| Damning indictment: The trial of Tony Blair!

The trial of Tony Blair ~ Essay of the week by Neil Mackay, Herald Scotland.

The charge:

 

That Tony Blair, former UK prime minister, in lock-step with US policy, deliberately misled Britain, its parliament and people, into the catastrophe of the illegal invasion of Iraq in March 2003 that resulted in the deaths of at least 100,000 people – a crime against peace and humanity – and in doing so created the circumstances that have brought Iraq to the brink of ruination today.

From top: Donald Rumsfeld, who met Saddam in 1983 in his role as Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East; David Kelly, the British weapons expert who took his own life; Blair staffer Alastair Campbell, who was involved in the presentation of the  WMD dossierPrevious pages:  Montage by  Damian Shields

From top: Donald Rumsfeld, who met Saddam in 1983 in his role as Reagan’s special envoy to the Middle East; David Kelly, the British weapons expert who took his own life; Blair staffer Alastair Campbell, who was involved in the presentation of the WMD dossierPrevious pages: Montage by Damian ShieldsThe defence: Last week, the accused issued a statement in his defence, claiming that the capture of large swathes of Iraq by the Islamic terrorist group Isis – an organisation too extreme for al Qaeda – had nothing to do with the invasion he and then US president George W Bush executed upon the lie that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that threatened the West. Blair said: “We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that ‘we’ have caused this. We haven’t.”

Exhibit A: Rebuilding America’s Defences, the founding document of The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) . The PNAC was effectively the Bush cabinet-in-waiting prior to the 2000 election. It included Dick Cheney, who went on to become vice-president; Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary; Bush’s brother, Jeb; Lewis Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff; Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld’s deputy; and other key members of the Bush administration. This was the “brain” of the neo-conservative movement hell-bent on regime change in Iraq. Blair was fully signed up to the neo-con vision, their ideology providing a key motive for the crime in question.

Rebuilding America’s Defences was the foundation for the Bush-Blair doctrine of pre-emption. Written in September 2000, just months before the Bush election, it said: “The United States has for decades fought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

In other words, even if Saddam were removed from power, America would still want troops in the Gulf. Rebuilding America’s Defences talks of “a blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence” and a “Pax Americana”, which would require the US and its allies to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars as a ‘core mission’.”

Exhibit B: The receipts from Iraq for the sale of weapons of mass destruction from Britain and America. Details of sales of WMD to Saddam up to 1989 are contained in a Senate report into US exports, called the Riegle Report. Saddam is known to have used WMD in 1988 against the Kurds – in the town of Halabja, up to 5,000 were gassed. The attack took place when Saddam was engaged in the Iran-Iraq war against Ayatollah Khomeini and was, in the language of US-UK diplomacy, “a son of a bitch, but our son of a bitch”. This was prior to the first Gulf War in 1990 when Saddam invaded Kuwait, seized its oil and became the West’s enemy.

However, the Riegle Report shows America sold Saddam the following germ warfare capabilities: anthrax; botulism; histoplasma capsulatuma, a germ similar to TB; and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene. Some 16 UK companies also sold weaponry to Saddam.

The West was aware Saddam had begun a series of banned weapons programmes in the 1980s. In December 1983, Donald Rumsfeld, then president Ronald Reagan’s special envoy to the Middle East, met Saddam, shook his hand and discussed the curtailment of Iran. A 1984 US state department memo shows America knew it was selling “dual use” technology to Iraq – material that could be used for civilian purposes or to create nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. The CIA estimates Iran took more than 50,000 casualties from Iraqi chemical weapons. British politicians were equally aware.

Exhibit C: Statements from key UN weapons inspectors. Scott Ritter was the United Nations’ former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, a former US Marine intelligence officer and a Republican who voted for Bush, as well as being a Gulf War veteran. Ritter told me in 2003 he knew “categorically” that weapons inspections imposed on Saddam in the wake of his defeat in the first Gulf War destroyed 90% to 95% of Iraq’s WMD stockpiles – built up with British and American material. The remaining stockpiles were unusable by 2003. Ritter was clear that any invasion of Iraq on the grounds of WMD capabilities would be based on lies. Hans von Sponek, the UN’s former co-ordinator in Iraq and UN under-secretary general, also told me he had visited alleged chemical and biological weapons sites as recently as September 2002 and found them “comprehensively trashed”. Dennis Halliday, former UN assistant general-secretary and UN humanitarian co-ordinator in Iraq, told me that at least one million Iraqis died as a result of sanctions imposed to remove WMD from Saddam: WMD that the world’s experts in WMD said no longer existed.

Exhibit D: Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century. This paper, prepared for Dick Cheney, helped the Bush cabinet agree before September 11, 2001 that Iraq was a risk to world oil markets and therefore a risk to America. It has been said this may point to the true motive for invading Iraq.

The document stated that “the United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma” and “Iraq remains a destabilising influence … to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East … Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets”. As a result, the US “should conduct an

immediate policy review toward Iraq, including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments”.

Exhibit E: Operation Rockingham, a British spying operation established by the Defence Intelligence Staff within the Ministry of Defence in 1991. Scott Ritter knew members of Rockingham and said the spying outfit was “dangerous” and authorised at “the very highest levels”. He added: “Rockingham was spinning reports, and emphasising reports that showed non-compliance [by Iraq with UN inspections] and quashing those reports which showed compliance. It was cherry-picking.” It became “part of an effort to maintain a public mindset that Iraq was not in compliance … They had to sustain the allegation that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, even though [UN inspections were] showing the opposite.

“Rockingham received hard data but had a pre-ordained outcome in mind. It only put forward a small percentage of the facts when most were ambiguous or noted no WMD.”

Dr David Kelly – the British weapons expert who took his own life after being exposed as the source behind a BBC claim that the Blair government had “sexed up” a dossier claiming Iraq had WMD – worked with Rockingham. Ritter said Kelly was the “go-to person” for translating the often confusing data from weapons inspections “into concise reporting that could be forwarded to analysts in the British intelligence community as well as political decision-makers”. Ritter added that, thanks to Rockingham, “there existed a seamless flow of data from Iraq, though New York to London, carefully shaped from beginning to end by people working not for the UN Security Council but for the British government. Iraq’s guilt, pre-ordained by the government, became a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

Exhibit F: The Office of Special Plans (OSP). In effect, this was America’s version of the Rockingham cell. It was set up when the Iraq desk of the Near East and South Asia affairs (NESA) office in the Pentagon was transformed into the OSP. Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski worked inside NESA up to the outbreak of the war. “At the OSP,” she told me, “what they were doing was looking at all the intelligence they could find on WMD.”

She added: “That was the focal point, picking bits and pieces that were the most inflammatory, removing any context that might have been provided in the original intelligence report, that would have caused you to have some pause in believing it.

“They would take items that had occurred many years ago and put them in the present tense … The other thing they would do would be to take unrelated events that were reported in totally unrelated ways and make connections that the intelligence community had not made.”

One story that made the British papers shortly before the invasion claimed Saddam had a team of beautiful female assassins in deep cover in the UK as sleeper agents, posing as belly dancers. This myth has been connected to the work of Rockingham and the OSP. OSP intelligence was the kind of bogus material also used to support erroneous claims presented to the world that secular Saddam was working with the religious fundamentalists of al Qaeda.

Exhibit G: Dodgy dossiers. The Joint ­Intelligence Committee under the chairmanship of MI6’s John Scarlett was meant to have full control over the contents of dossiers outlining Iraqi WMD – in effect, Blair’s case for war. However, it became fully politicised. A special adviser to Alastair Campbell, Blair’s spin doctor, wrote of one early draft: “Very long way to go … Think we’re in a lot of trouble with this as it stands now.” Campbell later admitted he was involved from a “presentational point of view”.

Here’s how the most contentious claim was handled in draft form: “Chemical and biological munitions could be … ready for firing within 45 minutes.” This claim was already based on cherry-picked OSP/Rockingham reports, but when it was published it had become much more firm – the key section now read that the warheads “are deployable within 45 minutes”. Campbell told Scarlett – who he described as his “mate” – that there were weak passages in the draft. Scarlett wrote back: “We have been able to amend the text in most cases as you proposed.”

Tony Blair eventually wrote in a final dossier foreword: “The assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt that Saddam Hussein has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons.” The case for war was made, put to Parliament and voted for overwhelmingly.

Exhibit H: Copious warnings from within ­British intelligence against any invasion of Iraq. Intelligence sources confirmed to me that many spies had been openly sceptical about WMD in Iraq for years. They concurred with the notion of cherry-picking and pressure to find evidence against Saddam. This newspaper published these allegations on our front page at the time. In a July 2002 secret Downing Street memo, it is noted that Bush wants to “remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” In January 2004, David Kay, the CIA-appointed head of the Iraq Survey Group with the task of finding Saddam’s WMD, resigned, saying there were no stockpiles.

Exhibit I: Intelligence leaks confirming Blair was warned the invasion would lead to chaos in Iraq and terrorism on the streets of Britain. One report from the Defence Academy, an MoD think tank, written by a naval commander, said: “The war in Iraq … has acted as a recruiting sergeant for extremists across the Muslim world … al Qaeda ideology has taken root within the Muslim world and Muslim populations within Western countries. Iraq has served to radicalise … disillusioned youth and al Qaeda has given them the will, intent, purpose and ideology etc.”

In the US, a declassified National Intelligence Estimate found that the “Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists … cultivating supporters of the global jihad movement.”

Exhibit J: The launch of the war. Blair ­committed himself to waging war against Iraq whether or not the UN supported military action. In the end, no UN support was forthcoming. In 2002, inter-departmental advice for UK Government ministers stated that the objectives towards Iraq were “the reintegration of a law-abiding Iraq, which does not possess WMD … into the international community. Implicitly, this cannot occur with Saddam in power … the use of overriding force in a ground campaign is the only option that we can be confident will remove Saddam.”

Later in 2002, Blair met Bush in Crawford, Texas, where they discussed the “need for effective presentational activity”. The die was cast. War was coming. Former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan later said the invasion was “illegal”.

Exhibit K: The conduct of the Iraq War. ­Western business followed US-UK forces into Iraq, ­carving up the nation and profiteering from war. The policy was one of exploitation, not nation-­building. British and American troops were allowed to behave appallingly – from the atrocities of Abu Ghraib to the detention, torture and even death of Iraqi civilians at the hands of British soldiers. One corporal, Donald Payne, remains the only British soldier to be convicted of a war crime following the death of an Iraqi citizen who was hooded and beaten – he was found to have 93 injuries on his body.

The occupation brought chaos to Iraq. Al Qaeda moved in to a country where it had not been before, and laid down deep roots. As far back as August 2003, al Qaeda in Iraq blew up the UN HQ in Baghdad. Soon its leader, Abu Musab al-Zaraqwi, had the nation in the grip of fear, and sprung to international attention with the televised beheadings of captives including Nick Berg and Ken Bigley.

The behaviour of allied troops further alienated the population, with horrors such as the wedding party massacre at the town of Makaradeeb in which 42 civilians, including 13 children, were killed. Al Qaeda, made up of Sunni Muslim extremists, used the chaos to bring terror to the Iraqi Shia Muslims they hated.

Shrines were bombed, holy days targeted. The predominantly Shia armed forces and government replied with death squads and extra-judicial executions against often innocent Sunnis. Torture became routine. Bodies were found with acid burns and drill marks and still wearing police handcuffs. Divisions deepened.

The country split along ethno-religious lines. Over the border in Syria – a country some believe might have remained at peace without the seismic shock of the invasion of Iraq – the ­fundamentalist and brutal Isis movement saw its chance and began making inroads within Iraq’s borders. Town after town fell. Fallujah, Samarra, Mosul, Tikrit. Isis now threatens Baghdad.

Verdict: Guilty.

Neither Blair nor Bush will ever face punishment for taking the US and UK into an illegal war they knew was based on lies, and killing countless innocent people. Western statesmen do not end up in The Hague facing war crimes charges. The punishment is on us and the Iraqi people.

The standing of Britain has been degraded abroad, trust in politics destroyed at home. Our morality is so drained that the very concept of military intervention to save Iraq from Isis is rendered absurd. We brought that nation to ruin and now we watch as it falls, with echoes of the Khmer Rouge taking Cambodia back to Year Zero. Where there was no terrorism, we created a terrorist homeland.

Chief among Blair’s crimes is that while he may have blood on his hands, he has spread the blood on to us, because in a democracy we must carry some of the blame for our elected leaders, even if they try to blind us to the truth through a web of deceit, chicanery, bullying and sin.

Neil Mackay is the Sunday Herald’s Head of News.

He is the author of The War On Truth, which investigated the roots of the invasion of Iraq; and of the novel All The Little Guns Went Bang Bang Bang

tony-blair war crimBHelp stop one of the world*s worst war criminals who should have been in jail long ago ! http://chn.ge/1iA4oSF

| Engineered FAILURE: Why war, drugs, prisons, health care, debt and education are all theatrical scams designed to fail!

Engineered to fail: Why war, drugs, prisons, health care, debt and education are all theatrical scams designed to fail ~  Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews.com. 

(NaturalNews) More and more people are wondering today why systems of American government and corporate enterprise don’t seem to be working. The education system fails to educate, the health care system fails to create good health, and the border patrol isn’t even allowed to protect the border. Why are these systems failing the American people over and over again?

The answer — which may surprise you — is that many systems are designed to fail from the very start.

The health care system, for example, would collapse if the American people really got healthy and started taking vitamin D, eating healthier foods, exercising regularly and taking care of their own health. So the health care system encourages “maintenance” of disease rather than preventing or curing disease. Disease “maintenance” is profitable, while disease prevention is not. That’s why the health care system is designed to fail at its primary stated purpose: creating good health. If it actually succeeded, it would put itself out of business.

Systems that depend on the continuation of the very thing they claim to oppose

There are all sorts of systems in America today that depend on the continuation of the very thing they oppose in order to continue to exist. Here, I list the more obvious ones, but there are many more worthy of attention.

Each of these systems works much like a cancer tumor, incessantly seeking to expand its size by redirecting support resources to itself. In cancer, this process is called angiogenesis. In government, it’s called a “budget increase,” and every agency, department and group within government always seeks to grow larger and command a more lucrative budget.

To accomplish this, it must stay relevant to some enormous problem in society. If the National Cancer Institute, for example, discovered a cure for cancer and shared it with the public, the entire organization would suddenly become irrelevant and see its operating budgets collapse. It is the ongoing search for cancer — not its cure — that keeps the NCI in business. That’s why no cure for cancer will ever be publicized… it runs counter to the very existence of the cancer industry!

The following list reveals some of the top systems in America which are designed to fail so that they can continue to remain well-funded and profitable.

As you read this list, keep in mind that the individual people working in these systems are often well-meaning, ethical individuals who are trying to do their best. They usually have little awareness, however, that the system in which they are functioning was never designed to achieve success in the first place.

#1) The Health Care System is designed to fail

As already mentioned, the health care system would collapse overnight if it actually taught people how to stay healthy and prevent disease. For every major disease now ravaging America — cancer, heart disease, diabetes — there already exist a multitude of natural cures and highly effective prevention strategies that are affordable, safe and effective. Yet none of these are shared with the public, and in nearly all U.S. states, doctors who even attempt to share such knowledge can be arrested, charged with crimes and have their medical licensed revoked.

Instead of teaching prevention and cures, the health care system prefers to keep people trapped in a system of never-ending medical dependence. “Health” is never the goal. The real goal is to profit as much as possible from the ongoing suffering and sickness of the population at large.

After all, the sicker the population gets, the more high-profit drugs they’ll be prescribed by the very same doctors who are routinely bribed by the drug companies.

#2) The Food Production System is designed to fail to nourish the population

If American people are eating so much food, you might wonder why they are so malnourished in terms of the natural vitamins and minerals that are supposed to be present in real food.

The answer is that the U.S. food production system is intentionally designed to cause nutritional deficiencies that lead to runaway food cravings and widespread food addictions.

Processed food companies intentionally remove nearly all the important nutrients from food during manufacturing: healthy oils, minerals, vitamins, phytonutrients, fiber and more. What’s left is a delicious but nutritionally worthless mass of heavily refined food ingredients (HFCS, sugar, white flour, etc.) which promote food addictions and ongoing hunger (i.e. repeat business).

The human body will always signal “hunger” when it is deficient in essential minerals — the very same minerals which are intentionally removed from processed foods. That never-ending hunger leads to addictive eating habits that enrich the processed food companies. They actually depend on obese, desperate food addicts in much the same way that crack dealers depend on crack addicts for repeat business.

If the U.S. food supply were designed to nourish the population, it would consist largely of whole, nutritionally-intact foods that deliver the building blocks of good health and disease prevention.

Instead, we get Wonder Bread, Froot Loops and Skittles — three glaring examples of a disastrously failed food supply engineered to keep people in a state of perpetual nutritional starvation even while they’re eating themselves into obesity and cancer.

#3) The Prison System is designed to fail

Have you ever wondered what the purpose of the prison system really might be? It’s sold to us as a “reform” system that accepts criminals and somehow magically turns them into law-abiding citizens upon their release.

Yet as Adam Kokesh rightly points out in his new book FREEDOM!, this entire idea is based on the ridiculous assumption that throwing a prisoner into an environment where he is surrounded by other criminals and gang members will make him less criminal-minded, not more.

The institution of prison, as structured today, is actually a training ground for hardened criminals. People often enter the system as small-time crooks and leave as violent, aggressive criminals with expanded skills and knowledge of how the criminal world operates.

The prison system needs this, it turns out. Many prisons are now run by for-profit corporations which use prisoners as a socially-sanctioned form of modern-day slave labor to produce products and services for profit. Every corporate-run prison must achieve a certain occupancy rate in order to remain profitable. After all, a half-empty prison isn’t profitable to run, so the prisons need more criminals to stay in business.

The easiest way to ensure a high occupancy rate is to make sure that the prison itself functions as a training ground for criminals, guaranteeing “repeat business” that puts released prisoners on a return trajectory.

#4) The Education System is designed to fail

The very last thing a dictatorial society wants is a well-educated population that might achieve a high enough grasp on mathematics, history and sociology to recognize all the scams taking place around them.

If the U.S. education system taught children mathematics, no one would buy into all the rampant debt spending taking place in Washington (nor the money creation schemes of the Fed).

If the U.S. education system taught children history, no one would allow executive tyrants in Washington to destroy the Constitution and concentrate power into the hands of the few.

If the U.S. education system taught children how to think for themselves, they might begin to question the corruption and criminality of government itself, and they might vote the crooks out of office (or even stage a revolt).

As comedian George Carlin famously noted, the U.S. education system is really designed to produce only one thing: obedient workers… people who are just smart enough to run the machines and push the buttons as fast food cashiers, but who aren’t bright enough to realize how they’re being royally exploited, screwed and enslaved by the system.

#5) Conventional Agriculture is will inevitably lead to mass starvation

The conventional agriculture system of mass mono-cropping based on chemical pesticides and insecticides is engineered from the start to lead to widespread crop failures and mass starvation.

The system, by its very nature, destroys top soils and kills soil microbes, making sustainable food production impossible in the long term. The use of fossil water supplies is mathematically unsustainable and will lead to Dust Bowl conditions across much of Texas, Oklahoma and the entire U.S. breadbasket.

The clear-cutting of trees along coastal areas to make way for ranching and food production causes a loss of “transpiration” of water, resulting in inland droughts and crop failures that only worsen topsoil erosion.

The very practice of monoculture — planting the same crop in row after row with zero crop diversity — is steeped in practices of mass poisoning with glyphosate, pesticides, herbicides and chemical soil amendments. All of these techniques are unsustainable in the long term and are effectively little more than an “open pit mining operating” of agricultural lands which will eventually produce no food at all.

On top of all this, the entire system of conventional agriculture is based on the massive use of petrochemical inputs in the form of machinery fuels, transportation fuels and chemically-derived fertilizers. Once the global supply of oil begins to dwindle, conventional agriculture as practiced today will inevitably collapse.

What’s a better alternative? Permaculture. Decentralized, non-chemical food production. Click here to learn about permaculture from Geoff Lawton.

#6) The Tax System is designed to fail

The fool believes that the federal income tax is needed to raise money to fund government. This is a proven myth, as the government can simply create trillions of dollars instantly, any time it wants to bail out wealthy banks. The entire income tax could be eliminated overnight and replaced with a once-a-year money creation effort that funds the entire government.

The real purpose of the federal tax code is to control and suppress the population, making sure that middle class people never have the ability to rise up and challenge the ultra-wealthy. That’s why income tax exceptions are always granted to the ultra-wealthy and the companies they own. You did know that Apple, Google, Microsoft and other corporate giants pay virtually zero taxes, didn’t you?

Taxes are designed to make sure the middle class gets punished with paying 20% – 50% taxes while the ultra-wealthy — by using legal offshore tax loopholes and complex maneuvers — often pay just 3% or so.

It’s much easier to maintain your position at the top of the money pyramid if you can enforce a punitive tax policy against the not-so-wealthy. Always remember that taxes are structured by design to punish the working poor and the middle class while protecting the money positions of the ultra-wealthy.

#7) Border Security system is designed to fail

Right now, 35,000 illegal immigrants are flooding into Texas each month. This is not a failure, this is a “success” according to Washington’s real aims.

There really are people in command in Washington D.C. who wish to see America collapse into a runaway welfare state, where the vast majority of the masses are wholly dependant on government for their food, housing, unemployment checks and medical care. Once the masses are trapped in this cycle of government-dictated poverty, it is a simple matter to get all those people to vote for whichever politician offers the most handouts.

A runaway welfare state is a utopian dream for power-hungry statists who despise human freedom and dignity. And they will exploit the suffering of any number of undocumented immigrants in order to achieve their goals. That’s why the borders are intentionally weakened to encourage this influx. Border Security as practiced today is intentionally designed to fail. (This is not to say, by the way, that the men and women of the Border Patrol want it this way. More than anyone, they desperately seek the funding and political support to do their jobs, but they are being stonewalled at every turn by a government which has an ulterior motive.)

#8) The Department of Defense is designed to fail at keeping the peace

There’s a funny thing about “defending” America that keeps happening: The more we “defend” America by bombing other countries with drone strikes, the more they seem to hate us for some reason. When they hate us, they fight back and attack the positions that we once held (like what’s happening in Iraq right now), causing yet more need for us to dispatch even more weapons to win back the land that isn’t really ours but that we held at gunpoint for a very long time.

Every time a missile is launched, a bomb is dropped or a soldier is dispatched to any war zone, some corporation that manufactures missiles, bombs or Humvees earn another profit. The sound of bombs dropping on Iraq is really the ka-ching! sound of money being dumped into the bank accounts of certain U.S. weapons manufacturers.

War is big business, and war is highly profitable. At one level, I’m darned happy that the U.S. has a strong defensive military capability, because if we didn’t, no doubt some foreign enemy would have already tried to overrun us by now. But at the same time, the industry of war needs constant revenues to stay in business. So the government stirs up conflict every few years or so in order to keep the weapons manufacturers raking in record profits.

The Department of Defense, in other words, isn’t really interested in world peace. It’s interested in ongoing conflict. That’s what keeps the DoD relevant while also keeping profits flowing into the hands of weapons manufacturers and private contract companies.

At the same time, the DoD battles other war-mongering leaders of other nations where the same scam keeps them in power, too. War has a way of causing citizens to all-too-easily throw their support behind the very militant political leaders who caused the war in the first place. So global war is an ongoing, repeated scam that keeps the war mongers in power all across the globe.

Do I support a strong national defense? You bet I do. It’s a necessity in a world full of truly evil regimes like North Korea. But I also recognize that war is a racket and much of the conflict we see is entirely contrived for financial or political gain.

#9) The U.S. Treasury is designed to fail

Those of you who are “in the know” are fully aware that all the money created by the Federal Reserve — a private, non-governmental banking institution — is borrowed by the U.S. Treasury before being given to the wealthy banks as part of so-called “quantitative easing.”

Every billion dollars created and redirected in this way is one more billion dollars in debt that the U.S. population ultimately owes the private Federal Reserve.

In other words, the money supply isn’t owned by the People, nor by the government which was created by the People. Nope, the money supply is owned and controlled by a private banking cartel, and every dollar created for the U.S. Treasury is a dollar in debt which will be extracted from the productivity of the American people in the future.

Now here’s the really shocking part: The U.S. Treasury borrows money to make interest payments on U.S. debt. So not only does the Treasury owe trillions of dollars to debtors; it actually borrows more money from the Fed just to meet the minimum interest payments on the debt it already owes.

Because interest rates cause debts to be paid back using more money than was originally borrowed — i.e. if you borrow $100 at a 5% interest rate, you have to pay back $105 in a year — it is mathematically impossible for the U.S. Treasury to ever pay back its debt to the Federal Reserve.

The Treasury debt, in other words, is intentionally designed to fail and collapse, after which the private banking accounts of U.S. citizens will simply be seized as “collateral” to pay back to “debt owed” by the U.S. government. (A similar scenario already took place in Cyprus, by the way…)

#10) The War on Drugs is designed to fail

The War on Drugs has a very important purpose, but it has nothing to do with halting the trafficking of drugs. It has everything to do with empowering the DEA, enriching “on the take” corrupt law enforcement officials, and filling the for-profit prisons with cheap slave labor (as described above).

Legalizing and regulating marijuana nationwide would largely collapse the drug underground economy, de-fund drug gangs and suppress much of the drug war violence we see taking place today. But legalizing drugs would also collapse the DEA and deny all the corrupt law enforcement co-conspirators their “take” of drug profits. Just as alcohol prohibition caused alcohol distribution to be hugely profitable nearly a century ago, drug prohibition today causes drug distribution to be hugely profitable right now — especially for those who can position themselves to be “enforcers” who control what really takes place on the street.

The ongoing War on Drugs, much like the war on cancer, is designed to be a perpetual failure so that those who claim to fight the war can always request higher “enforcement budgets.” No budget is ever large enough, of course, and no expansion of secret surveillance and spying on U.S. citizens is ever sufficient, we’re told. The War on Drugs gives the DEA and law enforcement a blank check to justify almost any action against innocent people, including armed raids on their homes, surveillance of their private phone calls and the monitoring of all their financial transactions.

For the record, I am strenuously opposed to abuse of recreational drugs, and I am convinced that meth in particular is destroying the very fabric of rural America. There are a great many dedicated, honest law enforcement officials who nobly fight against the scourge of such drugs every single day (and I salute them for their efforts). But how long must this continue before we realize the current approach of drug criminalization isn’t working?

For us to make any real progress on the War on Drugs, drug addiction needs to be treated as a medical condition, not a criminal intent. Marijuana in particular needs to be legalized and highly regulated so that drug enforcement efforts can focus on the far more dangerous street substances like meth and heroin.

Conclusion: Don’t be suckered into thinking policy failures are accidents

As you observe what’s happening in the world around you, it’s important to understand why the failure rate on so many institutions and policies is so high: it’s because they are designed to fail from the start.

There is no real effort to cure cancer, end disease, nourish the population, reform violent criminals, educate children or pay off the national debt. All of these are designed to remain ongoing failures for political or economic purposes. Their activities are often just pure theater to maintain the illusion that they are doing something useful for society while they maintain positions of power and profit.

sheepoA

More news on engineered failure

 

 

 

 

 

 

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/045577_engineered_failure_government_institutions_theatrics.html##ixzz34qBQkdLd

| Refuting President Obama’s Lies, Omissions and Distortions!

Refuting President Obama’s Lies, Omissions and Distortions ~ Prof. James PetrasGlobalResearch.ca.

An Open Letter to the Graduates of West Point

On May 2014 President Obama delivered the commencement address to the graduates of United States Military Academy at West Point.  Beyond the easy banter and eulogy to past and present war heroes, Obama outlined a vision of past military successes and present policies, based on a profoundly misleading diagnosis of the current global position of the United States.

His presentation is marked by systematic lies about past wars and current military interventions.  The speech’s glaring failure to acknowledge the millions of civilians killed by US military interventions stands out. He glosses over the growth of NSA, the global police state apparatus.  He presents a grossly inflated account of the US role in the world economy.  Worst of all he outlines an extremely dangerous policy of confrontation with rising military and economic powers, in particular Russia and China.

Distorting the Past:  Defeats and Retreats Converted into Victories

One of the most disturbing aspects of President Obama’s speech is his delusional account of US military engagements over the past decade.  Obama’s claim that, “by most measures America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world”, defies belief.  After 13 years of war and occupation in Afghanistan, the US has failed to conquer the Taliban and is leaving behind a fragile puppet regime on the verge of collapse.  The US was forced to withdraw from Iraq after causing the deaths of hundreds of thousand of civilians, the displacement and wounding of millions and the ignition of a sectarian war, which has propelled a pro-Iranian regime to power in Baghdad.  In Libya, the Obama pushed NATO to destroy the entire country in order to overthrow the secular Gadhafi government, thus undermining any possibility of reconciliation among opponents.  He has brought bands of Islamist terrorists to power who are profoundly hostile to the United States.

Washington’s effort to broker an accord between Palestine and Israel is a shabby failure, characterized by Obama’s spineless capitulation to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s goal of grabbing more Palestinian land for new  “Jews only” settlements – paid with American tax money.  Obama’s craven pandering to the Jewish power configuration in Washington does little to bolster his claim to lead the world’s “greatest power”…

You have heard lectures on the world economy at the Academy: Surely you know that China has displaced the US in major markets throughout Latin America, Asia and Africa.  While China is a major economic challenge, it is not an expansionist military power.  It does not possess thousands of overseas bases or Special Forces troops operating in seventy-five countries; it does not pursue military alliances and does not invade countries thousands of miles from its borders.  Obama’s ‘Pivot to Asia’ is a provocative expansion of US military power off China’s coast contrary to his public claims of “winding down” overseas military operations.

Obama speaks of defending “our core interests” by military force yet he provokes China over a disputed pile of rocks in the South China Sea, undermining the “core interests” of the 500 biggest US corporations which have invested billions of dollars in the most dynamic economy in the world and of the biggest American exporters to our second largest trading partner.

Obama refers to fighting “terrorism” yet his policies have encouraged and promoted terrorism.  Washington armed the Islamist terrorists who overthrew the secular Gadhafi government and plunged that country into chaos.  Obama backs the Islamist terrorists invading and attempting to overthrow the secular regime Syria.  He provides 1.5 billion dollars in military aid to an Egyptian military dictatorship terrorizing its democratic, civilian political opposition, assassinating and imprisoning thousands of dissidents.  In February, the US backed the violent overthrow of the elected government in Ukraine and supports the Kiev regime’s bombing of pro-democracy, pro-federation civilian populations in the Southeast, a majority of whom are ethnic Russians.  Obama’s “anti-terrorism” rhetoric in nothing but a cover for state terrorism, closing the door on any peaceful resolution of overseas conflicts and spawning scores of violent opposition groups in its wake.

Obama brags about “our success in promoting partnerships in Europe and in the world at large”, yet his bellicose policies toward Russia have created deep rifts between the US and the leading countries of the European Union.  With its multi-billion dollar trade agreements with Russia, German opposes harsh sanctions and provocations against Moscow, as do Italy, Holland and Belgium.  In Latin America, the US-controlled Organization of American States is a toothless relic amidst growing regional organizations which exclude the US.  Where are Washington’s “partners” in its hostile campaign to overthrow the government in Venezuela and blockade Cuba?  Washington’s efforts to forge an Asian economic bloc, excluding China, has run aground against the deep and comprehensive ties linking South Korea, Taiwan and Southeast Asia to China.

Wherever you look, Washington’s closest ‘allies’ are the least dynamic and most repressive:  Israel, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states in the Middle East; Egypt, Morocco and Algeria in North Africa; Colombia in Latin America; the Philippines in Asia; and motley groups of sub-Sahara despots and Kleptocrats squirreling away billions of dollars into New York and London bank accounts while starving their countries’ budgets on health and education.

Obama’s diagnosis regarding the position of the US in the world is fundamentally flawed:  He ignores the military losses from unwinnable overseas adventures and understates the decline in US economic power.  The growing divisions among former regional allies have no place in his speech.  Above all, he refuses to acknowledge the profound disenchantment among most Americans with Washington’s foreign military and trade policies.  The flawed diagnosis, the deliberate distortions of current global realities and the deep misreading of domestic public opinion, cannot be overcome by new deceptions. Bigger lies and more extensive foreign military interventions mean that newly commissioned officers will serve as cannon fodder for policies deeply unpopular with our people.

Obama:   Political Desperado in Search of an Imperial Legacy

Obama has marked a new phase in his escalation of a military-centered foreign policy.  He is presently engaged in a major build-up of air and ground troops and provocative military exercises in the Baltic States and Poland…all of which are directed at Russia, raising the specter of a ‘First Strike’ strategy against a major nuclear power which poses no threat to our nation.

President Barack Obama, deeply unpopular at home, is propelled by a mania for global military escalation.  He is expanding naval forces off China’s coast. He has dispatched hundreds of Special Forces to Jordan to train and arm Islamist and al Qaeda mercenaries invading Syria.  He promotes Kiev’s brutal crackdown on civilian protesters in the Eastern Ukraine by increasing US military aid and training.  He has dispatched hundreds of US forces throughout Africa.  He has just allocated $1 billion for military expansion along the European frontiers with Russia and another $5 billion to boost the capacity of despotic regimes to repress popular insurgencies under the pretext of “fighting terrorism”.

Obama’s ‘vision’ of US foreign policy is clearly and unmistakably colored by his readiness to pursue highly dangerous military adventures.  His tactic of launching Special Forces’ operations in all corners of the world, his increasing use of mercenaries and proxies is a throw-back to 19th century colonialism.  Sending client regime troops from one oppressed country to conquer and pillage another marks a regression to  brutal old-style empire building.  No one is deceived when Obama declares that “American leadership is indispensable for world order”.  His Washington-centered new world order is unraveling.  Disorder and misery are the consequence of relying on naked military intervention to delay the inevitable – the decline of a uni-polar world is a fact.

The Obama Administration’s involvement in the violent coup in the Kiev is a case in point:  As a consequence of placing an oligarch, the so-called ‘Chocolate Billionaire’ to head a junta infested with neo-fascists, Ukraine is falling apart, cities in the east are being bombed and the economy is in free-fall.  A massive humanitarian disaster threatens the stability of Europe if hundreds of thousands of people are displaced by the brutality of civil war in Ukraine.

Obama’s unopposed air war against Libya utterly destroyed that nation and has created a Hobbesian world where bloody warlords fight brutal jihadists over shrinking oil sales.   In Syria, US-sponsored ‘rebels’ have devastated the economy and the social fabric of a complex secular society.  Al Qaeda-linked terrorists have recently kidnapped hundreds of secular high school students heading for their final exams in Aleppo in order to prevent any recovery and reconciliation in that brutalized nation.

No major country in South America follows US ‘leadership’ on Cuba and Venezuela.  Even in the United States, outside of a few enclaves of fanatics in Florida, very few American citizens back Obama’s hostile policies to Cuba and Venezuela.

Obama’s duplicity, of talking peace while preparing wars, has been exposed.  And now this same president is preparing to commit you, newly commissioned officers of the US Army, to overseas military adventures against the interests and wishes of  the majority of your fellow Americans.

Obama will send you to war zones where you will face popular insurgencies, supported by masses of working people.  While propping up corrupt oligarchs and defending foreign capital, you will be despised by the local populations.  You will be ordered to ‘defend’ an Administration which has pillaged  our national Treasury  to bail out the 15 biggest banks in the world, banks which paid $78 billion dollars in fines, between 2012 – 2013, for fraud and swindles while their CEO’s received obscene bonuses, wealth and immunity .  You will be told to sacrifice your lives and limbs fighting wars for the State of Israel in the Middle East – an Israel which bombed the USS Liberty (among other incidents) – killing and maiming hundreds of American service people with impunity.  You will be sent to command bases in Poland and to direct missiles at Russia. You will be sent to the Ukraine to train neo-Nazis in the ‘National’ Guard to kill their own compatriots.  You will be expected to subvert the loyalties of military officers in Latin American, hoping to provoke military coups and convert independent progressive governments into neo-liberal puppet states – ripe for pillage and mayhem.

Obama’s plans for you do not resonate with your ideals and hopes for a prosperous America dedicated to democracy, freedom and peaceful development at home.  You face the choice of serving a political desperado, contemptuous of our Constitution and intent on launching unjust wars at the behest of billionaire swindlers and armchair militarists in Washington, or refusing to participate as muscle-men for bloody empire and joining the majority of the American people who believe that America’s ‘leadership’ should be directed at redistributing the wealth and power of an unelected oligarchy which currently runs this country.  Who will you choose to serve?

ObLies1

| We must give the land back: America’s brutality toward Native Americans continues today!

We must give the land back: America’s brutality toward Native Americans continues today ~ , Salon.

Americans have unjustly taken vast tracts of land. This Presidents’ Day, let’s uphold our treaties and return it.

We must give the land back: America's brutality toward Native Americans continues todaySioux Indians, six of whom were present at the Battle of Little Big Horn, gather in Custer State Park in the Black Hills area of Custer, S.D. on Sept. 2, 1948. (Credit: AP)

I write often about liberating Palestine from Israeli occupation, a habit that evokes passionate response. I have yet to encounter a response that persuades me to abandon the commitment to Palestinian liberation.

I have, however, encountered responses that I consider worthy of close assessment, particularly those that transport questions of colonization to the North American continent. You see, there is a particular defense of Zionism that precedes the existence of Israel by hundreds of years.

Here is a rough sketch of that defense: Allowing a Palestinian right of return or redressing the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1947-49 is ludicrous. Look what happened to the Native Americans. Is the United States supposed to return the country to them?

Israeli historian Benny Morris puts it this way: “Even the great American democracy couldn’t come to be without the forced extinction of Native Americans. There are times the overall, final good justifies terrible, cruel deeds.”

This reasoning suggests a finality to the past, an affirmation of tragedy trapped in the immutability of linear time. Its logic is terribly cliché, a peculiar form of common sense always taken up, everywhere, by the beneficiaries of colonial power.

The problems with invoking Native American genocide to rationalize Palestinian dispossession are legion. The most noteworthy problem speaks to the unresolved detritus of American history: Natives aren’t objects of the past; they are living communities whose numbers are growing.

It’s rarely a good idea to ask rhetorical questions that have literal answers. Yes, the United States absolutely should return stolen land to the Indians. That’s precisely what its treaty obligations require it to do.

*

The United States is a settler nation, but its history hasn’t been settled. Yet most people invoke Natives as if they lost a contest that entrapped them in the past — and this only if Natives are considered at all. As a result, most analyses of both domestic and foreign policies are inadequate, lacking a necessary context of continued colonization and resistance.

For Natives, political aspirations aren’t focused on accessing the mythologies of a multicultural America, but on the practices of sovereignty and self-determination, consecrated in treaty agreements (and, of course, in their actual histories). Treaties aren’t guidelines or suggestions; they are nation-to-nation agreements whose stipulations exist in perpetuity. That the federal government still ignores so many of those agreements indicates that colonization is not simply an American memory.

One of the most famous violations is the Treaty of Fort Laramie (1851, 1868), which guaranteed the Lakota possession of the Black Hills. The American government seized the Black Hills nine years after signing the treaty, in 1877, having discovered sizable deposits of gold and other precious minerals.

In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal government had unjustly appropriated the Black Hills (the ruling doesn’t use the word “stolen,” but it’s an accurate descriptor of what occurred). The Court awarded the Lakota $15.5 million (now well over $100 million with inflation) for the adjusted value of the appropriated land, but the tribe has consistently refused the monetary settlement, preferring instead to retain entitlement to its historic territory.

To clarify: Vast portions of five U.S. states — North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming and Montana — are Indian land according to a treaty to which the American government voluntarily assented. The highest legal authority in the United States has acknowledged that a significant portion of the land in question is rightfully Lakota. The American government refuses to return that land.

Let’s therefore drop the quaint notion that the colonization of Natives is a tragedy limited to the days of yore.

*

A comparable example of continuing U.S. colonization (unfortunately, this could go on a while) exists in Hawaii, the youngest American state. Hawaii became an American possession in 1893 due to a coup d’état led by colonist Sanford Dole, cousin of James Dole, who, not so coincidentally, made a fortune growing produce on the islands.

President Grover Cleveland commissioned an investigation into the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, led by Georgia congressman James Henderson Blount. The Blount Report condemned the annexation of Hawaii. The condemnation ultimately did no good. American businessmen and politicians saw too much value in the new property to constrain their avarice. To this day, the Kanaka Maoli (Native Hawaiians) do not recognize the legitimacy of the annexation and consider themselves subjects of foreign rule.

(For an excellent analysis of these matters, please read J. Kēhaulani Kauanui’s Hawaiian Blood: Colonialism and the Politics of Sovereignty and Indigeneity.”

While American tourists enjoy hula dances and Mai Tais on stolen land, the Kanaka Maoli, victims of a conquest that in no way has passed, continue to organize for liberation.

*

Colonialism is present across North America in less obvious ways, though the lack of obviousness doesn’t mitigate its relevance.

Corporate malfeasance is especially harmful to indigenous communities in the Americas (and across the world). Native nations have dealt with an uninterrupted expropriation of resources for over a century and now experience an inordinate amount of disease and pollution. At present, Natives and their allies in both Canada and the U.S. are working to stop the Keystone XL Pipeline, a project that portends environmental damage and serious health concerns.

Natives have encountered violence in attempting to exercise their hunting and fishing rights. (Does the phrase “save a fish, spear an Indian” ring a bell?) Police brutality is acute in Indian Country. Natives, women especially, are murdered at an epidemic rate, with the majority of cases unresolved. And many communities are still waiting on various institutions to comply with federal legislation requiring the return of artifacts and human remains to their rightful owners.

Nor should we forget that the forced sterilization of Native women and the kidnapping of children to be educated (read: brutally assimilated) in government boarding schools, where many were sexually molested and subject to countless other abuses, were still happening within the past half-century.

The inveterate omission of these realities in analyses of American politics constitutes an erasure of indigenous histories and illuminates why it is so easy to conceptualize the United States as historically settled. If we recall the existence of dynamic Indian nations, though, we have no choice but to rethink the commonplaces of American virtue.

It is a foolish conceit to suggest that history has ended in the United States. No amount of ignorance (willful or unwitting) will invalidate the vigorous efforts to decolonize the North and South American continents.

When Israel’s apologists invoke the dispossession of living communities on those continents as a rationale for colonizing Palestine, they betray a profound disdain of indigenous humanity, the sort of contempt that renders the oppressor’s psyche so unsettled.

Steven Salaita is an associate professor of English.

Native_American_mapB 

| America’s Gulag: Obama sentences political prisoner Lynne Stewart to Death!

America’s Gulag: Obama Sentences Political Prisoner Lynne Stewart to Death ~ Stephen Lendman, Global Research.

Lynne’s crime was compassion. She was imprisoned for doing the right thing. She did it honestly, admirably and courageously.

She did it defending some of America’s most disadvantaged for 30 years.

She’s dying. She has Stage Four cancer. She was given 12 months to live. She qualifies in all respects for compassionate release.

Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) authorities denied her. Doing so reflects official Obama administration policy. In Lynne’s words, BOP “stonewall(ed) since August.”

“They know (she’s) fully qualified.” Over 40,000 supporters “signed on to force (BOP) to do the right thing which is to let (her) go home to (her) family and receive the advanced care in New York City, (her) home.”

“Yet they refuse to act. I must say it is entirely within the range of their politics and their cruelty to hold the political prisoners until we have days to live before releasing us,” Lynne stressed.

Indeed so! Longtime political prisoners Herman Wallace and Marilyn Buck were treated this way. On October 1, Wallace was released. On October 3, he died. He was too ill to be saved.

Buck called prisons warehouses to “disappear the unacceptable to deprive their captives of their liberties, their human agency, and to punish (and) stigmatize prisoners through moralistic denunciations and indictment based on bad genes – skin color (ethnicity, or other characteristics) as a crime.”

Many thousands of prisoners aren’t incarcerated because they’re criminals, she said.

They’re locked in cages for their activism and beliefs, she stressed. For advocating peace, not war.

For resisting injustice. For defending freedom, equality and other democratic values. For struggling courageously for beneficial change.

On July 15, 2010, BOP authorities released Buck. On August 3, she died. She served 25 years of an 80 year sentence.

Her crime was opposing racial injustice and US imperialism. In 2009, she was diagnosed with uterine sarcoma.

With proper timely treatment she might have lived. Obama prison authorities wanted her dead.

They kept her imprisoned long enough to kill her. They’re treating Lynne the same way.

She’s one of thousands of wrongfully incarcerated political prisoners. They’re confined in US gulag hell.

It’s bar far the world’s largest. It’s the shame of the nation. It reflects the worst of unconscionable ruthlessness. It’s the American way.

Around 2.4 million prisoners languish in federal and state facilities, local jails, Indian, juvenile, and military ones, US territories, and separate Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities.

Many are imprisoned for supporting right over wrong. The Free Dictionary call political prisoners people “imprisoned for holding or advocating dissenting political views for holding, advocating, expressing, or acting in accord with particular political beliefs.”

In the 1960s, Amnesty International (AI) coined the term “prisoner of conscience.”

It denotes anyone incarcerated for their race, religion, ethnicity, language, sexual orientation, beliefs, or lifestyle.

Incarceration is an instrument of social control. Prisoners are denied all rights. They languish under cruel and inhumane conditions. Some die. Others fade slowly.

Many endure punishing years of isolation. Proper medical care is denied. Abuse is commonplace. Perfunctory parole hearings are a travesty of justice.

A November ACLU report is titled “A Living Death: Life Without Parole for Nonviolent Offenses.”

“Ever wonder what could land you in prison for the rest of your life,” asked ACLU?

For thousands it was “shoplifting a few cameras from Wal-Mart, stealing a $159 jacket, or serving as a middleman in the sale of $10 of marijuana.”

Children young as 13 get life sentences without parole for nonviolent crimes, invented ones, or dissenting political beliefs.

“People convicted of their first offense will be permanently denied a second chance,” said ACLU.

“Many young Black and low-income men and women will be locked up until they die. And taxpayers will spend billions to keep them behind bars.”

Dissenting advocacy is considered terrorism. ACLU’s report focused on extreme sentences for minor property and drug-related crimes.

America’s criminal injustice system “reached absurd, tragic and costly heights,” it said.

Locking nonviolent people in cages longterm reflects sentencing them to death slowly. Imprisoning children this way is unconscionable.

So is incarcerating people for their political beliefs and advocacy. ACLU calls life imprisonment without parole (LWOP) “the harshest imaginable punishment.”

Any hope for freedom is denied. LWOP is “grotesquely” unconscionable. It “offends the principle that all people have the right to be treated with humanity and respect for their inherent dignity.”

ACLU documented thousands of ruined lives. Families suffer with loved ones behind bars. Wives are separated from husbands, husbands from wives, children from fathers or mothers, extended families from one of their cherished members.

America spends billions of dollars annually keeping people locked in cages. Decades ago, historian Arnold Toynbee said:

“America is today the leader of a world-wide anti-revolutionary movement in the defence of vested interests.”

“She now stands for what Rome stood for: Rome consistently supported the rich against the poor…and since the poor, so far, have always and everywhere been far more numerous than the rich, Rome’s policy made for inequality, for injustice, and for the least happiness of the greatest number.”

Criminal injustice defines US policy. It’s morally and ethically reprehensible.

America spends more on prisons than education. In the last two decades, prison spending increased around 570%. Education funding grew only one-third.

One year in prison costs more than Harvard’s annual tuition. America has 5% of the world’s population. It incarcerates 25% of world prisoners.

Many thousands are held for their political beliefs and advocacy. HL Menchen once said:

“The most dangerous man to any government (is someone) who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos.”

“Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, and intolerable.”

Attorney/activist Stan Willis said earlier:

“The United States is very, very concerned when its citizens begin to raise (uncomfortable) questions.”

America “prefers to posture itself, including the Obama administration, as the leader of the free world and that they don’t have any human rights violations, and they certainly don’t have any political prisoners, and we have to dispel that notion in the international community.”

US officials want this issue hidden from public view. It preaches democracy at home and abroad.

It practices injustice writ large. It locks thousands in cages unconscionably. It does so for political reasons.

It sentences them to slow death. It violates constitutional law doing so. The Eighth Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.”

The First Amendment guarantees free speech. Democratic principles include equal justice under law.

In Griffin v. Illinois (1956), the Supreme Court said “there can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has.” Nor when core constitutional rights are denied.

Everyone is entitled to constitutional protections. Too few get it. Thousands are denied it for their political beliefs and advocacy. They’re imprisoned for doing the right thing.

Judicial unfairness is US official policy. Guilty by accusation is standard practice. Constitutional scholar Thomas Emerson (1908 – 1981) once said:

The FBI is an instrument of repression. It “jeopardizes the whole system of free expression which is the cornerstone of our society (raising) the specter of a police state.”

“In essence, the FBI conceives of itself as an instrument to prevent radical social change in America. The Bureau’s view of its function leads it beyond data collection into political warfare.”

It protects privilege from beneficial social, political and economic change. Criminal injustice in America denies fundamental constitutional rights.

Society’s most vulnerable are harmed most. So is anyone for dissenting political views and advocacy.

Howard Zinn called dissent “the highest form of patriotism. (It) means being true to the principles for which your country is supposed to stand,” he said.

“(T)he right to dissent is one of those principles. And if we’re exercising that right, (it’s) patriotic.”

“One of the greatest mistakes (about) patriotism (is thinking it) means support(ing) your (government right or wrong).”

“(W)hen governments become destructive (of life, liberty and equality), it is the right of the people to alter or abolish (it).”

Michael Tigar is Washington College of Law Professor Emeritus. He’s a constitutional law expert. He’s one of America’s most respected defense attorneys.

He’s written extensively on litigation, trial practice, criminal law, capital punishment, and the role of criminal defense attorneys. He represented Lynne. He did so at the district court level.

He called it a “great honor” to do it. He represented her struggle for freedom and justice. “The entire legal profession ought to be standing up and shouting about (her) case,” he said.

He called charges against her “an attack on the First Amendment right of free speech, free press and petition.”

Lynne was targeted for “speaking and helping others to speak.” Doing so was fundamentally unconstitutional.

So-called evidence against her “was gathered by wholesale invasion of private conversations, private attorney-client meetings, and private faxes, letters and emails. I have never seen such an abusive use of government power,” said Tigar.

Convicting Lynne was chilling. It warned other defense attorneys. It intimidated them. Representing clients prosecutors want convicted is dangerous. Doing so leaves them vulnerable going forward.

US police state laws are menacing. Anyone can be targeted for supporting right over wrong. America is unfit to live in.

Thousands of political prisoners reflect its harshness. Justice is a four-letter word. It’s systematically denied.

_______________________________________________________________________

LYNNEhourglass1

| Expendable People: Economics, a “Murderous Science!”

Expendable People: Economics, a “Murderous Science” ~  John Kozy, Global Research.

The English who settled America brought English culture with them. The colonies were nothing but little Englands. When the colonists revolted, they were merely trying to get free of the tyrannical English monarchy, not trying to change the culture. They were perfectly happy with the English way of life. They carried on its practices and adopted the English system of common law.

That sixteenth century culture is alive and well in America today and is why America is in many respects a backward nation. Americans are living 500 years behind the times.

One would like to believe that human institutions exist to enhance the lives of people, but there is very little evidence to support that view. If enhancing the lives of people is not the purpose of human institutions, what is? The American Constitution lists six goals the founders expected the nation to accomplish:

We the People of the United States, in Order to (1) form a more perfect Union, (2) establish Justice, (3) insure domestic Tranquility, (4) provide for the common defence, (5) promote the general Welfare, and (6) secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Unfortunately, no American government has ever tried to govern in a way that seeks to attain these goals. So the American government is either an unconstitutional, failed state or else the framers of the Constitution must be thought of as having engaged in unrealistic political propaganda. At any rate, the American government is not what the Constitution makes it out to be. The question is why? The answer is the stupid political economy!

The English who settled America brought English culture with them. The colonies were nothing but little Englands. When the colonists revolted, they were merely trying to get free of the tyrannical English monarchy, not trying to change the culture. They were perfectly happy with the English way of strife. They carried on its practices and adopted the English system of common law.

That sixteenth century culture is alive and well in America today and is why America is in many respects a backward nation. Americans are living 500 years behind the times.

The English were engaged in economic activities for hundreds of years before Adam Smith published his An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nation; all he did was provide English merchants with a rationalization for what they had always done and wanted to do more of.Laissez-faire (let [them] do), to them, meant the ability to engage in economic practices without being subjected to governmental restrictions and tariffs. Then, like today, merchants wanted the freedom to profiteer by buying cheap and selling dear. Merchants, then or now, have had little interest in abstruse economic theory unless its models promise greater profit.

But buying cheap and selling dear applies to labor as well as materials, and the classical economists provide a rationalization for that maxim too. The subsistence theory of wages, advanced by classical economists, holds that the market price of labour always tends toward the minimum required for subsistence (that is, for basic needs such as food and shelter). Even Alfred Marshall, America’s first modern economist, was of the opinion that wages in the long run would tend to equal maintenance and reproduction costs. So when the Republican party seeks to eliminate regulations and keep the minimum wage low, they are acting just like sixteenth century English merchants and their boot-licking economists. Merchants become sheep dogs that herd human sheep, and our economists think nothing of it. They have adopted the British way of strife totally.

Although this impoverishment of labor is bad enough, in a globalized economy it is devastating. The classical economists held that a subsistence wage had to be high enough to enable the workforce to reproduce itself in order to maintain a labor supply; in a globalized economy, the workforce needed exists in underdeveloped countries. A domestic workforce is entirely unnecessary, so there is no need to even grant it subsistence wages or any other humane benefit. From a merchants’/economists’ point of view, domestic labor becomes expendable. Why pay it anything at all?

What a lovely world our economists advocate! Economics is not merely a dismal science, it is a murderous one.

Merchants and economists constitute a class of totally inhumane human beings. (Isn’t inhumane human a contradiction?) It seems as though two entirely different races have intermingled—the human race and an inhumane one. In the words of Pope Francis,

“A savage capitalism has taught the logic of profit at any cost . . . of exploitation without thinking of people.”

What kind of person would support this economy? Although they may revel in their fortunes and often act and speak like the rest of us, they are not like us. They are evil to the marrow of their bones. Logically, the inhumane are either not human or deranged.

One such person is Arnaud Costinot, an MIT economist, who uses the doctrine of comparative advantage to justify globalization. He is said to hold this:

Ricardo thought that instead of trying to produce a wide range of goods, countries could grow by specializing in the goods they could produce most cheaply, and then trading those goods with other countries. This made sense, Ricardo claimed, even when a country could make multiple products more cheaply, in absolute terms, than other countries.

How? Suppose, Ricardo posited, that England produces cloth more cheaply than wine, while Portugal produces wine more cheaply than cloth. And suppose Portugal produces both products more cheaply than England does. Both countries could still benefit from trading in equal terms: England could specialize in making cloth, and trade that for wine. But Portugal could specialize in making wine, and trade that for England’s cloth — which would be the cheapest way to acquire cloth, even if Portugal’s own cloth was cheaper to make than England’s.”

Only thing is, Ricardo never wrote any such thing, and to describe what he wrote in this way is intellectual dishonesty at its worst. Ricardo never uses the word “cheaply.” He uses “the number of man hours needed to produce one unit of cloth or wine,” ‘Man hours worked’ is not a wage or a value of currency. The production may not be cheap. By deliberately misstating what Ricardo writes, economists advocate the exploitation and impoverishment of workers and ultimately their destruction—a truly evil and inhumane goal.

This is the only explanation for the right wing’s war on the poor. Beasts of burden are disposed of when they have lost their usefulness, so destroying the middle class is not to be lamented. When the labor of underdeveloped countries became available to manufacturers, the American middle class became expendable. That is the American Republican party’s goal. It seeks to shrink the size of government by eliminating the people who need to be taken care of.

Economists want us to believe that free trade makes everyone richer, but experience teaches us otherwise.

The Internet is replete with articles both pro and con, but the attitudes of people to offshoring is quite consistent. The peoples in underdeveloped nations involved in making products for the West chafe at the extent of the exploitation. Whether in Latin America, Bangladesh, Malaysia, the Philippines, the Czech Republic, or Poland exploited labor is never described as prosperous. Neither has prosperity blessed America’s laborers. Exploitation and prosperity are alien concepts. The exploited are never prosperous and the prosperous are never exploited. No nation can boast of its prosperity gotten by offshoring. The empirical evidence gotten anecdotally is better than the dubious statistical evidence cited by economists (see The Real Cost of Offshoring.) India’s laborers are not getting rich working for American companies. NAFTA has not brought prosperity to Mexican or American workers. A low-wage job is not a gainful (prosperous) one. Marx asked workers of the world to unite; Western corporate leaders tell them to be damned. Any economist who does not see what is happening is intellectually blind. Or perhaps, just plain evil.

In The Story so Far, the Economist put it this way:

ONCE UPON A time the rich world’s manufacturing firms largely produced in the rich world for the rich world, and most services were produced close to where they were consumed. Then Western firms started sending manufacturing work abroad on a large scale. By the 1980s this was well established. The movement was overwhelmingly in one direction: away from rich countries to places where workers with adequate skills were much cheaper.

Whether openly stated or not, lower labour costs were almost always the chief rationale.

To corporations, workers are likened to beasts of burden and the economic elite who advocate this economic practice are then likened to vicious dogs. What a wonderful world! It will not change until the welfare of mankind, rather than profit, becomes the goal of political-economy. If the human race is to survive, the welfare of human beings must be the goal of human institutions.

John Kozy is a retired professor of philosophy and logic who writes on social, political, and economic issues. After serving in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, he spent 20 years as a university professor and another 20 years working as a writer. He has published a textbook in formal logic commercially, in academic journals and a small number of commercial magazines, and has written a number of guest editorials for newspapers. His on-line pieces can be found onhttp://www.jkozy.com/ and he can be emailed from that site’s homepage.

________________________________________________________________________

Executioner1

US except1A