Saturday, May 30, 2009

fill out form and move to back of detention center please you number will be called in order it was applied

fuckin a raymond fadderland security asks shit like this to enter the country.

C) Have you ever been or are you now involved in espionage or sabotage; or in terrorist activities; or genocide; or between 1933 and 1945 were you involved , in any way, in persecutions associated with Nazi Germany or its allies? *

ya spose they catch many with this? even after they are here? i mean what other reason for a fucked up question to be on this form? to be able to retroactively charge somebody with a crime after the fooks did something? and of course the nazi thing is thrown in for good rabbinical purposes, who's runnin this motherfucker!
if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 1

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

green shoots? consumer confidence?

you cant wish the economy better.

just saying shit doesn't make it so.

"just go shopping" doesn't fix the mess Goldman Saks made.

printing money with zero worth /wealth behind it prolly wont do it either.

exporting terrorism around the globe via torture chambers and high altitude bombings wont help.

threatening every nation Israel doesn't like wont help.

pissing the planet off? reap what you sow glorious usa usa usa.

fuckin scum.
if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Should a Brookings "expert" know what the presidential oath says?

I am the cut and paste editor at sooted so if you have a problem with my meager efforts at original thought you can actually F.O.

Also several e mailers have railed at my posting of whole articles, they too can F.O. I post them in entirety because people hate to click links and lose their place here at sooted.
I try and post the link in the title in case anyone is mislead that I might have actually penned anything other than snide pithy comments such as you see here...

From Glenn Greenwalds Blog at Salon:


It's just so basic to our entire system of government that some Constitutional guarantees will impede efforts to maximize public safety (barring the police from searching homes without probable cause might make it more difficult to apprehend a dangerous criminal; banning double jeopardy and self-incrimination, and guaranteeing the right to counsel, might make it more difficult to convict a dangerous criminal; the guarantee of due process, free speech and a free press can make war-fighting more difficult). But that's the central choice the Founders made: that there are more important values than maximizing safety. If they didn't think that way, they would never have risked fighting the most powerful military on earth -- all for some abstract political liberty. By itself, that choice reflects the view that there are more important goals then keeping us safe. Tyrannies might be the best guardians of national security (though it is highly dubious that indefinitely locking up Muslims with no trial and no charges will Keep Us Safe), but either way: the U.S. wasn't created to be a National Security State. That's why the Constitution imposes numerous limits on the government that conflict with maximization of safety, and it's why the President is required to swear to defend the Constitution, not do everything possible to Keep Us Safe.


You can argue with Glenns premises anytime you want, I think the dewd is airtight in most of his arguements and no way I could write anything near as clearly as he does to make a point. Thats why i'm copy and paste editor here.
if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0

Thursday, May 21, 2009

"preventive detention"

"preventive detention" for accused Terrorists without a trial, in order to keep locked up indefinitely people who, in his words, "cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people."

a clear danger? who says? and why can't you prosecute a clear danger?

these guys sound worse than last guys, yes we get fooled again

if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

simply because the commissioners previously denied the problem existed and now they “don’t want to admit they made a mistake.”

one reason regulators are not fixing wall street
if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0

rampant naked short selling (hedge funds illegally selling phantom stock to destroy public companies for profit)

helped trigger the greatest financial disaster since the Great Depression.

With Media Absent, a Senator Reports the News

Last night, CNBC’s Jim Cramer interviewed Senator Ted Kaufman about the problem of abusive short selling.

The Senator said: “We gotta have people feel that they’re getting a fair share and the market’s on the level…Clearly, every indication is that things went on in terms of short selling – both in Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, but in others – where abusive short selling drove the price down and legitimate people in the market got mauled.”

That is to say: rampant naked short selling (hedge funds illegally selling phantom stock to destroy public companies for profit) helped trigger the greatest financial disaster since the Great Depression.

This is a scandal of some magnitude. That is why members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have demanded that the Securities and Exchange Commission take action. But aside from Cramer, the media remains silent. And the SEC is hopeless.

Today the SEC held a special meeting to discuss short selling, and it was a whitewash. The focus was on reinstating the uptick rule, which is precisely where the short sellers wanted the focus to be. No talk of taking the necessary steps to wipe out illegal naked short selling.
Instead, the SEC recommended “caution” in cracking down on the criminals and suggested that new short selling rules (enacted in the midst of last September’s meltdown) are “working.” The new rules are basically the same as the old rules. Whereas previously short sellers were required to deliver shares within three days, now short sellers are really required to deliver the stock within three days.

This new regime, like the old regime, has several shortcomings. The first is that hedge funds can continue to sell unlimited amounts of phantom shares within the three-day window. During these three days, the stock price naturally tanks, at which point the hedge funds buy the cheapened stock and cover their “short sales” (which are really fake long sales, for no stock was ever borrowed) at a profit. The hedge funds repeat this process over and over, every three days, until the stock is in the single digits and the company’s lenders panic, cutting off credit.

The second shortcoming of the new regime is that hedge funds and their brokers are not, in fact, delivering stock within three days. The SEC’s list of companies whose stock was failing to deliver in excessive quantities shortened considerably after September, but that is partly because the short sellers had finished the job – the market was already destroyed. As the market recovered from its low in March, the abusive short selling resumed, and the number of companies on the list increased from 55 to around 75 companies today.

Given that nearly every one of those companies are targeted by hedge fund managers who are using a variety of other tricks (spreading false information, scheming to cut off companies’ access to credit, etc.) it is clear that the failures to deliver are not mere mechanical errors, but the result of strategic, illegal naked short selling. That is, at least 75 companies are getting raped every day and we remain witness to the bizarre spectacle of the sheriff publishing the list of victims while keeping the names of the perpetrators a secret.

Moreover, there are good reasons to suspect that the vast majority of naked short selling occurs in corners of the market (ex-clearing, desk trades; off-shore, etc.) that do not register in the SEC’s published data. The market has recovered some in recent weeks, but it seems just a matter of time before the shorts unleash another round of carnage.

There is only one way to prevent this from happening: force hedge funds and brokers to purchase or borrow stock before selling it. This seems simple enough, yet today’s meeting at the SEC suggests that officials remain captured by the hedge fund lobby, which used to insist that naked short selling never occurred, but now says that the very functioning of free markets depends on the SEC allowing naked short selling to occur.

To support this argument, the short sellers continue to haul out the same few professors who purport to show that naked short selling enhances “market liquidity.” In every case, the reports published by these professors have contained multitudes of cherry-picked statistics and calculations so erroneous that we are left to assume that the professors either slept through seventh grade math or realized at some later stage in life that there is benefit to be derived from spewing balderdash in service to Wall Street’s most powerful billionaires.

As Senator Kaufman put it last night, the short sellers and their professors argue “out of both sides of their mouth…they’re willing to throw any mud against the wall and see if it sticks.” The Senator added that he believes SEC commissioners buy this “market liquidity” nonsense – even as the Senate, the House, the American Chamber of Commerce, the leaders of the nation’s biggest banks, and all of the major stock exchanges have called for an end to naked short selling – simply because the commissioners previously denied the problem existed and now they “don’t want to admit they made a mistake.”

Perhaps the same can be said of some of the nation’s most “prominent” journalists, who churned out countless stories arguing that naked short selling does not occur (only “conspiracy theorists” see phantom stock, the journalists said), but who have been oddly silent on the issue ever since phantom stock helped bring about the near total evisceration of our financial system.

Cramer crusades against naked short selling, but he began doing so only after Deep Capture implicated him in a cover-up of the scandal. Never mind—I’m glad to have his support, forgiveness for past sins, etc. etc. But the rest of CNBC, a network over which Cramer wields considerable influence, utters not a word about naked short selling. Better to leave the reporting on the world’s most damaging financial crime to a “reporter” who says “Boohyah!” while pushing buttons that make clownish sound effects.

To allow one of CNBC’s more reputable journalists to report the facts would be to give the facts credence. And to do that would be to admit that CNBC royally screwed up by failing to report the story in the first place.

Same goes for The Wall Street Journal. I know there are reporters at the Journal who understand this issue and its importance. But how to report on it now? This is the newspaper that described Deep Capture reporter Patrick Byrne’s theories about naked short selling as a cross between “Where’s Waldo and the DaVinci Code.” This is a newspaper that not only vehemently denied that naked short selling was a problem, but published worshipful profiles of the short sellers most likely to have been committing the crime.

How can this newspaper now publish a story – a real investigative story that would show definitively that naked short selling is a very serious problem? The answer is, it’s hard to do without looking mighty stupid.

But The Journal needs to swallow its pride. There is too much at stake.

And what about that other newspaper of record – The New York Times? How about that paper’s top business columnist, Joe Nocera? He once told an audience of his media colleagues that “life’s too short” to investigate naked short selling. But he nonetheless found time to write countless articles denying that naked short selling is a problem and covering up other crimes committed by his short selling friends. What can Joe possibly say now? He could say, “Sorry.” But big time columnists don’t do that.

For reasons I cannot quite fathom, the rest of The New York Times staff remains silent, too. The only exception is the ever-befuddled Floyd Norris, who wrote a column last week stating that the new regulations seemed to have solved the naked short selling problem. That was different from his earlier contentions that there was no problem to be solved, but the latest column contained much of the familiar goofy-headed logic.

My favorite was Mr. Norris’s assurance that we don’t have to worry about naked short selling because if naked short sellers drive a stock low enough, somebody will step in to buy the company. I doubt most readers need this to be explained, but just in case, I’ll clarify – it is illegal for naked short sellers to drive a company’s stock price down to single digits so that it can be taken over by some corporate raider. It was illegal and cataclysmic that short sellers aired false rumors about Bear Stearns while selling 13 million phantom shares in the company – never mind that somebody stepped in and bought Bear Stearns after it had been mutilated.

Good grief…I know this is complicated, but one expects more from our top financial journalists. Alas, maybe it’s time to give up on the financial press. Maybe it’s time we call Oprah…Oprah could do better…

Yes, Oprah will understand.

if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 4

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Not enough change.

Letter from Glenn Greenwald's blog comment section

I had high hopes for the Obama Administration, but am extremely dismayed that when he said he stood for "change", it appears that what he really meant was "minor, incremental adjustments". He is trying to maintain a military empire that is running itself into the ground, and a financial system that has proven itself unsustainable. In short, he's trying to put things back to the way they were, and that's not going to happen. The empire is finished. We can pretend it will last forever, or we can adjust to the new reality.

Throughout his campaign, I thought Obama understood this fundamental, tectonic shift in world politics, and in his initial overtures to the World he appeared to bear this out. Unfortunately, there is simply no way to deny that by failing to aggressively investigate and, where warranted, prosecute perpetrators of torture, he is actively seeking to continue exempting America from obeying the laws where inconvenient or potentially impolitic. Furthermore, he is engaging in lawlessness all his own by bullying a longstanding ally and potentially damaging said alliance by threatening retaliation if that nation seeks to observe its own--and international--laws, to which it has bound itself. Contempt for the rule of law at the highest echelons of government breeds contempt all the way to the lowest levels of society.

It does not matter that there may be some justification or explanation for these criminal acts; few defendants in any courtroom do not offer some justification or rationale, and in theory these should not sway the judge or jury in considering guilt or punishment. Unfortunately, at this point that represents yet another, indirect violation of the Constitution, insofar as it is a breach of equal protection under the law; somewhere within our country is an invisible line, below which laws apply and above which they are suggestions.

In such circumstance, one cannot really say that any law exists at all, and that the only governing principles under which one should rationally operate are to do whatever you can get away with. All concepts of rectitude or morality become empty rhetoric, signifying nothing more than meaningless paeans to values long since obsolete.

One facet of this which is most depressing is that we Americans are fooling nobody but ourselves with these righteous yet vacuous platitudes in support of principles that we believe everyone should follow--but ourselves. While some in this country may believe that it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks, that we can do what we want and they can't stop us, that is only true for now. It is not a state of nature, or a rule of biology that we enjoy the power to commit crimes with impunity, it is simply a matter of spending twice as much as the other 95% of the world combined does on war. Money we borrow from that 95%. To think that can last forever is madness.

Americans are exceptional only insofar as we declare ourselves to be, and currently play on a field where nobody can tell us otherwise. At some point, this will no longer be so. When that time comes, people will not remember America scolding their torture, condemning their invasions, vilifying their support of terrorists, or challenging them to observe the rule of law. They will remember that we did all of these things ourselves, and that the only principle we truly believe is "if it serves your immediate interests and no one can stop you, do it."

This is the principle enshrined in shows like 24, and supported in real life by a public that doesn't really like torture--but understands it was necessary and served a purpose at the time, so why make a big deal about it?

I grew up loving my country and everything it stood for, but lately I am beginning to wonder: That if what I loved--a country that believed in liberty, in freedom of speech, in the rule of law, in democracy and the right of all citizens to live free from government interference and surveillance--even existed, or if, in my younger days, I merely fell for the platitudes.

When I see "free speech zones" at political events, when cities like Miami can ban citizens from protesting the passage of laws they oppose, when the state of Indiana can charge protesters who oppose a particular highway project under the RICO statues, it saddens me. When I go to an airport and am subjected to demeaning, degrading violations of basic dignity just to travel within my country, or see that there is a secret list of who can and who can't fly, that if your name is on the list you must present your papers, please--before you are permitted the simple freedom of movement, it disgusts me.

The irony is that the laws in this country were initially designed to protect the weak from the strong, to secure the rights of every citizen from harassment or abuse. They have, of late, morphed into a grotesque parody of that ideal, and now protect the strong from the weak. It was such laws that led the first Americans to reject their government in the first place, which is why it is all the more depressing that Obama--himself allegedly a Constitutional "scholar"--would continue to support and in fact actively pursue, this oppressive and authoritarian view of the law. There is no further proof necessary that he supports this view than by making an illegal threat against an ostensible ally, in order to protect the most powerful nation in the world from a single, innocent man.
if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 2

Thursday, May 07, 2009

swine flu boondogle

i will posit that swine flu craze is a couple of instruments.

1) who remembers Jane Harman traitorous acts anymore?

2) who remembers the apaic spy case anymore?

3) who cares Eric Holder authorized secret renditions during clinton years?

4) who cares Israel is up the Washington asshole like a tapeworm?

5) who cares that Washington is controlled and constantly spied on by zio nazi?

6) who fucking cares that the banking elitists are sinking your boat to raise profits


swine/bird/sars is a dry run for when they really unleash the pandemic and blame it on usami

maybe all of the above.

oh and the fake obama regime stresss tests for banks?
fagetaboutit its still trillions in liabilities for the dirivatives that are out in pandemic land

Thank you and good night

if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0

Chaos by design?

Crisis as a way to build a global totalitarian state

Olga Chetverikova

May 6, 2009

As the world teeters on the brink of financial disaster, leaders are calling for a new world order. As early as the late 1990s, David Rockefeller, author of the idea of private power that is due to replace the governments, said that the world was on the threshold of global changes. He invoked the need of "some large-scale crisis that will make people accept the new world order..." Is the current crisis being used as a mechanism to stoke civil fear and unrest, inducing people to succumb to a system of transnational private power? Olga Chetverikova believes we are in the final stage of that long-time planned �global control� agenda.

The champions of the New World Order. David Rockefeller is on the far right.

by Olga Chetverikova

As the world financial and economic crisis comes into its own, the Western community leaders are seeking to impress on mankind the idea that this upheaval will end up 'turning the world into something different�.

Even though the picture of the �new world order� remains vague and fuzzy, the main idea is quite clear: A single global government, goes the argument, has to be established if we don�t want general chaos to prevail.

Every now and again, Western politicians mention the need for a 'new world order�, a 'new world financial architecture�, or some kind of 'supranational control�, calling it a 'New Deal� for the world. Nicolas Sarkozy was the first to say so, while addressing the UN General Assembly in September 2007 (that is, before the crisis).

During the February 2009 meeting in Berlin convened to prepare the G20 summit, this was echoed by Gordon Brown, who said that a worldwide New Deal was needed. We are conscious, he added, that where the world financial flows were concerned, we would not be able to emerge from this situation with the help of purely national authorities alone. We need the authorities and world watchdogs to make the activities of financial institutions operating in the world markets totally open to us. Both Sarkozy and Brown are prot�g�s of the Rothschilds. Statements made by certain representatives of 'the global elite� indicate that the current crisis is being used as a mechanism for provoking some deepening social upheavals that would make mankind � plunged as it is already into chaos and frightened by the ghost of an all-out violence � urge of its own free will that a 'supranational� arbitrator with dictatorial powers intervene into the world affairs.

The events are following the same path as the Great Depression in 1929-1933: a financial crisis, an economic recession, social conflicts, establishing totalitarian dictatorships, inciting a war to concentrate power, and capital in the hands of a narrow circle. This time, however, the case in point is the final stage in the 'global control� strategy, where a decisive blow should be dealt to the national state sovereignty institution, followed by a transition to a system of private power of transnational elites.

As early as the late 1990s, David Rockefeller, author of the idea of private power that is due to replace the governments, said that we (the world) were on the threshold of global changes. All we need, he went on, is some large-scale crisis that will make people accept the new world order.

Jacques Attali, Sarkozy�s adviser and former EBRD chief, claimed that the elites had been incapable of dealing with the currency problems of the 1930s. He was afraid, he said, that a similar mistake would be made again. At first we�ll wage wars, he went on, and let 300 million people perish. After that reforms will follow and a world government. Shouldn�t we better think about a world government already at this stage, he asked?

Henry Kissinger: "The President-elect is coming into office at a moment when there are upheavals in many parts of the world simultaneously ... But he can give new impetus to American foreign policy ... I think that his task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period, when really a �new world order� can be created. It�s a great opportunity."

The same was stated by Henry Kissinger: In the final analysis, the main task is to define and formulate the general concerns of the majority of countries, as well as of all leading states with regard to the economic crisis, considering the collective fear of a terrorist jihad. Next, all of that should be converted to a common action strategy� Thus, America and its potential partners are getting a unique chance for turning the moment of the crisis into a vision of hope.

The world is being led to accept the "new order" idea step by step to avoid provoking events that are likely to make the universal protests against the worsening conditions of human existence take 'a wrong course� and become uncontrolled. The main thing that Stage One managed to achieve was to start a wide-ranging discussion on 'global government� and the 'inadmissibility of protectionism� with an emphasis on the 'hopelessness� of the national-state models for emerging from the crisis.

This discussion is proceeding against the background of information pressures that help to build up human anxieties, fear, and uncertainty. Some of those information actions are the following: WTO forecasts to the effect that 1.4 billion people are likely to sink below the poverty line in 2009; a warning by the WTO director general that the biggest world trade slide in postwar history is in the offing; a statement by the IMF�s Dominique Strauss-Kohn (a prot�g� of Sarkozy�s) that a world economic crash is impending unless a large-scale reform of the financial sector of the world economy is implemented, and a crash that is most likely to bring in its wake not only social unrest but also a war.

Against this background, the idea to introduce a as a cornerstone of the 'new world order� was put forward. The real masterminds of this long-standing project are as yet in the shadow. Let us note that some or other representatives of Russia are pushed to the fore. This is reminiscent of the situation before World War I, where the Anglo-French circles that possessed some well-elaborated plans for a new division of the world instructed the Russian Foreign Minister to draw up a general program for the Entente Cordiale. It went down in history as the 'Sazonov program�, even though Russia did not play an independent role in that war and was from the start built into the system of interests of the British financial elite.

On March 19, Henry Kissinger came to Moscow as a member of The Wise Men (James Baker, George Schultz, and others), who had meetings with the Russian leaders before the G20 summit. Dmitry Trenin, director of the Moscow Carnegie Center and participant in the latest US meeting of the Bilderbergers, called that meeting a 'positive signal�. On March 25, Moskovsky Komsomolets published an article 'The Crisis and the World Problems�, by Gavriil Popov (currently President of the International Union of Economists) that openly voiced what was normally discussed behind closed doors.

The article mentioned World Parliament, World Government, World Armed Forces, World Police Force, World Bank, the necessity of placing under international control the nuclear weapons, nuclear power generating capacities, the entire amount of space rocket technology, and the planet�s minerals, the imposition of birth-rate limits, the cleansing of humanity�s gene pool, the fostering of people intolerant to cultural and religious incompatibility, and the like.

The "countries that will not accept the global prospects," says Popov, "must be expelled from the world community."

Of course, the Moskovsky Komsomolets article conveys nothing new that would enable one to understand the strategy of the global elite. Another thing is important. The establishment of a totalitarian police order and the elimination of national states is being suggested as an open program of action, and what both the liberals, and the socialists, and the conservatives always viewed as 'new fascism� is being recommended as the only possible salutary path for the whole of mankind. Someone wants the discussing of these projects to become a norm. In this context, some 'particularly trusted� representatives of Russia are pushed to the fore, Russia that will become the main victim of the policy of total plunder should the 'global government� become a reality.

The G20 did not discuss the common world currency issue, since time had not yet come for that. The summit itself was a step forward on the way to chaos, because its decisions, if followed blindly, will only worsen the world socioeconomic situation and, to quote Lyndon LaRouche, will "finish off the patient."

In the meantime, the crisis is being exacerbated, and analysts are predicting an era of mass-scale unemployment. The most pessimistic predictions come from LEAP/Europe 20201, which regularly publishes them in its bulletins and even set them out in an open letter sent to the leaders of the Twenty before the London summit.

As early as February 2006, LEAP was surprisingly precise in describing the prospects for the 'systemic global crisis� as a consequence of the financial illness caused by the US debt. LEAP analysts are viewing the current events in the context of the general crisis that began in the late 1970s and is now in its fourth, final and most grave stage, the so-called 'elutriation phase�, where the collapse of real economy begins. According to LEAP�s Frank Biancheri, it is not simply a recession but the end of the system, in which its main pillar, the US economy, collapsed. "We are witnessing the end of an entire epoch before our own eyes."

The crisis may lead to some most difficult consequences. LEAP forecasts a rise in unemployment to 15-20% in Europe and as much as 30% in the United States. If the key dollar problem fails to be solved, the world events will take a most dramatic turn. The dollar collapse may take place as early as July 2009, and the potentially decades-long crisis will trigger off "a world-wide geopolitical disintegration" with social upheavals and civil conflicts, with the division of the world into separate blocs, with the world coming back to Europe�s1914, with military clashes, etc. The most powerful popular unrest will take place in countries with the least developed social security systems and the biggest concentrations of weapons, primarily in Latin America and the United States, where social violence is already now manifest in the activities of armed gangs. Experts note the beginning of US population fleeing to Europe, where the direct threat to life is for the time being not so great. Aside from armed conflicts, LEAP analysts forecast power, food and water shortages in areas dependent on food imports.

LEAP experts describe behavior demonstrated by the Western elites as absolutely inadequate: "Our leaders have failed to understand what happened, and show the same amount of incomprehension to this day. We are amid a period of protracted recession, and it was necessary to engage in introducing some long-term measures to cushion the blows, whereas our leaders still hope to avoid a prolonged recession� All of them have been formed around the American pillar and cannot see that the pillar is a shambles�"

But this is not seen by the mid-level leaders, while the top-level world managers are, on the contrary, informed quite well; it is they who are implementing the 'controlled chaos� and general disintegration policy, including a civil war and the disintegration of the United States planned for the end of 2009, a scenario that is being widely discussed both by American and world media.

On the threshold of conflicts planned in various areas of the planets, a system is being established that will give a supranational center relying on a large-scale punitive machine total political, military, legal, and electronic control over the population. That system uses the network management principle that allows embedding into any society parallel structures of authority that report to external decision-making centers and are legalized through the doctrine of prevalence of international law over national law. The shell remains national, while real power becomes transnational. Jacques Attali calls this a 'global law-based state�.

The ruling center of the global law-based state is located in the US. While its fundamentals began to emerge in the 1990s, the fight against terrorism after the 9/11 events has led to radically new phenomena. The passing of the 2001 Patriot Act not only allowed security services to control the American population and suspected foreigners, but also accelerated the passing of state responsibilities into the hands of transnational corporate structures.

Intelligence activities, trade of war, penitentiary system, and information control are passing into private hands. This is done through so-called outsourcing, a relatively new business phenomenon that consists of trusting certain functions to private firms that act as contractors and relying on individuals outside an organization to solve its internal tasks.

In 2007, the American government found out that 70% of its secret intelligence budget is spent on private contracts and that "Cold-War intelligence bureaucracy is transforming into something new, where contractor�s interests dominate." For American society (Congress included), their activities remain classified, which allows them to gather more and more important functions in their hands.

Former CIA employees say that nearly 60% of their staff are on contracts. Those people analyze most of the information, write reports for those who make decisions in state authorities, maintain communications among various security services, help foreign stations, and analyze data interception. As a result, America�s National Security Agency is becoming more and more dependent on private companies that have access to classified information. No wonder, then, that it is lobbying a bill in the Congress that is supposed to guarantee immunity to corporations that have worked with NSA for the last five years.

The same is happening to private military companies (PMCs), which have been assuming more and more army and police functions. On a significant scale, it started in the nineties in former Yugoslavia, but contract workers were especially widely used in Afghanistan and other conflict zones. They did the 'dirtiest� actions, as was the case during the war in South Ossetia, where up to 3000 mercenaries were involved. At the moment, PMCs are real armies, each up to 70,000 strong, that operate in over 60 countries, with annual revenues of up to $180 billion (according to Brookings Institution, USA) For example, over 20,000 employees of American PMCs work in Iraq along with the 160,000 American military contingent.

The system of private prisons is also growing rapidly in the US. The prison industry complex, which uses slave labor and sweatshop practices, is flourishing, and its investors are based on Wall Street. The use of convict labor by private corporations has been legalized in 37 states already, and it is used by major corporations such as IBM, Boeing, Motorola, Microsoft, Texas Instrument, Intel, Pierre Cardin, and others. In 2008, the number of inmates in US private prisons was about 100,000, and it is growing rapidly, along with the total number of inmates in the country (mostly African-Americans and Latin Americans), which is 2.2 million people, or 25% of all convicts in the world.

After Bush came to power, privatization of the system for transportation and retention of migrants in concentration camps began. In particular, a branch of the notorious firm Halliburton, Kellog Brown and Root (once headed by Dick Cheney), did just that.

The biggest achievements have been made over the last few years in the area of establishing electronic control over people�s identities, carried out under the pretext of counterterrorism. Currently, the FBI is creating the world�s biggest database of biometric indexes (fingerprints, retina scans, face shapes, scar shapes and allocation, speech and gesture patterns, etc.) that now contains 55 million fingerprints. The latest novelties include the introduction of body scanning system in US airports, tracking of literature read by passengers in flight, and so on. A new opportunity to gather detailed information on people�s private lives follow from the NSA Directive N59, passed in summer 2008, 'Identification and tracking biometry for the purpose of strengthening national security�, and the classified 'Homeland Terrorism Preparedness Law�.

Evaluating the policy of America�s authorities, ex-Congressman and 2008 presidential candidate Ron Paul said that America is gradually turning into a fascist state, "We are approaching not a Hitler-type fascism, but one of a softer type, which shows in the loss of civil freedoms, when corporations rule everything and� the government lies in the same bed with big business." May we remind you that Ron Paul is one of the few American politicians speaking for the closing of the Federal Reserve System as a secret unconstitutional organization?

With Obama�s coming to power, the police order in America is getting tighter and tighter in two directions � strengthening internal security and militarization of civilian institutions. Tellingly, having condemned the infringements on individual freedoms done by the Bush administration, Obama has put his own staff under total control by making them fill out a 63-question form that touches upon the most intricate details of their private lives. In January, the US President signed bills that enable the continuation of the illegal practice of abducting people, keeping them secretly in prisons, and moving them to countries where tortures are used. He also proposed a bill called National Emergency Help Center Establishment Act, which stipulates the establishment of six such centers in US military bases to provide help to people who are displaced due to an emergency situation or disaster and thus get into military jurisdiction. Analysts connect this bill with possible disturbances and consider it proof that the US administration is preparing for a military conflict which may follow after the provocation that is being planned.

The American system of police control is actively implemented in other countries, primarily in Europe � through the establishment of American law hegemony on its territory by means of closing various agreements. A big part here was played by US�European talks out of the glare of publicity on creation of the common 'area of control over the population� that were held in spring 2008, when the European Parliament adopted resolution that ratified creation of the single transatlantic market abolishing all barriers to trade and investments by 2015. The talks resulted in the classified report prepared by the experts from six participating countries. This report described the project to create the 'area of cooperation� in the spheres of 'freedom, safety and justice�.

The report dwells upon the reorganization of the system of justice and internal affairs of the EU member states in such a manner that it would resemble the American system. It concerns not only the ability to transfer personal data and cooperation of police services (which is already being carried out), but also, for example, extradition of EU immigrants to US authorities in accordance with the new mandate that abolished all the guarantees the European procedure of extradition provided. In the US the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is in force, and it allows persecution or imprisonment of any person who is identified as an 'illegally fighting enemy� by the executive authorities and extends to immigrants from any country not at war with the US. They are persecuted like "enemies" not based on some evidence but because they were labeled so by the governmental agencies. No foreign governments have protested against this law which is of international importance.

Soon they will sign the agreement on personal data communication, in accordance with which the American authorities will be able to obtain such personal information as credit card numbers, bank account details, investments, travel routes or communication via Internet, as well as the information concerning race, political and religious beliefs, habits, etc.. It was under the US pressure that the EU countries have introduced biometric passports. The new EU regulation implies the overall switch of EU citizens to electronic passports from the end of June 2009 by 2012. New passports will contain a chip with not only passport info and a photo, but also fingerprints.

We are witnessing the creation of the global electronic concentration camp, and crisis, conflicts and wars are used to justify it. People tend to tremble in the face of an imaginary danger and are too lazy to see the real one.

:: Article nr. 54034 sent on 07-may-2009 10:14 ECT

if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0

Tuesday, May 05, 2009


if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0

Constititution of the United States: 1st Amendment, Bill of Rights : "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

eXTReMe Tracker