Showing posts with label economic collapse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economic collapse. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Militarization of police more widespread than previously thought, especially in small towns

By Madison Ruppert
Editor of End the Lie
(Image credit: verifex/Flickr)
(Image credit: verifex/Flickr)
While the trend of police forces becoming increasingly militarized across the United States, thanks in large part to programs like the Pentagon’s 1033 Program, is pretty much common knowledge at this point, it actually goes much further than most realize.
Indeed, as a new detailed Associated Press report shows, it is not only Georgia – which acquired a whopping $200 million worth of military-grade weapons and vehicles – where rural areas are getting equipment they clearly don’t need.
Yet the many cities and towns also acquire equipment through federal grant funds, not just the 1033 Program, which can allow agencies to acquire everything from deep fryers to military robots.
The AP investigation found that a “disproportionate share of the $4.2 billion worth of property distributed since 1990 has been obtained by police departments and sheriff’s offices in rural areas with few officers and little crime.”
Some of the equipment is quite obviously not needed and will not be used by the departments. One of the examples is, oddly enough, from Georgia, where the police department in the tiny farming community of Morven, Georgia has acquired “three boats, scuba gear, rescue rafts and a couple of dozen life preservers.”
Now, you might be thinking that this is justified, because they’re probably located near a large body of water. In reality, the 1.7-square-mile, 700-resident town’s deepest body of water is an ankle-deep creek.
Morven Police Chief Lynwood Yates didn’t stop there. He also acquired a decontamination machine originally valued at $200,000, though it is missing most of its parts and would require $100,000 worth of repairs.
Yates also acquired an unknown number of bayonets which have yet to make it out of his storage facility.
“That was one of those things in the old days you got it because you thought it was cool,” Yates said, referring to his shipment of bayonets. “Then, after you get it, you’re like, ‘What the hell am I going to do with this?’”
I’m sure many readers are asking the same question.
Morven has clearly enjoyed the benefits of the Department of Defense program, acquiring some $4 million worth of goods over the past ten years or so. Yet Yates acknowledged that his town sees little crime and that the police spend most of their time on traffic enforcement.
In the small town of Rising Star, Texas, population 835, the police chief acquired over $3.2 million worth of goods with a mere 14 months. The only full-time officer on the entire force was the police chief.
Some of the equipment the police chief go this hands on before being fired over an unrelated issue earlier this year included three deep-fat fryers, two meat slicers, a pool table, playground equipment, nine televisions, 11 computers, 25 sleeping bags and 22 large space heaters worth $55,000 when new.
Rising Star was suspended from the program in March after federal officials unsurprisingly discovered that many items, including 12 pairs of binoculars, had gone missing from police facilities.
Why this program is distributing deep-fat fryers, meat slicers, pool tables and playground equipment is still not clear.
Other “general property items” that agencies can acquire include, “bookcases, hedge trimmers, telescopes, brassieres, golf carts [and] coffee makers.”
In the case of Morven, Yates clearly has a lot of imagination. Despite the fact that the town, by his own admission, sees little in terms of crime, Yates said he plans to use the aquatic equipment to form a dive team.
Yates claims that the dive team is needed because his county doesn’t have one.
Major Joe Wheeler, of the Brooks County Sherriff’s Department, said that they don’t need a dive team and if they did, they’d create one. Instead, they just call the adjacent Lowndes County for water rescues and the George Department of Natural Resources if a corpse needs to be retrieved from a body of water.
He also said he has formed a SWAT team armed with surplus military rifles, an armored personnel carrier and a Humvee.
He added that he wants the decontamination machine, despite the costs associated with fixing it, in case he has to respond to a “nuclear, chemical, biological” incident.
Yates said that he could “take my guys and the training they have, the equipment we have, and we could shut this town down” and “completely control everything.”
Why he would want to do that, especially when he admits, “Even my worst drug dealer here, if I was broke down on the side of the road, they would stop and help,” is unclear.
“They’ve got a bunch of damn junk is what it looks like to me,” said Gary Randall, manager of the only grocery store in Morven.
“This is a little, itty bitty town. His mentality is, ‘If I don’t get it, someone else will,’” Randall said, adding that the stockpiling seems like “big-time” overkill.
Still, Yates claims that he only requests equipment he needs, though he acknowledges that the bayonets may not have been all that necessary.
The equipment received isn’t necessarily what is requested in some cases.
Yates asked for a handheld laser range finder for a gun, instead, he received a range finder that used to be mounted on the tank-busting A-10 Warthog jet worth some $28,000.
The most troubling part of their investigation is that the use of the 1033 Program is increasing like never before.
A record $546 million worth of military property was transferred to agencies in fiscal year 2012 alone.
While agencies who receive the equipment aren’t supposed to sell or lease the equipment without permission or stockpile it, some agencies have been busted for doing just that.
Some have been found to be selling property for a profit, failing to notify officials about stolen or lost weapons or transferring weapons without permission.
The problem was apparently o serious that the Defense Logistics Agency’s “Law Enforcement Support Office suspended the transfer of firearms to police forces more than a year ago because of concerns that state coordinators weren’t keeping adequate inventory records,” according to the AP.
Critics say it’s also creating a much larger problem.
“The harm for me is that it further militarizes American law enforcement,” said Norm Stamper, a retired Seattle police chief.
“We make a serious mistake, I’m convinced, in equipping domestic law enforcement, particularly in smaller, rural communities, with this much military equipment,” Stamper said.
While Navy Vice Adm. Mark Harnitchek, the director of the Defense Logistics Agency, claimed that his agency’s support office and state coordinators conduct a “sanity check” on requests, there are some clearly insane requests.
The Oxford, Alabama police department, for example, has received over $10.4 million worth of equipment, including an infrared surveillance system worth $1.5 million for a helicopter it doesn’t even own.
The police chief said they tried to get night-vision goggles for their SWAT team, but instead received the $1.5 million surveillance apparatus it can’t use.
The oversight of the program is, by all metrics, atrocious.
While the Department of Defense is required to conduct reviews of state programs every two years, Mississippi’s program went six years without being reviewed.
In March 2012, federal reviewers found that the Mississippi Office of Surplus Property, which coordinates the state’s use of the 1033 Program, acquired over $8 million in property. The problem is that the agency is not a law enforcement organization and is thus should not be participating in the program.
However, the AP reports that staffing at the federal office tasked with direct supervision of the program has increased by 50 percent to 18 employees. They also now have a new computer system aimed at improving the tracking of inventory.
A spokeswoman for the office also said that they have new rules which “limit distribution of most items to one per law enforcement officer, except for consumables like clothing and batteries.”
One can only hope that the new efforts will stop towns like Rising Star and Morven from going hog-wild with the program.
Still, the problem of federal grant money funding similar programs will remain.

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

95% Of Americans Will Be Dead In 5-15 Years


Survival expert and health guru, Blake Sawyer, argued that the United States will no longer be a viable place to live, and people should consider immigrating to locations in the less populated Southern Hemisphere. Whether through war, disease, famine, natural disasters, or ruthless government, he predicted that 95% of those who remain in the US will be dead in the next 5-15 years. America has been targeted by the “globalists” to be taken out, he added.



Sawyer noted that the United States ranks highest in violent crime, and that countries in the Southern Hemisphere are much more tranquil. In particular, he highlighted nations in the southern region of South America as being good choices for survivability, specifically Chile, Uruguay, Argentina, and Ecuador. “I…believe that the average American does not know that they’re the frog in cold water, and they think they’re OK, and they’re now boiling,” he declared. 

 

Wikipedia
Survivalism is a movement of individuals or groups (called survivalists or preppers) who are actively preparing for emergencies as well as possible disruptions in social or political order, on scales ranging from local to international. Survivalists often have emergency medical and self-defence training, stockpile food and water, prepare for self-sufficiency, and build structures that will help them survive or “disappear” (e.g. a survival retreat or underground shelter).



Anticipated disruptions include the following:
Clusters of natural disasters, patterns of apocalyptic planetary crises, or Earth Changes (tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, blizzards, solar storms, severe thunderstorms).
A disaster caused by the activities of humankind (chemical spills, release of radioactive materials, nuclear or conventional war, oppressive governments).
The general collapse of society caused by the shortage or unavailability of resources such as electricity, fuel, food, or water.
Financial disruption or economic collapse (caused by monetary manipulation, hyperinflation, deflation, or depression).
A global pandemic.

Widespread chaos or some other unexplained apocalyptic event.
The third wave of Survivalism began after the September 11, 2001 attacks and subsequent bombings in Bali, Madrid, and London. This resurgence of interest in survivalism appears to be as strong as the first wave in the 1970s. The fear of war, avian influenza, energy shortages, environmental disasters and global climate change, coupled with economic uncertainty, and the apparent vulnerability of humanity after the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami and Hurricane Katrina, has once again made survivalism popular. Preparedness is once more a paramount concern to many people who seek to stockpile supplies, gain useful skills, and develop contacts with like-minded people to learn as much as possible.

Many books have been published in the past few years [2008-2012] offering survival advice for various potential disasters, ranging from an energy shortage and crash to nuclear or biological terrorism. In addition to the 1970s-era books, blogs and Internet forums are popular ways of disseminating survivalism information. Online survival websites and blogs discuss survival vehicles, survival retreats, emerging threats, and list survivalist groups.
Economic troubles emerging from the credit collapse triggered by the 2007 US subprime mortgage lending crisis and global grain shortages have prompted a wider cross-section of the populace to prepare. James Wesley Rawles, the editor of SurvivalBlog and author of the survivalist novel Patriots: A Novel of Survival in the Coming Collapse was quoted by the New York Times in April 2008, stating: “interest in the survivalist movement ‘is experiencing its largest growth since the late 1970s’”. In 2009, he was quoted by the Associated Press as stating: “There’s so many people who are concerned about the economy that there’s a huge interest in preparedness, and it pretty much crosses all lines, social, economic, political and religious. There’s a steep learning curve going on right now.”

The advent of H1N1 Swine Flu in 2009 piqued interest in survivalism, significantly boosting sales of preparedness books and making survivalism more mainstream. Events such as the 2010 Haiti earthquake, the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami have revitalized the survivalist community.
These developments led Gerald Celente, founder of the Trends Research Institute, to identify a trend that he calls “Neo-Survivalism”. He explained this phenomenon in a radio interview with Jim Puplava on December 18, 2009:
The common theme in conspiracy theories about a New World Order is that a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government—which replaces sovereign nation-states—and an all-encompassing propaganda that ideologizes its establishment as the culmination of history’s progress.

Monday, July 22, 2013

America sold into Servatude by the Obama Admin

OBAMA GAVE CHINA PERMISSION TO iNVADE THE UNITED STATES FROM THE PACIFIC OCEAN WHEN THE DOLLAR DIES

 When the US economy collapses and it will,How do you suppose the U.S will compensate China for the trillions owed to them.Since the Dollar isn't even worth the paper it is printed on the only collateral we have left is LAND.

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Executive Order H.R 645

H.R. 645
FEMA CAMPS
U.S Government bill authorizes $180,000,000 per year for fema facilities for containment purpose's due to a surge of illegal aliens and to serve as a mechanism of control for large numbers of political dissenters.
This is not to help people.  One only needs to take a look at what happened during Hurricane Katrina and it is obvious that the government does not care about the people.  They didn't care then, and they don't care now, and these facilities built or unbuilt will definitely not be utilized for the people's interest.

  WORK FOR THE TOTAL DEFEAT OF THIS HELLISH PROPOSED LAW H.R. 645 THAT WOULD ENABLE OUR GLOBAL ELITE LEADERS TO ENSLAVE, TORTURE, AND KILL US OFF.,,

 

1st Session
H. R. 645
To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 22, 2009
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

ROGERS REPORT
*Congress Seeks To Authorize & Legalize FEMA Camp Facilities

Published on 01-26-2009


Source:
www.roguegovernment.com
By: Lee Rogers

A new bill has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives called the National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645

This bill if passed into law will direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers otherwise known as FEMA camp facilities on military installations. This is an incredibly disturbing piece of legislation considering that the powers that be have already set in motion an agenda to setup a nationwide marital law apparatus through U.S. Northern Command and the Department of Homeland Security. Apparently, the fusion centers, militarized police, surveillance cameras and a domestic military command is not enough. Even though we already know that detention facilities are already in place, they now want to legalize the construction of FEMA camps on military installations using the ever popular excuse that the facilities are for the purposes of a national emergency. With the phony debt based economy getting worse and worse by the day, the possibility of civil unrest is becoming a greater threat to the establishment. One need only look at Iceland, Greece and other nations for what might happen in the United States next. With this in mind, it appears as if these so called national emergency centers will be used in a national emergency but only if the national emergency requires large groups of people to be rounded up and detained. If that isn’t the case, than why have these national emergency facilities built in military installations?

Let’s look through the various portions of the bill. Here is section 2 of the bill taken directly from the proposed legislation.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY CENTERS.

(a) In General- In accordance with the requirements of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations.

(b) Purpose of National Emergency Centers- The purpose of a national emergency center shall be to use existing infrastructure--

          (1) to provide temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and
                families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster;

          (2) to provide centralized locations for the purposes of training and ensuring the coordination
                of Federal, State, and local first responders;

          (3) to provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response,
                and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based
                organizations; and


          (4) to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.


The legislation says that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations. This means that the Secretary of Homeland Security can setup as many FEMA camps within military installations as they want, it just has to be more than 6 of them. On top of that, it also states that the facilities will be used to meet other appropriate needs as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security. This could mean anything. If the Secretary of Homeland Security thinks it is appropriate to kill large groups of people like the Nazis did in World War II Germany, than it looks as if this bill would give them the authority to use these facilities for that purpose.

Below is section 3 taken from the bill.

SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AS NATIONAL EMERGENCY CENTERS.


(a) In General- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall designate not fewer than 6 military installations as sites for the establishment of national emergency centers.


(b) Minimum Requirements- A site designated as a national emergency center shall be--


          (1) capable of meeting for an extended period of time the housing, health, transportation,
                education, public works, humanitarian and other transition needs of a large number of
                individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster;


           (2) environmentally safe and shall not pose a health risk to individuals who may use the center;

           (3) capable of being scaled up or down to accommodate major disaster preparedness and
                 response drills, operations, and procedures;


           (4) capable of housing existing permanent structures necessary to meet training and first
                 responders coordination requirements during nondisaster periods;


            (5) capable of hosting the infrastructure necessary to rapidly adjust to temporary housing,
                  medical, and humanitarian assistance needs;


            (6) required to consist of a complete operations command center, including 2 state-of-the art
                  command and control centers that will comprise a 24/7 operations watch center as follows:

                  (A) one of the command and control centers shall be in full ready mode; and

                  (B) the other shall be used daily for training; and


            (7) easily accessible at all times and be able to facilitate handicapped and medical facilities,
                   including during an emergency or major disaster.


(c) Location of National Emergency Centers- There shall be established not fewer than one national emergency center in each of the following areas:


             (1) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions I, II, and III.


             (2) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IV.


             (3) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions V and VII.


             (4) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region VI.


             (5) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions VIII and X.


             (6) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IX.


(d) Preference for Designation of Closed Military Installations- Wherever possible, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall designate a closed military installation as a site for a national emergency center. If the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense jointly determine that there is not a sufficient number of closed military installations that meet the requirements of subsections (b) and (c), the Secretaries shall jointly designate portions of existing military installations other than closed military installations as national emergency centers.


(e) Transfer of Control of Closed Military Installations- If a closed military installation is designated as a national emergency center, not later than 180 days after the date of designation, the Secretary of Defense shall transfer to the Secretary of Homeland Security administrative jurisdiction over such closed military installation.


(f) Cooperative Agreement for Joint Use of Existing Military Installations- If an existing military installation other than a closed military installation is designated as a national emergency center, not later than 180 days after the date of designation, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense shall enter into a cooperative agreement to provide for the establishment of the national emergency center.


(g) Reports-


            (1) PRELIMINARY REPORT- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
                  the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall
                  submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site--


                  (A) an outline of the reasons why the site was selected;


                  (B) an outline of the need to construct, repair, or update any existing infrastructure at the
                         site;


                  (C) an outline of the need to conduct any necessary environmental clean-up at the site;

  
                  (D) an outline of preliminary plans for the transfer of control of the site from the Secretary
                         of Defense to the Secretary of Homeland Security, if necessary under subsection
                        (e); and


                   (E) an outline of preliminary plans for entering into a cooperative agreement for the
                         establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection
                         (f).


             (2) UPDATE REPORT- Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
                   the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall
                   submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site--


                  (A) an update on the information contained in the report as required by paragraph (1);


                  (B) an outline of the progress made toward the transfer of control of the site, if necessary
                         under subsection (e);


                  (C) an outline of the progress made toward entering a cooperative agreement for the
                         establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection
                         (f); and


                   (D) recommendations regarding any authorizations and appropriations that may be
                         necessary to provide for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site.


               (3) FINAL REPORT- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
                     Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit
                     to Congress a report that contains for each designated site--


                     (A) finalized information detailing the transfer of control of the site, if necessary under
                            subsection (e);


                     (B) the finalized cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency
                           center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f); and


                     (C) any additional information pertinent to the establishment of a national emergency
                           center at the site.


              (4) ADDITIONAL REPORTS- The Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the
                    Secretary of Defense, may submit to Congress additional reports as necessary to provide
                     updates on steps being taken to meet the requirements of this Act.

 

SEC. 4. LIMITATIONS ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.
This Act does not affect--
(1) the authority of the Federal Government to provide emergency or major disaster assistance or to implement any disaster mitigation and response program, including any program authorized by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.); or
(2) the authority of a State or local government to respond to an emergency.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated $180,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to carry out this Act. Such funds shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, the following definitions apply:
(1) CLOSED MILITARY INSTALLATION- The term ‘closed military installation’ means a military installation, or portion thereof, approved for closure or realignment under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) that meet all, or 2 out of the 3 following requirements:
(A) Is located in close proximity to a transportation corridor.
(B) Is located in a State with a high level or threat of disaster related activities.
(C) Is located near a major metropolitan center.
(2) EMERGENCY- The term ‘emergency’ has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).
(3) MAJOR DISASTER- The term ‘major disaster’ has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).
(4) MILITARY INSTALLATION- The term ‘military installation’ has the meaning given such term in section 2910 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
This section authorizes the Homeland Security Secretary to setup these FEMA camps in closed or open military installations and in regions around the nation. This essentially legalizes any existing FEMA camp infrastructure that has been built in either closed or open military installations and opens the door for additional facilities to be created.

Fortunately, the bill only authorizes $180,000,000 per year for these facilities, but considering that the majority of the detention facilities are probably already built, they won't need much additional funding. There is no doubt judging from the language of this bill, that it is meant to legalize what they’ve already been doing. After all, FEMA has already been looking at ways to transport large quantities of people to camps, they held a FEMA camp drill which consisted of an illegal alien round up in Iowa and KBR/Halliburtion has already aided in the creation of detention facilities. The rationale behind this legislation is undoubtedly to serve as a mechanism of control if the authorities need facilities to hold large amounts of dissenting people.   This is not to help people.  One only needs to take a look at what happened during Hurricane Katrina and it is obvious that the government does not care about the people.  They didn't care then, and they don't care now, and these facilities built or unbuilt will definitely not be utilized for the people's interest.


Additional information on the FEMA camp situation can be viewed in previous articles written on this subject. Check them out below.


Secretive FEMA Camp Drill Running In Iowa

Rule By Fear Or Rule By Law
FEMA: Trains To Take You To The Camps
 

Monday, June 24, 2013

'Snowden case shows US is bully boy of world'

Published on Jun 23, 2013
The plane carrying whistleblower Edward Snowden has landed at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport. The former CIA contractor, who left Hong Kong in a bid to elude US extradition on espionage charges, is on his way to a 'third country' via Russia. Former MI5 agent Annie Machon says America's whistleblower hunt gives it the image of a major global aggressor - READ MORE http://on.rt.com/jqm8cb

RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air

Subscribe to RT! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c...

Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnews
Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com
Follow us on Google+ http://plus.google.com/+RT

RT (Russia Today) is a global news network broadcasting from Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 1 billion YouTube views benchmark.

Border Insecurity Citizens Track Surge Of Illegal Immigration!

In 1986 they promised that their pardon of 3.2 million illegals would be the "last amnesty." They promised border security and workplace enforcement and Fence's  to span Mexico's boarder into the U.S,Millions have been sent but nothing never happened.. The only debate they should be having is about implementing a nationwide and mandatory E-Verify program and putting law agencies to the task of workplace enforcement. No need to spend billions deporting 20+ million illegals. Simply dry up their sources of employment and they will go back home the same way they came.

British outrage over tax plan to take 7% of everyones saving's account

Thousands of British have reacted with outrage at the plans to tax bank accounts which are in credit. The great EU bank robbery, as it's been dubbed by some of the 60,000 or so ex pats living on the island has forced many to start plans to withdraw their savings as Susan Cairns who has lived and worked on the island since 2007 explained.

"On Tuesday I plan to go to the bank and withdraw all the money I have in there and have nothing left in there. You know, I can't trust them anymore. It's theft. They are stealing from me. That's how I see it," she said.

"I think it is particularly unfair for people that have saved and tried hard to keep some money in the bank, and it's just a blanket tax across everybody. I understand people with higher savings getting taxed more, but 6.75 percent seems an awful lot of money to me. I think it's a very clever way of making sure that Cyprus pays its fair share," opined another, Stuart Cowell.

British Chancellor George Osborne said his government will reimburse military and government personnel working on the island. But the UK tax payer will have to foot the bill.

Constantine Georgiou, a British Cypriot believes the Cypriot politicians should act. "The government should investigate thoroughly and find the people responsible for this mess, prosecute them, put them in prison, even if he is the ex-president, whoever is responsible," he said.

Thursday, June 20, 2013

Solyndra and Obama and friends got $535 Millon Dollars of your tax money!


President Obama visited the solar company Solyndra on May 26, 2010 to tout his $535 million loan guarantee. On August 31, 2011, Solyndra announced it was filing for bankruptcy and laying off 1,100 employees.

535 MILLION LOST! TAX PAYERS MONEY DOWN THE DRAIN! (ACUALLY IN THE POCKETS OF OBAMAS FUNDRAISER BUDDY)

The Obama administration restructured a half-billion dollar federal loan to a troubled solar energy company in such a way that private investors — including a fundraiser for President Barack Obama — moved ahead of taxpayers for repayment in case of a default, government records show.
Newly released emails show that the Obama administration was worried about the financial health of a troubled solar energy company even as officials publicly declared the company in good shape. An email from a White House budget official to a co-worker discussed the likely effect of a default by Solyndra Inc. on President Barack Obama's re-election campaign.
Under terms of the February loan restructuring, two private investors — Argonaut Ventures I LLC and Madrone Partners LP — stand to be repaid before the U.S. government if the solar company is liquidated. The two firms gave the company a total of $69 million in emergency loans. The loans are the only portion of their investments that have repayment priority above the U.S. government.

Argonaut is an investment vehicle of the George Kaiser Family Foundation of Tulsa, Okla. The foundation is headed by billionaire George Kaiser, a major Obama campaign contributor and a frequent visitor to the White House. Kaiser raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for Obama's 2008 campaign, federal election records show. Kaiser has made at least 16 visits to the president's aides since 2009, according to White House visitor logs.

Madrone Partners is affiliated with the Walton family, descendants of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton.

HOW TO BANKRUPT THE WORLD !!! GOLDMAN SACHS MASTERS OF GREED

TODAY is my last day at Goldman Sachs. After almost 12 years at the firm — first as a summer intern while at Stanford, then in New York for 10 years, and now in London — I believe I have worked here long enough to understand the trajectory of its culture, its people and its identity. And I can honestly say that the environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it.
To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money. Goldman Sachs is one of the world’s largest and most important investment banks and it is too integral to global finance to continue to act this way. The firm has veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say that I identify with what it stands for.
It might sound surprising to a skeptical public, but culture was always a vital part of Goldman Sachs’s success. It revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients. The culture was the secret sauce that made this place great and allowed us to earn our clients’ trust for 143 years. It wasn’t just about making money; this alone will not sustain a firm for so long. It had something to do with pride and belief in the organization. I am sad to say that I look around today and see virtually no trace of the culture that made me love working for this firm for many years. I no longer have the pride, or the belief.
But this was not always the case. For more than a decade I recruited and mentored candidates through our grueling interview process. I was selected as one of 10 people (out of a firm of more than 30,000) to appear on our recruiting video, which is played on every college campus we visit around the world. In 2006 I managed the summer intern program in sales and trading in New York for the 80 college students who made the cut, out of the thousands who applied.
I knew it was time to leave when I realized I could no longer look students in the eye and tell them what a great place this was to work.
When the history books are written about Goldman Sachs, they may reflect that the current chief executive officer, Lloyd C. Blankfein, and the president, Gary D. Cohn, lost hold of the firm’s culture on their watch. I truly believe that this decline in the firm’s moral fiber represents the single most serious threat to its long-run survival.
Over the course of my career I have had the privilege of advising two of the largest hedge funds on the planet, five of the largest asset managers in the United States, and three of the most prominent sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East and Asia. My clients have a total asset base of more than a trillion dollars. I have always taken a lot of pride in advising my clients to do what I believe is right for them, even if it means less money for the firm. This view is becoming increasingly unpopular at Goldman Sachs. Another sign that it was time to leave.
How did we get here? The firm changed the way it thought about leadership. Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and doing the right thing. Today, if you make enough money for the firm (and are not currently an ax murderer) you will be promoted into a position of influence.
What are three quick ways to become a leader? a) Execute on the firm’s “axes,” which is Goldman-speak for persuading your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit. b) “Hunt Elephants.” In English: get your clients — some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren’t — to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them. c) Find yourself sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any illiquid, opaque product with a three-letter acronym.
Today, many of these leaders display a Goldman Sachs culture quotient of exactly zero percent. I attend derivatives sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It’s purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them. If you were an alien from Mars and sat in on one of these meetings, you would believe that a client’s success or progress was not part of the thought process at all.
It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. Over the last 12 months I have seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as “muppets,” sometimes over internal e-mail. Even after the S.E.C., Fabulous Fab, Abacus, God’s work, Carl Levin, Vampire Squids? No humility? I mean, come on. Integrity? It is eroding. I don’t know of any illegal behavior, but will people push the envelope and pitch lucrative and complicated products to clients even if they are not the simplest investments or the ones most directly aligned with the client’s goals? Absolutely. Every day, in fact.
It astounds me how little senior management gets a basic truth: If clients don’t trust you they will eventually stop doing business with you. It doesn’t matter how smart you are.
These days, the most common question I get from junior analysts about derivatives is, “How much money did we make off the client?” It bothers me every time I hear it, because it is a clear reflection of what they are observing from their leaders about the way they should behave. Now project 10 years into the future: You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the junior analyst sitting quietly in the corner of the room hearing about “muppets,” “ripping eyeballs out” and “getting paid” doesn’t exactly turn into a model citizen.
When I was a first-year analyst I didn’t know where the bathroom was, or how to tie my shoelaces. I was taught to be concerned with learning the ropes, finding out what a derivative was, understanding finance, getting to know our clients and what motivated them, learning how they defined success and what we could do to help them get there.
My proudest moments in life — getting a full scholarship to go from South Africa to Stanford University, being selected as a Rhodes Scholar national finalist, winning a bronze medal for table tennis at the Maccabiah Games in Israel, known as the Jewish Olympics — have all come through hard work, with no shortcuts. Goldman Sachs today has become too much about shortcuts and not enough about achievement. It just doesn’t feel right to me anymore.
I hope this can be a wake-up call to the board of directors. Make the client the focal point of your business again. Without clients you will not make money. In fact, you will not exist. Weed out the morally bankrupt people, no matter how much money they make for the firm. And get the culture right again, so people want to work here for the right reasons. People who care only about making money will not sustain this firm — or the trust of its clients — for very much longer.

Greg Smith is resigning today as a Goldman Sachs executive director and head of the firm’s United States equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

Ron Paul: "It's Going to Get Much, Much Worse"

Dr. Ron Paul has long been a leading voice for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, sound money, civil liberty, and non-interventionist foreign policies.
His last term in the U.S. House of Representatives ended earlier this year, so we caught up with the former Congressman to get his latest perspective on how successfully our national leadership is dealing with America’s economic challenges.
In Dr. Paul’s assessment, Washington is too committed to deficit spending and the debt-based economy – both operationally and philosophically – to expect it to embrace a more fiscally-responsible model without a forcing crisis (which he believes is coming):
[T]hey believe it like a religion that spending is good no matter what the spending is on. And that the deficits don't matter; deficits are not a burden. And even though we have this national debt and we have a foreign debt, they don't consider that so bad, as long as people will spend money. And if the people won't spend any money, the government has this moral obligation to do it.

I don't expect anything else because they are reflecting what I consider “prevailing attitudes.” And the prevailing attitudes for the last 50 or 60 years, especially since the 1930s, has been spending and deficits and printing money is the way to go.

But where I am encouraged is outside of Washington. You get a better perspective from people like you who talk about this and get people to look at their investments. I think this is beneficial, because a lot of people are realizing this whole system is deeply flawed, and they are looking elsewhere. And that is why I talk a lot about free markets, and property rights, and Austrian economics, and getting rid of the Fed. All these things are now up for grabs. A lot of people, especially the young people, are looking at this. So, for this reason, I am a bit encouraged by what might come out of this.

But I think we are going to go through the ringer. I think it's going to get much, much worse. It is bad enough already, but there is no way that we can step back.

The one thing I am convinced of, after having spent so much time in Washington, is that this will not be a gradual recovery from this disaster that we have. We are not going to elect enough people and have enough courage to vote the right way; there is too much demagoguing and too much misunderstanding. The people would revolt, but the collapse will come. It is going to hit the dollar, and then we are going to have our opportunity. 

So, the more people who are protected intellectually as well as financially, the better off we will be in rebuilding what we will need to do in the near future.
Dr Paul continues to be vocal about the destructive role the Federal Reserve’s loose and interventionist monetary policies are having in enabling the mal-investment in the system:
What if the Fed could not buy government debt? What a different world it would be. Everybody said this would be a disastrous to the economy but what if people accommodated with this?

What if there was a dependency on saving? What if we did have a market rate of interest? And what if that resulted in less bubbles? All of a sudden the world would be a different place.

But no...The only thing they can even do is spend more and more money. That is the only tool they have.

So, for that reason, I am not shocked at the numbers. I guess I am more surprised that the whole thing holds together so long. Because when you look at this, and you look at the foreign debt, and the national debt it is so outrageous, and there is still confidence in the dollar, the world they do not have a good currency, so the best they can come up with is the dollar, but even the dollar is less popular than it used to be. It is being held a lot less now as reserve currency, but we can still buy oil, and we can still buy our stuff from China, and they take our currency.

But what amazes me is that it holds together. So I think monetizing debt and spending and deficit is going to get much, much worse until the world rejects the dollar. And there will be a rejection here at home, and prices will soar, and eventually interest rates will break loose and they will start rising.
He continues to view precious metals as prudent to hold in advance of this currency crisis. But in the long run, he sees civil agitation for smaller government as our best strategy:
I don't think the euro is going to replace the dollar. And that certainly looks like it is the case. You are not going to go to yen, and you are not going to go to special drawing rights…

No, when people become frightened, they look for things of real value, and I don't think they can repeal the laws of economics that says that for 6,000 years metals have been beneficial. They will go to monetary metals, gold and silver, and they will buy other things, such as buying property. But no matter what we have, whether we have our gold coins or we have our property, if we have an authoritarian government, that is our greatest threat.

So, I would like to think that there is no perfect protection, other than shrinking the size and scope and power of government, so that we can be left alone and take care of ourselves.

'The truth is coming and can't be stopped'

Snowden takes to live web chat to defend leaking NSA secrets and slams Obama on broken promises over civil liberties

  • Edward Snowden answers questions from readers in live web chat
  • 'The government won't be able to cover this up by murdering me'
  • Says civil liberties have worsened under Obama despite his promises

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden has defended his disclosure of top-secret U.S. spying programs in an online chat as he attacks President Obama over his broken promises.
As he answered readers' questions online, Snowden lambasted U.S. officials for calling him a traitor and said the government won't silence him by 'jailing or murdering' him.
'The US Government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me,' he said in the live chat, which was launched on Monday. 'Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped.'
The Guardian hosted the online chat with Snowden, who has been in hiding in Hong Kong since fleeing the U.S., as reporter Glenn Greenwald received and posted Snowden's answers.
Speaking out: Edward Snowden is taking part in a live web chat, where he is defending leaking information
Speaking out: Edward Snowden is taking part in a live web chat, where he is defending leaking information
Among his responses, he said he waited until after the election to release the information as he had been hopeful that Obama would make good on his promises about civil liberties.
In fact, Snowden said, privacy and civil liberties have actually worsened since the re-election.
'Shortly after assuming power, [Obama] closed the door on investigating systemic violations of law, deepened and expanded several abusive programs, and refused to spend the political capital to end the kind of human rights violations like we see in Guantanamo, where men still sit without charge,' he said.

He said he saw no option but the flee the country as the administration would never have given him a fair trial.
'The U.S. Government, just as they did with other whistleblowers, immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home, openly declaring me guilty of treason,' he said. 'That's not justice.'
But Snowden added that he did not think it was too late - that the leaks gave the president a chance 'for a return to sanity, constitutional policy, and the rule of law rather than men'.
Connection: Snowden is responding via Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian reporter who broke the story
Connection: Snowden is responding via Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian reporter who broke the story

He called for Obama to set up a special committee to review the surveillance programs and set up a special investigator to review presidents' policies for wrongdoing.
He added that he did not reveal any U.S. operations against what he called legitimate military targets, but instead showed that the NSA is hacking civilian infrastructure like universities and businesses.
U.S. officials say the data-gathering programs were legal and operated under court supervision.
Snowden explained his claim that from his desk, he could 'wiretap' any phone call or email - a claim top intelligence officials have denied.
'If an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc. analyst has access to query raw SIGINT (signals intelligence) databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want,' he said. 'Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id (IMEI), and so on - it's all the same.'
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has said that the kind of data that can be accessed and who can access it is severely limited.
His online chat comes after China denied that Snowden is working for them after former US Vice-President Dick Cheney branded the leaker a 'traitor and possible Chinese spy'.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said at a daily briefing today, 'This is sheer nonsense,' when asked if Snowden worked for China.
Snowden himself added in the web chat: 'Ask yourself: if I were a Chinese spy, why wouldn't I have flown directly into Beijing? I could be living in a palace petting a phoenix by now.'
Several nations, including U.S. allies, have reacted angrily to revelations by the ex-CIA employee that U.S. authorities had tapped the servers of internet companies for personal data.
National defense: Former Vice President Dick Cheney spoke on Fox News Sunday in Washington about the need for surveillance
National defense: Former Vice President Dick Cheney spoke on Fox News Sunday in Washington about the need for surveillance
'We believe the United States should pay attention to the international community's concerns and demands and give the international community the necessary explanation,' Hua said.
The Chinese government has previously not commented directly on the case, simply repeating the government's standard line that China is one of the world's biggest victims of hacking attacks.
A senior source with ties to the Communist Party leadership said Beijing was reluctant to jeopardise recently improved ties with Washington.
Cheney said how the controversial surveillance methods used by the NSA could have prevented the September 11 attacks and said the revelations have done 'enormous damage' to America's security.
Speaking on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Cheney took credit for crafting the program of data collection, saying that he 'worked with [former Director of National Intelligence] Mike Hayden when we set this program up.'
'Traitor': According to Cheney, Edward Snowden could be leaking U.S. security secrets to China, where he's allegedly in hiding
'Traitor': According to Cheney, Snowden could be leaking U.S. security secrets to China. Supporters in Hong Kong have come out strongly in defense of the former CIA employee, as pictured


'As everybody who's been associated with the program's said, if we had had this before 9/11, when there were two terrorists in San Diego - two hijackers - had been able to use that program, that capability, against that target, we might well have been able to prevent 9/11,' Cheney told Wallace.
In the webchat, Snowden added: 'Journalists should ask: since these programs began operation shortly after September 11th, how many terrorist attacks were prevented SOLELY by information derived from this suspicion-less surveillance that could not be gained via any other source?
'Then ask how many individual communications were ingested to acheive that, and ask yourself if it was worth it.'
Cheney ridiculed the notion that the NSA was listening in to personal calls of ordinary Americans.
'The allegation is not that we get all this personal information on Aunt Fanny or Chris Wallace, that's not the way it works,' he said.
Anger: Snowden said civil liberties had worsened ever since President Obama was re-elected last year
Anger: Snowden said civil liberties had worsened ever since President Obama was re-elected last year

'What information [was collected]?' he said. 'And the answer is phone numbers and who contacted who. But we don’t have any names associated with it. It’s just a big bag of numbers that’s been collected.'
Of Snowden, Cheney said the breach of security was one of the worst in history.
'I think he's a traitor. I think it's one of the worst occasions, in my memory, of somebody with access to classified information doing enormous damage to the national security interests of the United States,' he said.
He suggested that Snowden, who is thought to have fled to Hong Kong, could be working with the Chinese government.
'I am very, very worried that he still has additional information that he hasn't released yet, that the Chinese would welcome the opportunity and are probably willing to offer immunity - or sanctuary, if you will - in exchange for what he presumably knows or doesn't know,' said Cheney.

democratic socialist's of America

Let us stipulate, as lawyers like to say, that President Obama has a deplorable record on civil liberties, one that threatens long-term damage to the country’s constitutional culture.
Why, then, has his base of support not been eroded decisively? Why have so many on the left fallen silent, after railing against George W. Bush’s rights violations, as Obama has prolonged and codified most of the same practices? And why have so few on the right, riding a groundswell of resentment toward big government, failed to resent the biggest governmental intrusions into personal privacy since the FBI’s domestic spying during the Cold War?
The facts are not in dispute. While Obama has ordered an end to CIA kidnapping and torture, he has personally approved kill lists containing the names of American citizens to be targeted by drones. While he has tried to move the accused masterminds of 9/11 and others from Guantanamo to civilian courts (only to be blocked by congressional Republicans), he has also embraced military commissions and indefinite detention. He voiced misgivings about a bill subjecting suspected terrorists to military arrest — whether foreigners or Americans, whether in Afghanistan or Alabama — and then signed it into law.
In practically every significant court case, his administration has argued for an expansive encroachment on individual rights, much as the Bush administration did. Obama’s Justice Department has successfully opposed the habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo prisoners, persuading conservative judges to rule in one case that sketchy, unverified intelligence reports must be presumed correct. This absurdity has now entered case law as an erosion of the venerable right, dating from the Magna Carta, to summon your jailer before an impartial magistrate.
The administration has continued undermining the Fourth Amendment. It argued in the Supreme Court, unsuccessfully, that law enforcement should be free to attach GPS tracking devices to vehicles without showing probable cause and getting warrants. It has vigorously used a tool that Obama denounced in the 2008 campaign: the administrative subpoenas known as National Security Letters, which are issued without warrants to acquire the library, Internet, banking and other records of individuals suspected of nothing at all. His Justice Department has invoked state secrets, as did Bush’s, to deny wrongfully imprisoned and tortured victims the right to sue the government. The administration has sought broad immunity for Secret Service agents and others in law enforcement who arrest people exercising their First Amendment right to speech.

Obama’s solicitor general has just made a catch-22 argument before the Supreme Court that could exempt from constitutional challenge the law that authorizes the interception of Americans’ international communications without probable cause — the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, broadened in 2008 with Obama’s vote as senator. Because the surveillance by the National Security Agency is secret, his administration argues, there is no way for the lawyers, journalists and rights organizations who suspect they are being monitored to prove that they are, in fact, targets of surveillance, and therefore they have no standing to sue.
These acts aren’t deal-breakers for many voters, except among a small number of civil liberties advocates, such as Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic, whose blog “Why I Refuse to Vote for Barack Obama” deplored the left’s lack of outrage. Other liberals, seeing a constellation of social and economic issues, don’t want to damage Obama’s re-election chances by speaking out. He’ll probably get the votes of most lawyers for the ACLU, which has criticized him persistently. And his judicial nominees will be more liberal than Mitt Romney’s. So there is no opportunity for principled voting. Without a civil liberties candidate with a chance to win, pragmatic balloting is unavoidable.
A symmetrical silence about Obama’s rights policies afflicts Republicans. They worry that government is too big when it funds programs for the poor but not when it funds wars. It is too big when it regulates business but not when it regulates individual lives. It can decide whom people may marry, restrict women’s control over their pregnancies and evade the Fourth Amendment by invading Americans’ privacy. Only true libertarians seem to care.
But there is more here than hypocrisy. Terrorism remains a threat, as the FBI repeatedly reminds the country with sting operations that lure hapless wannabes into dramatic plots they couldn’t execute without undercover agents. Each arrest stokes the public’s fear. Furthermore, rights violations are largely clandestine and invisible. Their targets are “others,” meaning foreigners, terrorists, common criminals and various people not like “us.”
Ten years after the 9/11 attacks, polling by the AP and the National Opinion Research Center found that those surveyed supported, by 65 to 21 percent, a government policy to read, without warrants, any emails to people inside the U.S. from countries known for terrorism. By 48 to 37 percent, respondents favored warrantless monitoring of U.S. citizens’ Internet searches “to watch for suspicious activities,” not further defined. In other words, I’m willing to give up your rights for my security.
It’s not generally understood that constitutional rights are not divisible, that those denied to others, including suspected terrorists, are also denied to “us.” For example, Ernesto Miranda of the Miranda warning, who secured our right to silence during police interrogation, was not a model citizen. He had a long record and had kidnapped and raped a mentally defective teenager. Yet his right now belongs to us all.
A certain appreciation of constitutional law is required to grasp what has happened under the Bush and Obama administrations, and neither the press nor the school system educates well on these issues. It has been widely noted that global warming went unmentioned in the presidential debates, but hardly anyone has observed that both poverty and civil liberties (and the Supreme Court) were also ignored by the candidates and moderators.
It took a comedian, Jon Stewart, to raise Bush-era surveillance policies with Obama, on The Daily Show on Oct. 18. “We have modified them,” the president said. “Now, they’re not real sexy issues.”
Stewart replied: “You don’t know what I find sexy.”
David K. Shipler's latest books are two companion volumes on civil liberties: "The Rights of the People: How Our Search for Safety Invades Our Liberties" and "Rights at Risk: The Limits of Liberty in Modern America." He writes online at The Shipler Report.



democratic socialist's of America  http://www.dsausa.org/