Flesh & Stone

It appears that someone in Washington called several government officials in Europe to force the landing of a jet carrying the President of Bolivia.  If that proves to be the case, the actions by all involved violate of the 2010 international protocol to help stop skyjacking.  The protocol, signed by all but a few nations, says:

“Any person commits an offence if that person unlawfully and intentionally seizes or exercises control of an aircraft in service by force or threat thereof, or by coercion, or by any other form of intimidation, or by any technological means.”  2010 Protocol Supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Un-Lawful Seizure of Aircraft

Paranoia on Steroids

The president of Bolivia, Eva Morales, flew to Russia for an international energy conference.  His plane landed and stayed at Vnukovo International Airport while he was at the conference.   During the conference, Morales indicated that he would consider providing asylum for NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.  However, he didn’t offer asylum or grandstand when he responded to a reporter’s inquiry.

Based on the forced landing of the Morales plane and the new  “Insider Threat” program to squash whistleblowers, the Obama administration obviously wants Snowden in the worst way.  The diplomatic requests mask a deeper sense of entitlement that turned into recklessness in this situation.

When the Morales plane left Russia, there was a refueling stop planned in Spain’s Canary Islands.  While in Austrian airspace, the Bolivian plan received word that Spain was withdrawing permission to refuel.  The aircraft quickly made landing requests to Portugal, Italy and France.  The word back was no permission to land.  With a need to refuel and no other options, a request was made to Austria and Morales landed in Vienna.

Once on the ground, Morales was confined to the Vienna air terminal for hours.  Bolivian officials insisted that the Austrians search the plane for Snowden.  An Austrian official walked through the plane but supposedly interrupted the search and left.  Austrian President Heinz Fischer said:

“The official was informed that the problem had been fixed and he saw at that point that the plane was empty… He did not look under the seats. There was no formal inspection, but no other person was found aboard.” Austrian President Heinz Fischer, Buenos Ares Herald, July 7

Guess what?  Snowden was not on the plane.

How did this happen?  Were these European countries so anxious to find Snowden, they acted in a way that broke international law and agreements?

Thanks to Matthew Schofield of the McClatchy News Foreign Staff, we know that someone contacted Spanish authorities and authorities in the other refusing nations with requests that the Bolivian plane not land on their territory (How the hunt for Edward Snowden, and bad information, stranded Bolivian president, Friday, July 5, 2013).  Schofield connected the dots on critical elements of this story.

The article quotes Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manual Garcia-Margallo who was interviewed after the incident:

“We were told that Snowden was inside. I can [only] work with the data they give me.  They said they were clear he was inside. … The reactions of European countries were because the information they gave us was that (Snowden) was inside.”  Spanish Foreign Minister Garcia-Margallo McClatchy, July 5 (Author’s emphasis)

That’s telling!  As Schofield points out, the foreign minister didn’t say who they were but let’s guess - an authorized, high-ranking member of the Obama administration.  Who else could make such a request and have it granted?

Also, the foreign minister’s statement implicates officials in the other three European countries.  How else would he know the information he claims to have received?

Is it an international conspiracy to violate protocols on skyjacking yet?

We also find out the obvious reason they thought Morales was on the plane and why that idea was absurd.  Schofield implied that they suspected that Morales’ comment about considering asylum meant both that he would grant it and that the president would sneak Snowden on the presidential aircraft for a getaway.

Maybe they celebrated a bit too much over the holiday weekend and watched an episode of Fox Entertainment’s 24.

What would Jack Bauer do?

If they had exercised the least bit of objective analysis, it would have been apparent that the Snowden-Morales escape scenario was extremely unlikely.

It was public knowledge that Snowden landed and was restricted to Moscow’s Sheremetyevo International Airport on June 23.   President Morales’ plane landed and remained at Moscow’s Vnukovo International Airport prior to the Gas Exporting Countries Conference, which started July 1.  To believe that there was actionable intelligence to suspect Morales - Snowden getaway, you have to believe the following.  Snowden could: evade Russian security and leave Sheremetyevo airport; successfully travel the 35 miles across Moscow to Vnukovo airport; evade Russian security there; and, board the Morales plane.

The European countries and the individuals who encouraged them clearly violated the international conventions on skyjacking and the general diplomatic code based on a theory that was unlikely at best and, in reality, absurd.   The overwhelming desire to get Snowden seems to have blocked access to the facts of the situation.

These are the people who are protecting us against terrorist attacks.

Deeper Reasons for Them to Suspect Morales

The suspicions of the officials who encouraged this absurdity make sense, if we assume that the Obama administration was behind this, which, of course, they were.  If you’re sufficiently paranoid, it is easy to suspect others of doing what you do to them.

Evo Morales is a left wing Bolivian politician who was first elected president of Bolivian in 2006.  He leads a movement that incurred the hostility of Bolivia’s financial elite and apparently the United States government under both Bush and Obama.

The Bush administration’s hostility toward Morales included trade conflicts and claims that the administration backed the 2003 massacre of protesters associated with Morales.  According to Morales, the U.S. Embassy was behind a plot to kill him in 2009.  President Obama had to deny approving any assassination plots on a visit to South America.  Bolivia recently turned down any further aid from the United States and expelled U.S. aid personnel.

The administration knows what it has done and plans to do to Morales and the nation of Bolivia.  If you’re sufficiently paranoid, it makes perfect sense to suspect a constant desire for revenge on the part of those you victimize.  As a result, the many reasons to believe Snowden’s escape was nearly impossible made no difference.  The administration bypassed the facts altogether and went with the paranoid logic.  Of course he snuck Snowden on the plane!  He hates our guts!  Go get him.

While the deeper reasons theory makes sense, it could be as simple as this.  One of the many friends made by the administration in six years of drone killings and proxy wars may have injected an email into an Internet portals monitored by NSA and its European partners stating that Snowden was on the plane.

This is just another stop on the boulevard of lost dreams that represents out current political process.

END

This article may be reposted with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

 

Image:  Wikipedia

The war in Syria went from a seeming quagmire to a conflict that may reach a dramatic climax with the coming battle for Aleppo, a city of nearly three million people that was once the commercial center of the nation.   Political leaders and events in two other cities, Istanbul and London, will play a central role in the outcome of the battle.  (Image)

The Syrian Army finished off final rebel resistance in the city of Qusayr last week fighting alongside the Lebanese group Hezbollah.  As a result, the rebel supply line from Lebanon is shut down and the major road from Damascus to Aleppo via Qusayr is open.  The road will serve the supply line for an attack to end rebel occupation of half of that city.

A victory by the Syrian military in Operation Northern Storm, its name for the Aleppo effort, will leave the rebels with very little in the way of major influence or meaningful territory.  From the start, the rebel strategy focused on urban warfare.  The various groups would have little chance of survival in a conventional battle with the Syrian Army.  With the shelter of cities and towns, the Syrian Army’s  advantage vanished allowing the rebels to carry on the conflict and prevail in key areas.

Damascus is under government control.  With a victory in Aleppo, the Syrian state would reclaim control of its two key population centers.  The United States - Russia sponsored peace conference scheduled for July would be an afterthought.

Two of the key supporters of the Syrian rebels are not in a position to provide much help the rebels in their attempt to hold their position in Aleppo.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan is preoccupied with a raging protest movement focused on the PM and his policies.  The movement began and is centered in Istanbul, the nation’s largest city and world trade gateway.  Turkey took the lead in public opposition to the Syrian government in 2011.  Its southern border near Aleppo, particularly the city of Adana, served as the conduit for supplies and fighters from Persian Gulf oil states.

Siding with rebels was never popular in Turkey.  It is very unpopular now.  As certain as he may seem about every thing he says, Erdogan would risk a great deal through robust assistance to the rebels.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has a deep commitment to the Syrian rebels.  Cameron has steadfastly advocated for a lifting of European Union ban on the supply of weapons to the rebels.  The PM is limited by defections from his own party and a split cabinet, with one faction opposed to the supply of lethal assistance.   Oddly, Cameron maintains that it will take 18 months for the weapons supplies to spread among the rebels.

The battle for Aleppo will be decided long before the suggested 18 months is up.  The outcome could end the rebels as a viable force that justifies additional outside aid.

The Battle for Aleppo - July 2012 through May 2013

The rebels first attacked Aleppo in earnest in July 2012.   Prior to that rebels took control of large sections of the countryside around the city.  The attack originated from a cluster of towns to the north of the city near the Turkish border or with rebels embedded in Aleppo.  Foreign fighters and Syrian rebels were likely trained and supplied in the Turkish city of Adana, just across the Syria-Turkey border.   News of the Turkish base first surfaced in July 2012.

Whichever version of the attack is correct, one thing is for certain.  There was no civil insurrection in Aleppo by citizens of that city.  Nor did the attack come at the request by Aleppo’s residents.

Currently, the city is divided into three sectors controlled by the rebels, the Syrian military, and Syrian Kurds.   The rebels control the eastern sector and the countryside around the western sector, which is controlled by the Syrian military.  Two Kurdish groups control a smaller section of the city, the Salahaddin Brigade, which cooperates with rebels, and the Kurdish Democratic Union Party, distant from both rebels and the Syrian military.

The successful rebel offensive in July resulted in control of a large portion of eastern Aleppo.   As the battles raged, Syrian Army troops faced a significant disadvantage.  Rebel control of the city of Qusayr and the Homs province cut off regular supplies and troop movements to support efforts in Aleppo.

The fall of Qusayr changed all that.  The Syrian’s can now supply their military in Aleppo, knowing that the Lebanese rebel supply pipeline is closed.  In addition, the military has adjusted its fixed battle mindset for urban warfare into a more efficient approach and, of most significance; the Syrians are now allied with Hezbollah.  The two fighting groups proved to be a formidable combination.  After it was clear that Qusayr would fall, Hezbollah deployed 4,000 fighters to Aleppo for that battle.

Istanbul and London

Turks are protesting in 80 cities across the country.  The eruption of civil discontent started on May 31 when police assaulted protesters in Istanbul’s Taksim Square.  What started as a protest of plans to change a major square in Istanbul has grown to a nationwide movement sustained since May 31.  The general themes have broadened to include the opposition to the autocratic rule of Prime Minister Erdogan, creeping religious rules restricting the public, and Turkey’s involvement to the conflict in Syria (see previously cited polling results).

Erdogan’s initial reaction to the protests was disdain calling the protestors “bums.”  When he left the country for a visit to North Africa, his Deputy Prime Minister apologized for the violent police reaction in the early protests and met with demonstrators.    When Erdogan returned, he was expected to calm things.  Instead he held rival rallies of his supporters telling crowds that the protestors were “drinking beer in mosques and insulting women wearing headscarves.”  These allegations risked pitting his party supporters against protestors in violent conflict.

There are three constituencies that openly oppose Erdogan: supporters of the secular model of rule in Turkey, the Alevi population, and the Kurds. All together, these three groups represent close to half of the total population.

A fourth, more dangerous opponent is Fethullah Gulen, leader of the powerful Hizmet movement, a moderate Muslim “state within a state.”  Gulen opposes Erdogan’s commitment to violence in Syria and the Prime Minister’s overbearing style of rule.  A clear abandonment of Erdogan would be devastating.

Erdogan alienated the military through the prosecution of several hundred military leaders for alleged plans for false flag terror operations against fellow Turks.  Yet he relies on the military to further his program by restraining the type of military coups that have toppled previous Turkish leaders.

Why would Erdogan risk his rule to intervene directly in Syria, particularly a battle about to be fought that could determine the outcome of the rebel assault on Syria’s government?  And, if he did, would the military cooperate?

There is no civil unrest beleaguering British Prime Minister David Cameron.  However, his insistence on providing weapons to Syrian rebels is costing him dearly.  Half of his cabinet came out in opposition to any military aid (although there has been covert aid for some time).   Eighty-one Conservative Members of Parliament wrote an open letter to Cameron opposing aid through weapons.   The members demanded a floor debate and vote on any aid package.

There are even comparisons to Cameron’s obsession with the Syrian violence with former PM Tony Blair’s fixation on invading Iraq.

Cameron’s main support on the Syrian project comes from his neoconservative cabinet members and their allies in the British version of the Federalist Society, known as the Henry Jackson Society.

The PM is isolated politically in his adamant support for aiding the rebels.  His ability to deliver is viewed as extremely limited.

Even if Erdogan acts without regard to his political future and Cameron has one, neither leader will be able to provide the time-critical delivery of what the rebels need to survive the furious onslaught by the Syrian Army and Hezbollah set to begin in the next hours or days.

Since the conflict began, in victory and defeat, the various factions of the Syrian rebels have complained bitterly about an absence of weapons and ammunition.   This may be one instance when their complaints are right on target.  If Operation Northern Storm succeeds, this may be the last request for weapons that the rebels make; or, at least the last request that anyone bothers to cover.

END

This article may be reposted with attribution of author ship and a link to this article.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That’s what Blythe Masters of JPMorgan does based on evidence from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and JPMorgan’s recent history. (Image: UCS)

Coal power is the leading source carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.  CO2 is the leading cause of climate change.  Once airborne, the man made filth sticks around for 2 to 20 centuries.  In addition, coal power is “a leading cause of smog, acid rain, and toxic air pollution.”

All that makes us sick reflected in a an annual health care price tag of $333 to  $500 billion in costs for heart and lung diseases, for example.  Tens of thousands die from those diseases eery year.

Guess which bank is one of the top financing sources for coal plants and mountain top removal?  JP Morgan.  That’s the same JPMogan that the FERC may go after (just like the Department of Justice went after those involved with torture).

It is clear that Blythe Masters, head of commodities trading and regulatory affairs at JPMorgan investment banking, and her Wall Street cohorts who finance and lobby for coal production do not play well with others.

Blythe Masters, is in big trouble.  The New York Times reported that a FERC report says that she lied to them about a deal and her expertise to squash state investigations.  According to the Times, FERC alleges that Ms. Masters and her crew made appear that “money-losing power plants” were “powerful profit centers.  Not good for investors.

Who is Blythe Masters?

Masters is a key player and senior executive at JP Morgan.  She invented credit default swaps (CDS).  This risky derivative scheme supposedly provides investors protection against financial default by corporate entities. You don’t have to own one dime of stock in the corporation to buy protection, you just need the money.

The market size of CDS trading in 2012 was $27 trillion.  It involves mostly foreign trading.  The market is not regulated so all we can do is “take their word” on size and true risk.  The market looks more like a protection racket than a financial service.

CDC trading is followed by a significant increase in corporate bankruptcy according to a recent study.  Rather than providing protection, product marketing looks more like a protection racket.  Master’s invention was central to the 2008 financial crisis and CDS pose threats today.

We can debate the “great man/person” theory of history versus other causal factors all day long.  It won’t change the fact that JPMorgan’s Blythe Masters is one extremely influential and dangerous person.  She’s walking around free as a bird, spending her money, never touched by the great financial collapse she helped create in 2008.

Our social and political culture is starting to mirror the musical Chicago with one important exception.  Nobody ever gets arrested.  They bypass that step and move right to notoriety.

END

This article may be reposted with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

Michael Collins

Hagel’s confirmation has become a memorable battle, in part because many of his opponents are strongly pro-war while always having avoided themselves the kind of sacrifice Hagel exhibited.  Andrew Kreig, Justice Integrity Project

Senate Democratic Majority Harry Reid is a rat of epic proportions.  He was the only member of the Democratic majority who voted against cloture on the filibuster now in place by Senate Republicans.  Reid earned his latest rat tail for two acts against the citizens of this country.  First, of course, is the vote against cloture, thus allowing the Republicans to block the Hagel nomination.  Reid was forced into this vote by parliamentary rules which Reid himself created.  Before that, Reid assured the survival of the filibuster by refusing to curtail the odious process when he wrote the rules for this session of the Senate.

As the consummate insider, there is little doubt that Reid knew about the likely Hagel choice for Defense before he made his decision on the filibuster rules.  Crafty, isn’t he. (Image: DonkeyHotey)

What’s with this guy?  The opposition to Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense comes from the warmonger supporters of the national security state.  On this nomination, they got their marching orders from the pro-Israel at any cost fanatics who worship at the shrine of endless war.  Absent Hagel’s even handed view of U.S. Middle East policies and interests, his nomination would have been approved about the same time as that of new Secretary of State John Kerry. 

The war mongers are naked before the public.  Andrew Kreig, head of the Justice Integrity Project noted:

“Hagel’s confirmation has become a memorable battle, in part because many of his opponents are strongly pro-war while always having avoided themselves the kind of sacrifice Hagel exhibited. Hagel, from modest means in Nebraska, was seriously wounded two times in Vietnam after enlisting with his brother, Thomas. They were not only a rare combination of siblings in the same combat unit, but they also saved each others’ lives.” Andrew Kreig, February, 14

Chuck Hagel offers a unique perspective on defense.  He’s not an armchair warrior.  He enlisted and served in Vietnam with distinction.  He learned the deadly serious nature of war, a lesson not forgotten.  Hagel started his own business and, unlike the plutocrats who run the country, he is a self-made success.  His financial inheritance was limited but clearly, he acquired a strong work ethic. Hagel served in the Senate and openly questioned the greatest foreign policy disaster in U.S. history, the illegal invasion of Iraq.  In addition, unlike the warmonger right wing Republicans, Hagel has a history of strong support for our soldiers both by opposing the reckless use of the military which leads to deaths and injuries and by supporting the care for injured soldiers once they return home from foreign adventures.

Harry Reid, on the other hand, is the epitome of just about everything that’s wrong with our political process.  The senator from Nevada led the Democrats from one failure to another as both majority and minority leader.  He showed his true hostility toward the people by supporting the 2005 bankruptcy reform bill that stacked the deck against tens of millions who have been victimized by Wall Street and the big banks.  Reid was happy to support the evisceration of the Constitution whenever he had the chance.   His string of losses to the forces of privilege and greed would put the old Washington Generals to shame.

Elitists who mock the wisdom of the people fail to note that the vast majority of citizens see our current political situation with clear vision and unassailable judgment.  Only 14% approve of Congress with an overwhelming 77% stating their disapproval.  If you own or work for a business of any size and 77% of the public disapproves of your products and services, you know that your headed out of business very soon  It makes sense.  People won’t do business with you.  However, due to the rigged game of U.S. politics, we are stuck with the biggest collection of incompetents imaginable, people we’ve identified as losers again and again over the past years; but, people we’re stuck with, nonetheless.

The sad lesson is this.  Members of Congress don’t care.  They don’t have to.  It’s all a rigged game.  Those with the deepest pockets offer legal bribes in all forms to members of Congress and those members vote the party line, that would be The Money Party line — that all inclusive party with its Democratic and Republican wings that exists solely to serve the interests of the super wealthy and powerful, at the expense of the people.

END

This article may be reposted with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

The Money Party

 

 

 

Speech by Laurent Louis - Posted by Michael Collins

“It is about time to stop lying to us and treating people like imbeciles.”

Tearing Down the Empire Project:  This speech represents a moment of extreme truth for the NATO powers. The United States, Great Britain, France and the lesser powers have been throwing their weight around Asia and Africa without regard to the norms of civilized behavior Their drill includes attacking countries that pose no threat to any NATO member; engaging in ruinious sanctions as a negotiating tool; threatening war; and, engaging in military actions as a matter of routine. Laurent Louis, a Belgian MP and crusader for human rights, spoke to parliament and laid out the truth behind naked aggression and the lies that justify it. Michael Collins
(Originally found at Kenny’s Sideshow)

============

LAURENT LOUIS, MP: Thank you, Mr President. Dear Ministers, dear Colleagues.

Belgium is indeed the land of surrealism.

This morning we learned from the media that the Belgian army is incapable of fighting some extremist soldiers having radical Islamist beliefs existing within its own ranks but who cannot be dismissed for lack of legal means.

However, at the same time, we decide to help France in its war against “Terror” by providing logistical support for its operation in Mali. What wouldn’t we do in order to fight against terrorism outside our borders? I just hope we took care not to send for this anti-terrorist operation, in Mali, these much talked about Belgian Islamists soldiers!

I seem to be joking, but what is going on in the world today does not make me laugh at all. It doesn’t make me laugh, because without any doubt, the leaders of our Western countries are taking the people for imbeciles with the help and support of the Media which are nothing more today than an organ of propaganda of the ruling powers.

Around the world, military actions and regime’s destabilization are becoming more and more frequent. Preventive war has become the rule.

And today, in the name of democracy and the fight against terrorism, our states grant themselves the right to violate the sovereignty of independent countries and to overthrow legitimate leaders.

There has been Iraq and Afghanistan, the wars of the American lie. Later, came Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, where thanks to your decisions, our country has been “first in line” to participate in crimes against humanity, in each case overthrowing progressive and moderate regimes and to replace them with Islamist regimes, and - isn’t it weird ? - Their first act was to impose Sharia law.

This is exactly what is currently happening in Syria where Belgium is shamefully funding the arming of the Islamist rebels who are trying to overthrow Bashar Al Assad. Thus, in the midst of economic crisis, as more and more

Belgians can no longer house themselves, feed, heat and cure themselves - Yeah, I can hear what a filthy populist I am - well, the Minister of Foreign Affairs decided to offer the Syrian rebels nine million Euros!

Of course, they’ll try to make us believe that this money will be used for humanitarian purposes … one more lie! And as you can see, for months, our country is only participating to put in place, Islamic regimes in North Africa and the Middle East. So, when they come and pretend to go to war in order to fight against terrorism in Mali, well… I feel like laughing. It’s false!

Under the appearance of good actions, we only intervene to defend financial interests in a complete neo-colonialist agenda. It makes no sense to go to help France in Mali in the name of the fight against Islamic terrorism when - at the same time - we support the overthrow of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad by Islamist rebels who want to impose Sharia Law, as was done in Tunisia and in Libya.

It is about time to stop lying to us and treating people like imbeciles.

The time has come to tell the truth. Arming the Islamist Rebels, as Westerners have, in the past armed Bin Laden, that friend of the Americans before they turned against him, well, the western countries are taking the opportunity to place military bases in the newly conquered countries while favoring domestic companies.

Everything is therefore strategic. In Iraq, our American allies have put their hands on the country’s oil wealth. In Afghanistan, it was its opium and drugs always useful when it comes to make lots of money pretty quickly. In Libya, in Tunisia, in Egypt, or then again in Syria, the aim was - and is still today, to overthrow moderate powers, to replace them with Islamist powers who very quickly will become troublesome and who we will shamelessly attack pretending once again, to fight terrorism or protect Israel.

Thus, the next targets are already known. Within a few months, I bet that our eyes will turn to Algeria and eventually to Iran.

To go to war, to free people from an outside aggressor, is noble. But to go to war to defend the interests of the USA; To go to war to defend the interests of big companies such as AREVA; go to war to put our hands on gold mines, is not at all noble and reveals our counties to be attackers and thugs!

No one dares to speak, but I will not shut up! And if my battle makes me look like an enemy of this system that flaunts the Human Rights in the name of financial, geo-strategic and neo-colonialist interests, so be it!

Flaunting and exposing this regime is a duty and makes me proud. And honestly, I apology for my low class speech, but I say fuck you all, the so-called do-gooders, both left and right-wingers or from the center who are today licking the boots of our corrupted powers and who will be pleased to ridicule me.

I say fuck you all, leaders who are playing with your bombs as kids do in a playground! I say fuck you, you who pretend to be democrats while you are nothing more than low class criminals.

I don’t have much respect neither for the journalists who have the audacity to label the opponents as mentally retarded while basically, they know very well that these opponents are right.

Finally, I despise, at the highest point, those who believe they are the kings of the world and who are dictating their laws, because I AM on the side of truth, the side of justice, the side of the innocent victims of looting at all cost. And it is for this reason that I have decided to clearly oppose this resolution that is sending our country to support France in its neo-colonialist operation.

Since the beginning of the French operation, the lie was established. We are told that France is only answering the call for help of a Malian president. We almost forget that this president has no legitimacy and that he was put in place to ensure the transition following the coup of March 2012. Who supported this coup d’état? Who started it? For whom is this president of transition actually working? This is the first lie!

The French president, François Hollande dares to pretend to wage this war to fight against the jihadists who threaten (ohhhh do you realize!) who threaten the French and European territory! But what an ugly lie! By taking this official argument, while taking the opportunity to frighten the population increasing the terror alert level, implementing the Vigipirate plan our leaders and media are demonstrating an unimaginable outrage!

How dare they use such a point while France and Belgium have not hesitated to arm and support Jihadists in Libya and that these same countries continue to support these jihadists in Syria.

This pretext is a coverup to strategic and economic purposes. Our countries are no longer in fear of appearing inconsistent because everything is done to hide it. But the inconsistency is apparent. It is not tomorrow that you’ll see a Malian citizen commit an act of terrorism in Europe. No! Not unless we suddenly create one so we can justify this military operation.

Haven’t we created September 11 after all, to justify the invasions, arbitrary arrest, torture and massacre of innocent populations? Thus, to create a Malian terrorist is no big deal!

It must not be very complicated for our bloodthirsty leaders.

Another pretext used these recent months to justify military operations, as the protection of human rights. Ah! This pretext is still used today to justify the war in Mali. But yes! We have to act, otherwise the evil Islamists will impose Sharia law in Mali, stoning women and cutting the thugs’ hands off.

Oh! The intention is truly noble. Noble and salutary for sure. But then why is it - Good Lord - why is it that our countries have contributed in Tunisia and Libya to the accession to power of Islamists who have decided to apply this Sharia Law in these countries which were, not so long ago, still regarded as modern and progressive? I invite you to ask the young Tunisians who have launched the revolution in Tunisia, if they are happy with their current situation? This is all hypocrisy.

The purpose of this war in Mali is very clear. And since no one talks about it, I WILL. The purpose is to fight against China and allow our American ally to maintain its presence in Africa and the Middle East. This is what guides these neo-colonialists operations.

And you will see, when the military operation will be over, France will, of course, keep its military bases in Mali. These bases will be a benefit to the Americans as well. And at the same time, as has always been the case, western corporations will put their hands on juicy contracts that will once again deprive re-colonized countries of their wealth and raw materials.

So let’s be clear, the primary beneficiaries of this military operation, will be the owners and shareholders of the French giant AREVA who has been trying for years to obtain a uranium mine in Falea, a town of 17,000 inhabitants located at 350 km from Bamako.

And I don’t know why, but my little finger is telling me that it won’t take long before AREVA will eventually exploit that mine!

I don’t know, it’s an impression I have. It is therefore out of question that I would take part to this mining colonialism, this modern times colonialism.

And for those who doubt about my arguments, I sincerely invite them to learn about the wealth of Mali.

Mali is a major producer of gold, but recently it has been recently designated as being a country that offers a world-class environment for the exploitation of uranium. How strange!

One step closer to a war against Iran, it is obvious.

For all these reasons and in order to not fall into the traps of lies they are tending us, I’ve decided not to give my support to that intervention in Mali.

Therefore, I will vote against it. And by doing so, I’m being consistent since, I never supported in the past our criminal interventions in Libya or in Syria, and so being the only MP in this country to defend the non-interference and the fight against obscure interests. I really think it is about time to put an end to our participation to the UN or NATO and get out of the EU if Europe, instead of providing peace, providing peace becomes a weapon of attack and destabilization of sovereign countries submissive to financial rather than human interests

Finally, I can only urge our government to remind the President Hollande the obligations resulting from the Geneva Conventions regarding the respect of prisoners of war.

Indeed, I was shocked to hear on television from the mouth of the French President that his intention was to “destroy” - I say “destroy” - Islamist terrorists.

So, I do not want the qualification to be used to name the opponents to the Malian regime - it is always convenient today to talk about Islamic terrorists- to be used to circumvent the obligations of any democratic state in terms of respecting the rights of prisoners of war.

We expect such a respect from the Fatherland of Human Rights. In conclusion, Let me emphasize how lightly we decide to go to war.

First, the government acts without any consent from the Parliament. It appears that it has the right to. It sends equipment, men to Mali. The Parliament subsequently reacts and when it responds, as today, well, this institution happens to be composed of only 1/3 of its members. Much less if we speak of the French speaking MP’s.

It is therefore a guilty lightness which does not really surprises me, coming from a Parliament of puppies, submitted to the dictates of political parties. Thank you.

(Translation: Geraldine Feuillien)

From Kenny’s Side Show

 

Michael Collins

(Washington, DC 1/21)  A long standing  Money Party front, the Business Roundtable, wants you to wait until you’re 70 years old before you get Social Security and Medicare benefits.  This is just a reprise of the November 2012 dictate from the king of corporate cronyism, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein.  (Image: DonkeyHotey)  (Greenspan statement)

The boss announced, “So there will be things that, you know, the retirement age has to be changed, maybe some of the benefits have to be affected, maybe some of the inflation adjustments have to be revised. But in general, entitlements have to be slowed down and contained.”  Lloyd Blankfein, CBS News, November 2012

That’s easy for Lloyd to say.  He makes tens of millions of dollars a year without so much as lifting a finger.  You can be sure that Blankfein has a deluxe health insurance and retirement plan.

Most seniors lack these necessities.  Half of those 65 or older make  $45,000 a year ($3,750 a month) or less.  If you have to wait until 70 for Medicare, you can either pay monthly health insurance premiums of $1,000 to $3,000 a month (if you can get it) or you can learn pain and suffering up close without coverage.  You can eat much less and downsize to substandard shelter to pay your health care costs (premiums and out-of-pocket expenses).  Perhaps the combination of restricted health care, substandard diet, and inadequate shelter may even kill you, in which case the problem is solved.

How would Lloyd react if he had to pay anywhere from 25% to 60% of his gross income for medical coverage?  Would he have a different opinion given the choice between food and shelter versus health insurance premiums?

The Money Party proposals for entitlements represent a looming disaster for millions of working people who struggle to make it to a retirement age of 65.  In fact, nearly 20% take the lower Social Security benefits that come with early retirement at 62.

Medicare eligibility is fixed at 65.  Let’s say it’s raised to 70.  Instead of waiting three years for medical coverage, the early retirees (often unfit to work or unemployed) would wait eight years for Medicare.  For those who take the full Social Security benefit at 66 (born from 1948-1954) or 67 (born after 1960), the wait for Medicare would be three to four years.   Imagine the possibilities for complications and tragedy while waiting for Medicare.

There’s a real genius to the Blankfein-Roundtable proposals that escapes public examination.   The longer benefits are delayed, the more people will die before claiming any of the benefits.  The longer benefits are delayed, the longer people will end up working.  That means greater stress on health with more people axed from the Social Security and Medicare rolls due to an earlier than expected demise.

It gets even worse.  The higher the retirement age for Social Security, the more seniors end up paying in Social Security taxes.  That creates an even larger poll of funds for the annual borrowing from Social Security surpluses (aka rake-off) by the government to cover a much of the pork-laden Federal budget.  All we get is a promise that our taxes and contributions will be repaid as we hear various executives, politicians, and commissions demand that those benefits be reduced.   Their scamming is without end.

The real money shot for the Money Party would be to leave Social Security retirement ages alone but insist on and get the 70 year old requirement for Medicare benefits.  Since most of the retired population likely can’t afford to buy private health insurance while they await Medicare, the death toll would rise exponentially.

Some of you may be wondering, Can’t people just keep working until the later eligibility age so they’re not reliant on either Social Security or Medicare?

 

 

The irrefutable answer to that question is no.  The real unemployment rate is 23%.  The jobs aren’t there for those challenged by increased eligibility ages.  This isn’t a controversial analysis.   Here’s how you get to the real unemployment rate of 23%?   Start with the Bureau of Labor Statistics U-6 unemployment rate of 15%  (which incorporates the official rate of around 8%)  then add all those unemployed for more than twelve months who want to work and you get 23% real unemployment (See the Shadow Government Statistics analysis).

You’d think Lloyd would hire an adviser to brief him before he shoots his mouth off.

Why should he?  Blankfein and his Wall Street pals got away with the biggest theft of all time - trillions of dollars in home equity value, retirements, etc.  as a result of the 2008 financial collapse.  Nothing happened then and certainly nothing will happen now to any of the financial elite for their nonstop, profoundly offensive and deadly proposals.

There is no justice when theft like this goes unchallenged.  The perps are still fat and happy with plenty of walking around money.

There is no civility and decency when monsters like Blankfein and the Business Roundtable feel that they have the license to make such outrageous proposals.

Who among those elected will challenge and rein in the Money Party?

END

This article may be reposted with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

The Money Party

 

by Michael Collins

(Washington, DC 1/21)  A long standing  Money Party front, the Business Roundtable, wants you to wait until you’re 70 years old before you get Social Security and Medicare benefits.  This is just a reprise of the November 2012 dictate from the king of corporate cronyism, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein. (Image: DonkeyHotey) (Greenspan statement)

The boss announced, “So there will be things that, you know, the retirement age has to be changed, maybe some of the benefits have to be affected, maybe some of the inflation adjustments have to be revised. But in general, entitlements have to be slowed down and contained.” Lloyd Blankfein, CBS News, November 2012

That’s easy for Lloyd to say.  He makes tens of millions of dollars a year without so much as lifting a finger. You can be sure that Blankfein has a deluxe health insurance and retirement plan.

Most seniors lack these necessities. Half of those 65 or older make $45,000 a year ($3,750 a month) or less. If you have to wait until 70 for Medicare, you can either pay monthly health insurance premiums of $1,000 to $3,000 a month (if you can get it) or you can learn pain and suffering up close without coverage.  You can eat much less and downsize to substandard shelter to pay your health care costs (premiums and out-of-pocket expenses).  Perhaps the combination of restricted health care, substandard diet, and inadequate shelter may even kill you, in which case the problem is solved.

How would Lloyd react if he had to pay anywhere from 25% to 60% of his gross income for medical coverage? Would he have a different opinion given the choice between food and shelter versus health insurance premiums?

The Money Party proposals for entitlements represent a looming disaster for millions of working people who struggle to make it to a retirement age of 65. In fact, nearly 20% take the lower Social Security benefits that come with early retirement at 62.

Medicare eligibility is fixed at 65.  Let’s say it’s raised to 70.  Instead of waiting three years for medical coverage, the early retirees (often unfit to work or unemployed) would wait eight years for Medicare.  For those who take the full Social Security benefit at 66 (born from 1948-1954) or 67 (born after 1960), the wait for Medicare would be three to four years.   Imagine the possibilities for complications and tragedy while waiting for Medicare.

There’s a real genius to the Blankfein-Roundtable proposals that escapes public examination. The longer benefits are delayed, the more people will die before claiming any of the benefits. The longer benefits are delayed, the longer people will end up working. That means greater stress on health with more people axed from the Social Security and Medicare rolls due to an earlier than expected demise.

It gets even worse.  The higher the retirement age for Social Security, the more seniors end up paying in Social Security taxes. That creates an even larger poll of funds for the annual borrowing from Social Security surpluses (aka rake-off) by the government to cover a much of the pork-laden Federal budget.  All we get is a promise that our taxes and contributions will be repaid as we hear various executives, politicians, and commissions demand that those benefits be reduced. Their scamming is without end.

The real money shot for the Money Party would be to leave Social Security retirement ages alone but insist on and get the 70 year old requirement for Medicare benefits. Since most of the retired population likely can’t afford to buy private health insurance while they await Medicare, the death toll would rise exponentially.

Some of you may be wondering, Can’t people just keep working until the later eligibility age so they’re not reliant on either Social Security or Medicare?

 

The irrefutable answer to that question is no.The real unemployment rate is 23%.  The jobs aren’t there for those challenged by increased eligibility ages.  This isn’t a controversial analysis.   Here’s how you get to the real unemployment rate of 23%?   Start with the Bureau of Labor Statistics U-6 unemployment rate of 15% (which incorporates the official rate of around 8%)  then add all those unemployed for more than twelve months who want to work and you get 23% real unemployment (See the Shadow Government Statistics analysis).

You’d think Lloyd would hire an adviser to brief him before he shoots his mouth off.

Why should he?  Blankfein and his Wall Street pals got away with the biggest theft of all time - trillions of dollars in home equity value, retirements, etc. as a result of the 2008 financial collapse. Nothing happened then and certainly nothing will happen now to any of the financial elite for their nonstop, profoundly offensive and deadly proposals.

There is no justice when theft like this goes unchallenged. The perps are still fat and happy with plenty of walking around money.

There is no civility and decency when monsters like Blankfein and the Business Roundtable feel that they have the license to make such outrageous proposals.

Who among those elected will challenge and rein in the Money Party?

END

This article may be reposted with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

The Money Party

 

Michael Collins
(Washington, DC, 12/9)  Here we go again.

On, December 3, President Barack Obama warned the Syrian government against using chemical weapons against, among others, NATO-Saudi sponsored fighters trying to overthrow President Bashar Assad.

A few days later, British Prime Minister David Cameron’s foreign secretary claimed that he had evidence the Syrian government plans to use chemical weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against the rebels.

After Obama’s December 3 warning, Syria denied any intent to use the weapons “no matter what the circumstances” as they had after an earlier Obama warning.

U.S. and British government officials are unreliable sources on this subject.

Does the government of President Bashar Assad intend to use chemical WMD?

We can’t know for sure but a review of experts by McClatchy News came up with a consensus answer - not likely! Using chemical WMD would guarantee an overwhelming United States-NATO retaliation ending any chance the Assad regime has for political and actual survival.  The experts noted that the claimed recent movement of the chemical stockpile does not necessarily support a plan  for offensive use.  Rather, moving the stockpile may well secure its capture by surging rebel forces with Al Qaeda fighters at the forefront.

Retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, a harsh critic of current administration policies, categorically dismissed the WMD claims: “I would be highly skeptical of any of the intelligence rendered by the $140-billion-plus US intelligence community as to weapons of mass destruction in possession of another country” (RT December 8, 2012).

Robert Fisk, covering the Middle East for thirty years, was just as frank in assessment of the Obama - Cameron claims:

“…over the past week, all the usual pseudo-experts who couldn’t find Syria on a map have been warning us again of the mustard gas, chemical agents, biological agents that Syria might possess — and might use. And the sources? The same fantasy specialists who didn’t warn us about 9/11 but insisted that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction in 2003.” The Independent, December 8

What’s Up with Obama and the Brits?

Why would Obama and Cameron make these sketchy claims about a Middle East ruler that they want removed from power?

Could it be that the old Bush-Blair lies about Iraq’s WMD are surfacing in a new form?

Will the announced threat of Syria’s intent to use chemical WMD serve as the last best hope for a preemptive U.S. - NATO military action against the government of Syrian president Bashar Assad?

In 2002, Bush was apoplectic about Saddam Hussein’s WMD program.  Saddam planned to use WMD, the disgraced former president bellowed.  The corporate media flew cover for Bush by pushing the fiction that Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks and his WMD would be used for more of the same.  The implication was clear - it could happen here!

At the same time, British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government published an intelligence report that supposedly confirmed Iraq’s ability to use WMD.  Bush then used the British intelligence to bolster his plan to invade Iraq.

The British intelligence dossier turned out to be a complete fraud.  The dodgy dossier was plagiarized from paper by a graduate student posted on the internet.  This theft of intellectual property plus other plagiarism was the best that Tony Blair’s backroom could produce to justify an invasion based on Iraq’s alleged possession of WMD.  The corporate media, fully embedded in the Bush-Cheney cartel, said nothing.  The strategy worked.  Why not try it again?

Obama and Cameron tasted blood in Libya.  In addition to the general death and destruction, NATO helped wipe out an entire city (well, two actually) and aided in the capture Muammar Gaddafi who was then tortured and murdered.   The two leaders have a serious craving for more of their Libyan action.  Syria is number one with a bullet for a hiked up military effort to show just how tough they are.

Those who write the history of our decline and fall will be astonished at the recycled bull shit offered up by the leaders of the world’s most powerful nations at this most critical moment.  Again and again, we’re handed a package of lies gift-wrapped in smarmy insincerity. Ill intent is never in question.  It’s just the degree of death and damage that the lies portend.

What Does this Say about President Obama?

Those who think that Obama will show his true colors as an enlightened leader this time around are living in a fantasy world.

Obama is using the George W. Bush playbook to set up a U.S. military action against a sovereign state that poses no threat to the nation.  The administration’s involvement in Syria (and Libya as well) is both gratuitous and illegal according to Nuremberg Principle VI:  (a) Crimes against peace. How enlightened is that?

How enlightened is it to spend a couple of hours a week, as Obama does, creating kill lists that order the deaths of administration designated terrorists in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.  U.S. citizens so labeled who operate overseas experience the efficiency of moving from suspect to death sentence without the need for an arrest and trial.  It’s the Patriot Act on steroids.

How enlightened is it to focus on proxy wars and hit-man diplomacy while, at the same time, ignoring the U.N. Climate Change Conference (DOHA, 2012) that just ended?

Those who maintain hope that the president’s policies will change from welfare for the financial elite and endless war should put requests for new priorities in their annual letter to Santa Claus.  You’re more likely to catch mommy kissing Santa in the back seat of the family Hummer than you are to see change on vital issues for the vast majority of citizens.

The alarm bells are ringing.  We are ruled by clueless, indifferent, ego maniacs so wedded to their current status, they fear the urgently needed changes required to even maintain our society at its current functional level.

END

This article may be reproduced with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

Also see

War Crimes in Libya - The Smoking Guns 11/03/11
Some Questions about the Cameron Obama Meeting 03/15/12
Welcome to the New Syria, July 23, 2012
Turkey Plays Lee Harvey for NATO Plotters 10/06/2012

The Money Party

Michael Collins
Creative Commons

(Washington, DC, 11/15) The bitterness of the neocons knows no limit.  They’re still having tantrums after being denied the unchallenged ability to pillage and plunder at will (and at our expense).  Never mind that the public doesn’t want to hear it.  The Congressional Republicans are jumping up and down over their big question:  When did President Obama know about the affair between General Petraeus and Mrs. Broadwell? Talk about a misguided salvage operation.  Their inquiries will spark some questions that they won’t want asked. (Image)

The real questions concern the behavior and motivation of General Petraeus in the aftermath of the murder of the United States ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, on September 11, 2012.

When did General Petraeus know the seqence of events that preceded the murderof United States Ambassador Stevens, indicating the likely motivation for the murder?

The Petraeus CIA provided inaccurate information about events on the ground to the Obama Administration, particularly to President Obama and United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice. Did they know it was inaccurate?

If the Petraeus CIA mislead or withheld information from the White House or allowed that to happen, was it in the service of the Romney campaign or those clamoring for an attack on Iran?

At the end of an article by David Randal in The Independent, November 11, this provocative information appeared:

“The CIA has come under intense scrutiny for providing the White House and other administration officials with information that led them to say the Benghazi attack was a result of a film protest. It has become clear that the CIA was aware the attack was distinct from the film protests across the Muslim world.” The Independent, November 11

Early on, United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice stated that news of the anti-Muslim movie, Innocence of Muslims, inspired an angry mob to turn violent and attack the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya:

“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo [a protest against the anti-Muslim film].” ABC News, September 15

Rice was corrected shortly after this statement.

The CBS News report on September 12 that the attack on the consulate was premeditated turned out more accurate than the information provided to the White House by the CIA.  The attack and murder of Ambassador Stevens, CBS reported, was premeditated, initiated by “al-Qaeda affiliated” terrorists.

Fox News added 2 plus 2 and came up with 22.  Fox’s talking heads claimed that Rice’s statement was part of an Obama Administration cover-up.  The Administration was trying to mask its failure to stop an al Qaeda attack on U.S diplomats, we were told.  Fox fan fiction News never bothered to ask these questions:  Why would the Administration put out bad information as a narrative of events when there was already a different narrative, one that was well publicized in the national media?  Did the Administration conspire to look incompetent?  Perhaps others had a plan to achieve that goal but, clearly, it was not the plan of the Obama Administration.

All of this was at the start of the 2012 presidential campaign.

When did General Petraeus know the sequence of events that preceded the murder of United States Ambassador Stevens, indicating the likely motivation for the murder?

According to the Daily Beast, September 19, three U.S. intelligence officials reported that  ”within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda-affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers.”

The CIA may have been one of the agencies referenced; if so, Petraeus must have known within 24 hours of Stevens’ death that the attack was a premeditated terrorist attack.  But an October 19 column in The Washington Post by David Ignatius reported that both Obama and Rice received “talking points prepared by the CIA three days after the attack, on September 15, stating that a blasphemy riot at the Benghazi consulate triggered the attack.”

The Petraeus CIA provided inaccurate information about events on the ground to the Obama Administration, particularly to President Obama and  United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice. Did they know it was inaccurate?

We have a report of the September 15 talking points memo from the CIA to the White House.  We don’t know any specific information offered by Petraeus to the White House.  But we do know that Ambassador Rice’s September 15 statement on three network news shows made her look either ignorant or complicit in an Administration cover-up.  In a sense, Rice was the stalking horse for the notion that a “blasphemy” riot, like the one occurring in Egypt at the same time, was the kickoff for the attack in Benghazi.

From September 12 to the day of Rice’s statement, the 15th, Administration officials were tentative about the riot in Libya.  Rice’s statement was the apogee of the blasphemous movie explanation.  Rice paid dearly in the press.  At that point, the White House quickly backed off the false thesis and pounded Romney for being so crass about a national tragedy.

It appears that Petraeus provided inaccurate information to the White House.  He knew there was no blasphemy riot.  When Rice took some serious criticism for her remarks, the general sat on his hands.

If the Petraeus CIA mislead or misinformed the White House or allowed that to happen, was it in the service of the Romney campaign and those clamoring for an attack on Iran?

We know that the Romney campaign very much needed an Obama foreign policy failure of major proportions for the debates.  Romney made his awkward and inflammatory remarks on the attack the same day as the attack and deaths, September 11.  Then his surrogates followed up at the end of September calling for the president to be “held accountable” for the attack and its outcomes.  A Romney spokesman singled out Susan Rice for the worst criticism.

When the attacks on Rice failed to get the desired traction, Romney supporters showed up at Bob Woodward’s house in late October. They brought an “intelligence insider” who had special information on Benghazi.  Woodward wasn’t impressed with the source and chose not to pursue the matter.

Petraeus knew or should have known that the White House was getting bad information; the talking points of September 15 provide evidence of this.  Petraeus knew or should have known that this bad information compromised the ability of the commander in chief and his subordinates to respond to the situation. Why did he allow this to go on?

The answer to that question will be known if we ever find out the truth behind The Independent’s report that “The CIA has come under intense scrutiny for providing the White House and other Administration officials with information that led them to say the Benghazi attack was a result of a film protest.”  CIA here means Petraeus and his crew.  The FBI was investigating a lot more than sex with regards to General Petraeus.

Consider too Romney’s behavior at the second presidential debate, held on October 16, when Romney tried to cross examine Obama on his (Obama’s) initial response to the Benghazi incident.

ROMNEY: “You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying?

OBAMA: “Please proceed governor.

ROMNEY: “I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: “Get the transcript.” (See report here.) Transcript of presidential debate, New York Times, October 16

Notice how quick Romney was to try to capitalize on what he perceived as Obama’s failure to see the Benghazi attack as terrorism, almost as if he were invested in seeing Obama as a coddler of terrorists.  It is reasonable to assume Romney knew in advance that the White House had been briefed with misleading information about the Benghazi attack.  There is a strong likelihood that the Petraeus CIA knew the information was false.  As a result, there is every reason to question who Petraeus was working for in this instance; citizens or the Romney campaign?

We may soon find out that most of the presidential campaign was conducted in the context of a parallel civil war between a faction of the intelligence community and the White House.  Uncovering that information would be a true service to the country.  Don’t count on ever getting the full story.  The system couldn’t handle that any more than it could a real investigation of 9-11-01.

END

This article may be reposted with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

Special thanks to Jill Hayroot for her contributions.

The Money Party

 

Michael Collins

(Washington, DC) Our elections are officially privatized.  They are hidden from our view by design.

On November 6, your votes will be cast and tallied on voting machines manufactured and serviced by private companies.  The computerized voting machines run on software that is closely held as a trade secret by these companies.  Our elections officials are barred from examining the most important aspects of the software.  Why?  Because those same officials signed away our right to open access and inspection of the voting systems that tell us who won and who lost each and every election.  (Image: WikiCommons)

This is the most profound election fraud imaginable.  It affects every citizen, all 311 million of us.

Privatization occurred without our knowledge or consent.  Was our vote cast and counted properly?  We have no way of knowing.  Can we observe vote tallying at precincts and central tabulation locations?  Not likely. If you could, what good would it do to watch an encased computer running indecipherable software?  This violates prohibitions against secret vote counting in many state constitutions. Our elected officials could not care less.

But wholesale election fraud began long before voting and tallying machines entered the picture. That will be discussed at the end of the article.

As we approach November 6, it is important to understand two major sources of current election fraud.

The Amazing Anomaly and Vote Flipping for Romney - 102 Electoral Voted at Risk

A hard working team of volunteer researchers and analysts gathered raw data, precinct votes, for the 2012 Republican primaries.  Rigorous statistical analysis showed a specific pattern of suspected vote flipping that lead to highly improbable victories for Romney. This was termed the amazing anomaly by the research team.

Urban Density was factored out of the analysis, yet the anomaly remained. All precinct-level demographics available were tested to see if they could cause such an anomaly to no avail. Again, this amazing anomaly remained in the results.

Vote flipping involves exchanging votes from one candidate to another or several others. It is a clever way to benefit a candidate, victimize his or her opponents, while at the same time keeping the precinct vote totals the same. The researchers discovered that often, election officials count and compare only precinct totals with the Central Tabulator count. This simple, yet highly effective fraud strategy could have been undetected for years. In state after state, allegedly because of vote flipping, Romney showed unexplainable increases from the smallest to largest precincts.  The process was outlined recently in two articles: Rigged Elections for Romney? 10/22/12 and Part II - Rigged elections for Romney? 11/1/12.

The following eight states represent 102 electoral votes.  They all have two things in common.  They are tossup/battleground states and they all showed clear signs vote flipping during the Republican primaries, always in Romney’s favor.  Romney won six of the states (seven if you include his Iowa win, which was reversed).  These states will deploy in the Nov.6 general election the same voting machines, central tabulators, and election officials and their partners, staff from the private voting machine companies.

Here is the pattern found in the states above and others.  The pattern was always in Romney’s favor.  How likely is that?The graph of the Ohio primary below shows Romney’s increases from smallest to largeset precincts.  The probability of that pattern is an amazing anomaly since it is so improbable, statistical packages cannot estimate such a small probability; they round it down to ZERO. In other words impossible.  As you can see, Romney’s vote accumulation accelerates while Rick Santorum’s and Ron Paul’s decline.  At the end of the day, typical of Ohio’s close elections, Romney’s gains, the green line, pass over Santorum’s totals for a 12,000 vote victory.  Had Romney failed to gain 5.42% of the total vote through suspected vote flipping, he would have lost the Ohio primary. (See chart for details of election shift from vote flipping.)

See Graph of Ohio primary anomalies

Graph from Francois et al. research team.
Download of Excel for Ohio statewide precinct analysis

The graphs and impact of suspected vote flipping in Wisconsin’s 2012 primary are even more dramatic as shown here.  Romney would have lost Wisconsin, as well, were it not for the unexpected, highly improbable phenomenon reflecting suspected vote flipping. Certainly, after losing these two key states, a brokered convention would have ensued.

Romney’s vote total always expanded due to the suspected vote flipping pattern.  The other candidates lost votes in almost every case.

See graph of how Romney benefited from vote flipping

The research team shared its methods and findings with over 150 academics with specialties in election integrity, elections officials, and the general public.  The first two groups provided encouraging responses, but were unable or too busy to evaluate the compelling evidence of election fraud or to consider the implications.  There have been over 100 inquiries by motivated members of the pubic, however.  So the project continues.  It is clear that the people have to protect their own elections.

Watch the Post-Election Polls and Analysis

Rich Charnin has been studying and writing about election for early ten years.  He was one of the first researchers to discover the inconsistencies in the media consortium’s exit polling and the first researcher to look beneath the surface of the 2004 election. Charnin predicted the exact electoral count of the 2008 election and updates his blog daily.

His latest book, Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-Election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts, shows how the media consortium uses their exit polls to ratify questionable elections.  The official exit polls released by the networks and major news outlets are adjusted before release to match the official election results.  Charnin was the first to point out that that nearly half the official media consortium’s  state presidential exit polls exceeded the margin of error in favor of Republicans and only three did so in favor of the Democratic presidential candidate.  The probability of that happening is one of those unfathomable improbabilities, one in several trillion.  Where are the experts, academics, and elections officials who prop-up an indefensible election process?  What do they have to say in their defense?  Nothing.

Election Fraud Didn’t Start Yesterday

Black citizens in the former Confederate states were the first targets of wholesale election fraud.

During the Reconstruction Era following the Civil War, black citizens were able to vote.  The Union Army troops stationed in the former Confederate states protected that right.  Black participation in elections was as high as 80% in some areas.  When Reconstruction ended as a result of the Compromise of 1877, Southern blacks lost everything, including their right to vote.  This lasted for nearly a century until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Between 1890 and 1960, each presidential election had at least five million fewer votes due to the loss of voting rights by black citizens in the South.  Imagine the change in elections without this theft of voting rights?

Stealing the vote from minorities was deliberate post-Reconstruction strategy developed by none other than the Ku Klux Klan and the Redeemers movement.  Programs like photograph identification found in key states are a descendant from the original efforts to disenfranchise Southern blacks. Laws that strip the vote from ex-felons also trace back to these racist efforts.  Nearly six million former felons are denied the right to vote.

Why is it so important to lock people out of the voting booth?

Why is it so important to keep private company voting systems that consistently produce odd and unexplainable results?

Power and control are the central motivations.  If your political program is to keep the majority down, you favor election fraud as an exquisite tool.  Treat the people like chumps by creating a façade of democracy and belittle anyone who questions the system by calling them conspiracy theorists.  Most importantly, never, ever admit that there might be something very wrong.

The manipulation of “official” exit polls or the complete cancellation of such polls in 19 states this year, teamed up with suspected vote flipping (in the most blatant way imaginable) represent an improvement of sorts.  Instead of targeting the minorities and poor, these programs are truly egalitarian. They target everyone.

END

This article may be reproduced with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

The Money Party

Republican Primary Election Results Amazing Statistical Anomalies_V2.1
2008 - 2012_Elections Results Anomalies and Analysis V1.6
Rigged Elections for Romney 10/22/12
Part II - Rigged elections for Romney? 11/1/12.
Polite Fascism Contracts the Right to Vote, May 13, 2008