This is old news, but it's applicable to today and well worth reviewing and remembering. It is all detailed in the book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (2004), by John Perkins, who was formerly an economic hit man for the Corporatocracy.
Perkins explains how, when a third world country has resources coveted by mega corporations and/or the Government in the US, those resources are obtained via the following process. If the country with the resources is not cooperative, a series of huge loans to that country is arranged through the World Bank. The money eventually goes to multi-national mega corporations such as Bechtel and Halliburton; they are hired by the country to build ports, industrial plants, roads, etc. When the country is so far in debt that it has little or no possibility of getting out of debt, economic hit men are sent in to strike a deal---for natural resources (such as oil), or favorable votes in the U.N., or agreements for certain other actions. If the economic hit men fail, then the "jackals" (assassins) are sent in, usually from the CIA; if they fail, then the military (as part of a "coalition") is sent in to bring about the desired regime change.
About 1959-1960 a very young, CIA-backed jackal by the name of Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate the President of Iraq, Abdel Qassim. Qassim's major sin was that he was going to nationalize Iraqi oil. At the time, the Iraqi Petroleum Company (IPC) was 95% controlled by the US, Britain, and France. The assassination attempt failed, but Qassim was eliminated anyway not long after that; economic hit men had failed to dissuade him from his plan to nationalize all oil in Iraq, so the CIA orchestrated his demise.
In the early '70s, just after the OPEC oil embargo of the US, economic hit men were sent to the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia to strike the "deal of the century" for the Corporatocracy. President Nixon had taken the US completely off the Gold Standard (because the country was bankrupt) and there was great concern in the Corporatocracy that the world would not accept the US dollar as the globe's reserve currency. In the "deal of the century", the House of Saud agreed to sell its oil for dollars only and to purchase US Treasury Securities; in return the Saudis were guaranteed two very important things--- the Corporatocracy would see to it that they remained in power, and would invest in industry and infrastructure in Saudi Arabia. The economic hit men were successful in swinging the deal.
Saddam Hussein took power in Iraq in 1979. During the '80s, the Corporatocracy decided that they would propose the same deal to Saddam. After all, he was more or less "our man" against the Iranians at that time and was a great purchaser of US arms and munitions. The economic hit men went to Baghdad, but failed to convince Saddam to accept a deal. Jackals were sent in, but failed to assassinate him. The rest is, as they say, history. [He wasn't eliminated during/immediately after the original Gulf War for many reasons, and the explanation of those is too lengthy for this posting.]
The Corporatocracy's interest in Afghanistan began long before the tragedy of 9-11-01. Long story short: Western oil interests needed a pipeline across the country of Afghanistan. Finally, several months prior to our invasion of that country (and prior to 9-11), economic hit men negotiated with the Taliban concerning the proposed oil pipeline. Taliban representatives actually came to the US to negotiate. A deal seemed close, but the whole thing fell through. At that time, according to a French Intelligence analyst by the name of Brisard, CIA representatives told the Taliban representatives, "Either you will accept our carpet of gold [for the pipeline], or we'll give you a carpet of bombs." Then came 9-11; after that came our first invasion of Afghanistan, accompanied by a carpet of bombs. The entire story is detailed in the book, Bin Laden, The Forbidden Truth (2002) by Brisard and DasQuie (both intelligence analysts in France).
If even only a smidgin of all of the above is completely accurate and true, then the implications relative to our involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan are obvious and telling.
[Another interesting book (in addition to the two mentioned above) is Robert Baer's See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism (2002).]
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Obama's War: Part II
He surely owns it now, doesn't he? The reasoning for expansion of the war is: a "surge" in troops now will allow for a sooner end to combat. Please! Give us a break. How many times have we heard that one? The same reason was given (more than once) during the Vietnam war. The same reason was given during the Iraq war; but we still have about 100,000 troops in that country. The war in Iraq hasn't ended yet.
If you were not listening carefully, you may have gotten the impression that the plan now for Afghanistan is to start pulling out troops during July of 2011...for sure. Wrong! That's not what they said, they being Obama, Gates, Clinton, etc. Some troops may be pulled out in 2011, depending upon various conditions; however, that could change, and it does not portend the end of our involvement in that war.
There is nothing new about this "new" strategy. It's all smoke and mirrors for the benefit of an increasingly disgruntled public. As I watched the news tonight, and listened to Obama, Clinton, and Gates, I was sickened by the hemming and hawing, the contradictory responses to Congress, and the slickster way in which the principals laid the groundwork for an extended war in Afghanistan. National politicians appear to think that they're being professional when they equivocate, being honest when they beat around the bush, and being smart when they display a total lack of common sense.
Who are these people?!
If you were not listening carefully, you may have gotten the impression that the plan now for Afghanistan is to start pulling out troops during July of 2011...for sure. Wrong! That's not what they said, they being Obama, Gates, Clinton, etc. Some troops may be pulled out in 2011, depending upon various conditions; however, that could change, and it does not portend the end of our involvement in that war.
There is nothing new about this "new" strategy. It's all smoke and mirrors for the benefit of an increasingly disgruntled public. As I watched the news tonight, and listened to Obama, Clinton, and Gates, I was sickened by the hemming and hawing, the contradictory responses to Congress, and the slickster way in which the principals laid the groundwork for an extended war in Afghanistan. National politicians appear to think that they're being professional when they equivocate, being honest when they beat around the bush, and being smart when they display a total lack of common sense.
Who are these people?!
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Immigration, Reproduction, & the Constitution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9atIjykihkc
If the stats in the above video are correct, then that's one more reason to pressure Congress to call an Article V Constitutional Convention. [See http://foavc.org/ ]
Currently only the President has to be a natural-born citizen in order to hold elective office. Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment should be proposed that requires ALL national politicians to be natural-born, as well as their ancestors (going back, say, 100 years or so). "Unfair", some would say. Really? I guess that means the current requirement for the office of President is unfair as well, eh?
Without that Amendment, it would appear that we easily could have a national government run by Muslims in only several decades or so. Is that bad? Well, it seems to me that it might be...especially given the fact that our government has been converted illegally into a Democracy, as opposed to what it is supposed to be---a Constitutional Republic.
That conversion has been accomplished by means of Legislative Absolutism, a term coined by Supreme Court Justice Harlan in the early 1900s. In a Democracy, where the majority is almighty, almost any law can be put into effect...regardless of the negative impact on individual Rights. In a Constitutional Republic, individual Rights are paramount and the national government is one of enumerated powers---the government can do only what is listed in the Constitution. In other words, Congress cannot pass any law it wishes simply because a majority desires it.
Over the past several decades in my life, I've come across many people who believe sincerely that our government legally can pass any law it wishes, dealing with any subject, as long as a majority favors said law. That simply is not true. It can be (and has been) done illegally, but not legally. Our Constitution strictly limits the areas in which the government can delve; but those limitations have been ignored by Congress (both Democrats and Republicans) for many, many years. For example, nowhere in the Constitution is the central government given the authority to have anything whatsoever to do with education. That matter was reserved (by the Tenth Amendment) to the States or to the People. No Constitutional Amendment has been ratified that gives the Fed Government such authority or power.
If the stats in the above video are correct, then that's one more reason to pressure Congress to call an Article V Constitutional Convention. [See http://foavc.org/ ]
Currently only the President has to be a natural-born citizen in order to hold elective office. Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment should be proposed that requires ALL national politicians to be natural-born, as well as their ancestors (going back, say, 100 years or so). "Unfair", some would say. Really? I guess that means the current requirement for the office of President is unfair as well, eh?
Without that Amendment, it would appear that we easily could have a national government run by Muslims in only several decades or so. Is that bad? Well, it seems to me that it might be...especially given the fact that our government has been converted illegally into a Democracy, as opposed to what it is supposed to be---a Constitutional Republic.
That conversion has been accomplished by means of Legislative Absolutism, a term coined by Supreme Court Justice Harlan in the early 1900s. In a Democracy, where the majority is almighty, almost any law can be put into effect...regardless of the negative impact on individual Rights. In a Constitutional Republic, individual Rights are paramount and the national government is one of enumerated powers---the government can do only what is listed in the Constitution. In other words, Congress cannot pass any law it wishes simply because a majority desires it.
Over the past several decades in my life, I've come across many people who believe sincerely that our government legally can pass any law it wishes, dealing with any subject, as long as a majority favors said law. That simply is not true. It can be (and has been) done illegally, but not legally. Our Constitution strictly limits the areas in which the government can delve; but those limitations have been ignored by Congress (both Democrats and Republicans) for many, many years. For example, nowhere in the Constitution is the central government given the authority to have anything whatsoever to do with education. That matter was reserved (by the Tenth Amendment) to the States or to the People. No Constitutional Amendment has been ratified that gives the Fed Government such authority or power.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
The Rarely-Mentioned-War
The United States has close to 1,000 military personnel and around 500 private contractors in the South American country of Colombia. That country has experienced civil conflict to one degree or another for about forty to fifty years. Officially we're there as "advisors" to train the Colombian military and police in tactics useful in the so-called Drug War...because drugs (cocaine) and kidnappings largely are responsible for financing the FARC, the "Revolutionary Front". It probably occurs to most educated people that we're most likely there for other reasons as well---oil supply springs to mind, as does destabilizing Chavez in Venezuela, Colombia's neighbor.
It will be interesting to see if our policy regarding Colombia ever follows the way of our military involvement in Vietnam, where we started out with non-combat "advisors". In addition to advisors, we've provided Colombia (thus far) with billions of dollars, some of that in the form of helicopters, weapons, ammunition, and massive amounts of defoliants (to eradicate coca fields)...similar to what we did in 'Nam. I'm not suggesting that Colombia WILL become another Vietnam for the U.S., merely reminding people that anything is possible, especially when Government is the Master (not the servant).
Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard (Google it) is not only in the Middle East and Central Asia; it is all around the world.
It will be interesting to see if our policy regarding Colombia ever follows the way of our military involvement in Vietnam, where we started out with non-combat "advisors". In addition to advisors, we've provided Colombia (thus far) with billions of dollars, some of that in the form of helicopters, weapons, ammunition, and massive amounts of defoliants (to eradicate coca fields)...similar to what we did in 'Nam. I'm not suggesting that Colombia WILL become another Vietnam for the U.S., merely reminding people that anything is possible, especially when Government is the Master (not the servant).
Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard (Google it) is not only in the Middle East and Central Asia; it is all around the world.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Health Care: A Simple Question
If the Health Care proposal passed by the House is so wonderful, why are the members of both Houses of Congress exempt from its provisions? Or, put another way, why do those who voted for the House Bill believe that they should be exempt from being forced to pay a tax for health care?
If all Americans are going to be forced to cough up money for this measure, then let's be sure to include those who initiated the idea in the first place. They seem to think that they're above the law. But then, why am I surprised--- most elected folks in the central government appear to think that way.
If all Americans are going to be forced to cough up money for this measure, then let's be sure to include those who initiated the idea in the first place. They seem to think that they're above the law. But then, why am I surprised--- most elected folks in the central government appear to think that way.
Friday, October 30, 2009
More of the Same from DC
My sources for this piece are: the previously cited PBS Frontline documentaries The Warning, Breaking the Bank, and Inside the Meltdown; also, a syndicated article by David Sirota, TARP on Steroids.
When Brooksley Born, the woman who formerly headed the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) under Clinton, proposed regulating the then obscure market of Over-the-Counter Derivatives, she essentially was shut down by Alan Greenspan, Arthur Levitt, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, and others in a series of private meetings and Congressional Hearings. [See The Warning.] A decade or so later, the "toxic" OTC Derivatives played a major role in the recent financial meltdown. Ms. Born, who was ridiculed in the late '90s, was vindicated in 2008-2009. Alan Greenspan, the wizard who seemingly could do no economic wrong, finally had to admit that he was totally wrong in constantly pushing for zero regulation of the Wall Street bankers. Arthur Levitt, former head of the SEC, has admitted publicly that he was wrong about Brooksley Born...and has praised her profusely. He is no longer a power in DC.
What about Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, the financial/economic titans who castigated Born during the Clinton days while relentlessly pushing for zero constraints on the Wall Street Bandits during the Clinton and Bush years...what happened to them? As you may know, they have top economic/financial posts in the Obama Administration. Prior to that, along with Hank Paulson, they were the main architects of the now infamous bank bailouts---one of the greatest heists in modern history. Geithner is now the Treasury Secretary, and Summers is again a top economic advisor to the President of the United States. WOW! What punishment for being so wrong in the past. They are still in positions where they can funnel money to their former Wall Street cronies.
Funny I should mention that. Currently there's a legislative bill known as the Financial Stability Improvement Act. Basically, it's another TARP-in-the-making (Troubled Assets Relief Program), or as Representative Brad Sherman calls it, "TARP on steroids". The bill is being pushed hard by the Obama Administration, especially by Summers and Geithner. More bailouts for Fat-Cats are coming, while the average citizen continues to be gouged by banks because those banks are rushing to beat the regulations taking effect in February. Most people with credit cards (including me) have noticed that their interest rates have skyrocketed up for no good reason.
So it would appear that there is not much "change" from the Bush years regarding OTC Derivatives (still unregulated) and the bailing out of the big, elite bankers (who contribute about equally to Repub and Dem election campaigns). Why am I not surprised.
What does surprise me, though, is the amount of chicanery that we tolerate from national politicians. Here's a thought: in the next election, vote out ALL INCUMBENTS. If things don't improve after that, then in the following election, vote out ALL INCUMBENTS. Etc. How much do we have to take before we see the need for an entirely clean slate? Someone please tell me.
When Brooksley Born, the woman who formerly headed the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) under Clinton, proposed regulating the then obscure market of Over-the-Counter Derivatives, she essentially was shut down by Alan Greenspan, Arthur Levitt, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, and others in a series of private meetings and Congressional Hearings. [See The Warning.] A decade or so later, the "toxic" OTC Derivatives played a major role in the recent financial meltdown. Ms. Born, who was ridiculed in the late '90s, was vindicated in 2008-2009. Alan Greenspan, the wizard who seemingly could do no economic wrong, finally had to admit that he was totally wrong in constantly pushing for zero regulation of the Wall Street bankers. Arthur Levitt, former head of the SEC, has admitted publicly that he was wrong about Brooksley Born...and has praised her profusely. He is no longer a power in DC.
What about Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, the financial/economic titans who castigated Born during the Clinton days while relentlessly pushing for zero constraints on the Wall Street Bandits during the Clinton and Bush years...what happened to them? As you may know, they have top economic/financial posts in the Obama Administration. Prior to that, along with Hank Paulson, they were the main architects of the now infamous bank bailouts---one of the greatest heists in modern history. Geithner is now the Treasury Secretary, and Summers is again a top economic advisor to the President of the United States. WOW! What punishment for being so wrong in the past. They are still in positions where they can funnel money to their former Wall Street cronies.
Funny I should mention that. Currently there's a legislative bill known as the Financial Stability Improvement Act. Basically, it's another TARP-in-the-making (Troubled Assets Relief Program), or as Representative Brad Sherman calls it, "TARP on steroids". The bill is being pushed hard by the Obama Administration, especially by Summers and Geithner. More bailouts for Fat-Cats are coming, while the average citizen continues to be gouged by banks because those banks are rushing to beat the regulations taking effect in February. Most people with credit cards (including me) have noticed that their interest rates have skyrocketed up for no good reason.
So it would appear that there is not much "change" from the Bush years regarding OTC Derivatives (still unregulated) and the bailing out of the big, elite bankers (who contribute about equally to Repub and Dem election campaigns). Why am I not surprised.
What does surprise me, though, is the amount of chicanery that we tolerate from national politicians. Here's a thought: in the next election, vote out ALL INCUMBENTS. If things don't improve after that, then in the following election, vote out ALL INCUMBENTS. Etc. How much do we have to take before we see the need for an entirely clean slate? Someone please tell me.
Monday, October 12, 2009
"A Fool's Game for the Masses"
It's really gratifying to see that I'm not the only one who writes about the two major political parties in this country being a fraud:
http://blog.independent.org/2009/10/12/partisan-politics-%e2%80%93-a-fools-game-for-the-masses/
I couldn't have said it better.
So, some ask, what's to be done? There are those who advocate the violent overthrow of the central government. We have that Right under the conditions expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and those conditions seem to exist presently (and for quite a number of years). I am NOT suggesting that course of action, for the simple reason that most likely it would not succeed. Peaceful revolution is a much better option.
Elsewhere on this Blog I've encouraged boycott of the Federal Government. Unfortunately, that course is problematic not because it wouldn't succeed, but rather because most likely it will never get started.
Here's another option; this one could materialize AND succeed. Pressure Congress to live up to its duty to call an Article V Convention. More than two-thirds of the State Legislatures have applied for such a Convention, but Congress has ignored its Constitutional mandate to call the Convention. http://foavc.org/
Before you buy into the completely lame excuses for Congress failing to do its duty in that regard, be sure to read this---
http://www.article-5.org/mod/resource/view.php?id=60
If the above link does not work, go to http://foavc.org/ and click on "F.A.Q", on the left side of the Home page (scroll down).
An Article V Convention seems to me to be the best available first step in bringing about a much needed, peaceful Revolution in this country. The next step would be to launch a blitz ad campaign aimed at our so-called "representatives" in DC, the purpose of which would be to make it clear that certain proposed Amendments (an Article V Convention only can propose Amendments) are the will of We the People...and if they're not ratified, heads will roll (so to speak). Although there is NO same-subject requirement in Article V, well over two-thirds of the State Legislatures already have applied for a Convention in order to propose a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment. Congress has ignored their applications.
It's time to force the DC politicos to adhere to the U.S. Constitution.
http://blog.independent.org/2009/10/12/partisan-politics-%e2%80%93-a-fools-game-for-the-masses/
I couldn't have said it better.
So, some ask, what's to be done? There are those who advocate the violent overthrow of the central government. We have that Right under the conditions expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and those conditions seem to exist presently (and for quite a number of years). I am NOT suggesting that course of action, for the simple reason that most likely it would not succeed. Peaceful revolution is a much better option.
Elsewhere on this Blog I've encouraged boycott of the Federal Government. Unfortunately, that course is problematic not because it wouldn't succeed, but rather because most likely it will never get started.
Here's another option; this one could materialize AND succeed. Pressure Congress to live up to its duty to call an Article V Convention. More than two-thirds of the State Legislatures have applied for such a Convention, but Congress has ignored its Constitutional mandate to call the Convention. http://foavc.org/
Before you buy into the completely lame excuses for Congress failing to do its duty in that regard, be sure to read this---
http://www.article-5.org/mod/resource/view.php?id=60
If the above link does not work, go to http://foavc.org/ and click on "F.A.Q", on the left side of the Home page (scroll down).
An Article V Convention seems to me to be the best available first step in bringing about a much needed, peaceful Revolution in this country. The next step would be to launch a blitz ad campaign aimed at our so-called "representatives" in DC, the purpose of which would be to make it clear that certain proposed Amendments (an Article V Convention only can propose Amendments) are the will of We the People...and if they're not ratified, heads will roll (so to speak). Although there is NO same-subject requirement in Article V, well over two-thirds of the State Legislatures already have applied for a Convention in order to propose a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment. Congress has ignored their applications.
It's time to force the DC politicos to adhere to the U.S. Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)