By Jon Rappoport

August 31, 2012


Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have done everything they can to bring more people into the US medical system. Radically changing that system has never occurred to these two clueless politicians.

Like much of America, they accept the cliches and slogans about American medicine. “It’s the best in the world.” “People are being denied treatment.” “We must take care of our citizens.”

How about this accurate slogan: “Let’s force more Americans to die in the care of doctors.”

The American healthcare system, like clockwork, causes a mind-boggling number of deaths every year.

On July 26, 2000, the US medical community received a titanic shock, when one of its most respected public-health experts, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revealed her findings on healthcare in America. Starfield was associated with the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

The Starfield study, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, came to the following conclusions:

Every year in the US there are:

12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgeries;

7,000 deaths from medication errors in hospitals;

20,000 deaths from other errors in hospitals;

80,000 deaths from infections acquired in hospitals;

106,000 deaths from FDA-approved correctly prescribed medicines.

The total of medically-caused deaths in the US every year is 225,000.


This makes the medical system the third leading cause of death in the US, behind heart disease and cancer.

The Starfield study is the most explosive revelation about modern healthcare in America ever published in the mainstream. The credentials of its author and the journal in which it appeared are, within the highest medical circles, impeccable.

Yet, on the heels of Starfield’s astonishing findings, although media reporting was extensive, it soon dwindled. No major newspaper or television network mounted an ongoing “Medicalgate” investigation. Neither the US Department of Justice nor federal health agencies undertook prolonged remedial action.

All in all, those parties who could have taken effective steps to correct this mind-boggling situation preferred to ignore it.

On December 6-7, 2009, two years before her death, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email. Here are excerpts from that interview.

What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?

The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.

In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?

The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency).

Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to [remedy] the effects of the US medical system?


Since the FDA approves every medical drug given to the American people, and certifies it as safe and effective, how can that agency remain calm about the fact that these medicines are causing 106,000 deaths per year?

Even though there will always be adverse events that cannot be anticipated, the fact is that more and more unsafe drugs are being approved for use. Many people attribute that to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is (for the past ten years or so) required to pay the FDA for reviews [of its new drugs]—which puts the FDA into a untenable position of working for the industry it is regulating. There is a large literature on this.

Aren’t your 2000 findings a severe indictment of the FDA and its standard practices?

They are an indictment of the US health care industry: insurance companies, specialty and disease-oriented medical academia, the pharmaceutical and device manufacturing industries, all of which contribute heavily to re-election campaigns of members of Congress. The problem is that we do not have a government that is free of influence of vested interests. Alas, [it] is a general problem of our society-which clearly unbalances democracy.

Can you offer an opinion about how the FDA can be so mortally wrong about so many drugs?

Yes, it cannot divest itself from vested interests. Again, [there is] a large literature about this, mostly unrecognized by the people because the industry-supported media give it no attention.

Would it be correct to say that, when your JAMA study was published in 2000, it caused a momentary stir and was thereafter ignored by the medical community and by pharmaceutical companies?

Are you sure it was a momentary stir? I still get at least one email a day asking for a reprint-ten years later! The problem is that its message is obscured by those that do not want any change in the US health care system.

Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated…The US public does not seem to recognize that inappropriate care is dangerous—more does not mean better…Some drugs are downright dangerous; they may be prescribed according to regulations but they are dangerous.

Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?

It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!

Do the 106,000 deaths from medical drugs only involve drugs prescribed to patients in hospitals, or does this statistic also cover people prescribed drugs who are not in-patients in hospitals?

I tried to include everything in my estimates. Since the commentary was written, many more dangerous drugs have been added to the marketplace.

Some comments from the interviewer:

Both presidential candidates ignore the truth about the US medical system. They argue about whose plan is better for bringing more people into this killing machine. And the major media play along.

There are reports, outside the mainstream, which conclude that far more than 225,000 people in the US die every year as a result of medical treatment. For example, see the work of Carolyn Dean, Trueman Tuck, Gary Null, Martin Feldman, Debora Rasio, Dorothy Smith.

This interview with Dr. Starfield reveals that, even when an author has unassailable credentials within the medical-research establishment, the findings can result in no changes made to the system.

Yes, many persons and organizations within the medical system contribute to the annual death totals of patients, and media silence and public ignorance are certainly major factors, but the FDA is the assigned gatekeeper, when it comes to the safety of medical drugs. The buck stops there. If those drugs the FDA is certifying as safe are killing, like clockwork, 106,000 people a year, the Agency must be held accountable. The American people must understand that.

As for the other 119,000 people killed every year as a result of hospital treatment, this horror has to be laid at the doors of those institutions. Further, to the degree that hospitals are regulated and financed by state and federal governments, the relevant health agencies assume culpability.

It is astounding, as well, that the US Department of Justice has failed to weigh in on Starfield’s findings. If 225,000 medically caused deaths per year is not a crime by the Dept. of Justice’s standards, then what is?

To my knowledge, not one person in America has been fired from a job or even censured as result of these medically caused deaths.

Dr. Starfield’s findings have been available for 12 years. She has changed the perception of the medical landscape forever. In a half-sane nation, she would be accorded a degree of recognition that would, by comparison, make the considerable list of her awards pale. And significant and swift action would have been taken to punish the perpetrators of these crimes and reform the system from its foundations.

Nutrition, the cornerstone of good health, is ignored or devalued by most physicians. Meanwhile, the FDA continues to attack nutritional supplements, even though the overall safety record of these nutrients is superb; whereas, once again, the medical drugs the FDA certifies as safe are killing 106,000 Americans per year.

Physicians are trained to pay exclusive homage to peer-reviewed published drug studies. These doctors unfailingly ignore the fact that, if medical drugs are killing a million Americans per decade, the studies on which those drugs are based must be fraudulent. In other words, the whole literature is suspect, unreliable, and impenetrable.

We are talking about crimes on the scale of holocaust and genocide. Yet, we can hold a presidential election in which neither candidate even mentions the truth. They sail on into the nominating conventions; they argue about issues on which they basically agree; they play the left-right paradigm like a harp; they practice the art of sounding sincere; they drag us further into a collectivist future in which murderous medical care will be required for all, from cradle to grave.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.



Jon Rappoport

Use this link to order Jon’s Seminar Series



Scholar Who Brought Obama Into Chicago Law School Held Top Intelligence Clearance | ExplosiveReports.Com


Scholar Who Brought Obama Into Chicago Law School Held Top Intelligence Clearance


Jurriaan Maessen
August 31, 2012

Around the time former federal judge Michael McConnell lobbied Obama into a teaching position at Chicago Law School, he held top military- and intelligence clearance, reporting directly to Presidents Reagan and Bush on the “legality of US intelligence operations.”

By his own admission, constitutional scholar Michael W. McConnell- ironically a current “Reaganite for Romney” and fierce opponent of Obamacare- lobbied to get Barack Obama to lecture at Chicago Law School- in effect launching his lecturing career at the University- which in itself turned out to be the platform from which he was catapulted into the US Senate and by extension, the Presidency.

“We had the opportunity of chatting quite a bit”, McConnell told the Deseret News in 2011. “and I knew he was planning to return to the south side of Chicago,” McConnell said. “It just seemed like a natural (fit) to connect him with the law school.”

The article goes on to say that it might sound curious for a known and very esteemed conservative constitutional scholar to handpick a young, at that time unknown liberal for a teaching position at the Chicago Law School, were it not for the fact that McConnell throughout his career “has demonstrated a propensity for gravitating toward interesting assignments and compelling individuals.”

“In a vacuum, McConnell’s interaction with Obama could seem somewhat extraordinary”, the article explains, “but playing an integral role in the ascension of a future president of the United States cannot be considered mere coincidence when placed within the greater context of McConnell’s career.”.

McConnell’s career is indeed great. Widely regarded as the preeminent constitutional scholar on the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, McConnell has successfully argued in defense of the United States constitution, most notably signing a statement in support of a constitutional amendment to ban abortion.

Speaking of the greater context mentioned, the article brings attention to McConnell’s position as one of three members of the President’s Intelligence Oversight Board (PIOB). On November 29 1988 president Ronald Reagan announced his intention to appoint Michael W. McConnell to the Oversight Board (mention of his membership of this exclusive, appointment-only oversight board by the way is completely absent from his Wikipedia page).

In his capacity of member of this particular oversight board, McConnell enjoyed top secret military clearance for the period of no less than two years. From 1988 to 1990, under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush respectively, McConnell “reported directly to the Commander in Chief”, advising the Executive Branch on the legality of US intelligence operations at home and abroad. And it seems that McConnell’s credentials were greatly appreciated, as he went on to serve as a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit from 2002 to 2009. In addition, McConnell’s name appeared on the short list of candidates for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court on two separate occasions.

An Illinois law publication (On page 33 of the May 1990 edition of Illinois Issues) mentions some of the Intelligence Oversight Board’s functions:

“(…) the board monitors government intelligence activities to ensure compliance with U.S. law and the Constitution. The board meets every other month and reports to the U.S. attorney general. Members are appointed by the president and receive expenses only.”

The publication goes on to say that “Gov. James R. Thompson is in line for a seat on President George Bush’s Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB). He will join new appointee Amos Jordan of the Center for International Strategic Studies and current men Michael W. McConnell, assistant professor at the University of Chicago’s law school, on the three-member board.”

Only one paragraph before the one mentioning McConnell in relation to the PIOB, a familiar name pops up:

Barak Obama (misspelling preserved), formerly a community organizer on Chicago’s far south side, was elected president of the Harvard Law Review by its 80 editors on February 5 (1990). Currently a resident of Somerville, Mass., Obama entered Harvard’s law school in 1988. The first African American to head the Review, he said in a February 9 PBS interview that he wants to make it a forum for liberal, conservative and minority perspectives. His future plans include the practice of law for a few years and a return to the inner city as either an organizer or a politician.”

Obama of course chose the latter. This little biography is interesting as Obama quite openly stated he is interested in practicing law only for a few years, after which he is determined to pursue a career as politician or organizer. As this quote dates from May of 1990, McConnell must have been aware that attracting Obama into Chicago Law School would only mean having him on board for a couple of years after which the bird would certainly ascend to greater heights. In reality, Obama hung around a bit longer than just a few years, combining the job with his senate position.

Most interestingly, McConnell attracted the young Barack Obama in his dual role as law scholar at the Law School and member of the President’s Intelligence Oversight Board. Around the time he successfully convinced the Law School’s former dean Douglas Baird to approach Barack Obama for a permanent teaching position, McConnell- lecturing off and on- held top military and intelligence clearance- including, we may speculate, into operations assessing individuals with future political aspirations- which after all is an integral part of the intelligence communities since the 1950s.

In 2009, Robin Mordfin tells us something regarding the details in the Chicago Law School’s Alumni Magazine:

“The future President came to the attention of the Law School when Michael McConnell, ’79, a professor at the Law School at the time who is now a federal judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, told then-Dean Baird about an impressive editor at the Harvard Law Review who was doing an excellent job editing McConnell’s submission. Baird reached out to Obama and asked him about teaching. Having already made plans to write a book on voting rights after graduation, Obama refused the offer. So Baird took a different approach and offered him a Law and Government Fellowship, which would allow him to work on his book and would perhaps lead him to develop an interest in teaching. Obama accepted the offer and began the fellowship in the fall of 1991.”

A 2008 article in the New York Times states that Obama was offered his position on little more than editing-suggestions he made on one of McConnell’s articles as published in the Harvard Law Review. The notion that mere “editing suggestions on an article” would be enough motivation for Baird and McConnell to go out of their way to bring the young lawyer on board is, on face value, absurd. The additional fact that Obama insisted on writing his book on university payroll has also raised eyebrows, especially given the fact that back then, Barack Obama was still only a young man at the start of his career. For some reason McConnell and the Chicago Law School’s Dean were eager enough to offer young Barack a Government Fellowship, allowing him to quietly continue on with his book, hoping he- as Mordfin writes, might “develop an interest in teaching.”

An unprecedented thing, from whatever angle you approach the affair. The affair becomes somewhat more understandable when we view this history in light of McConnell’s appointment to the highly exclusive President’s Intelligence Oversight Board- a position in which McConnell was authorized to investigate the most top-secret activities in American intelligence operations. Of course, McConnell was and is bound by confidentiality and cannot disclose anything classified above the level of “restricted”. The fact that he now openly, even loudly opposes the president’s constitutional violations perhaps is a sign that the Law Scholar tries to make amends for the role he played in Obama’s ascension.

Like this:

Be the first to like this.

August 31, 2012 Leave a Reply

bill and melinda gates frowndation, bill gates the eugenicist

» Gates Foundation Funds ‘Anti-Vaccine Surveillance and Alert System’ and ‘On-D emand Vaccine Delivery via Low-Cost Unmanned Aerial Vehicles’ Alex Jones’ Infowars: There’s a war on for your mind!


Gates Foundation Funds ‘Anti-Vaccine Surveillance and Alert System’ and ‘On-Demand Vaccine Delivery via Low-Cost Unmanned Aerial Vehicles’

August 30, 2012

Via: TechNet21:

An anti-vaccine surveillance and alert system
Seth Kalichman of the http://www.uconn.edu/ in the USA will establish an Internet-based global monitoring and rapid alert system for finding, analysing, and counteracting communication campaigns containing misinformation regarding vaccines to support global immunization efforts.

On-demand vaccine delivery via low-cost unmanned aerial vehicles
George Barbastathis of the Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology in the USA will lead a team to develop unmanned aerial vehicles that can be deployed by health care workers via cell phones to swiftly transport vaccines to rural locations and alleviate last-mile delivery problems and improve cost, quality, and coverage of vaccine supplies.

COMMENT: Additionally, the B&M Gates Foundation is funding plenty of other vaccine related programs (as usual), giving away their larger attempt to fight back against vaccine skeptics and push for total global saturation of vaccines, including numerous measures for inventory & distribution improvements (READ HERE):

A “bulletin board” for broadcasting vaccine supply and demand
A mobile cloud system to achieve universal vaccination
A passive solar thermal standard for vaccine storage rooms
An anti-vaccine surveillance and alert system
A geospatial optimization tool (for vaccine tracking)
Compostable vaccine packaging
Net-zero energy warehousing systems for drugs and vaccines
On-demand vaccine delivery via low-cost unmanned aerial vehicles
Phase change material freeze-prevention liner for vaccines
Profitable vaccine distribution in emerging markets
Remote monitoring of the cold chain distribution of vaccines
Single-vial system
SMS mobile technology for vaccine coverage and acceptance
Use of bar codes for vaccine introductions in poor countries
Vaccine freeze-damage assessment for improved supply systems

Tags: Government Corruption, Science, technology, Vaccines

Share this article:

Aaron Dykes loses 92 pounds! Watch the shocking transformation now! (Ad)

Civil War, Martial Law, obama the dictator scum

» Bullets, False Flags and Biological Warfare: What Is the US Government Planning? Alex Jones’ Infowars : There’s a war on for your mind!


Bullets, False Flags and Biological Warfare: What Is the US Government Planning?

Susanne Posel
August 30, 2012

The Pacific Southwest Region of the US Forest Service has solicited ammunition that is supposedly needed for target practice. In this instance, the amounts of hollow point bullets, 12 gauge rifle slugs, and other accessories are smaller than the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has requested through other federal agencies.

DHS previously ordered more than 63,000,000 rounds of .40 S&W jacketed hollow point bullets (JHP).

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published a solicitation for 16,000 rounds of .40 S&W JHP.

The Social Security Office has also made a solicitation for 174,000 rounds of .357 hollow point bullets.

Earlier this month, DHS requested 700 pounds of high density ammonium nitrate and 700 pounds of A-5 Flake RDX explosives. These ingredients are known to be very high powered explosives.

When creating a “makeshift terrorist bomb” ammonium nitrate is an integral ingredient. The DHS was given oversight of procurement of ammonium nitrate after Congress requested they “regulate the sale and transfer of ammonium nitrate by an ammonium nitrate facility…to prevent the misappropriation or use of ammonium nitrate in an act of terrorism.”

The Ammonium Nitrate Security Program focuses on preventing a terrorist attack by use of ammonium nitrate in a home-made bomb by requiring that its sale and those that purchase it be registered with the DHS. Purchasers are screened against the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB).

While DHS arms itself for alleged target practice, they are releasing a mystery bacteria into the Boston subway system to “test” sensors that detect biological agents in a supposed terror drill.

In a DHS press release, they state: “A rapid alert from a detection system can locate and identify these materials and provide for immediate and appropriate response to protect people and contain the hazard.”

This scheme has been planned since May of this year when it was announced that the bacteria B-subtilis was to be released in heavily populated and semi-contained areas like underground train stations; however this bacteria “has no adverse health effects for low exposure in healthy people.”

The plan concerning a false flag attack released the warning of an anonymous DHS informant is explained as a staged assignation attempt on Obama that will be linked to a white supremacist group that will be used to incite black and Hispanic Americans into starting riots all across the nation.

In this scenario a race war will be the situation needed to implement martial law effectively locking down the US, US Army control of the urban cities, erecting DHS checkpoints on all major points of travel, severe restrictions on travel for all citizens and the suspension of elections to ensure that Obama remain seated as the President of the US.

The DHS informant stated: “The DHS is actively preparing for massive social unrest inside the United States. He then corrected himself, stating that ‘a civil war’ is the more appropriate term. Certain elements of the government are not only expecting and preparing for it, they are actually facilitating it.”

In the end, “the whole purpose is to keep Obama in office for another term, no matter how unpopular he is, as he is not finished changing our country from a Constitutional Republic.”

Now the DHS informant is saying that the “final authorization was reportedly given to DHS directly from the White House” on the “plan, or whatever specific operation that was devised, being put into motion.”

There have been “several different plans or scenarios developed, ready to be implemented at a moment’s notice”; however they are so diverse that they require specified timing to be successful.

The global Elite are monitoring the political landscape, the poll numbers, the general public’s psychological demeanor and waiting for the right moment to make Obama a martyr at the hands of white supremacists in order to finally destroy the 2nd Amendment while classifying certain types as “fringe” who will be gone after by the federal governmental agencies allocated to round up political and anti-US government citizens.

By framing US veterans , certain talk-show hosts and gun owners in recent shootings , they are enacting their scheme by these evidences.

Framing US veterans and current service men and women as white supremacists who support the US constitution is running rampant within the US Armed Forces. With the assistance of the FBI-sponsored Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League, training is being given to help soldiers’ spot extremists within their ranks. In a military version of DHS civilian See Something, Say Something campaign that turns citizens into government spies, the federal government is using and enacting the Nazi model of Fascist takeover.

The psychiatric community in collaboration with pharmaceutical corporations has come forth to call support for the 2nd Amendment as a mental disorder .

Globalist puppets like Daniel Webster, co-director of the anti-firearm John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, asserts that “gun ownership—a precursor to gun violence—can spread ‘much like an infectious disease” and wants healthcare professionals to have influence over whether or not American citizens are legally allowed to possess firearms. Webster would like to see Obamacare have ultimate control of the classification of mental states with regard to purchasing and obtaining FBI clearance for a gun.

A staged “event” will be carried out within the domestic US. While many outlets are purveying false information to confuse the issue, the upper levels of the DHS had “a major slip up” and this information was released to the informant.

It has been

that Obama would save his political image if he were to have his own Oklahoma City Bombing.

The US government, under the global Elite’s control, is:

• Arming federal agencies
• Amassing fertilizer bomb ingredients
• Releasing bacteria under the guise of practicing for a terror attack
• Framing US veterans to be involuntarily committed to psychiatric hospitals
• Using psychiatric hospitals in lieu of infinite detention
• Planning a false flag assassination attempt on Obama to support white supremacists are threats
• Lockdown America under declaration of martial law

The dots connect in an obvious way when the plans are laid out in plain sight. Their success depends on your continued slumber.


Susanne Posel’s website is Occupy Corporatism.

Tags: big brother, Domestic News, Police state

Share this article:

Aaron Dykes loses 92 pounds! Watch the shocking transformation now! (Ad)


» Operation Mockingbird 2012: NYT Writer Leaked Story Critical of Obama to CIA Alex Jones’ Infowars: Th ere’s a war on for your mind!


Operation Mockingbird 2012: NYT Writer Leaked Story Critical of Obama to CIA

Asked spooks to delete his emails after reading them; Paper claims correspondence was ‘mistake’

Steve Watson
Aug 30, 2012

Emails obtained by advocacy group Judicial Watch have exposed the fact that a senior New York Times employee, who covers national security for the newspaper, provided the CIA with advanced copies of an article another writer was preparing that was somewhat critical of the White House over the upcoming Hollywood film about the killing of Osama bin Laden.

The reporter, Mark Mazzetti, forwarded an advance copy of a Maureen Dowd column to a CIA spokesperson a full two days before it was set to be published. The article, published August 7th 2011, discussed the upcoming Kathryn Bigelow-Mark Boal film “Zero Dark Thirty”, and criticized the Obama administration for having “outsourced the job of manning up the president’s image to Hollywood.”

Mazzetti’s emails (below) show that he sent the piece to the CIA’s Marie Harf, on August 5th 2011, writing: “this didn’t come from me… and please delete after you read. See, nothing to worry about!”


Harf had previously emailed Mazzetti asking “any word?” Mazzetti had replied, “Going to see a version before it gets filed. My sense is there is a very brief mention at the very bottom of column about CIA ceremony, but that Boal also got high level access at the Pentagon.”


Judicial Watch obtained the document via the Freedom of Information Act. The full email can be viewed here.

In response to the revelations, New York Times Managing Editor Dean Baquet told POLITICO Tuesday that it was “much ado about nothing”. However, later in the day, Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy sent a further email, claiming that Mazzetti had made “a mistake”:

“Last August, Maureen Dowd asked Mark Mazzetti to help check a fact for her column. In the course of doing so, he sent the entire column to a CIA spokeswoman shortly before her deadline. He did this without the knowledge of Ms. Dowd. This action was a mistake that is not consistent with New York Times standards.” Murphy wrote.

Readers will have a hard time believing this explanation. There was clearly a dialogue between Mazzetti and the CIA concerning the article. His request for correspondence to be deleted after reading, clearly indicates that he knew full well who he was sending the article to and that he could be landed in trouble if anyone discovered what he was doing.

It is blatantly clear that the CIA was leaning on Mazzetti, pressing him for information on what the Times was going to report, and that Mazzetti provided it. The fact that the CIA read Dowd’s column before her own editors did has severe consequences as far as freedom of the press goes, and should set alarm bells ringing.

In a piece in the London Guardian, Glen Greenwald cogently notes:

This exchange, by itself, is remarkably revealing: of the standard role played by establishment journalists and the corruption that pervades it. Here we have a New York Times reporter who covers the CIA colluding with its spokesperson to plan for the fallout from the reporting by his own newspaper (“nothing to worry about”). Beyond this, that a New York Times journalist – ostensibly devoted to bringing transparency to government institutions – is pleading with the CIA spokesperson, of all people, to conceal his actions and to delete the evidence of collusion is so richly symbolic.

The relationship between the New York Times and the US government is, as usual, anything but adversarial. Indeed, these emails read like the interactions between a PR representative and his client as they plan in anticipation of a possible crisis.

Regarding the Times’ initial response that it could not go into detail on the matter owing to national security, Greenwald notes:

…look at how the New York Times mimics the CIA even in terms of how the newspaper’s employees speak…This is what the CIA reflexively does: insists that, even when it comes to allegations that they have engaged in serious wrongdoing, you (and even courts) cannot know what the agency is doing because it is an “intelligence matter”.

Of course, the bigger picture behind this story is that while the Obama administration cited national security as a means of keeping details of the alleged Bin Laden raid under wraps, it simultaneously leaked supposedly classified security information to hollywood filmmakers, blatantly for propaganda purposes, in order to glorify the president on the big screen.

The entire scripted piece may fall flat on it’s face, however, given that one of the Navy Seals involved in the raid now says that Bin Laden, if you can believe he was present at all, was already dead from crossfire when the elite soldiers reached him. This description completely contradicts the official line that he was shot in the head after refusing to surrender and reaching for a weapon.

The New York Times has a long history of acting subserviently to the powers that be, rather than holding them to account.

Only last week we reported on the fact that the Times demonstratively scrubbed a passage in an article which revealed that the CIA was helping funnel arms to rebel groups that have aligned themselves with Al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria.

Just last month, it was revealed that the Times, as a matter of course, allows the Obama administration control over quotes from public officials that it can and cannot publish.

It was The New York Times that was at the forefront of the dissemination of what turned out to be completely false intelligence pertaining to the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Reporting that contributed to almost a decade of war and the deaths of thousands, if not millions of innocent Iraqi people.

It was the New York Times that first learned of the NSA’s illegal wiretapping program aimed at innocent Americans in 2004. The paper sat on the story for a year after it was instructed to do so by the White House, in order not to affect the outcome of the election.

The Times routinely allows the CIA to vet the details it plans to publish from Wikileaks’ obtained material.

The Times obediently followed orders to conceal the identity of CIA spy Raymond Davis, when he was arrested by Pakistan. When Obama lied to the nation and described Davis as a US diplomat, the NYT printed his words as the truth, without question.

Glenn Greenwald again:

And that’s all independent of the chronic practice of the NYT to permit government officials to hide behind anonymity in order to disseminate government propaganda – or even to smear journalists as al-Qaida sympathizers for reporting critically on government actions – even when granting such anonymity violates its own publicly announced policies.

What all of this behavior from the NYT has in common is clear: it demonstrates the extent to which it institutionally collaborates with and serves the interests of the nation’s most powerful factions, rather than act as an adversarial check on them. When he talks to the CIA spokesperson, Mazzetti sounds as if he’s talking to a close colleague working together on a joint project.

It sounds that way because that’s what it is.

The Times was the vital cog in the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird, a secret campaign conceived in the 1950s to influence media output. Many believe, with some justification as we have seen, that Mockingbird continues to this day.

In a groundbreaking expose entitled ‘The CIA and the Media’, penned in 1977 for Rolling Stone, Carl Bernstein wrote:

The New York Times — The Agency’s relationship with the Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. [It was] general Times policy … to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible.

… CIA officials cite two reasons why the Agency’s working relationship with the Times was closer and more extensive than with any other paper: the fact that the Times maintained the largest foreign news operation in American daily journalism; and the close personal ties between the men who ran both institutions … .

Referring to Frank Wisner, the head of the Directorate of Plans of the CIA throughout the ’50s, writer Deborah Davis wrote in her 1979 biography of Washington Post owner, Katharine Graham:

By the early 1950s, Wisner ‘owned’ respected members of The New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles. Wisner referred to this apparatus as a “Mighty Wurlitzer”, referencing the theater organ capable of controlling diverse pipes, instruments, and sound effects from a central console.

Of course, it is not only the NYT that lies in bed with US intelligence. Sadly most of the nation’s mainstream media is now almost wholly controlled by the trifecta of political, military and intelligence elites.


Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.

Tags: Mainstream Media

Share this article:

Aaron Dykes loses 92 pounds! Watch the shocking transformation now! (Ad)


Why Does The U.S. Government Treat Military Veterans Like Human Garbage?


Why Does The U.S. Government Treat Military Veterans Like Human Garbage?

The way that the U.S. government treats military veterans is absolutely disgraceful. Men and women that have given everything for this nation are literally being treated like human garbage by their own government. After watching how vets are treated, it is absolutely amazing that anyone is still volunteering to be a part of the military. We pay those in the military like crap, we keep sending our best soldiers back to Afghanistan and Iraq again and again, we don’t equip them properly, military suicides are at a record pace, hundreds of thousands of applications for veteran benefits are hopelessly backlogged, homelessness and unemployment among vets is much higher than for the general population, the condition of most VA hospitals is an absolute disgrace, and to top everything off now the Obama administration has started labeling military veterans as “potential terrorists”. What you are about to read should make you very angry. The abuse, neglect and outright disrespect that military vets receive from their own government is absolutely shocking. We owe these men and women a great debt for the service that they have performed for our nation, but instead the federal government kicks them to the curb and treats them with no honor whatsoever. The way a nation treats military vets says a lot about the character of that nation, and right now the way that America treats veterans says that we have the character of a steaming pile of manure.

Multiple Tours Of Duty

The U.S. military just keeps sending young men and women back to Iraq and Afghanistan over and over again without any regard for what the consequences might be.

If you can believe it, an astounding 20 percent of all active duty soldiers in the U.S. Army are on at least their third tour of duty.

Many others have done four tours of duty or more.

The following is from a recent Christian Science Monitor article….

Some 107,000 Army soldiers have been deployed to war three or more times since 2001, or some 20 percent of the active-duty force. More than 50,000 of those currently in uniform have completed four or more combat tours, Army figures indicate.

The physical, mental and emotional toll of these multiple tours of duty should not be underestimated. It is absolutely unprecedented in U.S. history for so many men to be sent back into frequent combat situations so repeatedly. The price of this foolishness could potentially be felt throughout our society for decades to come.

Record Number Of Suicides

The fact that many of our soldiers are spending way too much time in active war zones is a big reason why military suicides are at a record pace so far in 2012.

The stress of combat duty builds up over time. The physical, mental and emotional fatigue that comes with serving in combat is immense. Many soldiers see their marriages end, and others are left with severe physical and mental disabilities.

At some point many serving in the military cannot take it anymore and they commit suicide.

During the month of July, there were 56 suicides in the U.S. military in just 31 days.

That is absolutely disgraceful, but very little is being done about the underlying causes of these suicides.

Paying To Get Your Medal?

Many U.S. soldiers return home from war only to find that they are being billed by their own government.

One soldier even discovered that he was going to have to pay a 21 dollar shipping fee to get his Purple Heart. The following is from the Huffington Post….

War comes with an incalculable human cost. And apparently a shipping fee of about $21.

Retired Sgt. Major Rob Dickerson says that’s the price he was forced to pay when his Purple Heart — the medal issued to soldiers wounded in action — arrived at his door, C.O.D.

Instead of being awarded the military honor in a formal ceremony, the vet with 29 years in the service was handed his award, and a shipping invoice, by a FedEx deliveryman outside his Sioux Falls, S.D., home.

Endless Waiting For Veteran Benefits

You would think that soldiers returning from war should quickly and easily be able to apply for the veteran benefits that they are owed.

Unfortunately, the complete opposite is the case.

As I have written about previously, applying for veteran benefits is extremely complicated, and VA employees are actually paid bonuses for denying claims….

The truth is that we have made it extremely difficult for our military veterans to claim the benefits that we have promised them. Vets have to fill out an absurdly complicated 23 page application and if they make even one small mistake their applications can be stonewalled for years. The U.S. Veterans Administration actually has a policy under which they pay large bonuses to employees that meet certain application processing goals. This explains why approximately 70% of the claims submitted to the Veterans Administration are refused or sent back to be redone. In fact, using the Freedom of Information Act, one local NBC station was able to learn that $250,000 was paid in bonuses to VA employees who work inside the Poff Federal Building in Roanoke, Virginia in just one year alone.

Not only that, but a report issued by the VA’s Office of Inspector General said the department issued millions of dollars in performance awards to employees nationwide over a two year period in 2007 and 2008.

According to CNN, one retired VA official was singled out for improperly approving a very large number of bonuses and the report said that she “acted as if she was given a blank checkbook to write unlimited monetary awards.”

Even if you do fill out your paperwork correctly, at best you are going to be waiting many months to find out if your claim is approved or not….

The average claim adjudication wait time is as few as 183 days or as many as 300, depending on who you ask. Claims processed in Oakland, Calif., the second-worst backlogged region in the nation according to a May Inspector General’s report, take nearly a year to get approved or denied. The backlog worsened in 2010 when VA Secretary Eric Shinseki added a handful of new medical conditions to the list of ailments presumed connected with exposure to the Vietnam-era herbicide Agent Orange, a move that was lauded by veterans’ groups. But this month the VA officials announced they were nearing the end of processing about 230,000 retroactive Agent Orange claims. And the majority of the nearly 920,000 total claims still pending before the department remain overdue.

Many veterans feel that they would be better off sending their documents into a black hole than sending them to the VA. The level of negligence at some VA offices is absolutely shocking….

Back in 2009, a VA office in Detroit turned in 16,000 unprocessed mail and 717 unprocessed documents that were stuck in storage and hadn’t even been looked at. Many other documents were found in shredding bins, not just in one office but in several regional offices.

The truth is that thousands upon thousands of vets that legitimately should be getting benefits are having their claims denied. Just check out the following example from a recent Veterans Today article….

In one case, we found a veteran with 40 percent of his brain removed found to be healthy and employable. He was also missing his right arm. The physician who examined him over looked the arm and failed to note the cognitive degeneration the traumatic brain injury had caused.

What in the world is wrong with us?

How can we treat our vets this way?

Horrific Economic Problems

The unemployment rate for veterans is much higher than the overall rate of unemployment, and military veterans are losing their homes at a much faster rate than the general population as well.

According to Veterans Today, a shockingly high percentage of military families have been losing their homes since 2008….

Figures lie, some groups are counted, some are not. But the lowest figures available have one in three families, this includes active duty serving overseas, reservists and National Guard and veterans losing their homes since 2008.

Two thirds of those are now “split up” with at least one member listed as “homeless.” Almost all are, according to official figures, “living in poverty.”

200,000 Military Veterans Sleeping On The Streets Of America

The U.S. government does not prepare our vets to come back and reintegrate into society. They just kind of kick them to the curb and hope that they can find jobs.

Sadly, homeless vets will be sleeping the streets of every major U.S. city tonight. The following is from a recent article in the Los Angeles Times….

According to the latest count by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, the number of homeless individuals in Los Angeles County dropped by 3% between 2009 and 2011. The numbers declined for all groups except one: veterans. There were 9,000 homeless veterans here in 2011, a 24% increase over 2009. And the number of chronically homeless veterans — individuals who are homeless because of severe mental disabilities — increased by more than 100%, from 1,243 to 2,520.

And more are coming. California’s Department of Veterans Affairs estimated in 2009 that 28,000 vets would return from Iraq and Afghanistan per year during this administration.

Overall, it is estimated that 200,000 military veterans will be sleeping on the streets of America tonight.

Say a prayer for them because they need it.

The Shocking Condition Of VA Hospitals

When wounded soldiers come home from the battlefield the U.S. government has a responsibility to take care of them properly.

Unfortunately, the truth is that many facilities for veterans are absolute hellholes. The following is from a recent article in the Washington Post….

Behind the door of Army Spec. Jeremy Duncan’s room, part of the wall is torn and hangs in the air, weighted down with black mold. When the wounded combat engineer stands in his shower and looks up, he can see the bathtub on the floor above through a rotted hole. The entire building, constructed between the world wars, often smells like greasy carry-out. Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses.

This is the world of Building 18, not the kind of place where Duncan expected to recover when he was evacuated to Walter Reed Army Medical Center from Iraq last February with a broken neck and a shredded left ear, nearly dead from blood loss.

How in the world can we do this to our vets?

Today, it takes military vets an average of seven months to get an appointment at a VA facility.

They are not getting the care that they need, and it would be a tremendous understatement to say that the condition of many VA facilities is absolutely horrendous.

A while back, ABC News did an in-depth investigation of conditions at VA facilities across the United States. What ABC News found was absolutely shocking. The following are just a few of the things that they discovered during the course of their investigation…..

*Bathrooms filthy with what appeared to be human excrement

*Dirty linens from some patients mixed in with clean supplies

*Examining tables that had dried blood and medications still on them

*Equipment used to sterilize surgical instruments that had broken down

*Some patients were forced to beg for food and water

*Veterans that were neglected so badly that they developed horrific bedsores and dangerous infections

This is the kind of thing you would expect in a third world country, not the United States of America.

Funerals And “End Of Life Counseling”

The federal government does not seem to have much respect for veterans at the end of their lives either.

You would think that vets should be able to have the funeral services of their own choosing, but in some areas of the country the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has been caught banning the words “God” and “Jesus” during funeral services for veterans.

Perhaps instead of spending their time poking their noses into funeral services they should spend their time processing some of those backlogged claims for veteran benefits.

And the “end of life counseling” that many veterans are receiving is extremely disrespectful as well. The following is from an article in the Wall Street Journal that described the kind of “end of life counseling” that the federal government provides veterans….

“Your Life, Your Choices” presents end-of-life choices in a way aimed at steering users toward predetermined conclusions, much like a political “push poll.” For example, a worksheet on page 21 lists various scenarios and asks users to then decide whether their own life would be “not worth living.”

The circumstances listed include ones common among the elderly and disabled: living in a nursing home, being in a wheelchair and not being able to “shake the blues.” There is a section which provocatively asks, “Have you ever heard anyone say, ‘If I’m a vegetable, pull the plug’?” There also are guilt-inducing scenarios such as “I can no longer contribute to my family’s well being,” “I am a severe financial burden on my family” and that the vet’s situation “causes severe emotional burden for my family.”

When the government can steer vulnerable individuals to conclude for themselves that life is not worth living, who needs a death panel?

The Obama Administration Has Labeled Military Veterans As “Potential Terrorists”

On top of everything else, the Department of Homeland Security has labeled military veterans as potential terrorists.

The following is a quote from a DHS report entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment“….

The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

Sadly, this kind of philosophy is not just reflected in policy papers. Now we are actually starting to see military veterans rounded up and shipped off to mental institutions for “evaluation” if they express views that the government does not like.

For example, you have probably already heard about the Brandon Raub case by now. Brandon Raub is a 26-year-old military veteran who was forcibly detained by the local police, the FBI and the Secret Service on August 16th. He was shipped off to a psychiatric facility because of song lyrics and political views that he had posted on his Facebook page.

Thankfully, the Rutherford Institute agreed to defend him and he was released a few days ago.

But if he had not had a really good lawyer he could have been rotting in a mental institution for years.

Unfortunately this does not appear to be an isolated incident.

Just check out the following example from a recent article by Paul Joseph Watson….

Radio host Steve Quayle was sent news of an Army combat veteran and Purple Heart recipient in west central Ohio who was the victim of a police raid on the evening of August 22nd during which Miami County Ohio Sheriff’s deputies executed a search warrant to seize the man’s firearms for the “safety of the defendant and the general public,” according to the warrant.

The veteran, who is currently unnamed, had his guns taken because he was adjudged to be mentally incompetent, despite the fact that his previous VA psychiatric evaluations were all clear, he is not on medication, and he had no criminal record. The man appears to be a respected member of the community – he works for a Christian company and his father is a police officer and a pastor.

Once a military vet is determined to be “mentally ill”, he or she can be rounded up by the authorities at any time.

And tons of vets are being labeled as mentally ill these days. In fact, one study discovered that approximately one-third of all military veterans returning from Afghanistan and Iraq were officially determined to be mentally ill.

It is very dangerous to be a military veteran these days.

So why should anyone volunteer to be in the military at this point?

It has become abundantly clear that the federal government is not on the side of veterans.

The federal government wants lots of warm bodies to throw into battle, but when those bodies get broken the government is not there to pick up the pieces.

How we treat our veterans is a national disgrace.

Wake up America.






By Jon Rappoport


A new study from the Stockholm International Water Institute claims the planet’s fresh water supply is buckling under the weight of population growth. In 35 years, we’ll all be vegetarians or we’ll go under. No more cow meat for you, Bubba. Raising cows uses too much water. Reach for the soy cakes.

These projections are being trumpeted by the same people who assure us the world is heating up so fast that, if we want to avoid frying, we’d better give Al Gore another Nobel Prize and worship at his feet on the tarmac, as he jets off, spewing toxic fuel behind him, to address another inconvenient conference.

The radical environmentalist stance is: cows are out as human food; find your protein elsewhere. Better yet, eat no flesh at all.

Fully intending to sidestep an endless debate about which of ten thousand diets are best for the human species, I would merely point out that, when humans enter the zone of protein malnutrition, they function badly and they weaken. Their thought processes blur. This suits many governments and elites to a T. Dictators want debilitated subjects. (I would also suggest that most soy products, when consumed in extreme amounts, produce toxicity.)

But the answer to the planetary water problem is staring us in the face: desalination. Turn sea water into fresh water for drinking and irrigation.

In fact, this holy grail of research isn’t a distant dream. As of 2009, the International Desalination Association stated there were 14,000 desalination plants operating all over the globe.

There are more than a dozen technologies for water conversion, including multistage flash, multiple-effect distillation, vapor compression, reverse osmosis, solar desal, and seawater greenhouse. In other words, people know how to convert sea water to drinking water. And new methods are coming online every year.

The problem begins when multiple government agencies get into the act with task forces, reviews, press conferences, committee appointments, more press conferences, drawn-out requests for information, hearings, and further press conferences.

Every petty bureaucrat everywhere has to be allowed to get his/her two cents in, to justify position and salary. Preferably the two cents are spent before cameras, after suitable time with a make-up artist.

This madness is only matched by corporate bunglers and liars, who seek to build desalination plants in typical corner-cutting fashion.

In Carlsbad, California, the Poseidon Corporation, the Coastal Commission, public utilities, and various environmental groups have been going at each other for a decade. It’s hard to tell who is more incompetent. The overriding agenda seems to be: “Listen to me. I want to talk.” And this is the just the run-up to deciding whether to build a desalination plant, in order to relieve the growing state water shortage. Untold millions of words have been spoken and written, and a shovel has yet to break ground.

A reasonable person can isolate the key desalination issues in about an hour. How much sea life will be killed in the intake pipes that bring ocean water to the factory? How will the concentrated toxic brine, after processing, be disposed of? How much energy is required to make fresh water and what will it cost, per cubic foot? Who will buy the fresh water, and at what price? How will the water be shipped to customers?

A real leader could command the warring groups to answer these questions truthfully in a timely fashion, while keeping their mouths shut and foregoing braying press conferences.

Of course there are people with agendas who don’t want to solve the problem. For example, certain environmentalists long for the fresh water supply of the planet to run out, to prove we humans are horrible creatures who don’t deserve to share Mother Earth with zebras and goats and scorpions.

They would be willing to sacrifice a billion or two thirsty people to make their point. If we can’t survive on roots and tubers and live naked in trees, we should be dead-ended as a species.

Then there are governments who, on “principle,” deny the right of any evil corporation to convert sea water. Water should be free, which is to say, paid for by taxes. So it isn’t free at all, but it appears to be a government service donated for humane objectives. The government needs its PR face time and press conferences, too.

If desalination approaches the point of threatening to solve the planetary water problem, the United Nations will undoubtedly present a plan that insists on a share-and-care approach. For every cubic foot of water converted in California and shipped to in-state customers, a cubic foot must be delivered to sub-Saharan Africa, at an outrageous price, which will be subsidized by the bankrupt California government. Otherwise, shut down every desalination plant in the state. A round of press conferences will explain this thinking.

Public utilities have their own agenda. They would prefer water-conversion plants utilize electricity from already existing facilities. They want in on the action.

And of course, to the degree that the federal government cares about desalination as a solution, it will want to create its own agency to oversee a national program, whose m.o. will be: no bureaucratic idiot or piece of red tape or budget dollar left behind.

On the international front, the IMF will have its say (and its press conferences). Its strategy is: make loans to Third World countries, wait for the countries to default on their repayments, move in, initiate a bailout, on the condition that public utilities must be sold to multinational corporations, who in turn will jack up the price of electricity, gas, and water and drive populations deeper into poverty. These corporate giants will consider investing in desalination only if their profit margins are through the roof. Currently, desalination costs don’t yield such profits.

Finally, dyed-in-the-wool heavy-hitter Globalists, who back the most extreme environmental groups, don’t want desalination at all. It runs counter to their agenda of sowing chaos on a grand scale and then coming in behind that to build their new world. They don’t want the water to flow. They prefer dry ashes, out of which their fascist management system will rise, to run planet Earth.

One small and simple solution to all these roadblocks might be enacted in a state like Texas. An honest start-up company builds a small desalination plant, a pilot project, a showcase, to prove how well and quickly water conversion can go online and succeed. From inception, ten thousand heavily armed citizens surround the plant and defend it against all incursions.

The tag-line? Decentralize Power.

Now, those press conferences I would show up for.

We have the water. We have the technology. We have the solution. Don’t believe the prophets of doom. It turns out they want doom.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.



Jon Rappoport

Use this link to order Jon’s Seminar Series



Prison Planet.com » Whispers on Wall Street: Major Financial House Is Going to Implode… Could I t Be Morgan Stanley? » Print


Prison Planet.com » Whispers on Wall Street: Major Financial House Is Going to Implode… Could It Be Morgan Stanley?

Posted By admin On August 28, 2012 @ 7:57 am In Money Watch |

Mac Slavo
SHTFplan.com [1]
Aug 28, 2012

Before the collapse of mega behemoth Bear Stearns there were rumors that a major Wall Street firm had bitten off more than it could chew. Mainstream media, for the most part, completely ignored the rumors, with some financial experts like CNBC’s premier Wall Street insider Jim Cramer literally screaming at viewers on the March 11, 2008 airing of Mad Money in which he vehemently denied any problems saying that the company was “fine.”

Just a few days later Bear Stearns collapsed into heap of rubble and was offered up for sale at just $2 a share to JP Morgan Chase. This incident is widely believed to have been the catalyst that kicked off what we now refer to as the sub prime mortgage collapse.

In the last few months we’ve started receiving signals similar to what contrarian observers were seeing prior to the Bear Stearns collapse.

Big money flows out of financial stocks by key financiers like George Soros and John Paulson were reported just last week [2] and tens of billions of dollars have been withdrawn from the European banking system since Spring. The government for its part, has taken steps to lock down the banking system so that not only cancustomers no longer withdraw funds from money market accounts in the middle of a panic [3], but a recent federal court case set a new precedent that has essentially given the go ahead for banks and investment firms to use segregated customer deposit accounts to engage in highly risky trading strategies [4] without the threat of ever being prosecuted.

Now, a report from analysis firm [5]Beacon Equity Research suggests that there is an unusually high amount of chatter on Wall Street surrounding the possibility of another major financial collapse in the making. When the Department of Homeland Security or other intelligence services hear chatter they often raise the terror alert level, deploy federal SWAT teams and go on complete lock-down.

Thus, we should consider this latest piece of intel from those with their fingers on the pulse of Wall Street as a potential game changer:

With the stock price of Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) inches from its Armageddon lows of Oct. 2008, whispers of the imminent overnight collapse of this U.S. broker-dealer begin to surface. Client funds, again, are at risk.

“I’m hearing rumors that another major financial house is going to implode,” says TruNews host Rick Wiles. In fact, the name I’ve been given is Morgan Stanley . . .

“It’s going to be put on the sacrificial alter by the financial elite.”

Beyond the evidence of a teetering stock price—Morgan Stanley’s troubles may never go away—leading to bankruptcy, if traders can glean anything from the financial activities of front-running insider George Soros, the man who warned in Jun. 2010 that the global financial crisis has entered “act II.”

Adding to the speculation of a Morgan Stanley collapse, Bloomberg coincidentally pens an article on Aug. 23—the following day of the TruNews broadcast—in which the author Bradley Keoun recounts the dark days of Morgan Stanley at the height of act I of the financial crisis in 2008.

“At the peak of Morgan Stanley’s Fed borrowings, on Sept. 29, 2008, the firm reported that liquidity was ‘strong,’ without mentioning how dependent its cash stores had become on the government lifeline. . .” states Keoun.

But here’s where strong advice from Trends Research Institute founder Gerald Celente and former commodities broker Ann Barnhardt should be heeded. Both consumer-friendly analysts implore investors and savers, alike, to withdraw from the financial system, warning that allocated brokerage accounts are not truly allocated.

Regulators were asleep at the switch in the cases of MF Global and PFG Best, both filing bankruptcy post 2008, taking customer funds with them to the financial grave. Why not Morgan Stanley?

“They don’t give you the information to be able to decipher whether they have changed anything,” adds Hurwich.

Why an establishment cheerleader such as Michael Bloomberg would allow an article which serves to remind investors of Morgan Stanley’s financial problems at this time may lend some credence to Rick Wile’s sources, who hear chatter about the impending doom of Morgan Stanley.

The timing of the Bloomberg article is no coincidence. Michael Bloomberg is only doing his part for the global banking cartel by tipping off that Morgan Stanley is ready for the “sacrificial alter.” Get your money out.

Source: Beacon Equity [5]
Via: Woodpile Report [6], Steve Quayle [7]

We can make predictions or forecasts based on rumors and news, and often times we’ll be berated for acting to protect ourselves based on this information. Often, even rumors and chatter have been responsible for driving a particular stock or market up or down, so the very news itself, whether true or not, may set the ball in motion.

But, the fact of the matter is that neither the SEC nor Ben Bernanke nor Tim Geithner nor the White House nor mainstream financial pundits nor Wall Street insiders will ever tell us ahead of time that billions of dollars of our wealth is about to be wiped out.

We will only find out after the fact.

You’ve now heard the rumor. You’ve been following the news. The decision is in your hands.


Prison Planet.com » The Western Onslaught Against International Law » Print


Prison Planet.com » The Western Onslaught Against International Law »

Paul Craig Roberts
Aug 28, 2012

A new film [1], “Compliance,” examines “the human desire to follow and obey authority.” Liberal institutions, such as the media, universities, federal courts, and human rights organizations, which have traditionally functioned as checks on the blind obedience to authority, have in our day gone over to power’s side. The subversion of these institutions has transformed them from checks on power into servants of power. The result is the transformation of culture from the rule of law to unaccountable authority resting on power maintained by propaganda.

Propaganda is important in the inculcation of trust in authority.The Pussy Riot case shows the power of Washington’s propaganda even inside Russia itself and reveals that Washington’s propaganda has suborned important human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Chatham House, and Amnesty International.

Pussy Riot is described in the western media as a punk rock group, but seems in fact to be a group known as Voina (War) that performs lewd or scandalous unannounced public performances such as the one in the Russian cathedral, a sexual orgy in a museum, and events such as this [2] and also this [3].

Three of the cathedral performers were apprehended, indicted, tried, convicted of breaking a statutory law, and given two-year prison sentences. The Voice of Russia recently broadcast a discussion of the case from its London studio. Representatives from Human Rights Watch and Chatham House argued that the case was really a free speech case and that the women were political prisoners for criticizing Russian President Putin.

This claim was disingenuous. In the blasphemous performance in the Russian cathedral, Putin was not mentioned. The references to Putin were added to the video posted on the Internet after the event in order to turn a crime into a political protest.

The human rights representatives also argued that the women’s conviction could only happen in Putin’s Russia. However, the program host pointed out that in fact most European countries have similar laws as Russia’s and that a number of European offenders have been arrested and punished even more severely. Indeed, I recently read a news report from Germany that a copycat group of women had staged a similar protest in support of Pussy Riot and had been arrested. An analysis of these issues is available here [4].

The human rights representatives seemed to believe that Putin had failed the democratic test by failing to stop the prosecution. But a country either has the rule of law or doesn’t have the rule of law. If Putin overrides the law, it means Putin is the law.

Whether Washington had a hand in the Pussy Riot event via the Russian protest groups it funds, Hitlery Clinton was quick to make propaganda. Free expression was threatened in Russia, she said.

Washington used the Pussy Riot case to pay Putin back for opposing Washington’s destruction of Syria. The overlooked legal issue is Washington’s interference in internal Russian affairs. The close alignment of human rights organizations with Washington’s propaganda hurts the credibility of human rights advocacy. If human rights groups are seen as auxiliaries of Washington’s propaganda, their moral authority evaporates.

The prevalence of the English language, due to the British domination of the world in the 18th and 19th centuries and American domination in the 20th and first decade of the 21st century, makes it easy for Washington to control the explanations. Other languages simply do not have the reach to compete.

Washington also has the advantage of having worn the White Hat in the Cold War. The peoples who were constituent parts of the Soviet empire and even many Russians themselves still see Washington as the wearer of the White Hat. Washington has used this advantage to finance “color revolutions” that have moved countries from the Russian sphere of influence into Washington’s sphere of influence.

Tony Cartalucci concludes [5] that “Amnesty International is US State Department Propaganda.” Cartalucci notes that Amnesty’s executive director is former State Department official Suzanne Nossel, who conflates “human rights advocacy” with US global hegemony.

Amnesty does seem like an amplifier for Washington’s propaganda. Amnesty’s latest email to members (August 27) is: “As if the recent trial and sentencing of three members of Pussy Riot wasn’t shameful enough, now Russian police are hunting down others in the band. Make no mistake about it: Russian authorities are relentless. Just how far are the Russian authorities willing to go to silence voices of dissent? Tell the Russian government to stop hunting Pussy Riot!”

Amnesty International’s August 23 email to its members, “Wake Up World,” is completely one-sided and puts all blame for violence on the Syrian government, not on al Qaeda and other outside groups that Washington has armed and unleashed on the Syrian people. Amnesty is only concerned with getting visual images damning to the Syrian government before the public: “We are working to get this damning footage into the hands of journalists around the world. Support our work and help ensure that our first-hand video is seen by influential members of the media.”

At least Pussy Riot got a trial. That’s more than US Marine, Brandon Raub, a veteran of two tours of combat duty, got. Raub posted on Facebook his opinion that he had been misused by Washington in behalf of an illegal agenda. Local police, FBI, and Secret Service descended [6] upon his home, dragged him out, and on the authority of a social worker, committed him to a mental hospital for observation.

I did not see any protests from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, or Chatham House. Instead, a Virginia circuit court judge, W. Allan Sharrett, demanded Raub’s immediate release, stating that there was no reason to detain and commit Raub except to punish him for exercising his free speech right.

Americans are increasingly punished for exercising free speech rights. A number of videos of police violence against the occupy movement are available on youtube. They show the goon thug gestapo cops beating women, pepper spraying protestors sitting with their heads bowed, truncheons flashing as American heads are broken and protestors beat senseless are dragged off in handcuffs for peacefully exercising a constitutionally protected right.

There has been more protest over Pussy Riot than over the illegal detention and torture of Bradley Manning or the UK government’s threat to invade the Embassy of Ecuador and to drag out WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange.

When a Chinese dissident sought asylum in the US embassy in China, the Chinese government bowed to international law and permitted the dissident’s safe passage to the US. But “freedom and democracy” Great Britain refuses free passage to Assange who has been granted asylum, and there is no protest from Clinton at the State Department.

In “China’s Rise, America’s Fall,” Ron Unz makes a compelling argument [7] that the Chinese government is more respectful of the rule of law and more responsive to the people it governs than is Washington. Today it is Russia and China, not the UK and Europe, that challenge Washington’s claim that the US government is above international law and has the right to overthrow governments of which it disapproves.

The lawlessness that now characterizes the US and UK governments is a large threat to humanity’s finest achievement–the rule of law–for which the British fought from the time of Alfred the Great in the ninth century to the Glorious Revolution of the 17th century.

Where are the protests over the Anglo-American destruction of the rule of law?

Why Aren’t Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Chatham House on the case?

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is the father of Reaganomics and the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury. He is a columnist and was previously the editor of the Wall Street Journal. His latest book, “How the Economy Was Lost: The War of the Worlds,” [8] details why America is disintegrating.