JOEL M.
SKOUSEN’S
WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF
COMMENTARY AND INSIGHTS ON A TROUBLED WORLD
WEEKLY PRINT EDITION
A GLIMPSE INTO DARK SIDE IMMUNITY
Only a small minority of Americans see that only liars are
allowed to win the nomination for high political office—in
this or any other country. In the end, it really doesn’t
matter who is elected president—all the major candidates
have been co-opted by the control system and its globalist
agenda. Honest statesmen like Ron Paul are shunned by
the media and the powerful elite. Sadly, even most people
would rather be lied to about what they want to hear rather
than believe the truth about our declining situation.
This week, I will give my readers a glimpse into the
various aspects of political dishonesty plus a rare view of
the PTB’s system of protecting their own from the
consequences of their crimes. It starts with lies, and then
progresses to corruption and crime, which must be covered-
up. In America it’s mostly the few at the top that are part of
the corruption racket although corruption inevitably creeps
downward over the years as underlings begin following the
example of their leaders. Many of the people closest to the
elite, who are privy to wrongdoing, are compromised into
staying silent by the promises of future money and higher
position if they play along—plus subtle threats if they
don’t. However, once in a while the Powers That Be (PTB)
hire a person who won’t be silent. That’s how a
whistleblower is born—admittedly, a dying breed given
how they are threatened and betrayed by government
agencies legally bound to protect them. Only a few survive
to tell, so this week we get another rare but valuable
glimpse into how the dark side operates.
Dan Eggen of the Washington Post is an example of how
the establishment media gives superficial coverage to a
whistleblower, only to hold back essential facts that
demonstrate how the cover-up of wrongdoing goes clear up
to the White House—facts that only the alternative media
dares to present. [My comments in brackets]
“Edgar A. Domenech says he thought Justice Department
officials would welcome information about
mismanagement at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives [It’s amazing how many
intelligent Americans in government have never read the
accounts of America’s persecution of whistleblowers in the
80's and 90's. If you are one of those, try Rodney’s Stich’s
“Defrauding America.” Maybe Domenech thought his
department was an exception—very naive, given the ATF’s
horrendous vendetta against lawful gunowners]. Instead,
the 23-year ATF veteran says, Justice officials ignored his
complaints and later retaliated against him by demoting
him, denying him a bonus and attempting to give him a
poor job review.
“‘I realized I was committing career suicide at the time
[shows he did have principles], but I felt I had a moral
obligation as the deputy director to protect the agency and
the men and women of the agency,’ Domenech said in an
interview yesterday. ‘In retrospect, I was naive to believe
that the department would welcome my honesty.’”
March 7, 2008
Now, here’s the rest of the story from critics of the Bush
administration, unfearing of the consequences—well,
perhaps not totally “unfearing.” This insightful weblog still
u s e s a p s e u d o n y m: “ T h e E mp t y w h e e l ” a t
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com: It begins with a
relevant question: Who Is Carl Truscott and Why Did
Bush’s DOJ Protect Him? Here are a few excerpts with my
comments.
“Carl Truscott is... the former head of Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms who resigned in 2006 under
pressure for financial and other management abuses. But
what I'm really interested in is why Bush's DOJ went to
great lengths to protect him [A question few reporters ever
dare delve into for fear of losing their job].
“Domenech's complaint details Truscott's abuses,
including:
* Creating his own personal security detail
* Dragging official photographers to all his events
* Building a gym expansion in a building that would
only be used for two additional years
* Adding $4 million in design changes to the new BATF
headquarters
* Hiring an unqualified former co-worker to an Assistant
Director position
Perhaps the best example of Truscott's egomania is the way
he'd invite his buddies over for lunch on the BATF's dime:
‘On numerous occasions during Director Truscott's tenure,
he has invited individuals representing private corporations
and businesses with no apparent connection to ongoing
contracts or activities with ATF to have lunch at
government expense in his office or at nearby restaurants.
Many of these individuals are former members of the
Secret Service, or were referred to him by retired or current
Secret service members [The SS is part of the government’s
dark side (not all agents know that)—but, even the good
guys have to keep a lot of sleazy secrets about presidential
misconduct in the White House. Past top officials of the SS
have even participated in covering-up for government
participation in the JFK assassination and the Reagan
assassination attempt].
“‘During the course of these meals, two female (GS-13 and
GS-12) staff members are required to serve Director'
Truscott and his guests in the Director's' Office and have
been specifically instructed to announce to the Director that
‘Lunch is served’, causing undue humiliation to these
professional staff employees and forcing them to engage in
activity at work which is outside the scope of their duties.’
“The complaint goes on to explain that Truscott's financial
mismanagement resulted in a net $20 million loss in
BATF's operating budget in FY 2006, leading to shortages
of key equipment and capabilities.” While Truscott’s
financial indiscretions were bad, they are not atypical for
high government bureaucrats who regularly waste the
taxpayers money. Even Congress has its junkets. But
what’s telling about the story, which the Post leaves out, is
retaliation from the Department of Justice under Bush
loyalist AG Gonzales:
“In spite of Domenech's documentation of such abuses
(which were confirmed by an OIG investigation), DOJ
protected Truscott. For example, in late 2006 and early
2007, Domenech and the Director of Field Operations
twice approached the Deputy Attorney General's office
with the problems, but got no response. Domenech again
approached the DAG in February 2007, but was dismissed.
“Truscott resigned in August 2007, but even after that, DOJ
protected him. In May 2007, Truscott's replacement,
Michael Sullivan, invited Truscott to the department's
annual memorial service. In August 2007, Sullivan invited
Truscott to the annual awards ceremony and thanked him
for his leadership [in other words, have Truscott resign to
take the heat off the DOJ, but otherwise treat him as one of
the insiders that he is. This is all reminiscent of another
insider, Rudy Giuliani, who kept disgraced Bernie Kerek in
his employ at 6 figures even after Kerek’s corruption was
exposed and his nomination for Chief of Homeland
Security was scuttled].
“On January 17, 2007, 41 days after eight US Attorneys
were fired en masse, Domenech was demoted three levels.
The excuse was similar to the one used with the US
Attorneys (though Domenech is a career employee,
therefore presumably not subject to such political whims):
the department was going to go in a different direction;
Domenech didn't share Sullivan's vision of the department.
But Domenech alleges he was fired because he's the one
who forced DOJ to deal with Truscott's incompetence and
abuses.
“Why Did DOJ and the White House Protect Truscott? ...
Truscott reminds me of Rachel Paulose [one of the US
Attorneys who should have been fired but was not]... DOJ
made several efforts to help Paulose stay in her US
Attorney position. And when Mukasey came in, they
quietly moved Paulose to another position in DOJ rather
than firing her. But the thing is, we know why DOJ was so
loyal to Paulose.
“In addition to being one of Gonzales' clique members,
Paulose had defended the GOP in an election-related case,
defended a faith-based healthcare program, and had fought
against non-American detainees claiming rights via
international treaties. Paulose had demonstrated, both
ideologically and through her work, that she was a loyal
member of Bush's [globalist] team. So they showed her the
same loyalty in return.
“So what did Carl Truscott do to deserve the same loyal
treatment? Domenech's complaint makes it clear that
Truscott's protection came directly from the White
House.... After all, Truscott's chief preparation for running
BATF came from working at the White House ... as Special
Agent in Charge of the Secret Service's Presidential
Protective Division and after that, in charge of Secret
Service's IT. And while there, Truscott appears to have
gotten an award every year of Bush's term.
“Mr. Truscott joins the Bureau from the U.S. Secret
Service, where he served as the Assistant Director of the
Office of Protective Research and was responsible for the
Secret Service’s investigative and protective intelligence,
threat assessment activities, technical security, information
technology, emergency preparedness, as well as science
and technology. Prior to his term as Assistant Director, Mr.
Truscott served as the Special Agent in Charge of the
Presidential Protective Division [beginning in the Clinton
administration—so he was privy to all the Clinton secrets
too], where he had primary responsibility for supervising
all protective matters relating to the President, First Family
and the White House.
“Note, there is not necessarily something suspicious about
Truscott moving from protecting President Bush to being
protected by Bush as Truscott trashed the BATF. Bush is,
after all, the kind of guy that appoints cronies of all types,
and Bush may have just grown chummy with Truscott
when Truscott was protecting him [It’s more than that,
though both Bush and Clinton got buddy-buddy with the
men who bring them prostitutes and keep the secret from
their wives–who, like Mrs. Bush, keeps an apartment in
Washington when she is “not supposed to be at the White
House.” Truscott works for and takes orders from people
higher than the president, so the president knows Truscott
is both protector (if Bush plays along) and enforcer (if the
president gets out of line)].
“But then consider the favors the Secret Service did for
Bush. Truscott worked in the Secret Service during the
period when a gay prostitute started visiting the White
House for overnight visits. Truscott appears to have been in
charge of Presidential Protection during the period when
Abramoff was visiting the White House--the records of
which visits the White House later tried to hide. Truscott
was also at the White House during the period when the
Secret Service adopted its processes for records
management with regard to visitors' records.
“In other words, while at the White House, Truscott was in
the position to do all sorts of favors for--or to collect all
sorts of embarrassing information about--George Bush. It's
worth noting, too, that Truscott's abusive lunches and
inappropriate hiring involved buddies from the Secret
Service--so even active officers were benefitting from
Truscott's little fiefdom [Keeping in touch with fellow dark
side agents, socially, is also very characteristic of this
inner secret club within government. People like Truscott
know that other dark side agents can also execute orders
from the real PTB against any other member and hope that
by maintaining close corruption bonds within the
“Brotherhood of Darkness” they can maintain their
immunity or at least get fore-warned by a buddy if they are
being targeted].”
During the Ken Starr investigation/cover-up for the
Clinton/Lewinsky sex scandal and the Vince Foster murder,
we also got a close look at dark side immunity. Secret
Service agents were subpoenaed to testify against the
President and they covered for him. So did Arkansas State
Troopers, except one who blew the whistle privately—Bill
Shelton—who allegedly committed suicide by shooting
himself at the grave site of his fiancee, Kathy Ferguson (the
ex-wife of Trooper Danny Ferguson). Kathy blew the
whistle on her husbands pimping for Clinton in the Paula
Jones case. She supposedly committed suicide next to her
packed travel bags, heading out of town. Does that look
suspicious or what?
It is also of note that during Truscott’s tenure at ATF his
bureau looked the other way while cocaine was being
smuggled into Florida on CIA planes. If you dig into past
whistleblower stories, you find the same story enacted
many times before as high officials in the DEA cover-up
for CIA drug smuggling at multiple border crossings.
One of the comments to the Emptywheel essay was a
blogger who cautioned “do not forget the role the Secret
Service has played in suppressing dissent at Presidential
and Vice-Presidential campaigns and other public
appearances.”
Truscott also oversaw IT technology at the SS though he
had no engineering training—indicating the political nature
of the position, rather than technical. This is essential to
managing a cover-up over key electronic and physical
records that must be hidden in case of Congressional
investigations. Email, phone logs, and visitor logs must be
falsified, changed or sometimes hidden without the
knowing participation of the good agents on duty who
might have entered the information correctly.
THE POLITICAL ART OF LYING
More Americans are becoming cynical about what
candidates say—except when they are being told what they
want to hear. But, even those are often lies. Sometimes
politicians tell true facts but distort their meaning for evil
intent. For example, both Hillary Clinton and Barack
Obama were bashing NAFTA in front of Democratic voters
in Ohio. As part of the industrial “rust belt” Ohio
Democratic voters are pro-union and opposed to free trade
with Mexico when it induces US corporations to export
jobs across the border. Clinton and Obama were outright
lying in saying they would threaten to withdraw from
NAFTA if suitable reforms weren’t made.
However, news leaked out that while Senator Obama was
jousting with Hillary about who could outdo the other in
bashing NAFTA, Obama’s staff was quietly meeting with
Canadian diplomats in Chicago assuring them that Obama
had no intention of dismantling the pact. Canadian
Television Network (CTV) News reported that “an Obama
campaign official had contacted Canadian ambassador
Michael Wilson to assure him that any criticisms of
NAFTA by the candidate would be simply campaign
rhetoric and should not be taken seriously.”
Naturally, “Aides to Obama on Friday again denied reports
the Illinois senator's campaign privately assured the
Canadian government the candidate was not serious in his
criticisms of NAFTA.” The Canadian embassy also denied
that any such conversation took place. That’s also part of
the big lie, protecting each other from disclosure of private
talks.
These denials prompted CTV to release a telltale memo
that backed up their story, further embarrassing the Obama
campaign. The AP reports: “After denials by Obama and
the Canadian embassy, the network reported Thursday a
conversation on NAFTA had taken place between Austan
Goulsbee, a senior Obama economic adviser, and Canada's
consul general in Chicago.... The memo is the first
documentation to emerge publicly out of the meeting
between the adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and officials with
the Canadian consulate in Chicago, but Goolsbee said it
misinterprets what he told them. The memo was written by
Joseph DeMora, who works for the consulate and attended
the meeting.
“Goolsbee disputed a section that read: ‘Noting anxiety
among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S.
economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the
protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the
Midwest, during the primary campaign. He cautioned that
this messaging should not be taken out of context and
should be viewed as more about political positioning than a
clear articulation of policy plans.’”
Goolsbee complained that “that's this guy's language... He's
not quoting me.” That may well be a paraphrase, but it is
highly doubtful that DeMora’s recollection is unfounded.
If anything, being a diplomat, he softened the language.
Note, Goolsbee said, “I certainly did not use that phrase in
any way." but didn’t deny the substance.
Then there is the constant lying about securing the nation’s
borders. Polls uniformly show that at least 75% of
Americans want the border secured. So everyone,
including John “Amnesty” McCain are claiming to secure
the border. Behind all the doubletalk, however, everyone
involved with fencing the border keeps sabotaging the
project.
BORDER FENCE RUSE
Tony Blankley of the Washington Times (who I don’t
normally quote because he keeps protecting the Bush
administration) can’t resist pointing out the contradictions
as everyone falls all over themselves to appear in favor of
“The Fence.”
“Over a year ago, Congress passed a law to spend over $7
billion to build a fence to secure our Mexican border. Less
than two weeks ago, Homeland Security Secretary Michael
Chertoff announced at a news conference that a high-tech
‘virtual fence’ project on part of the U.S. border with
Mexico was finally ready for service, and that the
technology that was a substitute for an actual physical
fence —— you know, cement, barbed wire, watch towers,
moats.
“The secretary was very specific. He said: ‘I have
personally witnessed the value of the system, and I have
spoken directly to border patrol agents ... who have seen it
produce actual results, in terms of identifying and allowing
the apprehension of people who were illegally smuggling
across the border. [Sure, some are caught but most of the
time agents can’t find them once they are alerted by the
sensors because of time delays in getting to the area of
intrusion—no barrier to slow them down or keep them
contained]. The so-called Project 28 virtual fence was built
near Nogales, Ariz. The $20 million project of sensor
towers and advanced mobile communications was
supposed to be ready by mid-2007, but was delayed by
software problems.
“Some of us want a regular, real physical fence. But the
White House assured us that a virtual fence would be better
[Only for the military-industrial contractors getting the fat
government contracts]. And, by the way, both Sens. Hillary
Clinton and Barack Obama in last week's debate said they
were for the virtual fence-which in their view might obviate
the need for a physical fence... But only five days later, the
media reported that the Bush administration has scaled
back plans to quickly build a virtual fence along the U.S.-
Mexico border, delaying completion of that first 28-mile
phase by at least three years and shifting away from a
network of tower-mounted sensors and surveillance gear.
Technical problems in the same 28-mile project that Mr.
Chertoff had personally vouchsafed just five days before
were cited by Homeland Security Department officials as
the reason for the three-year delay —which, let me remind
you, the secretary had said just five days before it was
ready to go operational.
“So, instead of starting the promised for partially funded
border fence on President Bush's watch, as he promised; his
new plans provide for the first 28 miles of the 2,000-mile
fence to be started in the third year of the next presidency. I
guess he never really wanted to build that fence. But Mr.
Chertoff did promise to ‘double the fleet’ of our unmanned
surveillance aircraft-from three to six for 2,000 miles of
border [nice excuse to fund more “eyes in the sky” which
can later spy on Americans away from the border].
“About 75 percent of the public wants our border secured. I
guess that does not include the president —nor the
Democratic Party candidates looking to replace him.” This
is the real truth, but it doesn’t stop all the candidates from
claiming the opposite. Blankley ends by quoting Mickey
Klaus: "In other words, we've all just been taken for a
ride... In order to do whatever possible to avoid building an
actual physical fence . . . Bush, McCain and their amnesty
cronies made sure a monumental amount of money was
wasted on a fake, untested, unreal fence to placate
conservatives."
HILLARY’S PRIMARY VICTORY AND WHAT IT
MEANS
What it really means is that Hillary isn’t going away and
we have to endure the agony of many more months of her
highly charged political antics. This ensures millions in
free publicity for the Democrats as the media continues to
focus every night’s news on “she said this” and “he said
that.” John McCain will become somewhat irrelevant
unless the media goes out of its way to promote him.
We did see President Bush give a gushy endorsement of his
fellow neocon John McCain. Naturally, Bush focused on
John McCain being the best qualified to “stay the course”
in Iraq and beyond. At least that part was true. McCain
will continue the warmongering agenda in the false name
of “protecting American freedoms.” Mike Huckabee is
now bowing out of the race, now that his role as spoiler for
real conservative candidates is finished. He candidly
admitted that the VP slot never existed: “I don't think Sen.
McCain would select me anyway...I think that it's a little
almost off the chart to think that he would end up selecting
me."
It did appear that race was beginning to play a role in the
Democratic primaries—foretelling an ominous role in the
general election if Obama prevails in the super-delegate
contest (Hillary’s “wins” did little to alter Obama’s lead in
popular delegates). The race factor was inevitable given
the nature of the two states where the primary vote was
focused—Ohio and Texas. Hillary played to the Hispanics
in Texas by declaring, “No woman is an illegal." Really?
Are American’s so sensitive about protecting women that
they are beyond prosecution for disobeying the law? No,
but she was targeting Hispanics who lapped it all up.
Hispanics don’t like blacks, in general, so Hillary’s playing
up to one race set up a natural backlash against the other,
exemplified in Obama.
In Ohio, Hillary didn’t need to play up the race card
directly. The old fashioned “Archie Bunker” mentality of
union workers was predictable in and of itself. As
Bloomberg News noted, “The white, blue-collar voters
personified by the 1970s fictional television character cost
Obama this week. His Democratic presidential rival,
Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, beat him 54 percent
to 44 percent in industrial Ohio, and 58 percent to 40
percent in predominantly white Rhode Island. In Ohio's
10th district of Cuyahoga County, a suburban enclave on
Cleveland's west side that includes a large population of
Polish-Americans, Clinton trounced Obama 61 percent to
37 percent, according to exit polls. In the state's Belmont
County, an economically depressed Appalachian border
area that is predominantly white, she had a 50-point lead
over Obama, the first black candidate to have a shot at the
White House.
“‘Race played a significant factor in Ohio,’' said Cuyahoga
County Commissioner Timothy Hagan, who supported
Obama. The state's white voters aren't ‘bigots, but the
image they see every day of black America is drugs, crime,
guns and violence.’ Clinton's March 4 victories in contests
in Texas, Rhode Island and Ohio -- and just one defeat, in
Vermont -- pumped new life into her candidacy after 11
consecutive losses to Obama. She now has renewed
momentum heading into the next big test on April 22 in
Pennsylvania, where the electorate looks much like Ohio's.
“The weak showing among the white working class in Ohio
and Rhode Island reflects a larger vulnerability for Obama,
said Joe Trippi, a former senior strategist for John Edwards,
who had broad appeal among those voters until he dropped
out of the Democratic race last month. Obama, 46, has ‘had
a problem with lower-income, downscale, blue-collar
Democrats from the beginning,’ Trippi said. ‘He typically
appeals to better educated, upscale Democrats [all
liberals].’''
THE WAR PROPAGANDA FACTOR
Above it all, as Larry Chin of Online Journal says, war and
fear will continue to push the electoral agenda of 2008.
Neither Party is going to tell the truth.
“ The 2008 US presidential charade has already been
decided. Come November, the next White House occupant
(who will be installed via political malfeasance, computer
vote theft and other election irregularities) will be the
puppet who proves to be the most effective in echoing
Bush-Cheney’s ‘war on terrorism’ lies, and expanding the
Bush-Cheney ‘national security’ agenda. The American
populace will bow to the ‘next Bush’ who will ‘keep them
safe’ from ‘Islamic jihadists [a favorite drum beat of
ignorant conservatives like Glenn Beck].’
“Facing a new and increasingly brutal regime (probably
under McCain), many brain-addled Americans will be
stunned that ‘it is happening all over again,’ oblivious to
the fact that their own acquiescence helped make it
possible.
“Washington’s bipartisan consensus ‘war on terrorism’ [is
a] deception. Amply demonstrated by the rhetoric of each
of the prospective US presidential candidates, the
‘terrorism’ lie is also the key to the election. The candidates
know that the ill-informed US population remains petrified,
and still thoroughly manipulated by fear of ‘another 9/11.’
“As exhaustively detailed by Michel Chossudovsky, author
of America’s ‘War on Terrorism,’ the ‘war on terrorism’
deception is a manipulation supported by an elite
consensus, and a cover-up promoted equally by
Washington’s political factions and both Republican and
Democratic parties. This myth, which rests on the perpetual
fabricated threat of an outside enemy, has been the key to
the power wielded by Bush-Cheney. It remains at the core
of every official and unofficial decision made by this
criminal regime, and its complicit bipartisan Washington
partners...
“The Washington consensus has remained united behind
the lies and cover-up of 1) the atrocities of 9/11, a US-led
false flag operation, 2) the fact that ‘Al-Qaeda’ is an
Anglo-American military-intelligence covert operation, and
3) the use of ‘anti-terrorism’ as a pretext to invade and
conquer Afghanistan and Iraq, and its use as the
justification for future war across the Middle East and
Central Asia, Africa, and other vital geostrategic regions.
“Which candidate will be the most effective mass
murderer? Clinton, McCain and Obama are backed by
hawkish national security teams headed by some of the
world’s master war criminals (Kissinger, Brzezinski,
Albright, etc.).These elite connections, and their
ramifications, which promise the deepening of the war,
remain unaddressed and ignored. John McCain is deeply
corrupt and ruthless -- the perfect extension of Bush-
Cheney.
“McCain’s participation in the 1980s savings and loan
scandal, as a member of the infamous Keating Five, is a
matter of historical fact. Also a matter of record are
McCain’s brutal views on war and killing, which are best
exemplified by his 2001 op-ed, War is Hell. Now Let's Get
On With It.’”
McCain’s advisors will grow as the Giuliani team switches
over to McCain. But we already know he employs some of
the worst of the neocons: Henry Kissinger, William Kristol
(Neocon Editor of the Weekly Standard), Robert Kagan
(senior associate at the Leftist Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace), Randy Scheunemann and Gary
Schmitt, both Senior Fellows at the Project for the New
American Century which brought us the Afghan and Iraq
wars, leveraging off of their desired “New Pearl Harbor.”
“Despite their inexplicable reputations as liberals,
Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and
Barack Obama, are now locked in a bitter and destructive
struggle over who is the more Bush/Cheney-esque; who is
the superior ‘anti-terrorist’ and protector of ‘American
security.’”
OBAMA’S CORRUPT DOMESTIC ADVISORS
Chris Floyd has uncovered a dramatic corruption link to the
Obama campaign: “On the domestic front, Obama has
become a blank screen onto which the hopes of millions for
some kind of rectification of the ever-worsening economic
and social injustices in American society are being
projected. And again, while an Obama presidency would
not be as openly radical and predatory as the Bush Regime
in the pursuit of elitist profits, his choice of advisers gives
every indication that his actual policies would differ largely
in management and presentation, not in essence... the
dichotomy between his progressive rhetoric on
socioeconomic justice and the agenda of some of his top
advisers and backers means he cannot escape the charge of
hypocrisy.
“A new report from Consortiumnews.com puts this in stark
relief. It tells the back-story of the Finance Chair of
Obama's campaign: a woman who was instrumental in
devising and pushing the same kind of sub-prime loans and
predatory lending practices that he now routinely
denounces in public: Penny Pritzker. Dennis Bernstein
reports:
“In 2001], 1,406 people……lost much of their life savings
when Superior Bank of Chicago went belly up in 2001 with
over $1 billion in insured and uninsured deposits. This
collapse came amid harsh criticism of how Superior's
owners promoted sub-prime home mortgages...Though
Superior Bank collapsed years before the current sub-prime
turmoil that is rocking the world’s financial markets –– and
pushing those millions of homeowners toward foreclosure
–– some banking experts say the Pritzkers and Superior
hold a special place in the history of the sub-prime fiasco.
“‘The [sub-prime] financial engineering that created the
Wall Street meltdown was developed by the Pritzkers and
Ernst and Young, working with Merrill Lynch to sell bonds
securitized by sub-prime mortgages,’ Timothy J. Anderson,
a whistleblower on financial and bank fraud, told me in an
interview. ‘The sub-prime mortgages,’ Anderson said,
‘were provided to Merrill Lynch, by a nation-wide Pritzker
origination system, using Superior as the cash cow, with
many millions in FDIC insured deposits. Superior’s owners
were to sub-prime lending, what Michael Milken was to
junk bonds.’ In other words, if you traced today’s sub-
prime crisis back to its origins, you would come upon the
role of the Pritzkers and Superior Bank of Chicago.” These
are the kinds of people that made Obama rich through
insider trading, and that’s why he is beholding to them.
HEALTH CARE MANDATES A NEW MAJOR
THREAT
Whether it is Clinton or Obama, the nation is threatened
with more forced involvement in the establishment medical
health system—which is quickly becoming the problem
rather than the solution. America needs more freedom
FROM the establishment medical system and its costly
drugs and more freedom to pursue natural healing
modalities. The major trap of insurance is that it doesn’t
pay for alternative treatments, thus forcing people to take
the “free” route—the establishment medical protocols that
are prepaid.
The main thing driving people into the arms of the
establishment medical system is fear of cost and failure to
get healthy through proper nutrition and exercise. The
typical AVERAGE medical costs for a retired couple by
the time they die is $206,000! What they don’t tell you is
that if you stay healthy and use good judgment to avoid
accidents, most people can avoid this trap.
Both Sens.Clinton and Obama differ little on the health
insurance mandate. Clinton wants one, but Obama only
wants one for children—which will lead to mandates for all
later on. The Republicans are waffling back and forth. As
with amnesty for illegals, they are aiming for mandatory
health insurance as long as they don’t call it that. They too
will start with mandating coverage for all children. Sadly,
it is lost in this debate that there are several million
Americans that choose NOT to have health insurance,
because it’s bad for one’s health.
BEHIND THE AIR FORCE TANKER BID
Lawmakers in Congress with constituencies that benefit
from Boeing work are threatening to not fund the tanker
deal unless the Pentagon comes up with a rational
explanation for skewing the bid in favor of the European
Aeronautic and Space Co. (EADS). Les Blumenthal of
McClatchy Newspapers notes that, “The Air Force on
Wednesday defended its decision to select a European
airplane over a Boeing model to replace its aging fleet of
aerial tankers even as a congressman alleged that changes
were made in the bidding process to ensure there'd be
competition for the $40 billion contract. Rep. Norm Dicks,
D-Wash., said the Air Force engaged in ‘bait and switch’
tactics by first indicating that it wanted a medium-sized
tanker, then opting for a larger one offered by Northrop
Grumman-European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co.
Boeing would have offered its larger 777 rather than the
767 if it had known that the Air Force wanted a bigger
plane, Dicks said.”
As background, remember that there was a scandal in
2001where it was discovered that highly placed Air Force
leaders where in collusion with Boeing to replace its aging
tanker fleet by leasing 20 Boeing tankers and later buying
80–in a no-bid contract. But those were in the days when
Boeing was having trouble competing with the European
consortium of Airbus. Now, after the near Airbus collapse
via the 380 jumbo jet fiasco, Boeing is riding high. I
suspect that the new pro-Bush neocon leaders of France,
Germany and Britain called in a “favor” of the Bush
administration to give them this bid in order to save Airbus.
BLOW TO HOMESCHOOLING IN CALIFORNIA
Jim Kouri writing for NewsWithViews.com reports that,
“In a case that's almost guaranteed to have repercussions
throughout the country, California appellate judges ruled
that one family's children could not be homeschooled and
must attend a government school or accredited private
school. The court's decision is the result of a civil case
brought against Phillip and Mary Long regarding the
education they provided to two of their children. The Longs
currently have eight children in their home, all of whom
they've homeschooled [without problems].... because of
various anti-Christian influences in California's public
schools [teaching homosexuality, trans-gender ethics,
radical environmentalism and anti-Christian dogma].
The legal shenanigans involved in this case are typical of
the degree to which the court claims superior rights over
children than the parents, even without proving parent
harm. “This latest court decision granted a petition brought
by attorneys retained by so-called "child advocates" to
represent the two youngest Long children after the family's
homeschooling was brought to their attention. However,
the Long's children did not have any say in their
representation by these attorneys. While the lawyers
claimed to be representing the interests of the children, they
actually were representing the California education
establishment. Critics say this is proof positive that in the
eyes of bureaucrats parents and families have no rights
regarding education.
“According to information provided by Phil Long, the trial
court had found that keeping the children at home deprived
them of situations where they could interact with people
outside the family [often a key factor homeschooling
parents desire—isolation from the evil influences of public
school children]. They also stated that there are people in
the public school system who could provide help if there's a
problem in the lives of pupils [like providing contraceptives
or mood altering drugs if a school nurse demands it]. A
judge in the case also said that children in government
schools could develop emotionally in a broader world than
the parents' ‘cloistered’ setting [a “broadness” many
Christian parents don’t want].”
The case is an obvious attack on the right of parents to
choose their own values and isolate their children from
other values they feel are harmful. The appeals ruling based
their findings in favor of the state on California’s
mandatory attendance law that only excuses those who go
to certified public schools and those “instructed by a tutor
who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade
being taught,” essentially banning home schooling. Many
home schoolers in California have gotten around this by
forming one room private schools. The Longs did not, and
they are being used as an example. As I point out in my
book Strategic Relocation, this is one of the reasons why
you need to look very closely at state laws when you
relocate to safety. California is proving its reputation as
hostile to liberty.
YES, BRITISH POLITICIANS LIE TOO
Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Labor Party and Britain's
two other major parties made election promises to allow a
referendum on the constitution—now the majority is
reneging and playing Parliamentary hardball to stop the
minority from holding their feet to the fire.
In contradiction to his promises, Prime Minister Gordon
Brown, according to the Financial Times, “dismissed calls
for a referendum on the controversial change to EU
structures, insisting it was not needed. Clashing with
Conservative leader David Cameron in the Commons, Mr
Brown said: ‘If this was a constitutional treaty, we would
hold a referendum.
But the constitutional concept was abandoned.’” –In name
only. Brown signed a treaty and simply declared it was not
a “constitutional treaty.” But, it clearly does what the
failed EU Constitution tried to do. French and Belgium
voters rejected it, and so the leaders decided to avoid
another referendum at any cost. This is what happens when
our leaders in America take us part way into a North
American Union by stealth and then suddenly declare
someday that it is already a done deal and “NO VOTE IS
NECESSARY.” Watch for it.
JEB BUSH’S INSIDER DEALINGS
Apparently Jeb Bush as Governor sat on the State Board of
Administration that controlled what securities would be
purchased as part of the huge Florida pension system. I
reported earlier that Florida froze withdrawals by county
governments from a state investment fund. Prior to the
ban, counties had withdrawn nearly a third of the fund’s
total assets because of concerns for the fund's financial
stability.
According to reports, “The run on the fund was triggered
by worries that a percentage of the portfolio contained debt
that had defaulted. A majority of this paper was sold to
SBA by Lehman Brothers. Bush, as the state's top elected
official, served on a three-member board that oversaw the
SBA until he retired as governor in January. In August,
Bush was hired as a consultant to Lehmans bank.” Jeb
Bush was also in charge when the Board approved a
purchase of over $300 million in Enron stock.
RON PAUL GOING BACK TO CONGRESS
Ron Paul won an overwhelming victory over his neocon
challenger Chris Peden. Paul won a 70% landslide victory
in Tuesday's Republican primary. He faces no Democratic
opponent in the November general election, so he will be
returning to Congress, to the discomfort of the
establishment. Paul has not conceded nor congratulated
McCain, and probably will not. Since Paul is still a
candidate for the Republican nomination, he can demand
the right to address the Republican convention. The PTB
will try and make sure this doesn’t happen. Ron Paul’s
supporters should be prepared to make the Republican
leadership look bad if Paul is denied a slot to speak.
AFGHAN CORRUPTION
Paul Tighe of Bloomberg News reports on the growing
criticism of Hamid Karzai's government in Afghanistan that
has refused to stop the opium and drug trade. Recent
claims by United Nations investigators state that
government officials are “protecting the drug trade in the
country that produces the most opium and heroin in the
world.... Drug traders are linked to corrupt officials and
criminal gangs outside Afghanistan and their networks are
very powerful.’
CHINA MILITARY REPORT –AGAIN
As I continue to point out, the Pentagon every year rolls out
its mildly critical assessment of Chinese military buildup
but never one word about the Russians, who have many
more dangerous weapons. At least Defense Sec. Robert
Gates was somewhat candid about the political nature of
the report:
When asked if the US was concerned about the large
increase in the Chinese military budget (18%) Gates
shrugged it off saying that “I think that there's general
agreement that the Chinese military budget that we see is
only a portion of what the Chinese spend,”
But with it all, it does appear as if the US is secretly
preparing to fight China someday. As Michael T. Klare
reports, in Foreign Policy In Focus, “President Bush
announced a baseline military budget of $515.4 billion for
the next fiscal year, not including funds for operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan. This is the largest one-year Pentagon
request in real, uninflated dollars since World War II. This
Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 figure represents a 7.5% increase
over the 2008 appropriation of $479.5 billion and is
expected to be the first of many rising requests supposedly
needed to replace equipment lost and damaged in Iraq and
to gear up for the security threats to come.
“At first glance, all these additional funds will be used to
sustain the Global War on Terror (GWOT, in Pentagon
shorthand) and replace equipment destroyed or rendered
inoperable in the wars now under way.... But a close
examination of the FY 2009 request indicates that the
principal sources of future budget growth are not the
GWOT or other such low-intensity contingencies but rather
preparation for all-out combat with a future superpower.
“Not that China is actually mentioned in the public,
unclassified budget documents. Rather, discussion is
limited to the need to ‘invest in the strategic modernization
necessary to meet current and future threats from land, sea,
air, or space.’ ...Look closely at some of the most costly
weapons being sought in FY 2009, and it rapidly becomes
apparent that they are not designed to fight insurgent bands
or Third World armies equipped with third-class weapons.
Instead, they are designed to fight some imaginary
successor to the USSR, a ‘peer competitor’ equipped with a
full complement of modern weapons.”
This is a very good point. In a future analysis I will explain
why this preparation is in contradiction to our
government’s hidden policy of covering for or
downplaying Russian and Chinese war preparations.
Obviously, even though the globalists intend to provoke
WWIII, they do intend to win it—thus the preparations.
But what American’s don’t understand is that they don’t
intend to win it on our behalf, but on behalf of the New
World government which the war will justify at the onset.
COLOMBIA’S INCURSION INTO ECUADOR
DISCOVERS INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS
All the ranting and raving against Colombia by
Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Ecuador’s President
Raphael Correa is directly related to what Colombian
military forces discovered in the FARC guerrilla camps
they raided—safely tucked away (so they thought) in a safe
haven across the border in Ecuador. They found evidence
that the guerrilla camp was secretly protected by Ecuador’s
new Leftist president Rafael Correa and that FARC was
being funded by Hugo Chavez. This is the first major
evidence that Chavez and his Leftist allies are directly
aiding communist revolutions in Latin America. Chavez
claims the evidence was fabricated, but Colombia’s
President Uribe is willing to turn the evidence over to the
OAS for its inspection.