Saturday, December 20, 2008

Ron Paul: Fear Based Bailouts Constitute Economic Terrorism

Congressman warns that auto-bailout could lead directly to fascism in America
Steve Watson
December 19, 2008
Texas Congressman Ron Paul has hit out at US monetary policy, warning that fear based politics are being used to promote the bailout culture in the same way they were used to sell the Iraq war.
"Governments that want to take over, undermine our liberties and gain more power always use the fear factor. They did this leading up to the war in Iraq, they do it on foreign policy, now they’re doing it on monetary, economic and financial problems." Paul told the nationally syndicated Alex Jones show Wednesday.
"They do that all the time, that is their technique, always to build a tremendous fear in the hearts of the people. Terrorize the people and say that ‘we are your saviors and we’re the only ones that can take care of it’." The Congressman stated.
Paul pointed out that the use of the fear factor was never more evident than in the run up to the passage of the $750 billion bailout bill earlier this year when it emerged that representatives had been threatened with an economic crash and physical martial law in America.
When asked if this constituted economic terrorism, Paul replied "Of course it is, and those responsible should be held accountable."
The Congressman also warned that the bailout of the auto industry could have dire consequences.
"It is extremely dangerous because although we have been creeping in that direction, this is an endorsement of nationalization. If they keep token ownership with the corporations, which they probably will, then it’s called fascism." Paul said. 
"I think everybody knows we’re in a crisis now and they have now gotten to the point where they don’t trust the government, which is healthy." The Congressman told listeners.
"A lot of people are begging and pleading and they’re lining up. But the average guy outside of Washington, especially so many of the young people are realizing that this has all been a hoax and this is the time to really expose that hoax."
"We have a real opportunity to direct attention to the real culprit and that is those who control the monetary system. Those who counterfeit our money and cause the financial bubbles and then recessions, and now are working real hard on a depression." Paul continued.
"The only thing that can counteract this is a different philosophy. A convincing argument that free markets, sound money and no Federal Reserve and limited taxes, the things that made America great."
"The system that they are trying to patch together right now will not work. We don’t need more regulatory agencies, all we need is the enforcement of fraud laws." Paul concluded.
Listen to the full interview below:

FDA Stuns Scientists, Declares Mercury in Fish to be Safe for Infants, Children, Expectant Mothers!

Mike Adams
Natural News
Thursday, Dec 18, 2008
In a truly astonishing betrayal of public safety (even for the FDA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration today revoked its warning about mercury in fish, saying that eating mercury-contaminated fish no longer poses any health threat to children, pregnant women, nursing mothers and infants.
Last week, the FDA declared trace levels of melamine to be safe in infant formula. A few weeks earlier, it said the plastics chemical Bisphenol-A was safe for infants to drink. Now it says children can eat mercury, too. Is there any toxic substance in the food that the FDA thinks might be dangerous? (Aspartame, MSG, sodium nitrite and now mercury…)
This FDA decision on mercury in fish has alarmed EPA scientists who called it “scientifically flawed and inadequate,” reports the Washington Post. Even better, the Environmental Working Group ( issued a letter to the EPA, saying “It’s a commentary on how low FDA has sunk as an agency. It was once a fierce protector of America’s health, and now it’s nothing more than a patsy for polluters.”

Is anyone really surprised? The FDA is a drug-pushing, people-betraying, scientifically illiterate criminal organization that, time and time again, seeks only to protect the profits of powerful corporations whose products poison the people. This statement is no longer a mere opinion. It is an observable fact based on the FDA’s own pattern of behavior and its outlandish decisions that predictably betray the American public. The real reason this is happening
You want to know the REAL reason the FDA is easing up on its warning about mercury in fish? It’s because the agency is being relentlessly pounded over two related issues: Mercury in dental fillings and mercury preservatives in vaccines. And the FDA can’t keep up its lie about the “safety” of vaccines and mercury fillings if it has already declared mercury to be dangerous in fish, right?
To the criminal minds running the FDA, the clever solution is to revoke the warning about mercury in fish. Thus, the FDA takes the position that all mercury is safe, and suddenly they’re off the hook on mercury fillings and thimerosal in vaccines.
In other words, the FDA has just aligned itself as a defender of one of the most neurotoxic substances that’s ever been found. Only a truly corrupt regulator could even attempt to defend such a position, and only a truly insane individual could argue that mercury exposure is safe for infants, children and expectant mothers. Not coincidentally, mercury exposure causes insanity (look up the historical term “mad as a hatter”).
Given that most of the FDA decision makers probably have mercury fillings in their mouths and mercury molecules lodged in their brains from getting their vaccine shots, it’s no stretch to consider the possibility that the FDA decision have, in a very strict medical sense, lost their minds due to mercury exposure. There’s hardly any other way to explain the mad behavior of FDA officials.
I think it’s time we called for an FDA MUTINY and declared the leaders of that agency to be too incompetent to run it anymore. These people need to be relieved of command before their hazardous pronouncements lead to yet more consumers being poisoned or killed. The FDA scientists, in my opinion, should revolt (in a non-violent way, of course) against the politically-motivated decision makers spewing all this “eat more poison” advice.
Full article here

Cheney’s Unrepentent Confession

Saturday, Dec 20, 2008
Dick Cheney has publicly confessed to ordering war crimes. Asked about waterboarding in an ABC News interview, Cheney replied, “I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared.” He also said he still believes waterboarding was an appropriate method to use on terrorism suspects. CIA Director Michael Hayden confirmed that the agency waterboarded three Al Qaeda suspects in 2002 and 2003.
U.S. courts have long held that waterboarding, where water is poured into someone’s nose and mouth until he nearly drowns, constitutes torture. Our federal War Crimes Act defines torture as a war crime punishable by life imprisonment or even the death penalty if the victim dies.
Under the doctrine of command responsibility, enshrined in U.S. law, commanders all the way up the chain of command to the commander-in-chief can be held liable for war crimes if they knew or should have known their subordinates would commit them and they did nothing to stop or prevent it.
Why is Cheney so sanguine about admitting he is a war criminal? Because he’s confident that either President Bush will preemptively pardon him or President-elect Obama won’t prosecute him.
Both of those courses of action would be illegal.

First, a president cannot immunize himself or his subordinates for committing crimes that he himself authorized. On February 7, 2002, Bush signed a memo erroneously stating that the Geneva Conventions, which require humane treatment, did not apply to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But the Supreme Court made clear that Geneva protects all prisoners. Bush also admitted that he approved of high level meetings where waterboarding was authorized by Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, John Ashcroft, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and George Tenet.
Attorney General Michael Mukasey says there’s no need for Bush to issue blanket pardons since there is no evidence that anyone developed the policies “for any reason other than to protect the security in the country and in the belief that he or she was doing something lawful.” But noble motives are not defenses to the commission of crimes.
Lt. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal, said, “There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”
Second, the Constitution requires President Obama to faithfully execute the laws. That means prosecuting lawbreakers. When the United States ratified the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, thereby making them part of U.S. law, we agreed to prosecute those who violate their prohibitions.
The bipartisan December 11 report of the Senate Armed Services Committee concluded that “senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees.”
Lawyers who wrote the memos that purported to immunize government officials from war crimes liability include John Yoo, Jay Bybee, William Haynes, David Addington and Alberto Gonzales. There is precedent in our law for holding lawyers criminally liable for participating in a common plan to violate the law.
Committee chairman Senator Carl Levin told Rachel Maddow that you cannot legalize what’s illegal by having a lawyer write an opinion.
The committee’s report also found that “Rumsfeld’s authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantánamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there.” Those techniques migrated to Iraq and Afghanistan, where prisoners in U.S. custody were also tortured.
Pardons or failures to prosecute the officials who planned and authorized torture would also be immoral. Former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2008 that “there are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq – as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat – are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo.”
During the campaign, Obama promised to promptly review actions by Bush officials to determine whether “genuine crimes” were committed. He said, “If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated,” but “I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of the Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.”
Two Obama advisors told the Associated Press that “there’s little-if any – chance that the incoming president’s Justice Department will go after anyone involved in authorizing or carrying out interrogations that provoked worldwide outrage.”
When he takes office, Obama should order his new attorney general to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate and prosecute those who ordered and authorized the commission of war crimes.
Obama has promised to bring real change. This must be legal and moral change, where those at the highest levels of government are held accountable for their heinous crimes. The new president should move swiftly to set an important precedent that you can’t authorize war crimes and get away with it.

Biden: U.S. Economy in Danger of ‘Absolutely Tanking’

George Stephanopoulos
Saturday, Dec 20, 2008
Vice President-Elect Joe Biden said the U.S. economy is in danger of “absolutely tanking” and will need a second stimulus package in the $600-billion to $700-billion range.
“The economy is in much worse shape than we thought it was in,” Biden told me during an exclusive interview — his first since becoming vice president-elect– to air this Sunday on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”
“There is no short run other than keeping the economy from absolutely tanking. That’s the only short run,” Biden told me.
Biden said he has canvassed Republican and Democratic members of Congress about a second “big” and “bold” stimulus package . He said the Obama team is focused on creating jobs and spending on energy and information technology infrastructure.

“Every single person I’ve spoken to agrees with every major economist. There is going to be real significant investment, whether it’s $600 billion or more, or $700 billion, the clear notion is, it’s a number no one thought about a year ago,” he said.
Full article here

‘Greek Syndrome’ is catching as youth take to streets

John Lichfield
London Independent
Saturday, Dec 20, 2008
Europe exists, it appears. If Greek students sneeze, or catch a whiff of tear-gas, young people take to the streets in France and now Sweden. Yesterday, masked youths threw two firebombs at the French Institute in Athens. Windows were smashed but the building was not seriously damaged. Then youths spray-painted two slogans on the building. One said, “Spark in Athens. Fire in Paris. Insurrection is coming”. The other read, “France, Greece, uprising everywhere”.
It was a calculated and violent attempt to link disparate youth protest movements. Links between protests in Greece and France - and, to a lesser degree, unrest in Sweden - may seem tenuous, even non-existent. But social and political ailments and their symptoms transmit as rapidly as influenza in the television, internet and text-message age.
With Europe, and the world, pitching headlong into a deep recession, the “Greek Syndrome”, as one French official calls it, was already being monitored with great care across the European Union. The attempt to politicise and link the disputes across EU frontiers may prove to be a random act of self-dramatisation by an isolated group on the Greek far left. But it does draw attention to the similarities - and many differences - between the simultaneous outbreaks of unrest in three EU countries.
Thousands of young Greeks have been rioting on and off for almost two weeks. They are protesting against the chaotic, and often corrupt, social and political system of a country still torn between European “modernity” and a muddled Balkan past. They can be said, in that sense, to be truly revolting.

The riots began with a mostly “anarchist” protest against the killing of a 15-year-old boy by police but spread to other left-wing groups, immigrants and at times, it seemed, almost every urban Greek aged between 18 and 30. The protesters claim that they belong to a sacrificed “[euro]600″ generation, doomed to work forever for low monthly salaries. French lycee (sixth-form) students took to the street in their tens of thousands this week and last to protest against modest, proposed changes in the school system and the “natural wastage” of a handful of teaching posts. In other words, they were engaged in a typical French revolution of modern times: a conservative-left-wing revolt, not for change but against it. The lycee students are, broadly, in favour of the status quo in schools, although they admit the cumbersome French education system does not serve them well. But behind the unrest lie three other factors: a deep disaffection from the French political system; a hostility to capitalism and “globalism” and the ever-simmering unrest in the poor, multiracial suburbs of French cities.
In Malmo on Thursday night, young people threw stones at police and set fire to cars and rubbish bins. This appears to have been mostly a local revolt by disaffected immigrant and second-generation immigrant youths, joined by leftist white youths, against the closure of an Islamic cultural centre. As in Greece and France, the Swedish authorities believe the troubles have been encouraged, and magnified, by political forces of the far left.
Full article here

Is the internet going down? Undersea sub-cables have just broken…

London Times
Saturday, Dec 20, 2008
Breaking news: something’s happening to the internet, right now. We’re just not quite sure what.
Interoute, the internet networks company, reports that three of the four internet sub-cables that run from Asia to North America have been damaged.
These carry more than 75 per cent of traffic between the Middle East, Europe and America. It’s hard to gather what this actually means - is it that the internet is down or (more likely) significantly slower than usual between the Middle East and America? (If you’re reading this, let’s face it, the internet has not shut down altogether)
But, according to the company, there is a domino effect taking place. Interoute says it is:
hearing that offices have lost their entire private network connectivity. As a result, users are unable to do their daily job over the internet and are turning to their mobile phones to communicate across the globe. This is having a knock on effect on the domestic voice networks, which are getting a surge of calls needing to be routed internationally. These calls need to be routed onto international gateways that pass voice traffic in longer directions around the world to avoid the cable breaks – causing more quality issues and risk more call failures, in turn causing more calls to be placed and increasing the pressure on local voice networks.
What (I think) this means is that companies’ private internet services have gone down. So, if they can get access, they have had to go on the public internet and mobile phones, like the rest of us average joes, to get their work done. That results in more strain on mobile phone networks, which means more phone calls go down and the internet becomes slower.
Here’s the big problem right now:
Finance companies [are] looking to settle trades on European and American exchanges. This cable outage means there is no real-time access to, for example, trading ticker services. This means branch offices are compromised when trying to place trades. As private networks are being affected, these organisations are forced to rely on public internet services that may have more latency and may not update as quickly. The loss of time even precious seconds is hugely important to trading exchanges. These public internet services are now struggling to cope with peak in demand – leading to increased latency, and further compromising the integrity of the trading data.
I’m told that these major sub-sea cables break once a year. So companies have developed a fall-back plan. If one sub-sea cable is out, traffic is re-routed onto a second cable. In theory, a dual break, where both cables go out at once, is incredibly rare. Prior to January this year, it had not happened before.
The problem with all of this is that it’s hard to see the impact, or its significance, until something disastrous happens. So, we’re keeping an eye on it and like we said, er, something’s happening to the internet.
UPDATE: AP report mass outages in Egypt
UPDATE: India suffers massive internet disruption after undersea cables break

From Global Crisis to “Global Government”

Andrew G. Marshall
Global Research
Saturday, Dec 20, 2008
The United States’ National Intelligence Council has released a report, entitled Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World“. This declassified document is the fourth report of the Global Trends 2025: The National Intelligence Council’s 2025 Project,
The report outlines the paths that current geopolitical and economic trends may reach by the year 2025, in order to guide strategic thinking over the next few decades. The National Intelligence Council describes itself as the US Intelligence Community’s “center for midterm and long-term strategic thinking,” with the tasks of supporting the Director of National Intelligence, reaching out to non-governmental experts in academia and the private sector and it leads in the effort of providing National Intelligence Estimates.
The report was written with the active participation of not only the US intelligence community, but also numerous think tanks, consulting firms, academic institutions and hundreds of other experts. Among the participating organizations were the Atlantic Council of the United States, the Wilson Center, RAND Corporation, the Brookings Institution, American Enterprise Institute, Texas A&M University, the Council on Foreign Relations and Chatham House in London, which is the British equivalent of the CFR.[1]
Among the many things envisioned in this report to either be completed or under way by 2025 are the formation of a global multipolar international system, the possibility of a return of mercantilism by great powers in which they go to war over dwindling resources, the growth of China as a great world power, the position of India as a strong pole in the new multipolar system, a decline of capitalism in the form of more state-capitalism, exponential population growth in the developing world, continuing instability in Africa, a decline in food availability, partly due to climate change, continued terrorism, the possibility of nuclear war, the emergence of regionalism in the form of strong regional blocks in North America, Europe, and Asia, and the decline of US power and with that, the superiority of the dollar.

The Economics of Change
The discussion of global economics begins with analyzing the potential repercussions of the current global financial crisis. It states that the crisis “is accelerating the global economic rebalancing. Developing countries have been hurt; several, such as Pakistan with its large current account deficit, are at considerable risk. Even those with cash reserves—such as South Korea and Russia—have been severely buffeted; steep rises in unemployment and inflation could trigger widespread political instability and throw emerging powers off course.” However, it states, “if China, Russia, and Mideast oil exporters can avoid internal crises,” they may be able to buy foreign assets, provide financial assistance to struggling countries and “seed new regional initiatives.” It says that the biggest change for the West will be “the increase in state power. Western governments now own large swaths of their financial sectors and must manage them, potentially politicizing markets.” It continues in saying that there is a prospect for a new “Bretton Woods,” to “regulate the global economy,” however, “Failure to construct a new all-embracing architecture could lead countries to seek security through competitive monetary policies and new investment barriers, increasing the potential for market segmentation.”[2]
The report states that as a result of the major financial disruptions under-way and those still to come, there is a need to rebalance the global economy. However, “this rebalancing will require long-term efforts to establish a new international system.”[3] It states that major problem to overcome will be a possible backlash against foreign trade and investment by corporations, particularly in “emerging economies,” with the potential of fueling “protectionist forces” in the US; an increasing competition for resources between emerging economies such as Russia, China, India and even Gulf states; a decline in democratization, as the China-model for development becomes attractive to other emerging economies, authoritarian regimes and even “weak democracies frustrated by years of economic underperformance”; the role of Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) in providing more financial assistance to developing countries than the World Bank and IMF, which could lead to “diplomatic realignments and new relationships” between China, Russia, India and Gulf states with the developing world; the loss of the dollar as the “global reserve currency,” as “foreign policy actions might bring exposure to currency shock and higher interest rates for Americans,” and a “move away from the dollar” which would be precipitated by “uncertainties and instabilities in the international financial system.”[4]
The dollar’s decline as a “global reserve currency” will be relegated to “something of a first among equals in a basket of currencies by 2025. This could occur suddenly in the wake of a crisis, or gradually with global rebalancing.”[5]
It states that for the first time in history, the financial landscape will be “genuinely global and multipolar,” and that, “redirection toward regional financial centers could soon spill over into other areas of power.”[6] It states that there is potential for a divide within the West between the US and EU, so long as they continue divergent economic policies, where Europe is more state-centric and with the US as more market-based. However, “the enhanced role of the state in Western economies may also lessen the contrast between the two models.”[7] This enhanced role of the state in economic matters is largely due to the current financial crisis. 
Latin America
In outlining Latin America’s path for the next two decades, the report states that many countries will have become middle income powers, however, “those that have embraced populist policies, will lag behind—and some, such as Haiti, will have become even poorer and still less governable.” It says Brazil will become the major power of the region, but that, “efforts to promote South American integration will be realized only in part. Venezuela and Cuba will have some form of vestigial influence in the region in 2025, but their economic problems will limit their appeal.” However, it said that many parts of Latin America will remain among “the world’s most violent areas,” and that, “US influence in the region will diminish somewhat, in part because of Latin America’s broadening economic and commercial relations with Asia, Europe, and other blocs.”[8]
In discussing the issue of Muslim immigration into the European Union, the report states that, “Countries with growing numbers of Muslims will experience a rapid shift in ethnic composition, particularly around urban areas, potentially complicating efforts to facilitate assimilation and integration.” Further, “the increasing concentration could lead to more tense and unstable situations, such as occurred with the 2005 Paris suburban riots.” This mass immigration and reactions of Europeans, among other factors, “are likely to confine many Muslims to low-status, low-wage jobs, deepening ethnic cleavages. Despite a sizeable stratum of integrated Muslims, a growing number—driven by a sense of alienation, grievance, and injustice—are increasingly likely to value separation in areas with Muslim-specific cultural and religious practices.”[9]
The report also states that by 2025, Europe “will have made slow progress toward achieving the vision of current leaders and elites: a cohesive, integrated, and influential global actor able to employ independently a full spectrum of political, economic, and military tools in support of European and Western interests and universal ideals. The European Union would need to resolve a perceived democracy gap dividing Brussels from European voters and move past protracted debate about its institutional structures.” In other words, the move toward a European superstate will revolve around convincing the public that it is not a threat to democracy or sovereignty.
It further states that Europe should and likely will take in “new members in the Balkans, and perhaps Ukraine and Turkey. However, continued failure to convince skeptical publics of the benefits of deeper economic, political, and social integration and to grasp the nettle of a shrinking and aging population by enacting painful reforms could leave the EU a hobbled giant.”[10]
Russia: Boom or Bust?
The report’s focus on Russia stresses two possible scenarios. One in which Russia triumphs as an international player in the new international system, with the “potential to be richer, more powerful, and more self-assured in 2025 if it invests in human capital, expands and diversifies its economy, and integrates with global markets. [Emphasis added]” However, Russia could also take another path, where “multiple constraints could limit Russia’s ability to achieve its full economic potential,” such as a shortfall in energy investment, an underdeveloped banking sector, and crime and corruption. It also points out that a “sustained plunge in global energy prices before Russia has the chance to develop a more diversified economy probably would constrain economic growth.”[11] Could this be a veiled threat to Russia to either join into and merge with the international system, which is directed by Western elites, or face a possible economic backlash, perhaps in the form of manipulating oil prices? This strategy has not by any means been unheard of, as a look at the 1973 oil crisis and the lead up to the first Gulf War in 1991 have proven.
In contemplating Russia’s likely future, the report states that with a more “proactive and influential foreign policy” Russia could become an “important partner for Western, Asian, and Middle East capitals; and a leading force in opposition to US global dominance.” However, it states that, “shared perceptions regarding threats from terrorism and Islamic radicalism could align Russian and Western security policies more tightly.” In other words, perhaps increased incidents of terrorist activity in or near Russian territory can force it to align more closely with the West, if only at first in security integration. It also elaborates on the other potentiality for Russia, saying that it is “impossible to exclude alternative futures such as a nationalistic, authoritarian petro-state or even a full dictatorship.”[12]
The report states that there are alternatives with Iran. In one instance, “political and economic reform in addition to a stable investment climate could fundamentally redraw both the way the world perceives the country and also the way in which Iranians view themselves.” This could move Iran away from “decades of being mired in the Arab conflicts of the Middle East.”[13] Or the other option is Iran starts a nuclear arms race, continues to become the object of Western alienation, and may even become unstable and mired in conflict.
A Post-Petroleum World?
The report states that by 2025 there will likely be a “technological breakthrough that will provide an alternative to oil and gas, but implementation will lag because of the necessary infrastructure costs and need for longer replacement time.” In this instance, it states that “Saudi Arabia will absorb the biggest shock,” and “In Iran, the drop in oil and gas prices will undermine any populist economic policies,” and that, “Incentives to open up to the West in a bid for greater foreign investment, establishing or strengthening ties with Western partners – including the US – will increase.” The report also states that, “Outside the Middle East, Russia will potentially be the biggest loser, particularly if its economy remains heavily tied to energy exports, and could be reduced to middle power status.
Venezuela, Bolivia, and other petro-populist regimes could unravel completely, if that has not occurred beforehand because of already growing discontent and decreasing production.”[14] Again, this raises the issue of the manipulation or control of oil prices for political purposes, as the states all likely to be affected negatively by a plunge in oil prices also happen to be the states most at odds with the West, and specifically, the United States.
Africa: More of the Same
The report starts off by saying that “Sub-Saharan Africa will remain the most vulnerable region on Earth in terms of economic challenges, population stresses, civil conflict, and political instability.
The weakness of states and troubled relations between states and societies probably will slow major improvements in the region’s prospects over the next 20 years unless there is sustained international engagement and, at times, intervention.
Southern Africa will continue to be the most stable and promising sub-region politically and economically.” This seems to suggest that there will be many more cases of “humanitarian intervention,” likely under the auspices of a Western dominated international organization, such as the UN.
Further, the region will “continue to be a major supplier of oil, gas, and metals to world markets and increasingly will attract the attention of Asian states seeking access to commodities, including China and India.” However, “Poor economic policies—rooted in patrimonial interests and incomplete economic reform—will likely exacerbate ethnic and religious divides as well as crime and corruption in many countries.”
It also states that there will likely be a democratic “backslide” in the most populous African countries, and that, “the region will be vulnerable to civil conflict and complex forms of interstate conflict—with militaries fragmented along ethnic or other divides, limited control of border areas, and insurgents and criminal groups preying on unarmed civilians in neighboring countries. Central Africa contains the most troubling of these cases, including Congo-Kinshasa, Congo-Brazzaville, Central African Republic, and Chad.”[15]
Resurgent Mercantilism and the “Arc of Instability”
The report states that there is a likely possibility of the resurgence on the world stage of mercantilist foreign policies of great powers, as access to resources becomes more limited. Perceptions of energy scarcity “could lead to interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources to be essential to maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime.” In particular, “Central Asia has become an area of intense international competition for access to energy.”[16]
The report also states that, “The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) will remain a geopolitically significant region in 2025, based on the importance of oil to the world economy and the threat of instability.” It gives a positive and negative scenario. In the positive, where economic growth becomes “rooted and sustained,” regional leaders will ensure stability both economic and political. However, “in a more negative scenario, leaders will fail to prepare their growing populations to participate productively in the global economy, authoritarian regimes will hold tightly to power and become more repressive, and regional conflicts will remain unresolved as population growth strains resources.”
The report elaborates that, “youth bulges, deeply rooted conflicts, and limited economic prospects are likely to keep Palestine, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and others in the high-risk category. Spillover from turmoil in these states and potentially others increases the chance that moves elsewhere in the region toward greater prosperity and political stability will be rocky. The success of efforts to manage and resolve regional conflicts and to develop security architectures that help stabilize the region will be a major determinant of the ability of states to grow their economies and pursue political reform.” In other words, expect continued destabilization of the region.
It states of Iran, that its “fractious regime, nationalist identity, and ambivalence toward the United States will make any transition from regional dissenter toward stakeholder perilous and uneven. Although Iran’s aims for regional leadership—including its nuclear ambitions—are unlikely to abate, its regional orientation will have difficulty discounting external and internal pressures for reform.”[17]
In relation to Afghanistan, the report states that, “Western-driven infrastructure, economic assistance, and construction are likely to provide new stakes for local rivalries rather than the basis for a cohesive Western-style economic and social unity.” Further, as “Globalization has made opium Afghanistan’s major cash crop; the country will have difficulty developing alternatives, particularly as long as economic links for trade with Central Asia, Pakistan, and India are not further developed.” It states that sectarian conflicts will continue and increase.
The report describes Pakistan as a “wildcard,” especially in relation to conflict in Afghanistan. It states that its Northwest Frontier Province and tribal areas “will continue to be poorly governed and the source or supporter of cross-border instability.” It states that, “If Pakistan is unable to hold together until 2025, a broader coalescence of Pashtun tribes is likely to emerge and act together to erase the Durand Line,” and fractionalize Pakistan into ethnic divides. Essentially, expect Pakistan to be broken up into ethnically divided countries and territories.
It also stipulates that Iraq will continue to be plagued by sectarian and ethnic conflicts, which will spillover into other countries of the region, as “Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia will have increasing difficulty staying aloof. An Iraq unable to maintain internal stability could continue to roil the region. If conflict there breaks into civil war, Iraq could continue to provide a strong demonstration of the adverse consequences of sectarianism to other countries in the region.”[18] Put another way, Iraq will collapse into civil war, break up and become an example to the rest of the region regarding what happens to countries that pursue divergent policies from those of the West.
Nuclear War
The report states that there is a likely increase in the risk of a nuclear war, or in the very least, the use of a nuclear weapon by 2025. “Ongoing low-intensity clashes between India and Pakistan continue to raise the specter that such events could escalate to a broader conflict between those nuclear powers.” Further, “The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran spawning a nuclear arms race in the greater Middle East will bring new security challenges to an already conflict-prone region, particularly in conjunction with the proliferation of long-range missile systems.” The report also brings up the prospect of nuclear terrorism as an increased risk.[19]
The report states that terrorism will by no means disappear from the international stage by 2025. It interestingly postulates that there is a possibility of Al-Qaeda’s influence as a terrorist group greatly diminishing, or all together disappearing, being replaced with new terrorist threats.[20]
It discusses the actions that will likely be pursued by countries in reaction to terrorist threats, saying that many governments will be “expanding domestic security forces, surveillance capabilities, and the employment of special operations-type forces.” Counterterrorism measures will increasingly “involve urban operations as a result of greater urbanization,” and governments “may increasingly erect barricades and fences around their territories to inhibit access. Gated communities will continue to spring up within many societies as elites seek to insulate themselves from domestic threats.”[21] Essentially, expect a continued move towards and internationalization of domestic police state measures to control populations.
Global Pandemic
The report states that there is a distinct possibility of a global pandemic emerging by 2025. In this case, “internal and cross-border tension and conflict will become more likely as nations struggle—with degraded capabilities—to control the movement of populations seeking to avoid infection or maintain access to resources.” It states that such a likely candidate for a pandemic would be the H5N1 avian flu.
It states that in the event of a global pandemic, likely originating in a country such as China, “tens to hundreds of millions of Americans within the US Homeland would become ill and deaths would mount into the tens of millions,” and “Outside the US, critical infrastructure degradation and economic loss on a global scale would result as approximately a third of the worldwide population became ill and hundreds of millions died.”[22]
A New International System Is Formed
In discussing the structure and nature of a new international system, the report states that, “By 2025, nation-states will no longer be the only – and often not the most important – actors on the world stage and the ‘international system’ will have morphed to accommodate the new reality. But the transformation will be incomplete and uneven.”
The report states that under a situation in which there are many poles of power in the world, yet little coordination and cooperation between them all, it would be “unlikely to see an overarching, comprehensive, unitary approach to global governance. Current trends suggest that global governance in 2025 will be a patchwork of overlapping, often ad hoc and fragmented efforts, with shifting coalitions of member nations, international organizations, social movements, NGOs, philanthropic foundations, and companies.” In other words, by 2025, there won’t be an established global government, but rather an acceleration of the processes and mechanisms that have been and currently are underway in efforts to create a world government.
The report also interestingly points out that, “Most of the pressing transnational problems – including climate change, regulation of globalized financial markets, migration, failing states, crime networks, etc. – are unlikely to be effectively resolved by the actions of individual nation-states. The need for effective global governance will increase faster than existing mechanisms can respond [Emphasis added].”[23] In other words, due to the growing threat of international problems, which are essentially the result of Western political-economic-intelligence activities and policies, the solution is a move toward international governance, which will be overseen and run by those same Western interests.
In discussing the rise of the emerging powers, particularly China and India, the report observes that their economic progress has been “achieved with an economic model that is at odds with the West’s traditional laissez faire recipe for economic development.” So the question is, “whether the new players – and their alternative approaches – can be melded with the traditional Western ones to form a cohesive international system able to tackle the increasing number of transnational issues.” It continues, saying that “the national interests of the emerging powers are diverse enough, and their dependence on globalization compelling enough, that there appears little chance of an alternative bloc forming among them to directly confront the more established Western order. The existing international organizations – such as the UN, WTO, IMF, and World Bank – may prove sufficiently responsive and adaptive to accommodate the views of emerging powers, but whether the emerging powers will be given – or will want – additional power and responsibilities is a separate question.”[24] So, as the new powers emerge, as a result of Western elite-directed globalization, they will likely merge with the Western controlled world order as opposed to becoming an alternative or opposition force to it.
The report discusses the topic of regionalism in different areas of the world: “Greater Asian integration, if it occurs, could fill the vacuum left by a weakening multilaterally based international order but could also further undermine that order. In the aftermath of the 1997 Asian financial crisis, a remarkable series of pan-Asian ventures—the most significant being ASEAN + 3—began to take root. Although few would argue that an Asian counterpart to the EU is a likely outcome even by 2025, if 1997 is taken as a starting point, Asia arguably has evolved more rapidly over the last decade than the European integration did in its first decade(s).” It further states that, “movement over the next 15 years toward an Asian basket of currencies—if not an Asian currency unit as a third reserve—is more than a theoretical possibility.”
The report elaborates on the concept of regionalism, stating that, “Asian regionalism would have global implications, possibly sparking or reinforcing a trend toward three trade and financial clusters that could become quasi-blocs (North America, Europe, and East Asia).” Such blocs “would have implications for the ability to achieve future global World Trade Organization agreements and regional clusters could compete in the setting of trans-regional product standards for IT, biotech, nanotech, intellectual property rights, and other “new economy” products.”[25] So these three main regional blocs will make up the initial structure of international governance by 2025, progressing toward the ultimate goal of a global government.
The Decline of Democracy

The report states that with democratization around the world, “advances are likely to slow and globalization will subject many recently democratized countries to increasing social and economic pressures that could undermine liberal institutions.” Part of this reasoning is that “the better economic performance of many authoritarian governments could sow doubts among some about democracy as the best form of government. The surveys we consulted indicated that many East Asians put greater emphasis on good management, including increasing standards of livings, than democracy.” Of great significance, the report also states that, “even in many well-established democracies, surveys show growing frustration with the current workings of democratic government and questioning among elites over the ability of democratic governments to take the bold actions necessary to deal rapidly and effectively with the growing number of transnational challenges.”[26]
This is a very important point, as among many “well-established democracies” are the United States, which is already experiencing a massive shift away from democracy. China, which has been able to emerge rapidly as a result of Western-controlled globalization, and which remains authoritarian, can essentially be viewed as a model for the international system being shaped, as democracies take a turn toward authoritarianism and other rising powers choose to pursue development in the same manner. Essentially, the new international system will mark a move away from democracy and towards international authoritarianism.
It is important, when reviewing the above information provided by the report, to understand the perspective of the authors. The US intelligence community worked closely with businesses, prominent academic institutions and powerful think tanks, all of which play extremely significant roles in shaping our current world order. Thus, the perspectives outlined in the report come with an inherent bias, and so it is important to “read in between the lines.” The report does NOT state what the objectives of the US intelligence community, academic institutions, businesses or think tanks will be in this future 2025 scenario, but you can be assured that they will not play backseat roles and merely observe situations. These are among the most powerful players in the international arena, and this vision of 2025 is the world they are shaping.
So when the report suggests the likely fractionalization of Pakistan, they do not say that it is a US objective to do so, but rather that it is a likely possibility that such a scenario will occur. Thus, it is important to comprehend this information with an understanding that those who wrote the report, have been, are currently, and will in all likelihood, continue to be among the most powerful actors shaping the world order and the new international system. They have been behind the great “transnational issues” and are now proposing their “international solutions.”
[1] NIC, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. The National Intelligence Council’s 2025 Project: November, 2008: Acknowledgements
[2] NIC, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. The National Intelligence Council’s 2025 Project: November, 2008: 10
[3] Ibid, 11
[4] Ibid, 11-12
[5] Ibid, 94
[6] Ibid, 12-13
[7] Ibid, 13-14
[8] Ibid, 15
[9] Ibid, 25
[10] Ibid, 32
[11] Ibid, 31
[12] Ibid, 32
[13] Ibid, 36
[14] Ibid, 46
[15] Ibid, 56
[16] Ibid, 63
[17] Ibid, 65
[18] Ibid, 72-73
[19] Ibid, 67
[20] Ibid, 69-70
[21] Ibid, 70-72
[22] Ibid, 75
[23] Ibid, 81
[24] Ibid, 82
[25] Ibid, 83
[26] Ibid, 87

The Bill Nobody Noticed: National DNA Databank

Patty Donovan
Natural News
December 20, 2008
(NaturalNews) In April of 2008, President Bush signed into law S.1858 which allows the federal government to screen the DNA of all newborn babies in the U.S. This was to be implemented within 6 months meaning that this collection is now being carried out. Congressman Ron Paul states that this bill is the first step towards the establishment of a national DNA database.
S.1858, known as The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007, is justified as a “national contingency plan” in that it represents preparation for any sort of public health emergency. The bill states that the federal government should “continue to carry out, coordinate, and expand research in newborn screening” and “maintain a central clearinghouse of current information on newborn screening… ensuring that the clearinghouse is available on the Internet and is updated at least quarterly”. Sections of the bill also make it clear that DNA may be used in genetic experiments and tests. Read the full bill:…

Twila Brase, president of the Citizens’ Council on Health Care warns that this new law represents the beginning of nationwide genetic testing. Brase states that S.1858 and H.R. 3825, the House version of the bill, will:
• Establish a national list of genetic conditions for which newborns and children are to be tested.
• Establish protocols for the linking and sharing of genetic test results nationwide.
• Build surveillance systems for tracking the health status and health outcomes of individuals diagnosed at birth with a genetic defect or trait.
• Use the newborn screening program as an opportunity for government agencies to identify, list, and study “secondary conditions” of individuals and their families.
• Subject citizens to genetic research without their knowledge or consent.
Read her entire analysis of the implications of this bill here:… Brase states that under this bill, “The DNA taken at birth from every citizen is essentially owned by the government, and every citizen becomes a potential subject of government-sponsored genetic research.” All 50 states are now routinely providing results of genetic screenings to the Department of Homeland Security and this bill will establish the legality of that practice plus include DNA.
Ron Paul has also vigorously argued against this bill making the following comments before the US House of Representatives:
“I cannot support legislation…that exceeds the Constitutional limitations on federal power or in any way threatens the liberty of the American people. I must oppose it.”
“S. 1858 gives the federal bureaucracy the authority to develop a model newborn screening program. Madame Speaker, the federal government lacks both the constitutional authority and the competence to develop a newborn screening program adequate for a nation as large and diverse as the United States. …”
“Those of us in the medical profession should be particularly concerned about policies allowing government officials and state-favored interests to access our medical records without our consent … My review of S. 1858 indicates the drafters of the legislation made no effort to ensure these newborn screening programs do not violate the privacy rights of parents and children, in fact, by directing federal bureaucrats to create a contingency plan for newborn screening in the event of a ‘public health’ disaster, this bill may lead to further erosions of medical privacy. As recent history so eloquently illustrates, politicians are more than willing to take, and people are more than willing to cede, liberty during times of ‘emergency.”……


By Greg Evensen
December 20, 2008
Intelligence comes in two distinct and uniquely critical components. The first is information—or intelligence—that comes from sources known to you as an investigator or intercepted sources that may not be known to you. The most critical intelligence sector is that of our own discerning creative minds. Together, these two arenas comprise the data mine that gives us a glimpse into the future. Military leaders and police officials know that this future depends solely on how we assess that data and our near miracle ability to shape outcomes by how we have collectively interpreted all of the “leads.” If we are able to process correctly, the police agency or forward military unit can deploy its forces based on qualified assumptions that have been drawn from the available “intelligence” and thus strike or defend effectively and efficiently.

Using this descriptive breakdown of the role of intelligence, let’s project into 2009, and see what type of outcomes we might expect over the next few months concerning the economic and political events here in the United States.

Let’s begin with what we do know based on existing information and substantiated reports from across the country. The executive branch of government assuming power on 20 January 2009 is comprised of the most socialist mindset since the Roosevelt years. The cabinet and department executives reflect a bias against historical constitutional precepts, are continuing programs or are set on implementing new ones that will devastate the Bill of Rights (what is left of it). They are viciously against the ownership of personal defense weapons and are morally degenerate in their rabid support of same-sex marriage, abortion, and homosexuality as a civil right, as well as promoters of open borders with Mexico. This hideous and brashly anti-traditional/historical America mindset in Washington has completed the destruction of the bridge between our Godly heritage and the present day four-lane interstate journey into oblivion and destruction.

Most of America has ridden this express train to hell, while listening to I-Pods, lost on the cell phone, or addicted to demonically inspired virtual games on the ever present lap-top. Family discussions around the dinner table, parent involvement with their children’s school and church, horseback camping trips and Christ honoring Christmas gatherings, have given way to illicit sex parties, including pre-teen homosexual experimentation encouraged by psychiatrists, cheating and plagiarism rings in the public schools, gang affiliation in record numbers, drug smuggling and dope dealing in every community in the country.

What then does our intelligence tell us? Based on these known facts, we can conclude that America’s days as the “moral leader” to the world are long over. Spiritually, we are worse off than the most backward African nation that still worships rocks and trees. We have offended the true God of the universe and are next in line for utter destruction. That fate, I believe, is well underway.
Even if you dismiss the spiritual component, the results of our moral disintegration have brought about its own unavoidable chain of events. Where moral character is absent, corruption, theft, sexual immorality, lying, selfish and traitorous conduct rushes in to fill the void. This is abundantly evident on every hand in disease ridden America. The family has disintegrated, churches have fallen away from God’s truth, government has failed, banks have crumbled, credit has replaced “money,” debt replaced “money” and “money” replaced gold and silver. Cowardice has replaced confidence, incompetency has replaced competency, and mistrust has taken over trust in the law and law officers. Virtue in the mission of the military has been replaced with unending wars and police actions by a now mercenary role for our soldiers who have been prostituted to serve the whore of government.

Any intelligence operation will predict that this vast negative change in standards results in the defeat of the nation from within. It cannot be avoided and its outcomes are unavoidably predetermined. Such corruption then begins to feed on itself. In order to protect the viability of the continuing operation of such a flawed entity, a self-defense mechanism must then be established to insure that the antithesis of the corrupted state (a morally virtuous state) cannot be reinstituted.

In the case of present day America, this means the establishment of a previously unheard of and unneeded police state apparatus. This internal security behemoth has been built to protect the unconstitutional and corrupted national government. This new Gestapo like state security network (homeland security) is in a continuing state of expansion and invasion of the private lives of Americans. It MUST do so, because it fears freedom, honest citizens, and clean government. Only corrupted officials need constant machine gun bearing black-clad killers in their employment. Conversely, free, honest, government works shoulder to shoulder with its citizens in an open concept where common sense and common integrity rules.
Now our intelligence gathering abilities will conclude that in order to staff such a police state army, men and women who have themselves been corrupted will be the most likely to be recruited and serve successfully. To be successful, they must voluntarily agree to obey all rules and direct orders issued from the corrupted police or general staffs which they serve. The future can be predicted then, that at some point, those who have sworn to obey the corrupted state police apparatus will come into direct conflict with those who have maintained their personal morality, dignity, independence, and allegiance to God and the Republic. There can be NO OTHER outcome. There is no road for compromise or “sit-down” resolution. The ONLY outcome is conflict. The state will maintain its “us against them” mentality and the freedom fighters will have no choice but to survive by fighting back. This scenario has been repeated throughout all of history on every continent with the same inevitable, predictable ending.

The maverick or rogue element in all of this has begun to emerge in a way that gives us some pause for hope, however. Vast amounts of information through patriot radio, constitutionally sensitive internet news services and courageous speakers across the country are bringing true and accurate facts to millions of citizens and of course police officers and armed forces at home and in theater. Because of these collective efforts, officers at all levels are being made aware of the real situation facing all of us and how they should respond—or not—to orders that will be coming to them.

The final segment of this article is directed to police and military officers at all levels. It is as though roll call was underway and the orders of the day issued. I ask that you read this carefully and let it become a part of your standard operating procedures manual of the heart. Your response to this will help decide the ultimate fate of our nation. As sworn officers and oath bound military men and women, you are under the lawful order domain that was codified for all time during the Nuremburg Tribunals of 1945-48. That body decreed to all men and women under arms that merely obeying orders of any kind was not an affirmative defense for actions taken in combat or against civilian populations. The benchmark that was established was, if the “order” was criminal in nature or “required” the affected forces to commit an act they knew was or suspected to be criminal in nature, they had the absolute right and duty to disobey that order and in some cases seek the immediate arrest and prosecution of the ordering authority. That operational standard still exists and will be used should the occasion arise in the near future. Let me be VERY clear. If a police officer from any jurisdiction, private contractors hired to act as agents of the police, or a military member acting in an “official” capacity should carry out unlawful, unconstitutional, or unethical “orders” that violates the effected person’s lawful rights, safety, security, or freedom, then the offending “agent” of government is liable in court both criminally and civilly. In the worse case situation, the offending agent may be at the mercy of citizens who will not tolerate such abuse.

Resistance to such government actions by the citizenry in these situations for the preservation of life and peace is therefore justified in the extreme.

We are left then with this “future” to contemplate. Either intelligence will dictate that this nation’s constitutional laws will be followed under all circumstances, or there will be severe consequences both immediate and long term. Be it known that NO police or military authority is exempt from safeguarding the American people from violations of their absolute rights and that all such authority must be lawful, constitutional, humane and fair.
That any officer of the law or of the military have as their first priority, the intelligent and judicious use of their power, and the full knowledge that the Republic of the United States and its people will hold them accountable and responsible for their individual and collective actions in defense of the American people during times of crises from whatever cause.
Be it further understood, that no President, General, Judge, Governor, Attorney General, law enforcement official, legislator, public official at any level or animal control officer may violate civil rights, the Bill of Rights, the law, constitutional authority, or any other covenant with the American people for any reason including open warfare. Any such violation will be considered a violation of the official’s oath of office and will be subject to civil and or criminal penalties.

Good intelligence is a useful tool in keeping the peace, safeguarding the general population and using the law for the purposes it was intended. Common sense is the gatekeeper for those laws and the maintenance of civilization. Together we must insure that both intelligence and common sense survive any application or misapplication of the law in any form including that of martial law. No other course is acceptable. No other course is lawful. No other course will insure that America survives its present economic and political calamities without resorting to all out conflict between its citizens and those in authority. Our future depends on the intelligent use of our intelligence, from whatever source we take it, and how we use it. We expect, indeed demand that those in authority begin at once to exercise intelligent strength of character and the wisdom to know from whence comes their strength.
© 2008 Greg Evensen - All Rights Reserved

The Darkness And The Power

Jim Kirwan

The Dictator announced his relief-package for the Big Three yesterday: The media is calling it "a Christmas-gift." This is a LOAN-agreement: Gift's do not come wrapped in razor wire. This too-little-too-late proposal is meant to bring an end to the problem of having to pay anyone, for whatever they do on-the-job in the United States.

This is the last link in the chain that will complete the Total Redistribution of Wealth in American society. And too many still, will not connect the dots.

The problem that organized labor created for the corporatocracy has been a thorn in the side of 'business,' since the days of the New Deal. Now its payback time and anyone that looks can almost see the saliva dripping from this 'proposal' that is in reality, an ultimatum. Some of the details behind the headlines surfaced yesterday in a report from Greg Shotwell, a union activist that spent thirty-years working for GM.
"The danger of this that I see is that, you know, in the '90s, when the auto companies were making billions of dollars, they were taking profits out of North America and investing them overseas in Europe, South America and Asia. So there's been a huge transfer of assets overseas. Now, those assets would remain protected in bankruptcy. So what, in effect, they've done is undermined the manufacturing base in the United States so that they could become a major importer to the United States. You see, they already have fuel-efficient-small fuel-efficient cars that they're making in Europe and in Asia and in South America. They're ready for import. And they would like to be like Toyota. Yes, Toyota has plants in the United States, but Toyota imports about 46 percent of all the cars it sells in the United States. That's what General Motors is setting itself up to do, and they're going to use this capitalist disaster to help them wipe out the dealerships and close the plants. And Congress is just going to help them strong-arm the unions into giving up any job security or gains.
Also, you're right about the bankruptcy. And this is one of their goals, is to wipe out the legacy costs. You know, the people who earned a pension and earned healthcare and retirement in the past, they would take that away. To me, it's like a thirty-year mortgage. I paid my mortgage every week, and I paid it off. Now that house is mine. Now they want to say, well, we're going to take it back.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Now, obviously, there are those who continue to say that the labor costs in the auto industry, especially in the Big Three, are way out of whack. And could you talk, for those who are not familiar with, how this misrepresentation of what the labor costs really are of today's workforce among the Big Three has been created?
GREGG SHOTWELL: Well, there's a good reason that the plants, the transplants in the South, have not been organized, and that's mainly because they make as much or more money as organized workers. And that was a strategy that the Japanese plants did on purpose, because they didn't want the plants organized. So they pay as much.
The real difference is in what they owe the retirees, what they call the legacy costs. Now, you'll hear in the media, they'll say GM workers get $73 an hour, and Toyota workers only get $45 an hour. They arrive at that $73 an hour by tacking on the cost of all the retirees onto the active worker. This is fraudulent bookkeeping. This is essentially a Ponzi scheme, wherein the old investors are paid off by the new investors. In other words, the older investors, the retirees, their pay-their pension and healthcare-comes from the new investors, the workers. I heard Keith Olbermann compare it to saying the average wage in America, and then you would add on everybody who's collecting Social Security or pensions. It's really preposterous.
On top of that, I want to emphasize this. I earned my pension while I was working, not [inaudible] somebody else. The guy working today isn't earning my pension. I already earned that. General Motors should have taken that money, set it aside, put it in a trust. If they didn't do that, then they've committed a malfeasance. That's their responsibility. Also, when I was working, they charged the customer more money based on the fact, based on their excuse that "we have to pay more for this worker because of healthcare and pension and his retirement, so we have to charge the customer more." Whether that was 1980 or 1990, they raised those prices. What did they do with that money? They apparently didn't put it in a trust. But they did-and this is a fact-they've invested largely overseas. General Motors and Ford, they have more plants overseas than they have in the United States. They're ready to become major importers to the United States and dump all their responsibilities to the people who made those profits." (1)
In many ways this mirrors what was done by government with Social Security. The money paid in by the employees was not put into interest bearing trust accounts ­ where it could have grown over time ­ instead it was spent as fast as it came in and the public received only federal drawers filled with IOU's instead of the money that was supposedly being held in Trust for retiree's. In the case of the Big Three, they used the money paid (by their employees) into their employee-retirement-accounts to open up all those other plants overseas-that are now about to make possible the elimination of the work force whose money actually made this takedown possible. That is what this takedown is all about; to open the US market to imported GM, Chrysler and Ford products, and rid themselves of their obligations to deliver on the commitments they made to their employees over many decades. Their workers played the game by one set of rules, and now after the game has been completed the rules are being changed (again) so that those that sacrificed will be left with nothing. But there's Congress and there's much more:
"Congress acts like they had no responsibility. If Congress-you see, we're the only country in the world that subsidizes outsourcing of our jobs. Other countries subsidize research and development, and they erect trade barriers to protect their basic industries. What we did was-we do not subsidize research and development, and we subsidize outsourcing. Those are other things that need to be changed.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Gregg Shotwell, one of the things that you raise in some of the articles you've written is that there's a lot of attention placed on, again, labor costs, but that the actual production workers for the Big Three, their salaries represent about ten percent of the cost of a car, while the money spent for supervisors and management represents 20 percent of the cost of a car. But we rarely get any attention on that aspect of the compensation.
GREGG SHOTWELL: No. You know, the media and Congress really look at UAW wages, and this just shows their bias. But, you know, these facts I got from the book Fat and Mean by [David] Gordon. And he points out that the United States actually has, you know, like three or four times as many supervisors and monitors as Germany or Japan, that we waste a lot more money on management.
But, you know, the actual labor costs-you know, this is another aspect, I think, that people don't understand. I understand why, but-our productivity really should justify a raise. And when I say that, in 1992-you know, they say that-they justify all this, because we're losing market share. Well, the market has gotten bigger. The pie is bigger. But General Motors is selling as many cars. And the notion that they don't like-people don't like GM cars belies the fact that they've sold more cars than Toyota. In 1992, GM had 34 percent of the US market. This is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And they produced 4.4 million cars. Now, at that time, GM's hourly employment was 265,000. In 2005, the market share had fallen about eight percent, but they had produced the same level of cars, 4.5 million, with 111,000 workers. With 154,000 workers less, they produced the same amount of cars. They lost market share, but they still produced the same number of cars. Their productivity has doubled. So this would-in normal times, when your productivity goes up, that means you deserve an annual improvement factor, a raise.
We've experienced just the opposite. The only reason that autoworkers make what seems to be a higher wage than non-union workers is that we have a cost-of-living adjustment. We won that back in 1970. But we often do not get any raise at all. And in the best years, we only get a three percent raise. But it's the cost of living that we have that is the difference between union and non-union." (1)
In a nutshell: Business and the Big Three seized this opportunity to finally put an end to their "labor-problems" by dissolving their plants in the US, so that they could shirk their legal-obligations to the unions, to their dealerships, and to the communities that depend upon what their employees and their suppliers provided toward the health and welfare of millions of people in the US. At the same time the Big Three will finally be able to freely use the import markets without having the labor costs to slow them down ~ because to the Corporatopcry nothing else matters!
Had the congress and the government not chosen to go along with this idea, none of this could be happening now. Just look at the official spin being put on everything from calling this a Christmas Gift, to blaming the workers for the problem, while omitting the real costs of manufacturing that are inflated by the fact that American workers do not have the same health protections that many of our foreign competitors provide for their workers.
The real point at issue here is the continued existence of the entire American manufacturing base, all the way down to light industry-all of which will be directly impacted by the decisions reached over the outcome of the Big Three negotiations. In reality, this shakedown is little more than a total surrender of the working people to the ownership class in this society. This "deal" will complete the Redistribution of Wealth in the United States, and the number of people that will suffer from this contrived surrender ­ is almost incalculable.
One more small point to watch for is that forty-three of the fifty States in the US are now in need of some kind of BAILOUT. The current dollar amount for that is about $100 billion, and growing every day. Please remember that part of every bailout is a "federal-ownership-stake" in whatever is supposedly receiving these monetary "gifts."
If government continues to wait the amount needed by the States will soon reach unmanageable proportions-but more important if the individual States take this money-they stand to lose their state sovereignty (their official independence from the federal government). This would mark the end of the United States, because the States themselves would no longer be voluntary members of the so-called Union. Instead (in a worst case scenario) they would become simple serfdoms within a federally-fascist bureaucracy with no rights and no actual part to play in the governance of this nation.
But since the Congress has already given up its duties regarding checks & balances, not-to-mention oversight ­ how much difference could it make that there will be just one-less place to demand answers from? Now we're just an Outlaw-stronghold among the community of nations in the world, because we do not care.
1) US Auto Giants, Workers Face Uncertain Future

Here's a list of some of the recipients so far - of this government's generosity;
contrast these against the paltry amount of the "gift" to the Big Three & the
millions of us that depend upon those jobs remaining here in the US.
Wells Fargo & Company San Francisco CA $25,000,000,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co. New York NY $25,000,000,000
Citigroup Inc. New York NY $25,000,000,000
Bank of America Corporation Charlotte NC $15,000,000,000
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. New York NY $10,000,000,000
Morgan Stanley New York NY $10,000,000,000
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. New York NY $10,000,000,000
U.S. Bancorp Minneapolis MN $6,599,000,000
Capital One Financial Corporation McLean VA $3,555,199,000
SunTrust Banks, Inc. Atlanta GA $3,500,000,000
Regions Financial Corp. Birmingham AL $3,500,000,000
BB&T Corp. Winston-Salem NC $3,133,640,000
Bank of New York Mellon Corporation New York NY $3,000,000,000
KeyCorp Cleveland OH $2,500,000,000
Comerica Inc. Dallas TX $2,250,000,000
State Street Corporation Boston MA $2,000,000,000
Marshall & Ilsley Corporation Milwaukee WI $1,715,000,000
Northern Trust Corporation Chicago IL $1,576,000,000
Zions Bancorporation Salt Lake City UT $1,400,000,000
Huntington Bancshares Columbus OH $1,398,071,000
Popular, Inc. San Juan PR $935,000,000
First Horizon National Corporation Memphis TN $866,540,000
Associated Banc-Corp Green Bay WI $525,000,000
Webster Financial Corporation Waterbury CT $400,000,000
City National Corporation Beverly Hills CA $400,000,000
TCF Financial Corporation Wayzata MN $361,172,000
South Financial Group, Inc. Greenville SC $347,000,000
Wilmington Trust Corporation Wilmington DE $330,000,000
East West Bancorp Pasadena CA $306,546,000
Sterling Financial Corporation Spokane WA $303,000,000
Valley National Bancorp Wayne NJ $300,000,000
Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc Lititz PA $300,000,000
Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. Flint MI $300,000,000
UCBH Holdings, Inc. San Francisco CA $298,737,000
Cathay General Bancorp Los Angeles CA $258,000,000
SVB Financial Group Santa Clara CA $235,000,000
Trustmark Corporation Jackson MS $215,000,000
Umpqua Holdings Corp. Portland OR $214,181,000
Washington Federal Inc. Seattle WA $200,000,000
MB Financial Inc. Chicago IL $196,000,000
First Midwest Bancorp, Inc. Itasca IL $193,000,000
First Niagara Financial Group Lockport NY $184,011,000
Pacific Capital Bancorp Santa Barbara CA $180,634,000
United Community Banks, Inc. Blairsville GA $180,000,000
Boston Private Financial Holdings, Inc. Boston MA $154,000,000
Provident Bancshares Corp. Baltimore MD $151,500,000
National Penn Bancshares, Inc. Boyertown PA $150,000,000
Western Alliance Bancorporation Las Vegas NV $140,000,000
CVB Financial Corp Ontario CA $130,000,000
Sterling Bancshares, Inc. Houston TX $125,198,000
Banner Corporation Walla Walla WA $124,000,000
Signature Bank New York NY $120,000,000
Taylor Capital Group Rosemont IL $104,823,000
Old National Bancorp Evansville IN $100,000,000
Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. Nashville TN $95,000,000
Iberiabank Corporation Lafayette LA $90,000,000
Midwest Banc Holdings, Inc. Melrose Park IL $84,784,000
Sandy Spring Bancorp, Inc. Olney MD $83,094,000
Columbia Banking System, Inc. Tacoma WA $76,898,000
TowneBank Portsmouth VA $76,458,000
Wesbanco Bank Inc. Wheeling WV $75,000,000
Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. Little Rock AR $75,000,000
Independent Bank Corporation Ionia MI $72,000,000
Virginia Commerce Bancorp Arlington VA $71,000,000
Southwest Bancorp, Inc. Stillwater OK $70,000,000
Superior Bancorp Inc. Birmingham AL $69,000,000
Nara Bancorp, Inc. Los Angeles CA $67,000,000
First Financial Holdings Inc. Charleston SC $65,000,000
Wilshire Bancorp, Inc. Los Angeles CA $62,158,000
Great Southern Bancorp Springfield MO $58,000,000
Center Financial Corporation Los Angeles CA $55,000,000
NewBridge Bancorp Greensboro NC $52,372,000
Ameris Bancorp Moultrie GA $52,000,000
The Bancorp, Inc. Wilmington DE $45,220,000
Southern Community Financial Corp. Winston-Salem NC $42,750,000
First Community Bankshares Inc. Bluefield VA $41,500,000
Capital Bank Corporation Raliegh NC $41,279,000
Heritage Commerce Corp. San Jose CA $40,000,000
Cascade Financial Corporation Everett WA $38,970,000
Eagle Bancorp, Inc. Bethesda MD $38,235,000
TIB Financial Corp Naples FL $37,000,000
First Defiance Financial Corp. Defiance OH $37,000,000
State Bancorp, Inc. Jericho NY $36,842,000
Porter Bancorp Inc. Louisville KY $35,000,000
Encore Bancshares Inc. Houston TX $34,000,000
Bank of North Carolina Thomasville NC $31,260,000
Bank of Marin Bancorp Novato CA $28,000,000
Centerstate Banks of Florida Inc. Davenport FL $27,875,000
LNB Bancorp Inc. Lorain OH $25,223,000
HF Financial Corp. Sioux Falls SD $25,000,000
Heritage Financial Corporation Olympia WA $24,000,000
Severn Bancorp, Inc. Annapolis MD $23,393,000
Blue Valley Ban Corp Overland Park KS $21,750,000
Indiana Community Bancorp Columbus IN $21,500,000
Unity Bancorp, Inc. Clinton NJ $20,649,000
Citizens South Banking Corporation Gastonia NC $20,500,000
First PacTrust Bancorp, Inc. Chula Vista CA $19,300,000
HopFed Bancorp Hopkinsville KY $18,400,000
Bank of Commerce Holdings Redding CA $17,000,000
1st FS Corporation Hendersonville NC $16,369,000
Valley Financial Corporation Roanoke VA $16,019,000
LSB Corporation North Andover MA $15,000,000
Oak Valley Bancorp Oakdale CA $13,500,000
First Community Corporation Lexington SC $11,350,000
First Litchfield Financial Corporation Litchfield CT $10,000,000
Central Bancorp, Inc. Somerville MA $10,000,000
Coastal Banking Company, Inc. Fernandina Beach FL $9,950,000
Southern Missouri Bancorp, Inc. Poplar Bluff MO $9,550,000
Broadway Financial Corporation Los Angeles CA $9,000,000
Central Federal Corporation Fairlawn OH $7,225,000
Old Line Bancshares, Inc. Bowie MD $7,000,000
Fidelity Bancorp, Inc. Pittsburgh PA $7,000,000
Pacific International Bancorp Seattle WA $6,500,000
FPB Bancorp, Inc. Port St. Lucie FL $5,800,000
Northeast Bancorp Lewiston ME $4,227,000
Manhattan Bancorp El Segundo CA $1,700,000