Some Things Never Change, and Some, Only for the Worse

It's been almost 2 years since  posted.  I've been... busy.  And it's not like the majority of you don't know what's going on; that "the ultra-rich megalomaniacs bent on world empire" do what they do, and that their "assets" placed "in office" will find a way to justify anything they can, and basically ignore the rest.

But I was prompted to post today by this article, which relates (more directly, I think, than you might) to my next-to-last post from November, '13.

That's all for now.  If you've read this far (or at all), and choose to maintain your willful blindness, I won't be surprised.  I just wanted you to know:

I'm back.

To My Fellow Inmates:

“[T]here is no constitutional right not to become an informant.”

That's what "Simple Justice" (subtitled, "A Criminal Defense Blog") quoted the  federal government as saying.

I like "Simple Justice".  Most often, I agree with what Scott Greenfield has to say about the current (in)judicial system.  And that's why I'm disappointed with his July 31 post "Snitch or Suffer". 

The backstory, that FBI agents put individuals on the "No Fly List" for refusing to become snitches, can be read in detail on http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/07/31/snitch-or-suffer/, and it should be.   And, for clarity, the full sentence to which I refer is "The Justice Department’s motion to dismiss [PDF] plainly argues 'there is no constitutional right not to become an informant.'”

Although that particular language is found in the government's Memorandum Of Law In Support of Motion to Dismiss ("...courts have found, in other contexts, that there is no constitutional right not to be an informant"), it is the argument that follows that disturbs me, and should disturb you.

On pages 53 and 54 of the "gee whiz, they didn't know" Memorandum, the United States' attorney supported the argument that the FBI defendants "are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that submitting an individual's name [for inclusion on the "No Fly List" because they refused to snitch] violated any constitutional right"***, followed the language Greenfiled quoted on "Simple Justice" with numerous case citations that "[n]either the Supreme Court nor (any Circuit Court) has ever held that a prisoner enjoys a constitutional right not to become an informant...".

But - and I'm surprised Greenfield didn't make this connection - these men were not prisoners.  They were never charged.  They were "free".

The government's argument clearly demonstrates that,  regardless of our accomodations, in the government's opinion, we're ALL prisoners.

***BTW, a large percentage of Fibbers are law school grads,if not members of "The Bar".

The Creepy Line

Poor baby.  Go ogle’s executive chairman isn’t happy.  Seems the criminal organization with which Go ogle has been “sharing” ogled information got him drunk and tool advantage of him.

Let’s recap:  Goldfinger (consisting of ultra-rich megalomaniacs bent on world empire, from whence organizations including ), fronted by the Bush Crime Family, “began” collecting “metadata” on everyone’s phone calls, etc., as early as ’02 (“Echelon”, the cooperative program collecting phone calls, faxes, telexes, etc.,  well before Y2K, and complained of by the European Parliament as early as ’98, is not addressed in this post), and set up data-collection "at the source" in '06.*

Go ogle began its “wi-fi sniffing”  in ’07, and claims it only “discovered” that it was stealing private information (that’s the proper description) in 2010, when Germany’s Data Protection Authority expressed a desire to examine wifi network data collected in Germany.  

Right. Because Go ogle wasn’t smart enough to review its code before it launched the project.  Go ogle said as much.  It seems that in ’06:

“an engineer working on an experimental WiFi project wrote a piece of code that sampled all categories of publicly broadcast WiFi data,” the company wrote. “A year later, when our mobile team started a project to collect basic WiFi network data like SSID information and MAC addresses using Google’s Street View cars, they included that code in their software—although the project leaders did not want, and had no intention of using, payload data.”

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/05/google-street-view-cams/.

Go ogle was stealing private information (again, that’s the proper description) for approximately three years.  We are expected to believe that Go ogle didn’t know it.  For 3 years.  36 (or so) months. 1, 095 days, each consisting of 24 hours.  Not to belabor the point, but how many gigabits can Go ogle transmit in a second?

Now, Eric Schmidt, one of the originators of Go ogle, says "It's really outrageous that the National Security Agency was looking between the Google data centers, if that's true," http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/04/eric-schmidt-nsa-spying-data-centres-outrageous, citing a Wall Street Journal article. http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/11/04/googles-schmidt-on-nsa-china-and-north-korea/.

As stated in a Guardian article, http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/04/eric-schmidt-nsa-spying-data-centres-outrageous, Go ogle “itself has faced repeated accusations of privacy violations, including illicitly tracking web browsing”, and “Schmidt has made no secret that the company tests boundaries of what is acceptable. ‘[Company] policy is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it,’ he said in 2010”; the year Go ogle “discovered” it was stealing private information (again, that’s the proper description) obliterating a line so it needn’t “cross it”.

I now do my best to avoid Go ogle.  Even to the point of replacing my “Android” phone with a BlackBerry (and no, I don’t expect that BB will be “much” better, but minimal improvement is more than none).

The only reason, in fact, that I post this here, on a property of Go ogle (indeed, the only reason I maintain this blogspot blog at all) is because I want Go ogle to know just how disgusted I am.  I want Eric Schmidt to know that businesses I contemplated starting, websites and other internet-related projects, likely won’t be started now, because of Go ogle.

And for all of those who believe “if you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide”, I suggest you look into your ancestry.  You might be related to Goebbels.

* I laugh when I see "smart house" commercials in which the parent locks/unlocks doors, turns lights and appliances on/off, and generally "enjoys the security" provided by AT&T.  That's a special kind of stupid.

“Miss Direction! Paging Miss Direction!”

“The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic, and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State.” 

– Dr. Josef M. Goebbels

Finding itself (themselves?) unable to put the issue of NSA’s blanket surveillance of all Americans phone calls, emails, internet activity – even photographing U.S. Mail envelopes  – completely out of the electorate’s mind (perhaps because so many Americans so distrust “the media” (sic) that even planned distractions like a “government shutdown” didn’t keep the issue in the background), the “media divisions” of all six multinational corporations that own “the media” (from now on, well just call them “THE multinationals”) changed tactics last week, as the news “broke” of ongoing revelations that NSA, on behalf of “the” United States (grammatically correct in certain circumstances; politically important with respect to “these United States”) has “dragnetted”, “vacuumed”, and otherwise consumed the phone calls, emails, and internet activity of, for all intents and purposes, the world. 

Breathlessly (with relief?), we’re told that the leaders of Brazil, France, and now, Germany, are very upset, but we’re simultaneously reassured (by a Senator, no less (gasp!)) that such “upset” is “for the domestic consumption of their own public”; “code” for “‘s OK.  They’re not really mad.”  It’s a great setup for the message to follow, delivered by an “assistant to the president for homeland security” in an *editorial* published Friday:

“[N]o one disputes the need for careful, thorough intelligence gathering. Nor is it a secret that we collect information about what is happening around the world to help protect our citizens, our allies and our homeland. So does every intelligence service in the world."

We’re supposed to be relieved, ourselves.  Somebody else is outraged!  And they’re governments!  Surely they’ll put a stop to this! 

We’re also to be resigned.  After all, didn’t Senator Rubio (no friend of the party in power!) just tell us on a multinational media division “ ... Everyone spies on everybody. That's just a fact.”?  We should just understand that it's no BFD.  As he said, striving for a Texas metaphor, “at the end of the day, everyone knew there was gambling going on in Casablanca.”

Right.  Here’s a thought!  Why would the leaders of Brazil, France, and now, Germany, or any (every?) other country want – no, need – to “respond[] to domestic pressures in their own country”;  why would Brazil, France, and Germany, or any (every?) other country want – no, need –  to provide for “domestic consumption of their own public”?

On the face of it, the “domestic pressures” to which Senator Rubio off-handedly refers are the anger of Brazilians, Frenchmen, Germans, and people of any (every?) other country, at “the” United States’ outright theft of their privacy, too!  And they want to know how and why their own governments let it happen.

Of course, that’s not what this story, the new story, is supposed to be about.  Because even “angry allies” hasn’t been working the way it should.  The new story is how “documents obtained by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden…might expose [Brazil’s, France’s, and now, Germany’s] own intelligence operations…and their level of co-operation with the U.S.”

I find it hard to believe that Brazilians, Frenchmen, Germans, or any other people, would impose “domestic pressures” over their governments’ “intelligence gathering” about “the” United States.  That makes the blackmail hard to understand.

Could it be that Brazil, France, and Germany, or any (every?) other country, are doing blanket surveillance of all their own countrymen’s phone calls, emails, internet activity – perhaps even photographing mail envelopes  –  too?

We could ask Senator Rubio.  But we don’t have to.  He already told us.  

“ ... Everyone spies on everybody. That's just a fact.”

There is a subtler, but equally important fact lying in the background.  In Senator Rubio’s reassurances that the leaders of Brazil, France, and Germany are merely “responding to domestic pressures”, providing for the “domestic consumption of their own public”, there are two stark truths:

1.  The government “ ... spies on everybody." Everybody. Everybody. Even you; and your kids.

2.  The “leaders” of governments manufacture news. 

That second one is good for “the media”, giving “Goebbles’ Gerbils” a product to bring to market,

It's good for the “multinationals” that own “Goebbles’ Gerbils”.

But it’s not good for America.

You've Got To Give Them This: They're Trying

Oh, how they're trying.  The problem is that *they* simply can't stay in front of all the revelations, scandals, and exposés.  And John Kerry (you remember him:  the Vietnam vet turned war protestor who married into the Heinz fortune) has actually admitted (though not in this country...inbreeding makes *them* a little slow sometimes): “[T]his little thing called the Internet...makes it much harder to govern...much harder to organize people...”.  http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2013/08/213088.htm   (Heads up, Johnny!  Saying it in Brazil no longer means we don't hear it!)

It's come to the point where even those who usually look askance when I walk into the room  are now commenting on how ironically transparent things have become. (Somehow, I don't think this was what he meant when he promised "the most transparent administration in history".) Al quaida (queda? qaida?  qaeda? Jeez, people, figure out a spelling and stick with it!) plans to attack "our" embassies?  Really?

And this "new danger" has nothing to do with the ongoing alphabet soup scandals?  Nothing to do with NSA/IRS/NSA (again)/DEA/NSA (again)/CIA/DOJ//NSA (will it ever stop?)/IRS (again)/NSA, ad infinitum?  This is nothing like "bad news"/threat level orange?  Completely different from "seal your house with duct tape and (suffocate, but) you'll be "safe"?

So, let's look at "recent events":  The government contends that there is a "Fourth-Amendment-Free Zone" that stretches 100 miles inland from the borders.  And coastlines.  A map of where YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to be free from an unwarranted search looks like this:

That's not so bad, though, is it?  After all most of the "geography" is outside that "Fourth-Amendment-Free Zone"; in "the heartland" (where "real" Americans live!).

But *they* consider airports to be "borders", too.  Live within 100 miles of an airport?

But, like the NSA/IRS/NSA (again)/DEA/NSA (again)/CIA/DOJ//NSA (will it ever stop?)/IRS (again)/NSA invasions of privacy, you "got nuttin' to worry 'bout if y'ain't doin' nuttin' wrong", right?

Because you know ALL of the tens-of-thousands of federal laws and regulations, right?  You know that a famous guitar manufacturer was raided, and fined, for using rosewood of "unauthorized" origin, and you're OK with that, right?

You're OK with "your" government claiming FIVE TIMES the number of criminal mortgage fraud prosecutions it actually filed, right?

You're OK with JPMorgan, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley running the Treasury Department, the State Department, the S.E.C., the C.T.F.C., and the entire financial system of the country, right? 

You're OK with them running - owning - Congress?

Do you not wonder why every "good person" elected to office becomes "one of them"?

Look what happened to Eliot Spitzer.  HE was going to take the bankers to task.  HE was going to make them comply with law, and regulation, and what most of us would consider simple decency. 

And you KNOW what happened to him.  And you wouldn't want that - or anything like that - to happen to you.  But HE's fighting back.  HE's running for New York City Comptroller.  READ THIS

We've come a long way.  In the wrong direction.

Most don't know, and they don't want to know.  To know would impart responsibility to do something about what they know.  And no one wants that.

After all, we won't be around that much longer, in the scheme of things.  And who cares that our grandchildren will never know a world where they didn't have to "submit" to every uniformed cretin who wanted to cop a feel?

It's A Sight To Behold

The headline is catchy: "A Legal Bane of Wall Street Switches Sides".  Makes it seem almost as if - after a lifetime of "public service" - the noble champion is ready to partake in the benefits of the "frontier" that he (single-handedly, don'tcha know) "tamed".

It's also bullshit.

If you read the article http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/a-legal-bane-of-wall-street-switches-sides/ (I suggest that, like swimming, you should wait awhile after eating), you'll grasp that the headline isn't exactly false.  It's just that "the hero" in this particular story, like pretty much everything about the cartel that is "Wall Street", isn't quite what you might think. 

About a third of the way through, you'll read that "[his] name has circulated around Wall Street for decades. After putting himself through [school], this truck driver / overnight dockworker went to law school and ultimately became a junior lawyer at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft in New York, where he handled securities cases and commercial disputes."

"Ultimately".  Gotta love the irony.  Not that being "a junior lawyer" at a law firm that began during George Washington's first term isn't a big deal ("Paging Mr. Alger, Horation Alger...").  It is. 

And the facts that 1) the Cadwalader in Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft had to "wait" to join the partnership " due to his appointment as assistant secretary of state; and, 2) the Wickersham (of...) was appointed United States Attorney General by President William Howard Taft, brother of 3) the Taft (see a pattern, here?) explains how a "junior lawyer" job "paved the way" to the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan; which led to becoming general counsel for Deutsche Bank (which, as you might remember, GOT SUED by the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan for fraud), where he "steer[ed] the bank through the financial crisis and an investigation into its tax shelters"; which, remarkably, resulted in the S.E.C., "reeling from the crisis..." turning to him (Deutsche Bank's general counsel)  "to revamp its enforcement unit".

I'm reminded of how, a little over a century ago, another "BIG MONEY" lawyer, Philander C. Knox, "gave up" private practice to become Teddy Roosevelt's A.G., and later, Secretary of State (which is another story altogether).

His boss at both Deutsche Bank and Cadwalader, and a former S.E.C. enforcement official himself (did I mention patterns?) praised him for joining S.E.C. "at a time when some lawmakers wanted to abolish" it. (Hmm.  I wonder if any of those lawmakers were Wall Street investors...?)

While he was at its head, "the enforcement division logged a record number of actions, including a case against Goldman Sachs. 

At his new job, he'll head up S.E.C. enforcement cases (gasp!), white-collar criminal matters (daily operations) and crisis management (getting caught) with a former federal judge and United States deputy attorney general;  a former senior lawyer in the Clinton White House and a former United States attorney.

But he expects no "favors".  “You don’t undertake a historic restructuring of the enforcement division and bring a record number of cases if you’re trying to curry favor with the industry,” this bastion of rectitude said.  Apparently, a job that pays more than $5 million a year is standard practice for "creating units to track complex corners of Wall Street and applying prosecutorial tactics to civil cases".

Like "our hero" Robert S. Khuzami, TR's A.G. Philander Knox took most of his former clients (Morgan; Harriman, et al) to court during The Great Reformer's) administration.

That worked out well, didn't it?

You WILL Be "Safe", If They Have To Kill You

You knew it would come to this.  It always does.  It always will. 

It's in their nature.  In their DNA.  Like bacteria, adapting to antibiotics (more like viri/antivirals, given the way they reproduce), "they" (liberals; progressives, etc., and their "bearded" fellows, "law and order" types) just keep coming.

On CameraFraud's blog, at http://camerafraud.wordpress.com/tag/american-traffic-solutions/, one can see what can be accomplished by undaunted, unyielding Freedom activists. In a period of 18 months, "approximately 1,700 volunteers" took on the "red light cameras"; and won.  The network of Redflex spy cameras installed  by Janet Napolitano (yes,  that Janet Napolitano) on Arizona interstates and highways came down.  Jan Brewer canceled the state’s contract with Redflex, one of the two biggest surveillance - sorry, "safety" companies in the business.

But "Arizona Citizens Against Photo Radar" wasn't able to get an initiative on the ballot, to ban the rest of Redflex and American Traffic Solutions’ (the other pickpocket - oops) automated ticketing machines.   In fact, an Arizona "lawmaker" has teamed up with an ATS lobbyist to stage a Transportation Committee hearing "so ridiculous that audible laughing could be heard ".

Whatever must "they" do to keep ATS in business keep us safe in Arizona?

Cue: "The National Coalition for Safer Roads".  Thwarted in their "stated mission ... to 'save lives and protect communities by demonstrating how red light safety cameras can improve driver behavior'", NACSAR (no, they're not calling National Coalition for Safer Roads that, yet, but it's probably too good to pass up) "announced ... a new study that contends the cameras can catch criminals guilty of infractions far greater than rolling through a red light.”
 http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/03/red-light-cameras-stop-crime/

As wired.com introduced the story, "One way to catch criminals is by giving police departments access to red-light camera footage even when a traffic violation isn’t involved". 

According to the (what'd they call it?  OH YEAH!) "study" FUNDED BY AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS!!!, 46 percent of red-light camera footage requested by 172 local police departments between 2011 and 2012 was "used in collision investigations" (guess how many "rear-enders" from people tryng to avoid a red-light ticket; c'mon), while "5 percent were used in homicide investigations and 10 percent were used in burglary cases."
(OK, a "homicide" can occur anywhere, buy "burglaries"?  Where the hell are they pointing these cameras?)

Quoting one paragraph direcly from Wired (and claiming fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107):

“Red-light safety cameras bring many benefits to communities — on and off the road,” said National Coalition for Safer Roads executive director David Kelly, a former National Highway Traffic Safety Administration acting administrator under President George W. Bush. “These cameras are proving to be a useful tool in helping police solve crimes and often times putting guilty criminals behind bars.”

 

So, there you have it!  All of those who just won't stop until they "protect" us to death (liberals; progressives, etc.), or throw us in jail for refusing their "protection" ("their" "bearded" fellows, "law and order" types), like the common cold, will just keep on. keeping us "safe".

 

For a price.

Can You Hear Me Now?

DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (hey Wired!  it's an acronym, not a name), wants to record, transcribe, and archive every conversation you ever have. 

For those who really don't know what DARPA is (please join us in the 21st century!), think SciFi's "Eureka".  DARPA (ultimately, that means YOU) funds some crazy ideas, not unlike "Eureka"'s genii.  You almost certainly own something that originated from DARPA research.

Turns out that DARPA has, and has had for awhile, an interest in text-to-speech analysis, programs, and machines.  As contemplated in the Wired.com link, below, "Imagine living in a world where every errant utterance you make is preserved forever."

Now, DARPA has awarded a $300,000 award for a new project, called “Blending Crowdsourcing with Automation for Fast, Cheap, and Accurate Analysis of Spontaneous Speech”, similar to EARS (Effective Affordable Reusable Speech-to-text), an earlier DARPA project.

As you read the article linked below, think about these quotes: "make conversational speech more accessible, more part of our permanent record"; "capture all these conversations and make use of them".  Those are from the grant recipient.

EARS was described by the Congressional Research Service  as focusing on speech picked up from broadcasts and telephone conversations, “as well as extract clues about the identity of speakers” for “the military, intelligence and law enforcement communities.”  Those "clues" won't be needed if people record themselves.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03/darpa-speech/

No Kidding

The headline reads as if it actually announces something, well, new; "newsy"; worthy of note.

But "Banks urge judge to throw out Libor lawsuits" is far from new; "newsy"; worthy of note.

No more so than the revelation that "the banks" (aka "TBTF"; Too Big To Fail) had "manipulated" LIBOR (the London InterBank Overnight Rate), which, as many Americans have learned, rather painfully, was used to "reset" mortgage payments.

It IS funny, though.  If the "news" agency quoted him right, one of "the banks"'s attorneys admitted deceiving investors.

Take a look:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/05/us-bankslibor-lawsuits-idUSBRE9241C220130305

A Long, Dark Wait Till Morning

Did you catch the OSCIARS?

The story is captivating. 

Not the fantasy about domestic and international crimes (war crimes) promoted as helping bring to fruition "the hunt" for someone who might or might not have still been alive when, as the story goes, 19 amateurs with boxcutters outwitted the military-industrial complex Ike warned us about 41 years beforehand; the one where this “baddest of bad guys” supposedly hid behind a woman’s skirts (a story later recanted) before he went down in a hail of bullets (or maybe just one or two); the one where his body was, supposedly, “buried” at sea (normally an honor bestowed for exemplary naval service).

The story of which I write is about the first time that a propaganda piece, openly funded by Wall Street, was nominated for an Academy Award.  I write of the first time in history that the “field” of Oscar nominees was so expanded (9 nominees this year) as to make room for a “Lincoln” with enough historical inaccuracies to make one question the protagonist’s very existence; an “Argo” portraying the (purportedly true) story of a successful collaboration between Hollywood and Langley (it does sound like a Hollywood name, doesn’t it? Langley?); and the tale of a "middle-of-the-night raid" (remarkably, not on a private home in an American city, although you couldn't by the raiders' wardrobe) to "capture" (right!) the "most wanted man in the ... our world.  

 OK.  You got me.  It wasn’t funded by Wall Street.  At least, not directly.  It was funded, like the legend it portrays, by Wall Street’s offspring, the Central Intelligence Agency.

I know…you thought the CIA was a government agency.  And on paper, it is.  But what the public, defined by a federal court as “That vast multitude, which includes the ignorant, the unthinking, and the credulous, who¼do not stop to analyze, but are governed by appearance and general impressions” ( J. W. Collins Co. v. F. M. Paist Co., (D.C. Pa.) 14 F.2d 614), doesn’t know, or cares not to, is that the CIA, and the “National Security Agency” (as distinguished from the “Federal Security Agency”, a post for another time), was proposed, promoted, and eventually the product of, Wall Street banks and their lawyers, with support from Yale, Harvard, and the New York and D.C. newspapers (by way of example, do a websearch for "July, 1947" and count how many "Roswell", "flying saucer", and "alien" results precede the first reference to enactment of the National Security Act). 

To fully grasp (insofar as one can grasp such a monumental “servicing”) the whos, whats, whens wheres and hows requires a LOT of research.  But there are four books that I was blessed with obtaining, three of them in the same day, at the same quaint little used book store (the fourth came to me at a church bazaar) that, when read semi-simultaneously, paint as clear a picture as any of us will likely ever have. 

They are: The Roosevelts, by Peter Collier; Wall Street – A History, by Charles R. Geisst; Running the World, The Inside Story of the National Security Council and the Architects of American Power, by David Rothkopf; and Legacy of Ashes, The History of the CIA, by Tim Weiner.

So, why is this posted to a blog subtitled "Commentary relating to the ultra-rich megalomaniacs bent on world empire"?  Because of a mention of "earning in excess of $100 million". (100,000,000.00)

Back to that captivating story:

It seems that this CIA “psy-op” (“company”-speak for “psychological operation”) was, like the vast majority of CIA’s very, very, very expensive (lucrative?  Did I mention the Wall Street connection?) “covert” actions Weiner details in Legacy of Ashes, a spectacular failure. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/25/zero-dark-thirty-cia-oscars

Ironic that Americans have to rely on a British news organization for this story.

"U" Now Stands for "Unlimited"; "S" is for "Serfdom"

Even the fellow's title is a little scary: "Civil Liberties Protection Officer".  Add to that his Master's information - "Office of the Director of National Intelligence" - and "the willlies" (sorry, Willie) run amok.
More disturbing is how I came to know that a ClePto exists (ok, klepto is spelled wrong, and it's a bit of a reach, but so are most of the acronyms our supposed servants use; like naming a bill "United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" (USA PATRIOT Act) just so they can call it "the Patriot Act", when it has nothing to do with patriotism). 
Seems that the guy in charge at the Department of Jus...(gets progressively harder to finish that phrase as time goes by, so I'll start again).
General Holder (has a kind of military ring, doesn't it?) issued an order "allowing" expansion of the completely anticonstitutional SURVEILLANCE of EVERYONE.
Described by Wired magazine a "a secret government agreement", this blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment (and arguably, the Fifth, in the context of the Right to Privacy - yes, Privacy is a Right, and was declared so by Congress in the Privacy Act) was, in Wired's words, "granted without approval or debate from lawmakers" (who could not, by the way, Constitutionally approve without an amendment) to the "National Counterterrorism Center".
"Oh, well," you say, "if it's to fight terrorism..."
Maybe you didn't catch what I said about SURVEILLANCE of EVERYONE.
The *beauty* of ignoring the contract that created "the government" is that any and all restrictions on the power conferred by that contract effectively disappear.  Can't tell us what to believe, say, print?  You haven't been paying attention.  Can't search without probable cause or a warrant?  You REALLY haven't been paying attention.  Due Process of Law?  Right to counsel? Right to jury trial? Protection against "cruel and unusual" punishment?  Stolen.  Pilfered.  Misappropriated.  Negated.
So, remember, when one of your more vocal friends, or family members, no longer calls, or returns yours...
YOU let this happen.

Just Us Prevails (Again)

Bloods.  Crips.  Eastside Thrillseekers.  Hell's Angels. Mongols.  Bandidos.  As diverse as these might appear, they all have one thing, if only one thing, in common:

They simply aren't big enough yet.

That's the only conclusion that can be reached.  It was curious enough that Forbes magazine published an opinion piece titled

"Is the Federal Reserve Using Money-Laundering Techniques To Cleanse Banks' Balance Sheets?" (http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/10/29/are-federal-reserve-regulated-banks-laundering-dirty-money/

Granted, it wasn't Forbes' own, but a Forbes "contributor"'s opinion, that Forbes published.  But from a non-elite perspective, my observation was that one of "them" (see the subtitle of this blog) was "eating their own":

"Immediately after the 2008 financial meltdown, the Fed laundered more than $2 trillion in worthless assets held on the balance sheets of private banks. According to a watered-down 2011 audit of the Fed by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), there have been $16 trillion in Fed bailouts to banks and corporations around the world since the financial meltdown in 2008. Since that report, Bloomberg has reported on an additional $9 trillion in secret, off-balance-sheet Fed transactions that the central bank refuses to discuss. Now, Ben Bernanke is ginning up assembly-line washing machines at the Fed with QE∞ to spin an opened-ended, $40-billion-monthly cleansing campaign to purchase worthless mortgage backed securities from banks at face value, which could run to an additional $1.3 trillion loan laundering accompanied by downscale resales."

But, in case you were wondering what "THE FED" has to do with the groups mentioned above, I bring you:

HSBC pays $1.9 billion to settle US probe

By James O'Toole and Charles Riley @CNNMoneyDecember 11, 2012: 2:25 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)

Global banking giant HSBC will pay $1.92 billion in a record settlement with U.S. regulators to resolve money-laundering allegations.

The Department of Justice and U.S. Treasury said Tuesday that HSBC allowed the most notorious international drug cartels to launder billions of dollars across borders. In addition, the government said HSBC violated U.S. sanctions for years by illegally conducting transactions on behalf of customers in Iran, Libya, Cuba, Sudan and Burma.                                           

(fair use claimed under 17 U.S.C. § 107)

After a five-year investigation, involving 9,000,000 documents, and the outright admission (confession) of money laundering, there will be exactly 0 indictments. 

Oh, yes, HSBC will "pay" a LOT of counterfeit "money".  But not one bankster will see the insid of a courtroom, let alone a cell.

Which is where the bankster cartel differs from the groups named above .

 

"Will It Never End?!?" Goldfinger Laments

from the New York Times  ("fair use" authorized under 17 U.S.C. § 107):

"The nation’s largest banks are facing a fresh torrent of lawsuits asserting that they sold shoddy mortgage securities that imploded during the financial crisis, potentially adding significantly to the tens of billions of dollars the banks have already paid to settle other cases."

Apparently, investors take issue with being sold "securities" that weren't, well, "secured".

Who'da thunk? 

And they, along with "regulators" (Goldfinger personnel at SEC, etc., with whom this was all A-OK till the organic matter hit the rotating oscillator), prosecutors (ditto), and insurers (ditto, as long as they didn't have to actually pay out) are on the offensive, taking the TBTFs (BofA, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, et al) to court over more than $1,000,000,000,000.00 (that's what "1 trillion" looks like in actual numbers) in "securities" that were, supposedly, "backed by residential mortgages."

At that, NYT reports that "some in the banking industry" think that losing ALL of these lawsuits could result in "losses" of as mush as 300,000,000,000.00 (30%; gotta love the math!).  But at least one "mucky-muck" (a term that has reached a whole new level of meaning) at Tangent Capital Partners (italics are mine - but you just can't make this stuff up)  admits

“The real price tag is terrifying.” 

Seems that the 25 billion (see how different it looks in words?) that the cartel - um, industry - put up as a "settlement" awhile back just ain't gonna cut it.

In as classic a line as I've ever read, NYT paraphrases "several senior officials in the insustry" as saying "But in the most extreme situation, the litigation could empty even more well-stocked reserves and weigh down profits..." (emphases mine). 

Think about THAT for a moment.  If 1,000,000,000,000.00 will only "weigh down profits", I guess Goldfinger really is "Too Big To Fail".  Then again, the NYT article does overlook one facet of all this, saying,

"The banks are battling on three fronts: with prosecutors who accuse them of fraud, with regulators who claim that they duped investors into buying bad mortgage securities, and with investors seeking to force them to buy back the soured loans."

What NYT overlooks is that the momentum is building from a fourth "front":  the other side.  As time passes, more and more mortgagor-victims are prevailing in their own battles against foreclosure, based upon fraud of varying types.  One recent example is a property owner who had a "securitization audit" done, and obtained verification from SEC of these findings:

"Our search of EDGAR, the Commission’s electronic database of corporate filings, for the CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust Series 2006-23 (http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001381999&owner=include&count=40&hidefilings=) produced no filings referencing the loan number you provided.  We also did not locate a pooling and servicing agreement attached as an exhibit to the Trust’s registration statement.  A Form 15 to terminate the Trust’s registration was filed in January 2007."

Which, if you've been paying attention, leads directly back to the securities-victims discussed above, who, it appears, invested in mortgage "pools" that Karl Denninger, at Market Ticker, calls "empty trusts".

Giddy-up!.










:

Spinning Heads and Revolving Doors

Anyone who's ever read this blog (or Liberty's Blog, http://taketheliberty.wordpress.com) knows I'm a wee bit cynical when it comes to government, and the PTB that own it. A trip through the archives might enlighten new readers in that regard.

(If, after reading this post, any reader doesn't understand why I'm so distrustful of the medical-industrial complex, well...explaining it won't help.)

Turns out that one Gary Nabel, soon to be former head of the National Institutes of Health Vaccine Research Center, has announced that he's leaving the VRC to become chief scientific officer in the research labs at Sanofi. http://chrisinmaryville.net/nih-vaccine-chief-gary-nabel-trades-dream-job-for-big-pharma.html. 

According to Sanofi's website, http://en.sanofi.com/products/human_vaccines/human_vaccines.aspx , vaccines division Sanofi Pasteur "is a world leader in...pediatric combination vaccines, influenza vaccines, booster vaccines for adolescents and adults, meningitis vaccines, and travel/endemic vaccines...assuring vaccine commercialization  in the United States and Canada, as well as 19 countries in Europe...[and] has also developed its presence in Asia, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and in eastern Europe.."  Not bad for a little "Mom & Pop" shop, right?

Nabel won't be lonely, though. In January 2011, Elias Zerhouni, former director of the NIH, an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, became the president of Sanofi-Aventis’ research labs. Zerhouni recruited him.

This is good, no? Now, we'll have 2 former "watchdogs" at the global giant, so we can rest easy.  Except, In the fall of 2003, Zerhouni, as head of NIH, faced serious accusations regarding hundreds of NIH scientists and their financial ties to the medical and pharmaceutical industries.

So, forgive me if things like a jump of over FOUR THOUSAND PERCENT in dead babies http://real-agenda.com/2012/11/26/fetal-deaths-up-4000-after-pregnant-mothers-took-flu-vaccine/ give me pause.

I know, it's not like these guys work for the PhDA (oops, FDA. I think of them as the "Pharmaceutical Defense Agency"), which agency is OK with vaccines containing mercury. http://www.naturalnews.com/037653_vaccine_additives_thimerosal_formaldehyde.html.

Hell, even the courts are ok with that. http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/23/44979.htm, although, to be precise, the National Coalition of Organized Women (NCOW) (I know! What the hell were they thinking?) really has no standing (a legal term that means a plaintiff must have an injury that can be redressed by a judgment (Constitutional standing), and must be the actual injured party (prudential standing)).  Apparently, none of the NCOW herd was.

Can't help but think that the attorneys who took NCOW's retainer were bought by the PTB that own Sanofi; that own, through their wholly-owned subsidiary, NIH and PhDA (sorry; habit) FDA.

Of course, I'm just a cynic.
 

Blood Money

(cross-posted to Liberty's Blog)

We’d seen his face often, on “the networks of NBC”, giving his expert opinion on what was needed for United States forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a “military analyst”, you couldn’t ask for much more.  After all, who better than a four star general to explain to the American People, and even to Congress, just what was needed to “support our troops”, and “win the hearts and minds” of Iraqis and Afghanis?  It never occurred to us to question whether or how much he was being paid to make those “news” appearances. Or who was paying him.  Some were shocked, years later, to find out he was being paid by the defense contractors whose weapons and equipment he pimped on the Today show, and NBC Nightly News.  In November, 2008, well after the quadrennial (s)election of  the new “Commander-In-Chief” of United States military forces, the New York Times described “retired general” Barry McCaffrey’s “post-service” career as “One Man’s Military-Industrial-Media Complex”.  And for good reason.

After “rising to fame” as Bill Clinton’s “Drug Czar” (Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)) from 1996 to 2001, where he developed a program of paying millions in misappropriated tax money to five major television networks for adding anti-drug messages in their programs, including (but certainly not limited to) ER, Beverly Hills, 90210, Chicago Hope, The Drew Carey Show and 7th Heaven, he founded B R McCaffrey Associates, and became NBC’s most-frequently-seen military analyst, around the same time his company began representing  defense contractors at the Pentgon, and in Congress.  And according to the graphic published in that New York Times article, he’s done quite well, joining the boards of eight defense contractors, and “advising” four more.

For one “tiny defense contractor”, Defense Solutions, Defense Solutions, hiring McCaffrey was a watershed. Within days the company had a 15 page briefing packet in front of recently “retired” CIA Director David Petraeus, then the US commanding general in Iraq.  Of course, McCaffrey didn’t mention to Petraeus, or to Congress, that he had a financial stake in the company he recommended to provide 5,000 armored vehicles for service in Iraq.

Disturbingly, McCaffrey’s story is far from a rarity.  A report released by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the Brave New Foundation last week revealed that between 2009 and 2011, more than 70 percent of retired three-and-four star generals either took jobs with or became consultants for defense contractors.  Retired general James Cartwright took a paid position on Raytheon’s board of directors, and Admiral Gary Roughead went to work for NorthropGrumman, each while serving on the Defense Policy Board.  

And that 70 percent? That was actually a decline. Between 2004 and 2008, while American fathers, sons, mothers and daughters, aunts and uncles were filling casualty lists, 80 percent of their “retiring” commanders became war profiteers, as consultants or executives of companies whose bottom lines rise in a sea of blood.  Many began these lucrative activities before retirement, a practice the Pentagon supports.

The path from command to certain “defense” contracting jobs is laid out like paving stones. As put on AntiWar.com, “the last seven generals and admirals who worked as Department of Defense gatekeepers for international arms sales are now helping military contractors sell weapons and defense technology overseas.”

McCaffrey does just fine “on the home front”, though. VeritasCapital, described in the NYT article as “a relatively small player in 2001”, had announced, on Sept. 6, 2001, forming an “advisory council” including McCaffrey and other “well-connected retired generals and admirals”.   Veritas gave those advisers board seats on its military companies, profit sharing,  and even equity stakes; attractive because Veritas intended to turn quick profits through I.P.O.’s.

That might have looked like a gamble at the time, since revenue growth is important to the Goldfinger entities that underwrite Initial Public Offerings, like Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers.  Five days later, the only question was just how big those increases would be.

McCaffrey’s banging on NBC's war drum, his rants for ongoing  increases in military spending, for a global campaign against terrorism, and for ever-greater spending for high-tech weapons, like the drones that local police agencies are increasingly encouraged to “buy” (with “Homeland Security” grants), has answered the question.

Oh, and those networks?  Imagine what they were paid for The Agency (first broadcast: September 26, 2001!); Alias (first broadcast: September 30, 2001); and even West Wing (first aired in ‘99).  But those are subjects for other posts. Maybe even another blog.

Just Who's In Charge?

"Mighty oaks from little acorns grow", goes the proverb, and as Oscar Wilde is credited with saying, "No good deed goes unpunished".  And so it is with that creation of global imperialists, theUnited Nations.

Conceived, purportedly, to maintain peace among nations of the world, the UN has been the apparent source of "conflicts", "operations", and other euphemisms for war from its very beginning. Now, it may well ignite the spark of war, within and against American states.

Coloradans and Washingtonians (The People in those respective states) had the audacity to pass referenda legalizing marijuana. After forty years of a declared "war on drugs" (it started much, much earlier), resulting in a quadrupling of the prison population nationwide (since 1980), earning "the land of the free"  the dubious distinction of being the single, largest incarceration nation in the history of the world, imprisoning a larger raw number and greatest percentage of its citizenry than any totalitarian regime, anywhere, anytime,

The People of Colorado, and The People of Washington have had enough.

We already know Goldfinger's people in the branches and various departments and agencies of what began as a federation of states routinely ignore the will of those states.  Medical marijuana dispensaries, approved by the true Sovereigns of those states, The People, have repeatedly been raided by the Drug Enforcement Agency (to the financial benefit of the major pharmaceutical manufacturers), more often than not with the "assistance" of "local law enforcement", who no longer answer to their local constitutencies, but to those who provide them with off-budget cash and weapons.

Now, a UN organization is displeased with The People of Colorado, and The People of Washington. http://investmentwatchblog.com/un-impose-treaties-on-states-legalizing-marijuana/ .  Raymond Yans, President of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), described as "the quasi-judicial body charged with monitoring the implementation of the international drug control conventions",  (did you know there was an "International Narcotics Control Board"? - gives new meaning to "cartel" & "kingpin", doesn't it?), wants Goldfinger's servants to "take the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with the international drug control treaties within the entire territory of the United States, in order to protect the health and well-being of its citizens."

From the November 15th press release from the UN Information Service in Vienna (Austria; not Virginia): 

The limiting of the use of cannabis to medical and scientific purposes is laid out in the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which was agreed to by 185 States, who by consensus decided to place cannabis under control and limit its use to medical purposes.

This raises a number of interesting questions.  First, the federal go(d)vernment has had "
an obligation" -- since 1961 -- to recognize the medical purposes of marijuana. (Another 1961"agreement" will be the subject of a post on http://taketheliberty.wordpress.com ) So why does "the" United States (a thing - not a place) insist that there is no medical benefit to marijuana?

Second, just how does UNIS expect "the" United States "to ensure [the states'] full compliance with the conventions within their entire territory, including federated states and/or provinces"?  Apparently, through perpetuating the destructive and expensive War on Drugs and the prison-industrial complex it fostered.




 

 

   

One IS the Loneliest Number, But Is It Better Than Nothing?

You'd think that I'd "take the day off" on Thanksgiving. And I will, later. But the world won't stop turning, and those who assume the power to run the world won't stop, either.
"They" - the Powers That Be - Goldfinger, in other words, have ample reason to be thankful today.
Justice in America: Systematic Document Forgery and Fabrication Yield One Criminal Plea Bargain « naked capitalism
Goldfinger's wholly-owned subsidiary law firm (trade name: "Department of Justice") stepped in when the "show me state" proceeded on its own case.  Both anounced a plea bargain in the "robosigning" scam "exposed", in part, by Goldfinger subsidiary CBS on their variety show, "60 Minutes". 
Lorraine Brown, once "chief executive" of Lender Processing Service subsidiary DocX, whose "mortgage document fabrication price sheet" established the forgery of more than a million documents used in fraudulent foreclosures, fell on her sword. Brown pleaded guilty, in the state case, to one (1) count each, of felony forgery; felony perjury; and misdemeanor making a false declaration, and to one (1) "federal" count: "Count One"; Conspiracy to Commit Mail and Wire Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Which makes the news exponentially more curious.
18 U.S.C. § 371 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371) reads: "If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States...". More curious, Brown "admits" deceiving Lender Processing Services about her illegal actions, exonerating LPS, and its clients, the banksters' empty mortgage trusts.
By "agreement", Brown's sacrifice(s) will be a maximum potential penalty of five years in "Club Fed" (where banksters typically spend their sabbatical) and a $250,000 fine, and imprisonment of not less than two years and not to exceed three years in the Missouri Department of Corrections (any odds on concurrent sentences?).
The huddled masses may now rest easy (in their tent-cities and shelters). A "bad guy" has been caught, and appropriate punishment shall ensue.
"Just us" has been served.

Gambaru

It means, acording to Ann Curry (formerly of "Today"), "Never, ever, ever, ever give up, even when, especially when, there's no chance of winning".

Citizens, homeowners, who had the valor if not the vocabulary, have refused to give up on their homes, their investments, and their pensions.  And because they have never, ever, ever, ever given up, because kept up the pressure on their servants to investigate and prosecute the bankers that think they own them, at least someone is going to jail. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/11/20/us/ap-us-mortgage-services.html?hp

It's small comfort to those who already lost their homes to felonious "mortgage lenders", but to those who have carried on, even when, especially when, there was no chance of winning, the truth is trickling out, and the pressure will breach the dam.

And now that the dam is being chipped at from the other side, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/20/new-york-sues-credit-suisse-over-mortgage-securities/, the apparently insurmountable odds are changing.  Facing victim/homeowners on one side, and victim/investors on the other, the banksters' days are numbered. 

OPM-addict/politicians beware.  Media whores take note:

We, the People, are coming.

The Bank of Ruthless

This is interesting. According to an article on OccupyCorporatism.com titled "Morgan Stanley is Insolvent – Only a Matter of Time Before Total Financial Collapse", http://occupycorporatism.com/morgan-stanley-is-insolvent-only-a-matter-of-time-before-total-financial-collapse/, the cause for the 2008 bailout of the banks was that China had purchased large quantities of mortgage-backed securities, worthless securitized loans which would never be repaid, and were prepared to send their “people” to American shores to seize property.

An invasion, in other words. War.

"To stave this off, the American taxpayers were coerced by former President Bush and former US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. During that incident, the US Senate was told emphatically that they had to approve a $700 billion bailout or else martial law would be implemented immediately."

Clever. Threaten "martial law", as if dealing with a "civil" problem, when all the while the fact is that a state of war was imminent.

Captives of A Scientific-Technological Elite

"Beware the military-industrial complex!" That's what many of us, in the "Post-War Baby Boom" generation, have taken from Dwight Eisenhower's 1961 Farewell Speech. God knows what our parents (Brokaw's "Greatest Generation") took from it. I never heard my parents mention it at all.

Here's what only the most ardent have recovered:

“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields.

In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system-ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”

...