----- Original Message -----From: Joel SkousenTo: devvy KiddSent: 4/24/2009 11:39:37 AMSubject: World Affairs Brief April 24, 2009
PDF Version: World Affairs Brief April 24, 2009
World Affairs Brief, April 24, 2009 Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World.
Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief ( http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com )
THIS WEEK'S ANALYSIS:
The Torture Issue That Won't Go Away
FBI Surveiled Tea Party Protest Movement
EPA Designates CO2 a Health Risk
Secret Prisons Still Operating
Beware Texas Governor Rick Perry
Aryan Nation Rises Again-Coincidence?
Attack on the USS Liberty--The Cover-up Continues
Rules of Engagement in Piracy
Big Bank Profits a Scam
F-35 Data Hack: Theft or Gift?
The Harman-AIPAC Scandal
Obama Spending Cuts a Pittance
THE TORTURE ISSUE THAT WON'T GO AWAY
No matter how much Obama and the rest of the establishment in both parties want to "move forward," the damage done to America's reputation as a bastion of liberty that "does not torture" has been irrevocably destroyed by embracing a policy of torture and calling it euphemistically, "Enhanced Interrogations." Everyone knows that only a vigorous prosecution of those responsible will reestablish America as an honest broker for honesty and truth--but that isn't going to happen. The Obama administration is trying to engineer first, a delay by inquiry (all government-run investigations are cover-ups of something), and second, is to find some criteria for prosecution that no government official will meet, thus justifying, once again, moving forward without even the appearance of a show trial. Even the Post WWII Nuremberg trial standard (obeying orders is no justification for crimes against humanity) is being totally disregarded by the Obama determination "not to prosecute those who relied on these memos and guidelines." If following direct orders under penalty of punishment is not sufficient justification to excuse a violation of the Geneva Convention, how could following a far less coercive guideline provide justification? I can't.
There are only a few highly placed persons with sufficient hubris to continue justifying the Bush policies on torture in spite of its near uniform condemnation. Former VP Dick Cheney, for one, is completely unrepentant. Another prominent example is David B. Rivkin, globalist and self-styled "constitutional" lawyer (is that a non-sequitur or what?) --member of the notorious Council on Foreign Relations. Rivkin told the press of the Bush administration memos on April 17, "This data is analyzed in great detail to establish that the use of these techniques does not inflict either physical or psychological damage." --No, just horror and near-death experiences. But, apparently that's OK.
As Thomas R. Eddlem noted, Rivkin is parsing words over the Bush memos: "One such memo, authored by John Yoo and issued under the signature of his Justice Department superior Jay S. Bybee, attempted to define torture virtually out of existence by claiming that torture only consisted of pain equivalent to 'major organ failure or death.' The dictionary defines 'torture' as 'excruciating' or 'severe' pain. Under the Bush administration's manufactured definition of torture, bamboo shoots under the fingernails, electrical shocks on sensitive body parts, amputation of fingers or toes, and other torments considered torture under the definition of the word since the dawn of time wouldn't qualify as 'torture.' They don't consist of 'major organ failure.' They're just 'harsh treatment,' in the language of the former Bush administration and other apologists for torture.
Whatever you call it, it was torture, and it included: Waterboarding (which is drowning until just short of asphyxiation-nothing simulated about it! Khalid Sheik Mohammed was waterboarded during 183 sessions, 15 seconds a session, spread over one month, and yet 90% of what he revealed or admitted was absolute garbage); sleep deprivation, putting a prisoner in a coffin-like box with an aggressive insect(s); banging heads against a wall, chaining to the ceiling, naked; and subjection to long-term periods of cold, damp conditions also without clothing. If that isn't torture, I don't know what is. Just because the US had unprincipled medical personnel attending did not mean it was humane. Their only purpose was NOT to see that no harm was done, but that the prisoner stayed alive. They failed in at least one instance (at least one prisoner died) and they failed the Hippocratic oath not to do harm in every instance.
The NY Times (who long helped cover up for these crimes, but now claims to be horrified) editorialized thus: "To read the four newly released memos on prisoner interrogation written by George W. Bush's Justice Department is to take a journey into depravity. Their language is the precise bureaucratese favored by dungeon masters throughout history. They detail how to fashion a collar for slamming a prisoner against a wall, exactly how many days he can be kept without sleep (11), and what, specifically, he should be told before being locked in a box with an insect ---- all to stop just short of having a jury decide that these acts violate the laws against torture and abusive treatment of prisoners.
"In one of the more nauseating passages, Jay Bybee, then an assistant attorney general and now a federal judge, wrote admiringly about a contraption for waterboarding that would lurch a prisoner upright if he stopped breathing while water was poured over his face. He praised the Central Intelligence Agency for having doctors ready to perform an emergency tracheotomy if necessary. These memos are not an honest attempt to set the legal limits on interrogations, which was the authors' statutory obligation. They were written to provide legal immunity for acts that are clearly illegal, immoral and a violation of this country's most basic values."
Jay Bybee is now being subjected to a well justified campaign by civil libertarians demanding his impeachment from the bench. Knee jerk defenders of Bush administration policies like Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Ut) decry the impeachment call and defend Bybee as a true patriot. Perhaps he was at one time, but Bybee has fallen a long way from his BYU beginnings where he wrote a conservative treatise on the 9th and 10th amendments to where he came to rest as an abject government yesman lawyer at the Department of Justice. This kind of pathetic compromise of principle for advancement is, sadly, typical of eager graduates from Brigham Young University Law School who are encouraged to seek clerkships with the most prestigious judges in order to "make it" in the establishment world. This highly rated law school, named in honor of hard line constitutionalist J. Reuben Clark, ought to spend more time imbuing graduates with an allegiance to America's founding legal document (revered by the school's mentor and the LDS Church) than trying to seek so much acceptance in the world.
Europeans seem much more willing to prosecute heads of state for human rights violations---though only if they can be labeled as Right-Wing dictators like Pinochet or Milosevich. While Bush and Cheney are viewed as Right-wing, my readers know that they are actually Globalists, so they will be spared. The Associated Press noted that one international lawyer said there was a duty to prosecute but admitted that he didn't think the US would suffer any sanctions if it failed to act. "Manfred Nowak, an Austrian law professor who serves as a special rapporteur for the Geneva-based U.N. Human Rights Council, said the United States had committed itself under the U.N. Convention against Torture to make torture a crime and to prosecute those suspected of engaging in it.... President Barack Obama's decision not to prosecute CIA operatives who used questionable interrogation practices violates international law according to the U.N.'s top torture investigator. But he said Washington is unlikely to face any legal sanctions." The US has a lot of clout, both in public and in secret, with Europe as evidenced by the CIA's ability to get Europe's most powerful countries to go along with his policy of secret "rendition" and torture of anyone labeled a terror suspect--all while denying any knowledge of or collusion with the US.
Last Thursday, Obama essentially absolved CIA officers from prosecution for harsh, painful interrogation of terror suspects under the former Bush administration. The AP noted that "The announcement was met with disappointment from human rights groups and former detainees who condemned such methods as torture." As the world's condemnation grew about Obama's decision not to prosecute, his handlers suggested a slick way to defuse the crisis. Obama would change his policy to a "might prosecute" and then claim it wasn't up to him--inferring that his own appointee, AG Eric Holder was independent of the Executive. Technically, that is supposed to be true, but never has been.
Taking his cue from Obama and giving the appearance of independence, AG Eric Holder acknowledged this week that despite previous comments made by the President, it remained a possibility that Bush administration officials could be prosecuted for devising interrogation policies. "Look what it's done to the image of the nation... We're going to follow the evidence wherever that takes us... No one is above the law." We've heard that before from Obama. Holder ended with, "So we will just see what happens [after the inquiry, which will take months]." I'll lay odds nothing will happen.
Margaret Talev of McClatchy Newspapers reported that "A newly declassified narrative of the Bush administration's advice to the CIA on harsh interrogations shows that the small group of Justice Department lawyers who wrote memos authorizing harsh interrogation techniques were operating not on their own but with direction from top administration officials, including then-Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. Cheney is probably untouchable for now, but Rice seems to be in someone's sights as a possible scapegoat.
Richard Armitage, former undersecretary of State under Rice is saying he "should have resigned over the torture issue," implying both that he knew about it and disagreed. However, Armitage is so much a part of the dark side of government that I can't trust anything he says. He is, in my opinion, totally without principles. He was manager of the CIA's drug pipeline coming out of the Iron Triangle (Cambodia/Thailand jungles) during the Vietnam War. Whether he is positioning himself for exoneration to keep his career alive, or actively participating in outing Rice, I can't really say.
Another shifty insider, Philip Zelikow, is also claiming that his memo opposing torture was destroyed by the government--in an attempt to claim to destroy any evidence of dissent. Philip Zelikow, a former State Department lawyer and adviser to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, was also the executive director of the 9/11 commission, which systematically covered up for government involvement in the 9/11 attacks. He may well have opposed torture, but it certainly wasn't because he had any moral scruples. The only one who can be hurt by all these "It wasn't me confessions" is Condi Rice--who I have no sympathy for. The larger question is what did she do to irritate the PTB to get outed like this?
Finally, I have to agree with Michael Ratner, writing for Counterpunch. "The coming Torture Commission is a trap. Today I awoke to read that a number of human rights type groups have called on President Obama to create a commission of accountability to investigate and report publicly on torture and the cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees. There is not a word in the petition about criminal prosecutions of the torture team. Yet, I know that some of these groups would say they still want prosecutions. Sadly, this call and a commission if set up, would almost guarantee that prosecutions won't happen. Briefly, here is why.
"We have reached a critical political moment on this issue. Obama has been forced or pushed to open the door to prosecutions, an opening I thought would take much longer to achieve. If there was ever a time to push that door open wider and demand a special prosecutor it is now. We have documented and open admissions of criminality. We have Cheney and Hayden admitting what they approved these techniques; and Cheney saying he would approve waterboarding again. We have the Senate Armed Services Report detailing how the torture program was authored and approved by our highest officials in the Whitehouse and employed in Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan. And we have thousands of pages of proof. There is public outrage about the torture program and the media in the US and the world are covered with the US misdeeds. So at this moment, instead of human rights groups getting together and calling for a special prosecutor what do they do? Call for a commission. What this call does and it must be said strongly is take the pressure off what is the growing public push for prosecutions and deflects it into a commission. Outrage that could actually lead to prosecutions is now focused away and into a commission."
The story keeps changing by the day. Jason Leopold reports that "President Barack Obama has backtracked on statements he made earlier this week in which he indicated he was open to a 9/11-type commission to investigate the Bush administration's use of torture, telling lawmakers at a meeting at the White House Thursday he now doesn't support the idea." If there is an inquiry it will be internal to the Justice Department, where it can be more tightly controlled.
There's no enthusiasm on the part of Republicans for an inquiry since it all began under Bush and Cheney, and the Democrats on the House Intelligence committee were also apparently informed. The Washington Times adds that "As scrutiny over who knew what about the controversial tactics has turned back to Congress, Mrs. Pelosi sought to distance herself from revelations that she and other key Democrats were kept in the loop by the CIA between 2002 and 2006." More people knew about torture than either party wants to let on.
FBI SURVEILED TEA PARTY PROTESTS
The self-styled private intel outfit, The Northeast Intelligence Network, (NIN) which acted like a government shill during the Bush administration's phony war on terror, has received another leak from an agent in the FBI saying the bureau collected intelligence on the participants and organizers of America's Tea Party tax protests on April 15th. This leak, however, is most certainly true. Why would I believe them now rather than before? Because it matches how government leakers deal with "conservative" outfits (like NIN and the Washington Times) that are eager to please Republican-backed governments, but dislike the same policies when done by Democrats. These government agents leak false information that supports government policies (even when wrong) during Republican administrations, and leak true but damaging information during Democratic administrations. So, we are now in a period in which whistleblowers will be allowed to leak at least some of the truth.
According to infowars.com, "The source claims that a single page FBI directive was dispatched from FBI headquarters in Washington DC on March 23 requesting that Special Agents in Charge (SACs) 'verify the date, time and location of each TEA Party within their region and supply that information to FBI headquarters in Washington.' Agents were then instructed to compile information on the organizers of the different protests and also send the information back to FBI headquarters. On April 6, they were subsequently asked to conduct covert surveillance and data collection of the protesters attending the Tea Party demonstrations. Surveillance was to be performed from 'discreet fixed or mobile positions' and was to be performed 'independently and outside of the purview of local law enforcement,' according to the source."
All of this matches what I know about government efforts to surveil the American Right, which has been going on for years. The FBI has been building lists of people who are deemed "dissidents and potential resistors" to government power, on both the Right and the Left. This was confirmed by the following details revealed: "...the information was reportedly submitted to Washington, where, 'at the level of the National Security Branch (NSB), this information was to include the office of the Directorate of Intelligence (DI), and integrated with a restricted access database, one that reportedly is accessible to only two agencies.'" That restricted database is the politically sensitive and illegal list of American dissidents. As Paul Joseph Watson concluded, "The notion that the FBI would be conducting covert surveillance and building databases on attendants of the Tea Party protests is thoroughly disturbing if not unsurprising." Indeed, it is not surprising at all.
THE EPA DESIGNATES C02 A HEALTH RISK
A week ago Friday the EPA, under new and more radical environmentalist leadership, made official what the Bush administration was heading for anyway--the designation of carbon dioxide and 4 other "greenhouse" gases like Methane as pollutants dangerous to human health. It is truly Orwellian to watch how they justify what amounts to calling white, black. If they can do that with science, they can do it with anything. Once they turn a beneficial and life-sustaining gas like C02 into an evil substance to justify regulation, there is no limit to the damage they can do. What's next, Oxygen?
The EPA engaged in a long, circuitous argument to justify the claim that C02 is a health risk. They started with the premise that global warming (which is mostly beneficial) is a grave danger to humanity--creating glacial melting and a resultant doomsday scenario of coastal cities flooded by rising oceans. Even if that were true, which it isn't, human beings could adapt by moving to higher ground and not a single life would be harmed--let alone health, the supposed justification for all this. Naturally, there is no way to limit C02 in any major way, but that won't stop them from using the quest to regulate every future internal combustion engine, at tremendous increased in cost. Nor will it stop them from engaging in the idiocy of swapping carbon credits (an invitation to corruption and manipulation of markets), or spending millions to create C02 filters or bury carbon in the ground.
All of this started as the worst kind of blatant media propaganda. It has been building for several years, beginning with co-opted scientists using phony criteria to produce skewed and falsified computer forecasts pointing to these doomsday scenarios. All of this was bogus, but that didn't stop the media and various politicians from declaring that "the science was settled."
It never was settled and the scientific opposition has grown by leaps and bounds--but you would never know it by listening to establishment media reports. Virtually every media story begins with the assertion that man-made global warming is an uncontested fact. The political pressure for conformance is so pervasive that almost every major corporation's advertising includes some reference to doing their part to reduce carbon emissions.
No one in a public position is allowed to challenge the false premise of man-made global warming. It is particularly galling to watch the media pretend to tell both sides of the story. As the News Hour with Jim Lehre showcased the story, they brought on a major environment lobbyist from the Sierra Club and matched him up with the "opposition" ----Keith McCoy, vice president of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. But McCoy wasn't in opposition at all. He never once even hinted he disagreed with the premise. He only cautioned how difficult it would be to implement.
As Tom Deweese reported on NewsWithViews.com, "I have just returned from one of the most important Climate Change conferences ever held. Sponsored by the Heartland Institute, more than 700 scientists from all over the world came together to testify that man-made Global Warming does not exist. Harvard scholar and climate scientist Willie Soon said it best in a recent article he titled, 'It's the Sun, stupid.' Dr. Mark Campbell, professor of chemistry at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis recently wrote, 'The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to journalistic malpractice.' Said U.S. Government atmospheric scientist Stanley B, Goldenberg, 'It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming.'
"In the past year, more than 650 scientists from around the world have expressed their doubts. That's 12 times the number of UN IPCC global warming alarmists. Top that with the fact that more than 31,000 American scientists have signed a petition saying there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing disruption of the Earth's climate.
"Of course most of the hysteria has been fueled by Al Gore's Oscar-winning, Nobel prize-winning film 'An Inconvenient Truth,' which almost every American school student has been forced to watch endless times in their classroom. Well, guess what, the government of Great Britain just ruled that the film cannot be shown in English classrooms unless it carries a disclaimer that says the film is full of mistakes and propaganda.
"An overwhelming majority of scientist are now telling us that investigative research shows any warming actually stopped in 1999. And, in fact, they say the brief warming period we experienced in the past decade was completely natural, caused in part by storms on the sun, not CO2 emissions from SUVs. The Sun storms have ended and now a cooling period has begun." But, no matter what the weather does, the media response is to claim it is another result of Global Warming.
SECRET PRISONS STILL OPERATING
Democracy Now focused on another form of secret prisons being built by the federal government, dubbed "Little Guantanamo." "The Bush administration opened two secretive prisons in Indiana and Illinois known as Communication Management Units, or CMUs, that are designed to severely restrict prisoner communication with family members, the media and the outside world. Dozens of Muslim men are still being held at the CMUs, as well as other prisoners, including environmental and animal rights activists. A search on the Bureau of Prisons website yields just one document even mentioning the program. The first CMU was opened in 2006 in a special, isolated wing of the federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana. A second CMU was opened last year in Marion, Illinois."
The main purpose of these units is to make sure that prisoners associated with political causes the government doesn't like have no way to communicate with their legal contacts or allies about their condition. Even gang associate prisoners are allowed hundreds of telephone minutes a month, unsupervised. It is no wonder that criminal enterprises continue to be run out of prison. The government could easily shut these down, but instead concentrates on making sure political prisoners have no rights of communication. While some of the inmates in these units have been guilty of crimes, others are mere "terror suspects" -a dangerously broad label that can be attached to almost anyone the government wants put away.
Dafna Linzer, of ProPublica also pointed out that "one of the newly released Bush-era memos inadvertently confirmed that the CIA held an al-Qaeda suspect named Hassan Ghul in a secret prison and subjected him to what Bush administration lawyers called 'enhanced interrogation techniques.' The CIA has never acknowledged holding Ghul, and his whereabouts today are secret. But Ghul is not the only such prisoner who remains missing. At least three dozen others who were held in the CIA's secret prisons overseas appear to be missing as well. Efforts by human rights organizations to track their whereabouts have been unsuccessful, and no foreign governments have acknowledged holding them." As I said last week, Obama's assurances that these prisons have been shut down are worthless. The dark side of the US government does what it wants and even the president can't find out.
MAN KILLED AT G20 PROTEST DIED OF INTERNAL BLEEDING
According to an independent autopsy released this week, Ian Tomlinson the innocent bystander attacked by police near a protest at the G20 summit died of internal bleeding, not a heart attack. This is bad news for the London Police who claimed the man had a heart attack unrelated to the police assault. The report opens the door for possible manslaughter charges against the officer who attacked Mr. Tomlinson. Tomlinson, an innocent passerby, was struck from behind at the knee with a baton, and then pushed to the ground by the overly aggressive policeman.
BEWARE TEXAS GOVERNOR RICK PERRY--NOT A CONSTITUTIONALIST
The conservative/constitutionalist Right in America needs to be forever vigilant to guard against establishment politicians feigning allegiance to the truth when they are only doing so to derail the implementation of real change. Last week, I warned about Newt Gingrich, a globalist in sheep's clothing trying to get back into the good graces of the conservatives he betrayed while the Republican Speaker of the House during the Clinton years. Conservatives now need to scrutinize the sudden reformation of Governor Rick Perry of Texas, who recently made a big deal out of his support for States rights and the 10th Amendment. Remember, that State's rights are absolutely no guarantee that State governments will do what's right. In fact, the lack of constitutional restrictions on the states makes this a wide open track for more gun control and social welfare, as in California and other Leftist-dominated legislatures.
The Houston Chronicle said that "An animated Perry told the [Tea Party] crowd that officials in Washington have abandoned the country's founding principles of limited government. He said the federal government is strangling Americans with taxation, spending and debt.'" Compromising Republican officials always play to the limited government theme when out of power and quickly forget about it when in office. Playing to the crowd, Perry even talked about Texas seceding from the Union. When challenged about that statement by establishment sources, he quickly backtracked.
Bliss Tew, a JBS coordinator from Utah, may have correctly detected the real motive from this indiscreet and insincere proclamation by Perry. "That's just the kind of State-action Todd Maynard and I have feared would happen if someone in a high governmental leadership position in one of the State Governments took the 10th Amendment movement too far. It's a good way for Governor Perry to make the 10th Amendment movement sound more radical than it is and make it sound threatening to the federation of states in the form of the federal government. Such secession talk can then be used by DHS to characterize other patriots as 'extremists' and 'radicals,' [as it already does]"
Perry is positioning himself further to the Right in anticipation of a primary challenge from fellow Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison, another establishment woman politician. Part of that strategy is to appear more conservative than the former governor by backing Texas Concurrent Resolution 50 confirming the Tenth Amendment. This type of resolution has constitutionalists around the country cheering and optimistic. I don't hold to the same degree of hopefulness as my fellow conservatives because I don't trust state legislatures any more than I do Congress. Utah, for example, passed a 10th Amendment resolution years ago asserting its sovereignty and has yet to make any demands based upon it.
Alex Jones informed his infowars.com radio audience about Rick Perry's globalist background. "Rick Perry is a consummate insider who is merely exploiting the tea party movement for his own shrewd political ends. He was instrumental in the development of the Trans-Texas Corridor, part of the CFR's plan to build a 'North American Community.' He was at the center of a plan to privatize Texas Utilities and sell them off to global investment firms, including the bankster outfits Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse First Boston. He also advocated subjecting Texans to the HPV vaccine."
"'Don Snyder wrote for the Napa Valley Register that the NAFTA 'superhighway' linking Mexico, the U.S. and Canada is already underway. A Texas legislator tried to stop this massive mile-wide structure, but Texas Gov. Rick Perry vetoed the bill. The governor is a Bilderberger with the same CFR viewpoint.' Rick Perry attended the Bilderberg Group meeting in Istanbul, Turkey, in 2007. It should be noted that state governors are often invited to Bilderberg meetings to be groomed for the presidency, as Bill Clinton was groomed at the Bilderberg meeting in 1991 held at Baden-Baden, Germany... He is not a friend of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment."
ARYAN NATION RISES AGAIN--COINCIDENCE?
Just as the DHS issues its secret warning to local law enforcement about potential Right wing extremists, suddenly the white-supremicist Aryan Nations resurrects itself in Hayden Lake, Idaho (near Coeur d'Alene). As the AP reported, "The Aryan Nations has returned to northern Idaho with what it is calling a 'world headquarters' and is recruiting new members. Coeur d'Alene resident Jerald O'Brien is one of the leaders of the white supremacist group and said he expects membership to grow due to the election of President Barack Obama." This dovetails all to conveniently with what the DHS warned about Right-wing people playing the "racist hate card."
"The Aryan Nations had a compound in northern Idaho until 2000, when the group lost a $6.3 million civil judgment in favor of two people who sued after being attacked by Aryan Nations' members... The local newspaper reported that its files show O'Brien marching in a neo-Nazi parade in Coeur d'Alene in July 2004 and joining in a skinhead rally that drew eight people outside the Spokane County courthouse in Spokane, Wash., in June 2007. O'Brien said he and Michael Lombard have taken over the group following longtime leader Richard Butler, who died in 2004. The fliers are signed 'Aryan Nations, Church of Jesus Christ Christian,' and O'Brien and Lombard on the group's Web site are listed as 'pastors.'
Like the present day Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nations is, I believe, a government false flag operation designed to denigrate the American Right. Here is the evidence. If you watch videos of current Klan activity in the South, you will note the leaders are not from the South. They are transplants, just like the Aryan Nations. I once traveled to Hayden Lake to interview Pastor Butler who represented to me that he was running a conservative Christian ministry. As I walked into the office, I noticed several Nazi flags on desks, and various signs proclaiming National Socialism--all telltale signs of a false flag operation. Christian conservatives are not socialists, let alone of the NAZI brand. I asked Butler how he could reconcile this. He gave me an evasive answer about Christ's believers living a socialist communal order after his death. When I pointed out this was a failure as all socialist communes, he said "he could do it right." Sure. That's what all socialists say. He never would give me a straight answer about why he chose Hitler's National Socialism if he was trying to "do it right," nor where he found justification in Christianity for his White Supremacy beliefs.
In short, the guy was a fraud, and fronting for a government program to denigrate the Right-wing militia movement--which worked. I interviewed one Aryan nation staff member from Portland at the compound. I asked him how he happened to join. He said he was caught in a parole violation on the streets of Portland and the FBI came into his cell and offered him a deal--join the Aryan nations as a plant or go back to jail. Trouble is, these types are not just informing, they are being fed provocative information and techniques to pass on to the others, always steering them toward illegal acts. The rise of the new Aryan Nations is no more a coincidence than the sudden rash of gun suicide/murders happening almost daily in the news--driving the justification for more gun control and registration.
ANNIVERSARY OF USS LIBERTY ATTACK--THE COVER-UP CONTINUES
The bitterness against the US and Israeli government cover-up over the Israeli attack against the US intelligence ship Liberty in 40 years has not subsided. The attack, labeled as a case of mistaken identity killed 34 and wounded more than 170 crew members, and damaged the ship severely. But the mistaken identity excuse was so completely un-credible, that Israel changed its story.
As the Chicago Tribune wrote this week, "An Israeli military court of inquiry later acknowledged that their naval headquarters knew at least three hours before the attack that the odd-looking ship 13 miles off the Sinai Peninsula, sprouting more than 40 antennas capable of receiving every kind of radio transmission, was 'an electromagnetic audio-surveillance ship of the U.S. Navy,' a floating electronic vacuum cleaner. The Israeli inquiry later concluded that that information had simply gotten lost, never passed along to the ground controllers who directed the air attack nor to the crews of the three Israeli torpedo boats who picked up where the air force left off, strafing the Liberty's decks with their machine guns and launching a torpedo that blew a 39-foot hole in its starboard side."
Nonsense. The info wasn't lost at all. My Israeli sources told me that Israel knew it was an American ship and contacted Washington twice to demand it be removed. Washington refused and so the Israelis deliberately attacked. John Lofton claims the Israelis believed the intel gathered from the ship would be leaked to Syria and compromise Israel's impending sneak attack on the Golan Heights. Lofton's source was right about the potential leak, but it was not to the Syrians. The Israelis knew the Russians had moles inside US intelligence and that there were Russian artillery advisors on the Golan running the Syrian defense. That was the danger.
But a new, anonymous conspiracy theory has emerged claiming that President Lyndon Johnson was deliberately in league with Israel to sink the ship and kill all on board and then blame it on the Egyptians so as to justify America's entrance into the war.
"During the attack the U.S.S. Liberty continually called the 6th fleet which was nearby begging for air support. Two groups of fighter aircraft were sent to defend the Liberty but unbelievably they were recalled by the White House. The Admiral in Command of the sixth fleet called Washington to confirm the recall order. Secretary of Defense MacNamara came on the line followed by the president himself who told the Admiral, 'I want that G-d D-mn Ship going to the bottom.' President Johnson, who had personal control over the ship, made a backroom deal with Israel to attack it with an order to kill everyone on board. Then the attack was to be blamed on Egypt and the U.S. would enter the war and take over the entire Middle East."
While there are some parts of the story that are true about the cover-up by the US government, the Johnson quote is bogus, in my opinion. Israel did intentionally attack this ship. The source of the Johnson quote (Sacha Joota) is not trustworthy, and may be the same Russian disinformation expert who calls himself or herself "Sacha". Many parts of the story are true but I don't believe the Johnson quote. Even though Johnson was an evil man, there is no way he would tell a sitting admiral that he wants one of his ships to go to the bottom---tantamount to telling an admiral to kill his own people. That's an invitation to turn an admiral into a highly placed whistleblower.
Yes, Mcnamara did recall air support but they can do that without getting the president on the line-just like the Bay of Pigs. Admiral Kidd did later admit to a subordinate-turned-whistleblower that he was under pressure to cover up the whole affair. However, I'm not buying the motive that Johnson was looking for an excuse to enter the war. That is simply without reason. The Israelis already had the war mostly won. Johnson had no real reason to create an excuse to invade Egypt---that would have put the US in the same situation as the French in Algeria. The globalists have achieved a lot more by suborning Egypt with $3B in military aid each year, than by invading and occupying. Here's a link to the whole Chicago Tribune special report.
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT IN PIRACY
The BBC reported that "Dutch commandos have freed seven pirates who were holding 20 Yemeni hostages of a fishing vessel (used as the pirate mothership). The pirates were set free, the Associated Press news agency reports, because under Dutch law they could not be held at sea under the circumstances in which they were captured."
In addition we continually hear shipping companies excuse their unwillingness to arm their crews against pirates saying that certain nations won't let them into port if their crews have any arms on board. The US also uses similar excuse of "international law" or the lack thereof to justify their reluctance to fire up pirate ships attacking ships they are protecting. It appears as if these artificial rules of engagement are setting the stage for justifying some form of International Law that will supposedly "remedy" the jurisdiction problem. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Law of the Sea treaty being given new life by letting his piracy problem continue and grow.
BIG BANK PROFITS A SCAM
Martin D. Weiss, Ph.D. exposes the latest scam to make the bailouts look successful--big bank profits. "Big bank CEOs are on a mission to deceive the public but they don't have to tell outright lies. They can con people just as easily by using perfectly legal tricks, shams, and accounting ruses.
"First, look at the megabanks: The authorities SAY that all of the 14 largest banks have earned a 'passing' grade in their just-completed 'stress tests.' But just six months ago, the authorities swore that, without a massive injection of taxpayer funds, those same banks would suffer a fatal meltdown. Was the bad-debt disease magically cured? Did the economy miraculously turn around? Not quite. In fact, we have overwhelming evidence that the condition of the nation's banks has deteriorated massively since then.
Meanwhile, based on fourth quarter Fed data, we find that, among the nation's megabanks, six are at risk of failure in our opinion (seven if you count Wachovia and Wells Fargo as separate institutions). JPMorgan Chase is the nation's largest, with $1.7 trillion in assets in its primary banking unit. It's massively exposed to defaults by its trading partners in derivatives -- to the tune of 382 percent (almost four times) its risk-based capital. Plus, since it holds HALF of ALL the derivatives in the U.S. banking industry, JPMorgan is at ground zero in the debt crisis.
"Citibank is the nation's third largest, with assets of $1.2 trillion in its main banking unit. Its total credit exposure to derivatives is a bit lower than Morgan's, at 278 percent, but still extremely high. Plus, it has other troubles, especially the surging default rates in its sprawling global portfolio of credit cards and other consumer loans.
"Wells Fargo and Wachovia now make up the nation's fourth largest bank with combined assets of $1.17 trillion. But in the fourth quarter, they still reported separately, which is illuminating: Even without Wachovia's troubled assets, TheStreet.com Ratings has downgraded Wells Fargo to a D+. Wachovia, meanwhile, got a D. This tells you that Wells Fargo wasn't exactly the best merger partner, unless you believe in some bizarre math wherein adding two negatives somehow gives you a positive result.
"Goldman Sachs, which reported for the first time as a commercial bank in the fourth quarter, seems to be taking the biggest risks of all in derivatives. Its total credit exposure is 1,056 percent of capital. Bottom line: It debuts as a bank with a rating of D, on par with Wachovia.
"On its 'Problem List,' the FDIC reports only 252 institutions with assets of $159 billion. In contrast, our list of at-risk institutions includes 1,816 banks and thrifts with $4.67 trillion in assets. That's seven times the number of institutions and 29 times more assets at risk than the FDIC admits.
"What Explains the Huge Gap Between Official Declarations and Our Analysis? We all use essentially the same data. And conceptually, the analytical approach is also similar. The primary difference is that the regulators have an agenda: Instead of protecting the people from bank failures, they're trying harder than ever to protect failed banks from the people. Specifically ...
"1) They have forever hidden the names of the banks on the FDIC's 'Problem List,' making it almost impossible for average consumers to get prior warnings of troubles. 2) They have never disclosed their own official ratings of the banks -- the CAMELS ratings -- making it difficult for the public to find safe institutions they can trust. 3) They have religiously underestimated -- or understated -- the depth and breadth of the debt crisis.
THE F-35 DATA HACK--THEFT OR GIFT?
The US reported this week that Chinese hackers stole gigabytes of engineering data on the US Joint Strike Fighter. The Chinese deny the cyber theft, but they have a history of being allowed to steal. Yes, our government has allowed the Chinese access to our top nuclear labs at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore. In the 1990s they allowed Chinese military experts open access to top secret US weapons manufacturers like Hughes Aircraft. I had a subscriber who worked there when this was happening. He told me about how upset all the top engineers were about having the Chinese there every day of the week. So, in response the company shut the plant down on Saturdays so the Chinese could come in and "observe" without the employees being there. We also have to remember, that the US purposely allowed the Russian weapons labs to be a joint developer of the F-35, opening up much of our secrets to the Russians. I reported on this years ago. But, in the end, this may become a self-serving revelation by our government to justify a draconian government control program to secure the internet to eliminate thefts--in other words, to justify more surveillance and control.
THE HARMAN-AIPAC SCANDAL
There is a lot more to the ongoing story about the NSA wiretapping the phones of Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harmon that I don't have time to cover--It is spooky stuff and we may never know all the secret motives involved. At it's core is the charge that Harmon was caught on tape speaking to a thus far unidentified Israeli agent dubbed "Bob," agreeing to try and influence then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and others to quash the FBI probe into the espionage between a US intel official and the controversial Israeli lobby AIPAC. Gonzales himself agreed to quash any probe of Harmon for attempts to obstruct justice on behalf of AIPAC. Harmon was a key Democrat who supported President Bush's illegal surveillance of all communications. According to Congressional Quarterly's Jeff Stein, who first broke the Harman-AIPAC story, "intelligence officials, angry about Gonzo's move, told Nancy Pelosi about the wiretap that had picked up Harman talking to a suspected Israeli agent -- defying the AG's order that Pelosi not be informed. That was how Pelosi learned about the wiretap -- not through an official briefing, as she implied yesterday in comments to reporters.
Zachary Roth of Talking Points Memo continues the narrative: "It's unclear how informing Pelosi -- then the House minority leader -- would have served the interests of the intel officials who wanted to investigate Harman. Perhaps they felt that, if they couldn't continue the probe, they could at least make sure Harman paid a political price. They may have been successful in that regard. Pelosi didn't appoint Harman to the job she was seeking -- House Intelligence chair -- and there have been suggestions that this was in part because Pelosi knew about the wiretap issue."
As for Gonzales' role in protecting Harman, there may have been a little quid pro quo according to Scott Horton: "Gonzales appears to have personally intervened to shut down an FBI probe into Harman's potential wrongdoing--which was reportedly recorded on several wiretapped phone calls--because he viewed her as a key Democratic ally in Congress who could help him fend off accusations about warrantless domestic wiretapping."
However, as Glen Greenwald put it, "Harman is getting a taste of her own medicine. When the U.S. Government eavesdropped for years on American citizens with no warrants and in violation of the law, that was 'both legal and necessary' as well as 'essential to U.S. national security,' (according to Harmon)... But when the U.S. Government legally and with warrants eavesdrops on Jane Harman, that is an outrageous invasion of privacy and a violent assault on her rights as an American citizen, and full-scale investigations must be commenced immediately to get to the bottom of this abuse of power. Behold Jane Harman's overnight transformation from Very Serious Champion of the Lawless Surveillance State to shrill civil liberties extremist."
On an even deeper level, virtually every Congressman of any import is surveiled by the dark side of government. They use the dirt they find on politicians to control them. When a tap like this becomes visible, there is either someone in power out to get Harman, or she did something wrong, or failed to do something demanded of her, and is getting a little warning from the PTB. It gets more murky when you consider that it was Porter Goss, the establishment fixer sent in with his minions to root out the remaining whistleblowers at the CIA, who initiated this attack on Harmon.
As John Kampeas wrote, "Goss had reason to resent Harman: As ranking member on the committee, she aggressively pursued her own investigation of the case that felled U.S. Rep. Randy Cunningham (R-Calif.) in a cash for contracts scandal - one that also brought down Goss buddy ("Gossling") Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, Goss' number 3 at the CIA. And they weren't exactly best buds before that; Goss and Harman had clashed, for instance, on waterboarding; she went over his head and formally registered her opposition to the torture practice with the CIA." --Lots of motives are possible. This gives you some idea of how convoluted and hidden things are in Washington. There is a dark side of government out there that the public has no idea about--and it's been around for decades.
OBAMA SPENDING CUTS ENOUGH FOR 1 DAY OF US SPENDING
The Obama's demands for spending cuts in his cabinet meeting this week were only for show. Critics pointed out that the vaunted $100 million in cuts amounts to less than 1 day of federal expenditures-not counting off-budget secret spending. As CBS said, "critics say the amounts are so small, that it's nothing more than a publicity stunt." [END]
World Affairs Brief, 290 West 580 South, Orem, Ut 84058, USA
To unsubscribe or change subscriber options visit: