Skip to main content

Aggregatore di feed

Join the Lazy Man’s Party

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 18/08/2016 - 06:01

When the U.S. began to overtax the rich to appease the masses and fund everything the federal government provides, no thought was given to where this was headed.

Then when the nation’s central bank, the Federal Reserve Bank, divvied out near-free money to the financial classes in the 2008 financial/credit/home loan crisis to cover the losses of lenders but not home mortgage holders, little did anyone realize how this would not only crush the middle class but create super-wealthy oligarchs that now demand government do their bidding by virtue of the fact how much government relies upon them.

Then the Supreme Court, in United Citizens v. Federal Election Commission decision, ruled the First Amendment protected the right to donate to politics.  Corporations and unions could spend unlimited amounts of money on political activities, as long as it was done independently of a party or candidate. Political Action Committees sprang up and the wealthy could now influence like the days of robber barons.

America simply does not have a democracy any more.  The super-wealthy have been able to buy the 4th estate, the nation’s news media, and create propaganda of their own.  Just six corporations control 90% of the news outlets in America. [Business Insider]  If you frequent the internet you have probably seen the videos of the TV news anchors parroting the exact same phrases in their news stories. [YouTube]  News is produced and controlled.

Why are the most advertised Gold and Silver coins NOT the best way to invest?

The U.S. is now considered an oligarchy, defined as a small group of people having control of a country. [The New Yorker April 18, 2014]  This is fascism by another name.

Americans could only watch as their country was taken away from them.

The country has now polarized.  The underclasses protected by welfare and the financial classes using near-free money with the middle class squashed in between.

According to the Census Bureau, in 2012 there were 103,087,000 full-time year-round workers in the U.S. and 109,631,000 Americans receiving federal welfare benefits.  The welfare-takers outnumbered full-time year-round workers by 6,544,000. [CNSNews.com]

Government sources say unemployment is ~5%, but in the real world it exceeds 23%. (Source: ShadowStats.com)  The chairman of Gallup polling group recently posted the official 5.6% unemployment rate is “a big lie.” [Gallup]

More than half of the bachelor’s degree-holders under age 25 are jobless or underemployed (2012).  [The Atlantic]  More young and middle-aged adults are now living with their parents and grandparents, a record 60+ million Americans (19%) versus 42.4 million (17%) in 2009.  [MarketWatch Aug 14, 2016]

While more Americans joined the ranks of the unemployed, tax revenues rose from $2.54 trillion at the height of the financial/credit collapse in 2008 to $3.5 trillion in 2016.  You don’t hear any politicians saying “no new taxes” any more.  It’s obvious, the working class has had to bear the burden for the growing class of permanently unemployed.

Overtaxed, under-taxed

In 2008 about 51.6 million or 36% of tax filers had no income tax obligation. [TaxFoundation.org] In tax year 2015 45.3% of American households, or roughly 77.5 million Americans, will pay no federal individual income tax. [MarketWatch.com]

Meanwhile, 86.8% of total federal income taxes are paid by the richest 20% with an average income tax bill of $50,176 per person.

Middle class crushed

The so-called middle class, defined in 2006 before the Great Recession as those households (family of 3) that earn between 25,000 and $75,000/year, now falls in the $42,000-$125,000 range (2014).

While those American households that achieve a six-figure income are considered wealthy, due to inflation it really takes an income of $365,000 today to equal what $125,000 in purchasing power in 1980.  A six-figure income looks big to those who earn $40,000 a year, but the middle class is not getting ahead.

The bottom 90% of income earners have very little savings while the so-called middle class is able to save about 10% of earnings.  But that is being eroded by less than 1% interest on banked money, which is less than the 2.2% target rate of inflation or the 4+% real inflation rate (source: ShadowStats.com).

The middle class is saving ~10% only to see it erode via inflationary erosion (less buying power).   And the middle class is bearing the tax burden for the growing number of unemployed Americans.

Wealth at the expense of the middle class

The rich are not only getting richer, what’s most noticeable is that more people are becoming wealthy. Since the millionaire population plunged in 2008, the U.S. has gained or added back more than 3.5 million millionaires.

The number of households worth $5 million or more also set a new record, jumping to 1.3 million from 1.24 million in 2013. And there are now 142,000 households worth $25 million or more, up from 132,000 in 2013. [CNBC]

The total number of millionaires in the U.S. was 9.2 million in 2007 before the Great Recession, dropped to 6.7 million in 2008 and now there are over 10 million millionaires (net worth). [L A Times March 12, 2014]  The U.S. now has 536 billionaires.  [Wikipedia]  There were just 49 American billionaires in 2000.  [Statista.com]

The billionaires are trying to keep you from being one

What does not dawn upon Americans is that those entrenched oligarchs who control the status quo are working against anyone ever competing against them.   When we hear of the Bilderberg meetings of a small number of elite people in industry, finance, academia, and the media, do we realize the super-wealthy are being briefed on how they can maintain their wealth and how to keep others from competing with them?

Where can we see oligarchy?

We can see an oligarch when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says she relies upon the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) for consultation (but her own daughter and husband are members!)  The CFR is an elitist organization that personifies oligarchy.

Is the President an oligarch?  Much like a king who issues proclamations, the Presidency now issues Executive Orders that skirt around Congress and become policy. [NY Times, Aug. 13, 2016]  Ironically, while Barack Obama derides contender Donald Trump as a demagogue he issues executive orders like pancakes. [Yahoo.com] Executive overreach puts American freedoms at risk. [The Daily Signal]

Profound and historical change in America

Americans really don’t recognize fascism when they see it.  Today America is seen through the lens of what it once was.  America has a great heritage but a despoiled future.

In school American students learn of the three balancing branches of government.  But in reality, the Executive branch is headed by the President who is the leader of his/her political party, and when that party controls Congress and appoints new federal judges, particularly to the Supreme Court, and the President appoints the Attorney General and FBI chief who are supposed to police government including the Oval Office, in reality you don’t have checks and balances.

What Egyptians did

Americans might get a hint from Egypt of how to take their country back.  When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pressed forward Mohamed Morsi as President, Egyptians felt their country was being handed over to the mob (The Muslim Brotherhood) that was now constitutionally above judicial review. [LA Times July 15, 2012]

So millions of Egyptians took to the streets in protest but millions more, fearing street riots only foment instability, pulled couches from their homes into the streets and sat on them. Complacent Egyptians had had enough.  This served as a signal for the military to oust Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood.  [Egypt Independent]  The “couch party” prevailed in Egypt.   In 2015 Morsi was jailed for 20 years. [Zerohedge]

Class warfare

Those who hold control of power do so by turning Americans against each other.  Class warfare is at the center of this year’s Presidential election.  [US News] In 2012 there were 235 million eligible voters in the U.S., but only 129 million voted (54%).  The complacency party would prevail if it demonstrated its might in any way.

Should Americans vote?

Obviously, a lot of Americans don’t vote.  I can’t blame them.  Consider the carving out of Congressional districts in North Carolina, what is called gerrymandering, where the majority voted for one party’s Presidential candidate in a recent statewide poll but in 10 of the State’s 13 House congressional districts the other party got elected.  [LA Times Aug 15, 2016; NY Times Feb 2, 2013] Both sides do this.  How much gerrymandering goes on to negate your vote where you live?  Some libertarians suggest voting only gives the establishment license to do what they do.  Why participate in a deceitful and corrupt process?

Bring on the couch party

The least that disgruntled yet apathetic Americans can do is pull their couches out into the front yard, which will say they won’t take any more of this.  You don’t have to leave home.  The lazy man’s party can win. The couch party convention need only last one day.  Some dispirited American out there must know how to roust out lethargic Americans via social media to stage a 1-day couch protest.  American Americans just need to send a message.  Americans’ homes were taken away, their jobs evaporated, the value of their money diminished, and Americans are incongruently told unemployment is low, inflation is down, the gross domestic product is rising, and they live in the greatest country in the world.  Maybe there is little we can do, but we can tell the oligarchs and controlled politicians without going to the voting booth and without taking to the streets to throw rocks and confront police officers, that we know what they are doing and they aren’t fooling all of us and WE WANT OUR COUNTRY BACK!

The post Join the Lazy Man’s Party appeared first on LewRockwell.

Dollar Is Down, Gold Is Up

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 18/08/2016 - 06:01

Yesterday was the end of some short-lived rallies as stocks fell back from their record highs and the dollar index retreated back to pre-Brexit lows. In the long term, these changes are showing the dollar continues to lose its purchasing power due to central banking’s bad fiscal policy. As the dollar declines, gold prices are likely to respond with upward movements throughout the remainder of the year.

The Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index halted a drop of up to 1.2% after William Dudley, Federal Reserve Bank of New York president and chief executive officer, said policymakers could potentially raise interest rates as soon as next month. According to Bloomberg:

The dollar has lost ground over the past month as lackluster data in the world’s biggest economies fueled speculation the Fed would be slow to raise borrowing costs.”

Core CPI Numbers

Bullish Gold and Emerging Markets

While US stocks and the US dollar fell, gold rallied for a second day and emerging market currencies hit their strongest level in more than a year. Stocks from those nations gained for the ninth day in a row.

Gold rallied because investors are looking for a safe haven to combat the continued monetary easing that is likely to come in the form of another rate cut or more QE before the end of the year.

Reprinted from SchiffGold.com.

The post Dollar Is Down, Gold Is Up appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Real Existential Threats

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 18/08/2016 - 06:01

On Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year 2016, the national debt is projected to reach $19.3 trillion.

With spending on the four biggest budget items – Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, defense – rising, and GDP growing at 1 percent, future deficits will exceed this year’s projected $600 billion.

National bankruptcy, then, is among the existential threats to the republic, the prospect that we will find ourselves in the not-too-distant future in the same boat with Greece, Puerto Rico, and Illinois.

Yet, we drift toward the falls, with the issue not debated.

to pass.

The country would divide into two parties, Calhoun said. One would be the party of those who pay the taxes to the government, the other the party of those who consume the benefits of government.

The taxpayers’ party would engage in constant clashes with the party of the tax-consumers.

In 2013, the top 1 percent of Americans in income paid 38 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 50 percent of income-earners, half the nation, paid only 3 percent of all income taxes.

A question logically follows: If one belongs to that third of the nation that pays no income taxes but receives copious benefits, why would you vote for a party that will cut taxes you don’t pay, but take away benefits you do receive?

Traditional Republican platforms ask half the country to vote against its economic interests. As a long-term political strategy, that is not too promising.

During the New Deal, FDR’s aide Harold Ickes declared in what became party dogma, “We shall tax and tax, spend and spend, and elect and elect.”

And so they did, and so they do. But this is a game that cannot go on forever.

For, as John Adams reminded us, “There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

The post The Real Existential Threats appeared first on LewRockwell.

National Endowment for Democracy

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 18/08/2016 - 06:01

For 30 years, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has been sub-contracting the legal part of illegal CIA operations. Without rousing suspicions, it has put in place the biggest network of corruption in the world, bribing trade unions and management syndicates , political parties both on both the Right and Left so that they defend the interests of the United States instead of their members. In this article, Thierry Meyssan describes the extent of this system.

In 2006, Kremlin denounced the proliferation of foreign associations in Russia, some of which would have participated in a secret plan, orchestrated by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), to destabilise the country. To prevent a “colour revolution”, Vladislav Surkov drew up strict regulation over these non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In the West, this administrative framework was described as a “fresh assault on freedom of association by Putin the “Dictator” and his adviser”.

This policy has been followed by other States who in their turn, have been labelled by the international press as “dictators”.

The US government guarantees that it is working towards “promoting democracy all over the world”. It claims that the US Congress can subsidize NED and that NED can, in turn, and wholly independently, help directly or indirectly, associations, political parties or trade unions, working in this sense anywhere in the world. The NGOs being, as their name suggests, “non-governmental” can take political initiatives that ambassadors could not assume without violating the sovereignty of the States that receive them. The crux of the matter lies here: NED and the network of NGOs that it finances: are they initiatives of civil society unjustly repressed by the Kremlin or covers of the US Secret Services caught red-handed in interference?

Myths, Misunderstandings and Outright lies about owning Gold. Are you at risk?

In order to respond to this question, we are going to return to the origins and function of NED. But our first step must be to analyze the meaning of this official US project: “exporting democracy”.

The puritans that founded the United States wanted to create a “radiant city” whose light would illuminate the whole world. They considered themselves the missionaries of a political model.

What Democracy?

The US, as a people, subscribes to the ideology of their founding fathers. They think of themselves as a colony that has come from Europe to establish a city obeying God. They see their country as “a light on the mountain” in the words of Saint Mathew, adopted for two centuries by most of their presidents in their political speeches. The US would be a model nation, shining on top of a hill, illuminating the entire world. And all other people in the world would hope to emulate this model to reach their well-being.

For the people of United States, this very naïve belief implies without more that their country is an exemplary democracy and that they have a messianic duty to superimpose it on the rest of the world. While Saint Mathew envisaged propagating faith exclusively through the example of a righteous life, the founding fathers of the United States thought of illumination and propagating their faith in terms of regime change. The English puritans beheaded Charles I before fleeing to the Netherlands and the Americas, then the patriots of the New World rejected the authority of King George III of England, proclaiming the independence of the United States.

Impregnated by this national mythology, the people of the United States do not perceive their government’s foreign policy as a form of imperialism. In their eyes, it is all the more legitimate to topple a government that has the ambition to take the form of a model which is different from theirs and thus evil. In the same way, they are persuaded that due to the messianic mission that has been thrust upon them, they have arrived to impose democracy by force in the countries that they have occupied. For example, at school, they learn that GIs brought democracy to Germany. They do not know that history indicates quite the opposite: their government helped Hitler to topple the Republic of Weimar and set up a military regime to fight the Soviets. This irrational ideology prevents them from challenging the nature of their institutions and the absurd concept of a “forced democracy”.

Now, according to President Abraham Lincoln’s formula, “democracy is the government of the people, by the people for the people”.

From this point of view, the United States is not a democracy but a hybrid system where executive power is returned to the oligarchy, while the people limit its arbitrary exercise through legislative and judicial powers that can check it. Indeed, while the people elect Congress and some judges, it is the states of the federation that elect executive power and the latter appoints the high judges. Although citizens have been called to determine their choice for president, their vote on this matter only operates as a ratification, as the Supreme Court pointed out in 2000, in Gore v. Bush. The US Constitution does not recognize that the people are sovereign because power is divided between them and a federation of states, in other words, between the leaders of the community.

As an aside, we observe that in contrast, the Russian Federation’s Constitution is democratic – on paper at least. It declares: “the holder of sovereignty and the sole source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people.” (Title I, Ch. 1, art.3).

This intellectual context explains that the US supports its government when it announces that it wants “to export democracy”, even if, its own constitution signals that it is not one. But it is difficult to see how it could export something it does not possess and does not wish to have at home.

For the last thirty years, this contradiction has been supported by NED and given specific form through destabilizing a number of States. With a smile that a clean conscience blesses upon them, thousands of activists and gullible NGOs have violated the people’s sovereignty.

A Pluralist and Independent Foundation

In his famous speech on 8 June 1982 before the British Parliament, President Reagan denounces the USSR as “the empire of evil” and proposes to come to the aid of dissidents over there and elsewhere. He declared: “We need to create the necessary infrastructure for democracy: freedom of the press, trade unions, political parties and universities. This will allow people the freedom to choose the best path for them to develop their culture and to resolve their disputes peacefully”. On this consensual basis of the struggle against tyranny, a commission of bipartisan reflection sponsored the establishment of NED at Washington. This was established by Congress in November 1983 and immediately financed.

The Foundation subsidizes four independent structures that redistribute money abroad, making it available to associations, trade unions and members of the ruling class, and parties on the right and left. They are:

 Free Trade Union Institute (FTUI), today renamed American Centre for International Labour Solidarity (ACILS), managed by the trade union AFL-CIO;

 Centre for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), managed by the US Chamber of Commerce;

 International Republican Institute (IRI), run by the Republican Party;

 National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), run by the Democratic Party.

Presented in this manner, NED and its four tentacles appear to be anchored in civil society, reflecting the social diversity and political pluralism. Funded by the US people, through Congress, they would have worked to a universal ideal. They would be completely independent of the Presidential Administration. And their transparent action could not be a mask for secret operations serving undeclared national interests.

The reality is completely different.

In 1982, Ronald Reagan established NED in partnership with the United Kingdom and Australia to topple the “Empire of Evil”.

A Drama produced by the CIA, MI6, and ASIS

Ronald Reagan’s speech in London took place in the aftermath of scandals surrounding revelations by Congressional Committees enquiring into the CIA’s dirty-trick coups. Congress then forbids the Agency to organize further coups d’etat to win markets. Meanwhile, in the White House, the National Security Council (NSC) looks to put in place other tools to circumvent this prohibition.

The Commission of Bipartisan Reflection was established prior to Ronald Reagan’s speech, although it only officially received a mandate from the White House afterwards. This means it is not responding to grandiloquent presidential ambitions but precedes them. Therefore, Reagan’s speech is only rhetorical dressing of decisions already taken in principle and meant to be implemented by the Bipartisan Commission.

The Chair of the Bipartisan Commission was the US Special Representative for Trade, who indicates that she did not envisage promoting democracy but, according to current terminology, “market democracy”. This strange concept is in keeping with the US model: an economic and financial oligarchy imposes its political choices through the markets and a federal state, while parliamentarians and judges elected by the people protect individuals from arbitrary government.

Three of NED’s four peripheral organizations were formed for the occasion. However, there was no need to establish the fourth, a trade union (ACILS). This was set up at the end of the Second World War even though it changed its name in 1978 when its subordination to the CIA was unmasked. From this, we can extract the conclusion that the CIPE, IRI, and NDI were not born spontaneously but were engineered into being by the CIA.

Furthermore, although NED is an association under US law, it is not a tool of the CIA alone, but an instrument shared with British services (which is why Reagan announced its creation in London) and the Australian services. This key point is often glossed over without comment. However, it is validated by messages of congratulations by Prime Ministers Tony Blair and John Howard during the 20th anniversary of the so-called “NGO”. NED and its tentacles are organs of an Anglo-Saxon military pact linking London, Washington, and Canberra; the same goes for Echelon, the electronic interception network. This provision can be required not only by the CIA but also by the British MI6 and the Australian ASIS.

To conceal this reality, NED has stimulated among its allies the creation of similar organizations that work with it. In 1988, Canada is fitted out with a centre Droits & Démocratie, which has a special focus first on Haiti, then Afghanistan. In 1991, the United Kingdom established the Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD). The functioning of this public body is modelled on NED: its administration is entrusted to political parties (eight delegates: three for the Conservative Party; three for the Labour Party; and one for the Liberal Party and one for the other parties represented in Parliament). WFD has done a lot of work in Eastern Europe. Indeed in 2001, the European Union is equipped with a European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), which arouses less suspicion than its counterparts. This office is EuropAid, led by a high official as powerful as he is unknown: a Dutchman, Jacobus Richelle.

Presidential Directive 77

When US parliamentarians voted for the establishment of NED on 22 November 1983, they did not know that it already existed in secret pursuant to a Presidential Directive dated 14 January.

This document only declassified two decades later, organizes “public diplomacy” a politically correct expression to designate propaganda. It establishes at the White House working groups within the National Security Council. One of these is tasked with leading NED.

Henry Kissinger, administrator of the NED. A “representative of civil society”?

Consequently, the Board of Directors of the Foundation is only a transmission belt of the NSC. To maintain appearances, it has been agreed that, as a general rule, CIA agents, and former agents could not be appointed to the board of directors.

Things are nonetheless no more transparent. Most high officials that have played a central role in the National Security Council have been NED directors. Such are the examples of Henry Kissinger, Franck Carlucci, Zbigniew Brzezinski, or even Paul Wolfowitz; personalities that will not remain in history as idealists of democracy, but as cynical strategists of violence.

The Foundation’s budget cannot be interpreted in isolation because it receives instructions from the NSC to lead action as part of vast inter-agency operations. It merits mention that funds are released from the International Aid Agency (USAID), without being recorded in NED’s balance sheet, simply for “non-governmentalizing”. Furthermore, the Foundation receives money indirectly money the CIA, after it has been laundered by private intermediaries such as the Smith Richardson Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation or even the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.

To evaluate the extent of this programme, we would need to combine the NED’s budget with the corresponding sub-budgets of the Department of State, USAID, the CIA and the Department of Defense. Today, such an estimation is impossible.

Nonetheless, certain elements we know give us an idea of its importance. During the last five years, the United States has spent more than one billion dollars on associations and parties in Libya, a small state of 4 million inhabitants. Overall, half of this manna was released publicly by the State Department, USAID, and NED; the other half had been secretly paid by the CIA and the Department of Defence. This example allows us to extrapolate the US’s general budget for institutional corruption that amounts to tens of billions of dollars annually. Furthermore, the equivalent programme of the European Union that is entirely public and provides for the integration of US actions, is 7 billion euro per year.

Ultimately, NED’s legal structure and volume of its official budget are only baits. In essence, it is not an independent organization for legal actions previously entrusted to the CIA, but it is a window through which the NSC gives the orders to carry out legal elements of illegal operations.

The Trotskyite Strategy

When it was being set up (1984), NED was chaired by Allen Weinstein, then by John Richardson for four years (1984-88), finally by Carl Gershman (from 1998).

These three men have three things in common:

 They are Jewish;

 They were active in the Trotsky party, Social Democrats USA; and

 They have worked at Freedom House.

There is a logic in this: hatred of Stalinism led some Trotskyites to join the CIA to fight the Soviets. They brought with them the theory of global power, by transposing it to the “colour revolutions” and to “democratisation”. They have simply displaced the Trotsky vulgate by applying it to the cultural battle analysed by Antonio Gramsci: power is exercised psychologically rather than by force. To govern the masses, the elite has to first inculcate an ideology that programmes their acceptance of the power that dominates it.

The American Centre for the Solidarity of Workers (ACILS)

Known also as Solidarity Centre, ACILS, a trade union branch of NED, is easily its principal channel. It distributes more than half the Foundation’s donations. It has replaced the previous organizations that served during the Cold War to organize non-communist trade unions in the world, from Vietnam to Angola, by-passing France, and Chile.

The fact trade unions were chosen to cover this CIA programme is a rare perversity. Far from the Marxist slogan, “Proletariats from all countries – unite”, ACILS brings together US working class trade unions in an imperialism that crushes workers in other countries.

This subsidiary was led by Irving Brown, a flamboyant personality, from 1948 until his death in 1989.

In 1981, Irving Brown places Jean-Claude Mailly as an assistant to André Bergeron, the Secretary General of the Force Ouvrière (FO). The latter will acknowledge financing its activities thanks to the CIA. In 2004, Mailly becomes the Secretary General of the FO.

Some authors swear that Brown was the son of a white Russian, a companion of Alexander Kerensky. What we know for sure, is that he was an OSS agent, (i.e. an agent of the US intelligence service during the Second World War); and he participated in establishing the CIA and NATO’s Gladio network. However, he refused to lead it, preferring to focus on his area of expertise, trade unions. He was based at Rome, then Paris and never at Washington. So he had a significant impact on Italian and French public life. At the end of his life, he also boasts that he did not stop directing the French trade union, Force Ouvrière behind the scenes, and that he pulled the strings of the Student trade union UNI (where the following are active: Nicolas Sarkozy and his ministers François Fillon, Xavier Darcos, Hervé Morin and Michèle Alliot-Marie, as well as the President of the National Assembly, Bernard Accoyer and the President of the majoritarian parliamentary group, Jean-François Copé), and to have personally formed on the left, members of a Trotskyite break away group which included Jean-Christophe Cambadelis and the future Prime Minister Lionel Jospin.

At the end of the nineties, members of the confederation AFL-CIO requested accounts of ACILS’s actual activity, while its criminal character had been fully documented in a number of countries. One could have thought that things would have changed after this great outpouring. Nothing of the sort occurs. In 2002 and 2004, ACILS has participated actively in a failed coup d’Etat in Venezuela to oust President Hugo Chavez and in a successful one in Haiti in toppling Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Today, ACILS is directed by John Sweeney, the former president of the confederation AFL-CIO, which itself also originates from the Trotskyite Party – Social Democrats USA.

The Centre for International Private Enterprise (CIPE)

CIPE focuses on the dissemination of liberal capitalist ideology and the struggle against corruption.

The first success of CIPE: transforming in 1987 the European Management Forum (a club of CEOs of big European companies) into the World Economic Forum (the club of transnational ruling class). The big annual meeting of the world’s economic and political who’s who in the Davos Swiss ski resort contributed to creating a class membership that transcended national identity. CIPE makes sure that it does not have any structural ties with the Davos Forum, and it is not possible – for the moment – to prove that the World Economic Forum is an instrument of the CIA. On the contrary, the heads of Davos would have much difficulty explaining why certain political leaders have chosen their Economic Forum as the locus for acts of the highest importance if there were not operations planned by the US NSC. For example  1988: it is at Davos – not the UN – that Greece and Turkey made peace.  1989: it is at Davos that the two Koreas, on the one hand, held their first summit at the ministerial level and the two Germany’s, on the other hand, held their first summit on the reunification.  1992: it is again at Davos that Frederik de Klerk and the freed Nelson Mandela come together to present their common project for South Africa for the first time abroad.  1994: still more improbable, it is at Davos, after the Oslo Accord, that Shimon Peres and Yasser Arafat come to negotiate and sign its application to Gaza and Jericho.

The connection between Washington and the Forum is notoriously through Susan K. Reardon, former director of the Association of Professional Employees of the Department of State, having become director of the Foundation of the US Chamber of Commerce which manages CIPE.

The other success of the Centre for International Private Business is Transparency International. This “NGO” was officially established by Michael J. Hershman, an officer of US military intelligence. He is furthermore, a CIPE director and today Head of Recruitment of FBI informants as well as Managing Director of the private intelligence service Fairfax Group.

Transparency International is first and foremost a cover for economic intelligence activities by the CIA. It is also a media tool to compel states to change their legislation to guarantee open markets.

To mask the origin of Transparency International, the CIPE makes and appeal to the savoir-faire of the former press officer of the World Bank, the neo-conservative Frank Vogl. The latter had put in place a Committee of individuals that have contributed to creating the impression that it is an association born of civil society. This window-dressing committee is led by Peter Eigen, former World Bank Director in East Africa. In 2004 and 2009, his wife was the SPD candidate for the Presidency of the German Federal Republic.

Transparency International’s work serves US interests and cannot be relied upon. Thus in 2008, this pseudo-NGO denounced that PDVSA, Venezuela’s public oil company, was corrupt; and on the basis of false information, placed it last in its global rankings of public companies. The goal was evidently to sabotage the reputation of a company that constitutes the economic foundation of the anti – imperialist policy of President Hugo Chavez. Caught in the act of poisoning, Transparency International refused to respond to questions from the Latin American press and to correct its report. Furthermore, it is astonishing when we recall that Pedro Carmona, the CIPE correspondent at Venezuela, had been briefly put in power by the USA, during a failed coup d’Etat in 2002 to oust Hugo Chavez.

To some extent, focussing attention on economic corruption enables Transparency International to mask NED’s activities: corrupting the ruling elite for Anglo-Saxon advantage.

The International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI)

The goal of IRI is to corrupt the parties of the Right, while the NDI deals with left-wing parties. The first is chaired by John McCain, the second by Madeleine Albright. So these two personalities should not be considered ordinary politicians, a leader of the opposition and a retired dean. Rather, as active leaders of the NSC programmes.

To contextualize the principal political parties in the world, IRI and NDI have renounced their control over l’Internationale libérale and l’Internationale socialiste. They have thus created rival organizations: the International Democratic Union (IDU) and the Alliance for Democrats (AD). The first is chaired by the Australian, John Howard. The Russian, Leonid Gozman of Just cause (Правое дело) is its vice-president. The second is led by the Italian Gianni Vernetti and co-chaired by the Frenchman, François Bayrou.

IRI and NDI are also supported also by political foundations linking them to big political parties in Europe (six in Germany, two in France, one in the Netherlands and another one in Sweden). Furthermore, some operations have been sub-contracted to mysterious private companies such as Democracy International Inc which has organized the recent rigged elections in Afghanistan.

All this leaves a bitter taste. The US has corrupted most of the big political parties and trade unions all over the world. For sure, the “democracy” that they promote consists in discussing local questions in each country – hardly ever societal questions such as women’s rights or gay rights – and it is aligned with Washington on all international issues. The electoral campaigns have become shows where NED picks the cast by providing the necessary financial means to some and not to others. Even the notion of variation has lost meaning since NED promotes alternatively one camp or another provided it follows the same foreign and defense policy.

Today, in the European Union and elsewhere, one laments the crisis of democracy. Those responsible for this are clearly NED and the US. And how do we classify a regime such as the US regime where the Leader of the Opposition, John McCain, is, in fact, a leader of the National Security Council? Surely not as a democracy.

The Balance of the System

Over time, USAID, NED, their satellite institutions and their intermediary foundations have produced an unwieldy and greedy bureaucracy. Each year, when Congress votes on the NED’s budget, animated debates arise on the inefficiency of this tentacular system and rumours that funds have been appropriated to benefit US politicians in charge of administering them.

To achieve sound management, a number of studies have been commissioned to quantify the impact of these financial flows. Experts have compared the sums allocated in each state and the democratic ranking of these states by Freedom House. Then they calculated how much they needed to spend (in dollars) per inhabitant to improve the democratic ranking of a State by a point.

Of course, all this is only an attempt at self-justification. The idea of establishing a democratic mark is not scientific. In some ways, it is totalitarian, for it assumes that there is only one form of democratic institutions. In other ways, it is infantile for it established a list of disparate criteria which it will measure with fictional coefficients to transform a social complexity into a single figure.

Furthermore, the vast majority of these studies conclude that it is a failure: although the number of democracies in the world has increased, there would be no link between democratic progress and regression on the one hand and the sums spent by the NSC on the other. On the contrary, it confirms that the real objectives have nothing to do with those indicated. However, those running USAID cite a study by Vanderbilt University, according to which only the NED operations co-financed by USAID have been effective because USAID manages its budget rigorously. Thus it is not surprising that this individual study has been financed by …. USAID.

Be that as it may, in 2003, on its twentieth anniversary, NED drew up a political account of its action, evidencing that it has financed more than 6,000 political and social organizations in the world, a figure that has not stopped increasing from that time. NED claims to have single-handedly set up the trade union Solidarnoc in Poland, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia and Otpor in Serbia. It was pleased that it had created from scratch Radio B92 or the daily Oslobodjenje in the former Yugoslavia and a series of new independent media in the “liberated” Iraq.

In December 2011, Egyptian authorities search the offices of the NDI and IRI in Cairo. The documents that were seized are most important to understand US interference since the “nest of spies” was removed from Teheran in 1979. Charged with spying, the NED leaders are tried. Here: Robert Becker (Director of NDI, Cairo) at the opening of the trial. The documents prove that NED is wholly responsible for and manipulated the pseudo revolution that took place in Tahrir Square. This resulted in more than 4,000 deaths to hoist the Muslim Brotherhood to power.

Changing Cover

After experiencing global success, the rhetoric of democratization no longer convinces. By using it in all circumstances, President George W. Bush has depleted it of meaning. Noone can seriously claim that the subsidies paid by NED will make international terrorism go away. The claim that the US troops have toppled Saddam Hussein to offer democracy to Iraqis, cannot be asserted more persuasively.

Furthermore, citizens all over the world that fight for democracy have become distrustful. They now understand that the aid offered by NED and its tentacles is in fact aimed at manipulating and snaring their country. This is why they are increasingly refusing the contributions “with no strings or sticks attached” offered to them.

Also, US heads from different channels of corruption have tried to silence the system once again. After the CIA dirty tricks and the transparency of NED, they envisage creating a new structure that would replace a discredited package. It would not be managed by trade unions, management, and the two big parties, but by multinationals on the model of the Asia Foundation.

In the eighties, the press revealed that this organization was a CIA cover to fight communism in Asia. It was then reformed and its management was entrusted to multinationals. (Boeing, Chevron, Coca-Cola, Levis Strauss etc…). This restyling was enough to give the impression that it was non- governmental and respectable – a structure that never stopped serving the CIA. After the dissolution of Russia, it was replicated: the Eurasia Foundation, whose mandate extends covert action to the New Asian states.

Another issue that sparks debate is if the contributions for “promoting democracy” would have to take the exclusive form of contracts to carry out specific projects or subsidies with no duty to reach targets. The first option offers better legal cover but the second is a much more efficient tool of corruption.

Given this panorama, the requirement laid down by Vladimir Putin and Vladislav Surkov to regulate the funding of NGOs in Russia is legitimate even if the bureaucracy they have set up for doing so is outrageous and difficult to satisfy. The instrument of NED, put in place under the authority of the US NSC not only fails to support attempts at democracy all over the world but poisons them.

The post National Endowment for Democracy appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Bush Angle to the Reagan Shooting

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 18/08/2016 - 06:01

Why did George H.W. Bush and his cabinet determine that John W. Hinckley Jr. — the man who in 1981 tried to kill the newly inaugurated President Ronald Reagan — was a lone nut, and no conspiracy, foreign or domestic, was involved? How did they arrive at this conclusion just five hours after the shooting, without any thorough examination?

And why won’t the Federal Bureau of Investigation release its documents on the shooter?

Hinckley, who was released from a federal psychiatric facility on August 5 after 35 years, remains a mystery, and that’s the way the government prefers it. Among the documents the Bureau withholds are those that reveal organizations linked to him — and the names of his associates.

One noteworthy individual will not even acknowledge knowing of Hinckley beforehand, someone associated with the shooter’s family, and an even longer history of dissociation — George H.W. Bush.

Most Americans have never heard about this — and even those who have will be intrigued by some little-known aspects. One is the rather unique way the Bush clan has dealt with or sought to dismiss such peculiar situations — and this is hardly the only one in which the family has been enmeshed.

Here’s an amazing example: Bush Senior, known to family and friends as “Poppy,” claimed he could not remember where he was when he heard that President John F. Kennedy had been shot. I discovered a good reason why he should have remembered — because he, himself, had been in Dallas that morning.

I learned this while researching the Bush dynasty for what would become the book Family of Secrets. I came upon one odd “coincidence” after another, weird ones that would make anyone’s eyebrows soar.

I also saw an FBI memo showing that the man who would later become Bush 41 had secretly called the FBI shortly after the shooting of President Kennedy with information on a man he said might be involved. It turned out that not only was the man not involved, but that Bush knew him personally — and even, via a subordinate, gave the man an alibi.

Myths, Misunderstandings and Outright lies about owning Gold. Are you at risk?

Too weird.

I also learned that Poppy Bush was a longtime acquaintance/friend of George de Mohrenschildt, the mysterious Russian “baron” who was perhaps the closest person to Lee Harvey Oswald in the year before Kennedy’s death.

Imagine my interest when I learned of de Mohrenschildt’s connections to American intelligence — and then that Bush Senior himself had covertly served the CIA for decades before being named CIA director as a purported “outsider” in 1976.

Indeed, he’d been secretly mucking around with the spy agency before, during, and after Kennedy was killed.

The CIA, of course, was later revealed by the Senate’s Church Committee investigation to be in the business of arranging the removal — or even the murder — of  national leaders in various parts of the world.

Imagine my fascination, then, to learn that John Hinckley Jr., the man who shot and nearly killed President Ronald Reagan in 1981 — an attempt which, if successful, would have resulted in then-Vice President George H.W. Bush moving up to the top spot — was none other than a friend of the Bush family.

How strange is that? So strange that it literally caused NBC News’s anchor John Chancellor’s eyebrows to arch as he reported the curious connection.

The story was broken by the now-defunct Houston Post, and then picked up briefly by the AP and UPI wire services, and some newspapers, plus Newsweek.

Then it vanished without a trace or further inquiry or comment in the mainstream media.

The story was so baffling and off-putting that even I, in writing Family of Secrets more than a quarter-century later, did not mention it. I was preparing to publish a book with so many shocking elements that the publisher and I worried about whether the mainstream media would even dare cover it, or review it fairly; in that context, the Hinckley-Bush connection seemed one provocation too far.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Bush Angle to the Reagan Shooting appeared first on LewRockwell.

German President Booed, Attacked; Claims "The People Are The Problem, Not The Elites"

Deep Politics Monitor - Mer, 17/08/2016 - 15:26
From ZeroHedge, Aug 14, 2016 Revolution is closer than you think... Following Angela Merkel's earlier calls for German CEOs to hire refugees, and as Martin Armstrong notes, Germany has raided its healthcare funds to support the refugee crisis... The government passed a law that allows them to take 1.5 billion euros from the liquidity reserve of the public health care fund (10 billion

LEAKED SOROS DOCS CONFIRM MIGRANT CRISIS A TOOL OF ‘GLOBAL GOVERNANCE’

Deep Politics Monitor - Mer, 17/08/2016 - 12:09
“We deliberately avoided the term ‘global governance,’" report states From Infowars, AUGUST 16, 2016By Adan Salazar Various international groups are working to normalize the migrant crisis currently overtaking Europe, leaked memos from a George Soros organization reveal. Produced by a group called DCLeaks.com, hacked documents taken from the billionaire’s Open Society Foundation

What Will You Do When the Lights Go Out?

Lew Rockwell Institute - Mer, 17/08/2016 - 06:01

Delta Airlines recently experienced what it called a power outage in its home base of Atlanta, Georgia, causing all the company’s computers to go offline—all of them. This seemingly minor hiccup managed to singlehandedly ground all Delta planes for six hours, stranding passengers for even longer, as Delta scrambled to reshuffle passengers after the Monday debacle.

Where Delta blamed its catastrophic systems-wide computer failure vaguely on a loss of power, Georgia Power, their power provider, placed the ball squarely in Delta’s court, saying that “other Georgia Power customers were not affected”, and that they had staff on site to assist Delta.

Whether it was a true power outage, or an outage unique to Delta is fairly insignificant. The incident was a single company without power for six measly hours, yet it wreaked much havoc. Which brings to mind (or at least it should) what happens when the lights really go out—everywhere? And just how dependent is the U.S. on single-source power? extra load would likely be overtaxed, as the grid is already taxed to near max levels during peak hot or cold seasons.

The aftermath of a single grid going down could leave millions of residents without power for days, weeks or longer depending on the scope of the failure.

So although on the surface it looks like the U.S. has wisely put its eggs into three separate baskets for safer keeping, the U.S. has in essence, lined up our baskets so that if one were to drop, or if the bottom were to fall out, the eggs from basket #1 would fall into basket #2. Which would break from the load, falling into basket #3—eventually scrambling all the eggs. Sorry, Texas.

When multiple parts of the grid fail at the same time, it’s not necessarily more catastrophic—the catastrophe just happens more quickly.

According to Jon Wellinghoff, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in an interview with USA Today, “You have a very vulnerable system that will continue to be vulnerable until we figure out a way to break it out into more distributed systems.”

Read the Whole Article

The post What Will You Do When the Lights Go Out? appeared first on LewRockwell.

How Trump Can Personally Take Over the GOP

Lew Rockwell Institute - Mer, 17/08/2016 - 06:01

Trump has mobilized the millions of dispossessed voters we call the populists. This is his golden opportunity.

They have no spokesman. They haven’t had one ever since Huey Long was assassinated in 1936.

They will not conform. Not now. Not any more. They have found out that there are millions of people who feel just like them: fed up.

JOE BOB BRIGGS VS. GARRISON KEILLOR

Joe Bob Briggs, who used to write the great column on drive-in movies and low-budget films, has written one of the finest pieces of social analysis I have ever read — a true masterpiece. It is here. It is on Trump’s supporters, who are sick and tired of being pressured to keep their mouths shut.

There are all kinds of ordinary people who are gonna vote for Trump, and they’re not chasing a mythical golden age, and they don’t wear hard hats, and they don’t wanna live under a dictatorship. They’re what’s referred to in the mainstream press as “working class”–a strange term implying that they’re to be feared because they’re out there working instead of doing what the other classes do. Running Silicon Valley start-up deals? Managing trust funds? I don’t know why the Democrats, especially, equate “working class” with the Angry White Man, but they do. My point is that the Donald Trump voters have consistently told us why they’re voting for Trump, but it doesn’t fit any of the stereotypes and so it’s never mentioned. What’s the first thing out of a Trump voter’s mouth when he’s asked about it?

“I like him because he says what’s on his mind.””He’ll say anything.””He doesn’t sugar-coat it.””He says things no one else will say.”

It’s a political movement based on the First Amendment.

Briggs is the Right-wing version of Garrison Keillor, who truly hates Trump. Basically, Keillor’s comic character is a milquetoast Joe Bob from Minnesota. Briggs is actually John Irving Bloom, who grew up in Little Rock, and who attended Vanderbilt on a scholarship. Both men have developed comic personas. I am aligned with Joe Bob.

Current Prices on popular forms of Silver Bullion

Trump’s troops are in this for the long haul if he guides them. They are not going to go back into the shadows if Trump will give them some leadership. They are no longer afraid of the media. Joe Bob has spotted their commitment:

Shouldn’t we, at the very least, be looking at why 40-plus-percent of the American population would feel stifled and silenced? Shouldn’t this be what we’re examining instead of the cerebral cortex of Donald Trump’s addled ego? Wouldn’t this be the reporterly thing to do?So why do they feel muzzled? It probably started with something minor. Their third-grade son gets sent home for calling a girl “fat” in the school yard. But it doesn’t end there. The parents are called in. The student is required to attend Soviet-style reeducation classes. When the parents complain that “you’re making a big deal out nothing,” they are reminded that their progeny may have damaged a tender young girl for life.

(What the parents could have done is use the episode as an opportunity to explain libel law. If the girl was in fact fat, then the remark was protected speech because true. If she was not fat, or her weight was considered merely chubby, the remark might be actionable in a civil court and best avoided. This would be separate from the traditional reprimand of all moms to “respect the girls, including the fat ones.”)

And so, from a very early age, their kid is taught that he has to shut up about certain things. When a guy named al-Khalifa Mustafa bin Muhammad bin Chaka Khan shoots up a synagogue in Atlanta or slits a priest’s throat in Budapest, most Americans assume that a) he’s a Muslim, b) he’s a radical terrorist, and c) he should be shot on sight and his associates should be jailed or executed. But don’t say this out loud. There are local committees–and, again, it’s likely to come from the school–imploring our communities to “assume the best about all religions” and “resist the temptation to profile.” After all, there might be radical Jews or radical Christians bursting into mosques with AK-47s.

Most Americans have no problem with profiling. Most Americans would willingly submit their data to a profile if it made the community safer. But again, they feel they’re not allowed to speak up about that.

They are not going to sit down and shut up if Trump tells them to stand up and shout: “The system is rigged!” Because it really is.

Read the Whole Article

The post How Trump Can Personally Take Over the GOP appeared first on LewRockwell.

Black Success Matters

Lew Rockwell Institute - Mer, 17/08/2016 - 06:01

We keep hearing that “black lives matter,” but they seem to matter only when that helps politicians to get votes, or when that slogan helps demagogues demonize the police. The other 99 percent of black lives destroyed by people who are not police do not seem to attract nearly as much attention in the media.

What about black success? Does that matter? Apparently not so much.

We have heard a lot about black students failing to meet academic standards. So you might think that it would be front-page news when some whole ghetto schools not only meet, but exceed, the academic standards of schools in more upscale communities.

There are in fact whole chains of charter schools where black and Hispanic youngsters score well above the national average on tests. There are the KIPP (Knowledge IS Power Program) schools and the Success Academy schools, for example.

Many minority parents have already taken notice. More than 43,000 families are on waiting lists to get their children into charter schools. But admission is by lottery, and far more have to be turned away than can be admitted.

Why? Because the teachers’ unions are opposed to charter schools — and they give big bucks to politicians, who in turn put obstacles and restrictions on the expansion of charter schools. These include politicians like New York’s “progressive” mayor Bill de Blasio, who poses as a friend of blacks by denigrating the police, standing alongside Al Sharpton.

The net result is that 90 percent of New York City’s students are taught in the regular public schools that have nothing like the success of charter schools run by KIPP and Success Academy.

That makes sense only politically because it gains the money and the votes of the teachers’ unions, for whom schools exist to provide jobs for their members, rather than to provide education for children.

If you want to understand this crazy and unconscionable situation, just follow the money and follow the votes.

Black success is a threat to political empires and to a whole social vision behind those empires. That social vision has politicians like Bill de Blasio and Hillary Clinton cast in the role of rescuers and protectors of blacks from enemies threatening on all sides. If politicians can promote paranoia, that means bigger voter turnout, which is what really matters to them.

That same social vision allows the intelligentsia, whether in the media or in academia, to be on the side of the angels against the forces of evil. That’s heady stuff. And a bunch of kids taking tests doesn’t look nearly as exciting on TV as a mob marching through the streets, chanting that they want “dead cops.” Black success has very little to offer politicians or the intelligentsia. But black children’s lives and futures ought to matter — and would, if politicians and the intelligentsia were for real.

The post Black Success Matters appeared first on LewRockwell.

It’s Time To Pull the Plug on the UN

Lew Rockwell Institute - Mer, 17/08/2016 - 06:01

Every wonder what can possibly happen on a foreign aid humanitarian mission? Well, have a look. Now, I don’t want to make fun of this because this is a horrifying thing and the survivors will be in a living hell. But I will say this: I humbly suggest that every American demand our money back from the United Nations. How long have we been carrying water for this pathetic joke of a “peacekeeping force” that can’t seem to keep any peace, defend anybody, or stop “Never Again” from never again and again and again all over the place?

It seems that even the United States government itself peed down their pants leg about trying to stop the actions of what amounts to a terrorist group. They threw these people under the bus. Or, under the white-painted UN armored personnel carrier, such as the case may be. I would imagine the UN peacekeepers were too scared and too busy doing bong hits in those APCs to bother responding and doing their frickin’ jobs. Who was in charge of changing their diapers that day, anyway?Excuse me, but we can understand the UN wetting their pants at the thought of firing their own weapons. But what happened to the tough guys in the U.S. government that talk so tough you’d think they bite the heads off of animal crackers day and night?

Now, I would say that people really better think twice about serving in certain places overseas. Especially places where the kids probably get an AK-47 and a party-pack of grenades for their coming out party. Yes, it’s sad. Yes, it’s tragic. But in many cases, I’m sorry, but there’s not much you can do on the ground. And how about the fact that the United Nations is just a paper tiger? Think you can count on those blue-helmeted clowns to rescue anyone? Sometimes, those UN peacekeepers are the ones forming up rape gangs themselves. See, unarmed women are about all that a UN peacekeeping force can engage and survive without surrendering.

Why are we even in the United Nations? Hasn’t the time come to pull the plug on this Frankenstein of foreign policy? This experiment has failed. It’s time to scrape the smelly slime off the petri dish into the trash and chalk it up to big idea, small results. Wasn’t the original idea of this sham force of tin soldiers to park them between two combatants in a war to create a buffer zone? How’d that work? I think this didn’t work out so well in the Suez Crisis. Not until Soviet head honcho Nikita Khrushchev threatened to nuke London and Paris did this crisis end. Not because of the UN. It was because President Eisenhower was crapping bricks about this crisis blowing up into a nuclear war (pardon the pun.) So he ordered the British, French, and Israeli troops out of the pool and the Soviets and Egyptians had a good laugh at snookering the West and causing a NATO family feud. Right, but the UN sent in a peacekeeping force afterwards to go over there and look like they had actually done something. Besides peeing their pants, that is.

Current Prices on popular forms of Silver Bullion

Excuse me, but since when has the UN been effective at anything other than wasting vast sums of cash on senseless projects and missions that accomplish little but employ legions of smug dorks with liberal arts and humanities degrees? I suppose if we wish to know the cultural legacy of some little known tribe in the Amazon (who actually wished to be left alone and not harassed by UN anthropologists), then the UN might have merit upon which to boast. But when you were not able to stop several genocides with UN troops just a hop, skip, and a road march away, you have nothing whatsoever of which you may glorify yourself. And what wars have you managed to stop? None. You have brokered cease-fires, which were periods where the combatants were able to rebuild their forces and repair their armored vehicles to then re-enter hostilities as UN peacekeepers squatted in bunkers and filled their collective pants.

To this worldwide welfare organization we should continue paying?! Our tax money should continue funding this obscene joke of a “League of Nations”? I haven’t forgotten that the League of Nations, which is the grand-daddy of the United Nations, failed to stop World War Two. What, the weapons inspectors just happened to miss all those panzer divisions and squadrons of Stukas just sitting there? And the world had to resurrect this world government cadaver and pawn off this farce as the United Nations? Beg pardon, but this is the sequel to the League of Nations.

“But the UN has weapons inspectors to make sure other countries don’t build nuclear weapons!” Oh, you mean like India and Pakistan did? And Israel has and does, but refuses to admit? And does not allow UN weapons inspectors in to places they say no? The UN doesn’t even realize that it isn’t just the United States as a nation that has the ability to build nuclear weapons. There are about a dozen states in the United States that possess fissile material, technicians, and the facilities to manufacture nuclear weapons and could have about six apiece within a year if they decided to do so. The UN would crap their pants to have to send weapons inspectors in here after the collapse of the United States. They’d be looking for who made off with the 2,600 known nuclear weapons and about four states would be well on their way to making their own. Plus delivery vehicles.

The government of a nation is bad enough. But a world government? Come on, man, the United Nations couldn’t agree on what to order out for lunch. In the end, they’d all starve to death before coming to an agreement on the cuisine. And getting back to these peacekeepers, they’d be better off just hiring some good cowboys here in Arizona to go over there and defend these humanitarian aid missions. Those guys wouldn’t be afraid to shoot a ragtag gaggle of armed goons battering down the door. They wouldn’t need any stinking UN badges, either.

Time and again, the UN is revealed unto us as UN-necessary, UN-able, and UN-skilled. There are three entities by which the American people are being robbed via federal taxes: The United States government, NATO, and the UN. These three organizations are the most pathetic examples of military and leadership bungling, incompetence, and foolishness in the history of mankind. In the past, kingdoms demonstrated the foolishness of central government, but at least it was confined to their realms or neighboring kingdoms. With the United States government, NATO, and the UN, foolishness is exported across the globe. These dung-burglars and purveyors of swindles have no genuine value commensurate with the vast resources wasted on these Franken-states. To wit, I’d like my money back.

If we needed yet another example of how the United States government wastes our money, it is revealed that UN peacekeepers are unable to defend defenseless, unarmed people. Uh, wasn’t that one mission of the UN? Since they have failed time and time again at this relatively simple task, I think we see here a defective product. Therefore, we need to take this back for a full refund. “Would you like to exchange it for a different one, sir?” No! That’s what you said when we took back the League of Nations for a refund because it failed and then there was another world war which you said the warranty didn’t cover. But you said you could exchange it for the United Nations. But now this thing has been in the shop more than it has actually worked! No, I just want my money back.

I understand that the United States pays most of the UN operating budget. And that’s why our taxes are plain wrong. The government has no right whatsoever to take a single penny from the American people and hand it over to a foreign government or some group of dweebs supposing themselves a world government body. Especially when the so-called “peacekeepers” cannot defend women from being gang-raped when those peacekeepers are not raping women themselves. That’s what UN “peacekeepers” were doing in Africa, you know. And elsewhere. One supposes that the UN peacekeepers are where world militaries stash their problem soldiers now that there aren’t weather bases in the Arctic Circle to stash them ever since the advent of weather satellites. And we pay for it.

“Jack, you’re such an isolationist!” Yes, I am, when I see the American people getting robbed to pay for this useless cabal of smarmy charlatans and professional liars. I think it’s high time to keep our own money. Not as in keep it in the United States. I mean in our own pockets. As in, the government needs to make do with less. Right, the UN budget is maintained and the American people are the ones whose household budgets are not. Because we’ve got to pay for this crap. Yes, I’m an isolationist. The world needs to suck it up and solve their own problems. We’re not their cop, teacher, doctor, social worker, or bodyguard. And the United States government has no right to have us being those things and robbing us to pay for it. It is well past time to pull the plug on the UN.

The post It’s Time To Pull the Plug on the UN appeared first on LewRockwell.

Will the Election Be Rigged?

Lew Rockwell Institute - Mer, 17/08/2016 - 06:01

Donald Trump has said publicly that he fears the next election will be rigged. Based both on technical capability and recent history, Trump’s concerns are not unfounded.

A recent study by Stanford University proved that Hillary Clinton’s campaign rigged the system to steal the nomination from Bernie Sanders.

What was done to Bernie Sanders in Wisconsin is stunning.

Why would the Clintons not cheat again?

The issue here is both voter fraud, which is limited but does happen, and election theft through the manipulation of the computerized voting machines, particularly the DIEBOLD/PES voting machines in wide usage in most states.Mathematician and voting statistic expert Richard Charnin has produced a compelling study by comparing polling to actual results and exit polls to make a compelling case for voting machine manipulation in the Badger state.

When the Trump vs. Cruz primary took place, the same pattern emerged again of a Marquette University poll showing a 20 point shift from Trump ahead by 10% to Trump behind by 10%, which was simply absurd. Shifts like that don’t happen over brief intervals of time, absent a nuclear explosion. It didn’t make any sense — unless you knew what was going on was an “instant replay” of Walker’s victories. The machine Priebus built was delivering for Cruz big time.

Today, the polling industry has been reported to be “in a state of crisis” because they are altering their samples to favor Hillary. The Reuters poll actually got busted for oversampling Democrats in order to inflate Hillary’s lead. We even had the absurdity of a Gallup poll proclaiming that 51% of those who had heard Trump’s speech were less likely to vote for him, which was endlessly repeated by the shills at MSNBC.

I predicted that Trump would lead in the polls after his highly successful convention (despite the media frenzy over the non-issue of a Melania Trump staffer plagiarizing a handful of words). In fact, post-convention polling for the Trump effort by pollster Tony Fabrizio in key swing states was encouraging. Perhaps this is why the establishment elites have gone into overdrive to attack Trump.

Hillary hasn’t exactly had smooth sailing. Julian Assange of Wikileaks said he had inconvertible proof that as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton armed Isis LINK. The IRS has opened an investigation to the Clinton Foundation and it’s many offshoots, and Hillary got caught lying about what FBI Director Comey did say about her.

But you will see less of Hillary’s problems in the mainstream media, which has gone completely overboard in its relentless, even hysterical, efforts to lambaste Trump and promote her. Every remotely objective commentator has been stunned. Trump will, however, have an opportunity to drive these points home in the debates.

We are now living in a fake reality of constructed data and phony polls. The computerized voting machines can be hacked and rigged and after the experience of Bernie Sanders, there is no reason to believe they won’t be. Don’t be taken in.

Reprinted with the author’s permission.

The post Will the Election Be Rigged? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Disaster of the 20th Century

Lew Rockwell Institute - Mer, 17/08/2016 - 06:01

We tend to think of history as a collection of abstract facts that have no bearing on the “real world,” but everything connects across the timeline. Big, world-changing events don’t just change things when they happen; they send out shock waves that reverberate into the present. Like William Faulkner said, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”

10 Espionage And Sedition Acts

When Woodrow Wilson declared war in 1917, he gave a speech before congress warning of the disloyalty of many Americans. To deal with those who wanted to undermine the war effort, Wilson advocated “a firm hand of repression.”

Thus, Wilson enacted the Espionage and Sedition Acts to prosecute people who threatened “national defense.” The acts granted the government the power to censor newspapers and movies as well as jail those who resisted the draft and made it a federal crime to slander the Constitution. The government imprisoned thousands during Wilson’s administration.

8 Champagne

You may have, at some point, heard a snob proclaim, “Champagne is only champagne if it comes from the Champagne region in France.” Here’s why:

The French regions that could produce champagne were effectively destroyed during World War I. To ensure that champagne would remain exclusively French, a clause was added to the Treaty of Versailles, stipulating that the entire world wouldn’t be able to call any sparkling wine “champagne.” The countries that ratified the Treaty of Versailles agreed.

This stipulation remains at work today, though not completely as intended. If you’re in the US, you may have noticed that a lot of cheap wine is still called “champagne.” This stuff is made in the United States. In the US, you can a get terrible hangover from “champagne” instead of “sparkling wine” because the Senate never ratified the Treaty of Versailles. The US remains technically exempt from the clause.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Disaster of the 20th Century appeared first on LewRockwell.

Are Open Borders Libertarian?

Lew Rockwell Institute - Mer, 17/08/2016 - 06:01

This article is excerpted from the author’s A Realistic Libertarianism.

Left-libertarians profess to apply libertarian principles more consistently than other libertarians. In fact, their role is to serve as Viagra to the State. This becomes apparent when one considers their position on the increasingly virulent question of migration. Left-libertarians are typically ardent advocates in particular of a policy of ‘free and non-discriminatory’ immigration. If they criticize the State’s immigration policy, it is not for the fact that its entry restrictions are the wrong restrictions, i.e., that they do not serve to protect the property rights of domestic citizens, but for the fact that it imposes any restrictions on immigration at all.

But on what grounds should there be a right to un-restricted, “free” immigration? No one has a right to move to a place already occupied by someone else, unless he has been invited by the present occupant. And if all places are already occupied, all migration is migration by invitation only. A right to “free” immigration exists only for virgin country, for the open frontier.

There are only two ways of trying to get around this conclusion and still rescue the notion of “free” immigration. The first is to view all immigrants who caused the collapse are still physically present when it occurs. For left-libertarians, owing to their egalitarian preconceptions, this fact does not imply a problem. For them, all people are more or less equal and hence, an increase in the number of immigrants has no more of an impact than an increase of the domestic population via a higher birthrate. For every social realist, however, indeed for everyone with any common sense, this premise is patently false and potentially dangerous. A million more Nigerians or Arabs living in Germany or a million more Mexicans or Hutus or Tutsis residing in the US is quite a different thing than a million more home-grown Germans or Americans. With millions of third- and second-world immigrants present when the crisis hits and the paychecks stop coming in, it is highly unlikely that a peaceful outcome will result and a natural, private-property-based social order emerge. Rather, it is far more likely and indeed almost certain that civil war, looting, vandalism, and tribal or ethnic gang warfare will break out instead – and the call for a strong-man-State will become increasingly unmistakable.

Why, then, one might ask, does the State not adopt the left-libertarian “free” immigration policy and grasp the opportunity offered by the predictable crisis to further strengthen its own power? Through its internal non-discrimination policies and also its current immigration policies, the State has already done much to fragment the domestic population and so increase its own power. A “free immigration” policy would add another, enormous dose of non-discriminatory “multiculturalism.” It would further strengthen the tendency toward social de-homogenization, division and fragmentation, and it would further weaken the traditional, white, heterosexual male dominated ‘bourgeois’ social order and culture associated with the “West.”

The answer as to ‘why not?’ appears simple, however. In contrast to left-libertarians, the ruling elites are still realistic enough to recognize that besides great opportunities for State growth, the predictable crisis would also entail some incalculable risk and could lead to social upheavals of such proportions that they themselves may be swept out of power and be replaced by other, ‘foreign’ elites. Accordingly, the ruling elites proceed only gradually, step by step, on their path toward a “non-discriminatory multiculturalism.” And yet they are happy about the left-libertarian “free immigration” propaganda, because it helps the State not just to stay on its present divide et impera course but to proceed on it at an accelerated pace.

Contrary to their own anti-statist pronouncements and pretensions, then, the peculiar left-libertarian victimology and its demand for undiscriminating niceness and inclusiveness vis-a-vis the long, familiar list of historical “victims,” including in particular also all foreigners qua potential immigrants, actually turns out to be a recipe for the further growth of State power. The cultural Marxists know this, and that is the reason why they adopted the very same victimology. The left-libertarians do apparently not know this and are thus the cultural Marxists’ useful idiots on their march toward totalitarian social control.

The post Are Open Borders Libertarian? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Who Are These People?

Lew Rockwell Institute - Mer, 17/08/2016 - 06:01

There are many things to enjoy about Donald Trump’s unlikely climb to the head of the Republican Party. The media outcry, the resurgence of America First policy, the internet memes.

Not only is Donald a mensch on stage, but the reactions he elicits are priceless. I say priceless because they provide an inside look into who his critics really are. “You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies,” as the saying goes.

Take former RedState editor Erick Erickson. A dedicated Never Trumper, Erickson has pledged never to vote for the brash businessman. This is from the same guy who demands readers support Republicans, no matter how liberal or ineffective.

Trump’s broadsides against the neoconservative, free-trade orthodoxy of the GOP are too much for Erickson. The apogee came when, in one of his barnstorming rallies, Trump put the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in question. When faced with a hypothetical Russian invasion of an Eastern European country and NATO ally, will the U.S. meet its obligation to protect the defender? Trump’s no-bullshit response: “I say, well, let me ask you, have they paid?”

Why are the most advertised Gold and Silver coins NOT the best way to invest?

What he means is, has the country being aggressed against paid what it’s contractually obligated to pay for collective defense? According to The Wall Street Journal, only five of the 28 NATO countries meet their spending obligations. Uncle Sam and Merry England are expected to cover for the shortfall and defend the pact.

Read the Whole Article

The post Who Are These People? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Origin of All Things?

Lew Rockwell Institute - Mer, 17/08/2016 - 06:01

Anaximander of Miletus was a Pre-Socratic philosopher who belonged to the Milesian school. As indicated by its name, this school of thought was based in the city of Miletus on the western coast of Anatolia, modern day Turkey. Anaximander is one of the three prominent figures in this philosophical school, the other two being Thales and Anaximenes, the former commonly thought to have been Anaximander’s teacher, whilst the latter, his student.

It has been pointed out that these three early philosophers held quite distinct views on most subjects, and that their grouping is based on geographical convenience rather than on shared opinions. Nevertheless, it may also be said that these philosophers focused on questions regarding nature (for example, what is the quintessential substance of the universe?) which allows them to be grouped together.

Anaximander is thought to have been born in 610 BC. This year of birth is reckoned based on a piece of work known as The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, which was written by an ancient author by the name of Diogenes Laertius. Quoting another source, Diogenes wrote thus,

The post The Origin of All Things? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Crimes of an Oligarch Exposed

Lew Rockwell Institute - Mer, 17/08/2016 - 06:01

More than 2,500 files from the raft of organizations run by billionaire George Soros have been leaked by hackers.

Saturday’s leak, published by DC leaks, includes hundreds of internal documents from multiple departments of Soros’ groups, predominantly the Open Society Foundations.

Somebody hacked Soros. His critics will be busy today. This doc alone shows Soros’s anti-Israel network | https://t.co/xZ9TFslK0o

— Mike Doran (@Doranimated) August 14, 2016

Ignore the riots, Soros just got hacked and leaked! #SorosLeak (I’d post the link but Twitter won’t allow it – google it!) — King Robbo (@realkingrobbo) August 14, 2016

The files are grouped into sections such as geographical region, the World Bank, and the President’s Office, and cover the period from 2008 up until 2016, according to The Daily Caller.

They reveal work plans, strategies, priorities and other activities by Soros, and include reports on European elections, migration, and asylum in Europe.

. @sn0wba111 @CapuPatriote Full list of Soros NGOs manipulating elections in all EU member states. #SorosLeak #Soros https://t.co/h5qWX6eZCi

— ⚓ Cain Raiser (@ActaNonVerba_) August 14, 2016

DC Leaks claims to be the work of American activists who want to present the truth about the “US decision-making process as well as about the key elements of American political life.”

US security experts, however, are blaming the leak on Russian hackers, according to Bloomberg, in a similar reaction seen in the wake of the DNC leaks.

Physical Gold & Silver in your IRA. Get the Facts.

The DC Leaks hackers previously released data from the Open Society Foundations in June, a breach that was reported to the FBI, according to spokeswoman Laura Silber. She said an investigation by a security firm found the intrusion was limited to an intranet system used by board members, staff and foundation partners.

DC Leaks also revealed emails from former NATO general Philip Breedlove which showed he tried to provoke President Obama to start US conflict  against Russia. Breedlove claimed to CNN in July that the emails were stolen as part of a state-sponsored intelligence operation.

Soros gave Clinton step-by-step instructions on how to tackle Albania unrest – @wikileaks https://t.co/DCIJYI4gVi

— RT (@RT_com) August 12, 2016

An email leaked by WikiLeaks earlier this week showed Soros had advised Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State on how to handle unrest in Albania – advice she acted on.

Soros’ Open Society Foundations provides funding to the International Consortium for Investigative Journalists, which came under the spotlight earlier this year after the release of the Panama Papers, which included millions of records from law firm Mossack Fonseca showing how the wealthy are using tax havens.

The Panama Papers leak came under criticism from WikiLeaks, who claimed the US government and Soros funded the project to attack Russia and President Vladimir Putin.

Reprinted from Russia Today.

The post Crimes of an Oligarch Exposed appeared first on LewRockwell.

Trump’s ‘Sound Money’ Stance

Lew Rockwell Institute - Mer, 17/08/2016 - 06:01

Authored by Judy Shelton, originally posted Op-Ed via The Wall Street Journal,

The source of trade anxiety is a broken global monetary system that distorts price signals with sharp currency moves.

The surest way to become alienated from Donald Trump supporters is to invoke the word “global” with regard to trade or economic interests. Even if you embrace the Trump economic agenda for enhancing U.S. competitiveness by lowering taxes and easing regulation, even if you support an “America First” approach for tackling domestic shortcomings from education to infrastructure – there is still a negative stigma attached to proposing any kind of global economic initiative.

Yet by insisting that the U.S. Treasury label China a “currency manipulator” and by promoting trade that is both free and “fair,”Mr. Trump may be laying the groundwork for a significant breakthrough in“Trade flows are affected more by ten minutes of movement in the currency markets than by ten years of (even successful) negotiations.”

Mr. Trump’s forceful rhetoric may help put an end to the politically correct attitude so prevalent among economists that breezily dismisses what was once accepted as a truism: Stable exchange rates foster long-term prosperity by maximizing the productive use of economic resources and financial capital. Why continue to passively accept the negative economic consequences of global monetary disorder? Why permit legitimately earned profits from business operations and investments in foreign countries to be wiped out by unpredictable currency losses? Why hold global economic growth prospects hostage to antiquated exchange-rate arrangements?

It’s time to end the intellectual vacuum and focus on serious initiatives for global monetary reform. The goal is to maximize prosperity by harnessing the power of free-market signals across borders. Monetary clarity is the key to reconciling the principles of free trade with the promised benefits of an open global marketplace.

By focusing on currency manipulation as an unfair trade practice, Mr. Trump has not only identified the crux of the economic dilemma, he has also spotlighted the social and political tensions its consequences have fostered.

Reprinted from Zero Hedge.

The post Trump’s ‘Sound Money’ Stance appeared first on LewRockwell.

A ‘Conspiracy Theory’ Trump Should Push

Lew Rockwell Institute - Mer, 17/08/2016 - 06:01

Playing a coveted role in the most one-sided assault in the history of political journalism, NBC News ran an article last week that managed — in the headline — to insult both the candidate and his base, “Trump’s Conspiracy Theories Aren’t Far Outside GOP Mainstream“.

Today, if a politically troublesome issue arises, the media feel no pressure to investigate. Confident their peers will slack off as well, they tend to dismiss the issue as a “conspiracy theory” and deride those who raise it as gullible, paranoid, and probably racist.

Donald Trump has raised any number of such issues, and the media have reflexively attacked him for raising them. His focus has been on Barack Obama’s quasi-fictional past. A more profitable focus, however, would be on Hillary Clinton’s future fitness to be president. I refer specifically here to her role in the corruption of the TWA 800 investigation.

When my book, TWA 800: The Crash, the Cover-Up, The Conspiracy, was published last month, I hoped the twentieth anniversary of the disaster might prompt at least some media interest. I was kidding myself. The collective urge to stop Trump and elect Hillary has silenced the major media. Trump will have to ask his own questions.

From her logs, we know that Hillary and President Bill Clinton returned to the White House at 8:35 p.m. on the night of July 17, 1996. Former Chief of Staff Leon Panetta tells us he called the president at 9 p.m. with the news that TWA Flight 800 blew up off the coast of Long Island.

My source at the White House has confirmed that the Clintons and their consigliere, Deputy National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, holed up in the family residence throughout the night. Berger was the Clintons’ political guy. His boss, Tony Lake, left the room whenever politics surfaced. That night, with re-election looming, all decisions were political, and no one can doubt Hillary’s active role in the conversation.

By 3 a.m. the Clintons had settled on a strategy. At that fabled hour — the one Hillary would mythologize in her run against Barack Obama — Bill called Lake with the following message: “Dust off the contingency plans.” For the time being, the president would quietly blame terrorists for the presumed missile attack.

Myths, Misunderstandings and Outright lies about owning Gold. Are you at risk?

That night, the Department of Justice had the FBI take the investigation over from the National Transportation Safety Board, the NTSB. Although illegal, this move was made publicly.

Less public was the intervention of the CIA. As a treasure trove of recently unearthed CIA documents confirm, “The DI (Directorate of Intelligence) became involved in the ‘missile theory’ the day after the crash occurred.”

When he testified before the 9/11 Commission in March 2004, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet blamed 9/11 on “a wall that was in place between the criminal side and the intelligence side.” He noted, “What’s in a criminal case doesn’t cross over that line. Ironclad regulations.”

Tenet oversaw the collaboration between the FBI and CIA during the TWA 800 investigation in 1996-97. The “wall” memo was written in 1995. On this point, Trump could start by asking some tough questions the media will not ask. Why did Tenet ignore the wall? Why did the CIA involve itself in a domestic air crash? Why were its analysts talking about missiles on day one?

Read the Whole Article

The post A ‘Conspiracy Theory’ Trump Should Push appeared first on LewRockwell.

Condividi contenuti