Doug Casey: Why Do We Need Government?

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/17/2016 22:00 -0500
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-17/doug-casey-why-do-we-need-government
Submitted by Doug Casey via CaseyResearch.com,
Rousseau was perhaps the first to popularize the fiction now taught in civics classes about how government was created. It holds that men sat down together and rationally thought out the concept of government as a solution to problems that confronted them. The government of the United States was, however, the first to be formed in any way remotely like Rousseau's ideal. Even then, it had far from universal support from the three million colonials whom it claimed to represent. The U.S. government, after all, grew out of an illegal conspiracy to overthrow and replace the existing government.
There's no question that the result was, by an order of magnitude, the best blueprint for a government that had yet been conceived. Most of America's Founding Fathers believed the main purpose of government was to protect its subjects from the initiation of violence from any source; government itself prominently included. That made the U.S. government almost unique in history. And it was that concept – not natural resources, the ethnic composition of American immigrants, or luck – that turned America into the paragon it became.
The origin of government itself, however, was nothing like Rousseau's fable or the origin of the United States Constitution. The most realistic scenario for the origin of government is a roving group of bandits deciding that life would be easier if they settled down in a particular locale, and simply taxing the residents for a fixed percentage (rather like "protection money") instead of periodically sweeping through and carrying off all they could get away with. It's no accident that the ruling classes everywhere have martial backgrounds. Royalty are really nothing more than successful marauders who have buried the origins of their wealth in romance.
Romanticizing government, making it seem like Camelot, populated by brave knights and benevolent kings, painting it as noble and ennobling, helps people to accept its jurisdiction. But, like most things, government is shaped by its origins. Author Rick Maybury may have said it best in Whatever Happened to Justice?,

"A castle was not so much a plush palace as the headquarters for a concentration camp. These camps, called feudal kingdoms, were established by conquering barbarians who'd enslaved the local people. When you see one, ask to see not just the stately halls and bedrooms, but the dungeons and torture chambers.

"A castle was a hangout for silk-clad gangsters who were stealing from helpless workers. The king was the 'lord' who had control of the blackjack; he claimed a special 'divine right' to use force on the innocent.

"Fantasies about handsome princes and beautiful princesses are dangerous; they whitewash the truth. They give children the impression political power is wonderful stuff."

IS THE STATE NECESSARY?
The violent and corrupt nature of government is widely acknowledged by almost everyone. That's been true since time immemorial, as have political satire and grousing about politicians. Yet almost everyone turns a blind eye; most not only put up with it, but actively support the charade. That's because, although many may believe government to be an evil, they believe it is a necessary evil (the larger question of whether anything that is evil is necessary, or whether anything that is necessary can be evil, is worth discussing, but this isn’t the forum).
What (arguably) makes government necessary is the need for protection from other, even more dangerous, governments. I believe a case can be made that modern technology obviates this function.
One of the most perversely misleading myths about government is that it promotes order within its own bailiwick, keeps groups from constantly warring with each other, and somehow creates togetherness and harmony. In fact, that's the exact opposite of the truth. There's no cosmic imperative for different people to rise up against one another... unless they're organized into political groups. The Middle East, now the world's most fertile breeding ground for hatred, provides an excellent example.
Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived together peaceably in Palestine, Lebanon, and North Africa for centuries until the situation became politicized after World War I. Until then, an individual's background and beliefs were just personal attributes, not a casus belli. Government was at its most benign, an ineffectual nuisance that concerned itself mostly with extorting taxes. People were busy with that most harmless of activities: making money.
But politics do not deal with people as individuals. It scoops them up into parties and nations. And some group inevitably winds up using the power of the state (however "innocently" or "justly" at first) to impose its values and wishes on others with predictably destructive results. What would otherwise be an interesting kaleidoscope of humanity then sorts itself out according to the lowest common denominator peculiar to the time and place.
Sometimes that means along religious lines, as with the Muslims and Hindus in India or the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland; or ethnic lines, like the Kurds and Iraqis in the Middle East or Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka; sometimes it's mostly racial, as whites and East Indians found throughout Africa in the 1970s or Asians in California in the 1870s. Sometimes it's purely a matter of politics, as Argentines, Guatemalans, Salvadorans, and other Latins discovered more recently. Sometimes it amounts to no more than personal beliefs, as the McCarthy era in the 1950s and the Salem trials in the 1690s proved.
Throughout history government has served as a vehicle for the organization of hatred and oppression, benefitting no one except those who are ambitious and ruthless enough to gain control of it. That's not to say government hasn't, then and now, performed useful functions. But the useful things it does could and would be done far better by the market.

What Will You Do When Government Tyranny And Terrorism Work Hand In Hand?

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/14/2015
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-14/what-will-you-do-when-government-tyranny-and-terrorism-work-hand-hand 

Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,
I was in the middle of working on an article covering real U.S. economic stats versus manipulated statistics when the Charlie Hebdo shootings took place. And though I knew the implications of the event would be far-reaching, I was originally undeterred from my financial subject matter. I had already covered in previous articles the inevitability of ISIS attacks on Europe and America, including the “warnings” of Saudi Arabia in August of last year that jihadists would target the EU within months and the U.S. a month later.
In September of last year, ISIS publicly urged attacks on French and U.S. citizens.
I have also published extensive analysis on the covert funding and training of ISIS militants by Saudi Arabia and Western intelligence agencies, including my article “The Time Is Ripe For A False Flag Attack On American Soil.”
The bottom line is the Paris attack was not surprising in the slightest. I have no doubt whatsoever that such attacks are going to increase in frequency, that the U.S. will be hit soon, and that our government will do little to nothing to stop such tragedies. However, a Reuters article titled “White House to hold global security summit Feb (sic) 18: U.S. official” caught my eye. And after reading it, I’m afraid I have to set aside my financial piece until next week and break down the insanity that is now taking place in the world of geopolitics.
It is clear by the language being used by the political elite that the “global summit” called in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks is about far more than radical Islamic terrorism. Set aside the fact that our government essentially created ISIS in order to destabilize Syria. Set aside the fact that globalist middlemen like John McCain and “former” covert ops goons like Gen. Paul Vallely have met directly with groups like the Nusra Front that are providing support for ISIS. Set aside the fact that Saudi Arabia has been openly funneling cash and arms to Syrian terrorist factions tied to ISIS, and realize that the mere existence of ISIS, regardless of its origins, is being used as a rationale for the erasure of civil liberties and the establishment of martial law on both sides of the Atlantic. Such federalized reactions CANNOT be allowed to continue, regardless of the threats each nation faces.
As far as the Reuters article is concerned, one does not need to read very far between the lines to see the true message being conveyed.
First, the focus of the summit is not necessarily indicated as “Islamic terrorism.” In fact, the word “terrorism” is barely mentioned. Now politicos are shifting their language to the term “extremism,” which is far broader in its implications. It should be noted that while the terrorist label has been bandied about rather liberally by both the Bush and Obama administrations, “extremism” offers greater cover for governments to persecute or attack political opponents. A terrorist is generally someone who initiates or at least plans a large-scale attack designed to illicit a fear response in a population. An extremist, on the other hand, could literally be anyone who holds views or initiates activism outside acceptable forms of mainstream thought. Attorney General Eric Holder did not use the words “terrorism” or “jihadist” in his announcement of the global summit in February; he used the phrase “violent extremism”:

We will bring together all of our allies to discuss ways in which we can counteract this violent extremism that exists around the world…

Throughout history, “violence,” according to governments, is often attributed to ideas as well as actions. The point is the change in vocabulary over to the extremist label is not accidental or coincidental. The establishment is conditioning the public to think in broad terms and to identify numerous groups as the enemy, rather than focusing on radical Islam.  As I have said for years, Islamic terror is nothing but an advantageous excuse for governments to make war on all of us.  Do not forget, constitutionalists are often referred to in the mainstream media and by Orwellian institutions like the Department of Homeland Security as “extremists.” How long before we are artificially linked as being suspect? How long before Charlie Hebdo-style attacks come to the U.S.? How long before the liberty minded are categorized as accessories to terrorism due to our anti-corrupt-government philosophies?
It is disturbing to witness the lack of conviction in principles in the average person. Self-proclaimed leftists railed against the degeneration of civil liberties and constitutional protections under George W. Bush, but rallied in support of the same weakening of freedoms under Barack Obama. Self-proclaimed conservatives today are shocked and infuriated by the trampling of the constitution through executive orders displayed by the Obama administration. Yet, I suspect that many of them will willingly jump on the fascist bandwagon in the event of “Islamic” attacks on American soil. Neither side seems to grasp the reality that the disruptions of liberty we enact in the name of stopping jihadists today will eventually fall back on the rest of us tomorrow.
The lockdown of the populace is already ramping up.  The EU is currently discussing the creation of a European Passenger Name Record database (national ID database), meaning officials hope to create a centralized database with a file on every single citizen. Think the no-fly list is a terrifying concept? Wait until it becomes publicly accepted for all web comments, Facebook posts, and blog posts to be added to an ongoing record that determines whether you are allowed to travel. Wait until it becomes a mainstream notion that every travel destination you visit is tracked, recorded on permanent record, and scrutinized by some pencil necked bureaucrat who then determines whether or not you are suspect.  Apparently, French officials are supportive of the idea. And given the proclamations of “unity” surrounding the upcoming summit, I suspect actions undertaken in Europe will eventually be exported to the United States. Reuters reports:

French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said after the meeting that European interior ministers had agreed to boost cooperation in an effort to thwart further jihadist attacks.

“We all agree that we need to put in place better control on certain passengers, on the basis of objective criteria and with respect for fundamental liberties and without disrupting cross-border travel,” he said.

He said Europe needed urgent progress in establishing a European Passenger Name Record database, which would facilitate the exchange of data about passengers between member states.

“We are convinced of the need for such a tool, to follow those who travel to terrorist operating theaters or who return from there,” he said, adding that this database would also be useful in the fight against other serious crimes.

Unfortunately, travel is the least of our concerns. Free speech is a primary target for the elites, and the Internet is clearly outlined as a threat by politicians claiming concern for public safety. This comes in the form of one of the oldest rationalizations for tyranny - the trade-off between freedom and security. The French argue that while free speech is important, some “exceptions” must be made in order to thwart extremist ideas:

Cazeneuve said the Internet needs to remain a space for free expression, but that Europe should fight against abusive use of the web (sic) to spread hate speech, anti-Semitic messages and the recruiting vulnerable young people for violence.

“We need to work more closely with Internet companies to guarantee the reporting and if possible removal of all content that amounts to an apology of terrorism or calls for violence and hatred,” he said.

Who gets to determine what speech amounts to an “apology of terrorism?” Who is the all-benevolent and wise sage who gets to decide what we can and cannot say? Will he be fair and just? Or will he use the power of censorship to attack any and all websites critical of the establishment? What do you think the most likely outcome of such legal precedence would be?
Again, how long before websites like the one you are reading now are vilified by the extremist label? How long before liberty-minded speech is categorized as violent speech or hate speech?
Sen. Dianne Feinstein and the White House are now kindly warning the public that terrorist “sleeper cells” have been activated and that some are present in the United States. On CNN, Feinstein said:

So I think this calls for vigilance. It calls for seeing that the national security organizations of our country, the intelligence community is funded fully, is directed ably, is cooperating with whether it be British intelligence, French intelligence, German intelligence, as we do.

And the French are good at it, and so are the British and the Germans. So, we can even be more active in terms of doing those things which enable us to find terrorists, to see who they’re communicating with in this country, and to track that.

She means mass Internet and phone surveillance, the same National Security Agency surveillance exposed by Edward Snowden, which now has a convenient justification in the form of an ever-present fear of terrorism.
Finally, it is only a matter of time before a militarized response is activated in the U.S., just as it has been in France. One shooting event has led to the fielding of over 10,000 French troops on French soil, as well as an extra 5,000 heavily armed police.
Frankly, this is where I — and many people like me — draw the line. Martial law is not acceptable under any circumstances.  I don't care if we one day see a mushroom cloud over an American city, there is no measure of government security (false security) that is worth the degradation of essential liberties.  I suspect the loss of liberty, usurping of the constitution and the deployment of the military on U.S. soil would trigger revolution — a revolution I’m sure the establishment would attempt to marginalize as mere terrorism. Ultimately, though, there is no other option.
As I have been discussing constantly over the past several months, community preparation and organization comprise the only action plan worth the effort and energy at this time. The French are disarmed and utterly socialized. Millions of them march in Paris in a display of solidarity, but solidarity behind what solution? Even more government; the same government that created the problem in the first place? Even more centralization? The globalization of despotic security policies? The French have dug their grave, and now they are going to have to lie down in it.
Americans do not have to follow the same path.
We do not need more government. We do not need more surveillance, more police militarization or more troops on the streets. What we need is to take back responsibility for own defense. The French government could not or would not protect the staff of Charlie Hebdo, and the U.S. government will not protect you. That means you must train to protect yourself and those you care about. Whether we face a false flag attack or a legitimate terrorist action, the response is the same: Fight back. It is times like these that separate the courageous from the cowardly; those with principles and conscience versus the treacherous and self-serving. Make no mistake; as I wrote in my last article, many illusions are about to be shattered. You can be caught up in the storm as a helpless spectator and victim or you can become a barrier, a wall of defense against the dangerous riptides. These are your choices. Choose wisely.

Banks Have Become the Permanent Government of Europe

Shocking new deal pushed through by elites is a ticking time bomb for taxpayers and depositors.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/banks-have-become-permanent-government-europe?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark
 

 "As things stand, the banks are the permanent government of the country, whichever party is in power.” --Lord Skidelsky, House of Lords, UK Parliament, 31 March 2011)

On March 20, 2014, European Union officials reached an historic agreement to create a single agency to handle failing banks. Media attention has focused on the agreement involving the single resolution mechanism (SRM), a uniform system for closing failed banks. But the real story for taxpayers and depositors is the heightened threat to their pocketbooks of a deal that now authorizes both bailouts and “bail-ins” – the confiscation of depositor funds. The deal involves multiple concessions to different countries and may be illegal under the rules of the EU Parliament; but it is being rushed through to lock taxpayer and depositor liability into place before the dire state of Eurozone banks is exposed.
The bail-in provisions were agreed to last summer. According to Bruno Waterfield, writing in the UK Telegraph in June 2013:

 Under the deal, after 2018 bank shareholders will be first in line for assuming the losses of a failed bank before bondholders and certain large depositors. Insured deposits under £85,000 (€100,000) are exempt and, with specific exemptions, uninsured deposits of individuals and small companies are given preferred status in the bail-in pecking order for taking losses . . . Under the deal all unsecured bondholders must be hit for losses before a bank can be eligible to receive capital injections directly from the ESM, with no retrospective use of the fund before 2018.

As noted in my earlier articles, the ESM (European Stability Mechanism) imposes an open-ended debt on EU member governments, putting taxpayers on the hook for whatever the Eurocrats (EU officials) demand. And it’s not just the EU that has bail-in plans for their troubled too-big-to-fail banks. It is also the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other G20 nations. Recall that a depositor is an unsecured creditor of a bank. When you deposit money in a bank, the bank “owns” the money and you have an IOU or promise to pay.
Under the new EU banking union, before the taxpayer-financed single resolution fund can be deployed, shareholders and depositors will be “bailed in” for a significant portion of the losses. The bankers thus win both ways: they can tap up the taxpayers’ money and the depositors’ money.
The Unsettled Question of Deposit Insurance
But at least, you may say, it’s only the uninsured deposits that are at risk (those over €100,000—about $137,000). Right?
Not necessarily. According to ABC News, “Thursday’s result is a compromise that differs from the original banking union idea put forward in 2012. The original proposals had a third pillar, Europe-wide deposit insurance. But that idea has stalled.”
European Central Bank President Mario Draghi, speaking before the March 20th meeting in the Belgian capital, hailed the compromise plan as “great progress for a better banking union. Two pillars are now in place” – two but not the third. And two are not enough to protect the public.As observed in The Economist in June 2013, without Europe-wide deposit insurance, the banking union is a failure:

[T]he third pillar, sadly ignored, [is] a joint deposit-guarantee scheme in which the costs of making insured depositors whole are shared among euro-zone members. Annual contributions from banks should cover depositors in normal years, but they cannot credibly protect the system in meltdown (America’s prefunded scheme would cover a mere 1.35% of insured deposits). Any deposit-insurance scheme must have recourse to government backing. . . . [T]he banking union—and thus the euro—will make little sense without it.

All deposits could be at risk in a meltdown. But how likely is that?
Pretty likely, it seems . . . .
What the Eurocrats Don't Want You to Know
Mario Draghi was vice president of Goldman Sachs Europe before he became president of the ECB. He had a major hand in shaping the banking union. And according to Wolf Richter, writing in October 2013, the goal of Draghi and other Eurocrats is to lock taxpayer and depositor liability in place before the panic button is hit over the extreme vulnerability of Eurozone banks:

European banks, like all banks, have long been hermetically sealed black boxes. . . . The only thing known about the holes in the balance sheets of these black boxes, left behind by assets that have quietly decomposed, is that they’re deep. But no one knows how deep. And no one is allowed to know – not until Eurocrats decide who is going to pay for bailing out these banks.

When the ECB becomes the regulator of the 130 largest ECB banks, says Richter, it intends to subject them to more realistic evaluations than the earlier “stress tests” that were nothing but “banking agitprop.”  But these realistic evaluations won’t happen until the banking union is in place. How does Richter know? Draghi himself said so. Draghi said:

 “The effectiveness of this exercise will depend on the availability of necessary arrangements for recapitalizing banks … including through the provision of a public backstop. . . . These arrangements must be in place before we conclude our assessment.”

Richter translates that to mean:

The truth shall not be known until after the Eurocrats decided who would have to pay for the bailouts. And the bank examinations won’t be completed until then, because if any of it seeped out – Draghi forbid – the whole house of cards would collapse, with no taxpayers willing to pick up the tab as its magnificent size would finally be out in the open!

Only after the taxpayers – and the depositors – are stuck with the tab will the curtain be lifted and the crippling insolvency of the banks be revealed. Predictably, panic will then set in, credit will freeze, and the banks will collapse, leaving the unsuspecting public to foot the bill.
What Happened to Nationalizing Failed Banks?
Underlying all this frantic wheeling and dealing is the presumption that the “zombie banks” must be kept alive at all costs – alive and in the hands of private bankers, who can then continue to speculate and reap outsized bonuses while the people bear the losses.
But that’s not the only alternative. In the 1990s, the expectation even in the United States was that failed megabanks would be nationalized. That route was pursued quite successfully not only in Sweden and Finland but in the US in the case of Continental Illinois, then the fourth-largest bank in the country and the largest-ever bankruptcy. According to William Engdahl, writing in September 2008:

 [I]n almost every case of recent banking crises in which emergency action was needed to save the financial system, the most economical (to taxpayers) method was to have the Government, as in Sweden or Finland in the early 1990’s, nationalize the troubled banks [and] take over their management and assets … In the Swedish case the end cost to taxpayers was estimated to have been almost nil.

Typically, nationalization involves taking on the insolvent bank’s bad debts, getting the bank back on its feet, and returning it to private owners, who are then free to put depositors’ money at risk again. But better would be to keep the nationalized mega-bank as a public utility, serving the needs of the people because it is owned by the people.
As argued by George Irvin in Social Europe Journal in October 2011:

[T]he financial sector needs more than just regulation; it needs a large measure of public sector control—that’s right, the n-word: nationalisation. Finance is a public good, far too important to be run entirely for private bankers. At the very least, we need a large public investment bank tasked with modernising and greening our infrastructure . . . . [I]nstead of trashing the Eurozone and going back to a dozen minor currencies fluctuating daily, let’s have a Eurozone Ministry of Finance (Treasury) with the necessary fiscal muscle to deliver European public goods like more jobs, better wages and pensions and a sustainable environment.

A Third Alternative - Turn the Government Money Tap Back On
A giant flaw in the current banking scheme is that private banks, not governments, now create virtually the entire money supply; and they do it by creating interest-bearing debt. The debt inevitably grows faster than the money supply, because the interest is not created along with the principal in the original loan.
For a clever explanation of how all this works in graphic cartoon form, see the short French video “Government Debt Explained,” linked here.
The problem is exacerbated in the Eurozone, because no one has the power to create money ex nihilo as needed to balance the system, not even the central bank itself. This flaw could be remedied either by allowing nations individually to issue money debt-free or, as suggested by George Irvin, by giving a joint Eurozone Treasury that power.
The Bank of England just admitted in its Quarterly Bulletin that banks do not actually lend the money of their depositors. What they lend is bank credit created on their books. In the U.S. today, finance charges on this credit-money amount to between 30 and 40% of the economy, depending on whose numbers you believe.  In a monetary system in which money is issued by the government and credit is issued by public banks, this “rentiering” can be avoided. Government money will not come into existence as a debt at interest, and any finance costs incurred by the public banks’ debtors will represent Treasury income that offsets taxation.
New money can be added to the money supply without creating inflation, at least to the extent of the “output gap” – the difference between actual GDP or actual output and potential GDP. In the US, that figure is about $1 trillion annually; and for the EU is roughly €520 billion ($715 billion). A joint Eurozone Treasury could add this sum to the money supply debt-free, creating the euros necessary to create jobs, rebuild infrastructure, protect the environment, and maintain a flourishing economy.


Ellen Brown is an attorney, chairman of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including the bestselling Web of Debt. In her latest book, The Public Bank Solution, she explores successful public banking models historically and globally. She is currently running for California State Treasurer on a state bank platform.

30,774,038 Government Employees. What Do They Do?

Posted on March 25, 2014 by horse237

 http://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/30774038-government-employees-what-do-they-do/

There are 30,774,038 federal, state and local government employees if you count the 4.4 million federal contractors and 2.5 million grantees. Are we getting our money’s worth? America has sent 12 million high paying jobs and 56,000 manufacturing plants overseas. We now have 51.5 million low paying workers who pay few if any taxes at all. 27 million individuals and families with children received an average of $1,330 in welfare payments disguised as Earned Income Tax Credits (EITC.) With our declining wages and employment we might ask ourselves are all those people worth it.
Any government worker who participated in the surveillance and assassination of the journalist Michael Hastings needs to at least lose their job if not serve time in prison. Journalism for good reason is the only profession protected by the Bill of Rights.
The Transportation Security Administration says they have 50,000 employees. TSA has not found one terrorist but they have groped our genitals, stolen our valuables, irradiated us with their machines and shown us the true Face of Arrogance. The TSA claims to be supervising 15% of all American industry. We need to stop them before they start groping us at the malls. Abolish them and let the airlines take responsibility for screening their passengers.
Senator Dianne Feinstein who gave away a $100 billion gold deposit in the southern California mountains to her nearest and dearest friends said that the No Fly List is one of our best lines of defense. The No Fly List and the Slow Fly List are maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center. They do not catch terrorists. What they do is maintain a List of People The Administration Does Not like. The FBI could maintain lists of fugitives from justice and lists of witnesses who need to appear in court or to talk to investigators. The CIA could maintain a List of actual terrorists if there are any not on their payroll. Scratch the No and Slow Fly Lists and the TSC. Let the airlines check their passengers against an FBI database.
The Department of Homeland Security has 240,000 employees and probably that many contractors. They do not do much of anything to protect us. This agency includes the TSA. They engage in Security Theater. They are buying billions of rounds of ammunition illegal to use against enemy combatants. They are buying No Hesitation targets training their agents to shoot pregnant women and children. They would like us to all go to the DHS to secure a work permit. No jobs allowed for people critical of Wall Street. Abolish the entire agency.
The National Security Agency has 40,000 employees and hundreds of thousands of contractors. Angela Canterbury, director of public policy at the Project on Government Oversight, said “There are millions of contractors inside the nation’s intelligence agencies.”  Salon magazine says 500,000 contractors have access to NSA data which includes all of of emails, phone calls, web searches and secret company data worth billions of dollars to competitors. They require both our computer chips and operating systems to allow back doors to give them access. They have servers capable of sending out malware to millions of people like you and me in one minute.
All of this spying is costing us jobs because people overseas do not want the American companies to spy on them for the NSA. The has done nothing to enhance our security. It does harm law enforcement because Israel gets NSA raw data and can use it to alert Israeli criminals in America when the police are closing in on them. Go back to signals intelligence. Get rid of the contractors. Get rid of a lot of NSA employees. Stop paying private companies to spy on their customers. Start a campaign for new chips and clean operating systems advertising No NSA Inside.
The Department of Justice perverts justice. If you pay $100,000 a month to Attorney General Eric Holder’s law firm Covington and Burling, you cannot be prosecuted even if you steal $1.2 billion dollars in clients money. We need to fire the people who pervert justice.
The FBI has taken agents away from investigating Wall Street and put them on anti-terrorism details. They have not done a very good job. They have been paying mentally retarded people from minority groups to do things which result in an indictment and headlines . The courts have thrown out quite a few of these cases. My favorite was the Miami case where they gave a mentally deficient teenager with mental problems an expensive camera, taught him how to take pictures and sent him out to take photos of federal buildings. He didn’t take any pictures because he sold the FBI’s camera for $50 so he could buy food. He was hungry. The FBI got their camera back, sent him out again and arrested him. Nice headlines but a complete waste of time. Give these FBI agents a list of criminals to arrest on Wall Street.
The Securities Exchange Commission does not prosecute the criminals of Wall Street. They do not nothing against well documented cases of front running. Companies are allowed to read incoming buy orders and step in line ahead of them to buy and then sell a fraction of a second later for a profit. They do the same on sell orders. This allows select Wall Street firms to gouge an extra hundred million dollars a day from our mutual and pension funds. That is money stolen directly from our retirement funds.
The CIA brings heroin and cocaine into America by the plane load. They sell these drugs and illegal weapons to favored street gangs. There are 1.4 million gang members in the US. They commit 80% of our violent crime. We need to fire everyone in the Agency who has anything to do with illegal operations. We could do what we did in 1920 which was allow anyone who wanted to to buy opium. That would take a trillion dollars a year from organized crime, the Bankers, the government and cut down the size of those street gangs.
The Materials Management Service fails to adequately regulate offshore drilling. And the US Congress has still not passed a law requiring acoustic blow out preventers to protect reckless offshore drilling accidents  like the BP Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010. The health of millions of people is at stake. And we are losing our food supply from the Oceans at a time we cannot afford to pay more to eat. I don’t remember anyone getting fired for taking bribes and allowing oil companies to do their own safety inspections.
The FDA has allowed Genetically Modified Organisms to be fed to human beings even though they are known to cause cancer and to expose the entire human race to extinction. By the third generation the lab animals are all sterile runts.
Flouride has been known to be poisonous to humans since 1893. It has been shown to lower IQs and to cause cancer. Yet it is allowed in our water and in food.
When Campbells soup company tried to advertise that they did not line their cans with Bisphenol A because it was an estrogen mimicker that causes cancer and makes us fat, the FDA stopped them. The FDA needs serious fumigation. Fire everyone in management.
Aspartame is known to cause cancer, obesity, seizures, diabetes, headaches, memory loss and acne. Why are there no warning labels and bans?
Polysorbate 80 is put into vaccines as an adjuvant when it is known to cause sterility. Why not let us decide if we want to be sterilized?
The FDA paid Matthew Hein of the Epicyte corporation in 2001 to splice a protein into GMO corn that causes sterility in both men and women. Why were we not asked if we thought that extinguishing the human species is a good idea?
MSG is known to cause cancer, obesity, hunger, Alzheimers, hives and brain damage. It stimulates our brains to trick us in to eating more. Poor people in America can barely afford to buy food now. Food prices are skyrocketing. Ban MSG.
We should only allow registered doctors and hospitals should do clinical trials not pharmaceutical companies. Test new and even doubtful existing drugs against home remedies. If a new diabetes drug scores no better than vitamin D3 and cinnamon, then insurers should not have to cover it.
The Federal Reserve is not a part of the federal government but they do own every politician in Washington. They printed tens of trillions of dollars they did not tell us about to bail out criminal banks in Europe and Britain. That means that when he hit the next crisis they will have no problem solving tools (i.e. Money Printing) left so we will soon face Hyperinflation. The Federal Reserve should be seized. Fractional Reserve banking which allows a bank to create $10 for every dollar on deposit should be abolished. We do need a non-interest bearing currency like President Lincoln’s Greenbacks.
The Great Society of President Lyndon Johnson was designed to fail. They created hundreds of programs and spent money but the poor are worse off than before due to government action and inaction. They paid teenage girls money to have illegitimate children instead of treating a pregnancy of 14 year-old girl as one addition to her mother’s household. There are children by the millions in America living in 3 generations of poverty, ignorance and illegitimacy. There are corresponding employees at the county and state level to administer these programs. Fire them all or almost all.
Have the IRS give a credit through their employer to any citizen who takes home less than $11 an hour. Any citizen 18 years or older should get $600 to the custodial parent for the first child and $400 for the second child. If a married couple works 40 hours a week, they will take home $22,880 a year each for a total of $45,760 for the two of them. If they have two children, they will get an additional $12,000 a year in child allowances for a total after tax family income of $57,760. That is more than the average after tax income of the average American. I would pay for this by canceling the Food Stamp program and just about every other federal, state and local welfare job. No one knows how many of these people there are. Surely more than 5 million.
We need to rationalize government. Find out what every employee’s function is. Many employees from many different Departments could be combined into a few people at one or two agencies. Food Stamp workers would be replaced by IRS computers. Those armed agents at the IRS should be fired along with those phony tax courts. Let the IRS give criminal referrals to the FBI and the Department of Justice.
Some functions and their employees need to be stopped altogether. What gives the EPA the right to harass a man in the middle of nowhere who wants to build a duck pond? We need to allow people to come forward to file complaints about the EPA and the Department of Agriculture at open public hearings. I would encourage each state to hold hearings from concerned parents whose children were taken from them by child molesters and other criminals who work for Child Protective Services. DynCorp, a known human trafficking company, is allowed for some reason to contract its employees to work at state CPS agencies. The federal government should be able to pull the charter for companies that engage in human trafficking and drug smuggling.
The one Department most people overseas and perhaps a plurality of Americans would like to see cutback is the Department of Defense.The United States has waged war against Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria based on knowingly false information. Our mercenaries killed 40,000 blacks in Libya after the war was over. We are quite literally paying Al Qaeda to kill Christians in Syria. In Syria our mercenaries have burned hundreds of churches to the ground. Some of these churches were founded in 50 A.D. They gouge out the eyes of priests and behead them. All of these wars need to stop.
I would like to start repairing America’s infrastructure. America has 1,700 dams and levees in urgent need of repair. We need to repair our bridges and our sewers and water systems. I would like to give the states a total of $100 billion a year for repairs and to build schools and other public buildings. The federal government could match that with another $100 billion. If we had a non-interest bearing currency like Lincoln’s Greenbacks, we could maintain a constant ratio of the Money Supply to Goods and Services for sale. This would produce a stable price level and allow us to spend into circulation any increase in the Money Supply which currently is $500 billion a year. I would spend $200 billion on infrastructure. A state with 2% of the population would get 2% of that hundred billion plus another $2 billion in federal grants for a total of $4 billion. I would also spend part of that $500 billion on the incomes policy so all workers take home $11 an hour.
I would also fund Worldwide Debt Cancellation using those troops who until recently were kicking in doors  overseas. Instead I would use our military to invade all of those offshore Bank Havens like the Cayman Islands, Lichtenstein and Dubai to seize the tens of trillions of dollars stolen from us and the people in foreign countries to cancel our debts and fund our pensions. We would need the list of clients and corporations from the lawyers who specialize in hiding money. The Rothschilds have a private bank in the Caribbean that could pay for the British Value Added Tax. I would ask the people of Great Britain and Europe to stop paying their Value Added Tax promising to pay the tax from foreign bank accounts. This will start an instant rebellion and recovery. The next step would be to offer their parliamentarians a cash bonus to resign. This will create instant elections and reform. I would like them to join in our systematic Worldwide Debt Cancellation to include all the nations of Africa, the Mideast, Latin America and Asia.
I would also fund US Debt Cancellation by the money held by the more than tens of thousands of government agencies listed by http://www.CAFR1.com.
If the dollar stops functioning as the world’s reserve currency, we will have to start rationalizing and streamlining our federal, state and local governments. If we fail, we will starve to death by the millions as Americans did during the Great Depression.
Related Articles:
Screw Up: 8 Million Americans Are On The List To Be Disappeared
http://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/screw-up-8-million-americans-are-on-the-list-to-be-disappeared/
Connecting The Dots: Israel, London, Wall Street And The Mideast
http://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/connecting-the-dots-israel-london-wall-street-and-the-mideast/
The Bankers Want America To Lose World War III
http://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/the-bankers-want-america-to-lose-world-war-iii/
The Essential Catherine Austin Fitts Reader
http://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/the-essential-catherine-austin-fitts-reader/

4 Ways Supreme Court Ruling on Idea of Religious Freedom for Corporations Could Be Disastrous for Americans

A dangerous precedent could be in the making. (Yet again...)

March 25, 2014  |   

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/4-ways-hobby-lobby-ruling-could-be-disastrous-americans

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., on whether for-profit companies can use their religious beliefs to to deny their employees coverage of contraceptives, which they are currently entitled to by federal law.
Over 100 lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act’s birth control coverage benefit have been filed in federal court so far. Under the ACA, health plans are required to include coverage for the full range of FDA-approved methods of birth control, sterilization and related education and counseling at no cost-sharing. So far, 48 cases against this benefit have been filed by for-profit companies, 46 of which are pending. Some of the for-profit companies which have filed cases include Hobby Lobby, Conestoga Wood, Autocam and Eden Foods. Non-profit organizations with religious objections to birth control have also challenged the benefit. Group health plans of “religious employers" are currently exempted from having to provide contraceptive coverage.
Many reproductive rights experts warn that a ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby can set a harmful precedent for the healthcare of American women. The National Women’s Law Center, joined by 68 other organizations, filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court, which explains that in providing access to contraception without cost-sharing reduces the risk of unintended pregnancy. These organizations believe that access to contraception improves the health of women and children and leads to greater social and economic opportunities for women.
Here are four ways that ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby could seriously impair the well-being of Americans.
1) License to discriminate can harm the LGBT community. The Hobby Lobby case, in conjunction with recent efforts to legalize discrimination, have caused many LGBT and women's rights groups to become particularly vigilant. Last month, the Arizona state Senate voted to pass Senate Bill 1062, which would allow businesses to reject service to any customer based on the owners’ religious beliefs. Though Gov. Janet Brewer vetoed the bill, many organizations worry that bills like this will continue to surface.
Experts believe the Hobby Lobby case can set a terrible precedent for the LGBT community. On March 3,  50 leading LGBT, HIV and women's groups, including Planned Parenthood Federation of America, issued a joint statement of opposition on recent "license to discriminate" efforts. “We value the rights of all people to exercise their religion free from discrimination or interference,” the statement reads. “However, we are deeply alarmed by a sharp increase in efforts by politicians and corporations to use religious objections to discriminate against and deny health care to large numbers of Americans.” The groups believe that these efforts are not about religious liberties, but rather letting corporations pick and choose which laws they want to obey.
These organizations believe that people all across the country would face real harm if corporations get a license to discriminate. In addition to many other forms of injustices this kind of legislation can cause, they point out that LGBT people could be turned away from businesses, single mothers could be denied bank loans and children could be prevented from getting immunizations.
Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America also issued a statement warning that the Arizona legislation raises issues similar to those in the Supreme Court cases: “The nation is just getting a peek at this extreme agenda designed to give corporations a license to discriminate, and they don’t like what they see,” she writes. “Governor Brewer was right to reject this extreme measure, and we hope the U.S. Supreme Court rejects it, too, when the justices hear a case on the same principle next month.”
2) Employers' religious views can dictate healthcare beyond birth control. Eric Ferrero, vice president of communications at Planned Parenthood, says these efforts to legalize discrimination are all “cut from the same cloth. “The root of it is that folks who want to discriminate are finding new ways to do that,” he says. He feels the case is not simply about birth control, but healthcare in general.
Sharon Levin, director of Federal Reproductive Health Policy, also believes a Supreme Court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby would allow employers with religious beliefs to deny their employees from other kinds of coverage for care, such as blood transfusions and HIV drugs. “They should rule in behalf of the government because it's what is best for the public,” Levin says.
3) Negative impact on the quality of life for women and families. Levin points out that 99 percent of women use birth control and that it is crucial to gender equality because it allows women to participate in education. Not only can the case have detrimental effects on reproductive heath, it can negatively affect the overall quality of life for women and families.
Kimberly Inez McGuire, director of public affairs at the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, agrees. “We know that this affects whole families,” she says. “Before the Affordable Care Act, families were paying hundreds of dollars for birth control or forgoing it because they couldn't afford it. The family budget is a family issue.”
She says her organization is concerned about the implications beyond birth control. “Latinas are already facing health disparities. Employers could have a detrimental impact on the health of our community. In some ways, this is the same old attack on women's healthcare with a new disguise. The claims of a corporation are being used to drown out the moral agency and faith of women themselves.”
McGuire says that if the court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby, the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health will do everything possible to continue to expand birth control access and coverage.
4) Setting a precedent that opens the door to many other forms of discrimination. “The Hobby Lobby case will affect millions of women. That by itself is cause for serious alarm,” says Eric Ferrero. “It's a slippery slope of discrimination. A decision can have very far reaching consequences. It could allow companies to discriminate against a wide range of people. Anybody who they could claim to have moral disapproval of without having to substantiate it. These are beyond retro views about the role of women in society. It gives a peek at how these folks are trying to move the clock back. The National Women's Law Center provided an amicus brief that lays bare what the agenda is. I'm surprised that not many people have picked up on that.”
“For a long time there's been a concerted effort to allow people to use religion as a means to discriminate,” says Sharon Levin. “This has been happening on many fronts and it's now coming to a head in a way the public can really see it.” Levin believes these efforts are dangerous for everyone in the country. “Businesses are arguing to get out of a federal law. It begs the question, what other laws can they get out of?”

Erika L. Sánchez is a poet, writer and editor living in Chicago. She is the sex and love advice columnist for Cosmopolitan for Latinas and has contributed to the Guardian, NBC News, Rolling Stone,  Al Jazeera, Truthout, Salon, and many other publications. Email her at es@influencemediagroup.com.

Stupid Government Policy Is More Dangerous than Terrorism

Submitted by George Washington on 11/22/2013 20:09 -0500

Preface: I am not so much anti-government as anti-stupid policy.  (Moreover, the problem is not bad government or even corrupt corporations. The real problem is the malignant,  symbiotic relation between the two.)

Multiple polls show that Americans are more afraid of our own government than of terrorists.

Sure, the government – not Al Qaeda – is taking away virtually all of our Constitutional rights.   And that includes reserving to itself the right to assassinate or indefinitely detain American citizens.

But stupid government policy is threatening us in other ways, as well.

The Police

For example, we’ve documented that you are 9 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist.  (Legal experts say you should never talk to the police).

Financial Crisis

The financial crisis will also lead to quite a few early deaths.  The government – together with Wall Street –caused the financial crisis … not Al Qaeda. 

Government policy has also redistributed wealth from the average American to the super- rich.

(Indeed, the government and big banks – not Osama – have destroyed free market capitalism in the U.S.)

Suicide

The number of deaths by suicide has skyrocketed recently, and many connect the increase in suicides to the downturn in the economy.

Around 35,000 Americans kill themselves each year.  Indeed, Americans are 2,059 times more likely to kill themselves than die at the hand of a terrorist.

And more American soldiers die by suicide than combat (the number of veterans committing suicide is astronomical and under-reported).

The wars that are causing the soldiers so much grief were planned 20 years ago … and are being fought for oil(and here) and gas.

Killer Drugs

According to a 2011 CDC report, poisoning from prescription drugs is one of the leading cause of death. Indeed, the CDC stated in 2011 that – in the majority of states – your prescription meds are more likely to kill you thanany other source of injury. So your meds are thousands of times more likely to kill you than Al Qaeda.

After drug companies were busted for using fraudulent data for drug approval, the FDA allowed the potentially dangerous drugs to stay on the market.

And when one of the most respected radiologists in America – the former head of the radiology department at Yale University – attempted to blow the whistle on the fact that the FDA had approved a medical device manufactured by General Electric because it put out massive amounts of radiation, the FDA installed spyware to record his private emails and surfing activities (including installing cameras to snap pictures of his screen), and then used the information to smear him and other whistleblowers.

Contaminated Food

Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control  show that Americans are 110 times more likely to die from contaminated food than terrorism. And see this.

Yet the government is working hand-in-glove with the giant good companies to dish up cheap, unhealthy food.

The government’s response to the outbreak of mad cow disease was simple: it stopped testing for mad cow, andprevented cattle ranchers and meat processors from voluntarily testing their own cows (and see this and this).

The EPA recently raised the allowable amount of a dangerous pesticide by 3,000% … pretending that it won’t have adverse health effects.   

In response to new studies showing the substantial dangers of genetically modified foods - they've already been tentatively linked to obesity, cancer, liver failure, infertility and all sorts of other diseases (brief, must-watch videos here and here - the government passed legislation more or less pushing it onto our plates.

When BP – through criminal negligence – blew out the Deepwater Horizon oil well, the government helped cover it up (and here).  As just one example, the government approved the massive use of a highly-toxic dispersant totemporarily hide the oil.   The government also changed the testing standards for seafood to pretend that higher levels of toxic PAHs in our food was business-as-usual.

Environmental Poisons

In fact, the government has long covered up environmental risks.

For example, the Centers for Disease Control – the lead agency tasked with addressing disease in America –covered up lead poisoning in children in the Washington, D.C. area.

The Bush administration covered up the health risks to New Orleans residents associated with polluted water from hurricane Katrina, and FEMA covered up the cancer risk from the toxic trailers which it provided to refugees of the hurricane.

And then there’s nuclear power.  The American government has:

• Wholly subsidized nuclear power (it would never have been built without 100% backing)

• Reduced American nuclear safety standards after Fukushima

• Controlled Japanese nuclear policy for decades

• Covered up the severity of the Fukushima accident, raised acceptable radiation limits and agreed to buyradioactive Japanese seafood

Indeed, the archaic nuclear design used at Fukushima and throughout the United States was  chosen solelybecause it helps to make nuclear bombs.

Sadly, radiation from Fukushima and U.S. reactors will kill some Americans.   The National Journal reports:

“Look at what’s going on now: They’re dumping huge amounts of radioactivity into the ocean — no one expected that in 2011,” Daniel Hirsch, a nuclear policy lecturer at the University of California-Santa Cruz, told Global Security Newswire. “We could have large numbers of cancer from ingestion of fish.”

Indeed, one doctor claims that Fukushima had already killed 14,000 Americans 9 months after the accident.  We doubt her numbers … but it is clear that even low levels of radiation can damage human health.  Whatever the number, this was caused by the government … not Al Qaeda.

(The government also created a computer virus which threatens nuclear plants world-wide.)

Bad Government Policy Is Increasing the Risk of Terrorism

Oh and – by the way – the government’s actions are so idiotic that they are actually increasing the chance of a terrorist attack.