Sign in with Twitter

Type the topic in any language to check out real time results of Who's Talking on Social Media Sites

Trending Topics: 昭和初期の名車#語彙力のないハリポタ倉さん#XFLAGPARK試合速報ブルドーザー北の富士さん#NEWKOOL#ヤツコアウタカ#RizinFF#nagomix#ミューズノート#grampusオウンゴール豪栄道全勝知的財産制度鉄血特番フィンレーキスマイ宮田列11番ABD'deki AVMPolis Akademisiİşçi Partisi'ndeMarc AnwarNahed Hattar#anıtkabirdeparkistemiyoruz#robinhoodhalf#letapelondon#cheltenhamhalfPippa Middleton's iCloud#NPMD16Darbeyi Erdoğan#初めて聞いたボカロbulldozerArcan Çetinヤンマン#SeuSorrisoNosMotivaMika#PanRadioHOT全腎協の謝罪要求#PWTinBrazilMemoriesごちうさ映画化#私が選ぶ2016年夏最強アニメ#ImaginaQueLokoSe高濃度セシウム#iHeartBritneyZeFelipeNaSabrina#TaylanKulaçoğluYalnızDeğildir#KPOPDominatedTheWorld#MahomiesAndHarmosVersusHate#JustinBNaZLFM#linguabol#EuTôPrecisandoDe#MiddleAgedFilmsALL LOVE TO SHAWNBEX COME TO BRAZIL#AlayınaKarşıGeriDönÇARŞIZoe Ball and Norman CookNUTUK DersOlsun#cübbelihocaCollege football top 25Lsu Vs Auburn 2016Daniel WozniakpseudonymBill NunnGennifer FlowersAfrican American MuseumDuke footballOle Miss FootballMichigan State footballBaylor FootballGlobal Citizen FestivalBYU FootballChampsarkansas footballNatalie PortmanKevin GarnettCris CyborgChelseaManchester UnitedMore

Most recent 100 results returned for keyword: Jamie Dimon (Search this on MAP)


TPP GOPDEM Makes Joint Funeral Announcement for US Workers -Formal US Constitution Funeral Services Next Week

Meanwhile Democrats fellate GOP-TPP Trans Pacific Bipartisan Partnership authors:

Transcriptionist Jack Lew
Board of Directors co-equal ex-CEO:
Larry Summers
Lloyd Blankfein
Robert Rubin
Ben Bernanke
Janet Yellen
Alan Greenspan
Victoria FU Nuland
Paul Wolfowitz
George HW Bush
John Kerry
Sheldon Adelson
Jamie Dimon
Dickless Cheney
Bill Kristol
Charles Koch
David Koch
Ben Netanyahu Chairman and CEO of PNAC Terrorist Inc.

GOP Barry Cheney tag-teams with his fellow GOP Democrat succubi. Democrats penned Wall Street's final wave of worker executions and funerals.

Worker funerals first get festooned bright red in workers' blood, but worker sins ( probably corporate institutional dependence) get washed white by Wall Street's Supreme Mafia Court Corp.

Now disowned -more targets -human skeet.

And then thankfully Ben's incisive media re-converts each Democrat Chameleon back to Dem again. Blappo! Each reverts to Dem acting duly contrite for his and her GOP voting sins profitably abdicated. Yea the hopeful Dem aspirants march bravely back to man their battlements! Rehab hilarity ensues.

Thereby, forthwith and forever again Democrats bear onward and upward fully and sincerely re-solemnified into deep indigo blue...BLUE like Billie Holiday and Muddy Waters on a good night at Harlem's Uptown House.

Each squinty-flinty-teary-eyed Barry once more earnestly fell prey for a couple of terms in office to "market forces."

Yet again sad, earnestly contrite at their own foundational sins, always bravely confessed along every sunny hill and dale woven into the ol' worn campaign trail that is lined and laced together with dead Muslim scalps. Demographic DyyyyyyyyyyyyNooooooMiiiiiiiite!

They're there for you man.

There swirled-down CIA's media toilet, GOP's Democrat bar buddies vote cash fortunes for selling-off "Democrat" abandoned constituents. Conscience nor Earth have a seat on Ben Netanyahu's board of Democrat Republican Division directors.

Integrity without irony: Barry W. Cheney adamantly campaigned "against it" before Barry cashed a GOP career selling US worker funeral arrangements. And for chump change. It sprinkles, spills and sparkles from Ben Netanyahu's holy Israeli pocket.

Heckuva job Brownie -RT
Weekend Edition
May 8-10, 2015

Marching in Lockstep With the Bailed Out Bankers
Democrats Do a Trade Deal


The Employer of the Future

With no apparent irony or conspicuous public approbation U.S. President Barack Obama is making his pitch for the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) ‘trade’ deal at Nike headquarters in Portland, Oregon. With the promise of ten thousand new jobs to be created in the U.S. if the TPP is passed, left unaddressed is precisely whose wages would be ‘adjusted’ to fit Nike’s plantation / sweatshop business model. With America’s cities in the early stages of anti-neocolonial rebellion, the only certainties are that neither Nike nor Mr. Obama will be held to account for either the number of jobs created or for the first-world working conditions implied in the promise. The primary result of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) to date has been increased corporate profits.

Accompanying the politically sensitive and socially aware choice of Nike as prospective employer of the future is a letter from bailed out Wall Street bankers written in support of Mr. Obama’s TPP ‘trade’ deal. In recent decades Wall Street has provided the financing needed to relocate U.S. manufacturing to more hospitable climates in former U.S. and / or European colonies. With this letter Wall Street executives join leading Democrats in the insight that ‘free-trade’ is the dominion of empires seeking favorable terms from prospective colonies-to-be. With Wall Street and Nike now openly supporting the TPP, prospective colonies Baltimore, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit and Los Angeles are being scouted by ‘peace’ officers to assess potential worker compliance with employer directives.


Worker suicides like this at a Foxconn factory in China reduce productivity. Tighter worker control through anti-depression ‘medication,’ installation of windows and roof doors that can’t be opened and ‘suicide nets’ to prevent escaped workers from killing themselves on company property are potential solutions. Original image source:

Virtue Goes to Wall Street

With Wall Street endorsing the accedence of civil authority to multi-national corporations through the TPP, Democrat capitulation to plutocracy is nearing completion of its five-decade long trajectory. The culture wars that have so motivated partisan gamesmanship are being resolved by corporations in their own favor. Corporate proponents of the TPP conspicuously couldn’t care less about abortion or gay marriage. Virtue of the self-serving sort is to be found in the calculation of corporate profits. Plutocrats supported George W. Bush and Congressional Republicans when their war against Iraq was making money for them. They now support Barack Obama as he brings them bailouts, guaranteed health insurance ‘customers’ and direct say over civil governance as it relates to business interests. The criteria for plutocrat support is economic, it isn’t ‘cultural.’

Monsanto, Bank of America and Goldman Sachs all support gay rights almost as much as they support their own right to overrule any civil rights legislation that interferes with their imagined future profits. Alternatively, under some semblance of economic democracy— a guaranteed job with a living wage, high quality education and health care and social protection from unprovoked violence, gays could tell bigots to go screw themselves and the consequences of doing so would be minimal. Under the bi-partisan embedding of corporate economic ‘rights’ through ‘trade’ agreements like TTP and TTIP (Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) the legal principles that support human rights legislation are sublimated to an opportunistic calculation of ‘profits.’ See the United Nations’ explanation of the threat here.


A who’s who of bailed out bankers and financiers signed a letter in support of the TPP ‘trade’ agreement that Barack Obama is pushing. The ISDS (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) mechanism subordinates civil governance to corporate profit calculations through the right of corporations to sue for ‘lost’ profits, either real or imagined. Original image source: google images.

Abortion and gay rights are class issues that have been sold as civil rights. The central purpose of the ISDS (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) mechanism in these ‘trade’ deals is to undermine civil legislation, including civil rights. The unquestioned control over economic life that Wall Street and companies like Nike support is the realm of petty tyrannies. This isn’t to dismiss these as issues, but rather to take them out of the liberal / neoliberal fantasy that ‘rights’ exist outside of the economic capacity to effectuate them. Put in ‘external’ terms, indigenous rights legislation that might preclude logging and cattle farming on indigenous lands would be a prime target of corporate lawsuits under pending ‘trade’ agreements. The multi-national corporations seeking to override civil legislation understand that by controlling the economics they control the realm of the civil.


Former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke would hardly be worth remembering if his tenure didn’t still have symbolic value. After reviving global financial markets with his monetary policies Mr. Bernanke is now ‘harvesting’ the fruits of his public service through multi-million dollar contracts to work for the financial companies that he so benefitted. Center-left assertions that Mr. Bernanke’s policies benefitted the poor and middle class require non-conflictual theories of economic distribution. Interest rates paid by the poor and middle class might have been lowered if Mr. Bernanke’s current patrons hadn’t rendered them poor credit risks through crashing the global economy. Original image source: google images.

Trade Deal, Meet History

The historical context missing from support of the modern Democrat Party lies in FDR’s success at bringing ‘capital’ to heel. In his effort to ‘save’ capitalism by taming its more suicidal, and outwardly destructive, tendencies FDR told bankers and industrialists that they could continue to thrive with less or they could go down in revolutionary flames. The compromises he forged salved working class tensions and facilitated growth of a middle class even as ‘external’ U.S. imperialist endeavors continued unabated. This compares with Bill Clinton’s wholesale capitulation to international bankers through financial deregulation and neoliberal ‘reforms’ that now finds Barack Obama ‘bookending’ his Presidency with bank bailouts that left the poor and middle class much worse off and ‘trade’ deals that represent a ‘soft’ coup by international capital against civil society. The obvious lesson is that is that capitalism should have been buried in a vampire’s grave most of a century ago.


With ‘information’ regarding the TPP controlled by government and private interests, the critique that challenges to it are uninformed deserve no credence— the information that has been leaked is damning and with the political and economic stakes as high as they are, the information could be released and presumably would be if it supported Mr. Obama’s case that the ‘agreement’ doesn’t undermine national sovereignty. With this in mind, here is a graphical interpretation of the lead negotiators hard at work. That they resemble pirates and clowns is wholly coincidental. Original image source: google images.

The Democrat Party today is a caricature of the plutocrat defending Republican Party that FDR sent into the political wilderness after the Great Depression. Bourgeois liberals and progressives who today continue to support Democrats and their neoliberal (capitalist) policies have become the class enemies of the working class and poor. This may seem hyperbolic until the relation of Democrat policies to the social outcomes being experienced by working and poor people is considered. The foreclosure crisis made possible by bank deregulation and facilitated and covered up by the Obama administration for the benefit of banks and bankers disenfranchised poor and working class communities, largely communities of color, in ways that will persist for generations. The TPP and TTIP ‘trade’ deals are intended to crush labor and environmental regulation, both of which will disproportionately hurt the poor and powerless.

A question that Democrats may wish to ask themselves is: if, in the midst of renewed financial crisis and clear and abundant evidence that the TPP and TTIP are the catastrophes for sovereignty, labor and the environment that naysayers are predicting, what is the likelihood that Hillary Clinton or insert name of Democrat President here will refuse to bail out Wall Street again and / or attempt to recover sovereign, labor and environmental rights from the corporations and their plutocrat owners to whom they have been granted? That bailed out bankers are publicly supporting the TPP in 2015, and that this support doesn’t seriously endanger its passage, illustrates the one-way nature of these policies— once they are passed neither Party will be motivated to reverse them unless revolution is the alternative.

The best guess here is that the TPP, TTIP and fast-track authority that precludes Congressional amendments to these ‘trade’ agreements will be passed. The alternative to Democrats isn’t Republicans; it is political engagement outside of the two-Party system. In the parlance, the ‘tone-deafness’ of Democrat Barack Obama selling his ‘free-trade’ deal at Nike headquarters is evidence of how far from the reality the rest of us live by the Democrat Party has removed itself. Economic democracy is the realm where the civil ‘rights’ Democrat loyalists long deemed important at least stand a chance of gaining content. The current trajectory is in the opposite direction.

Rob Urie is an artist and political economist.

Recent Updated: 1 year ago - Created by Richard R. Thompson - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - Richard R. Thompson

Israeli Wall Street's auto-chimp Barry Cheney gets this public TPP invitation from Ralph Nader and Elizabeth Warren-RSVP.....on the QT!

Monkey "...glad to have that conversation?"

In broad daylight in the middle of The Carlyle Group fast track?

Barry "change" is that irresistible terminal-black-comedy of Dick Cheney's 4th Israeli presidential term.

This Israeli hit comedy stars Al Greenspan, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Janet Yellen, Lloyd Blankfein, Frank Luntz, Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, Jamie Dimon, Vicky "FU" Nuland, Dick Fuld, Bernie Maddoff, Jack Abramoff, Tim Geithner, Sheldon Adelson, Ben Netanyahu, Koch Brothers, AIPAC, Jack Lew the all-Hebrew lineup of zany Zionist parasites.

Parasite Pandemonium! This loveable laugh out loud Hebrew tribe of kosher parasites fronts their adorable change-chimpster again. Zany stuff. -RT
May 04, 2015

Debate Senator Warren on Global Economic Pact
I Dare You President Obama

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama:

You have taken a strong across-the-board position favoring the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) nearing completion and scheduled for a fast track clearance vote in the Congress. Indeed, you have descended admirably from your presidential perch to take on the most informed critics of this agreement with Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

You have accused critics of spreading misinformation, including Senator Elizabeth Warren and Lori Wallach, the director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, who is known for her meticulous research and who was at Harvard Law School during your time there.

With the barrage of commentary on an agreement, labelled singularly as trade promotion by unknowing newspaper columnists and reporters, and the less reported rebuttals that the TPP is far more than a trade agreement (aka treaty) and places serious environmental, health, consumer and labor conditions within its grip, isn’t it time for you to engage with concerned citizens and their representatives rather than assert unilaterally that “Elizabeth Warren is wrong on the facts”? It is time to clarify the issues before a skeptical public and others who are downright confused. Why not debate Senator Elizabeth Warren before a national TV audience?

There are many reasons for you to use this format to engage the American people. They will be the ones paying the price in many dire ways if the mega-corporate promoters of TPP turn out to be as wrong as they have been with prior trade deals, most recently the Korean Trade Agreement (2012) which you espoused and which has worsened the trade deficit with South Korea and caused job loss in the United States.

Vice President Albert Gore debated NAFTA on nationwide television with Ross Perot.
You and Senator Warren have been teachers of the law and share a common law school background—Harvard. A debate would be deliberative and, assuming you and she have read the 29 chapters of the TPP (only a handful of chapters dealing with trade), would be revelatory far beyond the narrow prisms reflected in the mass media.
Like NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, the TPP is a transnational system of autocratic governance that subordinates and bypasses our access to our own judiciary in favor of secret tribunals whose procedures contravene our country’s system of due process, openness and independent appeals. These agreements, as you know, have enforceable provisions regarding the rights and privileges of corporations. The rhetorical assurances regarding labor, environment and consumer rights have no such enforcement mechanisms.
Notwithstanding all the win-win claims of promoters of past trade agreements, our country’s trade deficit has continued to grow over the past 35 years. Enormous trade deficits mean job exports. Given this evidence, the public would be interested in listening to your explanation of this adverse experience to U.S. workers and our economy.
You believe Elizabeth Warren is wrong on the facts relating to the “Investor-State Dispute Settlement” provision of the TPP, which allows foreign companies to challenge our health, safety and other regulations, not in our courts but before an international panel of arbitrators. A perfect point/counterpoint for a debate process, no?
Over the years, it has been abundantly clear that very few lawmakers or presidents have actually read the text of these trade agreements involving excessive surrender of local, state and federal sovereignties. They have relied on memoranda prepared by the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and corporate lobbies. Given the mass of fine print with portentous consequences for every American, a worthy debate topic is whether to put off submitting this trade pact so that copies can be made accessible to the American people to discuss and consider before going to Congress under very limited debate for an up or down vote without any amendments being permitted. Why the rush when the ink isn’t even dry on the page?
Some may wonder why you don’t call this agreement a “treaty”, like other countries. Could it be that an agreement only requires a 51 percent vote, rather than a two-thirds vote in the Congress for treaty ratification?

You are quoted in the Washington Post decrying “misinformation” circulating on the TPP and pledging that you are “going to be pushing back very hard if I keep on hearing that.” Fine. Push back before tens of millions of people with Senator Elizabeth Warren as your debating counterpart. If you agree, be sure that interested Americans have a copy of the TPP deal first so that they can be an informed audience.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely yours,

Ralph Nader

Ralph Nader’s latest book is: Unstoppable: the Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State.

Recent Updated: 1 year ago - Created by Richard R. Thompson - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - Richard R. Thompson
Flickr Michael Corbat, Joe Kernen, Jamie Dimon

FT CNBC Nightcap 2015, Davos, World Economic Forum.
Recent Updated: 1 year ago - Created by Financial Times photos - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - Financial Times photos
Flickr me squirrel pal chowing beside our creek before the snow flies

(AP) Dear Hollywood Headliners!

Bully Sony Hollywood plays the victim to CIA's false flag kabuki "hack attack" to blame EVIL North Korea. Whadda storyline!

Poor Sony Corporation!!!!! Eeeeeeeeeek! Hhahahha. Booooooooooiiiiiiiiiiiing! Poor Hollywood!

Yes kosher kids it's another Harvey Weinstein style laugh-a-minute CIA murder promo-film in Hollywood's latest CIA-Mossad assassination psy-op conditioning-propaganda preparation "Interview" starring another Israeli lovable lardass protagonist murder hero....toooooooooo funny!


Yesiree kids it's another CIA-Mossad-Hollywood smackdown of evil-foreigner murder promotion. Pure deeeeeeeeeelight! Hhahahahahhaha!

Question for Harvey Weinstein-Sony-Israeli Hollywood CIA-Mossad:

Wouldn't a foreign film category at The Jewcadamy Awards Oscars be hilarious featuring each year's lineup of assassination films promoting wacky murders of Wall Street's Israeli Mossad CIA corporate actor heroes????

-Ben Netanyahu?
-Harvey Weinstein as himself?
-Lloyd Blankfein?
-Jack Lew?
-Robert Rubin?
-Al Greenspan?
-Bernie Maddoff?
-Ben Bernanke?
-Rob Emmanuel?
-Dick Fuld?
-Jamie Dimon?
-Lawrence Summers?
-Arnon Milchan?
-Koch brothers (2-fer! ) hahhhhaha
-John Brennen?
-Bob Menendez?
-John McCain?
-Joey Shalom Biden?
-Victoria FU Nuland?
-Paul Wolfowitz?
-Richard Pearle?
-Doug Feith?
-Charles Krauthammer?
-Jack Abramoff?
-Hank Paulson?
-Pet Goat Bush?
-Donny Rumsfeld?
-Richard Cheney?
-Barry Bush? zzzzzzzzzzzziiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnggo-jingo!
...and so many many more!

Your entire 911 government Likud GOPDEM actor "leaders" would be hunted down in a series of zaney murder-promo comedies! Hhahhahaha! Slapstick suspense! Laugh-a-minute.

You get the loads of laughs, right? And big bucks! Wacky gut-busting Hollywood assassination hijinx galore! Lead-in suspense builders will get fans rolling in the aisles: Like maybe the bloody horse head slipped in bed beside waking Jack Woltz? Beside Harvey Weinstein???....just for the lead-in got it, and finally fabulously fatally funny assassinations of them all!

Hhahhahhhahhaa. Now THAT'S entertainment. Just good clean 911 PNAC-WTC false flag assassination promotion comedy. It's psychological conditioning for the whole damn family.....or the whole fam damly!


Hahhahhhahhaa....Stop already! guys are killin' me! Hhahhaha.
Hollywood Plays with Fire
By Pat Buchanan • December 30, 2014

In July of 1870, King Wilhelm sent Foreign Minister Bismarck an account of his meeting with a French envoy who had demanded that the king renounce any Hohenzollern claim to the Spanish throne.

Bismarck edited the report to make it appear the Frenchman had insulted the king, and that Wilhelm rudely dismissed him. The Ems Telegram precipitated the Franco-Prussian war

Bismarck wanted.

Words matter. And if a picture is worth a thousand words, how much greater impact can a motion picture have? We are finding out.

Egypt has banned “Exodus: Gods and Kings,” the $140 million 20th Century Fox biblical epic. Cairo’s culture minister Gaber Asfour condemns it as “a Zionist film” containing “historical inaccuracies.”

The depiction of enslaved Jews building the pyramids and Moses parting the Red Sea to enable the Jews to flee and drown the Egyptian army is false, says Asfour. Historians date the pyramids to around 2540 B.C., 500 years before Abraham, the father of Judaism.

Paramount’s “Noah” was banned in Egypt, Indonesia and Malaysia, for taking liberties with the Quran.

Islamabad is in an uproar over the Showtime series, “Homeland,” where Pakistani intelligence services are portrayed as colluding with Islamists trying to kill ex-CIA director Saul Berenson and station chief Carrie Mathison. In the season’s final episodes, the U.S. cuts ties to Pakistan and closes the embassy.

The Showtime series “maligns a country that has been a close partner and ally of the U.S.,” a Pakistani embassy spokesman told the New York Post, and “is a disservice not only to the security interests of the U.S., but also to the people of the U.S.”

The 2014 “Homeland” finale was aired just after 140 Pakistani school kids were massacred in Peshawar by the Taliban.

Islamabad is “a quiet picturesque city with beautiful mountains and lush greenery,” said one Pakistani, yet is “portrayed as a grimy hellhole and war zone where shootouts and bombings go off with dead bodies scattered around. Nothing is further from the truth.”

Angrier than Egypt or Pakistan is North Korea over Sony’s “The Interview.” Why would a film company owned by the Japanese, who are not beloved in Korea, think it would be a great fun to make a comedy out of a CIA plot to assassinate North Korea’s head of state?

The North Koreans are serious people. They massacred half of the South Korean cabinet in the Rangoon bombing. They have brought down airliners and sunk warships without warning.

They have plotted to assassinate South Korea’s president.

Their megalomaniac ruler, Kim Jong-Un, just had his uncle-mentor executed, along with his family. Kim has atom bombs and seeks to miniaturize them to put atop missiles able to reach the United States.

He is the most erratic and dangerous ruler on the planet and this assassination-comedy is just the thing to set him off.

Says Adam Cathcart, a North Korea expert at Leeds University, “In North Korea it’s more or less a fait accompli that the Americans are trying to kill our leader.” To sustain its Stalinist dynasty, says the Washington Post, Pyongyang has created a “personality cult that is anything but a laughing matter.”

In retaliation for “The Interview,” North Korea, says the FBI, hacked into Sony’s computers, published confidential emails and threatened retaliation against any who showed the film.

The North has repeatedly denied it hacked into Sony. But it now appears the U.S. has retaliated by disrupting Internet service in North Korea, much to the cheers of the War Party, which wants President Obama to put the Hermit Kingdom back on the list of state sponsors of terror.

North Korea is now using racial slurs to describe Obama.

There is an aspect of reckless immaturity here.

While the Wall Street Journal thinks it would be fun to send DVDs of “The Interview” by balloon into the North, the Washington Post says possession of the film there would be regarded as treasonous, and could bring a death sentence.

No one denies Sony the right to produce a comedy about blowing up Kim Jong Un. Nor was anyone denying theaters or Internet sites the right to show it. What Sony seemed to want was to produce a movie that made the assassination of a dictator appear hilarious, but to be exempt from any consequences.

But we live in a world today where if you produce cartoons of the Prophet with a bomb for a turban, or disparage Islam in videos, books or movies, you can get yourself and others killed.

Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was butchered in Amsterdam by an enraged Muslim for “Submission,” a 10-minute film that excoriated Islam’s treatment of women.

In this weekend’s Washington Post, Joe Califano, a confidant of President Johnson, writes of how the new film “Selma” demeans LBJ’s crucial role in enacting the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

To enrich itself, Hollywood is playing games with religious beliefs and historical truths — and making enemies, not all of whom believe in turning the other cheek.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.” Copyright 2014

Recent Updated: 1 year ago - Created by Richard R. Thompson - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - Richard R. Thompson
Flickr Dailing for Dollars at CRomnibus, Inc.
Tags: house   art   face   photomanipulation   photoshop   photo   president   political   politics   cartoon   manipulation   speaker   caricature   politician   wallstreet   campaign   karikatur   caricatura   commentary   barackobama   politicalart   karikatuur   politicalcommentary   johnboehner   jamiedimon   donkeyhotey   cromnibus   
Jamie Dimon, Barack Obama and John Boehner whipping for Wall Street

The Guardian, "House passes full omnibus budget bill despite Democrat revolt – as it happened"

This caricature of Jamie Dimon was adapted from a Creative Commons licensed photo from the World Economic Forum' Flickr photostream.

This caricature of President Obama was adapted from a photos in the public domain from The White House's Flickr photostream: face, body.

This caricature of John Boehner was adapted from a Creative Commons licensed photo from Mark Taylor's Flickr photostream.

Recent Updated: 1 year ago - Created by DonkeyHotey - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - DonkeyHotey
Flickr Boulder Flatirons pre-dawn from home

Bernie Madoff
Hyman Roth
Janet Yellen
Robert Rubin
Hank Paulson
Alan Greenspan
Lawrence Summers
Dick Fuld
Paul Wolfowitz
Doug Feith
Dickless Cheney
Lloyd Blankfein
Jamie Dimon
Victoria FU Nuland
Mark Rubio
Jeb Bush
Jack Lew
Emperor Bibi Netanyahu
Rob Emmanuel
Sheldon Adelson
Timmy Geithner
Michael Corleone
Mittzy Romney

shall again operate Cuba as their mafia prostitution and mafia casino plantation.

Cuba II: The United States of Israel by the mafia corporation for the mafia corporation. Hyman's dream fulfilled.
December 18, 2014

The Imperialist Mindset
The Problem With Obama’s Cuba Speech


Six years into his Presidency, Barack Obama has finally taken steps he campaigned on in 2008 to normalize relations with Cuba. The new policy towards Cuba will include important changes including establishing formal diplomatic relations, removing Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, and expanding trade relations. However, Obama is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. His rationale for finally abandoning the hard-line Cold War stance demonstrates his belief that the morality and legality of United States actions are beyond reproach.

“In the most significant changes in our policy in more than fifty years, we will end an outdated approach that, for decades, has failed to advance our interests, and instead we will begin to normalize relations between our two countries,” Obama said in a live televised speech from the White House.

The problem with the policy is that it “failed to advance our interests,” according to Obama. When he speaks of “our interests”, he is of course referring to corporate business interests, not the public interest. Deciding an economy should belong to the population rather than unaccountable private interests is an affront to businesses that believe they have a right to operate in foreign markets and control local resources.

The socioeconomic system Cuba adopted after its successful revolution in 1959 was therefore a threat to American multinational companies. The threat was not only Cuba removing itself from the U.S. economic orbit, but serving as an example to other countries to do so themselves. Cuba had to be punished in order to stop the spread of independent decision making.

Obama’s imperialist mindset is that the United States is benevolent. He believes in American exceptionalism with “every fiber” of his being. When the country does something wrong, it is never because its decisions and actions are immoral or illegal. They are merely mistakes. This was explicit in his explanation of why the U.S. isolation of Cuba began.

“Though this policy has been rooted in the best of intentions, no other nation joins us in imposing these sanctions,” Obama claimed.

This is brazenly dishonest historical revisionism. American officials have long claimed the embargo and the freezing of diplomatic relations were implemented to promote democracy and human rights. This discourse is transparent propaganda, meant solely for public consumption.

The only way to determine the government’s intent is to look at the internal deliberations that took place when the policy was formed. Fortunately, the documentary record exists and has been declassified. It makes clear the Cuba policy was based on anything but good intentions.

“The majority of the Cuban people support Castro. There is no effective political opposition,” wrote Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Lester D. Mallory in 1960. “The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection and hardship… every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba… a line of action which… makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.”

Clearly, it is morally reprehensible to attempt to induce “hunger” and “desperation” among people for exercising their right to self-determination. It is also illegal.

In 1970, the U.N. General Assembly passed Resolution 2625 which declared: “No state may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measure to coerce another State in order to obtain the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights and to secure advantages of any kind… Every state has an inalienable right to choose its political, economic, social and cultural systems, without interference in any form by another State.”

To his credit, Obama did embrace the necessity of engagement: “Now, where we disagree, we will raise those differences directly.” The principle of sovereign equality among nations is the basic foundation of international relations according to the UN Charter. However, Obama then states the reason to effect this change is a matter of pragmatism: “After all, these 50 years have shown that isolation has not worked.”

The problem with U.S. policy is not that it hasn’t worked, it is that it is fundamentally wrong. This idea is outside the range of mainstream debate. After the release last week of the Senate Torture Report, much of the discourse among politicians and in the press has been about the effectiveness of torture.

Whether or not it worked is completely irrelevant. As the Convention against Torture makes indisputably clear: “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”

Despite this, public debate has failed to reckon with the horrific nature of the crimes authorized by American officials and carried out by agents of the state. Imagine the reaction if the crimes were instead committed by Russia or China and their press treated the issue the same way. Those media outlets would rightfully be vilified for propagandizing and serving as enablers of those crimes.

The U.S. corporate press predictably adopts the U.S. government’s ideological framework on Cuba, behaving as expected by the Chomsky-Herman propaganda model.

A New York Times editorial claims that Cuba “remains a repressive police state.” In the week after the release of the Torture Report, while the U.S. is consumed with mass popular protests in major cities from coast to coast against rampant, unpunished police brutality and murder of unarmed African Americans, with the vast scope of unconstitutional NSA surveillance still being uncovered, the Times‘ accusations are laughable.

The Times goes on to claim that “the United States has been right to press for greater personal freedoms and democratic change,” despite the fact that the United States has pressed for neither. The United States has pressed for an end to socialism, Cuba’s acceptance of the Washington consensus, and an end to Cuba’s independent foreign policy. The Times is guilty of the same historical revisionism as Obama. They substitute facts with projections of American benevolence.

Meanwhile, Raul Castro Raul Castro has demonstrated Cuba’s continued willingness to engage without animosity the country who has carried out an invasion, decades of terrorism, and a half-century-long, unprovoked economic war.

“I have reiterated in many occasions our willingness to hold a respectful dialogue with the United States on the basis of sovereign equality,” Castro said, “in order to deal reciprocally with a wide variety of topics without detriment to the national Independence and self-determination of our people.”

“We propose to the Government of the United States the adoption of mutual steps to improve the bilateral atmosphere and advance towards normalization of relations between our two countries, based on the principles of International Law and the United Nations Charter.”

Castro rightfully declares adherence to international law and the UN Charter as the basis for how relations between the two countries should be conducted. Last year Castro said: “We don’t demand that the U.S. change its political or social system and we don’t accept negotiations over ours.” This sentiment has not been reciprocated.

Obama’s correct decision to abandon the Cold War policy towards Cuba needs to be accompanied by a recognition that the policy itself has been immoral, criminal and wrong. Period. As long as the economic blockade is not overturned by Congress, it continues to be so. The U.S. public was sold a bill of goods in the decades-long anti-Communist crusade. It’s time to stop denying this and rewriting history to justify the pursuit of Empire.

Matt Peppe writes about politics, U.S. foreign policy and Latin America on his blog.

Recent Updated: 1 year ago - Created by Richard R. Thompson - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - Richard R. Thompson
Flickr Longs Chasm Trail Junction

It's just Likud business:

- committing genocide to steal Mideast lands
-to hunt, bomb and torture Palestinians
-murder Gazans off of their land, oil and gas
- own and operate GOPDEM toy political parties
-operate corporate disinformation media
-print counterfeit cash self-awarded to tribal fraud bankers
-loot banks deficit taxpaid bailed-out 100% by US taxpayers
-plan and cheer the 911 mass murder treasons
-systematically destroy Earth as just an abbreviated list of biblical entitlements enjoyed by Israel's self-chosen criminals.

It's just business.

And still those pesky gentile anti-Semitics invent vicious lies and wild CONSPIRACY THEORIES in order to slur Bernie Madoff's self-chosen "holocaust survivors" like Ben Bernanke, Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon, Robert Rubin, Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Bill Kristol, Richard Pearl, Paul Wolfowitz, Janet Yellen, Alan Greenspan, Dickless Fuld, Larry Summers, Thomas Friedman, Ben Netanyahu, FU Victoria Nuland, Rob Emmanuel, Jack Lew among the proud AIPAC unelected rulers of The United States of Israel.

We ATM gentile livestock are allowed to live as hosts for the parasites' looting while being spied upon inside CIA-Mossad-Israel's post-constitutional military terrorist ATM. Oy!

We should be thanking the crime tribe on our gentile knees.

Hitler also enjoyed Germany being operated as the Hebrew ATM. Germany was blessed by being looted by the genius tribe of financial innovators and bank frauds. The Treaty of Versailles codified Germany's ATM status flowing the loot proceeds adding massive interest owed to the self-chosen Israeli bankers. The eternal (pre-) holocaust survivor-beneficiaries wined and dined around Paris, London and New York. Like today:

Eternally exceptional.

That ageless Israeli gangster wealth extraction formula yielded fabulous results for the world. Perhaps a fraction of what larceny yields for the same gangster tribe today.

In primitive times such financial innovators were called "thieves." But that indelicate anachronism is out of media fashion today. It is expunged from media vernacular used to describe the Israeli hero Jesus folks. Those who suffer so mightily, hanging on media crosses incessantly just to save us. They are ennobled holocaust survivors from Tel Aviv NYC omnipresent to eternally save gentile goyim underlings yet again. The eternal "holocaust survivor" sufferers' lone trespass is the suffering gentile model Jesus.

Of course the battle tested Israeli world terrorist junta works lucratively again today for Sheldon Adelson and Bernie Madoff's tribal operation of GOPDEM whores.. It's their kosher 1918 to 1932 redo. Fabulous Israeli world banker looter government reigns supreme. Self-chosen again by bank and media gangsters.

Why not?

All it takes is legislated Israeli counterfeit Federal Reserve cash at zero interest concentrated in the Israeli bank fraud and war financiers: Talmud cash plus entitlement to violence chapter and verse (re Leviticus) yields super results again for Israel's chosen looting people.

Israel's AIPAC capos are unelected owners of puppet GOPDEM thug government -like 1918. But check this out, Americans have never been happier with GOPDEM's exciting mock elections according to Israeli media. I'm ebullient about Hyman Roth and Bernie Madoff's puppet thugs. Giddy.

No conspiracy here, just tons of Wall Street deficit taxpaid bailout cash recycled into toy politicians. It is Israel's great investment achievement in thug government of-by and for besieged unelected common Israeli AIPAC-GOPDEM co-thugs. They are the perma-victim "holocaust survivors!" Just business.

Tisk the vicious gentile lies about Bernie Madoff's tribe. The United States of Israel is the free market of gangsters. Only anti-Semites would dare complain.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion National Park
By Steve Sailer • November 14, 2014

Haaretz, the left of center Israeli broadsheet, discusses the recent joint appearance by leading Democratic donor Haim Saban and leading Republican donor Sheldon Adelson at the Israeli American Concil where they discussed, among much else, teaming up to buy the New York Times Co. so that Israel can finally get some fair coverage in the U.S. Anshel Pfeffer writes in Haaretz:

It was like a scene out of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” Two immensely wealthy Jews, key financiers of the main political parties of the world’s superpower, discussing how to wage war on the enemies of the Jews, and control the media and presidents. Only, instead of taking place at the dead of night in a Jewish cemetery in Prague, they were sitting on stage in a Washington, D.C hotel conference room, in full view and making no attempt to hide their intentions.

If the Czarist secret police officers who published the original edition of “Protocols” at the start of the 20th century had been at the Hilton, or just reading the reported dialogue between Power Rangers impresario Haim Saban and casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, they would have had little need for the embellishment, plagiarism and forgery they used to concoct their best seller.

If you haven’t yet read the musings of these two gentlemen on the best way to confront Iran (bombing “the daylight out of these sons of bitches” is an option), the shortcomings of Barack Obama’s presidency, the need (or lack of) for Israel to be a democracy, the best way to take over The New York Times, and how to ensure a sufficient supply of latkes at the White House Hanukkah party, then you really should. It would be no exaggeration to call it a historic event.

The joint appearance of the two billionaires at the Israeli American Council’s inaugural conference last weekend was the moment that Jewish benefactors, who have always preferred to use financial influence on behalf of their brethren as far behind-the-scenes as possible, chose to do so out in the open.

Not that they had anything to be ashamed of. Jewish financiers using their fortunes to protect and promote a small scattered nation, persecuted for much of its history by vastly superior forces, is an honorable tradition. Only, it was always a tradition considered to be much more effective when carried out discreetly. Why give the haters more ammunition to incite with? …

Whether or not they [British Jewish political donors] are satisfied with their party’s candidate, Jewish philanthropists do not voluntarily discuss in public their political donations.

This is probably all you need to know about the difference between American and British Jews. Both communities are phenomenally successful, and for the past few decades have enjoyed a disproportionate prominence in just about every walk of life – unparalleled since the Golden Age of the Jews in Middle-Ages Spain, perhaps even surpassing that. But while Jews in the United States routinely celebrate their extraordinary position of near-dominance in finance, the creative arts, media, and now also political influence, among British Jews there is still a prevailing anxiety, and even sense of shame, whenever the words “Jewish” and “money” are used in the same sentence. Whenever a politician or media commentator combines the two, there is an outcry of “anti-Semitism.”

There is ample historic justification for this defensiveness. “The Protocols” were not the first or last time the insidiousness of Jewish moneymen was a central plank of Judeophobia. And it’s still around. Even today, when you start typing “Jewish bankers” into the world’s most powerful search engine (founded by two Jews, of course), it automatically suggests “control the world.” But then, the Web is full of the most vile conspiracy theorists, and we can’t let them dominate our lives.

The influence and power of big money in capitalist democracies are a fact of life. You can try and legislate to close loopholes and create a more level playing field, but you can’t eliminate it. Unless, that is, you want to live in a country like Vladimir Putin’s Russia, where troublesome oligarchs are packed off to a penal colony in Siberia or forced to flee and live in permanent exile.

The best we can do is try and take the Internet – that wonderful tool our capitalist economies have created – away from the conspiracy theorists and use it to truthfully increase transparency, so we at least know who is using money to acquire influence. …

For all the vulgarity of the Saban-Adelson dialogue, we should commend them for holding it in the open. Especially since now we have heard Adelson publicly state that as far as he is concerned, “so what” if Israel is no longer a democracy, we know the ugly truth about the man who is our prime minister’s number one patron.

It doesn’t matter whether or not we supply the Israel-haters and Judeophobes with fodder. They will warp facts and invent lies, anyway. We will have to continue facing their poisonous propaganda, and we have never been in a better position to do so.

But we need to know whatever we can about how “pro-Israel” tycoons use their money and what they believe in, because they are now in a far more powerful position than any hostile newspaper or biased blogger to cause Israel untold harm.

Secret lair of homophobic conspirators in Zion National Park

I’m reminded of how gay marriage was banned by initiative in California in 2008 because a lot of black church ladies turned out at the polls to vote for that nice young Mr. Obama and stuck around to vote against gay marriage.

This was spun in the national media, however, as proof of the wily media power of Utah Mormons over the unsophisticated California media, a popular theory that I call “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion National Park,” which would make a suitable Quentin Tarantino movie.

Recent Updated: 1 year ago - Created by Richard R. Thompson - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - Richard R. Thompson
Flickr Bank of America Alderman Jamie Dimon Take Back Chicago's always a great day to foreclose on some homes!_MG_0176
Tags: poverty   people   chicago   students   kids   children   illinois   education   politics   homeless   protest   demonstration   schools   teachers   unemployed   neighborhoods   wealth   corruption   classrooms   inequality   profits   privatization   bankers   organizations   austerity   communitygroups   onepercent   ninetyninepercent   
The objective of the rally was to demand that the leadership of the city listens to the voices of the people of Chicago instead of those of the corporate elite. It's time to end the privatization agenda of the one percent that hurts families, neighborhoods and closes school. Elected public officials must stand against corporate raiders and invest in communities and neighborhoods.


Raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Companies like McDonald's and Walmart can easily afford to pay a decent wage. They make billions of dollars in profits each year, yet the people on the front line who do the work to make this possible are told to 'find second jobs' or live on public assistance programs.

An elected school board that represents the people, not just bankers and CEOs. In Chicago, the school board is appointed by the mayor.

Reform the Chicago Housing Authority. The CHA must be accountable to the people it is supposed to serve. It has currently stockpiled millions of dollars in federal funding, more than enough to issue over 13,000 housing vouchers. Meanwhile, thousands of Chicagoans will be homeless this winter.

End home foreclosures. Bankers should negotiate with homeowners who are experiencing difficulties meeting their monthly mortgage payments. This is a much better way to go than simply throwing people out into the street.

Recent Updated: 1 year ago - Created by - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author -
Flickr You better keep thanking Dick Cheney's 911 hero troops, or those proud heavily armed military-welfare kiddies will teach us another John Kennedy lesson....avoid tantrums dude.-RT

Tomgram: Rory Fanning, Why Do We Keep Thanking the Troops?
Posted by Rory Fanningat 6:56pm, October 26, 2014.
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter @TomDispatch.

[Note for TomDispatch Readers: Today’s piece is out of the ordinary, the sort of thing that’s largely untouchable in the mainstream. A former Army Ranger writes about why the endless “thank you"s for service in America’s wars ring hollow. And that Ranger-turned-conscientious-objector, Rory Fanning, has quite an all-American odyssey to tell, which is exactly what he’s done in his new book Worth Fighting For: An Army Ranger’s Journey Out of the Military and Across America. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a must read and, as it happens, for a $100 contribution to this site, you can be the first on your block to get a signed, personalized copy of it.

Just check out the offer at the TomDispatch donation page and while you’re at it, note that signed, personalized copies of my new book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World, are still available. My thanks again to all of you -- it was a genuine outpouring of support -- who have already contributed! Tom]

More than a few times I’ve found myself in a crowd of Vietnam veterans, and more than a few times at least one of them was wearing a curious blue or yellow t-shirt. Once that shirt undoubtedly fit a lean physique of the late 1970s or early 1980s, but by the time I saw it modeled, in the 2000s, it was getting mighty snug. Still, they refused to part with it. On it was some variation of the outline of a map of Vietnam with bit of grim humor superimposed: “Participant, Southeast Asia War Games, 1961-1975: Second Place.”

I was always struck by it. These men of the “Me Generation” had come home to the sneers and backhanded comments of the men of the “Greatest Generation,” their fathers’ era. They had supposedly been the first Americans to lose a war. However, instead of the defensive apparel donned by some vets (“We were winning when I left”), they wore their loss for all to see, pride mingling with a sardonic sense of humor.

Today’s military is made up of still another generation, the Millennials, representatives of the 80 million Americans born between 1980 and 2000. In fact, with nearly 43% of the active duty force age 25 or younger and roughly 66% of it 30 or under, it’s one of the most Millennial-centric organizations around.

As a whole, the Millennials have been regularly pilloried in the press for being the “Participation Trophy Generation.” Coddled, self-centered, with delusions of grandeur, they’re inveterate narcissists with outlandish expectations and a runaway sense of entitlement. They demand everything, they’re addicted to social media, fast Wi-Fi, and phablets, they cry when criticized, they want praise on tap, and refuse to wear anything but their hoodies and “fuck you flip-flops” like the face of their generation, the Ur-millennial: Mark Zuckerberg!

At least that’s the knock on them. Then again, when didn’t prior generations knock the current one?

The National Institutes of Health did determine people in their 20s have Narcissistic Personality Disorder three times more often than those 65 or older and a recent survey by Reason and pollster Rupe did find that those 18-24 are indeed in favor of participation trophies unlike older Americans who overwhelmingly favor winners-only prizes. Still, it’s a little early to pass blanket judgment on an entire generation of whom the youngest members are only on the cusp of high school. The Millennials may yet surprise even the most cantankerous coots. Time will tell.

The Millennial military, however, isn’t doing the generation any favors. Despite its dismal record when it comes to winning wars and a recent magnification of its repeated failures in Iraq, today’s military seems to crave and demand that its soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen be thanked and lauded at every turn. As a result, the Pentagon is involved in stage-managing all manner of participation-trophy spectacles to make certain they are -- from the ballpark to the NASCAR track to the Academy of Country Music's “An All-Star Salute to the Troops” concert at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas earlier this year.

And like those great enablers of the Millennial trophy kids, so-called helicopter parents, the American public regularly provides cheap praise and empty valorization for veterans, writes Rory Fanning in TomDispatch debut. A veteran of the war in Afghanistan -- having served two tours with the 2nd Army Ranger Battalion before becoming a conscientious objector -- Fanning explores America’s thank-you-for-your-service culture, what vets are actually being thanked for, and why Rihanna’s hollow patriotism left him depressed. His moving new book, Worth Fighting For: An Army Ranger’s Journey Out of the Military and Across America, captures his 3,000-mile trek through and encounter with this country, an unforced march meant to honor Pat Tillman and question the nature of our recent wars.

I don’t get to hang out with Vietnam vets as much as I used to, but late one night a year or two ago I found myself with a few of them in an almost deserted bar. Having ducked out of the annual meeting of a veterans’ group, we ordered some beers from a Millennial-age waiter. He asked if my 60-something compatriots were attending the nearby conference and they mumbled that they indeed were. The waiter seemed to momentarily straighten up. “Thank you for your service,” he solemnly intoned before bounding off to get the beers. One of veterans -- a Marine who had seen his fair share of combat -- commented on how much he hated that phrase. “They do it reflexively. That’s how they’ve been raised,” I replied. “I hope they wise up,” said another of the vets. Time -- as with all things Millennial -- will tell. Nick Turse

Thank You for Your Valor, Thank You for Your Service, Thank You, Thank You, Thank You…
Still on the Thank-You Tour-of-Duty Circuit, 13 Years Later
By Rory Fanning

Last week, in a quiet indie bookstore on the north side of Chicago, I saw the latest issue of Rolling Stone resting on a chrome-colored plastic table a few feet from a barista brewing a vanilla latte. A cold October rain fell outside. A friend of mine grabbed the issue and began flipping through it. Knowing that I was a veteran, he said, "Hey, did you see this?" pointing to a news story that seemed more like an ad. It read in part:

"This Veterans Day, Bruce Springsteen, Eminem, Rihanna, Dave Grohl, and Metallica will be among numerous artists who will head to the National Mall in Washington D.C. on November 11th for 'The Concert For Valor,' an all-star event that will pay tribute to armed services."

"Concert For Valor? That sounds like something the North Korean government would organize," I said as I typed into my MacBook Pro looking for more information.

The sucking sound from the espresso maker was drowning out a 10-year-old Shins song. As I read, my heart sank, my shoulders slumped.

Special guests at the Concert for Valor were to include: Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, and Steven Spielberg. The mission of the concert, according to a press release, was to “raise awareness” of veterans issues and “provide a national stage for ensuring that veterans and their families know that their fellow Americans’ gratitude is genuine.”

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Michael Mullen were to serve in an advisory capacity, and Starbucks, HBO, and JPMorgan Chase were to pay for it all. "We are honored to play a small role to help raise awareness and support for our service men and women,” said HBO chairman Richard Plepler.

Though I couldn’t quite say why, that Concert for Valor ad felt tired and sad, despite the images of Rihanna singing full-throated into a gold microphone and James Hetfield and Kirk Hammett of Metallica wailing away on their guitars. I had gotten my own share of “thanks” from civilians when I was still a U.S. Army Ranger. Who hadn’t? It had been the endless theme of the post-9/11 era, how thankful other Americans were that we would do... well, what exactly, for them? And here it was again. I couldn’t help wondering: Would veterans somewhere actually feel the gratitude that Starbucks and HBO hoped to convey?

I went home and cooked dinner for my wife and little girl in a semi-depressed state, thinking about that word “valor” which was to be at the heart of the event and wondering about the Hall of Fame line-up of twenty-first century liberalism that was promoting it or planning to turn out to hail it: Rolling Stone, the magazine of Hunter S. Thompson and all things rock and roll; Bruce Springsteen, the billion-dollar working-class hero; Eminem, the white rapper who has sold more records than Elvis; Metallica, the crew who sued Napster and the metal band of choice for so many longhaired, disenfranchised youth of the 1980s and 1990s. They were all going to say “thank you” -- again.

Raising (Whose?) Awareness

Later that night, I sat down and Googled “vets honored.” Dozens and dozens of stories promptly queued up on my screen. (Try it yourself.) One of the first items I clicked on was the 50th anniversary celebration in Bangor, Maine, of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the alleged Pearl Harbor of the Vietnam War. Governor Paul LePage had spoken ringingly of the veterans of that war: “These men were just asked to go to a foreign land and protect our freedoms. And they weren’t treated with respect when they returned home. Now it’s time to acknowledge it.”

Vietnam, he insisted, was all about protecting freedom -- such a simple and innocent explanation for such a long and horrific war. Lest you forget, the governor and those gathered in Bangor that day were celebrating a still-murky “incident” that touched off a massive American escalation of the war. It was claimed that North Vietnamese patrol boats had twice attacked an American destroyer, though President Lyndon Johnson later suggested that the incident might even have involved shooting at "flying fish" or "whales." As for protecting freedom in Vietnam, tell the dead Vietnamese in America’s “free fire zones” about that.

No one, however, cared about such details. The point was that eternal “thank you.” If only, I thought, some inquisitive and valorous local reporter had asked the governor, “Treated with disrespect by whom?” And pointed out the mythology behind the idea that American civilians had mistreated GIs returning from Vietnam. (Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for the Veterans Administration, which denied returning soldiers proper healthcare, or the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion, organizations that weren’t eager to claim the country’s defeated veterans of a disastrous war as their own.)

When it came to thanks and “awareness raising,” no American war with a still living veteran seemed too distant to be ignored. Google told me, for example, that Upper Gwynedd, Pennsylvania, had recently celebrated its 12th annual “Multi-Cultural Day” by thanking its “forgotten Korean War Veterans.” According to a local newspaper report, included in the festivities were martial arts demonstrations and traditional Korean folk dancing.

The Korean War was the precursor to Vietnam, with similar results. As with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the precipitating event of the war that North Korea ignited on June 25, 1950, remains open to question. Evidence suggests that, with U.S. approval, South Korea initiated a bombardment of North Korean villages in the days leading up to the invasion. As in Vietnam, there, too, the U.S. supported a corrupt autocrat and used napalm on a mass scale. Millions died, including staggering numbers of civilians, and North Korea was left in rubble by war’s end. Folk dancing was surely in short supply. As for protecting our freedoms in Korea, enough said.

These two ceremonies seemed to catch a particular mood (reflected in so many similar, if more up-to-date versions of the same). They might have benefited from a little “awareness raising” when it came to what the American military has actually been doing these last years, not to say decades, beyond our borders. They certainly summed up much of the frustration I was feeling with the Concert for Valor. Plenty of thank yous, for sure, but no history when it came to what the thanks were being offered for in, say, Iraq or Afghanistan, no statistics on taxpayer dollars spent or where they went, or on innocent lives lost and why.

Will the “Concert for Valor” mention the trillions of dollars rung up terrorizing Muslim countries for oil, the ratcheting up of the police and surveillance state in this country since 9/11, the hundreds of thousands of lives lost thanks to the wars of George W. Bush and Barack Obama? Is anyone going to dedicate a song to Chelsea Manning, or John Kiriakou, or Edward Snowden -- two of them languishing in prison and one in exile -- for their service to the American people? Will the Concert for Valor raise anyone’s awareness when it comes to the fact that, to this day, veterans lack proper medical attention, particularly for mental health issues, or that there is a veteran suicide every 80 minutes in this country? Let’s hope they find time in between drum solos, but myself, I’m not counting on it.

Thank Yous

While Googling around, I noticed an allied story about President Obama christening a poetic sounding “American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial” on October 5th. There, he wisely noted that “the U.S. should never rush into war.” As he spoke, however, the Air Force, the Navy, and Special Forces personnel (who wear boots that do touch the ground, even in Iraq), as well as the headquarters of “the Big Red One,” the Army’s 1st Infantry Division, were already involved in the latest war he had personally ordered in Iraq and Syria, while, of course, bypassing Congress.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you! Damn, I voted for Obama because he said he’d end our overseas wars. At least it’s not Bush sending the planes, drones, missiles, and troops back there, because if it were, I’d be mad.

Then there were the numerous stories about “Honor Flights” sponsored by Southwest Airlines that offered all World War II veterans and the terminally ill veterans of more recent wars a free trip to Washington to “reflect at their memorials” before they died. Honor flights turn out to be a particularly popular way to honor veterans. Local papers in Richfield, Utah, Des Moines, Iowa, Elgin, Illinois, Austin, Texas, Miami, Florida, and so on place by place across significant swaths of the country have run stories about dying hometown “heroes” who have participated in these flights, a kind of nothing-but-the-best-in-corporate-sponsorship for the last of the “Greatest Generation.”

“Welcome home” ceremonies, with flags, marching bands, heartfelt embraces, much weeping, and the usual babies and small children missed during tours of duty in our war zones are also easy to find. In the first couple of screens Google offered in response to the phrase “welcome home ceremony,” I found the usual thank-you celebrations for veterans returning from Afghanistan in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Ft. Sill, Oklahoma, and Saint Albans, Vermont, among other places. "We don't do enough for our veterans, for what they do for us, we hear the news, but to be up there in a field, and be shot at, and sometimes coming home disabled, we don't realize how lucky we are sometimes to have the people who have served their country," one of the Saint Albans attendees was typically quoted as saying.

“Do enough...?” In America, isn’t thank you plenty?

Oddly, it’s harder to find thank-you ceremonies for living vets involved in America’s numerous smaller interventions in places like the Dominican Republic, Lebanon, Grenada, Kosovo, Somalia, Libya, and various CIA-organized coups and proxy wars around the world, but I won’t be surprised if they, too, exist. I was wondering, though: What about all those foreign soldiers we’ve trained to fight our wars for us in places like South Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan? Shouldn’t they be thanked as well? And how about members of the Afghan Mujahedeen that we armed and funded in the 1980s while they gave the Soviet Union its own “Vietnam” (and who are now fighting for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or other extreme Islamist outfits)? Or what about the Indonesian troops we armed under the presidency of Gerald Ford, who committed possibly genocidal acts in East Timor in 1975? Or has our capacity for thanks been used up in the service of American vets?

Since 9/11, those thank yous have been aimed at veterans with the regularity of the machine gun fire that may still haunt their dreams. Veterans have also been offered special consideration when it comes to applications for mostly menial jobs so that they can “utilize the skills” they learned in the military. While they continue to march in those welcome home parades and have concerts organized in their honor, the thank yous are in no short supply. The only question that never seems to come up is: What exactly are they being thanked for?

Heroes Who Afford Us Freedom

Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz has said of the upcoming Concert for Valor:

“The post-9/11 years have brought us the longest period of sustained warfare in our nation’s history. The less than one percent of Americans who volunteered to serve during this time have afforded the rest of us remarkable freedoms -- but that freedom comes with a responsibility to understand their sacrifice, to honor them, and to appreciate the skills and experience they offer when they return home.”

It was crafty of Schultz to redirect that famed 1% label from the ultra rich, represented by CEOs like him, onto our “heroes.” At the concert, I hope Schultz has a chance to get more specific about those “remarkable freedoms.” Will he mention that the U.S. has the highest per capita prison population on the planet? Does he include among those remarkable freedoms the guarantee that dogs, Tasers, tear gas, and riot police will be sent after you if you stay out past dark protesting the killing of an unarmed Black teenager by a representative of this country’s increasingly militarized police? Will the freedom to be too big to fail and so to have the right to melt down the economy and walk away without going to prison -- as Jamie Dimon, the CEO of Chase, did -- be mentioned? Do these remarkable freedoms include having every American phone call and email recorded and stored away by the NSA?

And what about that term “hero”? Many veterans reject it, and not just out of Gary Cooperesque modesty either. Most veterans who have seen combat, watched babies get torn apart, or their comrades die in their arms, or the most powerful army on Earth spend trillions of dollars fighting some of the poorest people in the world for 13 years feel anything but heroic. But that certainly doesn’t stop the use of the term. So why do we use it? As journalist Cara Hoffman points out at Salon:

“‘[H]ero’ refers to a character, a protagonist, something in fiction, not to a person, and using this word can hurt the very people it’s meant to laud. While meant to create a sense of honor, it can also buy silence, prevent discourse, and benefit those in power more than those navigating the new terrain of home after combat. If you are a hero, part of your character is stoic sacrifice, silence. This makes it difficult for others to see you as flawed, human, vulnerable, or exploited.”

We use the term hero in part because it makes us feel good and in part because it shuts soldiers up (which, believe me, makes the rest of us feel better). Labeled as a hero, it’s also hard to think twice about putting your weapons down. Thank yous to heroes discourage dissent, which is one reason military bureaucrats feed off the term.

There are American soldiers stationed around the globe who think about filing conscientious objector status (as I once did), and I sometimes hear from some of them. They often grasp the way in which the militarized acts of imperial America are helping to create the very enemies they are then being told to kill. They understand that the trillions of dollars being wasted on war will never be spent on education, health care, or the development of clean energy here at home. They know that they are fighting for American control over the flow of fossil fuels on this planet, the burning of which is warming our world and threatening human existence.

Then you have Bruce Springsteen and Metallica telling them “thank you” for wearing that uniform, that they are heroes, that whatever it is they’re doing in distant lands while we go about our lives here isn’t an issue. There is even the possibility that, one day, you, the veteran, might be ushered onto that stage during a concert or onto the field during a ballgame for a very public thank you. The conflicted soldier thinks twice.


I’m back at that indie bookstore sitting at the same chrome-colored table trying to hash all this out, including my own experiences in the Army Rangers, and end on a positive note. The latest issue of Rolling Stone appears to have sold out. Out the window, the sun is peeking through a thick web of clouds. They sell wine here, too. The sooner I finish this, the sooner I can start drinking.

There is no question that we should honor people who fight for justice and liberty. Many veterans enlisted in the military thinking that they were indeed serving a noble cause, and it’s no lie to say that they fought with valor for their brothers and sisters to their left and right. Unfortunately, good intentions at this stage are no substitute for good politics. The war on terror is going into its 14th year. If you really want to talk about “awareness raising,” it’s years past the time when anyone here should be able to pretend that our 18-year-olds are going off to kill and die for good reason. How about a couple of concerts to make that point?

Until then, I’m going to drink wine and try to enjoy the music over the sound of the espresso machine.

Rory Fanning walked across the United States for the Pat Tillman Foundation in 2008-2009, following two deployments to Afghanistan with the 2nd Army Ranger Battalion. Fanning became a conscientious objector after his second tour. He is the author of the new book Worth Fighting For: An Army Ranger’s Journey Out of the Military and Across America (Haymarket, 2014).

Recent Updated: 1 year ago - Created by Richard R. Thompson - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - Richard R. Thompson
Flickr William Ferguson and Jamie Dimon
Tags: newyork   realestate   uli   urbanlandinstitute   
William J. Ferguson, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Ferguson Partners Ltd., interviews Jamie Dimon, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of JPMorgan Chase, during the general session "Reflections on Resilient Leadership" at the ULI Fall Meeting in New York City on Tuesday, October 21, 2014.
Recent Updated: 1 year ago - Created by Urban Land Institute - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - Urban Land Institute
Flickr study detail 2
Tags: 69   partone—theprogram   ixzz1mxdufee9   
September 02, 2014

Why the Deep State Always Wins
The Zero-Sum Game of Perpetual War

Readers with a morbid sense of curiosity can visit a web site called NukeMap that allows visitors to witness the devastation caused by nuclear weapons of varying yields on a city of their choosing[i]. Herman Kahn, who was an armchair theorist from RAND during the Cold War, insisted that nuclear war was winnable[ii]. But a few hours with NukeMap will disprove Kahn’s folly and the baleful smiley face that he tried to slap over human extinction.

Against this backdrop it’s no wonder that recent developments in the Ukraine have been known to cause night terrors. Your author can vouch for this. Last week there was an earthquake in the Bay Area and at the outset I woke up mistaking it for a shock wave from sub-megaton warhead hitting Silicon Valley.

One could posit that what’s happening in Eastern Europe offers a look-see into the nature of the groups that are calling the shots in the United States. Do they care that their destabilization program in Ukraine provokes a nuclear-armed country or enables neo-Nazis to assume vital positions in government[iii]? So far almost 2,600 civilians have been killed in the ongoing humanitarian crisis[iv]. While the corporate press does its best to create the impression of a “shining city upon a hill” which aims to “spread democracy” and conduct “humanitarian intervention[v],” a different sort of world power is clearly visible to those who look carefully.

The appalling savagery of radical groups like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) reflects the appalling savagery of American military incursions[vi]. Or perhaps the collective consciousness of the United States has already forgotten over hundreds thousand dead Iraqi civilians [vii] and the long trail of drone induced “bug-splats[viii].” Ruthless men like Genghis Khan didn’t vanish into history books. Oh no, they’re still around. Some of them are right here in the good old U.S.A. It’s just that they’ve replaced scepters with hand-tailored suits and have traded thrones for seats on corporate boards.


Such men often go unnoticed because they tend to exercise power discreetly, standing behind a veil of propaganda[ix]. For instance Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Steve Coll has called ExxonMobil an “invisible company” thanks to a disciplined and well-funded public relations division[x]. This underscores the fact that the narratives put forth by the press are under the influence of an extensive subversion apparatus that CIA officer Frank Wisner referred to as the Mighty Wurlitzer[xi]. Powerful groups build consensus behind closed doors and then, as Chomsky and Herman explain, coax the rest of society along by manufacturing consent[xii]. Thus enabling what’s known as democratic elitism.

Despite all the filtering that occurs, readers will still, occasionally, get a glimpse of politicians dutifully lining up to kiss the boots of plutocrats[xiii]. Political leaders like Barack Obama and George W. Bush are merely hired help, useful lightning rods who draw our attention away from the men working the levers of power in Washington D.C.

Pluralists contend that we, the voters, own these levers. Published research says otherwise.

Who Are Those Guys?

So just who are the “deciders”? American philosopher John Dewey answered this question in one crisp sentence[xiv]: “Politics is the shadow cast on society by big business.”

A number of sociologists have arrived at the same basic conclusion. For example, back in the 1950s a professor at Columbia named C. Wright Mills described national policy decisions as being forged by a small group of power elite who were bound together by shared class interests. The work of contemporary sociologists like G. William Domhoff[xv] and Peter Phillips[xvi] further substantiate the conclusions of Mills.

It’s alleged that when Franklin D. Roosevelt was in office told labor activists “I agree with you, now go out and make me do it.” blundenWhich, if true, is a reminder that most politicians could care less about genuine social justice and are far more concerned about doing whatever it takes to stay in office.

A natural corollary of this is that lawmakers respond to those groups which are capable of rewarding and punishing them. This is in line with the Investment Theory of Party Competition, a model devised by political scientist Thomas Ferguson. Ferguson’s theory describes the political process as being dominated by corporate interests which coalesce into factions and compete to guide policy. A couple of researchers, Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, have published a paper that offers quantitative validation of Ferguson’s model concluding that[xvii]:

“Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.”

Note the mention of “organized groups” in the previous excerpt. Although political mobilization is typically associated with unions and social movements, Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson explain in their book Winner Take All Politics that corporations have used similar collective strategies to coordinate their efforts and instrument policy changes. The media likes to portray political contests as one individual versus another (as American culture is rooted in the myth of rugged individualism) but it’s more accurate to view political struggle as a form of conflict between organizations. A billionaire like George Soros isn’t just a lone citizen, he represents a small army of people.

Let’s take a look at some of these corporate sets.

Corporate Emperors: The Banks

The late Michael Ruppert once stated that “The CIA is Wall Street. Wall Street is the CIA[xviii].” There’s definitely something to this as the figures responsible for creating the CIA, men like Allen Dulles and John Foster Dulles, were heavily linked to Wall Street[xix]. This is only logical as the global nature of espionage during World War II required people who were steeped in the nuances of international law and trade. Both Allen and John Foster were partners in Sullivan and Cromwell, a Wall Street law firm that remains one of the most profitable legal practices in the world.

Is it any surprise that both subcultures ─spies and bankers─ exhibit indications of being above the law? For example, the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper perjured himself on camera with little or no fallout[xx]. The Director of the CIA outright lied about monitoring the Senate Intelligence Committee and in return received the full backing of POTUS[xxi].

Spies by virtue of their work break laws in other countries on a regular basis. Some intelligence officers become rather adept at it. It would be naïve to think that agencies like the CIA, answering only to the President and shielded by official secrecy, might be tempted to take shortcuts with the legal system here in the United States. Journalist Gary Webb, who investigated the CIA’s connection to drug smuggling, arrived at this conclusion. He committed suicide by shooting himself in the head. Twice[xxii].

Likewise Bank of America was recently fined over $16 billion for mortgage fraud and the company’s stock price jumped 4 percent[xxiii]. The CEO of JPMorgan presided over various scams that resulted in $20 billion worth of fines and, for his trouble, he was awarded a 74 percent raise[xxiv]. No one outside of a few sacrificial lambs like Bernie Madoff is serving jail time. Hunter S. Thompson disciple Matt Taibbi points out the obvious: rule of law has broken down[xxv]:

“In the case of a company like HSBC, which admitted to laundering $850 million for a pair of Central and South American drug cartels, somebody has to go to jail in that case. If you’re going to put people in jail for having a joint in their pocket or for slinging dime bags on the corner in a city street, you cannot let people who laundered $800 million for the worst drug offenders in the world walk.”

In addition to their role in the origins of U.S. intelligence, large financial institutions maintain a special position in the power structure because they’re the primary architects of the West’s economic model, driven by an ideological vision of open markets and accessible resources. As custodians of the world’s reserve currency they work diligently to realize this vision. Bankers have demonstrated the ability to shape history and spur military engagement[xxvi]. When push comes to shove, as we saw during the 2008 financial crisis, they can hold entire economies hostage[xxvii].

This isn’t necessarily surprising given the amount of assets that they have at their disposal. For instance, Richard Fisher of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank has reported that 12 American megabanks control something on the order of 70% of the American banking industry’s assets[xxviii]. Or consider the investment management company BlackRock which holds over $3 trillion in assets[xxix]. This figure is on par with the 2013 U.S. Federal Budget.

Corporate Emperors: Other Sectors

Rivaling the banks are the fossil fuel companies. For example oil monolith ExxonMobil, a corporate descendant of John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, brings in annual revenue on the order of half a trillion dollars.[xxx] Thus making ExxonMobil roughly as big as the economy of Poland.

Over the past two decades the company has spent more than $200 million lobbying on the D.C. beltway[xxxi]. Modern society runs on oil and this translates into a mountain of money and a comparable level of influence. Like the bankers[xxxii], the executives of the fossil fuel industry has the resources to reward those politicians who attend to their needs[xxxiii].

Finally there’s the defense industry and its hi-tech offshoots. This is a sector of the economy that has held sway since the end of World War II, when Charles Wilson, then the president of General Electric, promoted the idea of a permanent war economy[xxxiv]. Not only does the defense industry arm and equip the most powerful military on the planet, whose budget for 2014 is over $500 billion[xxxv], but it also dominates the international arms market. In 2012 the New York Times reported that United States weapons exports were more than 75% of the global market[xxxvi].

Defense companies in the United States sell heavy weaponry to repressive governments in Saudi Arabia[xxxvii], Egypt[xxxviii], and Israel[xxxix]. Business is thriving, enough so that taken in aggregate defense contractors like Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon form a prevalent lobbying force in Washington.

Think of it this way, these are businesses that manufacture the weapons which can level cities. Defense companies are intimately connected to people who wield such weapons both in the government and in the mercenary outfits of the private sector. The defense industry embodies the primeval archetype of unencumbered raw violence, the tip of the imperial spear, the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about as he left office. No one crosses these executives, not even allegedly progressive political candidates who promise “change.”

An Elite Backdoor: The Deep State

How is it that influential corporate factions, with no constitutional authority whatsoever, are able to exercise state power? Congressional staff member Mike Lofgren claims that the corporate elite go through a Deep State[xl]. An extension of the visible state that resides below the surface of the body politic.

The derin devlet, or “deep state”, was a term coined in Turkey to describe a shadow government that existed as an outgrowth of covert operations launched during World War II. It consisted of government officials, spies, and organized crime elements[xli]. The Turkish Deep State served as a means to quash countervailing power centers that threatened the established secular order.

The ongoing instability in Egypt has also revealed the presence of a deep state in that country[xlii]. Powerful interests anchored in the nation’s military and security services have aggressively attacked anyone and anything that represents a threat, as a court ruling which sentenced hundreds of people to execution for the death of a single police officer demonstrates[xliii].

Like Turkey and Egypt, Ukraine also has a deep state. The New York Times describes it as being choreographed by a league of oligarchs[xliv]:

“The ultra-wealthy industrialists wield such power in Ukraine that they form what amounts to a shadow government, with empires of steel and coal, telecoms and media, and armies of workers.”

It’s interesting that although the New York Times openly refers to oligarchs in Ukraine in its headlines, the editors are far more demure in terms of how they refer to the ruling class here in the United States.

The American Deep State, or what Colonel Fletcher Prouty called the Secret Team, is a structural layer of political intermediaries: non-governmental organizations (e.g. National Endowment for Democracy, Ford Foundation), lobbyists (e.g. Chamber of Commerce, AIPAC), media outlets (e.g. Time Warner, News Corp), dark money pits (e.g. Freedom Partners, NRA), and private sector contractors (e.g. Booz Allen, SAIC) that interface with official government organs (CIA, Department of Defense)[xlv]. This layer establishes a series of informal, often secret, backchannels and revolving doors through which profound sources of wealth and power outside of government can purchase influence.

As in Turkey, Egypt, and Ukraine, the American Deep State is a fundamentally anti-democratic apparatus that caters to the agenda of heavily entrenched elites. CIA Officer John Stockwell explains what ties the Deep State together[xlvi]:

“The CIA and the big corporations were, in my experience, in step with each other. Later I realized that they may argue about details of strategy – a small war here or there. However, both are vigorously committed to supporting the system. Corporate leaders fight amongst themselves like people in any human endeavor. They raid and hostilely take over each other’s companies. Losers have been known to commit suicide. However, they firmly believe in the capitalist system”


Looking back at the past two decades, U.S. intervention in the Middle East has failed to “spread democracy” or win the “war on terror.” It has only succeeded in creating more instability, more conflict, and more enemies[xlvii]. After spending $25 billion to equip and train Iraqi security forces[xlviii], our military ends up bombing its own equipment[xlix] to fend off CIA-armed jihadist forces[l] in anticipation of providing even more military aid to the Kurds[li].

One thing is certain: the Middle East is awash with armaments supplied by the United States.

There are those who would argue that this incongruous state of affairs is intentional, that stated claims about WMDs and nurturing democracy are a mere pretext for a more ominous stratagem. More than a decade ago John Stockwell presciently pointed out an unsettling logic, an instance of Hegelian Dialectic where the ruling class creates its own enemies to feed off of the ensuing carnage[lii]:

“Enemies are necessary for the wheels of the U.S. military machine to turn. If the world were peaceful, we would never put up with this kind of ruinous expenditure on arms at the cost of our own lives. This is where the thousands of CIA destabilizations begin to make a macabre kind of economic sense. They function to kill people who never were our enemies-that’s not the problem-but to leave behind, for each one of the dead, perhaps five loved ones who are now traumatically conditioned to violence and hostility toward the United States. This insures that the world will continue to be a violent place, populates with contras and Cuban exiles and armies in Southeast Asia, justifying the endless, profitable production of arms to ‘defend’ ourselves in such a violent world”

The defense industry thrives from regional conflicts like this, a constant stream of flash points in America’s self-perpetuating campaign to eradicate terrorism. The cost for the U.S. military campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan reaches into trillions of dollars and much of that funding ends up covering military expenses[liii]. About a year ago, back when President Obama announced he was thinking about bombing the Assad regime, Raytheon’s stock jumped[liv].

And the defense executives aren’t alone, the fossil fuel industry also extracts its pound of flesh[lv]. It’s the failed state model for neocolonialism[lvi]. Non-nuclear countries that have been ravaged by war are more susceptible to opening their doors and yielding nationalized resources on behalf of corporate pressure. Before the United States invaded Iraq its oil wells weren’t accessible to outside firms. After the invasion Western oil interests like Shell, BP, and ExxonMobil have all gained entry to one of the world’s largest sources of oil[lvii]. In March of 2014, the Wall Street Journal reported that Iraq’s oil output was at its highest point in more than 30 years[lviii].


As perennial conflict abroad is leveraged as a tool of empire, at home it leads to repression. The late Chalmers Johnson, who studied this phenomenon as a professor at UC San Diego, characterized this with the adage “Either give up your empire, or live under it.”

With the public exposure of the NSA’s global surveillance apparatus there are intimations that this process is already underway. In 2005 there were revelations of warrantless wiretapping under President George W. Bush[lix], a story that the New York Times sat on for months[lx]. Then a slew of NSA whistleblowers like Russell Tice[lxi], Thomas Drake[lxii] and William Binney[lxiii] publicly came forward with allegations that the NSA’s monitoring programs were unconstitutional. And in May of 2013 the other shoe dropped when a Booz Allen contractor named Ed Snowden handed over a large set of classified documents[lxiv] to journalists in Hong Kong.

The purpose of the NSA’s panopticon is to further the interests of the corporate elite. In an open letter to Brazil Ed Snowden clearly states as much[lxv]:

“These programs were never about terrorism: they’re about economic spying, social control, and diplomatic manipulation. They’re about power.”

Yet it’s important to keep in mind that the origins of the emerging police state can be traced much farther back[lxvi]. For example, in the late 1960s the Department of Defense conceived Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2, code named Operation Garden Plot, which included “plans to undercut riots and demonstrations” using “information gathered through political espionage and informants.[lxvii]”

In 1971 an instructor for the U.S. Army, a man named Christopher Pyle, revealed that the military had been tracking civilian political activists and demonstrations for several years. A few years later in 1974 Seymour Hersh, writing for the New York Times, exposed a CIA program called CHAOS (aka MCHAOS) which targeted antiwar activists in the United States[lxviii].

Though the trend of militarization is hard to dismiss[lxix], how exactly does military action overseas incite civilian persecution within our borders? George Orwell in his timeless book 1984 provides a succinct explanation:

“War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.”

American society cannot endure perpetual war and maintain a healthy middle class. Especially when plutocrats[lxx] and executives[lxxi] do everything in their power to avoid[lxxii] paying taxes[lxxiii]. The decree of maximizing profit requires them to extract value from the commons and then fail to offer anything in return, to the tune of trillions of dollars a year. Hence the burden of supporting an endless series of bloody military campaigns falls on the rest of us.

So while the public eye is distracted with military shock and awe overseas the middle class fails to grasp its inevitable decline. A captive state strips away civil liberties, divests in social programs, infrastructure, education, and anything else that might help normal people cope as wages stagnate and jobs go offshore. Resources that could be devoted to sustaining and growing the middle class are diverted to the extractive Deep State. The masters of mankind, as Adam Smith referred to them in The Wealth of Nations, witness record profits[lxxiv].


By the end of World War II the United States had replaced Britain as global hegemon. Over the course of the Cold War the one countervailing world power that represented an alternative ideology, the Soviet Union, dissolved. Since German unification NATO has gradually expanded into former Soviet territory (Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Romania, etc.) despite explicit verbal guarantees to Mikhail Gorbachev that it would not[lxxv]. And now the plutocrats standing behind Victoria Nuland want Ukraine. Never mind that Ukraine is a border country which Russian leadership views as vital to their national security.

In 2006 journalist John Pilger spoke with Duane “Dewey” Clarridge, a CIA officer who supervised agency operations in Latin America back in the 1980s. Pilger queried Clarridge as to what gave the CIA the right to overthrow foreign governments, Clarridge responded[lxxvi]: “Like it or lump it, we’ll do what we like. So just get used to it, world.”

There you have it. When they want something they take it. Native Americans can attest to the veracity of this statement. This, dear readers, is the mindset of the ruling class, the true face of empire. Blind ambitious of this sort has always existed. Only now the CIA is up against an adversary that is just as skilled and just as heavily armed (a scenario, by the way, which past U.S. leaders have studiously avoided). Late at night in some far corner of the Pentagon the ghost of Herman Kahn chuckles.

Bill Blunden is an independent investigator whose current areas of inquiry include information security, anti-forensics, and institutional analysis. He is the author of several books, including The Rootkit Arsenal , and Behold a Pale Farce: Cyberwar, Threat Inflation, and the Malware-Industrial Complex. Bill is the lead investigator at Below Gotham Labs.

End Notes


[ii] Louis Menand, “Fat Man: Herman Kahn and the nuclear age,” New Yorker, June 27, 2005,

[iii] Jim Naureckas, “Denying the Far-Right Role in the Ukrainian Revolution,” FAIR, March 7, 2014,

[iv] “Ukraine Crisis Escalates as Russian Forces Cross Border, NATO Moves to Expand in Region,” Democracy Now! August 29, 2014,

[v] “Glenn Greenwald on Iraq: Is U.S. “Humanitarianism” Only Summoned to Control Oil-Rich Areas?” Democracy Now!, August 13, 2014,

[vi] Garry Leech, “The Beheading of James Foley,” Counterpunch, August 22-24, 2014,

[vii] Sabrina Tavernise And Donald G. Mcneil Jr., “Iraqi Dead May Total 600,000, Study Says,” New York Times, October11, 2006,


[ix] Psywar, Directed by Scott Noble, Metanoia Films, 2010,

[x] “ExxonMobil’s Dirty Secrets, from Indonesia to Nigeria to Washington: Steve Coll on ‘Private Empire’,” Democracy Now!, May 7, 2012,

[xi] Wilford, Hugh, The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America, Harvard University Press, 2008.

[xii] Excerpts from Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky interviewed by various interviewers,—-02.htm

[xiii] David Firestone, “The Line to Kiss Sheldon Adelson’s Boots,” New York Times, March 31, 2014,

[xiv] Robert Brett Westbrook, John Dewey and American Democracy, Cornell University Press, 1991, page 440.

[xv] G. William Domhoff, “C. Wright Mills, Power Structure Research, and the Failures of Mainstream Political Science,” New Political Science 29 (2007), pp. 97-114,

[xvi] Peter Phillips, “Inside Bohemian Grove,” Counterpunch, August 13, 2003,

[xvii] Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens,” Perspectives on Politics, Fall 2014,

[xviii] Michael Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil, New Society Publishers, 2004, Chapter 3.

[xix] Stephen Kinzer, The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret World War, Times Books, 2013.

[xx] Glenn Kessler, “James Clapper’s ‘least untruthful’ statement to the Senate,” Washington Post, June 12, 2013,

[xxi] Mark Mazzetti, “Obama Expresses Confidence in CIA Director,” New York Times, August 1, 2014,

[xxii] Sam Stanton, “Reporter’s suicide confirmed by coroner,” Sacramento Bee, December 15, 2004,

[xxiii] Peter Eavis and Michael Corkery, “Bank of America’s $16 Billion Mortgage Settlement Less Painful Than It Looks,” New York Times, August 21, 2014,

[xxiv] James Stewart, “Accounting for Dimon’s Big Jump in Pay,” New York Times, January 31, 2014,

[xxv] “Who Goes to Jail? Matt Taibbi on American Injustice Gap from Wall Street to Main Street,” Democracy Now! April 15, 2014,

[xxvi] Nomi Prins, All the Presidents’ Bankers, Nation Books, 2014,

[xxvii] Michael Kirk, “Inside the Meltdown,” FRONTLINE, February 17, 2009,

[xxviii] Richard W. Fisher, Ending ‘Too Big to Fail’: A Proposal for Reform Before It’s Too Late (With Reference to Patrick Henry, Complexity and Reality), Dallas Federal Reserve, January 16, 2013,

[xxix] Peter Phillips and Kimberly Soeiro, “The Global 1%: Exposing the Transnational Ruling Class,” Project Censored, August 22, 2012,


[xxxi] Top Spenders 1998-2014,,

[xxxii] David Corn, “Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs Problem,” Mother Jones, June 4, 2014,

[xxxiii] Matea Gold, “Koch-backed political network, built to shield donors, raised $400 million in 2012 elections,” Washington Post, January 5, 2014,

[xxxiv] Doug Henwood, “NBC: The GE Broadcasting Co.,” FAIR, November 1, 1989,


[xxxvi] Thom Shanker, “U.S. Arms Sales Make Up Most of Global Market,” New York Times, August 26, 2012,

[xxxvii] Thom Shanker, “U.S. Arms Deal With Israel and 2 Arab Nations Is Near,” New York Times, April 18, 2013,

[xxxviii] Steve Kenny, “Egypt: U.S. to Deliver Helicopters,” New York Times, April 23, 2014,

[xxxix] Jeremy Sharp, “U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel,” Congressional Research Service, April 11, 2014,

[xl] Mike Lofgren, “Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State,” Bill Moyers and Company, February 21, 2014,

[xli] Dexter Filkins, “The Deep State,” New Yorker, March 12, 2012,

[xlii] Sarah Childress, “The Deep State: How Egypt’s Shadow State Won Out,” FRONTLINE, September 17, 2013,

[xliii] David D. Kirkpatrick, “Hundreds of Egyptians Sentenced to Death in Killing of a Police Officer,” New York Times, March 24, 2014,

[xliv] Andrew Kramer, “Ukraine Turns to Its Oligarchs for Political Help,” New York Times, March 2, 2014,


[xlvi] John Stockwell, The Praetorian Guard: The U.S. Role in the New World Order, South End Press, 1999, page 59.

[xlvii] Patrick Cockburn, “Why Washington’s War on Terror Failed,” Counterpunch, August 21, 2014,

[xlviii] Eric Schmitt and Michael Gordon, “The Iraqi Army Was Crumbling Long Before Its Collapse, U.S. Officials Say,” New York Times, June 12, 2014,

[xlix] Jason Fields, “COLUMN-In Iraq, U.S. is spending millions to blow up captured American war machines,” Reuters, August 19, 2014,

[l] C.J. Chivers and Eric Schmitt, “Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A.,” New York Times, March 24, 2013,

[li] Helene Cooper and Alissa Rubin, “Pentagon Says Airstrikes Have Slowed but Not Stopped Sunni Militants,” New York Times, August 11, 2014,

[lii] John Stockwell, The Praetorian Guard: The U.S. Role in the New World Order, South End Press, 1999, page 93.

[liii] Neta Crawford, “U.S. Costs of Wars Through 2014: $4.4 Trillion and Counting,” Boston University, June 25, 2014,

[liv] John Bennett, “Analysts: Spurred by Syria Talk, Raytheon’s Stock Price to Remain High,” Defense News, August 28, 2013,

[lv] Antonia Juhasz, “Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil,” CNN, April 15, 2013,

[lvi] Gilbert Mercier, “Engineering Failed States: The Strategy of Global Corporate Imperialism,” News Junkie Post, February 18, 2014,

[lvii] Dahr Jamail, “Western oil firms remain as US exits Iraq,” Al Jazeera, January 7, 2012,

[lviii] Sarah Kent, “Iraq’s Oil Output Surges to Highest Level in Over 30 Years,” Wall Street Journal, March 14, 2014,

[lix] James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, “Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts,” New York Times, December 16, 2005,

[lx] Michael Kirk & Mike Wiser, “United States of Secrets (Part One): The Program,” Frontline, May 13, 2014,

[lxi] “EXCLUSIVE: National Security Agency Whistleblower Warns Domestic Spying Program Is Sign the U.S. is Decaying Into a ‘Police State’,” Democracy Now! January 3, 2006,

[lxii] Jane Mayer, “The Secret Sharer,” New Yorker, May 23, 2011,

[lxiii] “Exclusive: National Security Agency Whistleblower William Binney on Growing State Surveillance,” Democracy Now! April 20, 2012,


[lxv] Mike Masnick, “Ed Snowden Sends Open Letter To Brazil… Which The Press Blatantly Misrepresents,” Tech Dirt, December 17, 2013,

[lxvi] “Chris Pyle, Whistleblower on Domestic Spying in 70s, Says Be Wary of Attacks on NSA’s Critics,” Democracy Now! June 13, 2013,

[lxvii] Frank Morales, “U.S. Military Civil Disturbance Planning: The War At Home,” Covert Action Quarterly, #69 Spring/Summer 2000,

[lxviii] Seymour Hersh, “Huge CIA Operation Reported in US Against Antiwar Forces, Other Dissidents in Nixon Years,” New York Times, December 22, 1974,

[lxix] ACLU, War Comes Homes, June 2014,

[lxx] David de Jong and Robert LaFranco, “The Super-Rich’s Offshore Tax Avoidance Strategies,” Businessweek, May 2, 2013,

[lxxi] “The Biggest Tax Scam Ever: How Corporate America Parks Profits Overseas, Avoiding Billions in Taxes,” Democracy Now!, August 28, 2014,

[lxxii] Tim Dickinson, “The Biggest Tax Scam Ever,” Rolling Stone, August 27, 2014,

[lxxiii] Zachary Mider, “Tax Dodge Used by Bain Escapes Scrutiny on Inversions,” Bloomberg, August 25, 2014,

[lxxiv] Robin Sidel and Saabira Chaudhuri, “U.S. Bank Profits Near Record Levels,” Wall Street Journal, August 11, 2014,

[lxxv] Peter Beinart, “No, American Weakness Didn’t Encourage Putin to Invade Ukraine,” Atlantic, March 3, 2014,

[lxxvi] John Pilger, “In an Age of ‘Realists’ and Vigilantes,” Counterpunch, September 19, 2013

Recent Updated: 2 years ago - Created by Richard R. Thompson - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - Richard R. Thompson
Flickr sleep walking again
Tags: 1   
The only problem with Barry is that we don't have enough blank checks to write for his Israeli Neocon Terrorist war crimes.

Third-World Neocon America's schools , bridges, healthcare, Medicare, Medicaid and Social security should have already been um...I mean raptured.

So Barry does what he can. Looky, military prison biz has never been hotter in the world's #1 that's the numero uno largest military prison & spy population on Earth....

USA! USA! USA! USA USA!...........

We like totally imprison many more evil black brown and a few white folks than all the prisoners combined in the evil countries like Russia and China dude! USA! USA! USA!.......epic score dude

If anyone is more committed to prisons, bombing and droning folks than Barry Cheney, research scientists are still searching for that guy. (with the initials Hillary Clinton)

Still some alert yet unsportsmanlike American gentiles have begun to suspect that Barry's changes weren't for them. But Hillary will changificate that.

There are unidentified sources (with the initials Bill Clinton) who claim that Hillary is secretly female: Slam dunk Changificator II.

But Israel has caught on. Yep anonymous sources (with the initials Hillary Clinton) have reportedly intimated to certain emperors (with the inititials Adolf Netanyahu) that US taxpayers are still holding out on the chosen Adolf Netanyahu's and Bernie Madoffs.

It takes a village of exceptional Neocons (or settlements)

It just goes to show you how ungrateful the unwashed changificated gentiles can be....

Gentiles are ungrateful to Adolf Netanyahu, Barry, Hillary, Jeb, Dickless Cheney, Mittzy, NJ Lardass, Sheldon Adelson, Lloyd Blankfien, Paul Wolfowitz, Janet Yellen, Victoria Nuland, Alan Greenspan, Harvey Weinstein, Jack Lew, Ben Bernanke, Joe Pimp Biden, Rob Emmanuel, Billy Clinton, Jamie Dimon, Richard Perle, Larry Summers, Robert Rubin, Leviticus, Bernie Madoff, Pet Goat, Diane Fienstien, Bob Mendendez, Barbie Boxer, and Johnny Bomb Iran McCain(s). Gentiles are ungrateful to AIPAC's entire toy congress and toy government of changificators.

It's tough to stand out among such a talented AIPAC Neocon GOPDEM crowd of Israel's domestic and foreign terrorists.

Gentiles are ingrates I tell you. Just think of all the money that they haven't turned over to Israel yet. *********************************************************************************************
Obama Seeks $205 Million for Israel Rocket Shield
By Global Research
Global Research, May 15, 2010
Reuters 13 May 2010

President Barack Obama will ask Congress to provide $205 million to Israel to spur production and deployment of a new short-range rocket defense system, administration officials said on Thursday.

Produced by Israeli state-owned Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd., Iron Dome uses small radar-guided missiles to blow up Katyusha-style rockets with ranges of between 5 kilometers (3 miles) and 70 kilometer (45 miles), as well as mortar bombs, in mid-air.

Its development was spurred by the 2006 conflict in Lebanon with Hezbollah and the Gaza Strip war against Hamas a year ago. In both cases, Israeli towns within reach of short-range rockets were in some respects defenseless.

“The president recognizes the threat missiles and rockets fired by Hamas and Hezbollah pose to Israelis, and has therefore decided to seek funding from Congress to support the production of Israel’s short range rocket defense system called Iron Dome,” White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said.

Two Iron Dome batteries are under construction, an Israeli defense official said in February. Designed to be towed by vehicle, they will be available for any Israeli front at a few hours’ notice.

Bryan Whitman, Pentagon spokesman, said it was the first direct U.S. investment in the Iron Dome system.

“This funding will expand what they can produce and deploy, and how quickly they’re able to do it,” he said.

The decision was made to pour funds into the system after U.S. officials observed tests last fall, officials said.

The money comes on top of annual U.S. assistance to Israel.

According to the State Department, U.S. military aid to Israel in 2009 totaled $2.55 billion. This will increase to $3 billion in 2012, and will total $3.15 billion a year from 2013 to 2018.

(Reporting by Adam Entous and Caren Bohan; Editing by Xavier Briand)

Recent Updated: 2 years ago - Created by Richard R. Thompson - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - Richard R. Thompson
Flickr fresh snow dusting on Rinker Peak -breakfast view en route up canyon

Blackwater is Wall Street's Crime Junta enforcer like Smallpox. The Blackwater-Z Murder For Hire Corporation is so helpful that it now owns its Wall Street crime congress, and toy presidents: Pure parasites of deficit taxpaid murder helpfulness.

It's patriotic tax paid murderer cult has come home to roost. Its murderers rest on its toy congress and president ATMs' doorsteps. They persuade its deficit tax paid congress to unleash high paying privatized murder coups in Ukraine, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela wherever murder spoils and oil await Wall Street terrorist billionaires worldwide.

Wall Street's Israeli billionaires are the "holocaust survivors" like Sheldon Adleson, Lloyd Blankfein, Michael Bloomberg, Victoria Nuland, Janet Yellen, Alan Greenspan, Bernie Madoff, and Jamie Dimon.

Blackwater murder services are sometimes called privateering. That's a euphemism describing the joint corporate-government crime system. Also see Fascism.

Those are Wall Street's invasions of multinational corporation takeover targets for "freedom" and "strategic interests" The interests are publicly tax paid wars yielding privatized fortunes to corporate military criminals.

Corporate congress can't refuse Blackwater's offer...the tasty terrorist menu of murder & destabilize services.

Wall Street's Blackwater killer lobbyists can pay very persuasive visits to its corporate congress, and their pig kids. Congress best not disappoint Blackwater(s).

Blackwater is forming its own Supreme Mafia Court of corporate citizens. Blackwater now appoints its new supreme corporate citizens in the venerated killer capitalist tradition of The Cosa Nostra ergo Mafia. They are terrorist (CIA-Mossad) funded from its supplicant congress ATM's dispensing tax money to kill and steal. Patriot stuff.

Business is great! Cheneybama addresses its graduating West Point murder cadets as "Exceptionalists with every fiber of Chenybama's being." Jiggy stuff.

Today's Blackwater uncorks deregulated liberty for the job creator holocaust survivors of Wall Street and for Blackwater-toy-congress invading others' countries worldwide.

In less sophisticated times, Americans used to call the teams of organized murderers "gangsters." But today's chic Blackwater Killer Corporation(s) are media's star-spangled heroes! They deliver tons of worldwide capitalist freedom blasted full-auto from barrels of many many guns.

So it's The 4th of July and Hanukkah every day in Iraq and Ukraine!...wherever CIA-Mossad-Wall Street dispatch helpful Blackwater corporate financial innovators. They are surefire ambassadors of Exxon-Goldman freedom like Pol Pot, Hitler, Bernie Maddoff and Tony Soprano.

Their rocket's red glare and bombs bursting in the air over dead people has never been more lucrative.

Why not buy your insistent toddler a Glock to unleash his/her awesome Blackwater liberty? That kid is ready for you. Do it for freedom, truth, liberty and all that other stuff. It's liberating.

He and she can become the koolest Blackwater kid. imagine their celebrity splash from murdering dozens of school kids if you're lucky...if you lernt em rat! totally Christian soldiers dude. That's murder job security.

Like all capitalist real American corporations, Blackwater Killer Corp. is no threat to you while you still pay them (taxes) whatever they demand from congress for their freedom to murder, truth, liberty and for the rest of that crap worldwide.

How can you not salute someones' kid with a gun and the flag of goodness aimed at you? That's real capitalism at its exciting best like Mexico's drug lords, delivering real capitalist freedom for the real Americans-corporations.

Blackwater is capitalism's awesome power unleashed - financial innovation mobilized straight at you and your pocket.

Congratulations geniuses. -RT

***********************************************************************************July 02, 2014

A Silence on Atrocities
USG Intimidated by Its Own Mercenaries

Even the mightiest have their come-uppance when their internal logic spews out destructiveness returning on the self—“blowback” in a way perhaps not seen before. I refer to James Risen’s extraordinary article in the New York Times, “Before Shooting in Iraq, a Warning on Blackwater,” (June 30), in which the customary meaning of “blowback” refers to policies, e.g., the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the confrontation with Russia over Ukraine, the “pivot” of military power to the Pacific intent on the encirclement, containment, isolation of China, produce unintended, or if intended, still unwelcome, consequences for the initiator of the policy or action.

Thus: Iraq, out-of-control (from the US standpoint, a raging civil war negating massive intervention and alerting the world to America’s hegemonic purposes); Afghanistan, original support of the Taliban against the Soviet Union, resulting in their material strengthening now turned against the US, endangering its power-position in the region; use of Ukraine as a basis for bringing NATO forces to the Russian border, now an overreach which may disrupt the EU and weaken US dominance over it; and blatant confrontation with China, both military and trade, with potential for war leading to nuclear annihilation. The status and role of world policeman is losing its blackjack, its reputation as global bully being challenged through the rise of multiple power-centers and industrial-commercial-financial patterns no longer defined, supervised, indeed controlled, by American global interests and military implementation.

That is blowback in its familiar guise. Less so, the self-chosen instruments of repression spilling out of behemoth’s mouth because America’s dependence on repression to secure its aims makes it dependent as well on the executors of repression, in this case, given the extreme stress on privatization (the core of the monster’s functional existence), Blackwater at your service, a private army on hire to USG for pursuit of the dirty work, deemed necessary, yet, delegated to official forces, the cause of embarrassment and shame. Browbeating indigenous populations, with an overwhelming swagger and display in the grand tradition of conquerors, in addition to protecting representatives of the conquerors, is a mission worthy, as here, of billion dollar contracts to the private militias (euphemism: “security guards”) as insurance the military victory and occupation will hold.

Here Blackwater is, and is treated as, inseparable from the intervention (read: conquest) itself, at times assisting in the fighting on an informal basis—it has not yet been invited to join NATO(!)—but more to the point, the intimidating presence in the post-military phase, as though instilling the message: You Iraqis think the military is bad, well don’t mess around, for far worse awaits you, we former Navy SEALS know nothing can touch us. Our motto might as well be, A Law Unto Ourselves, even USG—beyond the status-of-forces agreement it forced your government to sign—afraid of us. Blowback: the cancer in the bowels of behemoth rapidly spreading to the extremities, spinal column, brain. Soon we shall all be made over in the image of Blackwater, or rather, as Blackwater would like to see, as its actions show, America become, a nation subservient to its thugs, extolling martial glory for its own sake and for the sake of global dominance. Authoritarianism once off the ground knows no limits and demands the complete adherence of its subjects. America has lived with CIA for decades; Blackwater is icing on the cake.


Before turning to the evidence contained in James Risen’s article, it is important to see how events from the past are converging on the present. His credentials as a whistleblower are borne out by his previous record (exposure of CIA dirty tricks, in his book State of War, with respect to Iran’s nuclear program) and current circumstances (he faces a possible jail sentence for refusing to disclose, from that account, the identity of an anonymous source). In the Bush doghouse for exposing the use of warrantless wire taps in 2005, and now, Obama contemplating more serious action, jail time for not complying with a DOJ subpoena, possibly leading to an Espionage Act prosecution, for which Obama excels over all of his predecessors combined (liberals, of course, furiously denying the sordid record), Risen not only stares down his persecutors, Obama, Holder, DOJ, but here presents an exposure in some ways more damning of US baseness from the top down, nurturing a murderous nest in the structure of government.

As for the administration hounding, Jonathan Mahler’s New York Times article, “Reporter’s Case Poses Dilemma for Justice Dept.,” (June 27), implies that Risen’s refusal to be intimidated is causing Obama and Holder second thoughts about pushing for his imprisonment. According to John Rizzo, CIA’s acting general counsel, Bush people wanted State of War kept off the market—too late, however. Risen then was subpoenaed to testify against the suspected leaker—and refused. “More than six years of legal wrangling,” in what Mahler terms “the most serious confrontation between the government and the press in recent history,” is coming to a head. Risen “is now out of challenges. Early this month, the Supreme Court declined to review his case, a decision that allows prosecutors to compel his testimony.”

But The Times, in defending its own man, cannot strongly protest, lest it antagonize the White House. Yes, Obama appears to be in a bind: “Though the court’s decision looked like a major victory for the government, it has forced the Obama administration to confront a hard choice. Should it demand Mr. Risen’s testimony and be responsible for a reporter’s being sent to jail? Or reverse course and stand down, losing credibility with an intelligence community that has pushed for the aggressive prosecution of leaks?” If Obama and USG were truly democratic (small “d”), there should not be a choice but only one course of action, moreover reigning in the “intelligence community” serving under their control.

The reporter, I believe reflecting the paper’s view, however, credits the Obama administration with actually weighing alternatives and being capable of making moral choices: “The dilemma comes at a critical moment for an administration that has struggled to find a balance between aggressively enforcing laws against leaking and demonstrating concern for civil liberties and government transparency.” What balance? What concern? Everything points the other way, on both civil liberties (e.g., due process and habeas corpus rights for detainees) and government transparency (simply, a thick protective shield in place, symbolized by the high art of redaction—and, as with Blackwater’s killing sprees, the refusal or half-heartedness about prosecution). Its reporter’s back against the wall, NYT ignores the Espionage Act prosecutions of whistleblowers.

Mahler succinctly describes the reporting: “The failed C.I.A. action at the heart of Mr. Risen’s reporting was intended to sabotage Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Intelligence officials assigned a former Russian scientist who had defected to the United States to deliver a set of faulty blueprints for a nuclear device to an Iranian scientist. But the Russian scientist became nervous and informed the Iranians that the plans were flawed.” One readily appreciates the dangers to the National Security State, especially revelations of the stupidity and dangerousness of its crown jewel, CIA, posed by investigative journalism. The Times, to its everlasting shame, bowed to Coldoleezza Rice’s request to withhold publication of the article. As a Times spokesperson later declared, “We weighed the government’s concerns and the usual editorial considerations and decided not to run the story.” Hence, James Risen—enemy of National Security; he “broke the story” later in State of War. Yet Bush is not the only culprit in this story; Obama ordered two additional subpoenas to force Risen to testify, his DOJ going after him hammer-and-tongs: “After a trial court largely quashed his third subpoena [the first under Bush] in late 2010, the Justice Department successfully challenged the ruling in a federal appeals court, arguing that the First Amendment does not afford any special protections to journalists.” Enough said about the dedication to civil liberties and freedom of the press: “The administration then urged the Supreme Court not to review Mr. Risen’s case.”


I have already discussed the mass killings in Nisour Square, Baghdad, in a previous article. Now we learn that this was part of a pattern in Blackwater’s behavior—again, Risen’s reporting. Even for one who is a seasoned critic, it is painful for me to write about. Organized thuggery knows no limits particularly when working for the highest authority, immunity from punishment worn as a badge of honor, as meanwhile government officials hide their eyes. Risen writes, “Just weeks before Blackwater guards fatally shot 17 civilians in Baghdad’s Nisour Square in 2007, the State Department began investigating the security contractor’s operations in Iraq. But the inquiry was abandoned after Blackwater’s top manager there issued a threat: ‘that he could kill’ the government’s chief investigator and ‘no one could or would do anything about it as we were in Iraq,’ according to department reports.” A private contractor threatens the life of a State Department investigator! No reprisal, punishment, cancellation of the contract, not even disclosure of the threat—yet Blackwater still in place years later, as part of the silence on atrocities in the Obama-Hillary era.

Those 17 killed are on America’s hands, bloody hands. There was a clear warning about what to expect: “After returning to Washington, the chief investigator wrote a scathing report to State Department officials documenting misconduct by Blackwater employees and warning that lax oversight of the company, which had a contract worth more than $1 billion to protect American diplomats, had created ‘an environment full of liability and negligence.’” Even more outrageous, Risen notes, the investigators become the criminals gumming up the security works: “American Embassy officials in Baghdad sided with Blackwater rather than the State Department investigators as a dispute over the probe escalated in August 2007, the previously undisclosed documents show. The officials told the investigators that they had disrupted the embassy’s relationship with the security contractor and ordered them to leave the country, according to the reports.”

Jean Richter, lead investigator, wrote, in a memo to the State Department only weeks prior to Nisour Square: “’The management structures in place to manage and monitor our contracts in Iraq have become subservient to the contractors themselves. Blackwater contractors saw themselves as above the law…. ‘hands off’ [management meant that] the contractors, instead of Department officials, are in command and in control.’” Now, nearly seven years later, four Blackwater guards are on trial, facing, if ever convicted, watered down charges, this being “ the government’s second attempt to prosecute the case in an American court [I wonder how serious the effort under Holder and Obama] after previous charges against five guards were dismissed in 2009.” Much of the time this is on Obama’s watch, yet, “despite a series of investigations in the wake of Nisour Square, the back story of what happened with Blackwater and the embassy in Baghdad before the fateful shooting has never been fully told.”

So much for transparency, civil liberties, and prosecuting the crimes of a predecessor (the cardinal rule of presidents, at least this one, cover-up WAR CRIMES past and present, a solemn command of the National Security State). Silence and deniability, in all matters large and small, characterize the responses of USG and private principals: “The State Department declined to comment on the aborted investigation. A spokesman for Erik Prince, the founder and former chief executive of Blackwater, who sold the company in2010, said Mr. Prince had never been told about the matter.” The $1B contract itself testifies to the fusion of patriotism, secrecy, repression, and yes, corporate profit: “After Mr. Prince sold the company, the new owners named it Academi. In early June, it merged with Triple Canopy, one of its rivals for government and commercial contracts to provide private security. The new firm is called Constellis Holdings.” Like war, private security stands to make a killing (pardon the pun), no doubt in flight from the original name for damage-control and public-relations purposes.

Previous to Nisour Square (Sept. 16, 2007) Blackwater guards “acquired a reputation…for swagger and recklessness,” but complaints “about practices ranging from running cars off the road to shooting wildly in the streets and even killing civilians typically did not result in serious action by the United States or the Iraqi government.” After firing in the Square, there was closer scrutiny, the Blackwater claim that they were fired on even US military officials denied, and “[f]ederal prosecutors later said Blackwater personnel had shot indiscriminately with automatic weapons, heavy machine guns and grenade launchers.” To no avail, given the symbiotic relationship between the company and the government. In fact, Blackwater had itself been run by Prince as a nation in microcosm, its people shortly before Nisour Square gathered by him at company headquarters in Moyock, North Carolina and made to “swear an oath of allegiance” like the one required of enlistees in the US military. They were handed copies of the oath, which, after reciting the words, were told to sign.

The State Department investigation into Blackwater in Iraq, which began Aug. 1, 2007 and was slated for one month, led early to the “volatile” situation (including the death threat), our knowledge coming from “internal State Department documents” furnished “to plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Blackwater that was unrelated to the Nisour Square shootings,” seemingly by accident then and fleshed out by Risen. In that month—or that part of it before being forced to leave– the investigators discovered “a long list of contract violations by Blackwater,” staffing changes of security details “without State Department approval,” reducing the number of guards on details, “storing automatic weapons and ammunition in their private rooms, where they were drinking heavily and partying with frequent female visitors,” and, for many, failing “to regularly qualify on their weapons” or “carrying weapons on which they had never been certified” nor “authorized to use.” Extravagance for mayhem abroad, less than peanuts for critical needs at home, education, health care, employment, beyond the means or reach of Imperial grandeur as the national obsession.

In addition to “overbilling the State Department by manipulating its personnel records, using guards assigned to the State Department contract for other work and falsifying other staffing data on the contract,” (no wonder the investigators’ poor reception by Blackwater’s resident head in Iraq), one of its affiliates forced “third country nationals” who did the dirty work at low wages “to live in squalid conditions, sometimes three to a cramped room with no bed,” according to the investigators’ report. Their conclusion: “Blackwater was getting away with such conduct because embassy personnel had gotten too close to the contractor.”

Ah, the denouement; we have a name to go with the face of the project manager who threatened Richter’s life, Daniel Carroll, who said he could kill him without anything happening to himself “as we were in Iraq” (this was witnessed by Donald Thomas, the other investigator), and Richter, in his memo to the Department stated: “I took Mr. Carroll’s threat seriously. We were in a combat zone where things can happen unexpectedly, especially when issues involve potentially negative impacts on a lucrative security contract.” Nicely put, and corroborated by Thomas, who wrote in a separate memo that “others in Baghdad had told the two investigators to be ‘very careful,’ considering that their review could jeopardize job security for Blackwater personnel.” The wonder perhaps is that Richter and Thomas were not prosecuted under the Espionage Act for spoiling the show. It didn’t matter. No one at State listened.

The two men were ordered to leave (Aug 23), and “cut short their inquiry and returned to Washington the next day.” Finally, on Oct. 5, after the Nisour Square scandal, State Department officials responded to Richter’s “August warning,” and took statements from him and Thomas about “their accusations of a threat by Mr. Carroll, but took no further action.” A special panel convened by Rice on Nisour Square “never interviewed Mr. Richter or Mr. Thomas.” The official who led the panel “told reporters on Oct. 23, 2007, that the panel had not found any communications from the embassy in Baghdad before the Nisour Square shooting that raised concerns about contractor conduct.” Voila, vanished in thin air. This State Department officer deserves the last word: “We interviewed a large number of individuals. We did not find any, I think, significant pattern of incidents that had not—that the embassy had suppressed in any way.” And my last word: fascism. Beyond all structural-cultural-societal considerations about wealth-concentration, industrial-financial consolidation, foreign expansion through preponderant power and the spirit of militarism, the rampaging privatization with government consent witnessed here, which has wreaked havoc on another people, only to be covered over by the state, aka, the National Security State, disregarding its Constitutional protections to the individual, as in sponsoring massive surveillance, is enough for me to satisfy the working definition of that single word.

Norman Pollack has written on Populism. His interests are social theory and the structural analysis of capitalism and fascism.

Recent Updated: 2 years ago - Created by Richard R. Thompson - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - Richard R. Thompson

Lt. Col. Gordon Tall: [narration] All they sacrificed for me. Poured out like water on the ground. All I might have given for love's sake. Too late. Dying. Slow as a tree.

Brigadier General Quintard: [all is quiet] You feel it?

Lt. Col. Gordon Tall: Yes sir.

Lt. Col. Gordon Tall: [narration] The closer you are to Caesar, the greater the fear. _________The Thin Red Line screenplay by Terrance Malik
***********************************************************************************Today's GOPDEM heroes are taking stock of notorious traitor and former Commander of Allied Forces and President of The former United States of America: Dwight D. Eisenhower.

The heroes conclude that Dwight was in fact both a whistleblower and secret Russian Hitler agent. GOPDEM's Viceroy and Godfather in Chief James Clapper announced yesterday that a special Wall Street Select Subcommittee has now been convened in order to deal with The Commie Hitler Traitor Dwight D. Eisenhower post mortem.

Unnamed sources at Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan , with the initials Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon, indicate that the gentile traitor and top-Goyim Eisenhower will suffer the fate of similar spy traitors like Ed Snowden, Sir Thomas Moore, Daniel Ellsberg, Julian Assange, Michael Hastings and Jesus of Nazereth: Dwight is to be expunged from history for his seditious acts against Israel's West Bank Kochghanistan former USA.

Another unnamed source with the initials David Koch also says that "Eisenhower was undoubtedly the single greatest threat to job creators, to today's holocaust survivors and a bummer for all real Americans in the very most damaging ways."

Now we can only wonder why Dwight D. Eisenhower hated freedom and hated Kochghanistan the way that he did. Most obvious was Eisenhower's indisputable declaration of his profound hatred for all that is former America today. Eisenhower openly declared that hatred for today's Kochghanistan in his presidential farewell address January 16, 1961.

Recently a team of top research scientists from the University of Helsinki , Finland reported that dead US President John F. Kennedy privately shared President Eisenhowers's traitorous hate for Kochghanistan. But alert readers will be relieved that President Kennedy's rising threat to The Federal Reserve Counterfeiting Bar Mitzvah Tribe was carefully neutralized.

President Cheneybama now indicates that he has dispatched a team of special military advisers to Abilene, Kansas. There his team of advisers will study ways to torch the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Library honoring the anniversary of The 911 September 11, 2001 Liberation of Kochghanistan from the former US Constitution.

A torchlight ceremony honoring the fallen heroes of Halliburton, Blackwater and Mossad is planned for that evening. The guest speaker will be Emperor of Exxon's Universe Ben Bibi Netanyahu with introductions by Dick Cheney.

The evening's headline entertainment will be The Jamie Dimon Dancers and SnoopDawg provided courtesy of Teva Pharmaceutical of Tel Aviv Inc.

Tickets available wherever pharmaceuticals and personal data are sold.


“An Immense Military Establishment”: Eisenhower’s Worst Fears Have Been Realized…
By Washington's Blog
Global Research, June 27, 2014
Washington's Blog and Global Research 20 January 2011
Region: USA
Theme: Culture, Society & History, US NATO War Agenda

Eisenhower’s Worst Fears Have Been Realized...

This article was first published by Washington Blog and Global Research on January 21, 2011

President Eisenhower’s warned us about the growing threat from the powerful military-industrial complex – and it’s threat to our prosperity – 50 years ago.

As NPR notes:

On Jan. 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower gave the nation a dire warning about what he described as a threat to democratic government. He called it the military-industrial complex, a formidable union of defense contractors and the armed forces.

Eisenhower, a retired five-star Army general, the man who led the allies on D-Day, made the remarks in his farewell speech from the White House.


Eisenhower used the speech to warn about “the immense military establishment” that had joined with “a large arms industry.”

Here’s an excerpt:

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.”


Eisenhower was worried about the costs of an arms race with the Soviet Union, and the resources it would take from other areas — such as building hospitals and schools.


Another concern … was the possibility that as the military and the arms industry gained power, they would be a threat to democracy, with civilians losing control of the military-industrial complex.

Eisenhower also said:

Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

As James Ledbetter wrote in the New York Times last month:

It is not a stretch to believe that this armaments industry — which profits not only from domestic sales but also from tens of billions of dollars in annual exports — manipulates public policy to perpetuate itself. But Eisenhower was concerned about more than just the military’s size; he also worried about its relationship to the American economy and society, and that the economy risked becoming a subsidiary of the military.


Eisenhower warned that the influence of the military-industrial complex was “economic, political, even spiritual” and that it was “felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government.” He exhorted Americans to break away from our reliance on military might as a guarantor of liberty and “use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.”

On this score, Eisenhower may well have seen today’s America as losing the battle against the darker aspects of the military-industrial complex. He was no pacifist, but he was a lifelong opponent of what he called a “garrison state,” in which policy and rights are defined by the shadowy needs of an all-powerful military elite.

The United States isn’t quite a garrison state today. But Eisenhower would likely have been deeply troubled, in the past decade, by the torture at Abu Ghraib, the use of martial authority to wiretap Americans without warrants and the multiyear detention of suspects at Guantánamo Bay without due process.

Finally, even if the economy can bear the immediate costs of the military, Eisenhower would be shocked at its mounting long-term costs. Most of the Iraq war expenses were paid for by borrowing, and Americans will shoulder those costs, plus interest, for many years to come.

A strong believer in a balanced budget, Eisenhower in his farewell address also told Americans to “avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow.” Too many of today’s so-called fiscal conservatives conveniently overlook the budgetary consequences of military spending.

The Independent pointed out Monday:

If you doubt, half a century on, that Dwight Eisenhower had it right, then consider the advertisements on WTOP, the Washington region’s all-news radio station. Every big metro area in the US has one, where car dealerships tout their bargains, and fast food chains promote a new special offer.

WTOP has all that. But it boasts other advertisers too, with names such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics.


These almost otherworldly ads, with patriotic music playing softly in the background, are aimed at a very restricted audience: the government that is their only customer for such wares. For the rest of us, they are proof that in the capital of the world’s richest democracy, the defence industry is a very big player indeed.


Adjusted for inflation, US national security spending has more than doubled since Eisenhower left office. Year after year, the defence budget seems to rise – irrespective of whether the country is actually fighting major wars, regardless of the fact that the Soviet Union, the country’s former global adversary, has ceased to be, and no matter which party controls the White House and Congress.

One common thread however exists: the military-industrial complex, or perhaps (as Eisenhower himself described it in a draft of his speech that was later amended) the military-industrial-congressional complex. Others have referred to the beast as the “Iron Triangle”.

In one corner of the triangle stands the arms industry. The second is constituted by the government, or more precisely the Pentagon, the end-consumer of the industry’s output. In a totalitarian state, such as the Soviet Union, that combination would be sufficient. The US however is a democracy, and a third corner is required – an elected legislature to vote funds to pay for the arms. This is Congress, made up of members who rely on the defence industry for many jobs in their states and districts, and for money to help finance their every more expensive re-election campaigns.


A treasure trove of old documents, covered with dirt and pine needles and discovered last year at a cabin in Minnesota once owned by Eisenhower’s chief speechwriter Malcolm Moos, reveals that the 34th president had been working on the speech since mid-1959. It went through at least 21 drafts; in a later one, the “congressional” reference was struck out because, it is supposed, Ike did not want to upset old friends on Capitol Hill. But the “military” part was there from the outset.


In reality, the dangers of Eisenhower’s “military-industrial complex” are not new; from the earliest days of the Republic, political leaders have warned of them. “Overgrown military establishments,” George Washington said in his own farewell address of 1796, “are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty.”


Once again, one might note, Eisenhower hit the mark in January 1961. Back then, budgets were more or less balanced, and the possibilities of the future seemingly boundless. Even so he urged his countrymen to “avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow“. That of course is what has happened with the “credit card” wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, whose costs will burden American taxpayers for years to come.

As the director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundationtold Democracy Now today, the big defense contractors “recycle our money into the political system”. He pointed to one example:

[The Lockheed companies] spend about $12 million per election cycle, either on lobbying or on candidates. And they have people like Buck McKeon, who runs the Armed Services Committee now. They’re the biggest donor to him. They’re the biggest donor to Daniel Inouye, who runs the Appropriations Committee in the Senate.

And investment legend Jeremy Grantham’s most recent newsletter argues that President Eisenhower’s worst fear have come true, and makes some hard-hitting points about finance and government as well:

Historians may well look back on this period, say, from 1960 on, as the “Selfish Era” – a time when individualism and materialism steadily took precedence over social responsibility. (To be fair, in the period from 1960 to 1980, the deterioration was slow, and the social contract dating back to the mid-1930s was more or less intact.) Personal debt grew slowly at first but steadily accelerated, even though it can be easily demonstrated that consumers collectively are better off saving to buy and that the only beneficiary of a heavy debt society is the financial industry, whose growth throughout this period was massive, multiplying its share of a growing pie by a remarkable 2.2 times…

The financial industry, with its incestuous relationships with government agencies, runs a close second to the energy industry. In the last 10 years or so, their machine, led by the famously failed economic consultant Alan Greenspan – one of the few businessmen ever to be laughed out of business – seemed perhaps the most effective. It lacks, though, the multi-decadal attitude-changing propaganda of the oil industry. Still, in finance they had the “regulators,” deregulating up a storm, to the enormous profit of their industry. Even with the biggest-ever financial fiasco, entirely brought on by the collective incompetence they produced (“they” being the financial regulators and the financial industry leaders working together in some strange, would-be symbiotic relationship), reform is still difficult. Even with everyone hating them, the financial industry comes out smelling like a rose with less competition, profits higher than ever, and not just too big to fail, but bigger still.

Other industries, to be sure, are in there swinging: insurance and health care come to mind, but they seem like pikers in comparison. No, it’s energy and finance in coequal first place, military-related companies an honorable third, and the rest of the field not even in contention. And now, adding the icing to the corporate cake, we have the Supreme Court. Formerly the jewel in the American Crown, they have managed to find five Justices capable of making Eisenhower’s worst nightmare come true. They have put the seal of approval on corporate domination of politics, and done so in a way that can be kept secret. The swing-vote Senator can now be sand-bagged by a vicious advertising program on television, financed by unknown parties, and approved by no stockholders at all!

All in all it appears that Eisenhower’s worst fears have been realized and his remarkable and unique warnings given for naught. From now on, we should tread more carefully. Honoring President Eisenhower’s unique warnings, we should perhaps not take this 50-year slide lying down. Squawking loudly seems preferable.

Recent Updated: 2 years ago - Created by Richard R. Thompson - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - Richard R. Thompson
Flickr tree by my window

It is crucial that you do not disagree with the 911 military junta that murdered 3000+ Americans on 911.

They are the exceptional crime junta operating Saudi employees that loot you and the world using CIA-Mossad's self-inflicted 911 terror pretext. That is OPEC-Texas-CIA-Israeli joint strategic interest.

The planet six inches beyond Israel's New York Times already knows. The Stasi AIPAC-PNAC 4th Reich triumphed over looted former USA.

Its media is understandably modest. Staying modest keeps things smooth. The strategic interests of multinational war corporations are wholesome like Bernie Maddoff. The criminal Wall Street military media pronounces itself humbly "heroic."

You had better agree with that military of deficit taxpaid heroes, your mercenary diseased sons and daughters join the treasons. They march towards Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon's next billions in bonuses called "god's work" defrauding US taxpayers.

They march for OPEC-Texas-Wall Street-Saud-Israel multinational terrorist corporation allegiance. We supplicants also pledge allegiance to their Federal Reserve Bar Mitzvah Counterfeit Cash Tribe of planetary corporate gangster strategic interests.

With spy, torture and invasion employment, your kiddies do not need to physically break into your home, only into your Iphone, conversations, computer, letters, auto, GPS, TV, street corners and bank accounts. Dissent from their Exceptionalism only leads to prison, anthrax envelopes from CIA and to unfortunate (yet patriotic) car explosions.

Their ATF-Homeland-SWAT-Blackwater contract killers or
The 101st Airborne Division from Ft Bragg North Carolina
- or other humanitarians aided by local police will only break into your house on-call from Lloyd Blankfein or Dick Cheney or Chenybama or Hillary...or their assigns across militarized Kochghanistan.

So stay calm.

Do not worry. Nobody will be alive to contradict Wall Street's kiddie heroes after they carefully fire a warning shot into your temple. Media will be sure to feature the gun that they procedurally planted in your dead hand.

Your deficit taxpaid murder kiddies merely defend themselves for freedom proforma. Waaaaaaay Kool.

Their freedom is waging war against the US Constitution in serial treasons against Americans. Theirs is self anointed exceptionalism. And doggone it you gotta admire their taxpaid techie weapons, black uniforms and Swat gear aimed at you: -RT
************************************************************************************Pentagon Funds “Cold War-Style” Science Study to Track Political Protest in America
By Shawn Helton
Global Research, June 19, 2014
21st Century Wire 18 June 2014
Region: USA
Theme: Intelligence, Police State & Civil Rights

pentagon war on Amercians

The Pentagon along with the Minerva Research Initiative, appears to have resuscitated and partially reconstituted a 60′s Cold War-era social science program used to detect political protest…

The controversial program called Project Camelot had been operational nearly a decade into the Vietnam war, as the Special Operations Research Office (SORO) located at American University had received millions in funding from the US Army to conduct a six country study on civil unrest. The current social science program directed by Minerva and the Department of Defense (DoD), appears to have also partnered with some of the most well-known universities in the United States by studying the behavior of peaceful activism and how political ideology shapes protest movements in the world at large.

The Minerva Research Initiative has been conducting its studies with the sponsorship of the Department of Defense and its university partners since 2010. This new program has prompted a rebirth of the militarization of social science and in the process has undoubtedly opened a floodgate of ethical concerns. The creation of this partnership was born out of a speech by former Secretary of Defense as well as past Director of the CIA, Robert Gates. In April of 2008, Gates delivered a speech at the Association of American Universities, there he provided a vague outline for research that worked in conjunction with academia and other Pentagon affiliated agencies such as the DoD :

“What we are considering is based to some degree on the success we had in the Cold War. During that period, we built up the Department of Defense’s – and the nation’s – intellectual capital with new research centers such as RAND and new mechanisms like, as I mentioned, the National Defense Education Act. With the Minerva initiative, we envision a consortia of universities that will promote research in specific areas. These consortia could also be repositories of open-source documentary archives. The Department of Defense, perhaps in conjunction with other government agencies, could provide the funding for these projects.”

Global policy think-tanks like the RAND corporation and laws such as the National Defense Education Act (NDEA), are hardly anything new as RAND was founded in 1948 and the NDEA was put into law in 1958. The RAND corporation has been linked to many risky and paranoid-driven creations during the height of the Cold War, with strategy based analysis born out of “suspicion and self-interest” which was personified in their vision of Game Theory, which was used to predict a possible nuclear conflict by gauging a series of mathematical models on Soviet behavior. One of RAND corporation’s most well-known Mathematician’s John Nash, applied this theory ruthlessly and suggested that could be used for other dark purposes as those engaged in the theory could also betray one another if necessary resorting to some type of subterfuge. RAND had developed a network of so-called field experts, such as political scientists, social psychologists and anthropologists to oversee many of its most pressing projects.

The National Defense Education Act was passed with a distrustful affidavit that stated that all beneficiaries of the law disclaim a belief to overthrow the US government. That portion of the law was later repealed by President Kennedy in 1962.

The US federal government has long since been wary of its perception in the eyes of the public and has used historical happenings such as the Cold War or the War on Terror as devices to quell any criticism of foreign or domestic policy. One has gotten the impression over the last half century or more, that the West must engage in a perpetual war with an ever-changing enemy, at all costs to restore humanity – this is the ultimate ploy to convince the next wave of youthful statists.

IMAGE: ‘Draped in Black’ – Robert Gates Secretary of Defense from 2006-2011 and former Director and Deputy Director of the CIA during much of the 80′s. Gates has taken heavy criticism for the role he played under William Casey’s direction while working as Deputy Director at the CIA. According to former CIA analyst Melvin Goodman, Gates had been a part of one the most corrupt times in the agency’s history serving under Casey. It was also said that Gates had provided misleading information during the highly publicized Iran-Contra operations and oversaw the channeling of weapons as well as other aid to Islamic brigades during the blowback-ridden Soviet /Afghan conflict. (Photo

Civil unrest, the military & Project Camelot

In a recent article entitled, “Pentagon preparing for mass civil breakdown,” by Nafeez Ahmed, at the Guardian, we learned that a new “research programme is funding universities to model the dynamics, risks and tipping points for large-scale civil unrest across the world, under the supervision of various US military agencies.” The program was brought to fruition during the height of the banking crisis in 2008, as Ahmed points out, suggesting it was already in the works for some time – and time was of the essence. This latest social science study could be as big or bigger then the Snowden documents on NSA bulk collection, not only are Americans being tracked but their behavior is being categorized, labeled and scrutinized, prompting those who value sovereignty to question the ethics of such a program. The Guardian article outlined the type of language used to describe civil movements promoting political change, ironically the uprising in Egypt was engineered by US NGO’s working in concert with the State Department :

“Among the projects awarded for the period 2014-2017 is a Cornell University-led study managed by the US Air Force Office of Scientific Research which aims to develop an empirical model “of the dynamics of social movement mobilisation and contagions.” The project will determine “the critical mass (tipping point)” of social contagians by studying their “digital traces” in the cases of “the 2011 Egyptian revolution, the 2011 Russian Duma elections, the 2012 Nigerian fuel subsidy crisis and the 2013 Gazi park protests in Turkey.”

If you consider the historical context of the American Revolution, why are mass political protests in the United States regarded as a social contagion?

Is this program setup to use college institutions as a laboratory to quell future dissent through some sort of re-education or will the subjects themselves become future targets?

21WIRE ARTCLE IMAGE-The Once & Future King book Cover-linked to US Army Project Camelot
IMAGE: ‘Sword in the Stone’ – The US Army derived the name for Project Camelot from this fantasy based book. The story’s central theme is about power and justice, as Merlin teaches Arthur about the worst parts of the ruling class. (Photo credit

In 1964, Project Camelot had been born out of the

“Office of the Chief of Research and Development and presented to the Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering who thereafter passed it on to the Army Research and Development Office who turned to the Special Operations and Research Office (SORO) at American University of Washington DC.”

The project itself is said to have received 6 million in funding from the US Army.

The Special Operations and Research Office had sent a consultant and anthropologist named Hugo Nutini to approach Chilean social scientists and other anthropologists about being a part of the military social science program called Project Camelot. The true nature of the project had been brought to question by Norwegian sociologist Johan Galtung, after Galtung had received a memorandum inviting him to participate in a discussion on the project in 1966, even though the actual meeting was to take place in the summer of 1965. Galtung then gave the letter to Claudio Bunster a Chilean theoretical physicist, who immediately expressed doubt over the projects motivations and its connection to the US military.

A letter to the editor in July of 1965 was published in the Latin American Review of Sociology outlining the immoral context with which to view Project Camelot, as it appeared to be a, “grave violation of the most elementary rules of professional ethics which must govern relations between scientists.”

Bunster’s comments to colleagues on the Camelot Affair as it was later called, sent a shock-wave through Chile, as they were to be the test subject for the infamous project, “the study was financed by the armed forces of a foreign power,” continuing he described how the plan could have been exploited, “formulating foreign policy of that foreign power.” Following the media firestorm and outspoken critics like Bunster and Galtung the project was disbanded and put to rest.

The main purpose of Project Camelot was stated by the army as such:

“Success in such tasks as equipping and training indigenous forces for an internal security mission, civic action, psychological warfare, or other counterinsurgency action depends on a thorough understanding of the indigenous social structure, upon the accuracy with which changes within the indigenous culture, particularly violent changes, are anticipated, and the effects of various courses of action available to the military and other agencies of government upon the indigenous process of change.”

Its important to note that all of the researchers that had been a part of Project Camelot were all members of some of America’s most prestigious universities such as Chicago, Columbia, Harvard, Pennsylvania and Yale – does this sound familiar?

By the end of the 60′s, many scholars and activists had exposed the Pentagon’s social science research and other black operations like the Phoenix Program, which was a counterinsurgency project run by the CIA during Vietnam. The Program focused on the development of controversial counter-terrorism techniques and through its application became the quintessential false flag, employing terror tactics to destabilize the North Vietnamese leadership claiming to eradicate the Vietcong through the use of psyops, extortion, the release of criminals and random targeting of civilians to achieve its aims. Many people believe that this template for destabilization has been used in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and more recently South Sudan.

In 2010, it was revealed in an Associated Press article, that US military had been looking for a way to re-brand its psychological operations, due its ‘ominous’ nature. The name change extended to all facets of the military and was directed by policy makers that worked under previous Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The article then went on to describe psyops as persuading the enemy through radio, loudspeakers and government sponsored leaflets:

“The Army has dropped the Vietnam-era name “psychological operations” for its branch in charge of trying to change minds behind enemy lines, acknowledging the term can sound ominous.

The Defense Department picked a more neutral moniker: “Military Information Support Operations,” or MISO.”

What was behind the psychological operation name change, why would they change it now?

When looking at how secretive the Minerva Initiative has been since Gates helped conjure the concept and given his sordid background – we have to consider this military operations name change as being significant.

IMAGE: ‘Rising from the Ashes’ – The official Phoenix Program patch from the Vietnam era depicting the mythological bird. (Photo

Minerva, NGO’s & threats of terror

The Minerva Initiative along with the DoD funded a project with US Naval Postgraduate School, that connected peaceful activists and non-violent political protesters to that of terrorism in a document entitled,’Who Does Not Become a Terrorist, and Why?,‘ it gives a brief breakdown of individuals who might have a “background of those who decided to engage in terrorism,” but have, “chosen a path of non-violence.” The document appears to have blended violent militancy with that of someone or some persons who may oppose a particular political ideology, which would only broaden the scope of people characterized in this manner. This should be a major ethical concern when thinking about historical accounts of damaging social science programs, as it raises many more questions in terms of how this research will be used in the future:

“In every context we find many individuals who share the demographic, family, cultural, and/or socioeconomic background of those who decided to engage in terrorism, and yet refrained themselves from taking up armed militancy, even though they were sympathetic to the end goals of armed groups. The field of terrorism studies has not, until recently, attempted to look at this control group. This project is not about terrorists, but about supporters of political violence. Our goal is twofold. First, we propose to study supporters of armed militancy, in order to describe the panoply of activities they are willing to undertake short of violence, and the determinants of those actions. At the same time, we aim to contribute to theory building in the field of individual radicalization by looking at a control group that has, so far, never been studied.”

Here you catch an inside glimpse into how non-violent dissidents or political activists are categorized as “supporters of political violence,” as the document confidently claims that based on your family history and socioeconomic standing you could be considered “sympathetic to the end goals of armed groups.”

Why would the US military be focusing on intellectuals in American universities in this new social science control group – How is it possible that they would have any connection to the socioeconomic background of those who are considered radical terrorists?

The project is also stated as having 14 case studies with 140 life histories being evaluated, involving lengthy interviews with activists, militants, parties and NGO’s. According to Ahmed’s article for the Guardian, he attempted to contact the principal investigator on the project, Professor Maria Rasmussen of the US Naval Postgraduate School – but received no answer.

The Minerva program had also been contacted by the Guardian and issued a canned response from the DoD press office on the matter, one excerpt stated:

“Minerva helps fund basic social science research that helps increase the Department of Defense’s understanding of what causes instability and insecurity around the world.”

There seems to be a historical precedence for targeting thinkers of society when we look back to WW2, as Nazi leaders had deliberately ordered deaths of intellectuals, after being deemed a threat during Hitler’s reign. The humanitarian crisis for scholars and intellectuals during the Nazi-era was then surpassed by that of Mao Zedong’s dark rule during China’s cultural revolution, as he specifically executed intellectuals, viewing them to be one of his main enemies and in doing so, slaughtered some 46,000 scholars. All told, Mao is said to have taken the lives of 65 million or more under his oppressive socialist regime, more then Hitler and Stalin combined.

In today’s society of hyper surveillance and NSA collections of data, we should be very cautious about these kinds of vague research programs that can impact the United States domestically and its relationships throughout the world through its applied science. We should also remember that military sponsored research has created an atmosphere of distrust as many of its applied programs have been cancelled or exposed or the last half-century as being detrimental…

Recent Updated: 2 years ago - Created by Richard R. Thompson - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - Richard R. Thompson
Flickr northern Tetons

Wall Street-Fed-IMF anarchy corporations don't need to pay taxes. Taxes are for looting silly little non-corporate people. Please don't hurt billionaire holocaust survivors who create a file clerk job in an empty office (biz domicile haha) in Ireland, Caman or Bermuda. Tax evasion corporations who employ congress also employ an offshore office secretary. They could suffer that offshore secretary job loss...yes still another billionaire holocaust. You looted little taxpayers wouldn't dare harm Wall Street's multi-billionaire CEO-CFO and professional criminal boards of directors who own congress would you? Mitt Romney, Lloyd Blankfein, The Koch Brothers, Jamie Dimon, Larry Summers and Sheldon Adelson must not suffer EVEN MORE THAN THEY ALREADY SUFFER. Pleeeeeeease don't trigger their next "holocaust" survival epic by making Bilderberg's billionaires pay a tax...sniff. -RT ******************************************************** Weekend Edition June 13-15, 2014

We Need More Than Reform
Corporate Tax Dodging Another Capitalist Innovation

Competition takes many forms in capitalism. Financial engineering by corporations to avoid paying taxes is one aspect of this competition — under the rigors of market competition, evading responsibility is an innovation to be emulated.

The magnitude of tax evasion on the part of multi-national corporations through one channel — the shifting of profits to countries and territories with low or nonexistent taxes — was quantified earlier this month by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund and Citizens for Tax Justice. Their study, “Offshore Shell Games 2014,” reports that the 500 largest U.S.-based multi-national corporations have squirreled away almost US$2 trillion in profits that lie untouched.

An estimated $90 billion a year in federal income taxes are not paid through the creative use of subsidiaries set up in offshore tax havens.

The Cayman Islands and Bermuda are favored locations, although other tax havens such as Hong Kong, Ireland and Switzerland are frequently used. The report illustrated the preposterous number of corporations with sham “offices” in the Cayman Islands:

“Ugland House is a modest five-story office building in the Cayman Islands, yet it is the registered address for 18,857 companies. … Simply by registering subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands, U.S. companies can use legal accounting gimmicks to make much of their U.S.-earned profits appear to be earned in the Caymans and pay no taxes on them. The vast majority of subsidiaries registered at Ugland House have no physical presence in the Caymans other than a post office box. About half of these companies have their billing address in the U.S., even while they are officially registered in the Caymans.” [page 4]

The Cayman Islands has a corporate tax rate of zero. Not a cent. The government there raises revenue through taxes on imports (thus a consumption tax for the people who live there as virtually everything must be imported), but, as an added bonus should any corporate executive stop by to visit the company post office box, luxury goods such as diamonds are exempted. Bermuda also has no corporate tax.

U.S. tax laws allow profits earned abroad to remain untouched until the money is brought into the country. Profits booked in other countries are instead subject to the local tax rate, even if zero. Accounting, rather than geography, often controls what constitutes “offshore” profits, however. The “Offshore Shell Games 2014” study reports that:

“Many of the profits kept ‘offshore’ are actually housed in U.S. banks or invested in American assets, but registered in the name of foreign subsidiaries. A Senate investigation of 27 large multinationals with substantial amounts of cash supposedly ‘trapped’ offshore found that more than half of the offshore funds were invested in U.S. banks, bonds, and other assets.” [page 5]

Corporate money is “off shore” if the corporation says it is

A 2013 report in The Wall Street Journal revealed that many corporations, including Microsoft Corp. and Google Inc., “keep more than three-quarters of the cash owned by their foreign subsidiaries at U.S. banks, held in U.S. dollars or parked in U.S. government and corporate securities.” Under federal tax law, those funds are “offshore” and thus exempt from taxation.

Microsoft, in its fiscal year 2013 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, said its funds held by its foreign subsidiaries are “deemed to be permanently reinvested in foreign jurisdictions.” It said, “We currently do not intend nor foresee a need to repatriate these funds.” It pays to be a monopoly in more ways than one.

A sampling of corporate highlights, according to “Offshore Shell Games 2014”:

*Bank of America reports 264 subsidiaries in offshore tax havens, more than any other company. The bank would otherwise owe $4.3 billion in U.S. taxes on the $17 billion it keeps offshore.

*Nike officially holds $6.7 billion offshore for tax purposes, on which it would otherwise owe $2.2 billion in U.S. taxes. Nike is believed to pay a 2.2 percent tax rate to foreign governments on those offshore profits.

*Apple holds more money offshore than any other company — $111.3 billion. It would owe $36.4 billion in U.S. taxes if these profits were they not offshore for tax purposes. Two of Apple’s Irish subsidiaries are structured to be tax residents of neither the U.S. (where they are managed and controlled) nor Ireland (where they are incorporated), ensuring no taxes are paid to any government.

*Google increased the amount of cash it reported offshore from $7.7 billion in 2009 to $38.9 billion. An analysis found that, as of 2012, the company has 23 tax-haven subsidiaries that it no longer discloses but continues to operate.

*Microsoft increased the amount of money it held offshore from $6.1 billion to $76.4 billion from 2007 to 2013, on which it would otherwise owe $19.4 billion in U.S. taxes. The company is believed to pay a tax rate of three percent to foreign governments on those profits.

You pay when corporations don’t

These arrangements don’t benefit working people in the tax havens. After Ireland’s then prime minister, Brian Cowen, announced that the government would assume all the debts of Ireland’s three biggest banks, he negotiated for what became an €85 billion bailout. In doing so, he demanded, and received, only one concession: There would be no increase in corporate tax rates, which are less than half the level of Ireland’s sales taxes. Taxes on incomes, cars, homes and fuel, however, did rise to pay for the bailout.

Critics, the authors of the “Offshore Shell Games 2014” study not excepted, propose various reforms and tend to discuss this issue in terms of morality. That massive corporate tax dodging is odious from any reasonable ethical standard is indisputable, but reducing it to immorality completely obscures the larger structural problems.

In the relentless competition fostered by capitalism, any successful innovation must be matched by competitors. Such an innovation could be a new production technique but also includes measures to lower costs. If production is moved to a location with low wages and little or no safety and environmental regulations, the boost to profits for the company that does this has to be matched by competitors that otherwise would become uncompetitive and/or fall into disfavor with financiers.

Financial engineering to avoid paying taxes is another boost to profits, and thus a competitive advantage. Other corporations, under the rigors of competition and the ceaseless necessity of expansion and pressure to increase profits, are compelled to copy these innovations.

However much we might wish to morally condemn such behavior, the personality of corporate executives is irrelevant. Expand or die is the remorseless logic of capitalism, and the executive who doesn’t do everything possible to maximize profits will soon be replaced by someone who will.

Nike, to provide an example, proudly announced that, in the past 10 years, it had “returned over $15 billion to shareholders through dividend payments and share repurchases” and assured it would provide more in the future. Nike’s shareholders’ report made no mention of what the company does to extract that money — through brutally exploitative sweatshop labor, paying workers less than a minimum wage set well below subsistence level in places where complaining leads to beatings or firings and striking lands you in prison. And by not paying taxes.

As a second example, Bank of America reported that it paid $3.2 billion to buy back its stock in 2013, money spent to boost its stock price and give extra profits to speculators. (Stock bought for this purpose is paid for at a price higher than the current stock-market value.) That money was available thanks to the billions of dollars it didn’t pay in taxes.

Reforms are good, but reforms can and are taken back when the pressure for them relents, and ultimately leaves the system that rewards such behavior untouched.

Pete Dolack writes the Systemic Disorder blog. He has been an activist with several groups.

Recent Updated: 2 years ago - Created by Richard R. Thompson - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - Richard R. Thompson
Flickr Me Facebook You Long Time Wall Street : 16x32 oil on canvas by Richard Thompson all copyrights reserved

Verse to PNAC-ALEC-AIPAC War Corp: Elizabeth Kagan, Rabbi Rachel Maddow, Lloyd Blankfein, Bill Mahrer, Ben Bernanke, Janet Yellen, Al Greenspan, Dick Fuld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, PNAC-CIA-Saudi MVP Osama Bin Laden, Jack Lew, Bernie Madoff, Jamie Dimon, Bob Menendez, Hillary, Gen. David Patreaus, James Clapper, Keith Alexander, Barry W. Chimpster, Mittzy Romney, Johnny McCain under war profit Wall Street Kochghanistan Planet Emperor Ben Bibi Netanyahu :

I see you live on love street
There's this store where the (corporate) creatures meet
I wonder what they do in there

-Jim Morrison Love Street-The Doors


March 17, 2014
Washington Evil
95.7 Precent of Crimeans Flip Off the White House
How dare you defy Satan Wall Street!!!

In an unprecedented turnout unmatched by any Western election, Crimeans voted 95.7% to join Russia. As I pointed out earlier today, under the twisted logic of Washington Crimea has never been a part of Ukraine as Russians were not allowed to vote when the Soviet dictator Khrushchev stuck the Russian province of Crimea into Ukraine in 1954.

While Crimeans celebrate in the streets and international observers declare the referendum to be totally fair and free of all interference and threat, the neo-Nazi White House declared that “we don’t recognize no stinking vote.” The moronic White House spokesperson said that the White House and “the international community”–Washington in its arrogance thinks that it is the voice of “the international community”–do not recognize the results of democracy in action.

Democracy is not acceptable to Washington, or to the two-bit punk American puppets who rule for Washington in Germany, UK, and France, when democracy does not serve Washington’s agenda of hegemony over the entire world. The neo-Nazi White House spokesperson lied through his teeth when he claimed that the referendum, which has been declared by international observers to have been completely free, was “administered under threats of violence and intimidation.”

This statement, which the entire world now knows to be false, marks the government in Washington, and its subservient media, as the worst and most dangerous liar the world has ever experienced. All Washington is capable of is lies: Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and al Qaeda connections, Syrian President Assad used chemical weapons against his own citizens, Iran has a nuclear weapons program, Gaddafi gave his soldiers viagra so they could better rape Libyan women, Russia invaded Crimea, on and on. I could continue with hundreds of incidences of Washington’s lies. Indeed, among aware people the word Washington has become synonymous with liar.

When will the world sanction the criminal enterprise that pretends to be a government of the United States?

When will the War Crimes Tribunal and the International Criminal Court issue arrest warrants for Obama and his entire criminal regime as well as the criminal regimes of Bush and Clinton?

When will the assets of the US government and its criminal members be seized?

How long will the world tolerate Washington’s incessant destruction of countries and peoples from Somalia to Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya to Pakistan to Yemen to Syria to Ukraine, with Russia, Iran, and China waiting in the wings?

The United States government is the worst criminal enterprise in the history of the world. Not a single member of the government has told the truth about anything in the entire 21st century. The executive branch lies consistently to Congress, and the cowardly, weak, despicable fools sit there and take it. Congress is so useless it might as well be abolished. I expect Obama to issue an executive order abolishing the useless institution at any moment.

But “we have freedom and democracy.”

The truth is that the entire evil of the universe is concentrated in Washington. It is this evil that is destroying millions of lives, and it is this evil that will destroy the world.

Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. His latest book The Failure of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Roberts’ How the Economy Was Lost

Recent Updated: 2 years ago - Created by Richard R. Thompson - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - Richard R. Thompson
Flickr Satan's Star Spangled War Corp : 16x32 oil on canvas by Richard Thompson all copyrights reserved -Mother was a beautiful planet

Why you love and need Satan
by Richard Thompson:

Satan taxes you so that Wall Street rules Earth at gunpoint. Luckily it's fun to pretend that your taxes don't pay for Wall Street Satan's pandemic totalitarian corporate military dictators who terrorize Earth for Tel Aviv, Wall Street, London and for Paris fraud bankers. Wall Street Satan is teflon - its human prey are glue.

Satan's GOP-Dem psychodrama: Teflon "happiness" attracts you whereas associating with countervailing realities repulses your conditioned cowardice, reinforces your denial -encourages teflon freedom of denial speech. Fact acknowledgement is sticky stuff, fly-paper in today's spy culture state, so you choose conflict avoidance while feeding its profiteers. Thus you preserve propylactic edifice, compliance cowardice in synthetic safety: Textbook BF Skinner Behaviorism. Too close?...mere projection?

Satan's TV screens reassure you that you are happy, smart, beautiful, soon bountiful and heroically brave like them. You thrive emoted on corporate Kochghanistan's onslaught of goodness wars = your happiness. That's showbiz, that's Wall Street, that's Satan. Repetition and message reinforcement are everything. See those smiles? See "your" mangled enemy bodies pile up, relieved of Wall Street's enemies de jour. Fresh enemies enroute. You cling heroically to the body count...hostage relief.

In Satan's game show it's ALL yours Baby. "We" are entitled. Feelin' Satan's gunpoint love? Of course you are. Satan's is your true media religion, oracle, parent, stimulus, the Russian Roulette/Lottery that you are about to win again. Clinging.

The 911 mass murder treasons accomplished by the Cheney-Bush-Texas-Saudi subsidiary of CIA-Mossad Terrorism Inc. codified Satan's victory over former USA. Satan's latest chimp actor with his equally servile AG zealously safeguard Satan's 911 sacred secret spy torture and warfare commandments.

The secret holy murder-torture law replaced the US Constitution.The invisible unknowable planetary warfare memos authored in 1998 by (GOP) PNAC are currently masked in ALEC, ACCE, and AIPAC corporate "AMERICAN" acronyms. PNAC's mission prescription calling for its "invigorating new Pearl Harbor" 911 attack on The USA is viewable online. The authors and their new laws are deadly dangerous, how-to-torture memos protected and thus exclusively accessible to their executive-cipher's campaign financier-extortionists.That is omnipotent power.

Secrecy is key to the durability of Satan's military law. It endures safeguarded by the toy executive actor's sacrosanct war policy, terrorism, invasion, domestic tyranny, routine murder, torture, gigantic expensive spy machine: Satan's Pet Chimp-Pet Goat's secret "law" arsenal.

Satan's "security" replacement of constitutional law with Wall Street's 911 terrorist corporate military regime is codified in The Arc of Satan's New Corporate Covenant.

No Ed Snowden, no Bradley Manny, no Michael Hastings, no Julian Assange:
Our eyes shall not read Corporate Satan's foreign & domestic war bible. That is Wall Street's exclusive "law" immutable under penalty of imprisonment and death: Satan's laws are too sacred, too powerful, too lucrative for puny non-corporate eyes. Merest knowledge is itself kryptonite to Satan's corporate law pharisees enthroned in unelected lethal power.

Thus Satan's covenant rules his terrorized CIA-Mossad Corporate Planet from Wall Street-Texas-Saudi-Tel Aviv corporate serpent heads.

Your former constitution was erased. The Supreme Mafia Court Corporation cleanses any pretense of constitutional rule in seamless harmony with Wall Street's prostitute criminal congress yielding 100% corporate terror compliance.

Today your dwindling jobs and zero futures are in fact guarded by Satan's Federal Reserve bar mitzvah counterfeit cash printing tribe @ $84,000,000,000 (billion) per month plus personal CEO bank fraud bonuses. Luckily your taxes only pay for Satan's other "defense" accounts.

Satan's manifold expense accounts thrive on indebtedness. Debt saddles future corporate generations indentured to Satan's daily war inventions hurling fresh "threats"... dangers! But mostly Satan loves:

..wiretaps, extortion, insurance bank fraud, looting, 100% domestic spying, wiping himself on your dead bill of rights and especially on your hilarious TP constitution, adores inventing fake WMD's, installing thug dictators domestic and abroad who casually murder and drone their own people, loves airlines disappearing in Operation Northwoods, airliners flying into large buildings triggering "invigorating new Pearl Harbors," loves invading countries who have never hurt you period, loves Iraqi oil freedom, lusts to control Iranian oil, gets woody invading oil countries and strategic regions at will, gets teary marching Satan's heroes to murder entire cities and regions at will, bulldozes Palestinian villages, builds new Israeli settlements on the bodies of the robbed and murdered, enjoys operating his toy mini-satan-congress and toy presidents and Satan's wacky Mafia Supreme Court Corp, gets a bang directing CIA-Mossad-MI5-Al Qaeda assassins, likes fat increases annually spending 15x the next largest militaries combined, which makes Satan even more confident to murder with impunity, casually destroying, rebuilding contract awards to campaign financiers, spy drones filling domestic skies, domestic police armed by vast weapons and organization for war against US citizenry on command, and most of all Satan enjoys murder for profit freedoms.

Satan makes you "safe." And he loves you, murders and tortures for your security -Philanthropist Satan. Your diseased, spoiled and entitled children are proud to work for him, tightening Satan's grip around the throat of dying Mother Earth, fracking poisoned water, breathing radioactive air, attacking anyone who lives atop Satan's next oil. Yours is Satan's patriot race.

I wish Satan was just a red guy with horns and a tail....unlike satans PNAC-ALEC-ACCE-AIPAC David and Charles Koch, Robert Rubin, Sheldon Adelson, Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon, Larry Summers, John Boehner, Rupert Murdock, Barak Obama, Bush Slime, Bill Kristol, Rex Tillerson, John Roberts, Al Greenspan, David Patraeus, Bob Menendez, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Victoria Nuland, Condoleeza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Ben Bernanke, Jack Lew, Janet Yellen, Dick Cheney and Emperor Bibi Netanyahu.


Former ‘economic hitman’: U.S. ‘death economy’ brought world to brink of destruction
By Travis Gettys
Monday, March 17, 2014 13:10 EDT

Topics: infrastructure projects ♦ John Perkins ♦ natural resources

A former “economic hitman” explained that the United States model for global domination cannot be repeated – and should not be attempted.

Author John Perkins explained last week on the David Pakman Show how American corporations extorted natural resources from developing nations in a process that sounds very similar to domestic privatization schemes.

Perkins, who wrote the 2004 book “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” about his experience working as a chief economist for the engineering company Chas. T. Main, said corporations would identify countries that had resources sought by the U.S. and arrange for them to obtain large loans from the World Bank and similar organizations.

“But the money never actually went to the country,” Perkins said. “Instead, it went to our own corporations to build infrastructure projects in that country. They made a great deal of profit from that.”

The countries would use those borrowed funds to build electrical systems, highways, industrial parks, and other infrastructure projects.

“Yet the country would be left holding a huge debt they couldn’t repay, and so at some point we’d go back and say, ‘Hey, you know, since you can’t pay your debts, sell your resource – oil, whatever – very cheap to our companies without any environmental restrictions or social regulations or privatize your public sector businesses, sell them real cheap – your utility companies, your water and sewage system, your schools, your jails, off to our corporations,” Perkins said. “And in that way we created the world’s first truly global empire, primarily without the use of the military.”

He said most economists agreed that developing countries needed better infrastructure to improve their economies, but he said statistics supporting this model were misleading.

“I came to understand that the poor people were not benefitting, that the statistics reflect the very wealthy, which is true in this country, too, you know, that 85 people control more resources than half the world’s population,” Perkins said. “Our statistics are very, very skewed to those rich people.”

He claims in his book the U.S. backed the assassinations of Panamanian leader Omar Torrijos and Ecuadoran President Jaime Roldós Aguilera in a pair of 1981 plane crashes because they refused to bow to corporate interests.

“We’ve created a death economy, one that’s based on killing people, militarization, and ravaging the earth,” Perkins said. “We need to move into a life economy that’s based on cleaning up pollution, feeding starving people, developing new technologies, transportation, communications, (and) energy.”

He declared the global economy to be “an abject failure,” arguing that Americans make up just 5 percent of the world’s population but consume 30 percent of its natural resources.

“That’s not a model,” Perkins said. “It can’t be repeated by China, even though they’re trying. It just puts the world in a worse condition when other countries try to repeat our model. We must come up with a new model.”

He said some corporate leaders and many consumers have arrived at similar conclusions and are beginning to take steps to correct the problems he’s identified.

“We’re truly in a consciousness revolution, a huge revolution, where people are waking up to the fact that we’re living on a very fragile space station that has no shuttles,” Perkins said. “We’re going to have to take care of this place, and big business is going to have to play a major role in waking up and taking care of this, serving a public interest – not the 1 percent, but the 99 percent – serving the earth, in essence, and we all need to get out there and make sure that happens.”

Watch the entire interview posted online by David Pakman Show:

Recent Updated: 2 years ago - Created by Richard R. Thompson - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - Richard R. Thompson
Flickr Sweety and Castle Peak

Peeping Toms of the Intel World: Recording Bulk Private Yahoo Webcam Chats
(dang...somebody forgot to notify Yahoo's CEO and board of directors that they are Mossad-CIA)
Posted on Mar 3, 2014
By Juan Cole

In the same way that pedophiles are attracted to professions where they come into frequent contact with children, peeping Toms surely are attracted into electronic surveillance work.

That seems to me the only explanation for the US National Security Agency and British intelligence’s Optic Nerve program, just revealed by The Guardian from the Snowden files. The analysts sneaked into millions of people’s private webcam conversations without a warrant and appropriated them, that is, actually downloaded and stored still images from them. If a private hacker did that to even one person and was caught, that hacker would be tossed in a prison cell for life and the key would be thrown away.

Up to 11% of the video they spied on and captured was lovers engaged in nudity and long-distance video intimacy with one another. Although the agencies are said to have attempted to limit employees’ access to this enormous government-funded porn movie industry, we know from the Snowden case that even relatively low-level contractors could get access to millions of such records.

British intelligence officers came to the Guardian’s office late last summer and smashed hard drives suspected of containing the Snowden files, in a fruitless attempt to prevent this sort of massive spying on innocent people from becoming public knowledge.

The program was a blunt instrument, so any Yahoo data flowing through the Internat got picked up, and that means inevitably Americans and British as well as targets in the Middle East. Facial recognition software was run on the images, and analysts were shown screen shots of innocent people on the basis of their putative resemblance to terrorists. But not only is there no conceivable way in which this perving was helping us fight al-Qaeda, it certainly must have been an enormous distraction from actual intelligence work. If the NSA and British intelligence wanted to fight terrorism they should have sent the analysts to Falluja (it is not too late– in fact Mr. Cameron and Mr. Obama could get them on a plane for Baghdad as early as next week).

We also don’t know how many of the targets they were looking for via Yahoo facetime chats were not terrorists but dissidents. We know that they target hacktivists and other dissidents for reputational harm and honey traps. Instead of having to go to all the trouble of getting a warrant and surreptitiously putting cameras in a residence or hotel room, they could just go out on the internet and hack into people’s private exchanges.

The Guardian points out that Optic Nerve bears an uncanny resemblance to the surveillance cameras the government had in every home in George Orwell’s novel, 1984 .

Supposed conservatives, who are so worried about the government getting into citizens’ business, have been the most vocal defenders of these violations of elementary human rights law and of privacy rights.

There is no evidence that any of these illegal domestic surveillance programs has forestalled a single act of terrorism.

Yahoo issued an outraged statement, but my advice to them is to hire some Washington and London lobbyists. Statements are not going to deter the Big Government peeping Toms. Yahoo said:

“”We were not aware of, nor would we condone, this reported activity,” said a spokeswoman. “This report, if true, represents a whole new level of violation of our users’ privacy that is completely unacceptable, and we strongly call on the world’s governments to reform surveillance law consistent with the principles we outlined in December.

“We are committed to preserving our users’ trust and security and continue our efforts to expand encryption across all of our services.”

RT Note:
I'm forming the new venture capital group funding the latest Mossad-CIA-MI6 social media website spy front platform: TROUSER SNAKES-R-US (TM).

Guaranteed buyout target becoming Facebook-Mossad-CIA's latest spy media deficit tax paid porn acquisition.

Attn. Jeff Bezos, Ben Bibi Netanyahu, Antonin Scalia, David Koch, Charles Koch, Mark Zuckerberg, Rex Tillerson, Dick Cheney, James Clapper, Keith Alexander, William Gates, Don Rumsfeld,Victoria Nuland, Rudy Giuliani, Tony Blair, David Cameron, Diane Fienstein, John Boehner, Carl Ichan, Lloyd Blankfien, Jamie Dimon, Robert Rubin, Alan Greenspan, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Bernard Madoff, Jessica Yellen, Chimpster, Pet Goat et al.

By Prospectus Only: Military Industrial Corporations-MIC 911 allegiant investors are encouraged to act soon on this kosher-limited self legislated inside shares offering. QE counterfeit zero percent cash $84,000,000,000 USD (unlimited stasi dollars) printed per month for qualified Wall Street Mil-Corp Boards, CEO's, CFO's, COO's, congressional "blind trust" accounts serving functionary legislating investors. Caman, Swiss and Bermuda Drug Bank zero-tax retirement accounts always welcome. Level 7 Encrypted untraceable Swiss-Caman-Bermuda account wire transfers available to congress, spouses and immediate staff as always.

Inquire about our shell corporation services for new and transfer accounts. Fully encrypted Iphone Mossad-CIA app now available for tracking your TROUSER-SNAKES-R-US (TM) shares and our other Stasi Blackmail Partner Inc.(TM) products available to legislating congressional accounts exceeding $35,000,000 USD per each account registrant.

Disclaimer: Circumcision is mandatory investment criterion. Future performance of TROUSER SNAKES-R-US (TM) shares and net asset values is neither express nor implied and is hereby expressly disclaimed. Please consult your qualified licensed circumcised financial legislation advisor to see if TROUSER SNAKES-R-US is appropriate for your qualified military state spy investment legislation lobby portfolio. Neither JP Morgan nor Goldman Sach's nor its assigns, employees, benefactors, beneficiaries, officers nor representatives are responsible for damages if any either direct, indirect, actual or consequential arising in any way whatsoever from representation, sale and/or from inside purchase of such limited insider share investments if any.

Dispute resolution: Purchaser agrees to save, protect, hold harmless and defend Seller in all cases whatsoever including unlimited unaudited legal expenses including but not limited to travel, deposition, entertainment, consulting expense plus any cost incurred by Seller in discharge of duties deemed appropriate at sole discretion of Seller. All costs, expenses, fees and gratuities whatsoever are for sole account of Purchaser.

Arbitration: Arbitration is binding between Seller and Purchaser as adjudicated by assignee of Seller without exception. Notes, terms, conditions, revisions, amendments and changes thereto by notification of Seller post facto are incorporated herein by reference in any if any subsequent sale and agreement codified or implied and such changes are not subject to Purchaser change, alteration nor subject to statute, act, tort, treaty, force majeure, nor by any act of Yahweh beyond jurisdiction of The Jewish State of Israel its territories, subsidiaries and universe. All rights and remedies and benefits under such agreement accrue to Seller.

Recent Updated: 2 years ago - Created by Richard R. Thompson - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - Richard R. Thompson
Flickr Canon City ridge-line road

How Higher Education Ought to Be:
On Academic Labor

The following is an edited transcript of remarks given by Noam Chomsky via Skype on 4 February 2014 to a gathering of members and allies of the Adjunct Faculty Association of the United Steelworkers in Pittsburgh, PA. Prof. Chomsky’s remarks were elicited by questions from Robin Clarke, Adam Davis, David Hoinski, Maria Somma, Robin J. Sowards, Matthew Ussia, and Joshua Zelesnick. The transcript was prepared by Robin J. Sowards and edited by Prof. Chomsky.

On hiring faculty off the tenure track

That’s part of the business model. It’s the same as hiring temps in industry or what they call “associates” at Wal-Mart, employees that aren’t owed benefits. It’s a part of a corporate business model designed to reduce labor costs and to increase labor servility. When universities become corporatized, as has been happening quite systematically over the last generation as part of the general neoliberal assault on the population, their business model means that what matters is the bottom line. The effective owners are the trustees (or the legislature, in the case of state universities), and they want to keep costs down and make sure that labor is docile and obedient. The way to do that is, essentially, temps. Just as the hiring of temps has gone way up in the neoliberal period, you’re getting the same phenomenon in the universities. The idea is to divide society into two groups. One group is sometimes called the “plutonomy” (a term used by Citibank when they were advising their investors on where to invest their funds), the top sector of wealth, globally but concentrated mostly in places like the United States. The other group, the rest of the population, is a “precariat,” living a precarious existence.

This idea is sometimes made quite overt. So when Alan Greenspan was testifying before Congress in 1997 on the marvels of the economy he was running, he said straight out that one of the bases for its economic success was imposing what he called “greater worker insecurity.” If workers are more insecure, that’s very “healthy” for the society, because if workers are insecure they won’t ask for wages, they won’t go on strike, they won’t call for benefits; they’ll serve the masters gladly and passively. And that’s optimal for corporations’ economic health. At the time, everyone regarded Greenspan’s comment as very reasonable, judging by the lack of reaction and the great acclaim he enjoyed. Well, transfer that to the universities: how do you ensure “greater worker insecurity”? Crucially, by not guaranteeing employment, by keeping people hanging on a limb than can be sawed off at any time, so that they’d better shut up, take tiny salaries, and do their work; and if they get the gift of being allowed to serve under miserable conditions for another year, they should welcome it and not ask for any more. That’s the way you keep societies efficient and healthy from the point of view of the corporations. And as universities move towards a corporate business model, precarity is exactly what is being imposed. And we’ll see more and more of it.

That’s one aspect, but there are other aspects which are also quite familiar from private industry, namely a large increase in layers of administration and bureaucracy. If you have to control people, you have to have an administrative force that does it. So in US industry even more than elsewhere, there’s layer after layer of management—a kind of economic waste, but useful for control and domination. And the same is true in universities. In the past 30 or 40 years, there’s been a very sharp increase in the proportion of administrators to faculty and students; faculty and students levels have stayed fairly level relative to one another, but the proportion of administrators have gone way up. There’s a very good book on it by a well-known sociologist, Benjamin Ginsberg, called The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters (Oxford University Press, 2011), which describes in detail the business style of massive administration and levels of administration—and of course, very highly-paid administrators. This includes professional administrators like deans, for example, who used to be faculty members who took off for a couple of years to serve in an administrative capacity and then go back to the faculty; now they’re mostly professionals, who then have to hire sub-deans, and secretaries, and so on and so forth, a whole proliferation of structure that goes along with administrators. All of that is another aspect of the business model.

But using cheap labor—and vulnerable labor—is a business practice that goes as far back as you can trace private enterprise, and unions emerged in response. In the universities, cheap, vulnerable labor means adjuncts and graduate students. Graduate students are even more vulnerable, for obvious reasons. The idea is to transfer instruction to precarious workers, which improves discipline and control but also enables the transfer of funds to other purposes apart from education. The costs, of course, are borne by the students and by the people who are being drawn into these vulnerable occupations. But it’s a standard feature of a business-run society to transfer costs to the people. In fact, economists tacitly cooperate in this. So, for example, suppose you find a mistake in your checking account and you call the bank to try to fix it. Well, you know what happens. You call them up, and you get a recorded message saying “We love you, here’s a menu.” Maybe the menu has what you’re looking for, maybe it doesn’t. If you happen to find the right option, you listen to some music, and every once and a while a voice comes in and says “Please stand by, we really appreciate your business,” and so on. Finally, after some period of time, you may get a human being, who you can ask a short question to. That’s what economists call “efficiency.” By economic measures, that system reduces labor costs to the bank; of course it imposes costs on you, and those costs are multiplied by the number of users, which can be enormous—but that’s not counted as a cost in economic calculation. And if you look over the way the society works, you find this everywhere. So the university imposes costs on students and on faculty who are not only untenured but are maintained on a path that guarantees that they will have no security. All of this is perfectly natural within corporate business models. It’s harmful to education, but education is not their goal.

In fact, if you look back farther, it goes even deeper than that. If you go back to the early 1970s when a lot of this began, there was a lot of concern pretty much across the political spectrum over the activism of the 1960s; it’s commonly called “the time of troubles.” It was a “time of troubles” because the country was getting civilized, and that’s dangerous. People were becoming politically engaged and were trying to gain rights for groups that are called “special interests,” like women, working people, farmers, the young, the old, and so on. That led to a serious backlash, which was pretty overt. At the liberal end of the spectrum, there’s a book called The Crisis of Democracy: Report on the Governability of Democracies to the 2013_1104cho_Trilateral Commission, Michel Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington, Joji Watanuki (New York University Press, 1975), produced by the Trilateral Commission, an organization of liberal internationalists. The Carter administration was drawn almost entirely from their ranks. They were concerned with what they called “the crisis of democracy,” namely that there’s too much democracy. In the 1960s there were pressures from the population, these “special interests,” to try to gain rights within the political arena, and that put too much pressure on the state—you can’t do that. There was one special interest that they left out, namely the corporate sector, because its interests are the “national interest”; the corporate sector is supposed to control the state, so we don’t talk about them. But the “special interests” were causing problems and they said “we have to have more moderation in democracy,” the public has to go back to being passive and apathetic. And they were particularly concerned with schools and universities, which they said were not properly doing their job of “indoctrinating the young.” You can see from student activism (the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, the feminist movement, the environmental movements) that the young are just not being indoctrinated properly.

Well how do you indoctrinate the young? There are a number of ways. One way is to burden them with hopelessly heavy tuition debt. Debt is a trap, especially student debt, which is enormous, far larger than credit card debt. It’s a trap for the rest of your life because the laws are designed so that you can’t get out of it. If a business, say, gets in too much debt it can declare bankruptcy, but individuals can almost never be relieved of student debt through bankruptcy. They can even garnish social security if you default. That’s a disciplinary technique. I don’t say that it was consciously introduced for the purpose, but it certainly has that effect. And it’s hard to argue that there’s any economic basis for it. Just take a look around the world: higher education is mostly free. In the countries with the highest education standards, let’s say Finland, which is at the top all the time, higher education is free. And in a rich, successful capitalist country like Germany, it’s free. In Mexico, a poor country, which has pretty decent education standards, considering the economic difficulties they face, it’s free. In fact, look at the United States: if you go back to the 1940s and 50s, higher education was pretty close to free. The GI Bill gave free education to vast numbers of people who would never have been able to go to college. It was very good for them and it was very good for the economy and the society; it was part of the reason for the high economic growth rate. Even in private colleges, education was pretty close to free. Take me: I went to college in 1945 at an Ivy League university, University of Pennsylvania, and tuition was $100. That would be maybe $800 in today’s dollars. And it was very easy to get a scholarship, so you could live at home, work, and go to school and it didn’t cost you anything. Now it’s outrageous. I have grandchildren in college, who have to pay for their tuition and work and it’s almost impossible. For the students that is a disciplinary technique.

And another technique of indoctrination is to cut back faculty-student contact: large classes, temporary teachers who are overburdened, who can barely survive on an adjunct salary. And since you don’t have any job security you can’t build up a career, you can’t move on and get more. These are all techniques of discipline, indoctrination, and control. And it’s very similar to what you’d expect in a factory, where factory workers have to be disciplined, to be obedient; they’re not supposed to play a role in, say, organizing production or determining how the workplace functions—that’s the job of management. This is now carried over to the universities. And I think it shouldn’t surprise anyone who has any experience in private enterprise, in industry; that’s the way they work.

On how higher education ought to be

First of all, we should put aside any idea that there was once a “golden age.” Things were different and in some ways better in the past, but far from perfect. The traditional universities were, for example, extremely hierarchical, with very little democratic participation in decision-making. One part of the activism of the 1960s was to try to democratize the universities, to bring in, say, student representatives to faculty committees, to bring in staff to participate. These efforts were carried forward under student initiatives, with some degree of success. Most universities now have some degree of student participation in faculty decisions. And I think those are the kinds of things we should be moving towards: a democratic institution, in which the people involved in the institution, whoever they may be (faculty, students, staff), participate in determining the nature of the institution and how it runs; and the same should go for a factory.

These are not radical ideas, I should say. They come straight out of classical liberalism. So if you read, for example, John Stuart Mill, a major figure in the classical liberal tradition, he took it for granted that workplaces ought to be managed and controlled by the people who work in them—that’s freedom and democracy (see, e.g., John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy, book 4, ch. 7). We see the same ideas in the United States. Let’s say you go back to the Knights of Labor; one of their stated aims was “To establish co-operative institutions such as will tend to supersede the wage-system, by the introduction of a co-operative industrial system” (“Founding Ceremony” for newly-organized Local Associations). Or take someone like, John Dewey, a mainstream 20th-century social philosopher, who called not only for education directed at creative independence in schools, but also worker control in industry, what he called “industrial democracy.” He says that as long as the crucial institutions of the society (like production, commerce, transportation, media) are not under democratic control, then “politics [will be] the shadow cast on society by big business” (John Dewey, “The Need for a New Party” [1931]). This idea is almost elementary, it has deep roots in American history and in classical liberalism, it should be second nature to working people, and it should apply the same way to universities. There are some decisions in a university where you don’t want to have [democratic transparency because] you have to preserve student privacy, say, and there are various kinds of sensitive issues, but on much of the normal activity of the university, there is no reason why direct participation can’t be not only legitimate but helpful. In my department, for example, for 40 years we’ve had student representatives helpfully participating in department meetings.

On “shared governance” and worker control

The university is probably the social institution in our society that comes closest to democratic worker control. Within a department, for example, it’s pretty normal for at least the tenured faculty to be able to determine a substantial amount of what their work is like: what they’re going to teach, when they’re going to teach, what the curriculum will be. And most of the decisions about the actual work that the faculty is doing are pretty much under tenured faculty control. Now of course there is a higher level of administrators that you can’t overrule or control. The faculty can recommend somebody for tenure, let’s say, and be turned down by the deans, or the president, or even the trustees or legislators. It doesn’t happen all that often, but it can happen and it does. And that’s always a part of the background structure, which, although it always existed, was much less of a problem in the days when the administration was drawn from the faculty and in principle recallable. Under representative systems, you have to have someone doing administrative work but they should be recallable at some point under the authority of the people they administer. That’s less and less true. There are more and more professional administrators, layer after layer of them, with more and more positions being taken remote from the faculty controls. I mentioned before The Fall of the Faculty by Benjamin Ginsberg, which goes into a lot of detail as to how this works in the several universities he looks at closely: Johns Hopkins, Cornell, and a couple of others.

Meanwhile, the faculty are increasingly reduced to a category of temporary workers who are assured a precarious existence with no path to the tenure track. I have personal acquaintances who are effectively permanent lecturers; they’re not given real faculty status; they have to apply every year so that they can get appointed again. These things shouldn’t be allowed to happen. And in the case of adjuncts, it’s been institutionalized: they’re not permitted to be a part of the decision-making apparatus, and they’re excluded from job security, which merely amplifies the problem. I think staff ought to also be integrated into decision-making, since they’re also a part of the university. So there’s plenty to do, but I think we can easily understand why these tendencies are developing. They are all part of imposing a business model on just about every aspect of life. That’s the neoliberal ideology that most of the world has been living under for 40 years. It’s very harmful to people, and there has been resistance to it. And it’s worth noticing that two parts of the world, at least, have pretty much escaped from it, namely East Asia, where they never really accepted it, and South America in the past 15 years.

On the alleged need for “flexibility”

“Flexibility” is a term that’s very familiar to workers in industry. Part of what’s called “labor reform” is to make labor more “flexible,” make it easier to hire and fire people. That’s, again, a way to ensure maximization of profit and control. “Flexibility” is supposed to be a good thing, like “greater worker insecurity.” Putting aside industry where the same is true, in universities there’s no justification. So take a case where there’s under-enrollment somewhere. That’s not a big problem. One of my daughters teaches at a university; she just called me the other night and told me that her teaching load is being shifted because one of the courses that was being offered was under-enrolled. Okay, the world didn’t to an end, they just shifted around the teaching arrangements—you teach a different course, or an extra section, or something like that. People don’t have to be thrown out or be insecure because of the variation in the number of students enrolling in courses. There are all sorts of ways of adjusting for that variation. The idea that labor should meet the conditions of “flexibility” is just another standard technique of control and domination. Why not say that administrators should be thrown out if there’s nothing for them to do that semester, or trustees—what do they have to be there for? The situation is the same with top management in industry: if labor has to be flexible, how about management? Most of them are pretty useless or even harmful anyway, so let’s get rid of them. And you can go on like this. Just to take the news from the last couple of days, take, say, Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase bank: he just got a pretty substantial raise, almost double his salary, out of gratitude because he had saved the bank from criminal charges that would have sent the management to jail; he got away with only $20 billion in fines for criminal activities. Well I can imagine that getting rid of somebody like that might be helpful to the economy. But that’s not what people are talking about when they talk about “labor reform.” It’s the working people who have to suffer, and they have to suffer by insecurity, by not knowing where tomorrow’s piece of bread is going to come from, and therefore be disciplined and obedient and not raise questions or ask for their rights. That’s the way that tyrannical systems operate. And the business world is a tyrannical system. When it’s imposed on the universities, you find it reflects the same ideas. This shouldn’t be any secret.

On the purpose of education

These are debates that go back to the Enlightenment, when issues of higher education and mass education were really being raised, not just education for the clergy and aristocracy. And there were basically two models discussed in the 18th and 19th centuries. They were discussed with pretty evocative imagery. One image of education was that it should be like a vessel that is filled with, say, water. That’s what we call these days “teaching to test”: you pour water into the vessel and then the vessel returns the water. But it’s a pretty leaky vessel, as all of us who went through school experienced, since you could memorize something for an exam that you had no interest in to pass an exam and a week later you forgot what the course was about. The vessel model these days is called “no child left behind,” “teaching to test,” “race to top,” whatever the name may be, and similar things in universities. Enlightenment thinkers opposed that model.

The other model was described as laying out a string along which the student progresses in his or her own way under his or her own initiative, maybe moving the string, maybe deciding to go somewhere else, maybe raising questions. Laying out the string means imposing some degree of structure. So an educational program, whatever it may be, a course on physics or something, isn’t going to be just anything goes; it has a certain structure. But the goal of it is for the student to acquire the capacity to inquire, to create, to innovate, to challenge—that’s education. One world-famous physicist, in his freshman courses if he was asked “what are we going to cover this semester?”, his answer was “it doesn’t matter what we cover, it matters what you discover.” You have gain the capacity and the self-confidence for that matter to challenge and create and innovate, and that way you learn; that way you’ve internalized the material and you can go on. It’s not a matter of accumulating some fixed array of facts which then you can write down on a test and forget about tomorrow.

These are two quite distinct models of education. The Enlightenment ideal was the second one, and I think that’s the one that we ought to be striving towards. That’s what real education is, from kindergarten to graduate school. In fact there are programs of that kind for kindergarten, pretty good ones.

On the love of teaching

We certainly want people, both faculty and students, to be engaged in activity that’s satisfying, enjoyable, challenging, exciting—and I don’t really think that’s hard. Even young children are creative, inquisitive, they want to know things, they want to understand things, and unless that’s beaten out of your head it stays with you the rest of your life. If you have opportunities to pursue those commitments and concerns, it’s one of the most satisfying things in life. That’s true if you’re a research physicist, it’s true if you’re a carpenter; you’re trying to create something of value and deal with a difficult problem and solve it. I think that’s what makes work the kind of thing you want to do; you do it even if you don’t have to do it. In a reasonably functioning university, you find people working all the time because they love it; that’s what they want to do; they’re given the opportunity, they have the resources, they’re encouraged to be free and independent and creative—what’s better? That’s what they love to do. And that, again, can be done at any level.

It’s worth thinking about some of the imaginative and creative educational programs that are being developed at different levels. So, for example, somebody just described to me the other day a program they’re using in high schools, a science program where the students are asked an interesting question: “How can a mosquito fly in the rain?” That’s a hard question when you think about it. If something hit a human being with the force of a raindrop hitting a mosquito it would absolutely flatten them immediately. So how come the mosquito isn’t crushed instantly? And how can the mosquito keep flying? If you pursue that question—and it’s a pretty hard question—you get into questions of mathematics, physics, and biology, questions that are challenging enough that you want to find an answer to them.

That’s what education should be like at every level, all the way down to kindergarten, literally. There are kindergarten programs in which, say, each child is given a collection of little items: pebbles, shells, seeds, and things like that. Then the class is given the task of finding out which ones are the seeds. It begins with what they call a “scientific conference”: the kids talk to each other and they try to figure out which ones are seeds. And of course there’s some teacher guidance, but the idea is to have the children think it through. After a while, they try various experiments and they figure out which ones are the seeds. At that point, each child is given a magnifying glass and, with the teacher’s help, cracks a seed and looks inside and finds the embryo that makes the seed grow. These children learn something—really, not only something about seeds and what makes things grow; but also about how to discover. They’re learning the joy of discovery and creation, and that’s what carries you on independently, outside the classroom, outside the course.

The same goes for all education up through graduate school. In a reasonable graduate seminar, you don’t expect students to copy it down and repeat whatever you say; you expect them to tell you when you’re wrong or to come up with new ideas, to challenge, to pursue some direction that hadn’t been thought of before. That’s what real education is at every level, and that’s what ought to be encouraged. That ought to be the purpose of education. It’s not to pour information into somebody’s head which will then leak out but to enable them to become creative, independent people who can find excitement in discovery and creation and creativity at whatever level or in whatever domain their interests carry them.

On using corporate rhetoric against corporatization

This is kind of like asking how you should justify to the slave owner that people shouldn’t be slaves. You’re at a level of moral inquiry where it’s probably pretty hard to find answers. We are human beings with human rights. It’s good for the individual, it’s good for the society, it’s even good for the economy, in the narrow sense, if people are creative and independent and free. Everyone benefits if people are able to participate, to control their fate, to work with each other—that may not maximize profit and domination, but why should we take those to be values to be concerned about?

Advice for adjunct faculty organizing unions

You know better than I do what has to be done, the kind of problems you face. Just got ahead and do what has to be done. Don’t be intimidated, don’t be frightened, and recognize that the future can be in our hands if we’re willing to grasp it.

Noam Chomsky’s OCCUPY: Class War, Rebellion and Solidarity is published by Zuccotti Park Press.

Recent Updated: 2 years ago - Created by Richard R. Thompson - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - Richard R. Thompson
Flickr Jamie Dimon
Tags: jamie   dimon   
JPMorgan Case CEO
Recent Updated: 2 years ago - Created by Jonjssmith - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - Jonjssmith
Flickr Jamie Dimon
Tags: davos   jamiedimon   2014wef

Recent Updated: 2 years ago - Created by - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author -
Flickr Jamie Dimon
Tags: ceo   chase   jpmorgan   jamiedimon   
NOTE: You must credit "Insider Monkey," and link to to use image.
Recent Updated: 3 years ago - Created by insider_monkey - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - insider_monkey
Flickr Ben-Bernanke-Jamie-Dimon

Recent Updated: 3 years ago - Created by Cadenza_7o - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - Cadenza_7o
Flickr Jamie Dimon

Jamie Dimon, JP MorganChase, Facebook underwiter
Recent Updated: 3 years ago - Created by SuperSleuther - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - SuperSleuther
Flickr Jamie Dimon
Tags: china   cn   forum   fortune   chengdu   conference   sichuan   global   peoplesrepublicofchina   fortunemagazine   2013   fgf2013   fortuneglobalforum   

Recent Updated: 3 years ago - Created by tODD FELLOWs - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - tODD FELLOWs
Flickr Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase
Tags: james   jamie   bank   jp   ceo   chase   conference   morgan   healthcare   investment   jpmorgan   dimon   jamesdimon   jamiedimon   
At the JPMorgan Healthcare Investment Conference today, Jamie was entertaining and outspoken as usual:

“But for bad policy, this country would be booming.
I’m positive I’m right; I just can’t prove it.”

Are you more bullish than the average economist?
“Not even close. The economists are right only if policy remains bad forever. They say the tech boom was a one-time event. Are they insane? Technology is like dark matter. It’s everywhere. It infuses everything.”

“When I hear people in D.C. complaining, I tell them Washington has been dealt the best hand anywhere, ever. We have a strong military, university system, small, medium and large business environment, the most innovation, the least corruption, and liquid capital markets across the whole mosaic from venture capital to public equities. But I am very worried about the long run, over 30 to 50 years. We don’t have a divine right to continue succeeding. We have to fix immigration and education and have a rational energy policy. We have been profligate and stupid in our use of oil, and now we have been given a second chance. We should use it wisely.”

“I’m still a Democrat, barely.”

“There has been a tsunami of regulations, often misguided. Small banks can’t survive. After five year, we don’t know the mortgage rules yet. The liquidity rules were ridiculous, and they came back to a rational place. I haven’t read the rules yet, but they sound reasonable.”

What can we do to bring the political parties together? “I’m going to say Martini’s man! It’s a social issue, not an intellectual one.”

What did you learn form 2012? “Don’t screw up. [laughter] But we are a better company because of it. We were scared, and we cleaned it up. I have made a lot of mistakes, and will again, but this was a doozy. I hope it was the worst mistake I make. Imagine how many people came into my office crying. Some leaders acted like children. Some asked how they could help. It’s invaluable to find who these people are.”

Who are your living heroes? “Living? I was going to say Lincoln. Ok, so I’d say Nelson Mandela and Jack Welsh.”

Should the government be in the mortgage business? “It depends on how. The government could offer bond guarantees but have industry pay for it. Like FDIC, the government does not fund it, we do. The government should never have a portfolio. They had a huge portfolio of mortgages. That was the biggest financial disaster of all time, bar none. It was given to us by the government who then blamed the banks.”

Is the Euro crisis behind us? “God no. It’s like a roller coaster. You have not heard much about it recently, but something will happen in the next three months that will scare the hell out of you. Why do we have the EU? One, it’s a political union to avoid wars. And two, it’s a common market. They can’t exit without going into depression. So it will be a roller coaster and it will take years to work out. They might have modest growth through that period.”

Will the U.S. follow the same course as France, Spain, Italy? “We don’t have the same values. While there was disagreement before, no one denies the fiscal problem today. We are a democracy. Countries and individuals may not want to work hard. To work 30 hours a week,. That is a choice that can be made, and it’s not immoral. Maybe they don’t want the stress. They will be sub-par economically, and they have to be OK with that. They can’t say that the answer is to transfer wealth from those who do work hard.”

Recent Updated: 3 years ago - Created by jurvetson - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - jurvetson
Flickr jamie dimon

Recent Updated: 3 years ago - Created by Beauboi3 - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - Beauboi3
Flickr Jamie Dimon

Recent Updated: 3 years ago - Created by occupythemovie - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - occupythemovie
Flickr Sayeth Jamie Dimon: "We are totally open kimono with regulators."

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by monojussi - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - monojussi
Flickr Deborah Harris & John Zangas, "Obscene Banking Practices Of JP Morgan/Chase Stole Her Home", Occupy DC, Lamont Park, Washington, DC
Tags: street   urban   blackandwhite   bw   washingtondc   blackwhite   dc   washington   streetphotography   documentary   dcist   protesters   urbanphotography   mcphersonsquare   canong10   occupydc   occupymovement   99movement   
Click on image then press the "L" key to view large on black.

Canon G10

© All rights reserved.

Read about Deborah Harris and how she confronted JP Morgan/Chase CEO Jamie Dimon at the Senate Banking Committee Hearing on June 13, 2012 here:

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by Gerald L. Campbell - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - Gerald L. Campbell
Flickr Jamie Dimon - Caricature
Tags: art   face   photomanipulation   photoshop   photo   president   political   politics   cartoon   bank   manipulation   ceo   caricature   politician   wallstreet   chairman   karikatur   caricatura   commentary   漫画   chiefexecutive   politicalart   jpmorganchase   karikatuur   politicalcommentary   карикатура   קריקטורה   jamesdimon   jamiedimon   donkeyhotey   कारटूनवाला   
James Dimon, Jamie Dimon, is the chairman, president and chief executive of JPMorgan Chase.

The source image for this caricature of Jamie Dimon is a Creative Commons licensed photo from the World Economic Forum' Flickr photostream The background is a Creative Commons image available via Wikimedia.

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by DonkeyHotey - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - DonkeyHotey
Flickr Jamie Dimon - Caricature
Tags: art   face   photomanipulation   photoshop   photo   president   political   politics   cartoon   bank   manipulation   ceo   caricature   politician   wallstreet   chairman   karikatur   caricatura   commentary   漫画   chiefexecutive   politicalart   jpmorganchase   karikatuur   politicalcommentary   карикатура   קריקטורה   jamesdimon   jamiedimon   donkeyhotey   कारटूनवाला   
James Dimon, Jamie Dimon, is the chairman, president and chief executive of JPMorgan Chase.

The source image for this caricature of Jamie Dimon is a Creative Commons licensed photo from the World Economic Forum' Flickr photostream The background is a Creative Commons image available via Wikimedia.

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by DonkeyHotey - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - DonkeyHotey
Flickr American Psycho. Financial Terrorist, Jamie Dimon.
Tags: seattle   portrait   criminal   collapse   financial   economy   banker   bagpainter   
Acrylic on paper bag, 4"w x 5"h, 2012
Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by chris (bagpainter) - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - chris (bagpainter)
Flickr T. Boone Pickens and & the Gas Heads
Tags: t   cu   gas   mines   copper   summit   keystone   boone   pipeline   ais   ivanhoe   pickens   jpmorgan   fracking   
Some more quotes from the JP Morgan Alternative Investment Summit (AIS) this morning, with quite a different tone….

T. Boone Pickens:
“You can’t have a five minute conversation on energy in Washington. They run out of things they can talk about in less than five minutes.”

“There is more oil in Canada than Saudi Arabia. If we turn away the Keystone pipeline from Fort McMurray to the sea for China, we will go down as the dumbest nation in history.”

Robert Friedland, CEO of Ivanhoe Mines”
“The U.S. is institutionalizing stupidity by not importing Canadian oil.”

“If we can solve the porosity and access the gas, there more natural gas in Pennsylvania and New York than in China.”

“You can graph all human activity and you will see a steady increase in electrical consumption per person on the planet. And that will take more copper because copper is a better conductor than anything, except silver and gold. [incorrect, by the way] We will consume more copper in the next 20 years than the last 100 years.”

“If you don’t grow it, you have to mine it.”

“It’s a crime against humanity to make ethanol out of corn. We are driving up food prices. Just tap the gas.”

“We are trying a new fracking technology without chemicals; it used electro-magnetic pulses to free the formations. With all of the advances, we have $2.34 natural gas. Technology does not care about the idiots in Washington.”

T. Boone:
“I saw my first fracked well in 1953. I have fracked 3000 wells personally. I have not seen an aquifer damaged.”

“France has a no fracking rule. Noone has ever accused that crowd of being real smart.”

Barry Sternlicht, CEO of Starwood
“There are more communists in France than in China. They don’t do anything like the rest of us, but eat.”

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase
“Dodd Frank will work out OK. The game will not significantly change.”

“The housing problem is over. People hate projecting an inflection point and would rather say something less specific. We will have 13 million new Americans in the next 10 years and we don’t have homes for them. We destroy about 400 thousand homes a year. If we go back to 1.3 million new homes per year, then the homebuilding industry gets rid of half of the excess unemployment.”

(earlier photo I took of T.Boone)

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by jurvetson - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - jurvetson
Flickr JAMIE DIMON CEO of Chase
Tags: sf   sanfrancisco   movement   san   francisco   protest   99   chasebank   banker   occupy   jamiedimon   
Occupy San Francisco / 5 November 2011


Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by sftrajan - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - sftrajan
Flickr Occupy Seattle Clashes with Police at Sheraton
Tags: seattle   rain   night   protest   police   demonstration   chase   sheraton   arrest   jamiedimon   occupyseattle   
Occupy Seattle Clashes with Police at Sheraton - Occupy Seattle clashes with Seattlle Police at the Sheraton Hotel as Jamie Dimon, CEO of Chase Bank speaks to business leaders. It was cold. It was wet. in many ways, SPD was a lot more polite than the protestors....minus the tear gas. That seemed a bit unnecessary. (email to use this photo)
Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by Michael Holden - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - Michael Holden
Flickr Occupy Seattle Clashes with Police at Sheraton
Tags: protest   seattle   sheraton   arrest   chase   demonstration   jamiedimon   night   occupyseattle   police   rain   
Occupy Seattle Clashes with Police at Sheraton - Occupy Seattle clashes with Seattlle Police at the Sheraton Hotel as Jamie Dimon, CEO of Chase Bank speaks to business leaders. It was cold. It was wet. in many ways, SPD was a lot more polite than the protestors....minus the tear gas. That seemed a bit unnecessary. (email to use this photo)
Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by Michael Holden - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - Michael Holden
Flickr Chase CEO Jamie Dimon Protest
Tags: seattle   occupyseattle   

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by javacolleen - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - javacolleen
Flickr Chase CEO Jamie Dimon Protest
Tags: seattle   occupyseattle   

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by javacolleen - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - javacolleen
Flickr Occupy Seattle 11/2 Sheraton
Tags: protest   jamiedimon   occupyseattle
Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by j Madrigal - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - j Madrigal
Flickr Occupy Seattle 11/2 Sheraton
Tags: protest   jamiedimon   occupyseattle
Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by j Madrigal - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - j Madrigal
Flickr Chase CEO Jamie Dimon Protest
Tags: seattle   occupyseattle   

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by javacolleen - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - javacolleen
Flickr Chase CEO Jamie Dimon Protest
Tags: seattle   occupyseattle   

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by javacolleen - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - javacolleen
Flickr Chase CEO Jamie Dimon Protest
Tags: seattle   occupyseattle   

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by javacolleen - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - javacolleen
Flickr Occupy Seattle 11/2 Sheraton
Tags: protest   jamiedimon   occupyseattle
Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by j Madrigal - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - j Madrigal
Flickr Occupy Seattle 11/2 Sheraton
Tags: protest   jamiedimon   occupyseattle
Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by j Madrigal - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - j Madrigal
Flickr Occupy Seattle 11/2 Sheraton
Tags: protest   jamiedimon   occupyseattle
Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by j Madrigal - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - j Madrigal
Flickr Chase CEO Jamie Dimon Protest
Tags: seattle   

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by javacolleen - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - javacolleen
Flickr Chase CEO Jamie Dimon Protest
Tags: seattle   

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by javacolleen - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - javacolleen
Flickr Chase CEO Jamie Dimon Protest
Tags: seattle   

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by javacolleen - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - javacolleen
Flickr Chase CEO Jamie Dimon Protest
Tags: seattle   

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by javacolleen - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - javacolleen
Flickr Chase CEO Jamie Dimon Protest
Tags: seattle   

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by javacolleen - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - javacolleen
Flickr Chase CEO Jamie Dimon Protest
Tags: seattle   

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by javacolleen - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - javacolleen
Flickr Chase CEO Jamie Dimon Protest
Tags: seattle   

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by javacolleen - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - javacolleen
Flickr Chase CEO Jamie Dimon Protest
Tags: seattle   

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by javacolleen - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - javacolleen
Flickr Chase CEO Jamie Dimon Protest
Tags: seattle   

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by javacolleen - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - javacolleen
Flickr Chase CEO Jamie Dimon Protest
Tags: seattle   

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by javacolleen - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - javacolleen
Flickr Chase CEO Jamie Dimon Protest
Tags: seattle   

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by javacolleen - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - javacolleen
Flickr Chase CEO Jamie Dimon Protest
Tags: seattle   

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by javacolleen - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - javacolleen
Flickr Chase CEO Jamie Dimon Protest
Tags: seattle   

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by javacolleen - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - javacolleen
Flickr Chase CEO Jamie Dimon Protest
Tags: seattle   

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by javacolleen - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - javacolleen
Flickr Chase CEO Jamie Dimon Protest
Tags: seattle   

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by javacolleen - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - javacolleen
Flickr Chase CEO Jamie Dimon Protest
Tags: seattle   

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by javacolleen - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - javacolleen
Flickr Chase CEO Jamie Dimon Protest
Tags: seattle   

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by javacolleen - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - javacolleen
Flickr Chase CEO Jamie Dimon Protest
Tags: seattle   

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by javacolleen - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - javacolleen
Flickr Chase CEO Jamie Dimon Protest
Tags: seattle   

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by javacolleen - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - javacolleen
Flickr Chase CEO Jamie Dimon Protest
Tags: seattle   

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by javacolleen - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - javacolleen
Flickr Chase CEO Jamie Dimon Protest
Tags: seattle   

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by javacolleen - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - javacolleen
Flickr Chase CEO Jamie Dimon Protest
Tags: seattle   

Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by javacolleen - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - javacolleen
Flickr Jamie Dimon
Tags: sanfrancisco   california   jamiedimon   occupywallstreet   occupysf   occupysanfrancisco   
He has been called "The Most Dangerous Man in America".
Recent Updated: 4 years ago - Created by bluecinema - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - bluecinema
Flickr 10 of Hearts - Jamie Dimon

1 of 52 cards of the Audaciously Greedy! More at:

Recent Updated: 5 years ago - Created by AudacityOfGreed - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - AudacityOfGreed
Flickr Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase CEO, visits Fisher
Tags: mba   osu   ohiostateuniversity   jpmorganchase   fishercollegeofbusiness   jamiedimon   
Minutes after landing at a Columbus airport, Jamie Dimon's, JPMorgan Chase Chairman of the Board and CEO, first stop on his two-day visit to the city was Fisher College of Business.

Dimon, named one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world for 2011, spoke to MBA students on May 16.

He spent a majority of the hour answering students’ questions on leadership success, the financial industry and the global economy.

Recent Updated: 5 years ago - Created by fisherosu - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - fisherosu
Flickr Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase CEO, visits Fisher
Tags: mba   osu   ohiostateuniversity   jpmorganchase   fishercollegeofbusiness   jamiedimon   
Minutes after landing at a Columbus airport, Jamie Dimon's, JPMorgan Chase Chairman of the Board and CEO, first stop on his two-day visit to the city was Fisher College of Business.

Dimon, named one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world for 2011, spoke to MBA students on May 16.

He spent a majority of the hour answering students’ questions on leadership success, the financial industry and the global economy.

Recent Updated: 5 years ago - Created by fisherosu - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - fisherosu
Flickr Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase CEO, visits Fisher
Tags: mba   osu   ohiostateuniversity   jpmorganchase   fishercollegeofbusiness   jamiedimon   
Minutes after landing at a Columbus airport, Jamie Dimon's, JPMorgan Chase Chairman of the Board and CEO, first stop on his two-day visit to the city was Fisher College of Business.

Dimon, named one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world for 2011, spoke to MBA students on May 16.

He spent a majority of the hour answering students’ questions on leadership success, the financial industry and the global economy.

Recent Updated: 5 years ago - Created by fisherosu - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - fisherosu
Flickr Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase CEO, visits Fisher
Tags: mba   osu   ohiostateuniversity   jpmorganchase   fishercollegeofbusiness   jamiedimon   
Minutes after landing at a Columbus airport, Jamie Dimon's, JPMorgan Chase Chairman of the Board and CEO, first stop on his two-day visit to the city was Fisher College of Business.

Dimon, named one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world for 2011, spoke to MBA students on May 16.

He spent a majority of the hour answering students’ questions on leadership success, the financial industry and the global economy.

Recent Updated: 5 years ago - Created by fisherosu - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - fisherosu
Flickr Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase CEO, visits Fisher
Tags: mba   osu   ohiostateuniversity   jpmorganchase   fishercollegeofbusiness   jamiedimon   
Minutes after landing at a Columbus airport, Jamie Dimon's, JPMorgan Chase Chairman of the Board and CEO, first stop on his two-day visit to the city was Fisher College of Business.

Dimon, named one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world for 2011, spoke to MBA students on May 16.

He spent a majority of the hour answering students’ questions on leadership success, the financial industry and the global economy.

Recent Updated: 5 years ago - Created by fisherosu - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - fisherosu
Flickr Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase CEO, visits Fisher
Tags: mba   osu   ohiostateuniversity   jpmorganchase   fishercollegeofbusiness   jamiedimon   
Minutes after landing at a Columbus airport, Jamie Dimon's, JPMorgan Chase Chairman of the Board and CEO, first stop on his two-day visit to the city was Fisher College of Business.

Dimon, named one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world for 2011, spoke to MBA students on May 16.

He spent a majority of the hour answering students’ questions on leadership success, the financial industry and the global economy.

Recent Updated: 5 years ago - Created by fisherosu - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - fisherosu
Flickr Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase CEO, visits Fisher
Tags: mba   osu   ohiostateuniversity   jpmorganchase   fishercollegeofbusiness   jamiedimon   
Minutes after landing at a Columbus airport, Jamie Dimon's, JPMorgan Chase Chairman of the Board and CEO, first stop on his two-day visit to the city was Fisher College of Business.

Dimon, named one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world for 2011, spoke to MBA students on May 16.

He spent a majority of the hour answering students’ questions on leadership success, the financial industry and the global economy.

Recent Updated: 5 years ago - Created by fisherosu - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - fisherosu
Flickr Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase CEO, visits Fisher
Tags: mba   osu   ohiostateuniversity   jpmorganchase   fishercollegeofbusiness   jamiedimon   
Minutes after landing at a Columbus airport, Jamie Dimon's, JPMorgan Chase Chairman of the Board and CEO, first stop on his two-day visit to the city was Fisher College of Business.

Dimon, named one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world for 2011, spoke to MBA students on May 16.

He spent a majority of the hour answering students’ questions on leadership success, the financial industry and the global economy.

Recent Updated: 5 years ago - Created by fisherosu - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - fisherosu
Flickr Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase CEO, visits Fisher
Tags: mba   osu   ohiostateuniversity   jpmorganchase   fishercollegeofbusiness   jamiedimon   
Minutes after landing at a Columbus airport, Jamie Dimon's, JPMorgan Chase Chairman of the Board and CEO, first stop on his two-day visit to the city was Fisher College of Business.

Dimon, named one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world for 2011, spoke to MBA students on May 16.

He spent a majority of the hour answering students’ questions on leadership success, the financial industry and the global economy.

Recent Updated: 5 years ago - Created by fisherosu - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - fisherosu
Flickr Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase CEO, visits Fisher
Tags: mba   osu   ohiostateuniversity   jpmorganchase   fishercollegeofbusiness   jamiedimon   
Minutes after landing at a Columbus airport, Jamie Dimon's, JPMorgan Chase Chairman of the Board and CEO, first stop on his two-day visit to the city was Fisher College of Business.

Dimon, named one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world for 2011, spoke to MBA students on May 16.

He spent a majority of the hour answering students’ questions on leadership success, the financial industry and the global economy.

Recent Updated: 5 years ago - Created by fisherosu - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - fisherosu
Flickr Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase CEO, visits Fisher
Tags: mba   osu   ohiostateuniversity   jpmorganchase   fishercollegeofbusiness   jamiedimon   
Minutes after landing at a Columbus airport, Jamie Dimon's, JPMorgan Chase Chairman of the Board and CEO, first stop on his two-day visit to the city was Fisher College of Business.

Dimon, named one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world for 2011, spoke to MBA students on May 16.

He spent a majority of the hour answering students’ questions on leadership success, the financial industry and the global economy.

Recent Updated: 5 years ago - Created by fisherosu - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - fisherosu
Flickr Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase CEO, visits Fisher
Tags: mba   osu   ohiostateuniversity   jpmorganchase   fishercollegeofbusiness   jamiedimon   
Minutes after landing at a Columbus airport, Jamie Dimon's, JPMorgan Chase Chairman of the Board and CEO, first stop on his two-day visit to the city was Fisher College of Business.

Dimon, named one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world for 2011, spoke to MBA students on May 16.

He spent a majority of the hour answering students’ questions on leadership success, the financial industry and the global economy.

Recent Updated: 5 years ago - Created by fisherosu - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - fisherosu
Flickr Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase CEO, visits Fisher
Tags: mba   osu   ohiostateuniversity   jpmorganchase   fishercollegeofbusiness   jamiedimon   
Minutes after landing at a Columbus airport, Jamie Dimon's, JPMorgan Chase Chairman of the Board and CEO, first stop on his two-day visit to the city was Fisher College of Business.

Dimon, named one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world for 2011, spoke to MBA students on May 16.

He spent a majority of the hour answering students’ questions on leadership success, the financial industry and the global economy.

Recent Updated: 5 years ago - Created by fisherosu - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - fisherosu
Flickr Jamie Dimon
Tags: pe   sb800   d700   jamiedimon   

Recent Updated: 5 years ago - Created by Suzaidee - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - Suzaidee
Flickr Jamie Dimon
Tags: pe   2470mm   sb800   d700   jamiedimon   

Recent Updated: 5 years ago - Created by Suzaidee - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - Suzaidee
Flickr Jamie Dimon

Recent Updated: 5 years ago - Created by duckpondpotter - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - duckpondpotter
Flickr jamie_dimon

CEO, JPMorgan, New York..Dimon largely shunned the subprime bets and exotic financial instruments that brought down rivals. As a result, JPMorgan was able to pick up the pieces of Bear Stearns when it imploded in March and later absorb collapsed mortgage lender Washington Mutual. That doesn’t mean JPMorgan is immune to the turmoil. “We are not holding ourselves up as paragons of virtue,” says Dimon. “We were not exceptional in every category. But if you don’t do a good job for the customers, you’re never going to do a good job for the shareholders. That’s the point of a commercial enterprise.”.
Recent Updated: 5 years ago - Created by iconoclast020 - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - iconoclast020
Flickr jamie_dimon

CEO, JPMorgan, New York..Dimon largely shunned the subprime bets and exotic financial instruments that brought down rivals. As a result, JPMorgan was able to pick up the pieces of Bear Stearns when it imploded in March and later absorb collapsed mortgage lender Washington Mutual. That doesn’t mean JPMorgan is immune to the turmoil. “We are not holding ourselves up as paragons of virtue,” says Dimon. “We were not exceptional in every category. But if you don’t do a good job for the customers, you’re never going to do a good job for the shareholders. That’s the point of a commercial enterprise.”.
Recent Updated: 5 years ago - Created by iconoclast020 - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - iconoclast020
Flickr Jamie Dimon, speaker

Recent Updated: 6 years ago - Created by randdeck - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - randdeck
Flickr Jamie_Dimon_2

Recent Updated: 6 years ago - Created by maxg4ces - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - maxg4ces
Flickr Geithner, Summers, or Bernanke?
Tags: useconomicleadership   
Despite the Compensation cuts, the administration’s economic and financial policy is biased and doing a disservice to the majority of Taxpayers. President O’bama, as well as his Economic Advisor’s have way too close an association with the Financial industry. The rational for keeping Geithner, Sumner and Bernanke in place in order to maintain stability in what are claiming is a “recovery” is overstated. It is a fear tactic. Especially when you consider no one even knows to what extent, if any, their efforts (including TARP Bail-out moneys) actually went to trying to address the economy’s problems - because Geithner and the recipients refuse to divulge the details. These three men need to be removed immediately.

Although I can appreciate how an improvement in consumer sentiment (apparently achievable by repeating the message the “recession is over”) would help the economy recover, the fact of the matter is the U.S. Economy has some serious problems including but not limited to:

•USA Today reports the Wages hit a 20 year low.

•A wave of commercial real estate mortgage foreclosures is currently taking place

• reports that residential foreclosures have just experienced their worst record-breaking three months ever with foreclosures rising 5 percent from summer to fall.

•Gulf Arab states plans – along with China, Russia, Japan and France – to end dollar dealings for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies. This will put downward pressure on the value of the dollar. This probably represents the single most serious economic threat faced by this country in decades. The value of the dollar is, in part, an indicator of international sentiment toward the health of the U.S. economy. You may recall Winston Churchill’s comment that if you want to destroy a country, destroy its currency. But I am not sensing a lot of concern by the Administration. Why? It is possible that multinational financial institutions can defend themselves, if not profit, from a slide in the value of the dollar. There are many trading schemes, investment and accounting strategies, etc. that, after the fact, can render a slide in the value of the dollar primarily just an inconvenience. This is most certainly the case if these institutions can anticipate actions that might result in devaluation. This being the case, it is no surprise that “conflicted” public servants with ties to Wall Street don’t treat the fall of the dollar as a policy priority. But this is not in the best interest of the typical or below average American Taxpayer. They are, for the most part, held captive to the effects of the declining value of the dollar. Policy actions or inactions that allow downward pressure on the value of the dollar will result in economic hardship that will be felt increasingly harder by people of lesser and lesser means. There can be benefits to the average American to a fall in the value of the dollar but they are outweighed by the drawbacks.

•“Geometric weighting”, “hedonic adjustments”, and the like continue to dampen a good faith estimate of the actual rate of inflation germane to the majority of U.S. Households. It is no surprise that the increase in the cost of basic living necessities that dominate the consumption of people living on social security would be ignored. Quotes of unemployment in the fly-over are similarly dampened by their own quantitative deficiencies. And if you elect to respond to this correspondence quoting statistics please trace the implications of these descriptive statistics back to an income class within a geographic area, preferably along with a range of values allowing for the distortions cited above.
•Unadjusted unemployment in the “fly-over” is at or near 20% and according to The Economist magazine fully expects unemployment to remain high for another 10 years.

•Recent drops in the Japanese Nikkei have been attributed to the failure of America’s financial bailout. Periodicals, New books and Academics continue to condemn the plan.

•A recent ABC polls found that 80% of Americans have experienced no improvement in their economic situation despite claims that “the recession is over”, “recovery is underway”, ad nauseam.

•At best the American Economy could be called a service based economy. But America still doesn’t have a palpable “green industry”, nor does it look like it will be dominating the globe by manufacturing a tangible object anytime soon.

It is fair to say that those Washington officials that orchestrated this “jobless recovery” might not be performing all that well in their appointments. Drilling down on their behavior reveals some possible causes for concerns.

Associated Press has divulged Timothy Geithner’s personal cell phone records at the height of the financial crisis. During which time Mr. Geithner’s cell phone usage was dominated, at all hours of the day, as is typical, by calls to and from:

1.Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO at Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
2.Jamie Dimon, the CEO at JPMorgan Chase & Co.
3.Several Chief Executives at Citigroup including Robert Rubin

AP reports that at the climax of the American Auto industry crisis Geithner, and these are AP’s words, actually “hangs-up on O’bama to speak with the Jammie Dimon of J.P. Morgan Chase”.

Unfortunately, reasons to question the conduct of the Administrations staff’s with Mr. Geithner. I’ll start with the countries Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton and her husband Ex-President Bill Clinton.

Robert Edward Rubin, formerly of Goldman Sachs and Secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton, is member of the Harvard Corporation, the executive governing board of Harvard University, as well as CITIgroup. At CITIgroup Rubin is the officer in charge of:

"in strategic managerial and operational matters of the Company, but [...] no line responsibilities."

I think we all know what that means. Mr. Rubin’s protégé is Timothy Geithner our current Secretary of the Treasury. The man who replaced Rubin as Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury was Larry Summers then Deputy Secretary under Rubin. Lawrence H Summers is now Director of O’bama’s White House's National Economic Council.

Let me interject a question here. Universities, like any other organization, have office politics. Are the glowing reviews of the administrations policies by Harvard academics so often heard in the media really objective or just automatically beyond reproach? I can’t help but think that some professors would think twice before compromising or slighting CITIGroup and the Wall Street gang if it were a kin to criticizing a member of their own University’s Governing Board. As a result, I don’t think the public discourse being fostered on the economy is fair and balanced and it, like the policy, is most certainly not weighted in favor of the “fly over”.

It gets worse. Robert Rubin was Treasury Secretary under Clinton when Wendi and Phil Graham got Clinton to pass the Commodities Futures and Modernization Act. This is the Act that deregulated derivative exchanges and facilitated speculation in oil and gas markets. The grief this Act inflicted on the American public through skyrocketing prices at the pump can not be overstated. The cash profit that this Act brought in for Wall Street firms and Traders also can not be overstated.

Now there is “Helicopter Ben” or rather Benard Bernake current Chairman of the Federal Reserve who also sits on the newly established Financial Stability Oversight Board that oversees the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). It seems that while doing is undergrad at Harvard Bernanke lived in Winthrop House the same residence halls as Lloyd Blankfein now Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs.

Yes, yes I know. It is not against the law to network and we really don’t know what Geithner (Treasury), Rubin (CITIGroup), Blankfein (Goldman), and Dimon (JP Morgan Chase) were talking about on Geithner’s cell phone.

But, when regardless of what is said or spun, conduct and results suggest possible abuses and conflicts of interest with what is in the best interest of the majority of American Taxpayers a healthy degree of skepticism is warranted and questions should be asked.

Not enough evidence? Consider the Secretary of State. Ex-President Clinton and Hillary Clinton have earned over $40 million in speaker’s fees since they left office. Including $650,000 from Goldman Sachs and $700,000 (between 2004 and 2007) from CITIGroup. What’s next? In the words of James K. Gailbraith “The incentive effects of this system on presidential behavior in the national interest is a topic – similar to that of CEO compensation – that bears investigation”.

Such a “cabal” justifiably casts doubt as to the integrity inherent in the sweetheart bail-out Wall Street received in response to the Mortgage Backed Security crisis. Consider some of the recent phenomena that the country is seeing.

For instance, although it is not against the law for Mr. Geithner to be constantly on the phone with the people he is responsible for overseeing it is interesting to point out that the administration’s recent move to slash the compensation of the 25 highest paid executives at firm’s receiving bail-out funds did not include Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan Chase.

And it gets worse. You may recall that over $13 billion of Bail Out proceeds given to AIG were subsequently paid out to Goldman Sachs to satisfy an amount due. This cross payment to Goldman is not considered TARP proceeds and Goldman won’t have to pay it back to the American Taxpayers (when did Bernanke know about this?). AIG is controversial for another reason. According to testimony by Neil Barofsky, Special Inspector General for the TARP the blame for exorbitant AIG bonuses ($168 million in “retention payments”) is the responsibility on the poor management of skills of Timothy Geithner. Geithner knew about the payments while he was still at the New York Federal Reserve.

Worse still, with the expiration of Glass-Steagull Goldman Sachs changed its form to enable them to borrow from the Federal Reserve – Taxpayer’s money. And they did borrow. In fact, they borrowed quite a lot in full view of one of the largest financial undertakings in the firm’s history – developing an automotive “industry” in mainland China.

First of all, are the Taxpayer’s funding through the Federal Reserve (with Chairman “Helicopter Ben’s” [so named for his promise to drop suitcases of money on the roof tops of wall street banks] full knowledge and tacit approval) what could be an assault on their own domestic U.S. economy? Or does Goldman have an unrelated reason why there are short on cash in lieu of this particular speculative investment despite knowing far a head of time (distance the use from anticipated source) when Glass Steagull’s provisions would expire? And what if Goldman’s Chinese deal goes bad? Will Goldman’s borrowing from the Federal Reserve become uncollectible? The Taxpayers would then end up suffering a loss. Is therefore Goldman’s investment in China done in the name of the U.S. Taxpayers? Is this situation in the Taxpayer’s best interest? Is “helicopter Ben” Chairman of the Federal Reserve really that naïve? By the way, unemployment in Detroit is 30%.

Where is David Graham Phillips when you need him? He would call all this treason. How can Australia simply adopt strict controls over Short selling like they were passing the salt at the dinner table, while we can’t stop Goldman Sachs from sticking the Taxpayer’s with the bill of a possibly failing, if not competing, Chinese auto-manufacturer?

Be careful offering any explanations. I get concerned when I sense a whole lot of gyrations (if not outright stonewalling) that could have the effect of disguising or distancing the receipt of an amount of Taxpayer’s money from its actual use. Or when the Source (receipt of funds) is too remotely related by the Use because of timing difference, explanations, definitions made available through budgetary or GAAP/GASB Accounting, or for that matter the entities chosen to be involved (Goldman via AIG). Keep it simple, we were lead to believe that TARP receipts would not be alive today - to do anything - if it were not but for their receipt of Taxpayer’s money.

Barac O’bama hired these individuals, Geithner, Summers, and Bernanke and he now needs to fire them or suffer their legacy.

The trickle-down banking approach to the Mortgage crisis was largely a failure. TARP proves nothing more than the fact that anytime the government spends $100s of billions of dollars on anything their will be measurable repercussions in the economy. It doesn’t speak to the appropriateness of the plan itself. The banking cabal didn’t solve the underlying problem. Neither will trying to reflate the bubble of debt driven consumption.

Consider a possible alternative. Perhaps the following microeconomic approach that would have rebuilt a domestic economic base.

The subprime mortgage crisis could have been dealt with by giving in the vast majority of the assistance to the States. The States could then use this money to create jobs and improve the mortgage holder’s ability to make payments. This would have reinstated the flow of funds driving the collaterized mortgage bond obligations and thereby rationing assistance to those holders – both domestic and abroad - in direct proportion to their exposure. The resulting tax receipts to State Governments would have helped innumerable States avoid financial crises that resulted in decreased public services and in some instances increased threats to public safety most notably from having to release criminals from incarceration.

A modicum of Federal financial assistance could have gone to maintain an orderly, vulture-filled bankruptcy of the “Wall Street” institutions whose lack of regulation made them responsible for the problem. Vultures, both domestic and foreign, like Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA who won the bidding to take over ailing Texas lender Guaranty Financial Group Inc. provide a tremendous service. Orderly bankruptcies of politically connected Wall Street institutions could have had the effect of bringing about an industry profile that should have existed had anti-trust laws been properly enforced. After all, do we really need to ensure that American financial institutions remain large to compete globally? Couldn’t a subset of several dozen smaller institutions organize themselves to execute extremely large transactions? Does the number of firms have to remain small so the market share captured by domestic firms remains high?

But the laws of this country where ignored. I would call America’s TARP episode criminal gross negligence. Especially of the microeconomic principles so crucial to the stability of this country and the majority of its households.

Now it is said that we need to make sure the stock market soars to help these firms recapitalize themselves. Is this to say so that these firms can either sell or “show on their books” stock at inflated prices? Would such a “soar” even be legitimate right now given the domestic economies problems? Or is the “soar” based on the success of these Institutions foreign investment? In the end, after receiving so much “Bail-out” monies if their stock isn’t worth more they too should all be fired.

Again, the multiplier to the domestic economy of an additional dollar to the super rich is less than the multiplier of an additional dollar to someone of low to modest means.

No more selling out what is in the best interest of the American public with a wink and a nod to a pay day after you leave public office.

“If only the emperor knew!” Well, I’m sure he does and it is going to cost him and his party my vote.

ps Rahm Emanuel was selected to serve on the board of Freddie Mac by Robert Rubin.

Recent Updated: 7 years ago - Created by khteWisconsin - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - khteWisconsin
Flickr 33. Jamie Dimon

Recent Updated: 7 years ago - Created by adz_dzikriii - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - adz_dzikriii
Flickr Jamie Dimon of J.P. Morgan Chase
Tags: nyc   crains   jpmorganchase   futureofnewyork   jamiedimon   partnershipfornewyorkcity   
by Buck Ennis
Recent Updated: 7 years ago - Created by FutureNYC - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - FutureNYC
Flickr Jamie Dimon Mask at Bailout Protest
Tags: newyork   color   costume   bush   funny   peace   mask   action   outdoor   manhattan   protest   peaceful   bank   bull   demonstration   wallstreet   financial   codepink   economy   liberal   crisis   mortgage   jpmorgan   dimon   bailout   agitpop   subprime   jamesdimon   jamiedimon   700billion   

Protester wearing a Jamie Dimon mask at the bailout protest on Broadway. Dimon is the CEO of JP Morgan Chase, one of the banks the federal government is poised to bail out to the tune of $700 billion.

Recent Updated: 8 years ago - Created by Lindsay Beyerstein - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - Lindsay Beyerstein
Flickr jamie_dimon_logo_073

Recent Updated: 8 years ago - Created by BradTrentNYC - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - BradTrentNYC
Flickr Kellogg-ChaseJPMorgan CEO-Jamie Dimon

Recent Updated: 10 years ago - Created by slontoh - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - slontoh
Flickr "Jamie Dimon Slams the Big Bank Breaker-Uppers" by ANTONY CURRIE via NYT
Tags: twitter   ifttt   
"Jamie Dimon Slams the Big Bank Breaker-Uppers" by ANTONY CURRIE via NYT (via Twitter
Recent Updated: 10 years ago - Created by felipemassone - View

Copyright and permission to use should be sought to the author - felipemassone