Friday, July 30, 2010

George H. W. Bush (SN) connected to JFK assassination?

Text with video:
KuriVaiM | May 31, 2010

Part 2:
A November 29, 1963 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit memo unearthed in 1977-78 proves that former President George H. W. Bush was a member of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the recipient of a full briefing on the day after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963 when Bush was 39 years old, despite his protestations to the contrary.

The Nation magazine reports in its July 16-23 issue that former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover in a 1963 memo referred to a "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency," and quotes an unidentified source as saying Vice President Bush began working for the CIA in 1960 or 1961, more than a decade before he became its director.

*** Bush spokesman Stephen Hart said yesterday that Bush was not aware of the information in the memo. "This George Bush never worked for the CIA before he became director," Hart said. ***

The memo, written the day after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas TX 11/22/1963

check out some interesting facts about this case:

Full copy from Hoover memo:

* ripped from John Hankey documentary: "Dark Legacy"


[source of below]

wiretap, wire tap, wire taps and wire tapping

Roger Brandwein has held several positions in New York State government, having last served as Welfare Inspector General. He has taught the Presidency at Columbia University, University of Pennsylvania, Fordham University and Queens College. He is a practicing attorney in New York.

The following is an analysis of the Department of Justice’s January 19, 2006 “legal basis” for warrantless surveillance:

Having been found participating in a course of intelligence gathering by means of warrantless electronic surveillance, the government has asserted two bases for rationalizing its conduct. The administration maintains that the President derives his authority for such action from the Commander in Chief clause of Article II of the Constitution, and provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (1978) (FISA). This Act prohibits electronic surveillance except upon issuance of a warrant and as “otherwise authorized by statute.” To accommodate this latter exception, the Justice Department takes the position that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Sept. 18, 2001) (AUMF) can be resorted to. It will be shown that the term Commander-in-Chief was never intended to confer unknowable and illimitable power. It will be further shown that FISA’s specific procedural framework for securing search warrants from special courts has been regularly evaded. There is neither law nor court precedent to support the thesis that AUMF, the functional equivalent of a declaration of war, sanctioned warrantless eavesdropping by the government.
It is argued that the use of military force against al Qaeda, ipso facto, subsumes “warrantless electronic surveillance to intercept enemy communications.” The Justice Department’s hypothesis that “force” meets the constitutional prerequisite for conducting a search is untenable.
The Fourth Amendment belies any such construction:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It is axiomatic that illegally seized evidence is inadmissible at trial. The series of presidential orders issued to date does not overcome this obstacle.

The Justice Department’s reliance on Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), while material to this discussion, becomes patently inapposite respecting the portion cited and the lesson drawn. When, during the Korean War, President Truman, invoking the Commander in Chief clause, sought to seize and operate the steel mills in anticipation of a strike, the Supreme Court ruled that his action was unconstitutional. Of the three assumed classifications of varying degrees of executive power, the Court (Jackson, J. concurring) found Truman’s contemplated seizure to lie “at its lowest ebb,” a circumstance descriptive of the fact that, under these circumstances “he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers [i.e., his capacity as Commander in Chief] minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter.” 343 U.S. at 637. The Court reasoned: “When the Taft-Hartley Act was under consideration in 1947, Congress rejected an amendment which would have authorized . . . governmental seizures in cases of emergency.” Id. at 586. From this determinative legislative history, the Court concluded that Congress debated and chose not to confer such power on the President. Consequently it found that despite his Commander in Chief authority, the President is powerless to order a steel seizure. In its present analysis, the Justice Department turns Youngstown on its head, conjecturing that “[b]ecause of the broad authorization provided in the AUMF, the President’s action [in undertaking warrantless surveillance] falls within category I of Justice Jackson’s framework.” Accordingly, from Justice’s standpoint and its argument, the President’s power in authorizing National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance activities is at its height because he acted “pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress,” and his power ‘includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.” This is fallacious. FISA delegates no authority to the president.
The Justice Department seizes upon FISA, (which prescribes the roadmap for securing warrants) in divining an implementing statute in AUMF. By enacting FISA, Congress with great care enunciated its will to establish a process and procedure whereby special courts in their sole discretion are authorized to issue warrants, a statutory scheme that preempts the very surveillance that is now called into question.

The concluding paragraph of the Justice Department Summary [page 3] reads:
Finally, the NSA activities fully comply with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The interception of communications described by the President falls within a well-established [but unspecified] exception to the warrant requirement and satisfies the Fourth Amendment’s fundamental requirement of reasonableness. The NSA activities are thus constitutionally permissible and fully protective of civil liberties.

The last sentence is insupportable. By his present policy of warrantless invasions of privacy, the President lends special aptness to James Madison’s admonition, “The means of defense against foreign danger have always been the instruments of tyranny at home.” Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention, Vol. I, 465.
While an ongoing crisis is acknowledged to exist, there is simply no authority for the President to exercise concomitant emergency power. Justice Jackson’s observation in Youngstown is instructive:
They [our forefathers] knew what emergencies were, knew the pressures they engender for authoritative action, knew too how they afford a ready pretext for usurpation. We may also suspect that they suspected that emergency powers would tend to kindle emergencies. Aside from suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in time of rebellion or invasion, when the public safety may require it, they made no express provision for exercise of extraordinary authority because of a crisis. I do not think we rightfully may so amend their work. 343 U.S. 579, 650.

In addition to the unexampled “necessary force” theory of enhanced executive powers, the Justice Department submits that the Commander in Chief clause found in the Constitution (Art. II, Section 2) confers warrantless surveillance authority. Significantly, without dissent, the Framers found that this title was interchangeable with “first General” and of no further substantive effect. The Federalist No. 69 (Hamilton). Moreover, nothing was “to be feared” from an executive “with the confined authorities” of the President. The Federalist No. 71 (Hamilton). After going through the short list of Article II functions, Hamilton stated, “The only remaining powers of the executive are comprehended in giving information to Congress of the state of the Union.” The Federalist No. 77. Hamilton felt the need to assure the people that the President’s Commander in Chief authority would be “much inferior” to that of the British King. His power, wrote Hamilton “would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces.” (emphasis added.) The Federalist No. 69. Madison told his fellow delegates at the Constitutional Convention, “executive powers . . . shd. be confined and defined.” Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention, Vol. I, 70. The role of Commander in Chief is further circumscribed by empowering Congress to: “make rules concerning captures on land and water;” “raise and support armies;” “provide and maintain a navy;” and “make rules for the . . . regulation of the land and naval forces.” (Article I, Section 8).
When the Continental Congress assembled and adopted the Articles of Confederation as our first Constitution, they dispensed with an Executive altogether. In appointing George Washington Commander in Chief, the members made certain that he was to be subordinate to, and dependent upon, the will of Congress. His commission read, “you are . . . punctually to observe and follow such orders and directions from time to time as you shall receive from this or a future Congress . . . .” The Washington Papers, 124-25 (S. Padover ed. 1955).
Hamilton too, denigrated the role of Commander in Chief and other executive functions in order to rebut attacks upon the Constitution by those who, “[c]alculating upon the aversion of the people to monarchy” portrayed the President “as the full-grown progeny of that detested parent. The Federalist No. 67. To the authors of the Constitution, it was anathema to ascribe to the president royal prerogative power.

The Justice Department’s reliance upon Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) is misplaced. Justice maintains that Hamdi: supports its position that use of military force makes warrantless searches legal when, in fact the case does not treat this issue. In rejecting the government’s argument that “enemy combatants” enjoy no measure of due process, Justice O’Connor, writing for the Court, hit the nail on the head: “a state of war is not a blank check for the President.” Here, we see again the administration opining that it has already been issued a blank check to commit unfettered eavesdropping, an unsupportable non sequitor.
The Justice Department mistakenly cites Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 170 (1804), in support of its argument. Barreme stands for the proposition that the express will of Congress prevails over a conflicting Executive Order. In this case the order given to Captain Little by President Adams contravened the provisions of the 1799 Non-Intercourse Act. The Order departed from the law in two respects: First, it directed seizure not only of ships that were not American but also of any ships that might be carrying American cargo. Second, the Order directed seizure not only of ships bound to French ports, but also of ships sailing from French ports. Having seized a Danish ship sailing from a French port, Little was held liable for damages, the Act effectively having nullified Adams’s Order issued one month later. Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, concluded that Adams’s instructions “cannot change the nature of the transaction, or legalize an act which, [was] a plain trespass.” Id. at 177-178. Once Congress has “prescribed . . . the manner in which this law shall be carried into execution,” Marshall observed, the Commander in Chief was obliged to respect the limitations imposed by Congress. It unmistakably follows that FISA’s scheme of warrant obtaining procedures is in no way trumped by a series of Executive Orders directing warrantless surveillance. To the contrary: statutory law prevails over inconsistent presidential directives. FISA’s provisions for court sanctioned electronic surveillance preclude presidential orders for warrantless invasions of privacy. After two centuries, Barreme remains good law.
At the beginning of the Justice Department’s analysis is stated a familiar quotation from U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.: “[t]he President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations.” 299 U.S. 304, 319. This novel position finds no anent case law. It should be remembered that in this case Congress authorized the President to issue an embargo on arms sales in the Chaco [Paraguay] at his discretion. The embargo subsequently issued was challenged as an improper delegation of legislative power to the president but nevertheless held to be constitutional. Since this “sole organ” pronunciamento was written in 1936 it has been roundly criticized by legal scholars as the dictum it is, and therefore of limited precedential value.
By circumventing the precepts of FISA, and avoiding the scrutiny of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the government has pursued an illegal, intrusive and altogether indefensible policy. Neither the Commander in Chief clause of the Constitution nor the Authorization for Use of Military Force provides the President a legal basis for intercepting communications into and out of the United States.

george w. bush, consitutional rights, consitution bill of rights and warrantless search seizure
bush tapes, national security agency, consitution of the united states and wiretapping illegal
illegally obtained evidence, patriot act unconstitutional, consitution amendments and wire tap law

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Ripple in the Internet Force? seems to have been attacked, and the page loads extremely slow with little to no functionality. This seems to have happened sometime since yesterday. Authors and readers all over the world post and read

I was blogging here on the SRV within the last 48 hours. The font for the blog suddenly shrank right in front of my eyes, and then the tiny text was barely readable. I enlarged the font and the blog set up is still messed up. I did nothing to this blog to have caused the change.

I have noticed over time that certain subjects may cause a blog or video to load slowly, or not load at all. Some videos will lock up. Pay attention and you may notice irregularities around the net yourself.

Regardless of what you think of Alex Jones, he makes some very valid points. The 24/7 air raid siren and alarm can make your brain swim. Jones is complaining about the NSA being Google censorship and is merely a way to spy on citizens. Jones uses to complain about google and youtube. This blog is on blogspot which is of the Google/youtube family.

These are some recent Alex Jones videos, posted below this text. I notice a quickening of the drumbeat.

Food: The Ultimate Secret Exposed - PT 1/2

Text with video:
TheAlexJonesChannel | July 29, 2010

Alex Jones addresses one of the darkest modes of power the globalists have used to control the population-- food. The adulteration of the planet's staple crops, genetically-altered species and intentionally-altered water, food and air all amount to a Eugenics operation to weaken the masses and achieve full spectrum domination.

People the world over, but especially in the United States are under chemical attack. Deadly and dangerous toxins ranging from Aspartame to Fluoride, GMO, Mercury-tainting, pesticides, cross-species chimeras, plastic compounds in chicken, high fructose corn syrup, cloned meat, rBGH and new aggressive GM species of salmon have all entered into our diets and environments-- whether we want it or not.

Many of these substances knowingly cause or are linked with sterility, low birth weight, miscarriages, smaller or deformed offspring, as well as organ failure, cancer, brain tumors and Death itself, what you DON'T know about on your grocery shelves can hurt you. Further, Alex demonstrates that a pattern of buried studies, fraudulent statistics and a will reduce global population all point to the deliberate criminal poisoning of the food and water supply.

Suffer no fools and warn those you love about need to stop their food from being used as a Depopulation-weapon against us all. Please share this important video with everyone, so the truth about these substances can be known.

Food: The Ultimate Secret Exposed - PT 2/2

"Top Secret America": The Rest Of The Story - Alex Jones Tv

Text with video:
TheAlexJonesChannel | July 28, 2010

"Top Secret America": The Rest Of The Story

Chuck Baldwin
July 27, 2010 The mercenary contractor explosion is growing into a force that will eventually be used to threaten individual liberties at home.

The Monday, July 19, 2010, edition of The Washington Post featured an investigative report entitled "Top Secret America," with the subtitle, "A hidden world, growing beyond control." The report begins, "The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.

"These are some of the findings of a two-year investigation by The Washington Post that discovered what amounts to an alternative geography of the United States, a Top Secret America hidden from public view and lacking in thorough oversight. After nine years of unprecedented spending and growth, the result is that the system put in place to keep the United States safe is so massive that its effectiveness is impossible to determine.

"The investigation's other findings include:

*Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.

*An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.

*In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings--about 17 million square feet of space.

*Many security and intelligence agencies do the same work, creating redundancy and waste. For example, 51 federal organizations and military commands, operating in 15 U.S. cities, track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks.

*Analysts who make sense of documents and conversations obtained by foreign and domestic spying share their judgment by publishing 50,000 intelligence reports each year--a volume so large that many are routinely ignored."

On the surface, the Post report appears to be a valiant effort by a major mainstream newspaper (second in influence to only the New York Times) to expose widespread government abuse and chicanery. But don't get too excited yet.

In Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief (July 23, 2010), Skousen writes, "The [Post] series has just enough tantalizing information to sell a lot of papers, but almost nothing that exposes the illicit side of US operations--a large portion of which is involved in recruiting, training, and running covert agents--only a small portion of which are spying on real enemies. A lot of spying targets our allies and patriotic Americans who the government worries could someday provide a source of rebellion against the growing totalitarian state."

Skousen further charges that there is a "dark side" to "each agency of [federal] law enforcement." This "dark side" involves "a lot of compartmentalization, front activities, hidden budgets and false stories in order to keep honest government employees and agents from knowing what's going on behind their backs."

Skousen continues: "What few do get a glimpse into government's dark side are warned off with threats, some subtle and some lethal--threats which send a chilling message to others to not 'ask too many questions.'" Skousen then quotes the Post report as saying that since 9/11, the NSA (National Security Agency) has grown to where it now consumes "1.7 billion pieces of intercepted communications every 24 hours: emails, bulletin board postings, instant messages, IP addresses, phone numbers, telephone calls and cellular conversations."

Concerning all those government organizations and private companies working on counterterrorism projects that the Post report refers to, Skousen writes, "Once again, the series tells us nothing about the substance of what they do, much of which is unsavory and illegal."

* * * *
* * * *


'CIA can get away with murder'

Judges are part of the "abuse and kill the public program"

Text with video:
RTAmerica | July 19, 2010

Last week, a Federal Judge ruled that the government can suppress information about basically whatever they would like, even if it is illegal. Wayne Madsen says that the decision was made in order to protect the CIA's sources. The decision was made as a response to the Freedom of Information Act, which was filed by the ACLU

* * * *
* * * *

* * * *


Text with video:
dare2brare | April 28, 2010

COINTELPRO (an acronym for Counter Intelligence Program) was a series of covert, and often illegal, projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at investigating and disrupting dissident political organizations within the United States.

The directives governing COINTELPRO were issued by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, who ordered FBI agents to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize" the activities of these movements and their leaders.

CIA Drug Running

Wikileaks + MSM Hype = ?

Text with video:
corbettreport | July 29, 2010

Ladies & gentlemen, welcome to the 40th episode of New World Next Week - the video series from & This week we look exclusively at the massive media hype surrounding Wikileaks, wider wars & the future of the web.

Sources & Documentation:

Wikileaks Drops 'Afghan War Diaries'

Secret/Leaks: Truth Serving Lies with CIA/Mossad Oversight

Wikileaks 'Revelations' Will Comfort Warmongers, Confirm Conventional Wisdom

Wikileaks Plays the Sucker with Afghan War Logs

Video: John Young of on Wikileaks Skepticism

Now you can go to to get hi-quality episodes for your device of choice. And as always, stay up-to-date by subscribing to the feeds from Corbett Report & Media Monarchy Thank you.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Alex Jones: Media puts spin on WikiLeaks

Is the US government about smuggling heroin and cocaine? Is the US Government about sending US Troops to War Zones to have police to come home to the US to spy on, beat, and kill US citizens who get in the way of the profiteering/racketeering puppeteers of the US Government? Are the puppeteers in a power struggle with average Americans, small business owners, out to take away guns from honest, taxpaying citizens? Well, that's my take on what Alex Jones says below.

Text with video:
RTAmerica | July 27, 2010

What result, if any, will the WikiLeaks release of documents have on the US war in Afghanistan? And, with the release of the WikiLeaks documents, what is the role of the mainstream media in the reporting on the war? Alex Jones is back on RT America to comment, opening up fresh debate and reviving questions that RT America has been asking and answering for some time.

* * * *
* * * *


Does the US have too many police officers?

It is hard to walk out one's door, go to work, go shopping, visit a friend etc., and you may run into scores of police officers both seen, and unseen. Are there too many? Is the US going bankrupt paying for "security" which is often a tool of citizen abuse? Excerpt from Wikipedia:

United States

U.S. Secret Service officers on foot patrol.
An NYPD boat patrols the New York Harbor.

[edit] Federal

[edit] Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
[edit] Department of Justice (USDOJ)
[edit] Department of State (DOS)
[edit] Department of Commerce (DOC)
[edit] Department of Treasury
[edit] Department of Defense

Department of the Army

Department of the Air Force

Department of the Navy

[edit] Department of Education
[edit] Department of Health and Human Services
[edit] Department of Agriculture (USDA)
[edit] Department of the Interior (USDI)
[edit] Other Major Federal Law Enforcement Agencies

[edit] State and Local

Continued Circle 'F' Banking Crimes against Humanity

Governments are selling off assets, to whom? Well, the banks will loan the money. Who loans money to, or backs the banks? Well, the answer is the government. Did banksters get big bonuses bankrupting the Social Security System? So, money Americans paid in, their money, was stolen. Meanwhile, officials will pay themselves a half million dollars a year with 12% a year raises in bankrupt communities.

Keiser Report №63: Markets! Finance! Scandal!

Text with video:
RussiaToday | July 27, 2010

On this edition of the Keiser Report, Max and co-host Stacy Herbert look at the latest scandals of fetishes for black swans; American youth unconcerned by the coming collapse of their Social Security they bought and paid for; Tony Blair's 2007 photo op with Colonel Gaddafi and the farting camels of Tripoli. In the second half of the show, Max talks to Ned Naylor-Leyland of Cheviot Asset Management about the silver market.

* * * *
* * * *

[click here] for:

Where is stolen $5 + Trillion US Tax Dollars?

Monday, July 26, 2010

Tactics of Protesting

Scroll down and check out Phil Donahue, Abby Hoffman, and Jerry Rubin videos. Rubin with Donahue really cracked me up ...

GPS is part of most cars, phones, and anything you say, write, read, where you go, and anyone you associate with is now easily accessible with technology. The modern protester may have to give up his/her family, friends, cellphone, computer, own car, home, job, and the standard way of life, just to make a political point. Most don't know the true costs of free speech ... until "the man" comes up and bites them in the ass ...

The "Yippies" of the sixties look rather comical now. They were easily identifiable. A housewife with 4 kids could be a likely modern protester, along with any other pissed off American of any age, race, sex, background, or occupation ...

Abbie Hoffman on Yippie Tactics - 1968

Text with video:
spookynorman | August 25, 2009

Abbie Hoffman discusses Yippie guerilla theater tactics in advance of the 1968 Democratic National Convention

Abbie Hoffman in Memoriam

Abbie Hoffman-John Lennon story

Text with video:
Cocacrystal82 | June 19, 2008

1980 interview with Abbie.

This blogger laughed his ass off watching this:

Yippies For Nixon

Text with video:
dwendt66 | October 07, 2007

Phil Donahue, ironically plays the Bill O'Reilly role in 1970, admonishes Yippy leader, Jerry Rubin, that his radical antics only serve to help President Nixon.


This blogger, Steven G. Erickson's, brush with Phil Donahue:

Text with video:
SvenVonErick | July 12, 2008

I ask him a question about 20 seconds in.

The topics of discussion are Phil Donahue's Documentary, "Body of War":

Should Bush be arrested for being a war criminal and crimes against humanity?

What about Free Speech, a Free Press, the economy, and our youth not be unnecessarily harmed and killed?


Things are so much more complicated now:


[click here] for:

Foreign Investors in charge of US Military, Security, Courts, running Government?

Did the Banks really write the "Banking Legislation"?

From the Telegraph UK:

Obama signs a bill that lets banks have US over a barrel once more

By Liam Halligan
Published: 7:15AM BST 26 Jul 2010

Last week, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform bill – hailed as the most sweeping overhaul of US financial regulation since the 1930s

"Because of this law, the American people will never again be asked to foot the bill for Wall Street's mistakes," Obama boomed at the schmaltzy signing ceremony, amid bursts of applause.

"These reforms will put a stop to a lot of the bad loans that fuelled this debt-based bubble," the President gushed to America and the rest of the world. "This bill also empowers consumerse_SLpsdelivering the strongest consumer financial protections in history."

It would be reassuring if we could agree with Obama, concluding that Dodd-Frank will help to prevent the next systemic crisis and associated bail-out of "too-big-to-fail" banks. Reassuring, but wrong.

For despite some marginal regulatory improvements, this is no Rooseveltian legislative milestone. Amid the hype and back-slapping of last week's launch, the sad reality is that Dodd-Frank fails to address the fundamental problems that resulted in the sub-prime fiasco and the related damage to not just America, but the entire global economy.

The inherent feebleness of this door-stopping bundle of statute and its lack of desperately needed substance, was brilliantly captured by Laurence Kotlikoff, a highly-respected professor of economics at Boston University. "This law is like being invited to dinner and served pictures of food," Kotlikoff remarked.

It would be tempting to smile at such a wry observation if the situation it described wasn't so depressing. For what the US political establishment's non-response to the credit crunch illustrates is this: such is the lobbying power of the big Wall Street institutions that they not only caused a global economic crisis and then forced the US government to pay for a massive bail-out, but then used a slice of that bail-out cash to bribe politicians with campaign donations in order to block rule changes that might prevent a repeat performance.

That leaves the politicians and high-flying bankers happy, of course, while regular citizens – and their children and grandchildren – foot the multi-billion dollar bill.

The principal function of a financial services industry is to link savers with investors and creditors with borrowers, so facilitating broader commercial activity. Such intermediary functions are crucial to economic progress and can be the basis of a profitable and socially useful business.

What we've created, instead, is a group of institutions that between them comprise nothing less than a financial oligarchy. These guys have Western taxpayers over a barrel. And what's alarming is that there is almost nothing in this bill that will stop yet more too-big-to-fail calamities. Mr President, you have missed a historic opportunity and, for that, history's judgment will be severe.

In 1933, in the aftermath of the Wall Street crash, America introduced the Glass-Steagall divide – a firewall separating high-risk "investment banks" from regular "commercial banks". The idea was to draw a regulatory line in the sand, preventing Wall Street from playing fast and loose with the deposits of ordinary firms and households, deposits rightly covered by a state guarantee.

For more than 60 years that divide stood firm. But during the late 1980s and 1990s, increasingly powerful vested interests, first in the City and then Wall Street, pushed for the "co-mingling" of banking activities. The resulting "universal banks" eventually bestrode the Western world, particularly after Bill Clinton succumbed to the lobbyists' dime and formally repealed Glass-Steagall in 1999.

It is an indisputable fact that since that repeal, the Western world has lurched from crisis to crisis. Little wonder, given that the end of Glass-Steagall allowed investment banks to borrow heavily against their taxpayer-backed deposits, then place vastly leveraged heads-I-win-tails-the-government-loses bets on risky investments such as internet stocksor sliced-and-diced sub-prime mortgages. Yes, bank failures happened under Glass-Steagall, but they were less frequent and far smaller.

Obama didn't consider re-instating Glass-Steagall. On the contrary, he packed his administration with the same people who helped Clinton remove it.

During his first year in office, the President dithered over financial reform but then, in the aftermath of an electoral mauling in Massachusetts, he placated those calling for root-and-branch banking reform by calling in former Federal Reserve Chairman, Paul Volcker.

The so-called "Volcker Rule" is the centrepiece of Dodd-Frank and as such, is indicative of the entire package. It's designed to restrict the ability of universal banks to speculate with taxpayer-backed money, rather than making sure by keeping deposit takers and investment banks separate.

Volcker places limits on so-called "prop" trading without defining what it is, so allowing banks to exploit what they claim is "the grey area between market-making and speculation".

Wall Street firms will also still be able to lever up punters' money and deal in credit-default swaps – the main culprits in the AIG bankruptcy, which cost US taxpayers $182bn and counting – while also destroying Bear Stearns and Lehman. The only stipulation is that ratings agencies should classify such derivates as "investment grade". Such agencies are unreformed and were at the heart of the last debacle – so that's hardly reassuring.

Last-minute changes mean that banks can, anyway, use 3pc of their tier-one capital for out-and-out speculation, circumventing Volcker. That doesn't sound much, but once levered up 50-times – and such a figure isn't unusual – this huge loophole in Volcker is more than enough to allow investment banks to keep destroying themselves in full knowledge the state will pay. Adding insult to injury, Wall Street then secured delays to the introduction of Volcker – or what's left of it – that in some cases will last for more than 10 years.

The closer you look at Dodd-Frank, the more apparent becomes Wall Street's influence. Limits on leverage – rejected. Limits on bank size – rejected. Restrictions on derivatives – well, some trading will go through a central exchange, allowing more scrutiny, but it's entirely unclear how much.

At every turn, this bill avoids decisions, delegating them instead to an army of regulators who will turn generalities into actual rules. If the banks were able to skew Dodd-Frank their way , think of the influence they'll have when the details are hammered out behind closed doors.

Obama put the spotlight on the creation of a consumer protection bureau – an attempt, before November's mid-term elections, to make arcane legislation meaningful to the public. Are there limits on credit card interest, ensnaring adjustable rate mortgages or predatory pay-day loans? Nope.

Some other omissions in the bill are breath-taking. There is no mention of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac – the government-sponsored mortgage-providers that have already cost $145bn in bail-out cash, rising to almost $400bn by 2019. No mention, either, of capital requirements – which means the global banking system must rely, once again, on the ridiculous Basel process for resolving this crucial issue. Once again, Obama missed a chance to give a lead when it comes to financial reform.

Based on sound-thinking courageous judgment, the Glass-Steagall legislation was only 17 pages long. Packed with wheezes and loop-holes, Dodd-Frank runs to 2,319 pages. Enough said.

* * * *
* * * *

This blogger wonders why Connecticut US Senator Chris Dodd isn't in jail. Why should he be able to take bribes from banks and then be the key guy whispering in Obama's ear? Why is Dodd still a Senator on the Banking Committee?

The Corporate Culture of Corruption explained here:


From the Highest Levels of a Foreign Military/Intelligence on 9-11

Over, and over, we get bullshit from the corporate bankster media. The US Government owned by the corporate banksters are mere lying puppets. I cut and pasted the below as it appears on the Kenny's Side Show blog:

Monday, July 26, 2010

WikiLeaks 'partners' NY Times and The Guardian point the finger at Pakistan

Could the leaks be used to expand the war in Pakistan? Another 'never waste an opportunity' moment? The MSM is playing up this point. Will the American people ever say 'enough is enough?'

Afghanistan war logs: Clandestine aid for Taliban bears Pakistan's fingerprints

Pakistan Aids Insurgency in Afghanistan, Reports Assert

The leaks portray Gen. Hamid Gul, former head of the ISI, as a major player in aiding the insurgency against the U.S. and NATO forces.
Hamid Gul Response to WikiLeaks Allegations

Gull on 9/11 ...

Afghanistan The War Logs - Guardian

The War Logs - NY Times

Explosive Leaks Provide Image of War from Those Fighting It - Der Spiegel

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Interesting Perspective on Israel

'Israel a bully with a nuke' - journalist

Text with video:
RussiaToday | July 25, 2010

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is continuing to divide the Middle East. RT sat down with journalist and author Jonathan Cook who says that Israel actually benefits from the division.

* * * *
* * * *


Chain Email claims Obama and Clinton engineered a total gun ban in US

Image [stolen from here]

After reading the below email, I then clicked on the link included with the below text. I also re-posted the story in the attached link referred to, which is from Oct. 2009! The question is whether State Department head Hillary Clinton and US President Barack Obama would circumvent US lawmakers to sign an international treaty to ban all gun and ammunition sales to Americans in America. This blogger saw and heard things while in "the zone" in Mississippi and New Orleans, Louisiana, after Hurricane Katrina hit. Citizens were hauled off, and herded to makeshift camps and their guns taken away before there was thoughts of providing water, food, and shelter.



Subject: Fw: Clinton signs UN Small Arms Treaty - US Forfeits Gun Rights

While you were watching the oil spill, the New York failed terrorist bombing and other critical crises, Hillary Clinton signed the small arms treaty with the UN.
On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States
On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States. The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms. The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened.
Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment. This has happened in other countries, past and present! THIS IS NOT A JOKE OR A FALSE WARNING. As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control. Read the Article U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto. The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better. View The Full Article Here
Click on the link below for further acknowledgement…..
Please forward this message to others who may be concerned about the direction in which our country is headed. This is a very serious matter! Silence will lead us to Socialism!!!

* * * *
* * * *

The story from the link above. Notice the date, October 2009.

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

WASHINGTON | Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:56pm EDT

(Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."

"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.

While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.

"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.

However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."

"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.

The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.

Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.

Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.

The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.

Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.

The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.

The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.

A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.

(Editing by Eric Beech)

* * * *
* * * *

This blogger is more alarmed about this:
and this:


Hit Counter