and telling us who we are and what we mean to each other.” Several prominent U.S. media figures signed on to the alarming and controversial proposal.

Isn’t it nice that we might have a TV network telling us “who we are?” And “what we mean to each other?” Perhaps we will learn that we are global citizens. Perhaps a global leader of some sort will tell us that. Who might that be?

This proposal doesn’t come from a fringe organization. The WEF is an exclusive club of very rich and powerful people from around the world. It describes itself as “an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world by engaging leaders in partnerships to shape global, regional and industry agendas.”

This year’s conference featured speeches by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Chinese Premier We Jiabao. Many U.S. corporations, including some getting Wall Street bailout money, were sponsors. News Corporation, the parent of Fox News, was a “strategic partner” of the event.

Valerie Jarrett, Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Relations and Public Liaison, represented the Obama Administration at this year’s event and called leaders from all nations to “seize gladly” the duties of collaborating and boldly embrace “a new era of global financial responsibility.”

But the WEF also envisions cooperation and collaboration in global media ventures. It asks, “How can we save journalism to help it save the world?” Clearly, this is advocacy journalism on a global scale.

Indeed, the list of “Recommendations” says it is imperative to start “Communicating a global agenda, and motivating and mobilizing people to support it…”

Is this journalism? Or is it brainwashing and propaganda?

It says that “a genuine, global voice” is needed that shares a “fundamental commitment” to being an international media voice, and makes mention of “the media voices we think of as international” coming from London (the BBC), Qatar (Al-Jazeera) or Atlanta (CNN).

BBC is known for its anti-American programming, Al-Jazeera for its pro-terrorist slant, and CNN for its left-wing and pro-Democratic bias.

It will take “innovative public-private funding” to bring this new network into being, apparently meaning that the taxpayers in the U.S. will have to be soaked in order to help bring this about. But no price tag is put on the venture and no objection was apparently raised to government funding of such a network on a global basis. An “overview” statement does, however, decry “censorship and self-censorship.”

Elsewhere in the report (page 31) the idea of “international taxation” is proposed for “global action” of various kinds. Perhaps this is a vehicle for raising revenue for the new “global voice.”

The media proposal was developed by one of several “Global Agenda Councils” under the auspices of the WEF. The new TV network proposal was issued under the supervision of Pat Mitchell, the president of the Paley Center for Media and former President and Chief Executive Officer of the Public Broadcasting Service. She was the chair of the Global Agenda Council on the Future of Media.

Other members of the Council on the Future of Media were Betsy Morgan of the left-wing Huffington Post (former general manager of CBSNews.com); Rui Chenggang of China Central Television, an official political propaganda arm of the communist regime; and Zafar Siddiqi of CNBC Arabiya, a subsidiary of General Electric which is described as a 24-hour Arabic language financial and business information channel.

There is no indication in the published report that the Huffington Post executive raised any objection to working hand-in-glove with the communist propaganda channel. Is the Chinese media model a precedent for the new “global network?”

The conference was covered by media organizations such as CNBC, CNN, Bloomberg, Forbes and Fox, but no coverage that we could find was devoted to the proposal for a government-financed global media network. Talk about self-censorship!

John J. DeGioia, President of Georgetown University and the “Rapporteur of the Global Agenda Councils focusing on Society and Values,” summarized the work of Mitchell’s panel. He says (page 46) that, “We believe that this new moment also calls for a new media platform, across all media channels, a global non-profit ‘CNN’ providing a new form of independent journalism to inform, illuminate and deepen knowledge about issues that improve the state of the world.”

According to DeGioia’s biography, he walks the walk and is dedicated to helping “prepare young people for leadership roles in the global community.” His bio adds, “He is a member of the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO and Chair of its Education Committee and he represents Georgetown at the World Economic Forum and on the Council on Foreign Relations.”

The media council took advantage of what a description of its work said was an “enormous opportunity” to “redefine the media and its roles in a global, interconnected society.”

Under the title of “Recommendations” (page 182), the Council on the Future of Media declares that “The Council is championing a new global, independent news and information service whose role is to inform, educate and improve the state of the world?one that would take advantage of all platforms of content delivery from mobile to satellite and online to create a new global network.”

It goes on, “In a world where there are calls for global governance as a response to a global financial crisis, where scientific research, capital flows and production chains are globalized, the media and the communities in which we imagine ourselves remain fiercely localized.” Hence, a global network will work against “localized” or national-based systems and convince people to go “global” with their outlook and solutions. In other words, the new network will help undermine old-fashioned notions of national sovereignty and patriotism.

There are 22 members (page 183) of the Council on the Future of Media. In addition to Mitchell and Morgan, American members include:

* Alex S. Jones, former media reporter for the New York Times and now Director, Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
* Susan King, former Washington correspondent for ABC News and now Director, Journalism Initiative, Special Initiatives and Strategy, Carnegie Corporation of New York.
* John Lavine, Dean, Medill School of Journalism Northwestern University.
* Nicholas Lemann, former Washington Post reporter and now Dean, School of Journalism, Columbia University.
* David Nordfors, Director, Innovation Journalism and Senior Research Scholar, Stanford Center for Innovations in Learning, Stanford University.
* Monroe Price, Director, Centre for Global Communications Studies, Annenberg School for Communication, the University of Pennsylvania.
* Orville H. Schell, Director, Center on US-China Relations, Asia Society.

There doesn’t appear to be one identifiable conservative member on the list. Of course, everyone on the list is a certified objective media proessional, neither liberal nor conservative. Just ask them.

Mexico's Fox touts EU-like integration for the Americas or North American Union (NAU)

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus) — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 23:52:00 +0000

Mexico's Fox touts EU-like integration for the Americas or North American Union (NAU)

By Elaine Ayala

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox was in San Antonio Friday, delivering a wide-ranging address about U.S.-Mexico relations that touched on trade, the drug war, comprehensive immigration reform and the United States' “mammoth” financial crisis that has spread worldwide.

Fox also delivered a message of hope — hope that someday Canada, the United States and Mexico, indeed the rest of Latin America, would function like the European Union.

“It's an extremely successful model,” said Fox, whose wife, Marta Sahagún, accompanied him. “My vision is to speed up the process of further integration.”

Fox was in town to address the Congressional Hispanic Leadership Institute's Future Leaders Conference, held at the UTSA Main Campus. He received four rousing standing ovations from the crowd, many of them student business majors.

The event was hosted by the University of Texas at San Antonio's College of Business.

Fox acknowledged the difficulty of establishing a European Union-like structure in the Americas, given those who'd oppose it. But Fox said, “Hope is back again,” referring to the new U.S. president and the United States' “capacity to fight for ideals.”

“The border between Mexico and the United States is not as fluid, stable or open as the border with Canada,” Fox said. “This certainly is because there is a huge difference in the levels of development.”

Fox hailed the success of the North American Free Trade Alliance even as a student in the audience questioned its societal impact and inability to create jobs for Mexican citizens.

“It has happened,” Fox said of Mexico's job creation. Before NAFTA, annual “per capita income was $3,500. Today it is $8,500, three-fold growth.”

Fox also spoke of Mexico's war against drug cartels and its impact on “perhaps the most dynamic border in the world.” He reiterated comments made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this week, in which she said “insatiable” U.S. drug consumption drives the war.

Indeed, Fox conceded that more of his own citizens are engaging in drug use as cartels look for new markets.

And while he lamented how the terror attacks of 9-11 quashed potential plans for comprehensive immigration reform, supported by then-President George W. Bush, Fox expressed hope that President Barrack Obama would take up the charge.

Hannity, Morris Agree with "Conspiracy People" About New World Order

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus) — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 23:47:00 +0000

Hannity, Morris Agree with "Conspiracy People" About New World Order

Kurt Nimmo
Information Liberation
Article posted Apr 01 2009, 5:55 PM

In the video here, the former Clintonite Dick Morris, who is now a darling of Fox News, tells Sean Hannity the globalists will put the “American economy under international regulation” and “those people who have been yelling, oh, the UN is going to take over… they’ve been crazy, but now they’re right.”

“Those conspiracy people,” Sean Hannity interjects, “had suggested that for years… you’re not wrong.

It’s the “international regulation of the financial institutions” we have to worry about, warns Dick Morris. It will happen under “IMF control... Remember, the IMF is run by the Europeans and backed by Americans.”

It’s too bad Mr. Morris didn’t give us the rest of the story. The IMF is a loan sharking operation created by the bankers under the Bretton Woods scheme and its primary purpose to date has been to get third world nations into hock so they can be more effectively looted. It is now poised, as Morris eludes, to embark on a far more ambitious bankster scam — to initiate something called “global quantitative easing" by printing billions of dollars worth of a global "super-currency,” deceptively billed as a way to address the economic crisis manufactured by the global elite.

“Alistair Darling and senior figures in the US Treasury have been encouraging the Fund to issue hundreds of billions of dollars worth of so-called Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) in the coming months as part of its campaign to prevent the recession from turning into a global depression,” the Telegraph reported on March 16.

SDRs are now based on four currencies — the US dollar, the Japanese yen, the euro and the British pound. They are used largely as a unit of account by the IMF and other international organizations.

Read between the lines and you get to the bottom of the real reason for the issuance of SDRs — to push for a world currency. Recall a few days ago Zhou Xiaochuan, China’s central bank’s governor, calling for the IMF to forge a new world reserve currency.

China demands a settlement system between the SDRs and other currencies so that they can be used in international trade and financial transactions. The IMF would manage these SDRs and they would gradually replace existing reserve currencies.

As envisioned by our rulers, a world “super-currency” will ultimately require a world government. Morris blames the Europeans for this and he is only partially right — it is a scam long ago devised by international bankers primarily based in Europe and Britain and backed, as Morris admits, by the American financial elite.

The issuance of paper SDRs “would please the plutocratic international bankers” to no end, writes Robert Bradshaw, and this “move would allow them a golden opportunity to print fiat paper money in huge quantities to flood the world. We can be sure that the fat cats [the bankers] would love to have a new paper world currency in their greedy little hands. Since they already control the IMF and most world central banks, such a new global currency would definitely fit into their plans for world rule.”

It is hardly surprising that SDRs and world currency will be on the agenda at the G20 this week. The globalist George Soros has urged Obama to push the SDR agenda and has warned that if a world currency is not established and the global economy collapses (as planned) the United States “shall cease to be the dominant financial power” and “China is liable to come up ahead.” Soros is merely running a time-tested shell game in an effort to get the U.S. to pony up for what will ultimately be its demise, again as planned. China is the model to be used for our totalitarian future.

Dick Morris and the disinfo operative Sean Hannity may indeed be alarmed by this obvious push for world government. It is interesting to note that Hannity has only lately come around to the existence of the New World Order — formerly in the realm of crazy conspiracy theories — now that Obama is in the White House and the Democrats in control of Congress. Hannity and Morris are simply reading from a provided script.

Point is, the New World Order wants you to know what they have in mind for you. It tickles them to give you a preview of things to come now that the New Savior is in office and enjoying high popularity — a one world government with a high-tech control grid overlay designed to usher in a brave new world of hellish serfdom and eventually the dream of our eugenicist rulers: a mass culling of the herd who are considered little more than useless eaters.

THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus) — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 22:53:00 +0000

THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY

"A stunning film. It should be seen as widely as possible, in cinemas, bars, clubs, at meetings and, of course, through the internet. I'm sure the film will continue to be a source of debate and political education for many years. Maybe until the war criminals have been brought to trial." - Ken Loach

"In the White House, they weren't thinking of 9/11 as an attack, but as a gift!" - Robert Steele, former CIA agent

While Massimo Mazzucco’s first political documentary, GLOBAL DECEIT (2006), focused on the long list of inconsistencies in the official version of the 9/11 attacks, THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY explores the historical, philosophical and economic background that suggests a matrix for such events that is much closer to home than the so-called "Islamic terrorism".

The film provides solid evidence for the true reasons behind the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, whose unfolding is described in chilling detail in a document called "Project for the New American Century", published in the year 2,000, that seems to have served as the actual blueprint for such dramatic events.

This film is astonishing, it goes in detail through the untold history of The Project for the New American Century with tons of archival footage and connects it right into the present. This film exposes how every major war in US history was based on a complete fraud with video of insiders themselves admitting it. This film shows how the first film theaters in the US were used over a hundred years ago to broadcast propaganda to rile the American people into the Spanish-American War. This film shows the white papers of the oil company Unocal which called for the creation of a pipeline through Afghanistan and how their exact needs were fulfilled through the US invasion of Afghanistan. This film shows how Halliburton under their "cost plus" exclusive contract with the US Government went on a mad dash spending spree akin to something out of the movie Brewster's Millions, yet instead of blowing $30 million they blew through BILLIONS by literally burning millions of dollars worth of hundred thousand dollar cars and trucks if they had so much as a flat tire. I have seen a ton of films, this film contains a massive amount of incredible footage I have never seen before anywhere, it is an historical documentary which exposes all the lies of the past so that you can understand the present. This film is a must see. - Information Liberation

Canada's 75 Billion Dollar Bank Bailout

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus) — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 01:39:00 +0000

Canada's 75 Billion Dollar Bank Bailout
The $64 Billion Federal Budget Deficit is intended to Finance Canada's Chartered Banks

by Michel Chossudovsky

The Conservative government has leaked the details of Tuesday's budget. They have announced a $64 billion deficit.

The Harper government, which has consistently committed itself to a "balanced budget", now claims that deficit spending is required to boost the economy at the height of a major economic recession.

Does this constitute a turnaround in federal government economic policy?

Is the government really committed to running a budget deficit with a view to stimulating demand and reversing the tide of economic decline.

Or is there a hidden agenda?

A modest $500 million farm modernization program, a $1 billion fund "to send workers from hard-hit industries back to school", the reduction in the Goods and Services Tax (GST)... The figures do not seem to add up to a staggering $64 billion.

Where is the bulk of the money going? These budget allocations do not explain the dramatic increase in the budget deficit.

Bear in mind that barely a month ago, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty had projected "a $2.3-billion surplus for the current fiscal year" (Edmonton Sun, December 24, 2008)

Canada's Bank Bailout

The 64 billion dollar budget deficit should come as no surprise.

It is directly related to a 75 billion dollar bank bailout program for Canada's chartered banks, announced, virtually unnoticed, four days before the October Federal election.

The bank bailout received close to no media coverage; its budgetary implications were not analyzed.

In a statement by Prime Minister Harper on October 10, the bank bailout was casually presented as a commitment by the Federal government to purchase an initial $25 billion in "secure" bank mortgages from the Canadian chartered banks. The transaction would be implemented through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp:

"Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) will purchase up to $25 billion in insured mortgage pools as part of the Government of Canada’s plan, announced today, to maintain the availability of longer-term credit in Canada." (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Supports Canadian Credit Markets, CHMC Press Release, 10 October 2009)

The decision implies a money transfer into the coffers of Canada's financial institutions. The money is "fungible" and can be used by the banks as they see fit:

"The federal government's [initial] $25-billion takeover of bank-held mortgages to ease a growing credit crunch faced by the country's financial institutions is not a bailout similar to recent moves made in the United States and other Western countries, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said Friday.

"This is not a bailout; this is a market transaction that will cost the government nothing," he told reporters at a campaign rally in Brantford, Ont., ahead of Tuesday's federal election.

"We are not going in and buying bad assets. What we're doing is simply exchanging assets that we already hold the insurance on and the reason we're doing this is to get out in front. The issue here is not protecting the banks." (CBC News October 10, 2008, emphasis added)

The 25 billion dollar allocation was announced four days prior to the elections. Two days following the federal elections, the first mortgage purchase took place leading to an initial cash injection of 5 billion into the coffers of the chartered banks.

Barely a month following the federal election, on November 12 2008, another $50 billion allocation was announced.

It received no news coverage. Moreover, opposition party leaders did not analyze the official statement of the Ministry of Finance.

The likely consequences of the Canada bank bailout on the federal fiscal structure were not the object of discussion or political debate.

The text of the official statement reads as follows:

"The Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, today announced the Government will purchase up to an additional $50 billion of insured mortgage pools by the end of the fiscal year as part of its ongoing efforts to maintain the availability of longer-term credit in Canada.

This action will increase to $75 billion the maximum value of securities purchased through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) under this program.

"At a time of considerable uncertainty in global financial markets, this action will provide Canada's financial institutions with significant and stable access to longer-term funding," said Minister Flaherty.(The Main Wire, November 12, 2008, emphasis added).

At the height of the election campaign, Prime Minister Harper stated emphatically that: "this is not a bailout... it will cost the government nothing." (CBC News, October 10, 2008).

According to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty: "This program is an efficient, cost-effective and safe way to support lending in Canada that comes at no fiscal cost to taxpayers."(Ibid)

Yet Finance Minister Flaherty contradicts his own statement when he acknowledges that the project will drive up the public debt:

Under the proposal, Ottawa plans to sell a combination of government bonds and other public debt instruments to raise the $25 billion. Then CMHC will ask the banks and other financial institutions to ascertain how much debt they would like to sell to the agency, using a process known as a reverse auction. ...

Flaherty said the action would "make loans and mortgages more available and more affordable for ordinary Canadians and businesses."(Ibid, emphasis added)

The official Ministry of Finance statement confirms that the operation will be financed by the Treasury. Prime Minister Harper claims that "it will cost the government nothing" because the net public debt from an accounting point of view remains the same. While the operation is casually described as a transfer of assets from the banks to the CMHC, what we dealing with is a cash injection equivalent to 4.6% of Canada's Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is financed through a massive public debt operation.

The necessary funds (requiring the issuing of government debt in the form of T-Bills and government bonds) are transferred to the CHMC, which in turn upon completion of the mortage purchases, channels the funds to the chartered banks:

"The first tranche of the program, for purchases up to $25 billion, was announced on October 10. These purchases will be completed by November 21. Under the initiative announced today, Canadian financial institutions will have access to up to an additional $50 billion of longer-term funding, bringing the total for the IMPP to $75 billion. The extension of the IMPP will be financed through increased issuance of Treasury bills and bonds. The Government will be consulting with market participants about the operational plan in the coming weeks." Ministry of Finance, Government of Canada Announces Additional Support for Canadian Credit Markets 2008-090 (November 12, 2008)

First Tranche: October 10: $25 billion. Already disbursed.

Second Tranche: November 12: $50 billion.

The total is a staggering $75 billion handout to the chartered banks.

The initial $25 billion tranche has already been disbursed and nobody in Canada seems to be concerned.

The Government is Financing Its Own Indebtedness

The recipients of the bank bailout are also the creditors of the federal government. The chartered banks are the brokers of the federal public debt. They sell treasury bills and government bonds on behalf of the government. They also hold a portion of the public debt..

In a bitter irony, the banks lend money to the federal government to finance the bailout, and with the money raised through the sale of government bonds and T-Bills, the government finances, via the CHMC, the bank bailout. It is a circular process. The banks are the recipients of the bailout as well as the creditors of the State. The federal government is in a sense financing its own indebtedness.

While the Canadian bailout procedures differ from those of the US Treasury under the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), they essentially serve the same purpose. Both programs contribute to bank centralization and the concentration of financial wealth.

Under TARP, some 700 billion dollars bailout money was allocated to major Wall Street banks. Canada's population is slightly less than 11 percent of that of the US. The numbers are consistent. The 75 billion dollar Canadian bailout is slightly less (numerically US dollar for Can dollar) than 11 percent of the US 700 billion bailout under TARP.

No Parliamentary Debate

The $700 billion US bank bailout under the Troubled Assets Relief Program, was the object of debate and legislation in the US Congress.

In contrast, in Canada, the granting of 75 billion dollars to Canada's chartered banks was implemented at the height of an election campaign, without duly informing the Canadian public.

Canada's media and financial press bears a responsibility in this regard. The matter was barely mentioned. It passed virtually unnoticed a few days before a federal election.

Media coverage was minimal. There was no parliamentary debate. No discussion, no debate as one would have expected from the opposition parties at the height of an election campaign as well as in its aftermath.

Nobody seemed to have noticed. Most Canadians do not know that there was a 75 billion dollar bailout of Canada's financial institutions.

The decision was casually presented as an effort "to ease the credit crunch" and encourage Canadian banks "to loosen their purse strings and extend more lending to businesses and consumers."

The impact, however, is likely to result in exactly the opposite: the centralization and concentration of financial wealth to the detriment of the real economy..

Mergers and Acquisitions

We are not dealing with a Keynesian style deficit, which stimulates investment and consumer demand, leading to an expansion of production and employment.

While, the bank bailout is a component of government expenditure, it does not constitute a positive spending injection into the real economy.

Quite the opposite. The bailout is a handout to the banks. It contributes to financing the restructuring of the banking system leading to a massive concentration of wealth and centralization of banking power.

The bailout money will be used by Canada's chartered banks to consolidate their position as well as finance the acquisition of several "troubled" financial institutions in the US. (See text box below)

The Destabilization of the Federal Fiscal Structure

This is the most serious public debt crisis in Canadian history.

The bank bailout potentially destabilizes the federal fiscal structure. It leads to a spiraling budget deficit, which must be financed at tax payers expense. The entire structure of public spending is affected including federal-provincial transfers. The (federal) public debt is slated to increase by 14 % over a two year period. The provincial debts are also likely to increase dramatically.

The 75 billion dollar bailout is to be partially financed by increasing the public debt.

The Minister of Finance has intimated that further measures are envisaged "to bolster the availability of credit" with the government "injecting capital into banks if necessary." (Bloomberg, January 23, 2009) It is worth noting that in addition to the $75 billion, the government has pledged "to backstop more than $200 billion in interbank lending so banks can boost their lending capacity." (Toronto Star, December 13, 2009). The implications of this decision remain to be carefully analysed.

What we can expect is a combination of budgetary compressions coupled with an increase of the public debt. Most categories of federal expenditure (excluding defense) are likely to be affected.

The federal fiscal structure is in jeopardy. The budget deficit finances the bank bailout.

What is likely to occur are more government "handouts" to banks and corporations coupled with a massive austerity program and a spiraling public debt.

The size of the public debt is also affected by the economic crisis. Company layoffs and bankruptcies seriously affect the revenues of the State. Unemployed people and bankrupt companies do not pay taxes. The increase in unemployment and the contraction in salaried earnings will backlash on tax revenues, which in turn contributes to exacerbating the fiscal crisis both at the federal and provincial levels.

Canadian Banks': Selected Acquisitions (2008)

In 2008, TD Canada Trust acquired Commerce Bancorp of New Jersey in the second largest Canadian M&A deal valued at $8US.6 billion.(Market Wire, Jan 12, 2009).

Royal Bank's (RBC) New York subsidiary RBC Centura acquired Alabama National Bancorp. for a modest $1.6 billion. "The Federal Reserve Board approved the acquisition on Feb. 5, 2008. (Florida Today, February 12, 2008)

In October 2008, Royal Bank announced that "it has completed the acquisition of ABN AMRO 's Canadian commercial leasing division, which provides equipment financing to Canadian corporations. (October 2, Canada Newswire).

Report from Brazil on RBC

"While various financial institutions were selling their business units in order to raise capital to cover losses suffered with the international financial crisis, the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) followed the contrary path and in December opened an investment consultancy in Brazil, the RBC Brasil DTVM, to service high income clients. 'This is a good moment to expand business, when there is tension for change in financial institutions with histories of success that had losses with the crisis. Our experience shows that when you try to make acquisitions or to grow aggressively when the market is rising, you wind up paying high prices, besides having difficulties to hire the best people. Considering that, the best moment to do this is now,' said Michael J. Lagopoulos, CEO and chief of the international division of RBC Wealth Management.

Just during the past year, RBC Wealth Management acquired the business of Phillips, Hager & North Investment Management, the leading investment manager in Canada and focused on high income and institutional clients, and Ferris, Baker Watts, which offers investment banking services in the United States. 'If you look at our history of managing resources in Canada and the United States, we made various acquisitions, and this also could be part of the strategy that we could do in Brazil, but first we want to grow alone with the clients that we can win,' he said.

Lagopoulos stressed that the prices of the assets are more interesting now than they were two or three years ago. 'In the past two years, we have looked at a lot of opportunities to enter Brazil and make acquisitions, but the prices in this market, one of the best among the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China) were very high. Our conclusion, based on our history in Brazil and more than 100 years in Latin America, plus connections with other markets, was that we have the capacity to open our own business, but now we are also looking for good opportunities.'"

(Rosana Hessel - Gazeta Mercantil, 26 Jan 2009)

"Mourant Private Wealth is based in Jersey with operations in Dubai and Cayman Islands. Completion of the transaction remains subject to regulatory approval but is expected to close in early 2009. Terms of the transaction were not disclosed.

According to the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), the acquisition of Mourant Private Wealth is expected to add more than GBP3.5 billion in assets under administration to RBC Wealth Management.

Paul Patterson, head of RBC Wealth Management for British Isles, said: "Mourant Private Wealth brings to RBC Wealth Management a dedicated focus on trust, experienced professionals and a terrific cultural fit and philosophy. This transaction advances our long-term strategy to build further on our core business of integrated private wealth management services to international clients by hiring experienced professionals with strong client relationship."

Nicola Davies, group CEO of Mourant, added: "This transaction is a good solution for the clients and employees of Mourant Private Wealth by giving them access to RBC's global network and international wealth management expertise."

Data Monitor Newswire, December 22, 2008

Global Research Articles by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, January 25, 2009

Big Brother Watching You Shop

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus) — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 03:16:00 +0000

Big Brother Watching You Shop

You Tube
February 21, 2009

Mall ads watch shoppers 1:37 Cameras inside ad displays gather advertising data about shoppers. KSDK’s Kasey Joyce reports. More blatant invasions of privacy!

Security and Prosperity Partnership: Militarized NAFTA

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus) — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 02:52:00 +0000

Security and Prosperity Partnership: Militarized NAFTA

Posting originally appeared on http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/2-security-and-prosperity-partnership-militarized-nafta/

Sources:
Center for International Policy, May 30, 2007
Title: “‘Deep Integration’—the Anti-Democratic Expansion of NAFTA”
Author: Laura Carlsen

Global Research, July 19, 2007
Title: “The Militarization and Annexation of North America”
Author: Stephen Lendman

Global Research, August 2, 2007
Title: “North American Union: The SPP is a ‘hostile takeover’ of democratic government and an end to the Rule of Law”
Author: Constance Fogal

Student Researchers: Rebecca Newsome and Andrea Lochtefeld

Faculty Evaluator: Ron Lopez, PhD

Leaders of Canada, the US, and Mexico have been meeting to secretly expand the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with “deep integration” of a more militarized tri-national Homeland Security force. Taking shape under the radar of the respective governments and without public knowledge or consideration, the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP)—headquartered in Washington—aims to integrate the three nations into a single political, economic, and security bloc.

The SPP was launched at a meeting of Presidents George W. Bush and Vicente Fox, and Prime Minister Paul Martin, in Waco, Texas, on March 31, 2005. The official US web page describes the SPP as “. . . a White House-led initiative among the United States and Canada and Mexico to increase security and to enhance prosperity . . .” The SPP is not a law, or a treaty, or even a signed agreement. All these would require public debate and participation of Congress.

The SPP was born in the “war on terror” era and reflects an inordinate emphasis on US security as interpreted by the Department of Homeland Security. Its accords mandate border actions, military and police training, modernization of equipment, and adoption of new technologies, all under the logic of the US counter-terrorism campaign. Head of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, along with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Finance Carlos Gutierrez, are the three officials charged with attending SPP ministerial conferences.

Measures to coordinate security have pressured Mexico to militarize its southern border. US military elements already operate inside Mexico and the DEA and the FBI have initiated training programs for the Mexican Army (now involved in the drug war), federal and state police, and intelligence units. Stephen Lendman states that a Pentagon briefing paper hinted at a US invasion if the country became destabilized or the government faced the threat of being overthrown because of “widespread economic and social chaos” that would jeopardize US investments, access to oil, overall trade, and would create great numbers of immigrants heading north.

Canada’s influential Department of National Defence; its new Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier; and Defense Minister Gordon O’Connor are on board as well. They’re committed to ramping up the nation’s military spending and linking with America’s “war on terror.”

The SPP created the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) that serves as an official tri-national SPP working group. The group is composed of representatives of thirty giant North American companies, including General Electric, Ford Motors, General Motors, Wal-Mart, Lockheed-Martin, Merck, and Chevron.

NACC’s recommendations centered on “private sector involvement” being “a key step to enhancing North America’s competitive position in global markets and is the driving force behind innovation and growth.” The NACC stressed the importance of establishing policies for maximum profits.

The US-guided agenda prioritizes corporate-friendly access to resources, especially Canadian and Mexican oil and water. The NACC’s policy states that “the prosperity of the United States relies heavily on a secure supply of imported energy.” US energy security is seen as a top priority encouraging Canada and Mexico to allow privatization of state-run enterprises like Mexico’s nationalized oil company, PEMEX. In January 2008, Halliburton signed a $683 million contract with PEMEX to drill fifty-eight new test holes in Chiapas and Tabasco and take over maintenance of pipelines. This is the latest of $2 billion in contracts Halliburton has received from PEMEX during Fox’s and current Mexican president Felipe Calderone’s administrations, which the opposition warns has become the public front for US monopoly capital privatization.1 US policy seeks to insure America gets unlimited access to Canada water as well.

Connie Fogal of Canadian Action Party says, “The SPP is the hostile takeover of the apparatus of democratic government . . . a coup d’etat over the government operations of Canada, US and Mexico.”

Citation

1. “Mexican Farmers Protest NAFTA Hardships,” People’s Weekly World, February 7, 2008.

UPDATE BY STEPHEN LENDMAN

A fourth SPP summit was held in New Orleans from April 22 to 24, 2008. George Bush, Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon attended. Protesters held what they called a “people’s summit.” They were in the streets and held workshops to inform people how destructive SPP is, strengthen networking and organizational ties against it, maintain online information about their activities, promote efforts and build added support, and affirm their determination to continue resisting a hugely repressive corporate-sponsored agenda.

Opponents call the “Partnership” NAFTA on steroids. Business-friendly opposition also exists. The prominent Coalition to Block the North American Union (NAU) is backed by the Conservative Caucus, which has a “NAU War Room,” a “headquarters of the national campaign to expose and halt America’s absorption into a North American Union with Canada and Mexico.” It opposes building “a massive, continental ‘NAFTA Superhighway.’”

This coalition has congressional allies, and on January 2007, Rep. Virgil Goode and six co-sponsors introduced House Concurrent Resolution 40, which expresses “the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in (building a NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a NAU with Mexico and Canada.”

The April summit reaffirmed SPP’s intentions—to create a borderless North America, dissolve national sovereignty, put corporate giants in control, and assure big US companies most of it. It’s also to create fortress-North America by militarizing the continent under US command.

SPP maintains a website. Its “key accomplishments” since August 2007 are updated as of April 22, 2008. The information is too detailed for this update, but can be accessed from the following link: http://www.spp.gov/pdf/key_accomplishments_since_august_2007.pdf.

The website lists principles agreed to; bilateral deals struck; negotiations concluded; study assessments released; agreements on the “Free Flow of Information”; law enforcement activities; efforts related to intellectual property, border and long-haul trucking enforcement; import licensing procedures; food and product safety issues; energy issues (with special focus on oil); infrastructure development; emergency management; and much more. It’s all laid out in deceptively understated tones to hide its continental aim—to enable enhanced corporate exploitation with as little public knowledge as possible.

Militarization includes the US Northern Command (NORTHCOM), established in October 2002, which has air, land, and sea responsibility for the continent regardless of Posse Comitatus limitations that no longer apply or sovereign borders that are easily erased. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) also have large roles. So does the FBI, CIA, all US spy agencies, militarized state and local police, National Guard forces, and paramilitary mercenaries like Blackwater USA.

They’re headed anywhere on the continent with license to operate as freely as in Iraq and New Orleans post-Katrina. They’ll be able to turn hemispheric streets into versions of Baghdad and make them unfit to live on if things come to that.

Consider other militarizing developments as well. On February 14, 2008, the US and Canada agreed to allow American troops inside Canada. Canadians were told nothing of this agreement, which was drafted in 2002. Neither was it discussed in Congress or in the Canadian House of Commons. The agreement establishes “bilateral integration” of military command structures in areas of immigration, law enforcement, intelligence, or whatever else the Pentagon or Washington wishes. Overall, it’s part of the “war on terror” and militarizing the continent to make it “safer” for business and being prepared for any civilian opposition.

Mexico is also being targeted, with a “Plan Mexico” that was announced in October 2007. It’s a Mexican and Central American security plan called the Merida Initiative, supported by $1.4 billion in allocated aid. Congress will soon vote on this initiative, likely well before this is published. It’s a “regional security cooperation initiative” similar to Plan Colombia and presented as an effort to fight drug trafficking.

In fact, the Merida Initiative is part of SPP’s militarization of Mexico and gives Washington more control of the country. Most of the aid goes to Mexico’s military and police forces, with a major portion earmarked for US defense contractors for equipment, training, and maintenance. The touchy issue of deploying US troops will be avoided by instead employing private US security forces, i.e., Blackwater and DynCorp.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org, Mondays from 11 am to 1 pm CT.

Over One Million Iraqi Deaths Caused by US Occupation

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus) — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 02:47:00 +0000

Over One Million Iraqi Deaths Caused by US Occupation

Originally posted at http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/1-over-one-million-iraqi-deaths-caused-by-us-occupation/
Sources:
After Downing Street, July 6, 2007
Title: “Is the United States Killing 10,000 Iraqis Every Month? Or Is It More?”
Author: Michael Schwartz

AlterNet, September 17, 2007
Title: “Iraq death toll rivals Rwanda genocide, Cambodian killing fields”
Author: Joshua Holland

Reuters (via AlterNet), January 7, 2008
Title: “Iraq conflict has killed a million, says survey”
Author: Luke Baker

Inter Press Service, March 3, 2008
Title: “Iraq: Not our country to Return to”
Authors: Maki al-Nazzal and Dahr Jamail

Student Researchers: Danielle Stanton, Tim LeDonne, and Kat Pat Crespán
Faculty Evaluator: Heidi LaMoreaux, PhD

Over one million Iraqis have met violent deaths as a result of the 2003 invasion, according to a study conducted by the prestigious British polling group, Opinion Research Business (ORB). These numbers suggest that the invasion and occupation of Iraq rivals the mass killings of the last century—the human toll exceeds the 800,000 to 900,000 believed killed in the Rwandan genocide in 1994, and is approaching the number (1.7 million) who died in Cambodia’s infamous “Killing Fields” during the Khmer Rouge era of the 1970s.

ORB’s research covered fifteen of Iraq’s eighteen provinces. Those not covered include two of Iraq’s more volatile regions—Kerbala and Anbar—and the northern province of Arbil, where local authorities refused them a permit to work. In face-to-face interviews with 2,414 adults, the poll found that more than one in five respondents had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict, as opposed to natural cause.

Authors Joshua Holland and Michael Schwartz point out that the dominant narrative on Iraq—that most of the violence against Iraqis is being perpetrated by Iraqis themselves and is not our responsibility—is ill conceived. Interviewers from the Lancet report of October 2006 (Censored 2006, #2) asked Iraqi respondents how their loved ones died. Of deaths for which families were certain of the perpetrator, 56 percent were attributable to US forces or their allies. Schwartz suggests that if a low pro rata share of half the unattributed deaths were caused by US forces, a total of approximately 80 percent of Iraqi deaths are directly US perpetrated.

Even with the lower confirmed figures, by the end of 2006, an average of 5,000 Iraqis had been killed every month by US forces since the beginning of the occupation. However, the rate of fatalities in 2006 was twice as high as the overall average, meaning that the American average in 2006 was well over 10,000 per month, or over 300 Iraqis every day. With the surge that began in 2007, the current figure is likely even higher.

Schwartz points out that the logic to this carnage lies in a statistic released by the US military and reported by the Brookings Institute: for the first four years of the occupation the American military sent over 1,000 patrols each day into hostile neighborhoods, looking to capture or kill “insurgents” and “terrorists.” (Since February 2007, the number has increased to nearly 5,000 patrols a day, if we include the Iraqi troops participating in the American surge.) Each patrol invades an average of thirty Iraqi homes a day, with the mission to interrogate, arrest, or kill suspects. In this context, any fighting age man is not just a suspect, but a potentially lethal adversary. Our soldiers are told not to take any chances (see Story #9).

According to US military statistics, again reported by the Brookings Institute, these patrols currently result in just under 3,000 firefights every month, or just under an average of one hundred per day (not counting the additional twenty-five or so involving our Iraqi allies). Thousands of patrols result in thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths and unconscionably brutal detentions.

Iraqis’ attempts to escape the violence have resulted in a refugee crisis of mammoth proportion. According to the United Nations Refugee Agency and the International Organization for Migration, in 2007 almost 5 million Iraqis had been displaced by violence in their country, the vast majority of which had fled since 2003. Over 2.4 million vacated their homes for safer areas within Iraq, up to 1.5 million were living in Syria, and over 1 million refugees were inhabiting Jordan, Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, and Gulf States. Iraq’s refugees, increasing by an average of almost 100,000 every month, have no legal work options in most host states and provinces and are increasingly desperate.1

Yet more Iraqis continue to flee their homes than the numbers returning, despite official claims to the contrary. Thousands fleeing say security is as bad as ever, and that to return would be to accept death. Most of those who return are subsequently displaced again.

Maki al-Nazzal and Dahr Jamail quote an Iraqi engineer now working at a restaurant in Damascus, “Return to Iraq? There is no Iraq to return to, my friend. Iraq only exists in our dreams and memories.”

Another interviewee told the authors, “The US military say Fallujah is safe now while over 800 men are detained there under the worst conditions. . . . At least 750 out of the 800 detainees are not resistance fighters, but people who refused to collaborate with occupation forces and their tails.” (Iraqis who collaborate with occupation forces are commonly referred to as “tails of the Americans.”)

Another refugee from Baghdad said, “I took my family back home in January. The first night we arrived, Americans raided our house and kept us all in one room while their snipers used our rooftop to shoot at people. I decided to come back here [Damascus] the next morning after a horrifying night that we will never forget.”

Citation

1. “The Iraqi Displacement Crisis,” Refugees International, March 3, 2008.

UPDATE BY MICHAEL SCHWARTZ

The mortality statistics cited in “Is the United States Killing 10,000 Iraqis Every Month?” were based on another article suitable for Project Censored recognition, a scientific investigation of deaths caused by the war in Iraq. The original article, published in Lancet in 2006, received some dismissive coverage when it was released, and then disappeared from view as the mainstream media returned to reporting biased estimates that placed Iraqi casualties at about one-tenth the Lancet estimates. The corporate media blackout of the original study extended to my article as well, and has continued unabated, though the Lancet article has withstood several waves of criticism, while being confirmed and updated by other studies (Censored 2006, #2).

By early 2008, the best estimate, based on extrapolations and replications of the Lancet study, was that 1.2 million Iraqis had died as a consequence of the war. This figure has not, to my knowledge, been reported in any mass media outlet in the United States.

The blackout of the casualty figures was matched by a similar blackout of other main evidence in my article: that the Bush administration military strategy in Iraq assures vast property destruction and lethality on a daily basis. Rules of engagement that require the approximately one thousand US patrols each day to respond to any hostile act with overwhelming firepower—small arms, artillery, and air power—guarantee that large numbers of civilians will suffer and die. But the mainstream media refuses to cover this mayhem, even after the Winter Soldier meetings in March 2008 featured over one hundred Iraq veterans who testified to their own participation in what they call “atrocity producing situations.” (see Story #9)

The effectiveness of the media blackout is vividly illustrated by an Associated Press poll conducted in February 2007, which asked a representative sample of US residents how many Iraqis had died as a result of the war. The average respondent thought the number was under 10,000, about 2 percent of the actual total at that time. This remarkable mass ignorance, like so many other elements of the Iraq War story, received no coverage in the mass media, not even by the Associated Press, which commissioned the study.

The Iraq Veterans Against the War has made the brutality of the occupation their special activist province. The slaughter of the Iraqi people is the foundation of their demand for immediate and full withdrawal of US troops, and the subject of their historic Winter Soldier meetings in Baltimore. Though there was no mainstream US media coverage of this event, the live streaming on Pacifica Radio and on the IVAW website reached a huge audience—including a vast number of active duty soldiers—with vivid descriptions of atrocities committed by the US war machine. A growing number of independent news sites now feature regular coverage of this aspect of the war, including Democracy Now!, Tom Dispatch, Dahr Jamail’s MidEast Dispatches, Informed Comment, Antiwar.com, and ZNet.

UPDATE BY MAKI AL-NAZZAL AND DAHR JAMAIL

The promotion of US general David Petraeus to head CENTCOM, and General Raymond Odierno to replace Petraeus as commanding general of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, provoked a lot of anger amongst Iraqis in both Syria and Jordan. The two generals who convinced US and international society of improvement in Iraq do not seem to have succeeded in convincing Iraqi refugees of their success.

“Just like the Bush Administration decorated Paul Bremer (former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority), they are rewarding others who participated in the destruction to Iraq,” stated Muhammad Shamil, an Iraqi journalist who fled Iraq to Syria in 2006. “What they call violence was concentrated in some parts of Iraq, but now spread to be all over the country, thanks to US war heroes. People are getting killed, evicted or detained by the thousands, from Basra (South) to Mosul (North).”

Other Iraqi refugees seem to have changed attitudes regarding their hopes to return. Compared to when this story was published in March 2008, the refugee crisis continues to deepen. This is exacerbated by the fact that most Iraqis have no intention of returning home. Instead, they are looking for permanent residence in other countries.

“I decided to stop dreaming of going back home and find myself a new home anywhere in the world if I could,” said thirty-two-year-old Maha Numan in Syria, “I have been a refugee for three years now living on the dream of return, but I decided to stop dreaming. I have lost faith in all leaders of the world after the surges of Basra, Sadr City and now Mosul. This seems to be endless and one has to work harder on finding a safe haven for one’s family.”

Iraqis in Syria know a lot more of the news about their country than most journalists. At an Internet café in Damascus, each of them calls his hometown and reports the happenings of the day to other Iraqi refugees. News of ongoing violence across much of Iraq convinces them to remain abroad.

“There were four various explosions in Fallujah today,” said Salam Adel, who worked as a translator for US forces in Fallujah in 2005. “And they say it is safe to go back! Damn them, go back for what? For roadside bombs or car bombs?”

It has been important, politically, for the Bush administration to claim that the situation in Iraq is improving. This claim has been assisted by a complicit corporate media. However, the 1.5 million Iraqis in Syria, and over 750,000 in Jordan, will tell you differently. Otherwise, they would not remain outside of Iraq.

To obtain updated information on the refugee crisis, see http://www.irinnews.org/IRIN-ME.aspx, http://www.iraqredcrescent .org/, http://www.refugeesinternational.org/section/waystohelp, http://www.unhcr.org/iraq.html, and http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/.

To obtain updated information on the number of deaths in Iraq see http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html

The Sound of Silence - The Antithesis of Freedom

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus) — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:54:00 +0000

The Sound of Silence
The Antithesis of Freedom

[Editor's Note: This is an extremely timely and important essay. It overviews a secret Pentagon psychotronics technology known as Silent Sound Spread Spectrum (SSSS) that has been fully operational since the early 1990s. I first found out about the use of this technology from Al Bielek in a 1992 video he made with Vladimir Terziski. This technology was used against battle-hardened Iraqi troops fortified in deep underground bunkers in Kuwait and Iraq in the first Gulf War in January of 1991.

The physical, emotional, and psychological effects of this technology were so severe that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi troops surrended en masse without firing even a single shot against U.S. led coalition forces. The numbers reported in the news were staggering: 75,000 and then annother 125,000 (or more) Iraqi troops would come out of their deep desert bunkers waving white flags and falling to their knees before approaching U.S. troops and literally kiss their captor's boots or hands if given the opportunity. Why would eight year veterans of Middle Eastern warfare (with Iran 1980-1988) behave this way? Simple. They were subjected to a technology that was so extreme and incomprehensible that they were suddenly reduced to the level of compliant children and felt grateful to still be alive in the wake of their mind-wrenching experience.

This technology is about to be used, albeit in a more subtle fashion, against American citizens in a highly classified and covert operation to mind control and manipulate the entire population into 'compliance' with our New World order overlords. The technology will utilize a combination of HAARP transmitters, GWEN towers, microwave cell phone towers, and the soon-to-be-mandatory High Definition DIGITAL TV that will enter your home via A) Cable, B) Satellite, C) HD TVs, or D) those oh-so-easy -to-obtain "Digital Converter boxes" that the government is so anxious to help you obtain and underwrite most of the cost on your behalf.

But why is the government so anxious to help American citizens experience a clearer and more highly defined television picture? Does that make sense to you? Since when is the government so concerned about the visual quality of our televised entertainment that congress would pass an undebated statutory proclamation which mandated that the HD conversion take place on Feb. 17, 2009 and and then subsidze about 90% of the associated cost? I'm only guessing, but if there are 200 million "regular" televisions in America to be converted into HD, then that $40 in government subsidy per TV x 200,000,000 = 8 billion dollars. Why is the government so anxious to spend $8 billion dollars on her citizens to improve the clarity of a TV picture? Or is the recently touted "additional bandwidth" cover story that supposedly is to be gained with the HD technology the only and genuine reason for spending so much taxpayer dollars on HD conversion?

The second service that this author performs is to "out" two of our more deceptive alleged CIA/Pentagon 'assets' masquerading under the rubric of natural health advocates. Their names are Rima Laibow and her husband, former Major General Albert Stubblebine. If your e-mail Inbox has been filling with warnings and articles in recent months about the coming Codex regulations and the "wonderful" job that Rima and her retired Army husband have been doing to try and stem the tide, then you know who I'm talking about.

Folks, is it time to wake up yet? Or should we just resume our slumber and wait for them to take us away in those spiffy Gunderson prisoner train cars that Phil Schneider warned us about in 1995 (you know, the ones with the built in shackles and manacles)? ...Ken Adachi]

Update: December 24, 2008: I was sent an e-mail from Ralph Fucetola, an attorney representing Rima Laibow, Albert Stubblebine, and their Natural Health Solutions Foundation, in response to the statements made about them in this article. You can read the letter in its entirety, and comments from readers, at this link: http://educate-yourself.org/lte/actionabledisinformation23dec08.shtml

By A. True Ott, PhD, ND
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/soundsofsilence11dec08.shtml
December 11, 2008

The Sound of Silence: The Antithesis of Freedom by A. True Ott, PhD, ND (Dec 12, 2008)

The year was 1961, and John Kennedy was soon to become the 35th President. Shortly before Kennedy’s inauguration, President Dwight D. Eisenhower shocked the nation and the world with his televised farewell speech. The speech’s content was shocking because General Eisenhower was a very popular war hero, and American military might was second to none. Eisenhower, a highly decorated five-star general, was the Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces during World War II. It was Eisenhower’s leadership during the Normandy Invasion that ultimately freed Europe from the Nazi scourge. Incredibly, in his farewell address, this great American hero did not warn the nation of the budding communist threat or the horrors of nuclear proliferation. No, not at all! Instead, this career military genius poignantly and soberly declared to this great nation:

“... we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence --- economic, political, even spiritual --- is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to recognize its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or our democratic processes"

Here we have a career military officer, and sitting U.S. President warning the nation in his final farewell speech, that something called “unwarranted influence by the military-industrial complex” poses an extremely dangerous threat to our Free Republic society. According to Eisenhower, this threat“exists and will persist”.

To President Eisenhower, in January of 1961, this evil was a much greater threat to America than Castro’s Cuba or Kruschev’s Soviet Union. What exactly could have happened in the “military-industrialist” establishment that would have caused Eisenhower to issue such a strongly worded warning? Improved machine gun production? Nope. Battleship production? Nope. Nuclear submarines? Nope. Proliferation of Nuclear warheads? A concern of course, but a concern that most Americans were fully aware of.

No, obviously what caused Eisenhower such deep concern had to be something much more pervasively shadowy, dark and secret. Some new, covert, technology had clearly emerged that had the very real potential to provide certain individuals with the “acquisition of unwarranted influence” that in turn would “endanger our liberties or our democratic processes” (i.e. our free and fair election process). In other words, it had the clear potential to circumvent the voice of the people and completely empower un-elected power mongers.

Eisenhower, I would submit, was warning America about something called the “Sound of Silence”. Eisenhower was an honest and patriotic American. Like Marine Corp General Smedley Butler, who decades earlier declared to Congress that “War is a Racket” --- Ike knew that such absolute power and total covert control over the minds and hearts of individual citizens would corrupt society absolutely. He also knew and understood, as did the German philosopher Goethe:

“No man is more hopelessly enslaved, than he who falsely believes that he is FREE.”

Therefore, he issued his strong, concluding warning to America. Today, this author must do no less.

The Sound of Silence is a military-intelligence code word for certain psychotronic weapons of mass mind-control tested in the mid 1950’s, perfected during the 70’s, and used extensively by the “modern” U.S. military in the early 90’s, despite the opposition and warnings issued by men such as Dwight David Eisenhower. This mind-altering covert weapon is based on something called subliminal carrier technology, or the Silent Sound Spread Spectrum (SSSS), (also nicknamed S-Quad or "Squad" in military jargon.) It was developed for military use by Dr. Oliver Lowery of Norcross, Georgia, and is described in US Patent #5,159,703

– “Silent Subliminal Presentation System” for commercial use in 1992. The patent abstract reads:

“A silent communications system in which nonaural carriers, in the very low (ELF) or very high audio-frequency (VHF) range or in the adjacent ultrasonic frequency spectrum are amplitude – or frequency- modulated with the desired intelligence and propagated acoustically or vibrationally, for inducement in to the brain, typically through the use of loudspeakers, earphones, or piezoelectric transducers. The modulated carriers may be transmitted directly in real time or may be conveniently recorded and stored on mechanical, magnetic, or optical media for delayed or repeated transmission to the listener.”

In layman’s terms, this device, this “Sound of Silence”simply allows for the unwarranted implantation of specific thoughts, emotions, and even prescribed physical actions into unsuspecting human beings.

In short, it has the very real ability to turn human beings into mere puppets in the hands of certain “controllers”or puppet-masters. Eisenhower knew full well what such a “weapon” could do in the hands of greedy, conspiring men and women scheming to control the planet. It could easily result in the takeover of American society without a single bullet being fired.

This is what he was warning America about, this is the “combination” he feared above all others. Have the leaders of America ignored Ike’s warning? Have conspiring and evil men and women utilized this diabolical technology on unsuspecting Americans and others outside of our borders? If so, will they continue to utilize the technology through the medium of Television and Radio? This expose will attempt to answer these questions, and give the reader a clear picture of exactly who made the decisions to use the “Sound of Silence” in both war and peace.

On March 23, 1991, a news brief was released in the form of an ITV News Bureau Ltd (London) wire service bulletin entitled “High-Tech Psychological Warfare Arrives in the Middle East”. This was during the administration of George Bush Sr., during “Operation Desert Storm” and describes in remarkable detail a US Psychological Operations (PsyOps) covert operation successfully deployed against Iraqi troops in Kuwait.

Saddam Hussein’s vaunted “Republican Guard” crack troops were promising Bush “the Mother of all Battles” with many thousands of dead coalition troops. On paper, it looked convincing. Hussein’s Republican Guard troops were battle-hardened veterans of the 10 year war with Iran, while coalition troops were unblooded. The Iraqis had modern weaponry and were well trained in how to use it. Something very strange happened, however. The “mother of all battles” ended before it began, as literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers surrendered en masse without even firing a shot!

Here is what the British press reported on the incident –while the American press was censored:

“... an unbelievable and HIGHLY CLASSIFIED PsyOps program utilizing “Silent Sound” techniques was successfully deployed. The opportunity to use this method occurred when Saddam Hussein’s military command-and-control system was destroyed. The Iraqi troops were then forced to use commercial FM radio stations to carry encoded commands, which were broadcast on the 100 MHz frequency. The US Psy-Ops team set up its own portable FM transmitter, utilizing the same frequency, in the deserted city of Al Khafji. This US transmitter overpowered the local Iraqi station. Along with patriotic and religious music, PsyOps transmitted “vague, confusing and contradictory military orders and information”.

“Subliminally, a much more powerful technology was at work, however. A sophisticated electronic system designed to ‘speak’ directly to the mind of the listener; to alter and entrain his brainwaves, to manipulate his brain’s electroencephalographic (EEG) patterns and thus artificially implant negative emotional states ---- feelings of intense fear, anxiety, despair and hopelessness were created in the Iraqi troops. This incredibly effective subliminal system doesn’t just tell a person to feel an emotion, it makes them feel it; it implants that EMOTION in their minds.”

While utilizing such a “non-lethal” covert psy-ops weapon resulted in many lives being saved, both American, Coalition, as well as Iraqi, the question begs to be asked: how can Americans be assured that such a weapon is not being used on them by “Big Brother” on a daily basis?

Moreover, why was the REAL STORY behind the mass Iraqi surrenders censored so completely from the American people? Typically, secrecy of this nature is only employed when the subject is morally offensive, or when the powers that be wish to continue to deploy the subject without public scrutiny or oversight, or both. Clearly, if such a device employed covertly on Americans could result in “unwarranted influence” over a society, as Eisenhower warned, I submit the majority of Americans would be completely outraged and incensed, and rightfully so. Therefore, of course the technology would need to remain hidden away.

Officially, the Sound of Silence (S-quad) technology does not exist, just as the US Government officially denies the existence of UFOs and Area 51, (Groom Lake) in the Nevada desert. However, the physical realities cannot be ignored by the rational and logical mind. For instance, during the first Gulf war, the man who most likely ordered the deployment of the Sound of Silence was Major General Albert (Bert) Stubblebine, who was the Commanding General of the U.S. Army’s INTELLIGENCE SCHOOL AND CENTER, as well as the Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command (ERADCOM) as well as the Army’s Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM).

In short, Albert Stubblebine was the Army’s liaison with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Naval Intelligence operatives (ONI) – and as head of ERADCOM, he would of necessity have had complete working knowledge of the Sound of Silence weaponry, if indeed it truly exists. He was the U.S. Army’s top spy-boss, and of course, was privy to all its secrets. Now retired from active duty following a 32 year career, General Stubblebine has combined with his wife, Rima Laibow to form something called the Natural Solutions Foundation, supposedly dedicated to fighting all HEALTH FREEDOM THREATS to individuals including Codex Alimentarias, Vaccinations, and of course the FDA Gestapo. On their website,
www.healthfreedomusa.org one can read this about Albert N. Stubblebine:

“Many of the innovations he developed helped the U.S. to conduct the First Gulf W ar effectively and swiftly with a very low casualty rate.”

But of course, such “innovations” are never fully disclosed to Americans and are officially non-existent. With all due respect to General Stubblebine and shadowy power-brokers such as Frank Carlucci and Donald Rumsfeld, this author concurs whole-heartedly with General Eisenhower and I declare that such posturing and secrecy with weapons of mind-control constitutes indeed an “acquisition of unwarranted power and influence” and has absolutely no place in a free and open society- no matter how many soldier's lives it may save on the battlefield. The potential for massive misuse and abuse of such immense controlling power is simply too great.

Furthermore, with all due respect Mr. Stubblebine, is he and Rima Laibow using the cover of Natural Health activistism to hide their true agenda? Could this hidden agenda be the covert promotion and testing of Sound of Silence equipment and technology commercially throughout the world?

It would seem quite logical that since covert “Black Project” mindcontrol operations was indeed his highest area of expertise while in the military, would it not be logical to assume that he would continue to engage in such work in his “retirement” years? Iwould submit such activity would be immensely more potentially PROFITABLE than soliciting donations while hawking organic veggies and supplements over the internet.

Is it not highly unusual for a career military man with such deep ties to CIA Black Ops to suddenly become a highly vocal natural health guru, especially considering that he had zero prior experience or hands-on training in the field?

According to his Natural Solutions website,

“He [Stubblebine] has taken this set of experiences [psy-ops work] and become involved in leading-edge medical research and development in collaboration with his wife Rima E. Laibow, M.D.”

Yet, oddly, nowhere on the NSF website is any of this “leading-edge” R & D technology discussed, even in the most generic terms. Instead, it is primarily aimed at soliciting tax-deductible donations. This alone should raise immediate red flags.

Furthermore, according to public documents available in Virginia, General Albert Stubblebine separated from his former wife Geraldine on Independence Day, (July 4) 1991 while he was at the height of his power and successful Psy-Ops venture in Kuwait against the Iraqi Army. The Stubblebines were formally divorced on September 9, 1994, whereby the divorce court granted Geraldine a decree on the “grounds of dultery”with a “female psychiatrist friend”, in all likelihood, his current wife Rima Laibow. Court documents show that Geraldine was chronically ill at the time of her divorce, suffering from “cancer and other ailments”and needed financial support from General Stubblebine to continue with her ALLOPATHIC treatments.

Nowhere is it mentioned in the divorce proceedings that any NATURAL treatments were being employed or had even been considered. Immediately after “retiring" from the army, General Stubblebine took a position as the “VP for Intelligence Systems” with Braddock, Dunn, and McDonald (BDM), a major defense contractor owned by the shadowy Carlyle Group and ex-Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci of Iran-Contra infamy.

According to author Dan Briody in his book The Iron Triangle: Inside the Secret World of the Carlyle Group,

“BDM’s major business was in an area called Black Projects which are kept secret because to publicize them would compromise national security. Lawmakers often complain about Black Projects, citing that many contracts are thusly classified, not because of national security concerns, but rather to avoid the required congressional review.” (Ibid, pg. 35)

It is clear that BDM was very deeply involved in highly questionable dealings during this time frame. According to Dan Briody:

“On Christmas Eve, 1994, the New York Times reported that Frank Carlucci had again been involved in a clandestine arms deal, this time with the Soviets. With Carlucci as chairman, BDM, now a Carlyle portfolio company, had brokered a deal between the Pentagon and the former Soviet Republic of Belarus to secretly purchase an S-300, the Soviet’s version of the Patriot missile defense system the United States had used so effectively during the Gulf War. ... For the deal, BDM used the infamous Canadian arms dealer Emmanuel Weigensberg, the same man that brokered the Iran-Contra arms shipments for the Reagan White House.” (Ibid, pg 38-39)

Since the Sound of Silence machine technology was patented for “privatization” commercial applications by Dr. Lowery on October 27, 1992 , it clearly opened the door to private defense contractors such as BDM to develop their own “Intelligence Systems”.

It would then make sense to employ General Stubblebine as a consultant. Of course, what would then stop BDM from quietly marketing and selling the Sound of Silence to large corporations tied to Wall Street? For example, imagine utilizing the Sound of Silence in a large Wal-Mart store, mixing the ELF waves with background music to subliminally brainwash dishonest shoppers NOT to engage in shoplifting? Such a device would save Sam Walton many millions of dollars in lost revenue every year.

Suppose also that a young, black man from Illinois was given access to, and was able to utilize the S-quad Sound of Silence technology in his public speeches, radio and 30-minute television“infomercials” -- all programmed and designed by “handlers” to illicit strong emotional responses from audience members who then are merely “hearing without listening”.

Moreover, what if televisions across the U.S. and Canada all went 100% DIGITAL [E.g. the mandatory HD conversion to take place in Feb. 2009] in their signals (which must happen in order to successfully link to pre-positioned, interconnected GWEN (Ground-Wave Emergency Network) Towers) which of course would allow the unrestricted use of the Sound of Silence frequencies in a complete and massive control of the nation’s mind and consciousness?

I am telling you that is EXACTLY what is happening. President Eisenhower was absolutely correct, and his worst fears were indeed well founded!

The military-industrialist complex has quietly completed the takeover of the nation’s consciousness, and thus its very soul. All without firing a shot! What about Stubbebine and his side-kick Laibow? What could they actually be doing in their world travels disguised as natural food activists?

Keep in mind that taking complete fascist control of America is just one step of the Zionist elites ultimate agenda, of which Stubblebine and Laibow have very likely pledged their true loyalty. The elitist Zionists overall objective is indeed absolute world control, something they refer to as a “New World Order”with them as dictators and over-lords. Again, the absolute SECRECY surrounding the development and deployment of the
electromagnetic mind-altering technology of the Sound of Silence in a very real way reflects the tremendous power that is inherent in it. This is why Eisenhower knew that he HAD to warn the nation about it back in 1961. To put it bluntly, whoever controls this technology literally has the power to control the minds of men – all men and women everywhere.

Of course, whoever controls the minds of all humans, controls the wealth and destiny of planet earth. Furthermore, Stubblebine, as commander of Army Intelligence would likely follow the prescribed manual of all covert ops --- such as is found in a de-classified U.S. manual for the planned subversion and coup of the government of Nicaragua. The manual instructs the CIA “guerilla forces” to engage in different “false front” organizations designedto win the respect, trust, and influence of the enemy. Once complete trust and confidence is achieved by means of the activities of the “false front”, then the destruction of the enemy by means of misdirection and dis-information tactics can more easily be executed.

I would submit there is no better “false front” to infiltrate in America than Natural Health proponents, for they are typically healthier, better informed, and more dedicated to preserving individual freedoms and fighting tyranny than other Americans. Thus, there could be no better “false front” to establish, and there is clearly no more potentially vicious wolf hiding in sheep’s clothing than the man who knows more about the Sound of Silence secret deployment than any other human –one General Albert (Bert) Stubblebine and his Jewish psychiatrist wife, Rima Laibow.

There is ample evidence that certain elitists in America and Israel plan to definitely extend the capacity of this technology to encompass all people on every continent. A key to this is the HAARP project where ELF and VHF frequencies can indeed be beamed off of the earth’s ionosphere to various GWEN towers world-wide. Of course, the U.S. Government officially denies all of this, telling the talking heads of the controlled news media that the GWEN towers are merely private cell-phone towers with no ulterior agenda, and therefore anybody who thinks otherwise is a lunatic-fringe conspiracy nut.

The evidence to the contrary, however is clear and unequivocal.

Dr. Michael Persinger is a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Laurentian University, Ontario, Canada. Concerning this subject, Dr. Persinger writes:

“Temporal lobe stimulation can evoke the feeling of a presence, disorientation, and perceptual irregularities. It can activate images stored in the subject’s memory, including nightmares and monsters that are normally suppressed. Contemporary neuroscience suggests the existence of fundamental algorithms by which all sensory transduction is translated into an intrinsic, brain-specific code. Direct stimulation of these codes within the human temporal or limbic cortices by applied electromagnetic patterns may require energy levels which are within the range of both geomagnetic activity and contemporary communication networks. A process which is coupled to the narrow band of brain temperature could allow all normal human brains to be affected by a sub-harmonic whose frequency range at about 10 Hz would only vary by 0.1 Hz.”

Dr Persinger concludes the article by writing:

“Within the last two decades a potential has emerged which was improbable, but which is now feasible. This potential is the technical capability to influence directly the major portion of the approximately 6.5 billion brains of the human species, without mediation through classical sensory modalities, by generating neural information within a physical medium within which all members of the species are immersed.

“The historical emergence of such possibilities, which have ranged from gunpowder to atomic fission, have resulted in major changes in the social evolution that occurred inordinately quickly after the implementation. Reduction of the risk of the inappropriate application of these technologies requires the continued and open discussion of their realistic feasibility and implications within the scientific and public domain.”

How can one have an “open discussion” on the subject when government circles continually deny the existence of such technology?

Lyrics to the Pop Song ‘The Sound of Silence’
Written by Paul Kane, (aka Paul Simon) in 1963

Hello, darkness, my old friend
I've come to talk with you again
Because a vision softly creeping
Left its seeds while I was sleeping
And the vision
That was planted in my brain
Still remains
Within the sound of silence

In restless dreams I walked alone
Narrow streets of cobblestone
Beneath the halo of a street lamp
I turned my collar to the cold and damp
When my eyes were stabbed
By the flash of a neon light
That split the night
And touched the sound of silence

And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share...
And no one dare
Disturb the sound of silence.

"Fools," said I, "you do not know
Silence like a cancer grows."
"Hear my words that I might teach you,
Take my arms that I might reach you."
But my words like silent raindrops fell,
And echoed in the wells of silence.

And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon god they made.
And the sign flashed out its warning
In the words that it was forming.
And the signs said: "The words of the prophets
Are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls,
And whisper'd in the sound of silence."

Paul Kane's (Paul Simon) musical work in the early 1960's was primarily as a contracted songwriter in the famed "Brill Building machine." He would write songs for other artists to record. He did try his hand at performing, however. Assuming a new stage name - Paul Kane - he wrote many ballads and rockabilly tunes which were recorded, both by Paul and as a member of the mildly-successful Tico and the Triumphs. Paul also had a famous collaborator - Carole Kane (who changed her name to Carol King). Paul Simon, a Jew whose family was part of the 'military-industrialist complex' was very likely a product of the early 1960’s military experimentation in Silent Sound mind control –which is clearly what the lyrics of “The Sound of Silence” convey to those 'in the know'.

General Subblebine’s U.S. Army Intelligence School, U.S. Army Intelligence Center & School Insignias

A) Shoulder Sleeve Insignia

Shoulder Sleeve Insignia. Description: A diamond-shaped insignia with rounded angles, 3 inches (7.62cm) in height and 2 1/4 inches (5.72cm) in width, consisting of a 1/8 inch (.32cm) silver gray border around a blue field bearing on the lower half a yellow demi-sun with seven pointed rays terminating at the border, and centered above it the upper part of the flaming torch also yellow. This is the international symbol of illuminism, or the ILLUMINATI ELITE.

Symbolism: Oriental blue and silver gray are the colors for the Military Intelligence branch; yellow or gold signifies achievement. The torch is symbolic of education and the sun represents light and guidance from our God. The number of rays, seven, is symbolic of wisdom and strength.

Background: The shoulder sleeve insignia was originally approved for the U.S. Army Intelligence Center and School on 26 July 1972. Effective 1 October 1990, authorization for wear of the insignia was extended to personnel of the U. S. Army Intelligence Center and Fort Huachuca.

B) Distinctive Unit Insignia

Distinctive Unit Insignia. Description: A gold color metal and enamel insignia 1 1/8 inches (2.86cm) in height overall, consisting of a shield and crest blazoned.

Shield: Chequy Azure (teal blue) and Or, upon a fess Sable, a Grecian Sphinx couchant of the second –the international symbol of Freemasonry and Kaballah.

Crest: On a wreath of the colors Or and Azure a building consisting of four pillars arraswise of the second and fimbriated of the first, surmounted by a lamp of knowledge resting upon a sheathed saber fesswise both of the last. Attached below the shield a gold triparted scroll inscribed "VERITAS VIGILANTIA VICTORIA" in black letters.

Symbolism: Teal blue and yellow perpetuate the history of Army Intelligence. The tactical and strategic phases of Intelligence are symbolized by the chequy background which represents a chessboard and the duality symbol of Masonry. The three divisions of the field denote the three main phases of intelligence: collection, production and dissemination. Wisdom and silence (secrecy) are symbolized by the Sphinx. The color black also alludes to secrecy. The architectural construction represents a place of learning and the lamp of knowledge symbolizes enlightenment. Military leadership is represented by the sheathed saber.

Background: The distinctive unit insignia was originally approved for the U.S. Army Intelligence School on 14 April 1961. On 16 July 1982, authorization for wear was extended to personnel of the U. S. Army Intelligence Center. Effective 1 Oct 1990, with description and symbolism revised, authorization for wear of the insignia was extended to personnel of the U. S. Army Intelligence Center and Fort Huachuca.

C) Device

Device.
Blazon:
Shield: Chequy Azure (teal blue) and Or, upon a fess Sable, a Grecian Sphinx couchant of the second.

Crest: On a wreath of the colors Or and Azure a building consisting of four pillars arraswise of the second and fimbriated of the first, surmounted by a lamp of knowledge resting upon a sheathed saber fesswise both of the last.

Motto: VERITAS, VIGILANTIA, VICTORIA (Truth, Vigilance, Victory)

Symbolism: Teal blue and yellow perpetuate the history of Army Intelligence. The tactical and strategic phases of Intelligence are symbolized by the chequy background which represents a chessboard. The three divisions of the field denote the three main phases of intelligence: collection, production and dissemination. Wisdom and silence are symbolized by the Sphinx. The color black also alludes to secrecy. The architectural construction represents a place of learning and the lamp of knowledge symbolizes enlightenment. Military leadership is represented by the sheathed saber.

A. True Ott

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. A. True Ott is the nephew of the well known light researcher and developer of 'natural spectrum' fluorescent lamps, John Ott.

© Copyright 2008 Educate-Yourself.org All Rights Reserved.

Read full story here

Famed Social Sciences Author Jared Diamond Predicts 49 Percent chance of human civilization failing

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus) — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:14:00 +0000

Due to the Global Financial Crisis, Famed Social Sciences author Jared Diamon predicts 49 percent chance of human civilization failing.

read more | digg story

City Workers Accidentally Dump Hydrochloric Acid into Ohio W

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus) — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:50:00 +0000

When you dump the wrong chemical into the public water supply, it makes people nervous. Yesterday, chemical treatment plant workers in Bellaire, Ohio, accidentally dumped 40 pounds of hydrochloric acid into the public water supply instead of 40 pounds of toxic fluoride chemicals they were supposed to dump.

read more | digg story

Israel's Next War: Today the Gaza Strip, Tomorrow Lebanon?

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus) — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:55:00 +0000

Israel's Next War: Today the Gaza Strip, Tomorrow Lebanon?by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya Global Research, January 17, 2009 In the Middle East, it is widely believed that the war against Gaza is an extension of the 2006 war against Lebanon. Without question, the war in the Gaza Strip is a part of the same conflict. The March to War: Today the Gaza Strip, Tomorrow Lebanon...In the Middle East, it is widely believed that the war against Gaza is an extension of the 2006 war against Lebanon. Without question, the war in the Gaza Strip is a part of the same conflict. Moreover, since the Israeli defeat in 2006, Tel Aviv and Washington have not abandoned their design to turn Lebanon into a client state. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told France's President Nicolas Sarkozy, in so many words, during his visit to Tel Aviv in early January that today Israel was attacking Hamas in the Gaza Strip and that tomorrow it would be fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon.[1]Ehud Olmert and Nicolas SarkozyLebanon is still in the cross-hairs. Israel is searching for a justification or a pretext to launch another war against Lebanon. Washington and Tel Aviv had initially hoped to control Beirut through client political forces in the March 14 Alliance. When it became apparent that these political forces could not dominate Lebanon politically the Israeli military was unleashed on Lebanon with a goal of bringing about the ultimate downfall of Hezbollah and its political allies. [2] Areas where support for Hezbollah and its political allies were strongest saw the harshest Israeli attacks in 2006 as part of an attempt to reduce, if not remove, popular support for them.After the 2006 war, the second Israeli defeat in Lebanon, Washington and Tel Aviv with the help of Jordan, the U.A.E., Egypt, and Saudi Arabia started arming their clients in Lebanon to wield an internal armed option against Hezbollah and its allies. In the wake of both the short-lived internal violence between the Lebanese National Opposition and the March 14 Alliance and the Doha Accord, which was reached in Qatar on May 21, 2008 as a result of the failure of this internal armed option against Hezbollah and its allies, the Israeli-U.S. objective to subdue Lebanon has been dramatically impaired.A "national unity government" was formed in which the Lebanese National Opposition — not just Hezbollah — hold veto power through one-third of the cabinet chairs, including that of the post of deputy-prime minister. The objective in Lebanon is "regime change" and to repress all forms of political opposition. But how to bring it about? The forecast of the 2009 general-elections in Lebanon does not look favourable for the March 14 Alliance. Without an internal political or armed option in Lebanon, which could result in the installation of a U.S.-sponsored "democracy," Washington and its indefictible Israeli ally have chosen the only avenue available: a military solution, another war on Lebanon. [3] Crossing Arms III: Israel Simulates a Two-Front War against Lebanon and SyriaThis war is already in the advanced planning stage. In November 2008, barely a month before Tel Aviv started its massacre in the Gaza Strip, the Israeli military held drills for a two-front war against Lebanon and Syria called Shiluv Zro’ot III (Crossing Arms III).[4] The military exercise included a massive simulated invasion of both Syria and Lebanon. Several months before the Israeli invasion drills, Tel Aviv had also warned Beirut that it would declare war on the whole of Lebanon and not just Hezbollah.[5]Israel's justification for these war preparations was that Hezbollah has grown stronger and become a partner in the Lebanese government since the Doha Accord. The latter was signed in Qatar between the March 14 Alliance and the Lebanese National Opposition. It is worth noting that Hezbollah was a member of the Lebanese coaltion government prior to the 2006 Israeli war on Lebanon.No doubt, Tel Aviv will also point to Hezbollah's support of Hamas in Gaza as another pretext to wage under the banner of combating Islamic terrorism a pre-emptive war on Lebanon. In this context, Dell Lee Dailey the head of the counter-terrorism section of the U.S. State Department, had told Al-Hayat in an interview that an Israeli attack on Lebanon was "imminent" as part of the fight against terrorism. [6]Blitzkrieg in the MakingTel Aviv has been mapping a large-scale blitzkrieg against Lebanon as a whole, which includes an immediate land invasion. [7] Just before the Israeli massacre in the Gaza Strip started, Israeli officials and generals had promised that no Lebanese village would be immune from the wrath of Israeli aerial bombardments, regardless of religion, sect, and/or political orientation. [8] In substance, Tel Aviv has promised to totally destroy Lebanon. Israel has also confirmed that in any future war against Lebanon, the entire country rather than Hezbollah will be the target. In practice, this was already the case in 2006’s Israeli aerial attacks on Lebanon. [9]The Jerusalem Post quotes Brigadier-General Michael Ben-Baruch, one of the individuals who oversaw the invasion drills, as saying, "In the last war, we fired to disrupt Hezbollah activity," and, "The next time we will fire to destroy." [10]In the wake of Israel's 2006 defeat, the Israeli government admitted that its "big mistake" was it exercised restraint rather than attacking Lebanon with the full strength of its military. Israeli officials have intimated that in the case of a future war against the Lebanese that all civilian and state infrastructure will be targeted.Beirut’s New Defence Doctrine: A Threat to Israeli Interests and Objectives to Control Lebanon Why is Lebanon in the cross-hairs again? The answer is geo-political and strategic. It is also related to the political consensus process and the upcoming 2009 general-elections in Lebanon. Following the formation of a unity government in Beirut under a new president, Michel Suleiman (Sleiman), a new proactive defence doctrine for the country was contemplated. The objective of this defence doctrine is to keep Israel at bay and bring political stability and security to the country.President Michel SuleimanAt the "National Defence Strategy" dialogue, held by the 14 Lebanese signatories of the Doha Accord, all sides have agreed that Israel is a threat to Lebanon.In the months prior to the Israeli military campaign against Gaza, important diplomatic and political steps were taken by Beirut. President Michel Suleiman accompanied by several cabinet ministers visited Damascus (his first bilateral state visit; August 13-14, 2008) and Tehran (November 24-25, 2008).President Suleiman and Syrian President Al AssadIn turn, General Jean Qahwaji (Kahwaji) the commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces was also in Damascus (November 29, 2008) for consultations with his Syrian counterpart General Al-Habib. While in Damascus, General Qahwaji also met with General Hassan Tourkmani, the defence minister of Syria, and the Syrian President. [11] His trip followed the visit of Lebanon's interior minister, Ziad Baroud, to Syria and was within the same framework. [12] Meanwhile, Lebanon’s defence minister, Elias Murr, went on an official visit to Moscow (December 16, 2008).What started to emerge from these talks was that both Moscow and Tehran would provide weaponry to the Lebanese Armed Forces, which previously had been the recipients of lower-end U.S. made ordinance. The U.S. has always forbidden the Lebanese military from purchasing any heavy weapons that could challenge Israel's military strength.It was also revealed that Russia would donate 10 MiG-29 fighter jets to Beirut in line with Lebanon's new defence strategy. [13] The use of the Russian MiG-29s would also entail the required installation of early warning and radar systems. Russian tanks, anti-tank rockets, armoured vehicles, and military helicopters are also being sought by Lebanon. [14]Mig29Iran has offered to supply the Lebanese military with medium-range missiles as part of a five-year Iranian-Lebanese defence agreement. [15] While in Iran, Michel Suleiman held talks with Iranian defence officials and went to an Iranian defence industry exposition.While the talks with Moscow and Tehran aimed at arming the Lebanese Armed Forces, the talks with the Syrians were geared towards establishing and strengthening a joint security and defence framework directed against Israeli aggression. [16]Integrating Hezbollah into the Lebanese Armed ForcesMoreover, Michel Aoun, leader of the Free Patriotic Movement and the Reform and Change Bloc in the Lebanese Parliament also visited Tehran (October 12-16, 2008; ahead of Michel Suleiman's official visit), and later Damascus (December 3-7, 2008). [17] Michel Aoun who is a central figure in the "political consensus" has endorsed and reaffirmed his political alliance with Hezbollah. Michel AounWhile calling for the peaceful disarmament of Hezbollah within a Lebanese defence strategy, he has accepted that Hezbollah fighters will eventally integrate into Lebanon's army. This disarmement process would only occur when the time is right and Israel no longer poses a threat to Lebanon. Hezbollah has broadly agreed to this, if and when there no longer exists an Israeli threat to the country's security. This position on Hezbollah's arms is spelled out in clause 10 (The Protection of Lebanon) of the February 6, 2006 memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Hezbollah that Michel Aoun signed on behalf of his political party, the Free Patriotic Movement.Following his return from Tehran, Aoun also presented his case for the formation of a new Lebanese defence strategy and promised that the outcome of his visit to Iran would materialize in about six months. Aoun has also said that Iran, as the "major regional power between Lebanon and China" is of strategic importance to Lebanese interests. [18]Hezbollah Paramilitary ForcesWashington's political cohorts in Lebanon are alarmed at the direction Lebanon is taking under its new defence strategy. They have criticized weapons purchases from Iran and defensive cooperation with Syria. This includes attacks on General Jean Qahwaji's visit to Syria, which was mandated by the entire Lebanese cabinet. [19] Additionally, within these pro-U.S. forces in Lebanon there has been a push for a "Swiss-like" "neutral defence policy" for Lebanon within the Middle East. Such a "neutral" position would benefit the U.S. and Israel geo-politically and strategically. Needless to say, with the threat of Israeli military aggression looming, this position is proving to be rather unpopular within Lebanon. Ending Israeli-American pressure on Beirut to Naturalize Palestinian RefugeesThe formation of a new proactive defence doctrine implies that Hezbollah fighters would be incorporated in the Lebanese Armed Forces and that the existing paramilitary forces of Hezbollah would be disbanded once certain conditions are met. Therefore, one of Lebanon’s key political questions would be resolved. With the integration of Hezbollah fighters into the country's army together with military aid from Russia and Iran, Lebanon would acquire defensive capabilities, which would enable it to confront the threat of Israeli military aggression. These developments, which go against the prevailing pattern of U.S. client regimes in the Middle East modelled on Egypt and Saudi Arabia, have sounded an alarm bell in Tel Aviv, Washington, and London.In response to Lebanon's rapprochement with Russia and Iran, two senior US State Department officials were rushed to Beirut in December.[20] During this mission, Dell Lee Dailey and David Hale, respectively Coordinator of the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism and Deputy-assistant Secretary responsible for Middle Eastern affairs, renewed the veiled threats of an Israeli attack against Lebanon, while casually placing the blame on Hezbollah.[21] These threats are aimed at Lebanon as a whole. They are intended to disrupt the creation of Lebanon's new defence doctrine. The clock is ticking for Israel, the U.S., and NATO to obstruct the implementation of Beirut's new national defence doctrine. Israel would no longer have any justifications for carrying out military incursions into Lebanon if Hezbollah were to become a full political party under a new Lebanese defence strategy. Moreover, if Beirut were able, under a new defence arrangement, to protect its borders against Israeli military threats it would not only end Tel Aviv’s ambitions to politically and economically dominate Lebanon, but it would also end Israeli pressure on Lebanon to naturalize the Palestinian war refugees waiting to return to their ancestoral lands that are occupied by Israel. Clearly the issue of Palestinian naturalization in Lebanon is also tied to Lebanon's political consensus process and new defence strategy and was discussed by Michel Suleiman with Iranian officials in Tehran. [22]The Middle Eastern Powder Keg: A World War III Scenario?In 2006, when Israel attacked Lebanon, the war was presented to international public opinion as a conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. In essence the 2006 war was an Israeli attack on all of Lebanon. The Beirut government failed to take a stance, declared its "neutrality" and Lebanon's military forces were instructed not to intervene against the Israeli invaders. The reason for this was that the political parties of the Hariri-led March 14 Alliance that dominated the Lebanese government were expecting the war to end quickly and for Hezbollah (their political rival) to be defeated, and eventually excluded from playing a meaningful role on the Lebanese domestic political scene. Exactly the opposite has occurred since 2006. Moreover, had the Lebanese government declared war on Israel, in response to Israeli aggression, Syria would have been obligated through a Lebanese-Syrian bilateral treaty, signed in 1991, to intervene in support of Lebanon. In the case of a future Israeli war against Lebanon, the structure of military alliances is crucial. Syria could indeed intervene on the side of Lebanon. If Syria enters into the conflict, Damascus could seek the support of Tehran in the context of a bilateral military cooperation agreement with Iran. A scenario of escalation is, therefore, possible, which could potentially spin out of control. If Iran were to enter on the side of Lebanon and Syria in a defensive war against Israel, the U.S. and NATO would also intervene leading us into a broader war. Both Iran and Syria have military cooperation agreements with Russia. Iran also has bilateral military cooperation agreements with China. Iran is also an observer member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Iran’s allies including Russia, China, the member states of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) could all be drawn into the broader conflict. NOTES[1] 'We’re fed up with empty gestures’, The Jerusalem Post, January 6, 2009.[2] The militarization of Lebanon, extinguishing any credible armed resistance in Lebanon to Israel, and targeting Syria were also all factors for the Israeli attacks in 2006.[3] It should be noted that the fighting between Hamas and Fatah and the Israeli campaign against the Gaza Strip that started on December 27, 2008 has obstructed the Palestinian electoral process. [4] Amos Harel, IDF concludes large drill simulating double-front war in North, Haaretz, November 6, 2008.[5] Barak Ravid, Israel: Lebanon is responsable for Hezbollah’s actions, Haaretz, August 8, 2008.[6] "Hezbollah Terrorist Group; War with Israel Imminent", Al-Manar, December 17, 2008[7] Yakkov Katz, Preparing for a possible confrontation with Hizbullah, The Jerusalem Post, December 11, 2008.[8] Andrew Wander, Top Israeli officer says Hizbullah will be destroyed in five days 'next time', The Daily Star (Lebanon), December 17, 2008.[9] Ibid.[10] Yakkov Katz, Preparing for a possible, Op. cit.[11] Ahmed Fathi Zahar et al., President al-Assad Receives General Qahwaji, Underlines Role of Lebanese Army in Defending Lebanon's Security and Stability, Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA), November 29, 2008.[12] Lebanese army commander pays visit to Syria, Xinhua News Agency, November 30, 2008.[13] Wang Yan, Russian donation of 10 Mig-29 fighters to Lebanon raises suspicions, Xinhua News Agency, December, 17, 2008; Yoav Stern, Russia to supply Lebanon with 10 MiG-29 fighter jets, Haaretz, December 17, 208; Russia 'to give' Lebanon war jets, British Broadcasting Corporation News (BBC News), December 17, 2008.[14] Lebanon defense minister to talk arms in Moscow, Russian News and Information Agency (RIA Novosti), December 15, 2008. [15] Zheng E, Lebanese president requests medium weapons from Iran, Xinhua News Agency, November 26, 2008; Kahwaji stresses LAF role, while politicians bicker some more, The Daily Star (Lebanon), November 27, 2008; Russian donation, Op. cit.[16] Sun, Lebanese army commander returns from Syria, Xinhua News Agency, November 30, 2008.[17] Sami Moubayed, Former foe a celebrity in Damascus, Gulf News, December 4, 2008.[18] Aoun: Iran, most powerful country, Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), October 21, 2008. [19] Lebanese ctiticizes army commander's visit to Syria [sic.], Xinhua News Agency, December 1, 2008.[20] More praise for Russia's promise of 'free' MiGs, Agence France-Presse (AFP) and The Daily Star (Lebanon), December 18, 2008.[21] War with Israel Imminent, Op. cit.; US envoy warns against rearming Lebanon's Hezbollah, Deutsche Presse-Agentur/German Press Agency (DPA), December 17, 2008.[22] Kahwaji stresses LAF role, Op. cit. Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is in an independent writer based in Ottawa specializing in Middle Eastern and Central Asian affairs. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

read more | digg story

The environmental cost of a Google search

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus) — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:51:00 +0000

Monday, January 12, 2009 | 02:06 PM ET

By Paul Jay, CBCNews.ca.

A Harvard physicist and green-website founder's assertion that running two Google searches released the same amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as boiling a kettle of tea has caused a tempest in a you-know-what.

Type in "google search kettle" in Google and you'll get a host of links to the study mentioned in the Times of London over the weekend, the nut of which is this: the search you just tried released the equivalent of about 7 grams of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

However, not everyone (that is, almost no one in the tech world) appears to be buying the findings of Alex Wissner-Gross, an Environmental Fellow at Harvard University and the co-founder of CO2Stats, which lets websites track their carbon footprint.

Chief among the detractors is Google Senior vice president of operations Urs Hölzle, who wrote in the company's blog that a typical Google search requires far less energy, and therefore releases far less CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas than Wissner-Gross's figures.

Hölzle said each search amounts to 0.0003 kWh of energy per search, or 1 kJ, or "just about the same amount of energy that your body burns in ten seconds."

From the blog:

"In terms of greenhouse gases, one Google search is equivalent to about 0.2 grams of CO2. The current EU standard for tailpipe emissions calls for 140 grams of CO2 per kilometer driven, but most cars don't reach that level yet. Thus, the average car driven for one kilometer (0.6 miles for those of in the U.S.) produces as many greenhouse gases as a thousand Google searches."

Google is not the only one to question Wissner-Gross's findings, with the UK's The Register questioning his kettle calculations in typically acerbic fashion while TechCrunch compares the environmental costs of a search versus the cost of producing a single book - 2,500 grams, based on figures from publisher Penguin UK.

While it's hard to know what to make of Wissner-Gross's numbers - they have yet to be published - Google's figures are the first publication of their own estimates, giving us a chance to calculate the impact of all of those searches.

According to comScore, there were 7.784 billion Google searches conducted in November 2008 in the U.S. alone. At Google's calculation of 0.2 grams of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas per search, that comes to 1.557 million kg of CO2 equivalent for the month, or about 18.7 million kg in a year.

Now, context: the U.S. in 2006 contributed 7,054.2 teragrams, or 7,054,200,000,000 kg, of CO2 Eq. greenhouse gases, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's latest figures.

I realize mixing 2006 and 2008 numbers leads to all sorts of fudging, but the point is this: Google searches would account for about two and half millionths of a per cent of emissions. That it something, but I suspect if you compare Google to the other top companies in the world, and think of all of those saved trips to libraries, it seems consumers probably shouldn't fret too much over the impact of all of those searches. But just in case, maybe consider adding a few more bookmarks to your browser.

Harper to sell the rest of Canada if re-elected

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus) — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:59:00 +0000

Stephen Harper is promising to allow more foreign investment in Canada if re-elected. More Bush style politics that has worked so well for the U.S. Read full article below....

read more | digg story

Just joined Technorati

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus) — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:33:00 +0000

Technorati Profile

The Energy Non-Crisis

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus) — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 15:57:00 +0000

Lindsey Williams talks about his first hand knowledge of Alaskan oil reserves larger than any on earth. And he talks about how the oil companies and U.S. government won't send it through the pipeline for U.S. citizens to use.

Here is an attempt to "educate" the American People that there is as much oil in Alaska as there is in Saudi Arabia. Also mentions that Russia has drilled some deep oil wells and have found massive amounts. "Peak Oil" is a myth perpetuated by the oil companies to gouge everyone.

loosing my house now! just what they wanted. complete ruin.

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus) — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 12:35:00 +0000

Another example of the U.S. slipping into a police state. This man is losing his home because he reported to the media that there is mercury in their water.

The Biggest Global Warming Crime in History

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus) — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:54:00 +0000

By Cahal Milmo, Independent UK. Posted December 13, 2007.The Canadian wilderness is set to be invaded by BP in an oil exploration project dubbed 'the biggest global warming crime' in history.

read more | digg story

Global Warming Debate : The Denial Machine : the fifth estate : CBC News

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus) — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:57:00 +0000

An in-depth report on how Big Oil's denial machine was put into motion, and how Bush and Harper sold these lies to the World.

read more | digg story

Gvmnt agencies moving to gain access to personl telephone and internet info

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus) — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 12:59:00 +0000

In a move to bring Canada closer to a police state, Government agencies are moving to gain access to telephone and internet customers' personal information without first getting a court order, according to a document obtained by the CBC that is raising privacy issues. The information would include names, addresses, land and cellphone numbers, as well as IP addresses.

read more | digg story

Have Canadian Forces in Afghanistan been pawns?

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus) — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:22:00 +0000

by Joe Hueglin, Independent Editorialist

While Canadians are agonizing over our war dead, events are unfolding that suggest the purpose behind military action in Afghanistan differs greatly from the humanitarian reasons given, it is to secure a route for an oil pipeline: an idea once dismissed as a “conspiracy theory.”

Last week a Pakistan Daily Times article, "Govt awards TAP pipeline contract to US company" reported: "The Pakistan government has awarded the contract of laying the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TAP) gas pipeline project to the United States International Oil Company (IOC) with an estimated cost of $10 billion." According to sources in the International Oil Company, “the matters of security and insurance in Afghanistan during the laying of the pipeline have been finalised between the oil company and authorities, and a signing ceremony confirming the mega-project Agreement would be held shortly."

Last week as well articles in the Asia Times reported "Taliban, US in new round of peace talks" and "Talks with the Taliban gain ground." According to these sources: "Specifically, the deals aim to stop violence in selected areas and give the Taliban limited control of government pending the conclusion of a broader peace deal for the country and the Taliban's inclusion in some form of national administration." Included in the "selected areas" is the Panjwai District in Kandahar Province, where Canadian lives have been lost.

It is suggested the conclusion of negotiations will come with the arrival in Pakistan of Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte on September 10th and that "The outcome of the talks will to a large extent decide the agenda of Negroponte's visit and the course of the US-led ‘war on terror’ in the region."

If Syed Saleem Shahzad's reporting is accurate, negotiations to end armed conflict in limited areas of Afghanistan are taking place and Canadian Forces may be playing the role of pawns in the international competition for control over petroleum resources.

Should such be the case Canadians will have been sorely misled by our leaders ignorance or complicity.

About the author:

Joe Hueglin is a former Progressive Conservative Member of Parliament who is the communications co-ordinator for an independent progressive tory communications initiative.
The The Canadian

American Policy Center President warns Canadians in Ottawa that Bush administration's SPP is modelled from World War

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus) — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:16:00 +0000

Public/Private Partnerships agenda in SPP are a leaf out of Benito Mussolini Fascist Italy, and Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany

Edited by Peter Tremblay
Tom DeWeese

Tom DeWeese, President of the American Policy Center (APC), a grassroots activist organization located in suburban Washington, DC spoke on Monday, August 20 at a news conference in Ottawa, Canada. He focused on concerns about the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).

The news conference was sponsored by the Coalition to Block The North American Union, of which APC is a founding member. Other leaders of the Coalition include Howard Phillips (Conservative Caucus, that is against the neo-conservatives of the U.S. President George W. Bush administration), Phyllis Schlafly (Eagle Forum), Jerome Corsi (Author), and more than 50 organizations.

The Coalition is concerned that efforts to create the SPP will lead to the establishment of a North American Union along the lines of the European Union (EU). In spite of the propaganda, the EU is a substantively anti-democratic political economic entity, that has stripped away substantive control by members of European nations. The EU undermines democratic control among citizenry over the public policy directions of their own societies, in favour of a clique of Big Business interests.

While the Bush Administration continues to deny that SPP activity is anything more than a "dialogue" with Mexico and Canada over trade issues, Congressman Virgil Goode of Virginia has introduced H. Con. Res. 40 opposing the establishment of a North American Union. In July, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation introduced by Duncan Hunter (R-CA) to cut off funding for SPP talks on transportation issues. The house vote was a bipartisan 362-63. The vote was generated from fears that the talks would lead to open border policies allowing illegal immigrants to continue to flood the United States.

U.S. President Bush was in Canada on August 20-21, meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Harper and Mexican President Calderon for more talks on the SPP. The meetings were held in Montebello, Canada behind a 25-mile security buffer enforced by Canadian security forces and the U.S. Army. No anti-SPP meetings, demonstrations or "dialogues" are to be allowed inside the security buffer. Canadian groups participated in anti-SPP protests.

Below are Tom DeWeese’s illuminating remarks at the news conference, held at the Ottawa Marriot, 10:00 AM Monday morning, 20 August 2007:

It’s not just the three governments and their agencies putting together the Security and Prosperity Partnership. Private corporations are also a strong force driving the policy.

They are working together with the governments in what are commonly referred to as Public/Private Partnerships.

Libertarians and so-called Free Traders promote these partnerships as a means to incorporate free market solutions to government. In this manner, they claim that such "private enterprise" limits the size and power of government and reduces its cost.

In fact, a project as massive as the SPP would be nearly impossible to implement purely through government edict.

So Public/Private Partnerships are becoming the fastest growing process to impose such policy. In the US, state legislatures are passing laws which call for the implementation of PPPs. The Canadian Parliament is doing the same.

NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA and the SPP institutionalize PPPs as the accepted way to implement policy.

BEWARE. These bonds between government and private international corporations are a double-edged sword. They come armed with government’s power to tax, the government’s power to enforce policy and the government’s power to enforce eminent domain.

At the same time, the private corporations use their wealth and extensive advertising budgets to entrench the policy into our national conscience.

Further, participating corporations can control the types of products offered on the market.

For example, when the proponents of a political or economic agenda such as sustainable development seek to enforce their will on the market, they simply create PPPs with government and business to control things like development, food consumption or energy use.

Banks and mortgage companies in the partnership can enforce policy by forcing borrowers to comply as a stipulation for the loan.

Government grants can enrich private corporations as the companies produce mandated products –- free of development risks.

Private developers which have entered into a Public/Private Partnership with local government, for example, can now obtain the power of eminent domain to build on land not open to competitors.

The fact is, current use of eminent domain by local communities in partnership with private developers simply considers all property to be the common land of the State, to be used as it sees fit for some undefined community good.

The government gains the higher taxes created by the new development. The developer gets the revenue from the work.

The immediate losers, of course, are the property owners. But other citizens are losers too. Communities give up control of their infrastructure. Voters lose control of their government.

Private companies are now systematically buying up water treatment plants in communities, in effect, gaining control of the water supply. And they are buying control of the U.S. highway systems through PPPs with state departments of transportation.

Because of a public/private partnership, one million Texans are about to lose their land for the Trans-Texas Corridor, a highway that couldn’t be built without the power of eminent domain.

Foreign companies are being met with open arms by local, and federal officials who see a way to use private corporations and their massive bank accounts to fund projects.

As the Associated Press reported July 15, 2006, "On a single day in June (2006) an Australian-Spanish partnership paid $3.6 billion to lease the Indiana Toll Road. An Australian company bought a 99 year lease on Virginia’s Pocahontas Parkway, and Texas officials decided to let a Spanish-American partnership build and run a toll road for 50 years."

In fact, that Spanish-American partnership in Texas and its lease with the Texas Department of Transportation to build and run the Trans Texas Corridor contains a "no-compete" clause which prohibits anyone, including the Texas government from building new highways or expanding exiting ones which might run in competition with the TCC.

That is not free enterprise.

With inside information from its own Public/Private Partnership, Kansas City Southern Railroad (KCSR) has been able to grow overnight from a two-bit belt around Kansas City to controlling a 2,600-mile artery from Lazaro Cardenas to Kansas City, straight up the Trans Texas Corridor. KCSR has obtained the rail rights up the corridor. It is now a government-sanctioned monopoly.

Protected from competition, the railroad will set the costs and the shipping rules. And it will get very rich, no matter the quality of service. All because of whom its owner knows. That is not free enterprise.

At an April, 2007 meeting in Calgary, Canada, as part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, government officials, business leaders and academics met to discuss redistributing Canada’s water to Mexico and the U.S. Southwest.

Canada has water, lots of it, and the public/private partnerships of the SPP are swarming on it like locusts as they seek to drain it out of Canada’s rivers and lakes and ship it to potential profit centres south of the Canadian border.

NAFTA describes water as a "good" and stipulates that "No party may adopt or maintain any prohibition or restriction on the exportation or sale of exports or any good destined for the territory of any other party."

In a leaked document of the minutes from the 2004 meeting of the Task Force on the Future of North American (a pre-cursor of the SPP), it said, "No item, not Canadian water, not Mexican oil, not American anti-dumping laws is off the table."

For that reason, it is understood that once Canada starts exporting fresh water to the US, it would be impossible to turn off the tap.

Now the case for selling Canadian water is being presented more forcefully in the media by SPP proponents, journalists, businesses strategists and investors seeking profits from this lucrative market.

The Trans-Texas Corridor will provide water pipelines for the shipping and PPPs will buy up the rights and dispose of the water as they see fit.

Canadians are suddenly feeling the raw power of the lethal combination of government and private industry working in concert to dictate policy. The people of Canada will soon understand that they will have little say in the matter.

Private companies operating in the free market lack one thing government has – the power of coercion.

The free market operates with you making the decisions based on personal choice. Under Public/Private Partnerships the choices are decided for you in meetings behind closed doors.

Meanwhile, private companies that are not part of a PPP are unable to compete with those who are. They are shut out of competition from the establishment of economic development zones which provide the chosen elite with reduced real estate taxes and financial aid.

Companies which find themselves outside of the elite status of the PPP suddenly run into regulatory difficulties to get their own projects completed. It’s not just a coincidence?

PPPs are one of the reasons many people find they can no longer fight city hall. The private companies gain the power of government to do as they please – and the governments earn the independence of the companies, no longer needing to answer to voters. It’s the perfect partnership. But it’s not freedom.

Such a process allows the private companies to be little more than government-sanctioned monopolies, answerable to no one. Their power is awesome and near absolute. Some call such policy corporatism. Another term would be corporate fascism.

Ultimately, corporatism does not trust the marketplace to do what the elites want.

Thus the alignment of corporations and government is done at the expense of ordinary people – the exact opposite of free markets controlled by consumers.

This then is the future offered by the Security and Prosperity Partnership – corporate fascism and all-powerful government. It’s not prosperity. It’s not security. And it’s not freedom.
The The Canadian

New Progressive Nationalist Party leader calls Stéphane Dion and Gilles Duceppe disloyal Quebecers on SPP's cultural

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus) — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:04:00 +0000

New Progressive Nationalist Party leader calls Stéphane Dion and Gilles Duceppe disloyal Quebecers on SPP's cultural assimilation agenda

by Peter Tremblay

New Progressive Nationalist Party say Stéphane Dion [left] and Gilles Duceppe [right] are disloyal Quebecers.

"Never in the history of Quebec, has such leaders betrayed us", says Guy Pelletier, the leader of the newly established Progressive National Party of Canada, LINK, about Stéphane Dion and Gilles Duceppe. Both leaders in quiet, support the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), which Prime Minister Stephen Harper formally, confirmed, with his support, on August 20 and 21 at an American-owned hotel resort, which is located between Ottawa and Montreal in Quebec, Canada. The SPP sells out Quebec, and the rest of Canada, inclusive of language rights, social programmes, the civil code, and human rights in general, toward formal control under the corporate assimilationist-centred New American Union (NAU) agenda.

Political leaders in Quebec, whether federalist like former Prime Minister Trudeau or separatist like René Levesque, had a common a loyalty to Quebec. Mr. Trudeau, chose Federalism as the best means to protect the cultural identity of Quebec, with a united and officially bilingual Canada. Mr. Levesque, pursued a vision to separate Quebec, from the rest of Canada, to defend Quebec's cultural identity. Mr. Dion, a dual citizen of the Anglo-Saxon dominated European Union and Mr. Duceppe has chosen to sell Quebec to the United States.

It is apparent that Mr. Dion's and Mr. Duceppe's substantive allegiance, is not to Quebec, but with the almighty dollar held by the U.S.-based Big Business interests, in conjunction with the traitorous Quebec and Canadian "partners" which these leaders have apparent chosen to serve, instead of the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada. Indeed, a new generation of elites in Quebec that owns large mass-media outlets and financial institutions, together with the intellectuals, are driven by greed, and not the cultural idealism of previous generations of elites.

These new "Chateau Clique" elites will profess a loyalty to Quebec and the rest of Canada in front of the TV cameras, and then in closed door meetings represented by the SPP, will sell the soul of Quebec and the rest of Canada, which is not for them to sell.

Now, the U.S. military is reportedly beginning to occupy our Quebec, Canadian nation, without the consent of the people of Quebec; and Mr. Dion and Mr. Duceppe, turn the other way on the assault of our national self-determination as a free and independent society.

SPP elites seek to begin to culturally assimilate Quebec, like Louisiana, into a New American Union by 2010.
The The Canadian