Health Policy Driving Institute of Medicine Funded by Corporations

The Institute of Medicine is secretly financed and supported by the military industrial complex, the Pharmaceutical Industry and the Department of Defense, Bill Gates.

Mike Adams
Infowars.com
August 29, 2011

The Institute of Medicine is suddenly in the news following the release of its vaccine “adverse events” research which found that MMR vaccines actually cause measles, seizures and anaphylactic shock. The old media predictably distorted the story and used it to deceptively announce that “vaccines are not linked to autism!”

In falsely reporting this study from the IoM, however, the old media reporters never bothered to even read the adverse reactions report. Nor did they ask a few simple questions such as “Who is funding the Institute of Medicine? And what is the agenda of the IoM?”

Today, NaturalNews publishes a stunning story about the IoM which reveals this government-created non-profit to be a key player in the military medical complex involving a shady network of weapons manufacturers, the Department of Homeland Security, top pharmaceutical companies and population control globalists such as Bill Gates. Here, we expose who’s giving the IoM money and why the actual sources of funding behind the IoM destroy any credibility it once claimed to have on the subject of public health.

We’ve already published the first honest assessment of the IoM’s report in a news item posted yesterday:

http://www.naturalnews.com/033447_I…

That story takes an honest investigative look at the IoM and what its report really says. The old “dinosaur” media, as usual, has predictably twisted this story around and falsely claimed that it gives vaccines a clean bill of health. Only NaturalNews (and other alternative media organizations) dares tell the truth while questioning the IoM’s financial ties and funding sources. The entire mainstream media blindly accepts the IoM’s “authority” as beyond reproach, neglecting to conduct basic journalism and follow the money as NaturalNews is doing.

By the way, you can view the IoM’s full report for yourself here.

Read Full Article…

Super Congress A Gift to K Street

by Rep. Ron Paul

The Super Congress created by the recent debt ceiling increase deal is a typical example of something nefarious attached to a bigger bill that is rushed through Congress without giving Members ample opportunity to consider the full ramifications.  This commission may turn into an early Christmas present for the well-heeled lobbyists of K Street.  This is because the commission presents a huge opportunity for lobbying firms to sneak their client’s pet projects and issues into whatever legislation is created by the commission.   The fact that automatic cuts to defense are named if the committee deadlocks simply signals to the military industrial complex to bring their A game to the lobbying effort.

One red flag I am constantly aware of in my position as a Congressman is that highly complex and convoluted legislation frequently has dangerous provisions hidden in the fine print.  Elaborate legislative packages force lawmakers to take the bad with the good, and often if they refuse, they are accused of voting against the positive provision – never mind the blatant Constitutional violations in the bill, the spending, the waste, and the unchecked expansion of government.  I don’t usually have to read too much of a bill like that before encountering something unconstitutional, or simply unwise.  Then I have to vote no.

That doesn’t seem to be the case with a majority of legislators, unfortunately.  In order to ram through one special interest’s favorable treatment or giveaway, a certain amount of horse-trading is done.  The end result is mammoth bills with myriads of unrelated provisions that favor those with the best lobbyists at the expense of everyone else.

The creation of a 12 member committee to preside over $1.5 trillion in spending decisions, and the exclusion of the rest of Congress also means lobbying firms can focus their efforts on an anointed few, which is certainly more manageable for them than having to deal with the entire Congress.  Every cut considered will, of course, have a recipient on the other end whose livelihood is being threatened.  The probable outcome is that any cuts realized will be more a function of lobbying prowess than the merits or demerits of the actual programs on the chopping block.

Make no mistake – I am enthusiastically for cutting government spending.   The goal should be to eventually reduce government down to the size and scope of its constitutional limitations.  However, the process of getting there must also be constitutional.  Concentrating such special authority to fast track legislation affecting so many special interests to a small, select committee is nothing more than an unprecedented power grab.  Only fears of an impending catastrophe could have motivated Members to allow this legislation to be rushed through Congress.  The founding fathers had strong feelings about taxation without representation and under no circumstances would they have felt excluding 98% of Congress from fiscal decisions was appropriate.

I see nothing good coming out of this Super Congress.  I suspect it will be highly vulnerable to corruption and special interests.  No benefit can come from such careless disregard of the Founders’ design.

Who are the Libyan Freedom Fighters and Their Patrons?

By Peter Dale Scott
Global Research

Preface

The world is facing a very unpredictable and potentially dangerous situation in North Africa and the Middle East. What began as a memorable, promising, relatively nonviolent achievement of New Politics – the Revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt – has morphed very swiftly into a recrudescence of old habits: America, already mired in two decade-long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and sporadic air attacks in Yemen and Somalia, now, bombing yet another Third World Country, in this case Libya.

The initially stated aim of this bombing was to diminish Libyan civilian casualties. But many, senior figures in Washington, including President Obama, have indicated that the US is gearing up for a quite different war for regime change, one that may well be protracted and could also easily expand beyond Libya.1 If it does expand, the hope for a nonviolent transition to civilian government in Tunisia and Egypt and other Middle East nations experiencing political unrest, may be lost to a hard-edged militarization of government, especially in Egypt. All of us, not just Egyptians, have a major stake in seeing that that does not happen.

The present article does not attempt to propose solutions or a course of action for the United States and its allies, or for the people of the Middle East. It attempts rather to examine the nature of the forces that have emerged in Libya over the last four decades that are presently being played out.

To this end I have begun to compile what I call my Libyan Notebook, a collection of relevant facts that underlie the present crisis. This Notebook will be judgmental, in that I am biased towards collecting facts that the US media tend to ignore, facts that are the product in many instances of investigative reporting that cuts to the heart of power relations, deep structures, and economic interests in the region including the US, Israel, and the Arab States as these have played out over the last two decades and more. But I hope that it will be usefully objective and open-ended, permitting others to draw diverse conclusions from the same set of facts.2

I wish to begin with two ill-understood topics: I. Who Are the Libyan Opposition, and II. Where Are the Libyan Rebel Arms Coming From?

I. Who Are the Libyan Opposition

1) Historically:

“If Muammar Al Gaddafi behaved paranoid, it was for good reason. It wasn’t long after he reached the age of 27 and led a small group of junior military officers in a bloodless coup d’état against Libyan King Idris on September 1, 1969, that threats to his power and life emerged – from monarchists, Israeli Mossad, Palestinian disaffections, Saudi security, the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL), the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition (NCLO), British intelligence, United States antagonism and, in 1995, the most serious of all, Al Qaeda-like Libyan Islamic fighting group, known as Al-Jama’a al-Islamiyyah al-Muqatilah bi-Libya. The Colonel reacted brutally, by either expelling or killing those he feared were against him.”3

2) National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL)

“With the aim of overthrowing Libyan strongman Muammar Khadafy, Israel and the U.S. trained anti-Libyan rebels in a number of West and Central African countries. The Paris-based African Confidential newsletter reported on January 5th, 1989, that the US and Israel had set up a series of bases in Chad and other neighboring countries to train 2000 Libyan rebels captured by the Chad army. The group, called The National Front for the Salvation of Libya, was based in Chad.”4

“US official records indicate that funding for the Chad-based secret war against Libya also came from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Israel and Iraq. The Saudis, for instance, donated $7m to an opposition group, the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (also backed by French intelligence and the CIA). But a plan to assassinate Gadafi and take over the government on 8 May 1984 was crushed. In the following year, the US asked Egypt to invade Libya and overthrow Gadafi but President Mubarak refused. By the end of 1985, the Washington Post had exposed the plan after congressional leaders opposing it wrote in protest to President Reagan.”5

“The FNSL [National Front for the Salvation of Libya] was part of the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition held in London in 2005, and British resources are being used to support the FNSL and other ‘opposition’ in Libya…. The FNSL held its national congress in the USA in July 2007. Reports of ‘atrocities’ and civilian deaths are being channeled into the western press from operations in Washington DC, and the opposition FNSL is reportedly organizing resistance and military attacks from both inside and outside Libya.”6

3) National Conference for the Libyan Opposition (NCLO),

“The main group leading the insurrection is the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition which includes the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL). The NFSL, which is leading the violence, is a U.S.-sponsored armed militia of mostly Libyan expatriates and tribes opposed to al-Qaddafi.”7

4) Al-Jama’a al-Islamiyyah al-Muqatilah bi-Libya (Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, LIFG)

“The LIFG was founded in 1995 by a group of mujahideen veterans who had fought against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Upon their return to Libya they grew angry about what they viewed as the corruption and impiety of the Libyan regime and formed the LIFG to create a state that would show what they believed to be the true character of the Libyan people.

The most significant LIFG attack was a 1996 attempt to assassinate Gadhafi; LIFG members led by Wadi al-Shateh threw a bomb underneath his motorcade. The group also stages guerilla-style attacks against government security forces from its mountain bases. Although most LIFG members are strictly dedicated to toppling Gadhafi, intelligence reportedly indicates that some have joined forces with al-Qaida to wage jihad against Libyan and Western interests worldwide. ….
As recently as February 2004, then-Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that “one of the most immediate threats [to U.S. security] is from smaller international Sunni extremist groups that have benefited from al-Qaida links. They include … the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.”8

“In recent days Libyan officials have distributed security documents giving the details of Sufiyan al-Koumi, said to be a driver for Osama bin Laden, and of another militant allegedly involved in an “Islamic emirate” in Derna, in now-liberated eastern Libya. Koumi, the documents show, was freed in September 2010 as part of a “reform and repent” initiative organised by Saif al-Islam, Gaddafi’s son….

The LIFG, established in Afghanistan in the 1990s, has assassinated dozens of Libyan soldiers and policemen. In 2009, to mark Gaddafi’s 40 years in power, it apologised for trying to kill him and agreed to lay down its arms. MI6 [British Intelligence] has been accused in the past of supporting it. Six LIFG leaders, still in prison, disavowed their old ways and explained why fighting Gaddafi no longer constituted “legitimate” jihad. Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi, another freed LIFG member, denied the official claims. “Gaddafi is trying to divide the people,” he told al-Jazeera. “He claims that there is an Islamist emirate in Derna and that I am its emir. He is taking advantage of the fact that I am a former political prisoner.”

Derna is famous as the home of a large number of suicide bombers in Iraq. It is also deeply hostile to Gaddafi. “Residents of eastern Libya in general, and Derna in particular, view the Gaddadfa (Gaddafi’s tribe) as uneducated, uncouth interlopers from an inconsequential part of the country who have ‘stolen’ the right to rule in Libya,” US diplomats were told in 2008, in a cable since released by WikiLeaks.

The last 110 members of the LIFG were freed on 16 February, the day after the Libyan uprising began. One of those released, Abdulwahab Mohammed Kayed, is the brother of Abu Yahya Al Libi, one of al Qaida’s top propagandists. Koumi fled Libya and is said to have ended up in Afghanistan working for Bin Laden. Captured in Pakistan, he was handed over to the US and sent to Guantánamo Bay in 2002. In 2009 he was sent back to Libya.9 US counter-terrorist experts have expressed concern that al-Qaida could take advantage of a political vacuum if Gaddafi is overthrown. But most analysts say that, although the Islamists’ ideology has strong resonance in eastern Libya, there is no sign that the protests are going to be hijacked by them.10

“Fierce clashes between [Qadhafi’s] security forces and Islamist guerrillas erupted in Benghazi in September 1995, leaving dozens killed on both sides. After weeks of intense fighting, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) formally declared its existence in a communiqué calling Qadhafi’s government “an apostate regime that has blasphemed against the faith of God Almighty” and declaring its overthrow to be “the foremost duty after faith in God.” [3] This and future LIFG communiqués were issued by Libyan Afghans who had been granted political asylum in Britain…. The involvement of the British government in the LIFG campaign against Qadhafi remains the subject of immense controversy. LIFG’s next big operation, a failed attempt to assassinate Qadhafi in February 1996 that killed several of his bodyguards, was later said to have been financed by British intelligence to the tune of $160,000, according to ex-MI5 officer David Shayler. [4] While Shayler’s allegations have not been independently confirmed, it is clear that Britain allowed LIFG to develop a base of logistical support and fundraising on its soil. At any rate, financing by bin Laden appears to have been much more important. According to one report, LIFG received up to $50,000 from the Saudi terrorist mastermind for each of its militants killed on the battlefield.” [2005]11

“Americans, Britons and the French are finding themselves as comrades in arms with the rebel Islamic Fighting Group, the most radical element in the Al Qaeda network [to bring down Gaddhafi]. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted the risks of the unholy alliance in a congressional hearing, saying that the Libyan opposition is probably more anti-American than Muammar Gaddhafi. A decade ago, this very same delusion of a Western-Islamist partnership in Kosovo, Bosnia and Chechnya ended abruptly in the 9/11 attacks.”12

5) Transitional National Council

“A RIVAL transitional government to the regime of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi looks set to win US and other international support as momentum builds to oust the longtime dictator.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirmed yesterday that the Obama administration was reaching out to opponents of Colonel Gaddafi. She said the US was willing to offer ‘any kind of assistance’ to remove him from power.

Protest leaders who have taken control in Libya’s eastern cities claim to have established a transitional “national council” that amounts to rival rule. They have called on the country’s army to join them as they prepare for an attack on the capital, Tripoli, where the Libyan leader retains control.

Confident the Libyan leader’s 42-year rule was coming to an end, Mrs Clinton said yesterday: ‘We are just at the beginning of what will follow Gaddafi.'”13

6) Facebook

“He [Omar El- Hariri, Chief of Armed Forces for the Transitional National Council] remained under close surveillance by the security forces until Feb. 17, when the revolution started. It was not initiated by prominent figures of the older generation, he said, but began spontaneously when Tunisia and Egypt inspired the youth. ‘Children of Facebook!’ he declared, in English, with a broad smile.”14

7) Oil

“Libyan rebels in Benghazi said they have created a new national oil company to replace the corporation controlled by leader Muammar Qaddafi whose assets were frozen by the United Nations Security Council.
The Transitional National Council released a statement announcing the decision made at a March 19 meeting to establish the ‘Libyan Oil Company as supervisory authority on oil production and policies in the country, based temporarily in Benghazi, and the appointment of an interim director general” of the company.
The Council also said it “designated the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and the appointment of a governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.”15

Peter Dale Scott’s Libyan Notebook

II. Where Are the Libyan Rebel Arms Coming From?

Robert Fisk, “Libya in turmoil: America’s secret plan to arm Libya’s rebels;
Obama asks Saudis to airlift weapons into Benghazi,” Independent, March 7, 2011:

“Desperate to avoid US military involvement in Libya in the event of a prolonged struggle between the Gaddafi regime and its opponents, the Americans have asked Saudi Arabia if it can supply weapons to the rebels in Benghazi. The Saudi Kingdom, already facing a “day of rage” from its 10 per cent Shia Muslim community on Friday, with a ban on all demonstrations, has so far failed to respond to Washington’s highly classified request, although King Abdullah personally loathes the Libyan leader, who tried to assassinate him just over a year ago.

Washington’s request is in line with other US military co-operation with the Saudis. The royal family in Jeddah, which was deeply involved in the Contra scandal during the Reagan administration, gave immediate support to American efforts to arm guerrillas fighting the Soviet army in Afghanistan in 1980 ….

But the Saudis remain the only US Arab ally strategically placed and capable of furnishing weapons to the guerrillas of Libya. Their assistance would allow Washington to disclaim any military involvement in the supply chain – even though the arms would be American and paid for by the Saudis.

The Saudis have been told that opponents of Gaddafi need anti-tank rockets and mortars as a first priority to hold off attacks by Gaddafi’s armour, and ground-to-air missiles to shoot down his fighter-bombers.

Supplies could reach Benghazi within 48 hours but they would need to be delivered to air bases in Libya or to Benghazi airport. If the guerrillas can then go on to the offensive and assault Gaddafi’s strongholds in western Libya, the political pressure on America and Nato – not least from Republican members of Congress – to establish a no-fly zone would be reduced.

US military planners have already made it clear that a zone of this kind would necessitate US air attacks on Libya’s functioning, if seriously depleted, anti-aircraft missile bases, thus bringing Washington directly into the war on the side of Gaddafi’s opponents.

For several days now, US Awacs surveillance aircraft have been flying around Libya, making constant contact with Malta air traffic control and requesting details of Libyan flight patterns, including journeys made in the past 48 hours by Gaddafi’s private jet which flew to Jordan and back to Libya just before the weekend.

Officially, Nato will only describe the presence of American Awacs planes as part of its post-9/11 Operation Active Endeavour, which has broad reach to undertake aerial counter-terrorism measures in the Middle East region.

The data from the Awacs is streamed to all Nato countries under the mission’s existing mandate. Now that Gaddafi has been reinstated as a super-terrorist in the West’s lexicon, however, the Nato mission can easily be used to search for targets of opportunity in Libya if active military operations are undertaken.

Al Jazeera English television channel last night broadcast recordings made by American aircraft to Maltese air traffic control, requesting information about Libyan flights, especially that of Gaddafi’s jet.

An American Awacs aircraft, tail number LX-N90442 could be heard contacting the Malta control tower on Saturday for information about a Libyan Dassault-Falcon 900 jet 5A-DCN on its way from Amman to Mitiga, Gaddafi’s own VIP airport.

Nato Awacs 07 is heard to say: “Do you have information on an aircraft with the Squawk 2017 position about 85 miles east of our [sic]?”

Malta air traffic control replies: “Seven, that sounds to be Falcon 900- at flight level 340, with a destination Mitiga, according to flight plan.”

But Saudi Arabia is already facing dangers from a co-ordinated day of protest by its own Shia Muslim citizens who, emboldened by the Shia uprising in the neighbouring island of Bahrain, have called for street protests against the ruling family of al-Saud on Friday.

After pouring troops and security police into the province of Qatif last week, the Saudis announced a nationwide ban on all public demonstrations.

Shia organisers claim that up to 20,000 protesters plan to demonstrate with women in the front rows to prevent the Saudi army from opening fire.

If the Saudi government accedes to America’s request to send guns and missiles to Libyan rebels, however, it would be almost impossible for President Barack Obama to condemn the kingdom for any violence against the Shias of the north-east provinces.

Thus has the Arab awakening, the demand for democracy in North Africa, the Shia revolt and the rising against Gaddafi become entangled in the space of just a few hours with US military priorities in the region. “16

“Libya rebels coordinating with West on air assault,” Los Angeles Times, March 24, 2011

“Reports from the region suggest that the Saudis and Egyptians have been providing arms. Though U.S. officials could not confirm that, they say it is plausible.”17

“Egypt Said to Arm Libya Rebels,” Wall Street Journal, March 17, 2011:

“CAIRO-Egypt’s military has begun shipping arms over the border to Libyan rebels with Washington’s knowledge, U.S. and Libyan rebel officials said.

The shipments-mostly small arms such as assault rifles and ammunition-appear to be the first confirmed case of an outside government arming the rebel fighters. Those fighters have been losing ground for days in the face of a steady westward advance by forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.

The Egyptian shipments are the strongest indication to date that some Arab countries are heeding Western calls to take a lead in efforts to intervene on behalf of pro-democracy rebels in their fight against Mr. Gadhafi in Libya. Washington and other Western countries have long voiced frustration with Arab states’ unwillingness to help resolve crises in their own region, even as they criticized Western powers for attempting to do so.

The shipments also follow an unusually robust diplomatic response from Arab states. There have been rare public calls for foreign military intervention in an Arab country, including a vote by the 23-member Arab League last week urging the U.N. to impose a no-fly zone over Libya.

The vote provided critical political cover to Western powers wary of intervening militarily without a broad regional and international mandate. On Thursday evening, the U.N. Security Council voted on a resolution endorsing a no-fly zone in Libya and authorizing military action in support of the rebels.

Within the council, Lebanon took a lead role drafting and circulating the draft of the resolution, which calls for “all necessary measures” to enforce a ban on flights over Libya. The United Arab Emirates and Qatar have taken the lead in offering to participate in enforcing a no-fly zone, according to U.N. diplomats.

Libyan rebel officials in Benghazi, meanwhile, have praised Qatar from the first days of the uprising, calling the small Gulf state their staunchest ally. Qatar has consistently pressed behind the scenes for tough and urgent international action behind the scenes, these officials said.

Qatari flags fly prominently in rebel-held Benghazi. After pro-Gadhafi forces retook the town of Ras Lanuf last week, Libyan state TV broadcast images of food-aid packages bearing the Qatari flag.

The White House has been reluctant to back calls from leaders in Congress for arming Libya’s rebels directly, arguing that the U.S. must first fully assess who the fighters are and what policies they will pursue if they succeeded in toppling Col. Gadhafi. U.S. officials believe the opposition includes some Islamist elements. They fear that Islamist groups hostile to the U.S. could try to hijack the opposition and take any arms that are provided.

The Egyptian weapons transfers began ‘a few days ago’ and are ongoing, according to a senior U.S. official. ‘There’s no formal U.S. policy or acknowledgement that this is going on,’ said the senior official. But ‘this is something we have knowledge of.’

Calls to Egypt’s foreign ministry and the spokesman for the prime minister seeking comment went unanswered. There is no means of reaching Egypt’s military for comment. An Egyptian official in Washington said he had no knowledge of weapon shipments.

The U.S. official also noted that the shipments appeared to come “too little, too late” to tip the military balance in favor of the rebels, who have faced an onslaught from Libyan forces backed by tanks, artillery and aircraft.

“We know the Egyptian military council is helping us, but they can’t be so visible,” said Hani Souflakis, a Libyan businessman in Cairo who has been acting as a rebel liaison with the Egyptian government since the uprising began.

“Weapons are getting through,” said Mr. Souflakis, who says he has regular contacts with Egyptian officials in Cairo and the rebel leadership in Libya. “Americans have given the green light to the Egyptians to help. The Americans don’t want to be involved in a direct level, but the Egyptians wouldn’t do it if they didn’t get the green light.”

Western officials and rebel leaders in Libya said the U.S. has wanted to avoid being seen as taking a leadership role in any military action against Mr. Gadhafi after its invasions of Iraq and Afganistan fueled anger and mistrust with Washington throughout the region.

But the U.S. stated clearly it wants Mr. Gadhafi out of power and has signaled it would support those offering help to the rebels militarily or otherwise.

A spokesman for the rebel government in Benghazi said arms shipments have begun arriving to the rebels but declined to specify where they came from.

“Our military committee is purchasing arms and arming our people. The weapons are coming, but the nature of the weapons, the amount, where it’s coming from, that has been classified,” said the spokesman, Mustafa al-Gherryani.

The U.S. official said Egypt wanted to keep the shipments covert. In public, Egypt has sought to maintain a neutral stance toward the rebel uprising in Libya. Egypt abstained during the Arab League’s vote calling for the U.N. to impose a no-fly zone on Mr. Gadhafi, according to people familiar with the internal Arab League deliberations.

Hundreds of thousands of Egyptian laborers are believed to still be in Libya.

On the other hand, the Egyptian military’s covert support for the rebels suggests that it has calculated that Mr. Gadhafi is unlikely to remain in power, at least in the eastern half of the country, and therefore Egypt is eager to begin to build good relations with the rebels.

Rebel forces in the past 24 hours appeared to make some progress fending off pro-Gadhafi forces’ assaults and have rolled out new weapons for the first time since the uprising began last month. Among them are rebel tanks that have taken up positions on the front lines in recent days. Rebels also launched fighter-jet attacks on government positions on Wednesday for the first time so far.

The tanks and fighter jets are believed to have been among the weapons seized by rebels from defected units of the Libyan army in the eastern half of the country, but they have received spare parts or trained mechanics from outside the country to help them deploy them, some rebel officials have speculated.
-Sam Dagher and Adam Entous contributed to this article.18

Benjamin Gottlieb, “Egypt Arms Libyan Rebels As Gaddafi’s Conquest Continues,” NeonTommy Annenberg Digital News, March 17, 2011:

Arms shipments from Egypt’s military have begun flowing across the border into Libya with U.S. knowledge, Libyan rebels and U.S. officials said Thursday.

Made up mostly of small arms, such as assault rifles and ammunition, the shipments are the first confirmed reports of an outside government supporting rebel fighters with weapons. Rebels have been loosing ground for days against pro-Gaddafi forces aiming to end the conflict before foreign intervention plans are finalized.

Although the U.N. approved a “no-fly zone” over Libya late Thursday, rebel forces fear that any planned foreign intervention would be too little to late.

The shipment of arms indicated an unusually bold response by an Arab nation intervening in a conflict outside its borders. There have also been rare public decrees for the West to intervene in the conflict – the Arab League voted 23-0 last week encouraging the U.N. to impose the “no-fly zone” over Libya.

In spite of reports of arms flowing across the Egyptian boarder, Egyptian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Menha Bakhoum told Reuters that Egypt would not be involved in any military intervention in neighboring Libya.

“Egypt will not be among those Arab states. We will not be involved in any military intervention. No intervention period,” Bakhoum said.

Bakhoum was responding to comments by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who said Thursday that discussions were on the table regarding Arab involvement in U.S. and European intervention in the conflict.

Clinton has said repeatedly that the U.S. desires involvement from a neighboring Arab nation in any planned intervention.

A Libyan rebel government spokesman in Benghazi, Mustafa al-Gherryani, said rebels have begun receiving arms shipments from neighboring nations, however he declined to reveal their origin.

“Our military committee is purchasing arms and arming our people. The weapons are coming, but the nature of the weapons, the amount, where it’s coming from, that has been classified,” he said.19

Yoichi Shimatsu, “Mideast Revolutions and 9-11 Intrigues Created in Qatar,” New America Media, March 1, 2011

“It may puzzle and perhaps dismay young protesters in Benghazi, Cairo and Tunisia that their democratic hopes are being manipulated by an ultra-conservative Arab elite which has underhandedly backed a surge of militant Islamist radicals across North Africa. Credible U.S. intelligence reports have cited evidence pointing to Qatar’s long-running support for the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda and jihadist fighters returning from Afghanistan.

The links to Qatar uncovered by anti-terrorism investigators in the wake of 9-11 need to be reexamined now that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), an on-and-off affiliate of Al Qaeda, has seized armories across half of the North African country. Libya’s well-stocked arsenals contain high-power explosives, rocket launchers and chemical weapons. LIFG is on the State Department’s terrorist list.

Most worrying, according to a U.S. intelligence official cited by CNN, is the probable loss of chemical weapons. The Federation of American Scientists reports that, as of 2008, only 40 percent of Libya’s mustard gas was destroyed in the second round of decommissioning. Chemical canisters along the Egyptian border were yet to be retrieved and are now presumably in the hands of armed militants.

After initially letting slip that the earliest Libyan protests were organized by the LIFG, Al Jazeera quickly changed its line to present a heavily filtered account portraying the events as ‘peaceful protests’. To explain away the gunshot deaths of Libyan soldiers during the uprising, the Qatar-based network presented a bizarre scenario of 150 dead soldiers in Libya having been executed by their officers for ‘refusing to fight’. The mysterious officers then miraculously vacated their base disappearing into thin air while surrounded by angry protesters! Off the record, one American intelligence analyst called these media claims an ‘absurdity’ and suggested instead the obvious: that the soldiers were gunned down in an armed assault by war-hardened returned militants from Iraq and Afghanistan….
According to a Congressional Research Service report of January 2008, ‘Some observers have raised questions about possible support for Al Qaeda by some Qatari citizens, including members of Qatar’s large ruling family. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, Qatar’s Interior Minister provided a safe haven to 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed during the mid-1990s, and press reports indicate other terrorists may have received financial support or safe haven in Qatar after September 11, 2001.’

The national security chief, Interior Minister Abdullah bin Khalid al-Thani, is further mentioned as paying for a 1995 trip by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed ‘to join the Bosnia jihad.’ The report recalls how after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, FBI officials “narrowly missed an opportunity to capture” the suspect in Qatar. ‘Former U.S. officials have since stated their belief that a high-ranking member of the Qatari government alerted him to the impending raid, allowing him to flee the country.'”20

The Revolution the Globalists Yearned For

How the main stream media sell lies, the people are co-opted and the globalists tighten up their grip

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
February 5, 2010

Let me go straight to the point. Glenn Beck is not a patriot or anything close to it. Beck is a PR machine used to sell advertising on Fox News. Like him, there are many other ones in the main stream media, just as there are many pundits who bend the truth as they see fit. So why is Glenn Beck speaking somehow truthfully and precisely about what’s happening in Egypt?

Many people in the world have woken up to reality, and during that awakening they turned down the lies and disinformation the main stream media offers. So the dinosaur media employs a ‘new tactic’. Such ‘new tactic’ involves seeming patriotic and telling viewers, readers and listeners some truths, which they then surround with lots of false or partly false information. This is done in an attempt to rescue themselves from the hole they have fallen into since people no longer trust them.

In the reporting or discussion of any issue, the main stream media tell people 10 percent of the truth and the other 90 percent are filled with lies. That is where the trap is. It is a psychological operation to gain back the trust of the audience, but most people don’t see it or understand it that way. The media know who the audience is, how they think and how to reach out to them. They employ the sweetest combinations of words to attract and maintain their usual followers and try to get new ones everyday.

This is why Glenn Beck and others sometimes tell people the whole truth, only to tell them the complete opposite a day or two later. Examples of this are needless as anyone can see it not only on Fox, but also on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and popular newspapers and magazines that mask their agenda with cute faces, smart looking hosts and slick studios. But the overall goal is to sell lies. Make no mistake about it.

Exactly as Glenn Beck presented it on his show, the situation in Egypt today is a carbon copy of what happened in Iran in 1979. But no one seems to understand it fully well, because no one cares enough. No one remembers Iran in 1979. Unrest in the middle east is endless and older than my grandparents. But it is important to learn what sparks such unrest, violence, persecution and destruction. Let’s just cite a few reasons why unrest takes place: economic sanctions, commercial tariffs, austerity measures, hunger, war, oppression, corruption, slavery, you name it.

The world is not about to be dominated by a few hands like Beck pointed out in one of his shows. It has been in the hands of a handful of people for at least a century. The media does not get it, says Beck. Another lie. The media gets it well, they just don’t tell you. Beck as well as other talking heads know that if the media told the masses how things really work, we would see Egypt’s situation repeating itself not only in the middle east, but everywhere else. Indeed, Egypt’s revolution may have started as a righteous movement to dethrone a dictator, but it certainly hasn’t evolved as such.

Beck is right to say that the conflict in the Middle East is about destroying the West, but hasn’t it been always about that? Haven’t the western military and economic powers through their military industrial complex always fired up conflict in the East to have an excuse to fill their pockets with money and amass control of the resources and the people? Nothing new here then.

Why does the East allegedly hates the West?

The East doesn’t hate the West. That is another lie Glenn Beck managed to sneak in. The globalists hate both the East and the West, and they want to set them both on fire so they achieve full control of both hemispheres, as they planned originally. The conflict between civilizations has always been spurred by small groups of people seeking to advance empires and amass control while oppressing the people. So the citizens of the East do not hate the citizens of the West. The puppet dictators of the East hate their eastern folks, because they sell their lives to the controllers in the West. The puppets of the West also hate their folks, because they also sell their people to the globalists. All the religious and cultural conflict is caused by the introduction of fallacies people happen to believe, such as social justice, multiculturalism and religious radicalism and by phrases like “you are either with us, or you are with the enemy”.

Beck has the boldness to blame the progressives for this disaster that has been going on for longer that what any progressive could imagine. Tyranny and corruption is not a progressive feature, it’s a historical goal of the globalists. In order to achieve it, they employ different names, policies and more important than that, they employ different social groups, religions and puppets who follow different ideologies. This way they can always tie all the knots. The same policies Beck describes as originated in the progressive movement, were also produced and executed by alleged conservatives. Both of these groups produced them and executed them, because they are both controlled and co-opted by globalists and globalist organizations and foundations.

Glenn Beck correctly asserts that much of the hatred from the East is caused by western hypocrisy, especially American hypocrisy. In part this is true. The only BUT is that it has not been American or Western hypocrisy. The United States as well as other G-8 and G-20 nations are all directed by puppet governments that carry out the plans of the globalists. Therefore, the people responsible for such hypocrisy are the globalists in control, not the Americans, French, British, Germans or Greek people. This is the difference between Beck’s way of assigning blame and actually seeing behind the curtain and recognizing the puppet masters.

Credit is due to the main stream media because they have been able to maintain the puppet masters hidden behind that curtain. Just as Glenn Beck tried to do on his show on January 31, the corporate media specializes in lying with a straight face. And no one can have more of a straight face than Beck himself when he lies. While detailing what he called the coming insurrection, Beck criticized Mubarak for torturing, kidnapping, spying on, oppressing and abusing the Egyptian people. He did not speak up, though when George W. Bush -another puppet president- did exactly the same during his

eight-year reign of terror. However, the sham is over. Many people learned to see through the lies and disinformation to recognize that their oppressors do not live in their countries. They also learnt that the economic and political agendas that have caused their misery and pain along with the death of thousands or millions of their people are ordered from abroad. They don’t want another puppet, they want to take it upon themselves to build the country they want for themselves and their families. But the only way to achieve this is liberating themselves from the chains that have kept them from being free.

As Ron Paul has pointed out, it is the American occupation of the Middle East what has served as a great excuse for the formation of radical groups, many of them supported by the very same western powers that claim to be heading the fight against terrorism. Among them, the Muslim Brotherhood, a creation of British intelligence agencies.

Civilization wars are not due to the fact some are free and prosperous and others aren’t. The bloodiest wars in history were not due to religious diversity, but how religious differences and religious movements have been used to create hatred among the people.

The military industrial complex, has created and propelled dictators of all colors and shapes into power for centuries and its members and pundits have done everything but confess it in public. Zbigniew Brzezinski, not only showed his concern about the rise of the people worldwide against the globalist agenda, but also admitted he personally was responsible for the creation of eastern dictators. Mao Tse Tung was taken to power by globalists and so was Adolf Hitler. The number of deaths due to the policies and persecution these two tyrants carried out are conservatively counted today by the tens of millions.

Currently, the globalist-controlled United States supports dictators in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Yemen, and puppet presidents in all of Latin America, Europe and other regions of the world. Support to these dictators and puppet presidents are given in a diversity of ways. Egypt receives billions of dollars a year, much of it in military aid. Yemen gets a big chunk of USAID’s budget, too. A lot of it, says the organization, is for programs related to ‘peace and security’. And when the aid does not go in the form of cash, as in Saudi Arabia’s case, it is planned and delivered through arms treaties.

Egypt 2011 is Iran in 1979

Let’s explain this as clearly as possible. Egypt’s revolution going on today is a copy of what happened in Iran in the late 1970’s. Hosni Mubarack is a puppet of the international crime syndicate known as the globalists. The globalists are a group of corporate corrupt personalities who control almost every aspect of our lives today. They have achieved this by creating and imposing a scheme to have a planned controlled economy, with planned controlled development, growth, education -or should I say planned training- among other things. This planned scheme allowed them to maintain and tighten control over politics, economics, monetary and fiscal policy, research and use of natural resources, birth control, entertainment, and of course news media.

Just as it wasn’t in Iran in 1979, the conflict developing all over the Middle East is not about democracy. It is the same scenario that played out in Iran, where students were cheated into supporting a revolution, but not the people’s revolution. The Iranian revolution wasn’t about freedom either, and its current state is a faithful example of that. Before looking the way it does today, Iran was one the United States strongest allies, just like Egypt is today. Jimmy Carter even spent time toasting with the Shah of Iran in a photo-op that represented how prosperous Iran was. The Shah was a dictator and a puppet, just as Mubarak is today. He tortured and oppressed thousands of people. Just as it happens in Egypt today, student groups lifted the revolution and established a so called moderate regime.

So let’s see… In both cases, the revolution was led by co-opted students. In both cases they wanted to end the reign of a brutal dictator and in both cases they achieved none. In fact, they ended being more oppressed the ever before. In the case of Iran, a month after the revolution for ‘freedom’ was completed, the U.S. decided the Shah wasn’t working out and islamist religious extremists took over power with the Ayatollah Komeni at the head. From that revolution emerged the hostage crisis at the U.S. Embassy, where at least 60 people were held for over a year.

Back to 2011 now. The solution the U.S. has been cooking for a couple of years is to install Mohammed ElBaradei as the saviour of Egypt. The new puppet who will do the due diligence of the globalists, just as Mubarak did. Likewise the puppets in Jordan, Morocco, Sudan, Pakistan and Afghanistan do today. Just as Barack Obama does it in the United States and Inacio Da Silva did it up until January in Brazil.

Today, along with Egypt, countries like Algeria, Morocco, Libia, Sudan, Jordan, Syria and Pakistan exhibit popular revolutions. All of them are governed by dictators, who puppet U.S. governments have sponsored through the years. Why is then the very same U.S. now trying to end those regimes? Because globalists are the least trustworthy people that exist out there. They stop at nothing to advance their agenda. They will take out whoever they need to in order to increase their control and their wealth.

The very same people in power are the ones causing and co-opting the so called insurrection in Egypt, Yemen, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other countries around the world. They have always used popular movements to bamboozle people into bringing about ‘change’. This is clearer in areas of the world where people are tired of being slaves, but do not know how to pursue real change. That change is not understood by the masses, who simply go along with the sham. Ideas like social justice and equality are only lies that are planted to attract people’s attention. In reality, the goal is to establish a communist system based on wealth re-distribution. But that wealth will not end in the hands of those who need it most. Quite the opposite. It will end in the hands of the globalists themselves. These globalists control it all from abroad, where they can never be seen or held accountable. Until now.

Late in 2010, people in France, Greece, Ireland and Italy had expressed their anger on the streets regarding their goverments’ austerity plans, job and salary cuts as well as the confiscation of public and private pension funds.

What does the globalists’ hatred entail?

It is the globalist hatred towards the people, real capitalism and free markets which has destroyed a system that although imperfect, could have been improved to enhance living conditions for many more millions of people. But the deregulation policies allowed the globalists to do as they pleased and their greed grew out of control. So why would the globalists want to effectively collapse the world by ‘setting fires’ all over Africa, the Middle East, Europe and perhaps Asia? That is not the right question to ask. The right question is, why wouldn’t they? It would give them the perfect excuse to launch their long awaited military assault on the populations and the imposition of martial law, curfews, militarization of basically every single corner of the planet under the pretext of national security or international security. They could ban traveling, commerce and in fact halt all economic activity. All in the name of peace and security, of course. Under the START Treaty, the world’s army could finally be shipped out to carry on with their mission to maintain ‘peace and security’ wherever it’s needed, and through the emergency clause make every single nation hand out their weapons to the United Nations.

Additionally, they could ram through their new regulations regarding food production, energy usage -with smart grid technology-, global warming laws, an official ban on certain speech, the establishment of free speech zones, further regulation and control of the main stream media, censorship of alternative media, and so on. As things stand now, food prices have increased -only in the last year- up to 3.4 percent in many countries of the western world. Food of course is one of the globalists’ favorite tool to enslave people. Hunger is one of the reasons why many poor and middle class citizens have risen up. Whoever controls food production and distribution holds the rest hostage. The push for a centralized harmonized set of standards under Codex Alimentarius give almost complete control to governments when it comes to producing food, while banning small farm production, use of supplements and alternative medicine.

Under recently approved energy laws, countries whose governments support the carbon emissions scam, mandate that people use a certain amount of energy, impose restrictions on several kinds of energy production, charge taxes and fees on small and mid-size businesses according to the type of energy they use, and in other cases obligate them to purchase carbon credits. With the new system being pushed now, governments will use smart greed technology to regulate how much energy citizens and small businesses use, while exempting large corporations. Government grants will facilitate the purchase and installation of smart meters governments will remotely control to decide who can use energy, how much of it and when. Security professionals have questioned the use of these meters, but the bureaucracy has found a way around criticism to carry out the imposition of the meters.

If you happen to be one of those who hates government intervention, or simply prefer to maintain your privacy intact, you’re out of luck, too. Protesting against government control of everything will get harder by the day. Free speech is another of our rights that may turn into a luxury. As we have witnessed in North America, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East, dictators and globalists don’t like public opposition. They, therefore, have established the so called ‘free speech zones’ at colleges and universities as well as on city streets. These are areas mostly out of everyone else’s sight and mind, turning public protesting innocuous. Those who dare not abide by the illegal new speech rules are immediately quiet down by pepper spray, police dogs or sound canyons.

Free speech wouldn’t be curtailed completely unless the government controlled the main stream media. How do they do that? Not by sending a pack of goons to take over the broadcasts, radio waves or printing presses. Simply by bailing them out with taxpayer money. And when it comes to the alternative media such as blogs, news websites, small production companies and anyone else for that matter, they’ve been working on the famous internet ‘kill switch’. As early as last September, engineers as well as security and privacy advocates warned about a bill circulating in the U.S. Congress that would effectively impose internet censorship. The bill known as the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act was sponsored by members of both the Republican and Democratic parties. “If this bill had been law five or 10 years ago, there’s a good chance that YouTube would no longer be around,” said Peter Eckersley, senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The bill has nothing to do with copyright infringement, of course, but with government control of the internet and censorship of anyone the bureaucrats deem ‘dangerous’. This bill, approved by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee with a vote of 19-0 never received a full vote, but it will eventually come back around, just as the Cybersecurity Act did.

So what can we take out of all this?

First, be prepared. Be self-sufficient. Don’t expect your government to come to your aid when you need food to eat, water to drink and energy to survive a chaotic situation. The bureaucrats simply won’t come. Governments, especially big governments, are unable to help everyone when disasters, chaos, violence and unrest spark. In many cases, governments themselves -at the behest of the globalists- cause all that unrest and chaos and more often than not, they don’t even intend to help the people in need. Being prepared is key to surviving any difficult situation. Being proactive, not reactive, is the solution. So, be self-sufficient. Don’t wait until grocery stores run out of food to start storing non-perishable goods. Some stores are already out of food due to skyrocketing oil prices, artificial scarcity and artificial currency instability. Be independent. Have your own or a communal water well. Organize small neighborhood groups to support each other. Your family’s chances of making it through a crisis and to successfully deal with food and water scarcity are yours to improve. It takes only weeks for hungry people to become violent when food and water are scarce or absent. It takes only months for desperate people to kill others in order to survive. Finally, by no means think that what is going on in the Middle East today cannot happen where you live tomorrow. That would be the biggest mistake you could ever make.

The Psychopathic Criminal Enterprise Called America

The Government uses the Law to Harm People and Shield the Establishment
By Prof. John Kozy
District of Criminals, for criminals and by criminals

District of Criminals, for criminals and by criminals.

Most Americans know that politicians make promises they never fulfill; few know that politicians make promises they lack the means to fulfill, as President Obama’s political posturing on the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico makes perfectly clear.

Obama has made the following statements:

He told his “independent commission” investigating the Gulf oil spill to “thoroughly examine the disaster and its causes to ensure that the nation never faces such a catastrophe again.” Aside from the fact that presidential commissions have a history of providing dubious reports and ineffective recommendations, does anyone really believe that a way can be found to prevent industrial accidents from happening ever again? Even if the commissions findings and recommendations succeed in reducing the likelihood of such accidents, doesn’t this disaster prove that it only takes one? And unlikely events happen every day.

The president has said, “if laws are insufficient, they’ll be changed.” But no president has this ability, only Congress has, and the president must surely know how difficult getting the Congress to effectively change anything is. He also said that “if government oversight wasn’t tough enough, that will change, too.” Will it? Even if he replaces every person in an oversight position, he can’t guarantee it. The people who receive regulatory positions always have ties to the industries they oversee and can look forward to lucrative jobs in those industries when they leave governmental service. As long as corporate money is allowed to influence governmental action, neither the Congress nor regulators can be expected to change the laws or regulatory practices in ways that make them effective, and there is nothing any president can do about it. Even the Congress’ attempt to raise the corporate liability limit for oil spills from $75 million to $10 billion has already hit a snag.

The President has said that “if laws were broken, those responsible will be brought to justice” and that BP would be held accountable for the “horrific disaster.” He said BP will be paying the bill, and BP has said it takes responsibility for the clean-up and will pay compensation for “legitimate and objectively verifiable” claims for property damage, personal injury, and commercial losses. But “justice” is rendered in American courts, not by the executive branch. Any attempts to hold BP responsible will be adjudicated in the courts at the same snail’s pace that the responsibility for the Exxon-Mobile Alaska oil spill was adjudicated and likely will have the same results.

The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in Prince William Sound on March 24, 1989. In Baker v. Exxon, an Anchorage jury awarded $287 million for actual damages and $5 billion for punitive damages, but after nineteen years of appellate jurisprudence, the Supreme Court on June 25, 2008 issued a ruling reducing the punitive damages to $507.5 million, roughly a tenth of the original jury’s award. Furthermore, even that amount was reduced further by nineteen years of inflation. By that time, many of the people who would have been compensated by these funds had died.

The establishment calls this justice. Do you? Do those of you who reside in the coastal states that will ultimately be affected by the Deepwater Horizon disaster really believe that the President can make good on this promise of holding BP responsible? By the time all the lawsuits filed in response to this disaster wend their ways through the legal system, Mr. Obama will be grayed, wizened, and ensconced in a plush chair in an Obama Presidential Library, completely out of the picture and devoid of all responsibility.

Politicians who engage in this duplicitous posturing know that they can’t fulfill their promises. They know they are lying; yet they do it pathologically. Aesop writes, “A liar will not be believed, even when he speaks the truth.” Perhaps that’s why politicians never do.

Government in America consists of law. Legislators write it, executives apply it, and courts adjudicate it. But the law is a lie. We are told to respect the law and that it protects us. But it doesn’t. Think about it people! The law and law enforcement only come into play secundum vitium (after the crime). The police don’t show up before you’re assaulted, robbed, or murdered; they come after. So how does that protect you? Yes, if a relationship of trust is violated, you can sue if you can afford it, and even that’s not a sure thing. (Remember the victims of the Exxon-Valdez disaster!) Even if the person who violated the relationship gets sanctioned, will you be “made whole”? Most likely not! Relying on the law is a fool’s errand. It’s enacted, enforced, and adjudicated by liars.

The law is a great crime, far greater than the activities it outlaws, and there’s no way you can protect yourself from it. The establishment protects itself. The law does not protect people. It is merely an instrument of retribution. It can only be used, often ineffectively, to get back at the malefactor. It never un-dos the crime. Executing the murderer doesn’t bring back the dead. Putting Ponzi schemers in jail doesn’t get your money back. And holding BP responsible won’t restore the Louisiana marshes, won’t bring back the dead marine and other wildlife, and won’t compensate the victims for their losses. Carefully watch what happens over the next twenty years as the government uses the law to shield BP, Transocean, and Halliburton while the claims of those affected by the spill disappear into the quicksand of the American legal system.

Jim Kouri, citing FBI studies, writes that “some of the character traits exhibited by serial killers or criminals may be observed in many within the political arena.;” they share the traits of psychopaths who are not sensitive to altruistic appeals, such as sympathy for their victims or remorse or guilt over their crimes. They possess the personality traits of lying, narcissism, selfishness, and vanity. These are the people to whom we have entrusted our fate. Is it any wonder that America is failing at home and world-wide?

Some may say that this is an extreme, audacious claim. I, too, was surprised when I read Kouri’s piece. But anecdotal evidence to support it is easily cited. John McCain said “bomb, bomb, bomb” during the last presidential campaign in response to a question about Iran. No one in government has expressed the slightest qualms about the killing of tens of thousands of people in both Iraq and Afghanistan who had absolutely nothing to do with what happened on nine/eleven or the deliberate targeting of women and children by unmanned drones in Pakistan. What if anything distinguishes serial killers from these governmental officials? Only that they don’t do the killing themselves but have others do it for them. But that’s exactly what most of the godfathers of the cosa nostra did.

So, there are questions that need to be posed: Has the government of the United States of America become a criminal enterprise? Is the nation ruled by psychopaths? Well, how can the impoverishment of the people, the promotion of the military-industrial complex and endless wars and their genocidal killing, the degradation of the environment, the neglect of the collapsing infrastructure, and the support of corrupt and authoritarian governments (often called democracies) abroad be explained? Worse, why are corporations allowed to profiteer during wars while the people are called upon to sacrifice? Why hasn’t the government ever tried to prohibit such profiteering? It’s not that it can’t be done.

In the vernacular, harming people is considered a crime. It is just as much a crime when done by governments, legal systems, or corporations. The government uses the law to harm people or shield the establishment from the consequences of harming people all the time. Watch as no one from the Massey Energy Co. is ever prosecuted for the disaster at the Upper Big Branch coal mine. When corporations are accused of wrongdoing, they often reply that what they did was legal, but legal is not a synonym for right. When criminals gain control, they legalize criminality.

Unless the government of the United States changes its behavior, this nation is doomed. No one in government seems to realize that dissimulation breeds distrust, distrust breeds suspicion, and suspicion eventually arouses censure. Isn’t that failure of recognition by the establishment a sign of criminal psychopathology?
John Kozy is a retired professor of philosophy and logic who blogs on social, political, and economic issues. After serving in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, he spent 20 years as a university professor and another 20 years working as a writer. He has published a textbook in formal logic commercially, in academic journals and a small number of commercial magazines, and has written a number of guest editorials for newspapers. His on-line pieces can be found on http://www.jkozy.com/ and he can be emailed from that site’s homepage.