In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Thanks yall. Thanks for the suppport and positive comments. It means alot. I think Dobbs is the last real journalist. I can't stand the word "pundent". To me a "pundent" is just some idiot with an opinion. I really like the quote you posted from Dr Paul. Thanks.
Hitler was pronounced dead on may 1 1945. Coincidence? Or are the elite so abbsurdly throwing this in our face than ever before. Please remember that Osama, not Usama was a CIA asset fighting the ruskies in the late 70's. His name was Tim. No Kidding. He had kidney failure more than 10 yrs ago. I felt lost when I saw uneducated young people dancing in the streets. Yay, the boogeyman is dead. It's a lost cause without the 3% solution.
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
Hitler was pronounced dead on may 1 1945. Coincidence? Or are the elite so abbsurdly throwing this in our face than ever before. Please remember that Osama, not Usama was a CIA asset fighting the ruskies in the late 70's. His name was Tim. No Kidding. He had kidney failure more than 10 yrs ago. I felt lost when I saw uneducated young people dancing in the streets. Yay, the boogeyman is dead. It's a lost cause without the 3% solution.
It is disheartening when so many get it wrong but they are not the ones who matter. It is the few who do finally get a glimpse which make all the difference. To steal an old morale booster from commissioned salesmen......Every ten no's you get one yes and that is all you need.
A House bill that could drastically overhaul the nation's gun control laws and strengthen federal power over states' handling of individuals' background checks is expected to be introduced today by New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, The Daily Caller has learned.
McCarthy is expected to drop the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011 - a near-identical companion to that of fellow New Yorker Chuck Schumer's Senate bill - according to sources familiar with the legislation.
A draft of the bill obtained by TheDC makes clear that McCarthy's legislation significantly mirrors Schumer's much-publicized bill and would make three significant changes to current national gun laws. McCarthy's proposed fixes include gun-control advocates' long-sighted target in the national firearms debate - closing major "loopholes" of the milestone Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.
White House on War Powers Deadline: 'Limited' US Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization link
President Obama Pardons Alligator Hide Salesman, Drug Dealers, Satellite-Cable-Decryption-Equipment Maker
Obama to CIA: 'I Put My Bet On You' in Osama bin Laden Mission
In Oval Office, Bibi Offers History Lessons to Obama
Obama Administration Officials Cite 'Progress' in Syria Not Getting Seat on UN Human Rights Council
Three Things That Irked Bibi About Obama's Speech
Indie Group Run By Former Obama White House Staffers Runs Ad Attacking Romney
The Presidential Planner#8236;
Is President Obama About to Break the Law?
White House on War Powers Deadline: 'Limited' US Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization
May 20, 2011 7:14 PM
In an effort to satisfy those arguing he needs to seek congressional authorization to continue US military activity in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so "limited" he does not need to seek congressional approval.
"Since April 4," the president wrote, "U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts."
A senior administration official told ABC News that the letter is intended to describe "a narrow US effort that is intermittent and principally an effort to support to support the ongoing NATO-led and UN-authorized civilian support mission and no fly zone."
"The US role is one of support," the official said, "and the kinetic pieces of that are intermittent."
From the beginning of the U.S. military intervention in Libya, the Obama administration has cited the 1973 War Powers Act as the legal basis of its ability to conduct military activities for 60 days without first seeking a declaration of war from Congress. The military intervention started on March 19; Congress was notified on March 21. Those 60 days expire today.
The president thanked the congressional leaders - House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky --- for the support that they have "demonstrated for this mission and for our brave service members, as well as your strong condemnation of the Qaddafi regime."
The president voiced support for a bipartisan resolution drafted by Senators John Kerry, D-Mass., John McCain, R-Ariz., Carl Levin, D-Mich., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Lindsey Graham, R-SC, and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., stating that Congress "supports the U.S. mission in Libya and that both branches are united in their commitment to supporting the aspirations of the Libyan people for political reform and self-government.Congressional action in support of the mission would underline the U.S. commitment to this remarkable international effort."
Earlier this month, Kerry - who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - described his resolution as "in limbo."
China has officially put the United States on notice that Washington's planned attack on Pakistan will be interpreted as an act of aggression against Beijing. This blunt warning represents the first known strategic ultimatum received by the United States in half a century, going back to Soviet warnings during the Berlin crisis of 1958-1961, and indicates the grave danger of general war growing out of the US-Pakistan confrontation.
"Any Attack on Pakistan Would be Construed as an Attack on China"
Responding to reports that China has asked the US to respect Pakistan's sovereignty in the aftermath of the Bin Laden operation, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu used a May 19 press briefing to state Beijing's categorical demand that the "sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan must be respected." According to Pakistani diplomatic sources cited by the Times of India, China has "warned in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China." This ultimatum was reportedly delivered at the May 9 China-US strategic dialogue and economic talks in Washington, where the Chinese delegation was led by Vice Prime Minister Wang Qishan and State Councilor Dai Bingguo.1 Chinese warnings are implicitly backed up by that nation's nuclear missiles, including an estimated 66 ICBMs, some capable of striking the United States, plus 118 intermediate-range missiles, 36 submarine-launched missiles, and numerous shorter-range systems.
Support from China is seen by regional observers as critically important for Pakistan, which is otherwise caught in a pincers between the US and India: "If US and Indian pressure continues, Pakistan can say `China is behind us. Don't think we are isolated, we have a potential superpower with us,'" Talat Masood, a political analyst and retired Pakistani general, told AFP.2
The Chinese ultimatum came during the visit of Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani in Beijing, during which the host government announced the transfer of 50 state-of-the-art JF-17 fighter jets to Pakistan, immediately and without cost.3 Before his departure, Gilani had stressed the importance of the Pakistan-China alliance, proclaiming: "We are proud to have China as our best and most trusted friend. And China will always find Pakistan standing beside it at all times..When we speak of this friendship as being taller than the Himalayas and deeper than the oceans it truly captures the essence of our relationship."4 These remarks were greeted by whining from US spokesmen, including Idaho Republican Senator Risch.
The simmering strategic crisis between the United States and Pakistan exploded with full force on May 1, with the unilateral and unauthorized US commando raid alleged to have killed the phantomatic Osama bin Laden in a compound at Abottabad, a flagrant violation of Pakistan's national sovereignty. The timing of this military stunt designed to inflame tensions between the two countries had nothing to do with any alleged Global War on Terror, and everything to do with the late March visit to Pakistan of Prince Bandar, the Saudi Arabian National Security Council chief. This visit had resulted in a de facto alliance between Islamabad and Riyadh, with Pakistan promising troops to put down any US-backed color revolution in the kingdom, while extending nuclear protection to the Saudis, thus making them less vulnerable to US extortion threats to abandon the oil-rich monarchy to the tender mercies of Tehran. A joint move by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to break out of the US empire, whatever one may think of these regimes, would represent a fatal blow for the fading US empire in South Asia.
As for the US claims concerning the supposed Bin Laden raid of May 1, they are a mass of hopeless contradictions which changes from day to day. An analysis of this story is best left to literary critics and writers of theatrical reviews. The only solid and uncontestable fact which emerges is that Pakistan is the leading US target - thus intensifying the anti-Pakistan US policy which has been in place since Obama's infamous December 2009 West Point speech.
Gilani: Full Force Retaliation to Defend Pakistan's Strategic Assets
The Chinese warning to Washington came on the heels of Gilani's statement to the Pakistan Parliament declaring: "Let no one draw any wrong conclusions. Any attack against Pakistan's strategic assets, whether overt or covert, will find a matching response.. Pakistan reserves the right to retaliate with full force. No one should underestimate the resolve and capability of our nation and armed forces to defend our sacred homeland."5 A warning of full force retaliation from a nuclear power such as Pakistan needs to be taken seriously, even by the hardened aggressors of the Obama regime.
The strategic assets Gilani is talking about are the Pakistani nuclear forces, the key to the country's deterrent strategy against possible aggression by India, egged on by Washington in the framework of the US-India nuclear cooperation accord. The US forces in Afghanistan have not been able to conceal their extensive planning for attempts to seize or destroy Pakistan's nuclear bombs and warheads. According to a 2009 Fox News report, "The United States has a detailed plan for infiltrating Pakistan and securing its mobile arsenal of nuclear warheads if it appears the country is about to fall under the control of the Taliban, Al Qaeda or other Islamic extremists." This plan was developed by General Stanley McChrystal when he headed the US Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. JSOC, the force reportedly involved in the Bin Laden operation. is composed of Army Delta Force, Navy SEALs and "a high-tech special intelligence unit known as Task Force Orange." "Small units could seize [Pakistan's nukes], disable them, and then centralize them in a secure location," claimed a source quoted by Fox.6
Obama Has Already Approved Sneak Attack on Pakistan's Nukes
According to the London Sunday Express, Obama has already approved an aggressive move along these lines: "US troops will be deployed in Pakistan if the nation's nuclear installations come under threat from terrorists out to avenge the killing of Osama Bin Laden. The plan, which would be activated without President Zardari's consent, provoked an angry reaction from Pakistan officials. Barack Obama would order troops to parachute in to protect key nuclear missile sites. These include the air force's central Sargodha HQ, home base for nuclear-capable F-16 combat aircraft and at least 80 ballistic missiles." According to a US official, "The plan is green lit and the President has already shown he is willing to deploy troops in Pakistan if he feels it is important for national security."7
Extreme tension over this issue highlights the brinksmanship and incalculable folly of Obama's May 1 unilateral raid, which might easily have been interpreted by the Pakistanis as the long-awaited attack on their nuclear forces. According to the New York Times, Obama knew very well he was courting immediate shooting war with Pakistan, and "insisted that the assault force hunting down Osama bin Laden last week be large enough to fight its way out of Pakistan if confronted by hostile local police officers and troops."
The Shooting Has Already Started
The shooting between US and Pakistani forces escalated on Tuesday May 17, when a US NATO helicopter violated Pakistani airspace in Waziristan. Pakistani forces showed heightened alert status, and opened fire immediately, with the US helicopter shooting back. Two soldiers at a Pakistani check post on the border in the Datta Khel area were wounded.8
Possible Pakistani retaliation for this border incursion came in Peshawar on Friday, May 20, when a car bomb apparently targeted a 2-car US consulate convoy, but caused no American deaths or injuries. One Pakistani bystander was killed, and several wounded. In other intelligence warfare, Ary One television reported the name of the CIA station chief in Islamabad, the second top US resident * there to have his cover blown in six months.
US Envoy Grossman Rejects Pakistani Calls To Stop Border Violations
US Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman, the replacement for the late Richard Holbrooke, on May 19 arrogantly rejected Pakistani calls for guarantees that no more Abottabad-style unilateral operations would be mounted in Pakistan.9 In refusing to offer such assurances, Grossman claimed that Pakistani officials had never demanded respect for their border in recent years.10
In the midst of this strategic crisis, India has gone ahead with inherently provocative scheduled military maneuvers targeting Pakistan. This is the "Vijayee Bhava" (Be Victorious) drill, held in the Thar desert of north Rajastan,. This atomic-biological-chemical Blitzkrieg drill involves the Second Armored Corps, "considered to be the most crucial of the Indian Army's three principal strike formations tasked with virtually cutting Pakistan in two during a full-fledged war."11
One way to provide the provocation needed to justify a US-Indian attack on Pakistan would be through an increase in terrorist actions attributable to the so-called Taliban. According to the mainstream Pakistani media, the CIA, the Israeli Mossad, and the Indian RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) have created their own version of the Taliban in the form of a terrorist countergang which they control and direct. According to one account, "Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operatives have infiltrated the Taliban and Al-Qaeda networks, and have created their own Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) force in order to destabilize Pakistan." The former Punjab Regional Commander of the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), retired Brigadier General Aslam Ghuman, commented: "During my visit to the US, I learned that the Israeli spy agency Mossad, in connivance with Indian agency RAW, under the direct supervision of CIA, planned to destabilize Pakistan at any cost."12 Was this countergang responsible for last week's double bombing in Waziristan, which killed 80 paramilitary police?
According to the same account, Russian intelligence "disclosed that CIA contractor Raymond Davis and his network had provided Al-Qaeda operatives with chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, so that US installations may be targeted and Pakistan be blamed.." Davis, a JSOC veteran himself, was arrested for the murder of two ISI agents, but then released by the Pakistani government after a suspicious hue and cry by the State Department.
CIA Claims The New Al Qaeda Boss Lives in Waziristan
If the US needs a further pretext for additional raids, it will also be easy to cite the alleged presence in Waziristan of Saif al-Adel, now touted by the CIA as bin Laden's likely successor as boss of al Qaeda.13 It is doubtless convenient for Obama's aggressive intentions that Saif al-Adel can be claimed to reside so close to what is now the hottest border in the world, and not in Finsbury or Flatbush.
In the wake of the unauthorized May 1 US raid, the Pakistani military chief General Kayani had issued his own warning that similar "misadventures" could not be repeated, while announcing that US personnel inside Pakistan would be sharply reduced. In the estimate of one ISI source, there are currently about 7,000 CIA operatives in country, many of them unknown to the Pakistani government. US-Pakistan intelligence sharing has reportedly been downgraded. In response to Kayani's moves, the CIA limited hangout operation known as Wikileaks once again showed its real nature by attempting to discredit the Pakistan commander with dubious US cable reports that he had demanded more Predator drone attacks, not fewer, in recent years.
Especially since Obama's West Point speech, the CIA has used Predator drone attacks to slaughter civilians with the goal of fomenting civil war inside Pakistan, leading to a breakup of the country along the ethnic lines of Punjab, Sind, Baluchistan, and Pushtunistan. The geopolitical goal is to destroy Pakistan's potential to be the energy corridor between Iran and China. Selig Harrison has emerged as a top US advocate for Baluchistan succession.
Since May 1, six reported US Predator drones attacks have slain some 42 Pakistani civilians, goading public opinion into a frenzy of anti-US hatred. In response, a joint session of the Pakistani parliament voted unanimously on May 14 to demand an end to American missile strikes, calling on the government to cut NATO's supply line to Afghanistan if the attacks should continue.14 Since the Karachi to Khyber Pass supply line carries as much as two thirds of the supplies needed by the Afghanistan invaders, such a cutoff would cause chaos among the NATO forces. All of this points to the inherent insanity of provoking war with the country your supply line runs through.
US Wants to Use Taliban Boss Mullah Omar Against Pakistan
The State Department dropped all preconditions for negotiating with the Taliban back in February, and the US is now reported by the Washington Post to be talking with envoys of Mullah Omar, the legendary one-eyed leader of the Quetta Shura or Taliban ruling council. It is apparent that the US is offering the Taliban an alliance against Pakistan. US regional envoy Grossman is hostile to the Pakistanis, but when it comes to the Taliban he has been nicknamed "Mr. Reconciliation."15 By contrast, the US is said to be determined to assassinate the head of the Haqqani network using a Bin Laden-type raid. The Pakistanis are equally determined to keep the Haqqani as an ally.
If China stands behind Pakistan, then Russia might be said to stand behind China. Looking forward to the upcoming June 15 meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Chinese President Hu praised Sino-Russian relations as being "at an unprecedented high point," with an "obvious strategic ingredient." In a press conference this week, Russian President Medvedev was obliged indirectly to acknowledge that the much-hyped Obama "reset" with Russia had amounted to very little, since the US ABM missile program in Romania and the rest of eastern Europe, so obviously directed against Russia, means that the START treaty is of dubious value, thus raising the specter of a "new Cold War." Given the NATO assault on Libya, there would be no UN resolution against Syria, said Medvedev. Putin has been right all along, and Medvedev is trying to imitate Putin to salvage some chance of remaining in power.
Are We in July 1914?
The crisis leading to World War I began with the Sarajevo assassinations of June 28, 1914, but the first major declaration of war did not occur until August 1. In the interim month of July 1914, large parts of European public opinion retreated into a dreamlike trance, an idyllic la-la land of elegiac illusion, even as the deadly crisis gathered momentum. Something similar can be seen today. Many Americans fondly imagine that the alleged death of Bin Laden marks the end of the war on terror and the Afghan War. Instead, the Bin Laden operation has clearly ushered in a new strategic emergency. Forces which had opposed the Iraq war, from MSNBC to many left liberals of the peace movement, are variously supporting Obama's bloody aggression in Libya, or even celebrating him as a more effective warmonger than Bush-Cheney because of his supposed success at the expense of Bin Laden. In reality, if there were ever a time to mobilize to stop a new and wider war, this is it.
-
This post first appeared on Webster Tarpley's website.
"Fascism should rightly be called corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power." ~ Benito Mussolini
Now that we are pushing the three years anniversary of the dramatic financial events of September 2008, it is fair to say, for anyone who has researched the subject on their own, that this movie is nothing but a popularization of the mainstream version of a crisis that only has been postponed and worsened. It portrays the criminals of the revolving door between Washington D.C. and Wall Street as heroes, without so much as touching upon the real reason for the boom and bust phenomenon.
Let's dissect the movie scene by scene.
The introduction shows the Clinton administration repealing Glass-Steagall and how home ownership all of a sudden became a part of the American dream. How Bush Jr. meant that inflating the largest mortgage bubble in history was "good not only for the soul, but also for the pocketbooks of the country." Several news clips are shown, none of which include the accurate warnings given by free market economists such as Peter Schiff or Jim Rogers. Surprised talking heads announce how Bear Stearns are being sold for pennies on the dollar to JP Morgan before the story kicks off in Lehman Brothers' CEO and Chairman Dick Fuld's office.
Fuld seems surprised with the situation of his financial Titanic, which makes little sense considering the outrageous repurchase transactions he undertook prior to September 2008 to cover for the bank's true leverage ratio. Fuld's scapegoat is instead the police of the markets, the short sellers!
Morally correct Hank Paulson can't recommend private investments, when being asked by Fuld to get in touch with Warren Buffett. Paulson's advisers work hard throughout the story, but as Dennis Kucinich has pointed out in Congress, the question is who they are working for.
Value Warren doesn't like what he sees unfolding in the banking sector (until he gets a friendly phone call from Blankfein later in the film) and refuses to touch Lehman at the current price. Fuld jokes about how no one forced mortgages on home buyers, but we all know of one institution that highly encouraged the credit mania with artificially low interest rates for years.
During Hank and Helicopter Ben's weekly breakfast Hank says he has just spoken to Alan Greenspan who complains about the over-supply of housing, a problem which, according to Greenspan, easily can be solved by buying up all the houses and then burning them. This is a wonderful example of the broken window fallacy these people seem to live by. Letting the artificial bubble burst would make housing affordable, but burning houses to encourage economic (GDP) "growth" is seen as a better idea.
The Bernank mostly eats porridge throughout the movie, besides claiming he has spent his entire academic career studying the great depression. The detail that not unexpectedly is missing in this Krugmanian porn flick is that the measures now being implemented are strikingly similar to the ones that accelerated the JP Morgan margin call-triggered crash of 1929 into a depression that lasted until the central planning of WWII loosened its grip of the US economy in the late forties.
Back at Lehman "it's not just a bad quarter" and management is panicking. Dick Fuld blows the deal with potential Korean buyers by trying to convince them that the firm's portfolio of asset backed securities isn't as bad as it appears. Fuld calls Kashkari at the Treasury out of desperation, but refuses to listen to his advice of selling at a lower price.
The following day, Timmy Geithner is "managing" the collapse of Fannie and Freddie from the squash courts. Obama is giving empty campaign promises of stability, which in all other languages than doublespeak means further instability, saying that nationalization of the two mortgage lenders may be an option. On his trip to the Beijing Olympics, Paulson receives a warning from the Chinese that they and the Russians might trash the entire mortgage market unless the US Treasury takes action (to prop up the phony credit-based economy).
It seems this sequence is supposed to justify breathing tax payer air into the corpse that is Fannie & Freddie.
Paulson scares Bank of America by sending a message that bailing out Lehman is not an option. When telling Geithner there is no legal support for the bailout, even though they just helped Jamie Dimon pick up Bear Stearns, Geithner replies that "legally, we haven't figured out how yet" - a statement that should make red flags fly all over the place.
The Lehman stock keeps sliding and Paulson orders the Bernank to summon all the banks' CEOs to a lockdown meeting at the Fed, where they surely already know their way around. At the airport Hank and his team meet with Christopher Cox from the SEC who asks whose private jet they're flying. "That's a rental, Hank put it on his card," is the reply from another former (current) Goldman (Government) Sachs employee. SEC asks with authority if there's anyone in the Treasury who isn't from Goldman, whereupon we get a reassuring: "Chairman, just to be clear, there's no conflict of interest here, Hank sold all of his shares in Goldman before he took office. Thanks for clarifying this, script writers.
The reproduction of the infamous mahogany meeting at the Fed is as full of clich?s as it was in Wall Street II and climaxes when Cox from the SEC reaches out to the banksters: "Gentlemen, you are great Americans undertaking a patriotic duty." This statement is so laughable that even Jamie Dimon cracks up.
After BofA decides to take a stake in Merrill Lynch, it becomes evident that Lehman has to go. But there is another problem arising, namely AIG "running out of cash." The same fear mongering we were delivered through the media is being presented here; everything from airplanes to construction projects to life insurance relies on AIG in one way or another. The world would practically freeze unless AIG gets bailed out. We're all familiar with the billions of dollars of CDS-related obligations the insurance giant held toward Goldman. The rest is unfortunately left to speculation, as the US justice system refuses to touch GS even when being handed rock solid proof on a silver platter by Carl Levin's recent Senate hearing.
Other critics have mentioned how Paulson is portrayed as a financial Jesus in Too Big to Fail, an image that becomes embarrassing when he nearly cries to his wife over the phone about how the fourth largest investment bank is about to go down "on his watch." The next day however, Hank and his team celebrate how media and Congress respond to "his decision" to let Lehman go.
Now the toxic assets really hit the fan and even IMF candidate Christine Lagarde complains to poor Paulson, "how did you dear to let Lehman go." General Electric makes it clear how business in America will shut down unless the economic overlords take action to stimulate the banks. This is the build-up to the justification of the TARP bill. Paulson's team basically comes up with the official version of the financial crisis in less than three minutes, again without mentioning the main facilitator behind the mortgage madness. "The whole financial system?," asks the press secretary in awe after the briefing, almost in tears. "And what do I tell them when they ask why this wasn't regulated?" "You tell them it's already been overregulated through price control and subsidies for decades, you ignorant economic hitwoman," is the reply she should have gotten in the movie.
One of the most shocking statements comes from the porridge-eating Bernank on the day of introducing TARP. The breakfast club partners in crime realise they can't keep blatantly dumping money on companies of their liking, so they have to come up with a way of doing it complicated enough for the alphabet soup illiterate public not to understand that the exact same thing is going on: "This is a democracy. We cannot be men behind the curtains pulling the strings," says the chairman of the unconstitutional creature from Jekyll Island which, according to Greenspan himself, is above the law.
The first draft of the TARP legislation is three pages long. Way too short for lobbyists who prefer bills to be at least a couple of thousand pages, but two pages too long for Ron Paul who has suggested new legislation should be readable for the people voting on it. When it comes to the size of TARP we learn the exact calculation behind 700 billion dollars. In reality, a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com; "It's not based on any particular data point. We just wanted to choose a really large number."
Paulson tells Bernanke before meeting with the legislators that the only way the bill will go through is "to scare them poopless." The Bernank doesn't think this should be a problem. In Too Big to Fail, Paulson kneels before Nancy Pelosi, before having to beg the banks to receive more money. In reality, Paulson did scare members of Congress poopless and threatened with "martial law in America if this bill didn't go through." After the Bernank lectures the financial sub-committee about how the great depression did not play out, and after some spin management and additional fear mongering from the White house, the bill passes and Paulson saves the day, the economy and the world.
The only question left is whether the banks will start lending again, which Paulson confirms they will. In closing, we learn that after the passage of TARP, banks made fewer loans and the markets continued downwards. Unemployment rose to ten percent and millions of families lost their homes, but that in 2009, the markets stabilized and "the slide into a global depression was averted." The biggest banks even repaid their TARP loans. In reality, all economic indicators are down, price inflation and unemployment are at record levels and the banks have ironically gotten away with the largest bank robbery in history.
Too Big to Fail expectedly ignores most of the issues that Austrians have been pointing out all along. In addition to completely misleading the viewer when it comes to economic facts like the catastrophic consequences of monetary central planning and expansion of the money supply, the criminals behind what to most people appears to be an orchestrated bank robbery are shamelessly portrayed as heroes. I'd rather recommend picking up Meltdownby Dr. Thomas Woods for a proper understanding of the events presented in this establishment fairy tale.
Jens C. Kolbjornsen on the movie Too Big to Fail: A Fascist Fairy Tale
The Four Horsemen of Banking (Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo) own the Four Horsemen of Oil (Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP Amoco and Chevron Texaco); in tandem with Deutsche Bank, BNP, Barclays and other European old money behemoths. But their monopoly over the global economy does not end at the edge of the oil patch.
According to company 10K filings to the SEC, the Four Horsemen of Banking are among the top ten stock holders of virtually every Fortune 500 corporation.[1]
So who then are the stockholders in these money center banks?
This information is guarded much more closely. My queries to bank regulatory agencies regarding stock ownership in the top 25 US bank holding companies were given Freedom of Information Act status, before being denied on "national security" grounds. This is rather ironic, since many of the bank's stockholders reside in Europe.
One important repository for the wealth of the global oligarchy that owns these bank holding companies is US Trust Corporation - founded in 1853 and now owned by Bank of America. A recent US Trust Corporate Director and Honorary Trustee was Walter Rothschild. Other directors included Daniel Davison of JP Morgan Chase, Richard Tucker of Exxon Mobil, Daniel Roberts of Citigroup and Marshall Schwartz of Morgan Stanley. [2]
J. W. McCallister, an oil industry insider with House of Saud connections, wrote in The Grim Reaper that information he acquired from Saudi bankers cited 80% ownership of the New York Federal Reserve Bank- by far the most powerful Fed branch- by just eight families, four of which reside in the US. They are the Goldman Sachs, Rockefellers, Lehmans and Kuhn Loebs of New York; the Rothschilds of Paris and London; the Warburgs of Hamburg; the Lazards of Paris; and the Israel Moses Seifs of Rome.
CPA Thomas D. Schauf corroborates McCallister's claims, adding that ten banks control all twelve Federal Reserve Bank branches. He names N.M. Rothschild of London, Rothschild Bank of Berlin, Warburg Bank of Hamburg, Warburg Bank of Amsterdam, Lehman Brothers of New York, Lazard Brothers of Paris, Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York, Israel Moses Seif Bank of Italy, Goldman Sachs of New York and JP Morgan Chase Bank of New York. Schauf lists William Rockefeller, Paul Warburg, Jacob Schiff and James Stillman as individuals who own large shares of the Fed. [3] The Schiffs are insiders at Kuhn Loeb. The Stillmans are Citigroup insiders, who married into the Rockefeller clan at the turn of the century.
Eustace Mullins came to the same conclusions in his book The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, in which he displays charts connecting the Fed and its member banks to the families of Rothschild, Warburg, Rockefeller and the others. [4]
The control that these banking families exert over the global economy cannot be overstated and is quite intentionally shrouded in secrecy. Their corporate media arm is quick to discredit any information exposing this private central banking cartel as "conspiracy theory". Yet the facts remain.
The House of Morgan
The Federal Reserve Bank was born in 1913, the same year US banking scion J. Pierpont Morgan died and the Rockefeller Foundation was formed. The House of Morgan presided over American finance from the corner of Wall Street and Broad, acting as quasi-US central bank since 1838, when George Peabody founded it in London.
Peabody was a business associate of the Rothschilds. In 1952 Fed researcher Eustace Mullins put forth the supposition that the Morgans were nothing more than Rothschild agents. Mullins wrote that the Rothschilds, ".preferred to operate anonymously in the US behind the facade of J.P. Morgan & Company". [5]
Author Gabriel Kolko stated, "Morgan's activities in 1895-1896 in selling US gold bonds in Europe were based on an alliance with the House of Rothschild." [6]
The Morgan financial octopus wrapped its tentacles quickly around the globe. Morgan Grenfell operated in London. Morgan et Ce ruled Paris. The Rothschild's Lambert cousins set up Drexel & Company in Philadelphia.
The House of Morgan catered to the Astors, DuPonts, Guggenheims, Vanderbilts and Rockefellers. It financed the launch of AT&T, General Motors, General Electric and DuPont. Like the London-based Rothschild and Barings banks, Morgan became part of the power structure in many countries.
By 1890 the House of Morgan was lending to Egypt's central bank, financing Russian railroads, floating Brazilian provincial government bonds and funding Argentine public works projects. A recession in 1893 enhanced Morgan's power. That year Morgan saved the US government from a bank panic, forming a syndicate to prop up government reserves with a shipment of $62 million worth of Rothschild gold. [7]
Morgan was the driving force behind Western expansion in the US, financing and controlling West-bound railroads through voting trusts. In 1879 Cornelius Vanderbilt's Morgan-financed New York Central Railroad gave preferential shipping rates to John D. Rockefeller's budding Standard Oil monopoly, cementing the Rockefeller/Morgan relationship.
The House of Morgan now fell under Rothschild and Rockefeller family control. A New York Herald headline read, "Railroad Kings Form Gigantic Trust". J. Pierpont Morgan, who once stated, "Competition is a sin", now opined gleefully, "Think of it. All competing railroad traffic west of St. Louis placed in the control of about thirty men."[8]
Morgan and Edward Harriman's banker Kuhn Loeb held a monopoly over the railroads, while banking dynasties Lehman, Goldman Sachs and Lazard joined the Rockefellers in controlling the US industrial base. [9]
In 1903 Banker's Trust was set up by the Eight Families. Benjamin Strong of Banker's Trust was the first Governor of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. The 1913 creation of the Fed fused the power of the Eight Families to the military and diplomatic might of the US government. If their overseas loans went unpaid, the oligarchs could now deploy US Marines to collect the debts. Morgan, Chase and Citibank formed an international lending syndicate.
The House of Morgan was cozy with the British House of Windsor and the Italian House of Savoy. The Kuhn Loebs, Warburgs, Lehmans, Lazards, Israel Moses Seifs and Goldman Sachs also had close ties to European royalty. By 1895 Morgan controlled the flow of gold in and out of the US. The first American wave of mergers was in its infancy and was being promoted by the bankers. In 1897 there were sixty-nine industrial mergers. By 1899 there were twelve-hundred. In 1904 John Moody - founder of Moody's Investor Services - said it was impossible to talk of Rockefeller and Morgan interests as separate. [10]
Public distrust of the combine spread. Many considered them traitors working for European old money. Rockefeller's Standard Oil, Andrew Carnegie's US Steel and Edward Harriman's railroads were all financed by banker Jacob Schiff at Kuhn Loeb, who worked closely with the European Rothschilds.
Several Western states banned the bankers. Populist preacher William Jennings Bryan was thrice the Democratic nominee for President from 1896 -1908. The central theme of his anti-imperialist campaign was that America was falling into a trap of "financial servitude to British capital". Teddy Roosevelt defeated Bryan in 1908, but was forced by this spreading populist wildfire to enact the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. He then went after the Standard Oil Trust.
In 1912 the Pujo hearings were held, addressing concentration of power on Wall Street. That same year Mrs. Edward Harriman sold her substantial shares in New York's Guaranty Trust Bank to J.P. Morgan, creating Morgan Guaranty Trust. Judge Louis Brandeis convinced President Woodrow Wilson to call for an end to interlocking board directorates. In 1914 the Clayton Anti-Trust Act was passed.
Jack Morgan - J. Pierpont's son and successor - responded by calling on Morgan clients Remington and Winchester to increase arms production. He argued that the US needed to enter WWI. Goaded by the Carnegie Foundation and other oligarchy fronts, Wilson accommodated. As Charles Tansill wrote in America Goes to War, "Even before the clash of arms, the French firm of Rothschild Freres cabled to Morgan & Company in New York suggesting the flotation of a loan of $100 million, a substantial part of which was to be left in the US to pay for French purchases of American goods."
The House of Morgan financed half the US war effort, while receiving commissions for lining up contractors like GE, Du Pont, US Steel, Kennecott and ASARCO. All were Morgan clients. Morgan also financed the British Boer War in South Africa and the Franco-Prussian War. The 1919 Paris Peace Conference was presided over by Morgan, which led both German and Allied reconstruction efforts. [11]
In the 1930's populism resurfaced in America after Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bank and others profited from the Crash of 1929. [12] House Banking Committee Chairman Louis McFadden (D-NY) said of the Great Depression, "It was no accident. It was a carefully contrived occurrence.The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so they might emerge as rulers of us all".
Sen. Gerald Nye (D-ND) chaired a munitions investigation in 1936. Nye concluded that the House of Morgan had plunged the US into WWI to protect loans and create a booming arms industry. Nye later produced a document titled The Next War, which cynically referred to "the old goddess of democracy trick", through which Japan could be used to lure the US into WWII.
In 1937 Interior Secretary Harold Ickes warned of the influence of "America's 60 Families". Historian Ferdinand Lundberg later penned a book of the exact same title. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas decried, "Morgan influence.the most pernicious one in industry and finance today."
Jack Morgan responded by nudging the US towards WWII. Morgan had close relations with the Iwasaki and Dan families - Japan's two wealthiest clans - who have owned Mitsubishi and Mitsui, respectively, since the companies emerged from 17th Century shogunates. When Japan invaded Manchuria, slaughtering Chinese peasants at Nanking, Morgan downplayed the incident. Morgan also had close relations with Italian fascist Benito Mussolini, while German Nazi Dr. Hjalmer Schacht was a Morgan Bank liaison during WWII. After the war Morgan representatives met with Schacht at the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, Switzerland. [13]
The House of Rockefeller
BIS is the most powerful bank in the world, a global central bank for the Eight Families who control the private central banks of almost all Western and developing nations. The first President of BIS was Rockefeller banker Gates McGarrah- an official at Chase Manhattan and the Federal Reserve. McGarrah was the grandfather of former CIA director Richard Helms. The Rockefellers- like the Morgans- had close ties to London. David Icke writes in Children of the Matrix, that the Rockefellers and Morgans were just "gofers" for the European Rothschilds. [14]
BIS is owned by the Federal Reserve, Bank of England, Bank of Italy, Bank of Canada, Swiss National Bank, Nederlandsche Bank, Bundesbank and Bank of France.
Historian Carroll Quigley wrote in his epic book Tragedy and Hope that BIS was part of a plan, "to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.to be controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements."
The US government had a historical distrust of BIS, lobbying unsuccessfully for its demise at the 1944 post-WWII Bretton Woods Conference. Instead the Eight Families' power was exacerbated, with the Bretton Woods creation of the IMF and the World Bank. The US Federal Reserve only took shares in BIS in September 1994. [15]
BIS holds at least 10% of monetary reserves for at least 80 of the world's central banks, the IMF and other multilateral institutions. It serves as financial agent for international agreements, collects information on the global economy and serves as lender of last resort to prevent global financial collapse.
BIS promotes an agenda of monopoly capitalist fascism. It gave a bridge loan to Hungary in the 1990's to ensure privatization of that country's economy. It served as conduit for Eight Families funding of Adolf Hitler- led by the Warburg's J. Henry Schroeder and Mendelsohn Bank of Amsterdam. Many researchers assert that BIS is at the nadir of global drug money laundering. [16]
It is no coincidence that BIS is headquartered in Switzerland, favorite hiding place for the wealth of the global aristocracy and headquarters for the P-2 Italian Freemason's Alpina Lodge and Nazi International. Other institutions which the Eight Families control include the World Economic Forum, the International Monetary Conference and the World Trade Organization.
Bretton Woods was a boon to the Eight Families. The IMF and World Bank were central to this "new world order". In 1944 the first World Bank bonds were floated by Morgan Stanley and First Boston. The French Lazard family became more involved in House of Morgan interests. Lazard Freres- France's biggest investment bank- is owned by the Lazard and David-Weill families- old Genoese banking scions represented by Michelle Davive. A recent Chairman and CEO of Citigroup was Sanford Weill.
In 1968 Morgan Guaranty launched Euro-Clear, a Brussels-based bank clearing system for Eurodollar securities. It was the first such automated endeavor. Some took to calling Euro-Clear "The Beast". Brussels serves as headquarters for the new European Central Bank and for NATO. In 1973 Morgan officials met secretly in Bermuda to illegally resurrect the old House of Morgan, twenty years before Glass Steagal Act was repealed. Morgan and the Rockefellers provided the financial backing for Merrill Lynch, boosting it into the Big 5 of US investment banking. Merrill is now part of Bank of America.
John D. Rockefeller used his oil wealth to acquire Equitable Trust, which had gobbled up several large banks and corporations by the 1920's. The Great Depression helped consolidate Rockefeller's power. His Chase Bank merged with Kuhn Loeb's Manhattan Bank to form Chase Manhattan, cementing a long-time family relationship. The Kuhn-Loeb's had financed - along with Rothschilds - Rockefeller's quest to become king of the oil patch. National City Bank of Cleveland provided John D. with the money needed to embark upon his monopolization of the US oil industry. The bank was identified in Congressional hearings as being one of three Rothschild-owned banks in the US during the 1870's, when Rockefeller first incorporated as Standard Oil of Ohio. [17]
One Rockefeller Standard Oil partner was Edward Harkness, whose family came to control Chemical Bank. Another was James Stillman, whose family controlled Manufacturers Hanover Trust. Both banks have merged under the JP Morgan Chase umbrella. Two of James Stillman's daughters married two of William Rockefeller's sons. The two families control a big chunk of Citigroup as well. [18]
In the insurance business, the Rockefellers control Metropolitan Life, Equitable Life, Prudential and New York Life. Rockefeller banks control 25% of all assets of the 50 largest US commercial banks and 30% of all assets of the 50 largest insurance companies. [19] Insurance companies- the first in the US was launched by Freemasons through their Woodman's of America- play a key role in the Bermuda drug money shuffle.
Companies under Rockefeller control include Exxon Mobil, Chevron Texaco, BP Amoco, Marathon Oil, Freeport McMoran, Quaker Oats, ASARCO, United, Delta, Northwest, ITT, International Harvester, Xerox, Boeing, Westinghouse, Hewlett-Packard, Honeywell, International Paper, Pfizer, Motorola, Monsanto, Union Carbide and General Foods.
The Rockefeller Foundation has close financial ties to both Ford and Carnegie Foundations. Other family philanthropic endeavors include Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, General Education Board, Rockefeller University and the University of Chicago- which churns out a steady stream of far right economists as apologists for international capital, including Milton Friedman.
The family owns 30 Rockefeller Plaza, where the national Christmas tree is lighted every year, and Rockefeller Center. David Rockefeller was instrumental in the construction of the World Trade Center towers. The main Rockefeller family home is a hulking complex in upstate New York known as Pocantico Hills. They also own a 32-room 5th Avenue duplex in Manhattan, a mansion in Washington, DC, Monte Sacro Ranch in Venezuela, coffee plantations in Ecuador, several farms in Brazil, an estate at Seal Harbor, Maine and resorts in the Caribbean, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. [20]
The Dulles and Rockefeller families are cousins. Allen Dulles created the CIA, assisted the Nazis, covered up the Kennedy hit from his Warren Commission perch and struck a deal with the Muslim Brotherhood to create mind-controlled assassins. [21]
Brother John Foster Dulles presided over the phony Goldman Sachs trusts before the 1929 stock market crash and helped his brother overthrow governments in Iran and Guatemala. Both were Skull & Bones, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) insiders and 33rd Degree Masons. [22]
The Rockefellers were instrumental in forming the depopulation-oriented Club of Rome at their family estate in Bellagio, Italy. Their Pocantico Hills estate gave birth to the Trilateral Commission. The family is a major funder of the eugenics movement which spawned Hitler, human cloning and the current DNA obsession in US scientific circles.
John Rockefeller Jr. headed the Population Council until his death. [23] His namesake son is a Senator from West Virginia. Brother Winthrop Rockefeller was Lieutenant Governor of Arkansas and remains the most powerful man in that state. In an October 1975 interview with Playboy magazine, Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller- who was also Governor of New York- articulated his family's patronizing worldview, "I am a great believer in planning- economic, social, political, military, total world planning."
But of all the Rockefeller brothers, it is Trilateral Commission (TC) founder and Chase Manhattan Chairman David who has spearheaded the family's fascist agenda on a global scale. He defended the Shah of Iran, the South African apartheid regime and the Chilean Pinochet junta. He was the biggest financier of the CFR, the TC and (during the Vietnam War) the Committee for an Effective and Durable Peace in Asia- a contract bonanza for those who made their living off the conflict.
Nixon asked him to be Secretary of Treasury, but Rockefeller declined the job, knowing his power was much greater at the helm of the Chase. Author Gary Allen writes in The Rockefeller File that in 1973, "David Rockefeller met with twenty-seven heads of state, including the rulers of Russia and Red China."
Following the 1975 Nugan Hand Bank/CIA coup against Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, his British Crown-appointed successor Malcolm Fraser sped to the US, where he met with President Gerald Ford after conferring with David Rockefeller. [24]
Next Week: Part II: Freemasons & The Bank of the United States
[1] 10K Filings of Fortune 500 Corporations to SEC. 3-91
[2] 10K Filing of US Trust Corporation to SEC. 6-28-95
[3] "The Federal Reserve `Fed Up'. Thomas Schauf. www.davidicke.com 1-02
[4] The Secrets of the Federal Reserve. Eustace Mullins. Bankers Research Institute. Staunton, VA. 1983. p.179
[5] Ibid. p.53
[6] The Triumph of Conservatism. Gabriel Kolko. MacMillan and Company New York. 1963. p.142
[7] Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History that Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons and the Great Pyramids. Jim Marrs. HarperCollins Publishers. New York. 2000. p.57
[8] The House of Morgan. Ron Chernow. Atlantic Monthly Press NewYork 1990
[9] Marrs. p.57
[10] Democracy for the Few. Michael Parenti. St. Martin's Press. New York. 1977. p.178
[11] Chernow
[12] The Great Crash of 1929. John Kenneth Galbraith. Houghton, Mifflin Company. Boston. 1979. p.148
[13] Chernow
[14] Children of the Matrix. David Icke. Bridge of Love. Scottsdale, AZ. 2000
[15] The Confidence Game: How Un-Elected Central Bankers are Governing the Changed World Economy. Steven Solomon. Simon & Schuster. New York. 1995. p.112
[16] Marrs. p.180
[17] Ibid. p.45
[18] The Money Lenders: The People and Politics of the World Banking Crisis. Anthony Sampson. Penguin Books. New York. 1981
[19] The Rockefeller File. Gary Allen. '76 Press. Seal Beach, CA. 1977
[20] Ibid
[21] Dope Inc.: The Book That Drove Kissinger Crazy. Editors of Executive Intelligence Review. Washington, DC. 1992
[22] Marrs.
[23] The Rockefeller Syndrome. Ferdinand Lundberg. Lyle Stuart Inc. Secaucus, NJ. 1975. p.296
[24] Marrs. p.53
Dean Henderson is the author of Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network and The Grateful Unrich: Revolution in 50 Countries. His Left Hook blog is at www.deanhenderson.wordpress.com
A bipartisan group of House members announced on Wednesday that it is filing a lawsuit charging that President Obama made an illegal end-run around Congress when he approved U.S military action against Libya.
"With regard to the war in Libya, we believe that the law was violated. We have asked the courts to move to protect the American people from the results of these illegal policies," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who led the 10-member anti-war coalition with Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.).
The White House is expected on Wednesday to deliver to Congress a much-anticipated report detailing military activity in Libya.
According to Kucinich, the suit will challenge the Obama administration's "circumvention of Congress and its use of international organizations such as the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to authorize the use of military force abroad."
White House spokesman Jay Carney said at his daily press briefing that he is aware of the lawsuit and said the forthcoming report to Congress would resolve questions in it.
"We feel very confident that we will be able to answer the questions that Congress has," he said.
A senior Obama administration official, speaking on background, dismissed the Kucinich lawsuit, but declined to address it directly.
"I don't think we should comment specifically about lawsuit," the official said.
But former Rep. David Skaggs (D-Colo.), the co-chairman of the Constitution Project's War Powers Committee, called the Kucinich suit "right on the merits" but certain to be dismissed on procedural grounds because courts have determined members of Congress do not have standing to file such suits.
The suit comes a day after House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) sent Obama a letter claiming that military action in Libya will violate the 1973 War Powers Resolution if it does not end by Friday, 90 days after it began.
The Kucinich-Jones group also includes Democrats John Conyers of Michigan and Michael Capuano of Massachusetts and Republicans Howard Coble of North Carolina, John Duncan of Tennessee, Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, Ron Paul of Texas, Tim Johnson of Illinois and Dan Burton of Indiana.
Purveyors of conventional and genetically-modified (GM) crops - and the pesticides and herbicides that accompany them - are finally getting a taste of their own legal medicine. Minnesota's Star Tribune has reported that the Minnesota Court of Appeals recently ruled that a large organic farm surrounded by chemical-laden conventional farms can seek damages for lost crops, as well as lost profits, caused by the illegal trespassing of pesticides and herbicides on its property.
Oluf and Debra Johnson's 1,500-acre organic farm in Stearns County, Minn., has repeatedly been contaminated by nearby conventional and GMO farms since the couple started it in the 1990s. A local pesticide cooperative known as Paynesville Farmers Union (PFU), which is near the farm, has been cited at least four times for violating pesticide laws, and inadvertently causing damage to the Johnson's farm.
The first time it was realized that pesticides had drifted onto the Johnson's farm in 1998, PFU apologized, but did not agree to pay for damages. As anyone with an understanding of organic practices knows, even a small bit of contamination can result in having to plow under that season's crops, forget profits, and even lose the ability to grow organic crops in the same field for at least a couple years.
The Johnson's let the first incident slide. But after the second, third, and fourth times, they decided that enough was enough. Following the second pesticide drift in 2002, the Johnson's filed a complaint with the Minnesota Agriculture Department, which eventually ruled that PFU had illegally sprayed chemicals on windy days, which led to contamination of the Johnson's organic crops.
PFU settled with the Johnson's out of court, and the Johnson's agreed to sell their tainted products as non-organics for a lower price, and pull the fields from production for three years in order to bring them back up to organic standards. But PFU's inconsiderate spraying habits continued, with numerous additional incidents occurring in 2005, 2007, and 2008, according to the Star Tribune.
After enduring much hardship, the Johnson's finally ended up suing PFU in 2009 for negligence and trespass, only to receive denial from the district court that received the case. But after appealing, the Johnson's received favor from the Appeals Court, which ruled that particulate matter, including pesticides, herbicides, and even GM particulates, that contaminates nearby fields is, in fact, considered illegal trespass, and is subject to the same laws concerning other forms of trespass.
In a similar case, a California-based organic farm recently won a $1 million lawsuit filed against a conventional farm whose pesticides spread through fog from several miles away, and contaminated its fields. Jacobs Farm / Del Cobo's entire season's herb crop had to be discarded as a result, and the court that presided over the case acknowledged and agreed that the polluters must be held responsible (http://organicfood.einnews.com/arti.).
Precedent has now been set for organic farmers to sue biotechnology companies whose GMOs contaminate their crops.
The stunning victories of both the Johnson's and Jacob's Farm / Del Cobo against their chemical-polluting neighbors is huge, in that it represents a new set legal precedent for holding conventional, factory farming operations responsible for the damage their systems cause to other farms. And with this new precedent set, many more organic farmers, for instance, can now begin suing GMO farmers for both chemical and genetic pollution that drifts onto their farms.
Many NaturalNews readers will recall the numerous incidents involving lawsuits filed by Monsanto against non-GMO farms whose crops were inadvertently contaminated by GM material. In many of these cases, the defendants ended up becoming bankrupted by Monsanto, even though Monsanto's patented materials were the trespassers at fault.
Be sure to check out the extensive and very informative report compiled by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) entitled Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers for a complete history of Monsanto's war against traditional American agriculture: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/.
But it appears that the tables are now turning. Instead of Monsanto winning against organic farmers, organic farmers can now achieve victory against Monsanto. In other words, farmers being infringed upon by the drifting of GM material into their fields now have a legal leg to stand on in the pursuit of justice against Monsanto and the other biotechnology giants whose "frankencrops" are responsible for causing widespread contamination of the American food supply.
Genetic traits are highly transmissible, whether it be through pollen transfer or seed spread, and organic and non-GMO farmers have every right to seek damages for illegal trespassing when such transmission takes place. It is expected that many more organic farms will step up and begin seeking justice and compensation for damage caused by crop chemicals, GM materials, and other harmful invaders.
For too long, Monsanto has been getting away with suing farmers whose crops have become contaminated by Monsanto's patented genetic traits and chemical materials, and winning. Thankfully, the justice system seems to now recognize the severe error in this, and is now beginning to rightfully hold polluters and trespassers responsible. Monsanto, your days are numbered.
Purveyors of conventional and genetically-modified (GM) crops - and the pesticides and herbicides that accompany them - are finally getting a taste of their own legal medicine. Minnesota's Star Tribune has reported that the Minnesota Court of Appeals recently ruled that a large organic farm surrounded by chemical-laden conventional farms can seek damages for lost crops, as well as lost profits, caused by the illegal trespassing of pesticides and herbicides on its property.
Oluf and Debra Johnson's 1,500-acre organic farm in Stearns County, Minn., has repeatedly been contaminated by nearby conventional and GMO farms since the couple started it in the 1990s. A local pesticide cooperative known as Paynesville Farmers Union (PFU), which is near the farm, has been cited at least four times for violating pesticide laws, and inadvertently causing damage to the Johnson's farm.
The first time it was realized that pesticides had drifted onto the Johnson's farm in 1998, PFU apologized, but did not agree to pay for damages. As anyone with an understanding of organic practices knows, even a small bit of contamination can result in having to plow under that season's crops, forget profits, and even lose the ability to grow organic crops in the same field for at least a couple years.
The Johnson's let the first incident slide. But after the second, third, and fourth times, they decided that enough was enough. Following the second pesticide drift in 2002, the Johnson's filed a complaint with the Minnesota Agriculture Department, which eventually ruled that PFU had illegally sprayed chemicals on windy days, which led to contamination of the Johnson's organic crops.
PFU settled with the Johnson's out of court, and the Johnson's agreed to sell their tainted products as non-organics for a lower price, and pull the fields from production for three years in order to bring them back up to organic standards. But PFU's inconsiderate spraying habits continued, with numerous additional incidents occurring in 2005, 2007, and 2008, according to the Star Tribune.
After enduring much hardship, the Johnson's finally ended up suing PFU in 2009 for negligence and trespass, only to receive denial from the district court that received the case. But after appealing, the Johnson's received favor from the Appeals Court, which ruled that particulate matter, including pesticides, herbicides, and even GM particulates, that contaminates nearby fields is, in fact, considered illegal trespass, and is subject to the same laws concerning other forms of trespass.
In a similar case, a California-based organic farm recently won a $1 million lawsuit filed against a conventional farm whose pesticides spread through fog from several miles away, and contaminated its fields. Jacobs Farm / Del Cobo's entire season's herb crop had to be discarded as a result, and the court that presided over the case acknowledged and agreed that the polluters must be held responsible (http://organicfood.einnews.com/arti.).
Precedent has now been set for organic farmers to sue biotechnology companies whose GMOs contaminate their crops.
The stunning victories of both the Johnson's and Jacob's Farm / Del Cobo against their chemical-polluting neighbors is huge, in that it represents a new set legal precedent for holding conventional, factory farming operations responsible for the damage their systems cause to other farms. And with this new precedent set, many more organic farmers, for instance, can now begin suing GMO farmers for both chemical and genetic pollution that drifts onto their farms.
Many NaturalNews readers will recall the numerous incidents involving lawsuits filed by Monsanto against non-GMO farms whose crops were inadvertently contaminated by GM material. In many of these cases, the defendants ended up becoming bankrupted by Monsanto, even though Monsanto's patented materials were the trespassers at fault.
Be sure to check out the extensive and very informative report compiled by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) entitled Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers for a complete history of Monsanto's war against traditional American agriculture: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/.
But it appears that the tables are now turning. Instead of Monsanto winning against organic farmers, organic farmers can now achieve victory against Monsanto. In other words, farmers being infringed upon by the drifting of GM material into their fields now have a legal leg to stand on in the pursuit of justice against Monsanto and the other biotechnology giants whose "frankencrops" are responsible for causing widespread contamination of the American food supply.
Genetic traits are highly transmissible, whether it be through pollen transfer or seed spread, and organic and non-GMO farmers have every right to seek damages for illegal trespassing when such transmission takes place. It is expected that many more organic farms will step up and begin seeking justice and compensation for damage caused by crop chemicals, GM materials, and other harmful invaders.
For too long, Monsanto has been getting away with suing farmers whose crops have become contaminated by Monsanto's patented genetic traits and chemical materials, and winning. Thankfully, the justice system seems to now recognize the severe error in this, and is now beginning to rightfully hold polluters and trespassers responsible. Monsanto, your days are numbered.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.startribune.com/local/12.
Don't have my wings yet but I'm in rotation. Thanks Ya'll. steve
Thanks for the post and links, this ruling makes for real hope. I grow a home garden that small but is organic. The times they are a changin......[:D]
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (CN) - Five Westchester residents and the Second Amendment Foundation cannot relax a law forcing citizens to demonstrate proper cause before they pack heat on public streets, a federal judge ruled.
New York courts have interpreted "proper cause" as having a "special need for self-protection" as compared to the general population.
"I hold that the state has an important government interest in promoting public safety and preventing crime," U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel wrote in an order dismissing a class action challenging the regulation.
Alan Kachalsky, Christina Nikolov, Eric Detmer, Johnnie Nance and Anna Marcucci-Nance say their applications for full-carry permits were rejected, even though they had all been trained in firearms and had spotless criminal records.
Kachalsky claimed he had proper cause because "we live in a world where sporadic random violence might at any moment place one in a position where one needs to defend oneself or possibly others," court documents say.
Judge Susan Cacace, his licensing officer, found that this explanation did not distinguish him from anybody else seeking a permit.
Nikolov said she deserved a license because she passed three firearms safety courses with the National Rifle Association, showed a "calm demeanor" as a pilot and flight instructor, and had a higher likelihood of being the victim of violence as a transgender woman.
Rejecting her request, Judge Jeffrey A. Cohen explained that a specific threat of violence against her was "conspicuously absent" from her application.
Nance and Marcucci-Nance cited no special needs for full-carry permits, Judge Robert K. Holdman found.
Detmer thought he satisfied the proper cause requirement as a federal law enforcement officer with the U.S. Coast Guard, but Judge Albert Lorenzo said his application contained "no justification" for a full-carry permit.
Gaining the support of the Second Amendment Foundation, the five applicants filed a federal class action lawsuit against Westchester County and the four judges serving as licensing officers in late 2010.
On Friday, Judge Seibel agreed that the plaintiffs had standing to pursue the case, but she granted summary judgment to the defendants sua sponte on the grounds that the state had the duty to protect public safety.
In a footnote, she noted that the state attorneys argued in affidavits that gun crimes are linked to general availability, and citizens with concealed handguns can endanger cops stopping them.
An affidavit also said that the "majority of criminal homicides and other serious crimes are committed by individuals who have not been convicted of a felony and would receive permits to carry concealed weapons without the 'proper cause' requirement."
Data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives showed that 227 firearms were recovered during the first half of 2009 in Westchester, more than double those recovered in nearby Orange County and several times more than those recovered in Dutchess, Rockland, Sullivan and Putnam.
The report also cited 132 weapon offenses in the Westchester region.
Judge Seibel entered the 60-page opinion on Friday, preceding a particularly bloody Labor Day weekend in which 48 people were shot in New York City. Mayor Mike Bloomberg called for stricter gun-control laws Tuesday.
Recently by Bob Bauman: Ten Years Later. We're Still Paying the Price
Rarely in my long life's experience have two news items been published on the same day that demonstrated such palpable irony.
The two stories that appeared in The New York Times last Friday (Sept. 30) and when read together, they present a sharp incongruity and discordance that far exceeds the simple and evident intention of the words and actions recounted.
Due Process: 1945
Item #1: In a column entitled "The Nuremberg Scripts" Joe Nocera told how, in November 1945, six months after Nazi Germany's surrender to the victorious Allies, a 24-year-old Army combat engineer named Harold Burson was handed a new assignment: daily reports on the Nuremberg trial of the top Nazis leaders for the American Armed Forces Radio Network. For the next five months, Burson was one of two soldiers who reported on the trial and produced a daily "script," read over the air by the AFRN announcers.
Mr. Burson, who is 90 now, is the co-founder of Burson-Marsteller, one of the world's largest public relations firms, says that every five years or so, he goes back and re-reads those old scripts, marveling at the remarkable experience he'd been afforded at such a young age.
Nocera says there was an aspect to Burson's scripts he ".found quite endearing. They have an earnest, idealistic quality that reminds you just how full of hope America was after World War II.
"Though we had fought a brutal war, we were determined to act generously to the vanquished. That even applied to the Nazi brass who had committed reprehensible crimes against humanity. "G.I.'s have one stock question," reads Burson's very first 1945 script. "Why can't we just take them out and shoot 'em? We know they're guilty."
Due Process: 2011
Item #2: In a "news analysis" in the same Times edition, Scott Shane reported: "The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen struck on Friday by a missile fired from a drone aircraft operated by his own government, instantly reignited a difficult debate over terrorism, civil liberties and the law."
In a statement my former U.S. House of Representatives colleague, Rep. Ron Paul, said President Obama was "appointing himself judge, jury and executioner by presidential decree" and was acting outside "the Constitution or the rule of law" He added: "Awlaki was a U.S. citizen. Under our Constitution, American citizens, even those living abroad, must be charged with a crime before being sentenced." He suggested the president could be impeached for the killing.
"In any way destroyed."
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, one of the most important protections in our Bill of Rights says in part: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
The United States Supreme Court has held: "It is now the settled doctrine of this Court that the Due Process Clause embodies a system of rights based on moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society as conceived by our whole history. Due Process is that which comports with the deepest notions of what is fair and right and just." Solesbee v. Balkcom, 339 U.S. 9, 16 (1950);' Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934).
The concept of due process goes all the way back to Magna Carta, (1215) in which King John promised that "[n]o free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseized or exiled or in any way destroyed.except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."
Evidence
Pressed to justify the constitutional law professor/president's open defiance of the Fifth Amendment in ordering the murder of a U.S. citizen without trial, the White House press secretary refused to respond. As the Washington Post put it, "The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process."
Glen Greenwald said it: "That is the mindset of the U.S. Government and its followers expressed as vividly as can be: we can spy on, imprison, or even kill anyone we want - including citizens - without any due process or any evidence shown, simply because we will tell you they are Bad People, and you will trust us and believe us."
Deeply Embedded Hypocrisy
A writer from Bangor, Maine commented: ".we target and kill an American citizen without trial. I'm not saying this man's actions didn't deserve punishment. But why even bother to pretend anymore? Why bother? Maybe with Obama's latest drone kill we can let the hypocrisy go. But remember, Americans. Remotely-controlled drones can fly and kill over American cities just as easily as they can fly and kill over Yemen."
Ask yourself this question: In the 66 years from the Nuremberg Trial 1945 to the White House 2011, what has happened to America's belief in what the Supreme Court described as those "moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society."
The next time you hear what sounds like a small plane flying overhead, look up. If the president decides you are one of those Bad People, it might be the last thing you ever see.
Reprinted with permission from The Sovereign Investor.
October 5, 2011
Robert E. Bauman is a former Member of the United States House of Representatives from Maryland, (1973-1981). He is also a former federal official and state legislator; Member, Washington, DC Bar; Graduate of the Georgetown University Law Center (1964) and the School of Foreign Service (1959), Washington, DC. Robert currently serves as legal counsel for the Sovereign Society.
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
Obama Repeals the 5th Amendment
by Bob Bauman The Sovereign Investor
Recently by Bob Bauman: Ten Years Later. We're Still Paying the Price
Rarely in my long life's experience have two news items been published on the same day that demonstrated such palpable irony.
The two stories that appeared in The New York Times last Friday (Sept. 30) and when read together, they present a sharp incongruity and discordance that far exceeds the simple and evident intention of the words and actions recounted.
Due Process: 1945
Item #1: In a column entitled "The Nuremberg Scripts" Joe Nocera told how, in November 1945, six months after Nazi Germany's surrender to the victorious Allies, a 24-year-old Army combat engineer named Harold Burson was handed a new assignment: daily reports on the Nuremberg trial of the top Nazis leaders for the American Armed Forces Radio Network. For the next five months, Burson was one of two soldiers who reported on the trial and produced a daily "script," read over the air by the AFRN announcers.
Mr. Burson, who is 90 now, is the co-founder of Burson-Marsteller, one of the world's largest public relations firms, says that every five years or so, he goes back and re-reads those old scripts, marveling at the remarkable experience he'd been afforded at such a young age.
Nocera says there was an aspect to Burson's scripts he ".found quite endearing. They have an earnest, idealistic quality that reminds you just how full of hope America was after World War II.
"Though we had fought a brutal war, we were determined to act generously to the vanquished. That even applied to the Nazi brass who had committed reprehensible crimes against humanity. "G.I.'s have one stock question," reads Burson's very first 1945 script. "Why can't we just take them out and shoot 'em? We know they're guilty."
Due Process: 2011
Item #2: In a "news analysis" in the same Times edition, Scott Shane reported: "The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen struck on Friday by a missile fired from a drone aircraft operated by his own government, instantly reignited a difficult debate over terrorism, civil liberties and the law."
In a statement my former U.S. House of Representatives colleague, Rep. Ron Paul, said President Obama was "appointing himself judge, jury and executioner by presidential decree" and was acting outside "the Constitution or the rule of law" He added: "Awlaki was a U.S. citizen. Under our Constitution, American citizens, even those living abroad, must be charged with a crime before being sentenced." He suggested the president could be impeached for the killing.
"In any way destroyed."
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, one of the most important protections in our Bill of Rights says in part: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
The United States Supreme Court has held: "It is now the settled doctrine of this Court that the Due Process Clause embodies a system of rights based on moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society as conceived by our whole history. Due Process is that which comports with the deepest notions of what is fair and right and just." Solesbee v. Balkcom, 339 U.S. 9, 16 (1950);' Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934).
The concept of due process goes all the way back to Magna Carta, (1215) in which King John promised that "[n]o free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseized or exiled or in any way destroyed.except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."
Evidence
Pressed to justify the constitutional law professor/president's open defiance of the Fifth Amendment in ordering the murder of a U.S. citizen without trial, the White House press secretary refused to respond. As the Washington Post put it, "The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process."
Glen Greenwald said it: "That is the mindset of the U.S. Government and its followers expressed as vividly as can be: we can spy on, imprison, or even kill anyone we want - including citizens - without any due process or any evidence shown, simply because we will tell you they are Bad People, and you will trust us and believe us."
Deeply Embedded Hypocrisy
A writer from Bangor, Maine commented: ".we target and kill an American citizen without trial. I'm not saying this man's actions didn't deserve punishment. But why even bother to pretend anymore? Why bother? Maybe with Obama's latest drone kill we can let the hypocrisy go. But remember, Americans. Remotely-controlled drones can fly and kill over American cities just as easily as they can fly and kill over Yemen."
Ask yourself this question: In the 66 years from the Nuremberg Trial 1945 to the White House 2011, what has happened to America's belief in what the Supreme Court described as those "moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society."
The next time you hear what sounds like a small plane flying overhead, look up. If the president decides you are one of those Bad People, it might be the last thing you ever see.
Reprinted with permission from The Sovereign Investor.
October 5, 2011
Robert E. Bauman is a former Member of the United States House of Representatives from Maryland, (1973-1981). He is also a former federal official and state legislator; Member, Washington, DC Bar; Graduate of the Georgetown University Law Center (1964) and the School of Foreign Service (1959), Washington, DC. Robert currently serves as legal counsel for the Sovereign Society.
Copyright c 2011 Robert E. Bauman
I've seen some (for example: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=352617) argue that his Alwaki's dual citizenship muddles this issue. I wasn't able to follow the point to understand how it could remove the due process requirement. In fact, I don't think it matters at all.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Comments
Hitler was pronounced dead on may 1 1945. Coincidence? Or are the elite so abbsurdly throwing this in our face than ever before. Please remember that Osama, not Usama was a CIA asset fighting the ruskies in the late 70's. His name was Tim. No Kidding. He had kidney failure more than 10 yrs ago. I felt lost when I saw uneducated young people dancing in the streets. Yay, the boogeyman is dead. It's a lost cause without the 3% solution.
It is disheartening when so many get it wrong but they are not the ones who matter. It is the few who do finally get a glimpse which make all the difference. To steal an old morale booster from commissioned salesmen......Every ten no's you get one yes and that is all you need.
Jeff Winkler
Yahoo News
May 5, 2011
A House bill that could drastically overhaul the nation's gun control laws and strengthen federal power over states' handling of individuals' background checks is expected to be introduced today by New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, The Daily Caller has learned.
McCarthy is expected to drop the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011 - a near-identical companion to that of fellow New Yorker Chuck Schumer's Senate bill - according to sources familiar with the legislation.
A draft of the bill obtained by TheDC makes clear that McCarthy's legislation significantly mirrors Schumer's much-publicized bill and would make three significant changes to current national gun laws. McCarthy's proposed fixes include gun-control advocates' long-sighted target in the national firearms debate - closing major "loopholes" of the milestone Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.
as more and more people work for the gov and people receive money from
entitlement programs, It can only get worse. Don't rock the boat
mentality[V]
link
President Obama Pardons Alligator Hide Salesman, Drug Dealers, Satellite-Cable-Decryption-Equipment Maker
Obama to CIA: 'I Put My Bet On You' in Osama bin Laden Mission
In Oval Office, Bibi Offers History Lessons to Obama
Obama Administration Officials Cite 'Progress' in Syria Not Getting Seat on UN Human Rights Council
Three Things That Irked Bibi About Obama's Speech
Indie Group Run By Former Obama White House Staffers Runs Ad Attacking Romney
The Presidential Planner#8236;
Is President Obama About to Break the Law?
White House on War Powers Deadline: 'Limited' US Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization
May 20, 2011 7:14 PM
In an effort to satisfy those arguing he needs to seek congressional authorization to continue US military activity in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so "limited" he does not need to seek congressional approval.
"Since April 4," the president wrote, "U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts."
A senior administration official told ABC News that the letter is intended to describe "a narrow US effort that is intermittent and principally an effort to support to support the ongoing NATO-led and UN-authorized civilian support mission and no fly zone."
"The US role is one of support," the official said, "and the kinetic pieces of that are intermittent."
From the beginning of the U.S. military intervention in Libya, the Obama administration has cited the 1973 War Powers Act as the legal basis of its ability to conduct military activities for 60 days without first seeking a declaration of war from Congress. The military intervention started on March 19; Congress was notified on March 21. Those 60 days expire today.
The president thanked the congressional leaders - House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky --- for the support that they have "demonstrated for this mission and for our brave service members, as well as your strong condemnation of the Qaddafi regime."
The president voiced support for a bipartisan resolution drafted by Senators John Kerry, D-Mass., John McCain, R-Ariz., Carl Levin, D-Mich., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Lindsey Graham, R-SC, and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., stating that Congress "supports the U.S. mission in Libya and that both branches are united in their commitment to supporting the aspirations of the Libyan people for political reform and self-government.Congressional action in support of the mission would underline the U.S. commitment to this remarkable international effort."
Earlier this month, Kerry - who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - described his resolution as "in limbo."
Webster Tarpley
Infowars
May 23, 2011
China has officially put the United States on notice that Washington's planned attack on Pakistan will be interpreted as an act of aggression against Beijing. This blunt warning represents the first known strategic ultimatum received by the United States in half a century, going back to Soviet warnings during the Berlin crisis of 1958-1961, and indicates the grave danger of general war growing out of the US-Pakistan confrontation.
"Any Attack on Pakistan Would be Construed as an Attack on China"
Responding to reports that China has asked the US to respect Pakistan's sovereignty in the aftermath of the Bin Laden operation, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu used a May 19 press briefing to state Beijing's categorical demand that the "sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan must be respected." According to Pakistani diplomatic sources cited by the Times of India, China has "warned in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China." This ultimatum was reportedly delivered at the May 9 China-US strategic dialogue and economic talks in Washington, where the Chinese delegation was led by Vice Prime Minister Wang Qishan and State Councilor Dai Bingguo.1 Chinese warnings are implicitly backed up by that nation's nuclear missiles, including an estimated 66 ICBMs, some capable of striking the United States, plus 118 intermediate-range missiles, 36 submarine-launched missiles, and numerous shorter-range systems.
Support from China is seen by regional observers as critically important for Pakistan, which is otherwise caught in a pincers between the US and India: "If US and Indian pressure continues, Pakistan can say `China is behind us. Don't think we are isolated, we have a potential superpower with us,'" Talat Masood, a political analyst and retired Pakistani general, told AFP.2
The Chinese ultimatum came during the visit of Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani in Beijing, during which the host government announced the transfer of 50 state-of-the-art JF-17 fighter jets to Pakistan, immediately and without cost.3 Before his departure, Gilani had stressed the importance of the Pakistan-China alliance, proclaiming: "We are proud to have China as our best and most trusted friend. And China will always find Pakistan standing beside it at all times..When we speak of this friendship as being taller than the Himalayas and deeper than the oceans it truly captures the essence of our relationship."4 These remarks were greeted by whining from US spokesmen, including Idaho Republican Senator Risch.
The simmering strategic crisis between the United States and Pakistan exploded with full force on May 1, with the unilateral and unauthorized US commando raid alleged to have killed the phantomatic Osama bin Laden in a compound at Abottabad, a flagrant violation of Pakistan's national sovereignty. The timing of this military stunt designed to inflame tensions between the two countries had nothing to do with any alleged Global War on Terror, and everything to do with the late March visit to Pakistan of Prince Bandar, the Saudi Arabian National Security Council chief. This visit had resulted in a de facto alliance between Islamabad and Riyadh, with Pakistan promising troops to put down any US-backed color revolution in the kingdom, while extending nuclear protection to the Saudis, thus making them less vulnerable to US extortion threats to abandon the oil-rich monarchy to the tender mercies of Tehran. A joint move by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to break out of the US empire, whatever one may think of these regimes, would represent a fatal blow for the fading US empire in South Asia.
As for the US claims concerning the supposed Bin Laden raid of May 1, they are a mass of hopeless contradictions which changes from day to day. An analysis of this story is best left to literary critics and writers of theatrical reviews. The only solid and uncontestable fact which emerges is that Pakistan is the leading US target - thus intensifying the anti-Pakistan US policy which has been in place since Obama's infamous December 2009 West Point speech.
Gilani: Full Force Retaliation to Defend Pakistan's Strategic Assets
The Chinese warning to Washington came on the heels of Gilani's statement to the Pakistan Parliament declaring: "Let no one draw any wrong conclusions. Any attack against Pakistan's strategic assets, whether overt or covert, will find a matching response.. Pakistan reserves the right to retaliate with full force. No one should underestimate the resolve and capability of our nation and armed forces to defend our sacred homeland."5 A warning of full force retaliation from a nuclear power such as Pakistan needs to be taken seriously, even by the hardened aggressors of the Obama regime.
The strategic assets Gilani is talking about are the Pakistani nuclear forces, the key to the country's deterrent strategy against possible aggression by India, egged on by Washington in the framework of the US-India nuclear cooperation accord. The US forces in Afghanistan have not been able to conceal their extensive planning for attempts to seize or destroy Pakistan's nuclear bombs and warheads. According to a 2009 Fox News report, "The United States has a detailed plan for infiltrating Pakistan and securing its mobile arsenal of nuclear warheads if it appears the country is about to fall under the control of the Taliban, Al Qaeda or other Islamic extremists." This plan was developed by General Stanley McChrystal when he headed the US Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. JSOC, the force reportedly involved in the Bin Laden operation. is composed of Army Delta Force, Navy SEALs and "a high-tech special intelligence unit known as Task Force Orange." "Small units could seize [Pakistan's nukes], disable them, and then centralize them in a secure location," claimed a source quoted by Fox.6
Obama Has Already Approved Sneak Attack on Pakistan's Nukes
According to the London Sunday Express, Obama has already approved an aggressive move along these lines: "US troops will be deployed in Pakistan if the nation's nuclear installations come under threat from terrorists out to avenge the killing of Osama Bin Laden. The plan, which would be activated without President Zardari's consent, provoked an angry reaction from Pakistan officials. Barack Obama would order troops to parachute in to protect key nuclear missile sites. These include the air force's central Sargodha HQ, home base for nuclear-capable F-16 combat aircraft and at least 80 ballistic missiles." According to a US official, "The plan is green lit and the President has already shown he is willing to deploy troops in Pakistan if he feels it is important for national security."7
Extreme tension over this issue highlights the brinksmanship and incalculable folly of Obama's May 1 unilateral raid, which might easily have been interpreted by the Pakistanis as the long-awaited attack on their nuclear forces. According to the New York Times, Obama knew very well he was courting immediate shooting war with Pakistan, and "insisted that the assault force hunting down Osama bin Laden last week be large enough to fight its way out of Pakistan if confronted by hostile local police officers and troops."
The Shooting Has Already Started
The shooting between US and Pakistani forces escalated on Tuesday May 17, when a US NATO helicopter violated Pakistani airspace in Waziristan. Pakistani forces showed heightened alert status, and opened fire immediately, with the US helicopter shooting back. Two soldiers at a Pakistani check post on the border in the Datta Khel area were wounded.8
Possible Pakistani retaliation for this border incursion came in Peshawar on Friday, May 20, when a car bomb apparently targeted a 2-car US consulate convoy, but caused no American deaths or injuries. One Pakistani bystander was killed, and several wounded. In other intelligence warfare, Ary One television reported the name of the CIA station chief in Islamabad, the second top US resident * there to have his cover blown in six months.
US Envoy Grossman Rejects Pakistani Calls To Stop Border Violations
US Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman, the replacement for the late Richard Holbrooke, on May 19 arrogantly rejected Pakistani calls for guarantees that no more Abottabad-style unilateral operations would be mounted in Pakistan.9 In refusing to offer such assurances, Grossman claimed that Pakistani officials had never demanded respect for their border in recent years.10
In the midst of this strategic crisis, India has gone ahead with inherently provocative scheduled military maneuvers targeting Pakistan. This is the "Vijayee Bhava" (Be Victorious) drill, held in the Thar desert of north Rajastan,. This atomic-biological-chemical Blitzkrieg drill involves the Second Armored Corps, "considered to be the most crucial of the Indian Army's three principal strike formations tasked with virtually cutting Pakistan in two during a full-fledged war."11
One way to provide the provocation needed to justify a US-Indian attack on Pakistan would be through an increase in terrorist actions attributable to the so-called Taliban. According to the mainstream Pakistani media, the CIA, the Israeli Mossad, and the Indian RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) have created their own version of the Taliban in the form of a terrorist countergang which they control and direct. According to one account, "Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operatives have infiltrated the Taliban and Al-Qaeda networks, and have created their own Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) force in order to destabilize Pakistan." The former Punjab Regional Commander of the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), retired Brigadier General Aslam Ghuman, commented: "During my visit to the US, I learned that the Israeli spy agency Mossad, in connivance with Indian agency RAW, under the direct supervision of CIA, planned to destabilize Pakistan at any cost."12 Was this countergang responsible for last week's double bombing in Waziristan, which killed 80 paramilitary police?
According to the same account, Russian intelligence "disclosed that CIA contractor Raymond Davis and his network had provided Al-Qaeda operatives with chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, so that US installations may be targeted and Pakistan be blamed.." Davis, a JSOC veteran himself, was arrested for the murder of two ISI agents, but then released by the Pakistani government after a suspicious hue and cry by the State Department.
CIA Claims The New Al Qaeda Boss Lives in Waziristan
If the US needs a further pretext for additional raids, it will also be easy to cite the alleged presence in Waziristan of Saif al-Adel, now touted by the CIA as bin Laden's likely successor as boss of al Qaeda.13 It is doubtless convenient for Obama's aggressive intentions that Saif al-Adel can be claimed to reside so close to what is now the hottest border in the world, and not in Finsbury or Flatbush.
In the wake of the unauthorized May 1 US raid, the Pakistani military chief General Kayani had issued his own warning that similar "misadventures" could not be repeated, while announcing that US personnel inside Pakistan would be sharply reduced. In the estimate of one ISI source, there are currently about 7,000 CIA operatives in country, many of them unknown to the Pakistani government. US-Pakistan intelligence sharing has reportedly been downgraded. In response to Kayani's moves, the CIA limited hangout operation known as Wikileaks once again showed its real nature by attempting to discredit the Pakistan commander with dubious US cable reports that he had demanded more Predator drone attacks, not fewer, in recent years.
Especially since Obama's West Point speech, the CIA has used Predator drone attacks to slaughter civilians with the goal of fomenting civil war inside Pakistan, leading to a breakup of the country along the ethnic lines of Punjab, Sind, Baluchistan, and Pushtunistan. The geopolitical goal is to destroy Pakistan's potential to be the energy corridor between Iran and China. Selig Harrison has emerged as a top US advocate for Baluchistan succession.
Since May 1, six reported US Predator drones attacks have slain some 42 Pakistani civilians, goading public opinion into a frenzy of anti-US hatred. In response, a joint session of the Pakistani parliament voted unanimously on May 14 to demand an end to American missile strikes, calling on the government to cut NATO's supply line to Afghanistan if the attacks should continue.14 Since the Karachi to Khyber Pass supply line carries as much as two thirds of the supplies needed by the Afghanistan invaders, such a cutoff would cause chaos among the NATO forces. All of this points to the inherent insanity of provoking war with the country your supply line runs through.
US Wants to Use Taliban Boss Mullah Omar Against Pakistan
The State Department dropped all preconditions for negotiating with the Taliban back in February, and the US is now reported by the Washington Post to be talking with envoys of Mullah Omar, the legendary one-eyed leader of the Quetta Shura or Taliban ruling council. It is apparent that the US is offering the Taliban an alliance against Pakistan. US regional envoy Grossman is hostile to the Pakistanis, but when it comes to the Taliban he has been nicknamed "Mr. Reconciliation."15 By contrast, the US is said to be determined to assassinate the head of the Haqqani network using a Bin Laden-type raid. The Pakistanis are equally determined to keep the Haqqani as an ally.
If China stands behind Pakistan, then Russia might be said to stand behind China. Looking forward to the upcoming June 15 meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Chinese President Hu praised Sino-Russian relations as being "at an unprecedented high point," with an "obvious strategic ingredient." In a press conference this week, Russian President Medvedev was obliged indirectly to acknowledge that the much-hyped Obama "reset" with Russia had amounted to very little, since the US ABM missile program in Romania and the rest of eastern Europe, so obviously directed against Russia, means that the START treaty is of dubious value, thus raising the specter of a "new Cold War." Given the NATO assault on Libya, there would be no UN resolution against Syria, said Medvedev. Putin has been right all along, and Medvedev is trying to imitate Putin to salvage some chance of remaining in power.
Are We in July 1914?
The crisis leading to World War I began with the Sarajevo assassinations of June 28, 1914, but the first major declaration of war did not occur until August 1. In the interim month of July 1914, large parts of European public opinion retreated into a dreamlike trance, an idyllic la-la land of elegiac illusion, even as the deadly crisis gathered momentum. Something similar can be seen today. Many Americans fondly imagine that the alleged death of Bin Laden marks the end of the war on terror and the Afghan War. Instead, the Bin Laden operation has clearly ushered in a new strategic emergency. Forces which had opposed the Iraq war, from MSNBC to many left liberals of the peace movement, are variously supporting Obama's bloody aggression in Libya, or even celebrating him as a more effective warmonger than Bush-Cheney because of his supposed success at the expense of Bin Laden. In reality, if there were ever a time to mobilize to stop a new and wider war, this is it.
-
This post first appeared on Webster Tarpley's website.
References
1 http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/china-asks-us-to-respect-paks-sovereignty-independence/articleshow/8454577.cms
2 "China-Pakistan alliance strengthened post bin Laden," AFP, May 15, 2011, http://www.sundaytimes.lk/index.php/analysis/7546-china-pakistan-alliance-strengthened-post-bin-laden
3 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/asia/20pakistan.html?_r=3
4 http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/05/08/Gilani-China-best-most-trusted-friend/UPI-96101304911435/
5 http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/pakistani_pm_regrets_unilateral_GAOWNTpBXGJaJtwzWaZu0K?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=
6 Rowan Scarborough,"U.S. Has Plan to Secure Pakistan Nukes if Country Falls to Taliban, Fox News, May 14, 2009.
7 "US `To Protect Pakistan," London Sunday Express, May 15, 2011, http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/246717/US-to-protect-Pakistan-
8 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/17/us-pakistan-nato-idUSTRE74G0PS20110517
9 "US refuses to assure it will not act unilaterally," http://thenews.jang.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=15758
10 "No US assurance on unilateral ops," http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/20-May-2011/No-US-assurance-on-unilateral-ops
11 "Getting leaner and meaner? Army practices blitzkrieg to strike hard at enemy," Times of India, May 10, 2011, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-05-10/india/29527731_1_three-strike-corps-army-and-iaf-transformational
12 "CIA has created own Taliban to wreak terror havoc on Pakistan, claims Pak paper," ANI, May 12, http://my.news.yahoo.com/cia-created-own-taliban-wreak-terror-havoc-pakistan-091621821.html
13 "New al-Qaeda chief in North Waziristan," May 19, 2011
14 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43033985/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
15 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8519535/US-steps-up-face-to-face-peace-talks-with-Taliban.html
more links to facts in the original article found on the first link.
Jens C. Kolbjornsen
LewRockwell.com
May 30, 2011
infowars
"Fascism should rightly be called corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power." ~ Benito Mussolini
Now that we are pushing the three years anniversary of the dramatic financial events of September 2008, it is fair to say, for anyone who has researched the subject on their own, that this movie is nothing but a popularization of the mainstream version of a crisis that only has been postponed and worsened. It portrays the criminals of the revolving door between Washington D.C. and Wall Street as heroes, without so much as touching upon the real reason for the boom and bust phenomenon.
Let's dissect the movie scene by scene.
The introduction shows the Clinton administration repealing Glass-Steagall and how home ownership all of a sudden became a part of the American dream. How Bush Jr. meant that inflating the largest mortgage bubble in history was "good not only for the soul, but also for the pocketbooks of the country." Several news clips are shown, none of which include the accurate warnings given by free market economists such as Peter Schiff or Jim Rogers. Surprised talking heads announce how Bear Stearns are being sold for pennies on the dollar to JP Morgan before the story kicks off in Lehman Brothers' CEO and Chairman Dick Fuld's office.
Fuld seems surprised with the situation of his financial Titanic, which makes little sense considering the outrageous repurchase transactions he undertook prior to September 2008 to cover for the bank's true leverage ratio. Fuld's scapegoat is instead the police of the markets, the short sellers!
Morally correct Hank Paulson can't recommend private investments, when being asked by Fuld to get in touch with Warren Buffett. Paulson's advisers work hard throughout the story, but as Dennis Kucinich has pointed out in Congress, the question is who they are working for.
Value Warren doesn't like what he sees unfolding in the banking sector (until he gets a friendly phone call from Blankfein later in the film) and refuses to touch Lehman at the current price. Fuld jokes about how no one forced mortgages on home buyers, but we all know of one institution that highly encouraged the credit mania with artificially low interest rates for years.
During Hank and Helicopter Ben's weekly breakfast Hank says he has just spoken to Alan Greenspan who complains about the over-supply of housing, a problem which, according to Greenspan, easily can be solved by buying up all the houses and then burning them. This is a wonderful example of the broken window fallacy these people seem to live by. Letting the artificial bubble burst would make housing affordable, but burning houses to encourage economic (GDP) "growth" is seen as a better idea.
The Bernank mostly eats porridge throughout the movie, besides claiming he has spent his entire academic career studying the great depression. The detail that not unexpectedly is missing in this Krugmanian porn flick is that the measures now being implemented are strikingly similar to the ones that accelerated the JP Morgan margin call-triggered crash of 1929 into a depression that lasted until the central planning of WWII loosened its grip of the US economy in the late forties.
Back at Lehman "it's not just a bad quarter" and management is panicking. Dick Fuld blows the deal with potential Korean buyers by trying to convince them that the firm's portfolio of asset backed securities isn't as bad as it appears. Fuld calls Kashkari at the Treasury out of desperation, but refuses to listen to his advice of selling at a lower price.
The following day, Timmy Geithner is "managing" the collapse of Fannie and Freddie from the squash courts. Obama is giving empty campaign promises of stability, which in all other languages than doublespeak means further instability, saying that nationalization of the two mortgage lenders may be an option. On his trip to the Beijing Olympics, Paulson receives a warning from the Chinese that they and the Russians might trash the entire mortgage market unless the US Treasury takes action (to prop up the phony credit-based economy).
It seems this sequence is supposed to justify breathing tax payer air into the corpse that is Fannie & Freddie.
Paulson scares Bank of America by sending a message that bailing out Lehman is not an option. When telling Geithner there is no legal support for the bailout, even though they just helped Jamie Dimon pick up Bear Stearns, Geithner replies that "legally, we haven't figured out how yet" - a statement that should make red flags fly all over the place.
The Lehman stock keeps sliding and Paulson orders the Bernank to summon all the banks' CEOs to a lockdown meeting at the Fed, where they surely already know their way around. At the airport Hank and his team meet with Christopher Cox from the SEC who asks whose private jet they're flying. "That's a rental, Hank put it on his card," is the reply from another former (current) Goldman (Government) Sachs employee. SEC asks with authority if there's anyone in the Treasury who isn't from Goldman, whereupon we get a reassuring: "Chairman, just to be clear, there's no conflict of interest here, Hank sold all of his shares in Goldman before he took office. Thanks for clarifying this, script writers.
The reproduction of the infamous mahogany meeting at the Fed is as full of clich?s as it was in Wall Street II and climaxes when Cox from the SEC reaches out to the banksters: "Gentlemen, you are great Americans undertaking a patriotic duty." This statement is so laughable that even Jamie Dimon cracks up.
After BofA decides to take a stake in Merrill Lynch, it becomes evident that Lehman has to go. But there is another problem arising, namely AIG "running out of cash." The same fear mongering we were delivered through the media is being presented here; everything from airplanes to construction projects to life insurance relies on AIG in one way or another. The world would practically freeze unless AIG gets bailed out. We're all familiar with the billions of dollars of CDS-related obligations the insurance giant held toward Goldman. The rest is unfortunately left to speculation, as the US justice system refuses to touch GS even when being handed rock solid proof on a silver platter by Carl Levin's recent Senate hearing.
Other critics have mentioned how Paulson is portrayed as a financial Jesus in Too Big to Fail, an image that becomes embarrassing when he nearly cries to his wife over the phone about how the fourth largest investment bank is about to go down "on his watch." The next day however, Hank and his team celebrate how media and Congress respond to "his decision" to let Lehman go.
Now the toxic assets really hit the fan and even IMF candidate Christine Lagarde complains to poor Paulson, "how did you dear to let Lehman go." General Electric makes it clear how business in America will shut down unless the economic overlords take action to stimulate the banks. This is the build-up to the justification of the TARP bill. Paulson's team basically comes up with the official version of the financial crisis in less than three minutes, again without mentioning the main facilitator behind the mortgage madness. "The whole financial system?," asks the press secretary in awe after the briefing, almost in tears. "And what do I tell them when they ask why this wasn't regulated?" "You tell them it's already been overregulated through price control and subsidies for decades, you ignorant economic hitwoman," is the reply she should have gotten in the movie.
One of the most shocking statements comes from the porridge-eating Bernank on the day of introducing TARP. The breakfast club partners in crime realise they can't keep blatantly dumping money on companies of their liking, so they have to come up with a way of doing it complicated enough for the alphabet soup illiterate public not to understand that the exact same thing is going on: "This is a democracy. We cannot be men behind the curtains pulling the strings," says the chairman of the unconstitutional creature from Jekyll Island which, according to Greenspan himself, is above the law.
The first draft of the TARP legislation is three pages long. Way too short for lobbyists who prefer bills to be at least a couple of thousand pages, but two pages too long for Ron Paul who has suggested new legislation should be readable for the people voting on it. When it comes to the size of TARP we learn the exact calculation behind 700 billion dollars. In reality, a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com; "It's not based on any particular data point. We just wanted to choose a really large number."
Paulson tells Bernanke before meeting with the legislators that the only way the bill will go through is "to scare them poopless." The Bernank doesn't think this should be a problem. In Too Big to Fail, Paulson kneels before Nancy Pelosi, before having to beg the banks to receive more money. In reality, Paulson did scare members of Congress poopless and threatened with "martial law in America if this bill didn't go through." After the Bernank lectures the financial sub-committee about how the great depression did not play out, and after some spin management and additional fear mongering from the White house, the bill passes and Paulson saves the day, the economy and the world.
The only question left is whether the banks will start lending again, which Paulson confirms they will. In closing, we learn that after the passage of TARP, banks made fewer loans and the markets continued downwards. Unemployment rose to ten percent and millions of families lost their homes, but that in 2009, the markets stabilized and "the slide into a global depression was averted." The biggest banks even repaid their TARP loans. In reality, all economic indicators are down, price inflation and unemployment are at record levels and the banks have ironically gotten away with the largest bank robbery in history.
Too Big to Fail expectedly ignores most of the issues that Austrians have been pointing out all along. In addition to completely misleading the viewer when it comes to economic facts like the catastrophic consequences of monetary central planning and expansion of the money supply, the criminals behind what to most people appears to be an orchestrated bank robbery are shamelessly portrayed as heroes. I'd rather recommend picking up Meltdownby Dr. Thomas Woods for a proper understanding of the events presented in this establishment fairy tale.
Jens C. Kolbjornsen on the movie Too Big to Fail: A Fascist Fairy Tale
Dean Henderson
Infowars
Global Research
June 1, 2011
(Part one of a four-part series)
The Four Horsemen of Banking (Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo) own the Four Horsemen of Oil (Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP Amoco and Chevron Texaco); in tandem with Deutsche Bank, BNP, Barclays and other European old money behemoths. But their monopoly over the global economy does not end at the edge of the oil patch.
According to company 10K filings to the SEC, the Four Horsemen of Banking are among the top ten stock holders of virtually every Fortune 500 corporation.[1]
So who then are the stockholders in these money center banks?
This information is guarded much more closely. My queries to bank regulatory agencies regarding stock ownership in the top 25 US bank holding companies were given Freedom of Information Act status, before being denied on "national security" grounds. This is rather ironic, since many of the bank's stockholders reside in Europe.
One important repository for the wealth of the global oligarchy that owns these bank holding companies is US Trust Corporation - founded in 1853 and now owned by Bank of America. A recent US Trust Corporate Director and Honorary Trustee was Walter Rothschild. Other directors included Daniel Davison of JP Morgan Chase, Richard Tucker of Exxon Mobil, Daniel Roberts of Citigroup and Marshall Schwartz of Morgan Stanley. [2]
J. W. McCallister, an oil industry insider with House of Saud connections, wrote in The Grim Reaper that information he acquired from Saudi bankers cited 80% ownership of the New York Federal Reserve Bank- by far the most powerful Fed branch- by just eight families, four of which reside in the US. They are the Goldman Sachs, Rockefellers, Lehmans and Kuhn Loebs of New York; the Rothschilds of Paris and London; the Warburgs of Hamburg; the Lazards of Paris; and the Israel Moses Seifs of Rome.
CPA Thomas D. Schauf corroborates McCallister's claims, adding that ten banks control all twelve Federal Reserve Bank branches. He names N.M. Rothschild of London, Rothschild Bank of Berlin, Warburg Bank of Hamburg, Warburg Bank of Amsterdam, Lehman Brothers of New York, Lazard Brothers of Paris, Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York, Israel Moses Seif Bank of Italy, Goldman Sachs of New York and JP Morgan Chase Bank of New York. Schauf lists William Rockefeller, Paul Warburg, Jacob Schiff and James Stillman as individuals who own large shares of the Fed. [3] The Schiffs are insiders at Kuhn Loeb. The Stillmans are Citigroup insiders, who married into the Rockefeller clan at the turn of the century.
Eustace Mullins came to the same conclusions in his book The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, in which he displays charts connecting the Fed and its member banks to the families of Rothschild, Warburg, Rockefeller and the others. [4]
The control that these banking families exert over the global economy cannot be overstated and is quite intentionally shrouded in secrecy. Their corporate media arm is quick to discredit any information exposing this private central banking cartel as "conspiracy theory". Yet the facts remain.
The House of Morgan
The Federal Reserve Bank was born in 1913, the same year US banking scion J. Pierpont Morgan died and the Rockefeller Foundation was formed. The House of Morgan presided over American finance from the corner of Wall Street and Broad, acting as quasi-US central bank since 1838, when George Peabody founded it in London.
Peabody was a business associate of the Rothschilds. In 1952 Fed researcher Eustace Mullins put forth the supposition that the Morgans were nothing more than Rothschild agents. Mullins wrote that the Rothschilds, ".preferred to operate anonymously in the US behind the facade of J.P. Morgan & Company". [5]
Author Gabriel Kolko stated, "Morgan's activities in 1895-1896 in selling US gold bonds in Europe were based on an alliance with the House of Rothschild." [6]
The Morgan financial octopus wrapped its tentacles quickly around the globe. Morgan Grenfell operated in London. Morgan et Ce ruled Paris. The Rothschild's Lambert cousins set up Drexel & Company in Philadelphia.
The House of Morgan catered to the Astors, DuPonts, Guggenheims, Vanderbilts and Rockefellers. It financed the launch of AT&T, General Motors, General Electric and DuPont. Like the London-based Rothschild and Barings banks, Morgan became part of the power structure in many countries.
By 1890 the House of Morgan was lending to Egypt's central bank, financing Russian railroads, floating Brazilian provincial government bonds and funding Argentine public works projects. A recession in 1893 enhanced Morgan's power. That year Morgan saved the US government from a bank panic, forming a syndicate to prop up government reserves with a shipment of $62 million worth of Rothschild gold. [7]
Morgan was the driving force behind Western expansion in the US, financing and controlling West-bound railroads through voting trusts. In 1879 Cornelius Vanderbilt's Morgan-financed New York Central Railroad gave preferential shipping rates to John D. Rockefeller's budding Standard Oil monopoly, cementing the Rockefeller/Morgan relationship.
The House of Morgan now fell under Rothschild and Rockefeller family control. A New York Herald headline read, "Railroad Kings Form Gigantic Trust". J. Pierpont Morgan, who once stated, "Competition is a sin", now opined gleefully, "Think of it. All competing railroad traffic west of St. Louis placed in the control of about thirty men."[8]
Morgan and Edward Harriman's banker Kuhn Loeb held a monopoly over the railroads, while banking dynasties Lehman, Goldman Sachs and Lazard joined the Rockefellers in controlling the US industrial base. [9]
In 1903 Banker's Trust was set up by the Eight Families. Benjamin Strong of Banker's Trust was the first Governor of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. The 1913 creation of the Fed fused the power of the Eight Families to the military and diplomatic might of the US government. If their overseas loans went unpaid, the oligarchs could now deploy US Marines to collect the debts. Morgan, Chase and Citibank formed an international lending syndicate.
The House of Morgan was cozy with the British House of Windsor and the Italian House of Savoy. The Kuhn Loebs, Warburgs, Lehmans, Lazards, Israel Moses Seifs and Goldman Sachs also had close ties to European royalty. By 1895 Morgan controlled the flow of gold in and out of the US. The first American wave of mergers was in its infancy and was being promoted by the bankers. In 1897 there were sixty-nine industrial mergers. By 1899 there were twelve-hundred. In 1904 John Moody - founder of Moody's Investor Services - said it was impossible to talk of Rockefeller and Morgan interests as separate. [10]
Public distrust of the combine spread. Many considered them traitors working for European old money. Rockefeller's Standard Oil, Andrew Carnegie's US Steel and Edward Harriman's railroads were all financed by banker Jacob Schiff at Kuhn Loeb, who worked closely with the European Rothschilds.
Several Western states banned the bankers. Populist preacher William Jennings Bryan was thrice the Democratic nominee for President from 1896 -1908. The central theme of his anti-imperialist campaign was that America was falling into a trap of "financial servitude to British capital". Teddy Roosevelt defeated Bryan in 1908, but was forced by this spreading populist wildfire to enact the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. He then went after the Standard Oil Trust.
In 1912 the Pujo hearings were held, addressing concentration of power on Wall Street. That same year Mrs. Edward Harriman sold her substantial shares in New York's Guaranty Trust Bank to J.P. Morgan, creating Morgan Guaranty Trust. Judge Louis Brandeis convinced President Woodrow Wilson to call for an end to interlocking board directorates. In 1914 the Clayton Anti-Trust Act was passed.
Jack Morgan - J. Pierpont's son and successor - responded by calling on Morgan clients Remington and Winchester to increase arms production. He argued that the US needed to enter WWI. Goaded by the Carnegie Foundation and other oligarchy fronts, Wilson accommodated. As Charles Tansill wrote in America Goes to War, "Even before the clash of arms, the French firm of Rothschild Freres cabled to Morgan & Company in New York suggesting the flotation of a loan of $100 million, a substantial part of which was to be left in the US to pay for French purchases of American goods."
The House of Morgan financed half the US war effort, while receiving commissions for lining up contractors like GE, Du Pont, US Steel, Kennecott and ASARCO. All were Morgan clients. Morgan also financed the British Boer War in South Africa and the Franco-Prussian War. The 1919 Paris Peace Conference was presided over by Morgan, which led both German and Allied reconstruction efforts. [11]
In the 1930's populism resurfaced in America after Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bank and others profited from the Crash of 1929. [12] House Banking Committee Chairman Louis McFadden (D-NY) said of the Great Depression, "It was no accident. It was a carefully contrived occurrence.The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so they might emerge as rulers of us all".
Sen. Gerald Nye (D-ND) chaired a munitions investigation in 1936. Nye concluded that the House of Morgan had plunged the US into WWI to protect loans and create a booming arms industry. Nye later produced a document titled The Next War, which cynically referred to "the old goddess of democracy trick", through which Japan could be used to lure the US into WWII.
In 1937 Interior Secretary Harold Ickes warned of the influence of "America's 60 Families". Historian Ferdinand Lundberg later penned a book of the exact same title. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas decried, "Morgan influence.the most pernicious one in industry and finance today."
Jack Morgan responded by nudging the US towards WWII. Morgan had close relations with the Iwasaki and Dan families - Japan's two wealthiest clans - who have owned Mitsubishi and Mitsui, respectively, since the companies emerged from 17th Century shogunates. When Japan invaded Manchuria, slaughtering Chinese peasants at Nanking, Morgan downplayed the incident. Morgan also had close relations with Italian fascist Benito Mussolini, while German Nazi Dr. Hjalmer Schacht was a Morgan Bank liaison during WWII. After the war Morgan representatives met with Schacht at the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, Switzerland. [13]
The House of Rockefeller
BIS is the most powerful bank in the world, a global central bank for the Eight Families who control the private central banks of almost all Western and developing nations. The first President of BIS was Rockefeller banker Gates McGarrah- an official at Chase Manhattan and the Federal Reserve. McGarrah was the grandfather of former CIA director Richard Helms. The Rockefellers- like the Morgans- had close ties to London. David Icke writes in Children of the Matrix, that the Rockefellers and Morgans were just "gofers" for the European Rothschilds. [14]
BIS is owned by the Federal Reserve, Bank of England, Bank of Italy, Bank of Canada, Swiss National Bank, Nederlandsche Bank, Bundesbank and Bank of France.
Historian Carroll Quigley wrote in his epic book Tragedy and Hope that BIS was part of a plan, "to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.to be controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements."
The US government had a historical distrust of BIS, lobbying unsuccessfully for its demise at the 1944 post-WWII Bretton Woods Conference. Instead the Eight Families' power was exacerbated, with the Bretton Woods creation of the IMF and the World Bank. The US Federal Reserve only took shares in BIS in September 1994. [15]
BIS holds at least 10% of monetary reserves for at least 80 of the world's central banks, the IMF and other multilateral institutions. It serves as financial agent for international agreements, collects information on the global economy and serves as lender of last resort to prevent global financial collapse.
BIS promotes an agenda of monopoly capitalist fascism. It gave a bridge loan to Hungary in the 1990's to ensure privatization of that country's economy. It served as conduit for Eight Families funding of Adolf Hitler- led by the Warburg's J. Henry Schroeder and Mendelsohn Bank of Amsterdam. Many researchers assert that BIS is at the nadir of global drug money laundering. [16]
It is no coincidence that BIS is headquartered in Switzerland, favorite hiding place for the wealth of the global aristocracy and headquarters for the P-2 Italian Freemason's Alpina Lodge and Nazi International. Other institutions which the Eight Families control include the World Economic Forum, the International Monetary Conference and the World Trade Organization.
Bretton Woods was a boon to the Eight Families. The IMF and World Bank were central to this "new world order". In 1944 the first World Bank bonds were floated by Morgan Stanley and First Boston. The French Lazard family became more involved in House of Morgan interests. Lazard Freres- France's biggest investment bank- is owned by the Lazard and David-Weill families- old Genoese banking scions represented by Michelle Davive. A recent Chairman and CEO of Citigroup was Sanford Weill.
In 1968 Morgan Guaranty launched Euro-Clear, a Brussels-based bank clearing system for Eurodollar securities. It was the first such automated endeavor. Some took to calling Euro-Clear "The Beast". Brussels serves as headquarters for the new European Central Bank and for NATO. In 1973 Morgan officials met secretly in Bermuda to illegally resurrect the old House of Morgan, twenty years before Glass Steagal Act was repealed. Morgan and the Rockefellers provided the financial backing for Merrill Lynch, boosting it into the Big 5 of US investment banking. Merrill is now part of Bank of America.
John D. Rockefeller used his oil wealth to acquire Equitable Trust, which had gobbled up several large banks and corporations by the 1920's. The Great Depression helped consolidate Rockefeller's power. His Chase Bank merged with Kuhn Loeb's Manhattan Bank to form Chase Manhattan, cementing a long-time family relationship. The Kuhn-Loeb's had financed - along with Rothschilds - Rockefeller's quest to become king of the oil patch. National City Bank of Cleveland provided John D. with the money needed to embark upon his monopolization of the US oil industry. The bank was identified in Congressional hearings as being one of three Rothschild-owned banks in the US during the 1870's, when Rockefeller first incorporated as Standard Oil of Ohio. [17]
One Rockefeller Standard Oil partner was Edward Harkness, whose family came to control Chemical Bank. Another was James Stillman, whose family controlled Manufacturers Hanover Trust. Both banks have merged under the JP Morgan Chase umbrella. Two of James Stillman's daughters married two of William Rockefeller's sons. The two families control a big chunk of Citigroup as well. [18]
In the insurance business, the Rockefellers control Metropolitan Life, Equitable Life, Prudential and New York Life. Rockefeller banks control 25% of all assets of the 50 largest US commercial banks and 30% of all assets of the 50 largest insurance companies. [19] Insurance companies- the first in the US was launched by Freemasons through their Woodman's of America- play a key role in the Bermuda drug money shuffle.
Companies under Rockefeller control include Exxon Mobil, Chevron Texaco, BP Amoco, Marathon Oil, Freeport McMoran, Quaker Oats, ASARCO, United, Delta, Northwest, ITT, International Harvester, Xerox, Boeing, Westinghouse, Hewlett-Packard, Honeywell, International Paper, Pfizer, Motorola, Monsanto, Union Carbide and General Foods.
The Rockefeller Foundation has close financial ties to both Ford and Carnegie Foundations. Other family philanthropic endeavors include Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, General Education Board, Rockefeller University and the University of Chicago- which churns out a steady stream of far right economists as apologists for international capital, including Milton Friedman.
The family owns 30 Rockefeller Plaza, where the national Christmas tree is lighted every year, and Rockefeller Center. David Rockefeller was instrumental in the construction of the World Trade Center towers. The main Rockefeller family home is a hulking complex in upstate New York known as Pocantico Hills. They also own a 32-room 5th Avenue duplex in Manhattan, a mansion in Washington, DC, Monte Sacro Ranch in Venezuela, coffee plantations in Ecuador, several farms in Brazil, an estate at Seal Harbor, Maine and resorts in the Caribbean, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. [20]
The Dulles and Rockefeller families are cousins. Allen Dulles created the CIA, assisted the Nazis, covered up the Kennedy hit from his Warren Commission perch and struck a deal with the Muslim Brotherhood to create mind-controlled assassins. [21]
Brother John Foster Dulles presided over the phony Goldman Sachs trusts before the 1929 stock market crash and helped his brother overthrow governments in Iran and Guatemala. Both were Skull & Bones, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) insiders and 33rd Degree Masons. [22]
The Rockefellers were instrumental in forming the depopulation-oriented Club of Rome at their family estate in Bellagio, Italy. Their Pocantico Hills estate gave birth to the Trilateral Commission. The family is a major funder of the eugenics movement which spawned Hitler, human cloning and the current DNA obsession in US scientific circles.
John Rockefeller Jr. headed the Population Council until his death. [23] His namesake son is a Senator from West Virginia. Brother Winthrop Rockefeller was Lieutenant Governor of Arkansas and remains the most powerful man in that state. In an October 1975 interview with Playboy magazine, Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller- who was also Governor of New York- articulated his family's patronizing worldview, "I am a great believer in planning- economic, social, political, military, total world planning."
But of all the Rockefeller brothers, it is Trilateral Commission (TC) founder and Chase Manhattan Chairman David who has spearheaded the family's fascist agenda on a global scale. He defended the Shah of Iran, the South African apartheid regime and the Chilean Pinochet junta. He was the biggest financier of the CFR, the TC and (during the Vietnam War) the Committee for an Effective and Durable Peace in Asia- a contract bonanza for those who made their living off the conflict.
Nixon asked him to be Secretary of Treasury, but Rockefeller declined the job, knowing his power was much greater at the helm of the Chase. Author Gary Allen writes in The Rockefeller File that in 1973, "David Rockefeller met with twenty-seven heads of state, including the rulers of Russia and Red China."
Following the 1975 Nugan Hand Bank/CIA coup against Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, his British Crown-appointed successor Malcolm Fraser sped to the US, where he met with President Gerald Ford after conferring with David Rockefeller. [24]
Next Week: Part II: Freemasons & The Bank of the United States
[1] 10K Filings of Fortune 500 Corporations to SEC. 3-91
[2] 10K Filing of US Trust Corporation to SEC. 6-28-95
[3] "The Federal Reserve `Fed Up'. Thomas Schauf. www.davidicke.com 1-02
[4] The Secrets of the Federal Reserve. Eustace Mullins. Bankers Research Institute. Staunton, VA. 1983. p.179
[5] Ibid. p.53
[6] The Triumph of Conservatism. Gabriel Kolko. MacMillan and Company New York. 1963. p.142
[7] Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History that Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons and the Great Pyramids. Jim Marrs. HarperCollins Publishers. New York. 2000. p.57
[8] The House of Morgan. Ron Chernow. Atlantic Monthly Press NewYork 1990
[9] Marrs. p.57
[10] Democracy for the Few. Michael Parenti. St. Martin's Press. New York. 1977. p.178
[11] Chernow
[12] The Great Crash of 1929. John Kenneth Galbraith. Houghton, Mifflin Company. Boston. 1979. p.148
[13] Chernow
[14] Children of the Matrix. David Icke. Bridge of Love. Scottsdale, AZ. 2000
[15] The Confidence Game: How Un-Elected Central Bankers are Governing the Changed World Economy. Steven Solomon. Simon & Schuster. New York. 1995. p.112
[16] Marrs. p.180
[17] Ibid. p.45
[18] The Money Lenders: The People and Politics of the World Banking Crisis. Anthony Sampson. Penguin Books. New York. 1981
[19] The Rockefeller File. Gary Allen. '76 Press. Seal Beach, CA. 1977
[20] Ibid
[21] Dope Inc.: The Book That Drove Kissinger Crazy. Editors of Executive Intelligence Review. Washington, DC. 1992
[22] Marrs.
[23] The Rockefeller Syndrome. Ferdinand Lundberg. Lyle Stuart Inc. Secaucus, NJ. 1975. p.296
[24] Marrs. p.53
Dean Henderson is the author of Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network and The Grateful Unrich: Revolution in 50 Countries. His Left Hook blog is at www.deanhenderson.wordpress.com
[url-"http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57032.html"]politico[/url]
By REID J. EPSTEIN | 6/15/11 12:06 PM EDT
A bipartisan group of House members announced on Wednesday that it is filing a lawsuit charging that President Obama made an illegal end-run around Congress when he approved U.S military action against Libya.
"With regard to the war in Libya, we believe that the law was violated. We have asked the courts to move to protect the American people from the results of these illegal policies," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who led the 10-member anti-war coalition with Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.).
The White House is expected on Wednesday to deliver to Congress a much-anticipated report detailing military activity in Libya.
According to Kucinich, the suit will challenge the Obama administration's "circumvention of Congress and its use of international organizations such as the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to authorize the use of military force abroad."
White House spokesman Jay Carney said at his daily press briefing that he is aware of the lawsuit and said the forthcoming report to Congress would resolve questions in it.
"We feel very confident that we will be able to answer the questions that Congress has," he said.
A senior Obama administration official, speaking on background, dismissed the Kucinich lawsuit, but declined to address it directly.
"I don't think we should comment specifically about lawsuit," the official said.
But former Rep. David Skaggs (D-Colo.), the co-chairman of the Constitution Project's War Powers Committee, called the Kucinich suit "right on the merits" but certain to be dismissed on procedural grounds because courts have determined members of Congress do not have standing to file such suits.
The suit comes a day after House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) sent Obama a letter claiming that military action in Libya will violate the 1973 War Powers Resolution if it does not end by Friday, 90 days after it began.
The Kucinich-Jones group also includes Democrats John Conyers of Michigan and Michael Capuano of Massachusetts and Republicans Howard Coble of North Carolina, John Duncan of Tennessee, Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, Ron Paul of Texas, Tim Johnson of Illinois and Dan Burton of Indiana.
Ethan A. Huff
http://www.naturalnews.com/033216_GMO_contamination_lawsuits.html
Aug 3, 2011
Purveyors of conventional and genetically-modified (GM) crops - and the pesticides and herbicides that accompany them - are finally getting a taste of their own legal medicine. Minnesota's Star Tribune has reported that the Minnesota Court of Appeals recently ruled that a large organic farm surrounded by chemical-laden conventional farms can seek damages for lost crops, as well as lost profits, caused by the illegal trespassing of pesticides and herbicides on its property.
Oluf and Debra Johnson's 1,500-acre organic farm in Stearns County, Minn., has repeatedly been contaminated by nearby conventional and GMO farms since the couple started it in the 1990s. A local pesticide cooperative known as Paynesville Farmers Union (PFU), which is near the farm, has been cited at least four times for violating pesticide laws, and inadvertently causing damage to the Johnson's farm.
The first time it was realized that pesticides had drifted onto the Johnson's farm in 1998, PFU apologized, but did not agree to pay for damages. As anyone with an understanding of organic practices knows, even a small bit of contamination can result in having to plow under that season's crops, forget profits, and even lose the ability to grow organic crops in the same field for at least a couple years.
The Johnson's let the first incident slide. But after the second, third, and fourth times, they decided that enough was enough. Following the second pesticide drift in 2002, the Johnson's filed a complaint with the Minnesota Agriculture Department, which eventually ruled that PFU had illegally sprayed chemicals on windy days, which led to contamination of the Johnson's organic crops.
PFU settled with the Johnson's out of court, and the Johnson's agreed to sell their tainted products as non-organics for a lower price, and pull the fields from production for three years in order to bring them back up to organic standards. But PFU's inconsiderate spraying habits continued, with numerous additional incidents occurring in 2005, 2007, and 2008, according to the Star Tribune.
After enduring much hardship, the Johnson's finally ended up suing PFU in 2009 for negligence and trespass, only to receive denial from the district court that received the case. But after appealing, the Johnson's received favor from the Appeals Court, which ruled that particulate matter, including pesticides, herbicides, and even GM particulates, that contaminates nearby fields is, in fact, considered illegal trespass, and is subject to the same laws concerning other forms of trespass.
In a similar case, a California-based organic farm recently won a $1 million lawsuit filed against a conventional farm whose pesticides spread through fog from several miles away, and contaminated its fields. Jacobs Farm / Del Cobo's entire season's herb crop had to be discarded as a result, and the court that presided over the case acknowledged and agreed that the polluters must be held responsible (http://organicfood.einnews.com/arti.).
Precedent has now been set for organic farmers to sue biotechnology companies whose GMOs contaminate their crops.
The stunning victories of both the Johnson's and Jacob's Farm / Del Cobo against their chemical-polluting neighbors is huge, in that it represents a new set legal precedent for holding conventional, factory farming operations responsible for the damage their systems cause to other farms. And with this new precedent set, many more organic farmers, for instance, can now begin suing GMO farmers for both chemical and genetic pollution that drifts onto their farms.
Many NaturalNews readers will recall the numerous incidents involving lawsuits filed by Monsanto against non-GMO farms whose crops were inadvertently contaminated by GM material. In many of these cases, the defendants ended up becoming bankrupted by Monsanto, even though Monsanto's patented materials were the trespassers at fault.
Be sure to check out the extensive and very informative report compiled by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) entitled Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers for a complete history of Monsanto's war against traditional American agriculture: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/.
But it appears that the tables are now turning. Instead of Monsanto winning against organic farmers, organic farmers can now achieve victory against Monsanto. In other words, farmers being infringed upon by the drifting of GM material into their fields now have a legal leg to stand on in the pursuit of justice against Monsanto and the other biotechnology giants whose "frankencrops" are responsible for causing widespread contamination of the American food supply.
Genetic traits are highly transmissible, whether it be through pollen transfer or seed spread, and organic and non-GMO farmers have every right to seek damages for illegal trespassing when such transmission takes place. It is expected that many more organic farms will step up and begin seeking justice and compensation for damage caused by crop chemicals, GM materials, and other harmful invaders.
For too long, Monsanto has been getting away with suing farmers whose crops have become contaminated by Monsanto's patented genetic traits and chemical materials, and winning. Thankfully, the justice system seems to now recognize the severe error in this, and is now beginning to rightfully hold polluters and trespassers responsible. Monsanto, your days are numbered.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.startribune.com/local/12.
Don't have my wings yet but I'm in rotation. Thanks Ya'll. steve
Court: Organic farmers can sue conventional, GMO farmers whose pesticides `trespass'
Ethan A. Huff
http://www.naturalnews.com/033216_GMO_contamination_lawsuits.html
Aug 3, 2011
Purveyors of conventional and genetically-modified (GM) crops - and the pesticides and herbicides that accompany them - are finally getting a taste of their own legal medicine. Minnesota's Star Tribune has reported that the Minnesota Court of Appeals recently ruled that a large organic farm surrounded by chemical-laden conventional farms can seek damages for lost crops, as well as lost profits, caused by the illegal trespassing of pesticides and herbicides on its property.
Oluf and Debra Johnson's 1,500-acre organic farm in Stearns County, Minn., has repeatedly been contaminated by nearby conventional and GMO farms since the couple started it in the 1990s. A local pesticide cooperative known as Paynesville Farmers Union (PFU), which is near the farm, has been cited at least four times for violating pesticide laws, and inadvertently causing damage to the Johnson's farm.
The first time it was realized that pesticides had drifted onto the Johnson's farm in 1998, PFU apologized, but did not agree to pay for damages. As anyone with an understanding of organic practices knows, even a small bit of contamination can result in having to plow under that season's crops, forget profits, and even lose the ability to grow organic crops in the same field for at least a couple years.
The Johnson's let the first incident slide. But after the second, third, and fourth times, they decided that enough was enough. Following the second pesticide drift in 2002, the Johnson's filed a complaint with the Minnesota Agriculture Department, which eventually ruled that PFU had illegally sprayed chemicals on windy days, which led to contamination of the Johnson's organic crops.
PFU settled with the Johnson's out of court, and the Johnson's agreed to sell their tainted products as non-organics for a lower price, and pull the fields from production for three years in order to bring them back up to organic standards. But PFU's inconsiderate spraying habits continued, with numerous additional incidents occurring in 2005, 2007, and 2008, according to the Star Tribune.
After enduring much hardship, the Johnson's finally ended up suing PFU in 2009 for negligence and trespass, only to receive denial from the district court that received the case. But after appealing, the Johnson's received favor from the Appeals Court, which ruled that particulate matter, including pesticides, herbicides, and even GM particulates, that contaminates nearby fields is, in fact, considered illegal trespass, and is subject to the same laws concerning other forms of trespass.
In a similar case, a California-based organic farm recently won a $1 million lawsuit filed against a conventional farm whose pesticides spread through fog from several miles away, and contaminated its fields. Jacobs Farm / Del Cobo's entire season's herb crop had to be discarded as a result, and the court that presided over the case acknowledged and agreed that the polluters must be held responsible (http://organicfood.einnews.com/arti.).
Precedent has now been set for organic farmers to sue biotechnology companies whose GMOs contaminate their crops.
The stunning victories of both the Johnson's and Jacob's Farm / Del Cobo against their chemical-polluting neighbors is huge, in that it represents a new set legal precedent for holding conventional, factory farming operations responsible for the damage their systems cause to other farms. And with this new precedent set, many more organic farmers, for instance, can now begin suing GMO farmers for both chemical and genetic pollution that drifts onto their farms.
Many NaturalNews readers will recall the numerous incidents involving lawsuits filed by Monsanto against non-GMO farms whose crops were inadvertently contaminated by GM material. In many of these cases, the defendants ended up becoming bankrupted by Monsanto, even though Monsanto's patented materials were the trespassers at fault.
Be sure to check out the extensive and very informative report compiled by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) entitled Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers for a complete history of Monsanto's war against traditional American agriculture: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/.
But it appears that the tables are now turning. Instead of Monsanto winning against organic farmers, organic farmers can now achieve victory against Monsanto. In other words, farmers being infringed upon by the drifting of GM material into their fields now have a legal leg to stand on in the pursuit of justice against Monsanto and the other biotechnology giants whose "frankencrops" are responsible for causing widespread contamination of the American food supply.
Genetic traits are highly transmissible, whether it be through pollen transfer or seed spread, and organic and non-GMO farmers have every right to seek damages for illegal trespassing when such transmission takes place. It is expected that many more organic farms will step up and begin seeking justice and compensation for damage caused by crop chemicals, GM materials, and other harmful invaders.
For too long, Monsanto has been getting away with suing farmers whose crops have become contaminated by Monsanto's patented genetic traits and chemical materials, and winning. Thankfully, the justice system seems to now recognize the severe error in this, and is now beginning to rightfully hold polluters and trespassers responsible. Monsanto, your days are numbered.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.startribune.com/local/12.
Don't have my wings yet but I'm in rotation. Thanks Ya'll. steve
Thanks for the post and links, this ruling makes for real hope. I grow a home garden that small but is organic. The times they are a changin......[:D]
By ADAM KLASFELD
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/06/39572.htm
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (CN) - Five Westchester residents and the Second Amendment Foundation cannot relax a law forcing citizens to demonstrate proper cause before they pack heat on public streets, a federal judge ruled.
New York courts have interpreted "proper cause" as having a "special need for self-protection" as compared to the general population.
"I hold that the state has an important government interest in promoting public safety and preventing crime," U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel wrote in an order dismissing a class action challenging the regulation.
Alan Kachalsky, Christina Nikolov, Eric Detmer, Johnnie Nance and Anna Marcucci-Nance say their applications for full-carry permits were rejected, even though they had all been trained in firearms and had spotless criminal records.
Kachalsky claimed he had proper cause because "we live in a world where sporadic random violence might at any moment place one in a position where one needs to defend oneself or possibly others," court documents say.
Judge Susan Cacace, his licensing officer, found that this explanation did not distinguish him from anybody else seeking a permit.
Nikolov said she deserved a license because she passed three firearms safety courses with the National Rifle Association, showed a "calm demeanor" as a pilot and flight instructor, and had a higher likelihood of being the victim of violence as a transgender woman.
Rejecting her request, Judge Jeffrey A. Cohen explained that a specific threat of violence against her was "conspicuously absent" from her application.
Nance and Marcucci-Nance cited no special needs for full-carry permits, Judge Robert K. Holdman found.
Detmer thought he satisfied the proper cause requirement as a federal law enforcement officer with the U.S. Coast Guard, but Judge Albert Lorenzo said his application contained "no justification" for a full-carry permit.
Gaining the support of the Second Amendment Foundation, the five applicants filed a federal class action lawsuit against Westchester County and the four judges serving as licensing officers in late 2010.
On Friday, Judge Seibel agreed that the plaintiffs had standing to pursue the case, but she granted summary judgment to the defendants sua sponte on the grounds that the state had the duty to protect public safety.
In a footnote, she noted that the state attorneys argued in affidavits that gun crimes are linked to general availability, and citizens with concealed handguns can endanger cops stopping them.
An affidavit also said that the "majority of criminal homicides and other serious crimes are committed by individuals who have not been convicted of a felony and would receive permits to carry concealed weapons without the 'proper cause' requirement."
Data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives showed that 227 firearms were recovered during the first half of 2009 in Westchester, more than double those recovered in nearby Orange County and several times more than those recovered in Dutchess, Rockland, Sullivan and Putnam.
The report also cited 132 weapon offenses in the Westchester region.
Judge Seibel entered the 60-page opinion on Friday, preceding a particularly bloody Labor Day weekend in which 48 people were shot in New York City. Mayor Mike Bloomberg called for stricter gun-control laws Tuesday.
by Bob Bauman
The Sovereign Investor
Recently by Bob Bauman: Ten Years Later. We're Still Paying the Price
Rarely in my long life's experience have two news items been published on the same day that demonstrated such palpable irony.
The two stories that appeared in The New York Times last Friday (Sept. 30) and when read together, they present a sharp incongruity and discordance that far exceeds the simple and evident intention of the words and actions recounted.
Due Process: 1945
Item #1: In a column entitled "The Nuremberg Scripts" Joe Nocera told how, in November 1945, six months after Nazi Germany's surrender to the victorious Allies, a 24-year-old Army combat engineer named Harold Burson was handed a new assignment: daily reports on the Nuremberg trial of the top Nazis leaders for the American Armed Forces Radio Network. For the next five months, Burson was one of two soldiers who reported on the trial and produced a daily "script," read over the air by the AFRN announcers.
Mr. Burson, who is 90 now, is the co-founder of Burson-Marsteller, one of the world's largest public relations firms, says that every five years or so, he goes back and re-reads those old scripts, marveling at the remarkable experience he'd been afforded at such a young age.
Nocera says there was an aspect to Burson's scripts he ".found quite endearing. They have an earnest, idealistic quality that reminds you just how full of hope America was after World War II.
"Though we had fought a brutal war, we were determined to act generously to the vanquished. That even applied to the Nazi brass who had committed reprehensible crimes against humanity. "G.I.'s have one stock question," reads Burson's very first 1945 script. "Why can't we just take them out and shoot 'em? We know they're guilty."
Due Process: 2011
Item #2: In a "news analysis" in the same Times edition, Scott Shane reported: "The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen struck on Friday by a missile fired from a drone aircraft operated by his own government, instantly reignited a difficult debate over terrorism, civil liberties and the law."
In a statement my former U.S. House of Representatives colleague, Rep. Ron Paul, said President Obama was "appointing himself judge, jury and executioner by presidential decree" and was acting outside "the Constitution or the rule of law" He added: "Awlaki was a U.S. citizen. Under our Constitution, American citizens, even those living abroad, must be charged with a crime before being sentenced." He suggested the president could be impeached for the killing.
"In any way destroyed."
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, one of the most important protections in our Bill of Rights says in part: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
The United States Supreme Court has held: "It is now the settled doctrine of this Court that the Due Process Clause embodies a system of rights based on moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society as conceived by our whole history. Due Process is that which comports with the deepest notions of what is fair and right and just." Solesbee v. Balkcom, 339 U.S. 9, 16 (1950);' Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934).
The concept of due process goes all the way back to Magna Carta, (1215) in which King John promised that "[n]o free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseized or exiled or in any way destroyed.except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."
Evidence
Pressed to justify the constitutional law professor/president's open defiance of the Fifth Amendment in ordering the murder of a U.S. citizen without trial, the White House press secretary refused to respond. As the Washington Post put it, "The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process."
Glen Greenwald said it: "That is the mindset of the U.S. Government and its followers expressed as vividly as can be: we can spy on, imprison, or even kill anyone we want - including citizens - without any due process or any evidence shown, simply because we will tell you they are Bad People, and you will trust us and believe us."
Deeply Embedded Hypocrisy
A writer from Bangor, Maine commented: ".we target and kill an American citizen without trial. I'm not saying this man's actions didn't deserve punishment. But why even bother to pretend anymore? Why bother? Maybe with Obama's latest drone kill we can let the hypocrisy go. But remember, Americans. Remotely-controlled drones can fly and kill over American cities just as easily as they can fly and kill over Yemen."
Ask yourself this question: In the 66 years from the Nuremberg Trial 1945 to the White House 2011, what has happened to America's belief in what the Supreme Court described as those "moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society."
The next time you hear what sounds like a small plane flying overhead, look up. If the president decides you are one of those Bad People, it might be the last thing you ever see.
Reprinted with permission from The Sovereign Investor.
October 5, 2011
Robert E. Bauman is a former Member of the United States House of Representatives from Maryland, (1973-1981). He is also a former federal official and state legislator; Member, Washington, DC Bar; Graduate of the Georgetown University Law Center (1964) and the School of Foreign Service (1959), Washington, DC. Robert currently serves as legal counsel for the Sovereign Society.
Copyright c 2011 Robert E. Bauman
Obama Repeals the 5th Amendment
by Bob Bauman
The Sovereign Investor
Recently by Bob Bauman: Ten Years Later. We're Still Paying the Price
Rarely in my long life's experience have two news items been published on the same day that demonstrated such palpable irony.
The two stories that appeared in The New York Times last Friday (Sept. 30) and when read together, they present a sharp incongruity and discordance that far exceeds the simple and evident intention of the words and actions recounted.
Due Process: 1945
Item #1: In a column entitled "The Nuremberg Scripts" Joe Nocera told how, in November 1945, six months after Nazi Germany's surrender to the victorious Allies, a 24-year-old Army combat engineer named Harold Burson was handed a new assignment: daily reports on the Nuremberg trial of the top Nazis leaders for the American Armed Forces Radio Network. For the next five months, Burson was one of two soldiers who reported on the trial and produced a daily "script," read over the air by the AFRN announcers.
Mr. Burson, who is 90 now, is the co-founder of Burson-Marsteller, one of the world's largest public relations firms, says that every five years or so, he goes back and re-reads those old scripts, marveling at the remarkable experience he'd been afforded at such a young age.
Nocera says there was an aspect to Burson's scripts he ".found quite endearing. They have an earnest, idealistic quality that reminds you just how full of hope America was after World War II.
"Though we had fought a brutal war, we were determined to act generously to the vanquished. That even applied to the Nazi brass who had committed reprehensible crimes against humanity. "G.I.'s have one stock question," reads Burson's very first 1945 script. "Why can't we just take them out and shoot 'em? We know they're guilty."
Due Process: 2011
Item #2: In a "news analysis" in the same Times edition, Scott Shane reported: "The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen struck on Friday by a missile fired from a drone aircraft operated by his own government, instantly reignited a difficult debate over terrorism, civil liberties and the law."
In a statement my former U.S. House of Representatives colleague, Rep. Ron Paul, said President Obama was "appointing himself judge, jury and executioner by presidential decree" and was acting outside "the Constitution or the rule of law" He added: "Awlaki was a U.S. citizen. Under our Constitution, American citizens, even those living abroad, must be charged with a crime before being sentenced." He suggested the president could be impeached for the killing.
"In any way destroyed."
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, one of the most important protections in our Bill of Rights says in part: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
The United States Supreme Court has held: "It is now the settled doctrine of this Court that the Due Process Clause embodies a system of rights based on moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society as conceived by our whole history. Due Process is that which comports with the deepest notions of what is fair and right and just." Solesbee v. Balkcom, 339 U.S. 9, 16 (1950);' Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934).
The concept of due process goes all the way back to Magna Carta, (1215) in which King John promised that "[n]o free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseized or exiled or in any way destroyed.except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."
Evidence
Pressed to justify the constitutional law professor/president's open defiance of the Fifth Amendment in ordering the murder of a U.S. citizen without trial, the White House press secretary refused to respond. As the Washington Post put it, "The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process."
Glen Greenwald said it: "That is the mindset of the U.S. Government and its followers expressed as vividly as can be: we can spy on, imprison, or even kill anyone we want - including citizens - without any due process or any evidence shown, simply because we will tell you they are Bad People, and you will trust us and believe us."
Deeply Embedded Hypocrisy
A writer from Bangor, Maine commented: ".we target and kill an American citizen without trial. I'm not saying this man's actions didn't deserve punishment. But why even bother to pretend anymore? Why bother? Maybe with Obama's latest drone kill we can let the hypocrisy go. But remember, Americans. Remotely-controlled drones can fly and kill over American cities just as easily as they can fly and kill over Yemen."
Ask yourself this question: In the 66 years from the Nuremberg Trial 1945 to the White House 2011, what has happened to America's belief in what the Supreme Court described as those "moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society."
The next time you hear what sounds like a small plane flying overhead, look up. If the president decides you are one of those Bad People, it might be the last thing you ever see.
Reprinted with permission from The Sovereign Investor.
October 5, 2011
Robert E. Bauman is a former Member of the United States House of Representatives from Maryland, (1973-1981). He is also a former federal official and state legislator; Member, Washington, DC Bar; Graduate of the Georgetown University Law Center (1964) and the School of Foreign Service (1959), Washington, DC. Robert currently serves as legal counsel for the Sovereign Society.
Copyright c 2011 Robert E. Bauman
I've seen some (for example: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=352617) argue that his Alwaki's dual citizenship muddles this issue. I wasn't able to follow the point to understand how it could remove the due process requirement. In fact, I don't think it matters at all.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain