Category Archives: Uncategorized

WikiLeaks Revelations on Trans-Pacific Partnership Ignored by Corporate Media

On November 13, 2013, WikiLeaks published a section of a trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership Treaty, or TPP. On the surface, the treaty is meant to facilitate trade among Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam. However, there are a number of red flags surrounding the agreement.

Eight hundred million people, and one-third of all world trade, stand to be affected by the treaty—and yet only three people from each member nation have access to the entire document. Meanwhile, six hundred “corporate advisors,” representing big oil, pharmaceutical, and entertainment companies, are involved in the writing and negotiations of the treaty.

The influence of these companies is clear, as large sections of the proposal involve corporate law and intellectual property rights, rather than free trade. Corporations could gain the ability to sue governments not only for loss, but prospective loss. At the same time, patents and copyrights would see more protection. This means longer patents, leading to less access to generic drugs, and a lockdown on Internet content. Commenting on the leaked TPP chapter, which details how corporations could seek financial compensation for non-tariff barriers to trade, Arthur Stamoulis of the Citizens Trade Campaign observed, “The Tribunals that adjudicate these cases don’t have the power to literally demand that a government change its policies, but they can award payments worth millions and even billions of dollars, such that if a country doesn’t want additional cases brought against it, it gets the line.”

Furthermore, as James Trimarco wrote in YES! Magazine, observers believe the TPP “could pull the rug out from under national and local governments trying to regulate the sale and import of GMO [genetically modified organism] foods.” Tony Corbo of Food and Water Watch pointed out that because the TPP is being negotiated in secret, it is hard to say whether it would outlaw the labeling or banning of GMO foods. However, the chief US negotiator on agriculture is Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist, and the US Food and Drug Administration does not currently recognize GMO foods as any different form non-GMO foods, therefore they do not see a reason that products containing GMO ingredients should be specially labeled.

Though the WikiLeaks exposure was followed quickly by an anti-TPP push in Congress, the lack of coverage in corporate US media is disconcerting. Japanese, Australian, and even Russian media discuss the TPP openly, while American news sources remained silent—even as the Obama administration attempts to fast-track it through Congress. TheWashington Post was alone among the major establishment press in covering the WikiLeak’s revelations about the TPP. For example, Timothy B. Lee reported that the intellectual property section of the treaty is “a wish list for Hollywood and the pharmaceutical industry” and speculated whether the leak might “derail Obama’s trade agenda.” However, the Post relegated even this relatively superficial and US-focused perspective to its online blog. Other major papers, including the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal passed on this story of far-reaching global import.

#3 of top censored stories by Project Censored at http://www.projectcensored.org

Corporate Internet Providers Threaten Net Neutrality

As Censored 2015 went to press, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had just publicly revealed its proposed new rules for Internet traffic. A 3–2 vote by the FCC opened a four-month window for formal public comments on how strict those rules should be, and galvanized corporate media attention on the issue of net neutrality. By contrast, for months leading up to this development, independent journalists, including Paul Ausick, Cole Stangler and Jennifer Yeh, have been informing the public about the anticipated showdown over net neutrality and the stakes in that battle.

In September of 2013, the federal appeals court of Washington DC began a crucial case brought by Verizon Communications Inc., challenging the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) authority to regulate Internet service providers. Under the FCC’s current Open Internet Order, service providers such as Verizon, cannot charge varying prices or give priority to users that access certain websites or may be able to pay more for faster speeds compared to competitors. Verizon claims the FCC violates their First Amendment right and they should have the ability to manage and promote the content they see fit. The FCC has continually ruled that controlling communications is not in the best interest of the public. If the court decides in favor of Verizon and revokes the Open Internet Order, the FCC will have no way to regulate unbiased data access, changing the future for everyday Internet users in the twenty-first century.

Cole Stangler, a reporter for In These Times, described how many open Internet advocates fear that service providers “could ultimately enable the construction of a multi-tiered Internet landscape resembling something like cable television—where wealthy conglomerates have access to a mass consumer base and other providers, such as independent media, struggle to reach an audience.” Today the Internet is a critical medium for public communication. Amalia Deloney, grassroots policy director at the Center for Media Justice, pointed out that corporate oversight would pose a threat to public discourse and organizing efforts. The consequent trepidation seems to be that service providers could make specific websites impossibly slow to load, successfully regulating communication among would-be activists. It seems Internet service providers would do more to limit free speech than advocate for it.

Verizon v. FCC has been well covered by both corporate and independent media. However, corporate outlets such as the New York Times and Forbes tend to highlight the business aspects of the case, skimming over vital particulars affecting the public and the Internet’s future.

#4 of top censored stories by Project Censored at http://www.projectcensored.org

See http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality to find out what you can do.

World Health Organization Suppresses Report on Iraqi Cancers and Birth Defects

In contradiction with its own mandate, the World Health Organization (WHO) continues to suppress evidence uncovered in Iraq that US military use of depleted uranium (DU) and other weapons have not only killed many civilians but are also the cause of an epidemic of birth defects and other public health issues. By refusing to release the report publicly, the WHO effectively protects the US military and its government from accountability for the resulting public health catastrophe.

A WHO and Iraq Ministry of Health report on cancers and birth defects was set to be released in November 2012, but officials have indefinitely delayed that report’s release. To this date, Denis Halliday wrote, the WHO report remains “classified.” According to the WHO, the report’s release has been delayed because its analysis needs to be evaluated by a “team of independent scientists.”

Halliday’s report drew comparisons between the Iraqi case and the legacy of health issues arising from US use of Agent Orange in Vietnam.

Meanwhile, the reality in Iraq, Mozhgan Savabieasfahani contended, is that “Iraq is poisoned.” For example, citing a peer-reviewed study that she helped conduct, Savabieasfahani wrote, “[T]hirty-five million Iraqis wake up every morning to a living nightmare of childhood cancers, adult cancers and birth defects. Familial cancers, cluster cancers and multiple cancers in the same individual have become frequent in Iraq.” Why, then, does the WHO refuse to release its study? “One possible answer,” she wrote, “was suggested on May 26 by the Guardian.”

In that article, John Pilger reported the recent comments of Hans von Sponeck, the former assistant secretary general of the United Nations: “The US government sought to prevent WHO from surveying areas in southern Iraq where depleted uranium had been used and caused serious health and environmental dangers.” …

#10 of the top censored stories from the latest book by Project Censored at http://www.projectcensored.org

COINTELPRO in the ’80s: The “New” FBI

The following is excerpted from an article by Ross Gelbspan, a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter for the Boston Globe. It was published in the Winter ’89 issue of Covert Action Information Bulletin.

“Between 1981 and 1988, the FBI – in particular the bureau’s global counter-terrorism unit and its foreign intelligence division:

“Mounted a massive political spying campaign, involving 52 of the FBI’s 59 field offices, to infiltrate and watch members of the committee in solidarity with the people of el salvador, as well as 138 other labor, educational, religious and political groups, who had mobilized against US policies in central america. (1)

“Interviewed and, according to numerous subjects, intimidated more than 100 US citizens who traveled to nicaragua and ordered documents and private papers seized from scores of citizens re-entering the US after visiting central america.

“Compiled a “terrorist album” whos hundreds of entries included US senators, congressmen, diplomats and clergy.

“Enlisted the aid of a range of private, rightwing extremist groups, including the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s organization; a private, intelligence-gathering network of US based rightwing salvadorans; John Rees, a rightwing journalist who has provided information to the bureau which he received from his own netowrk of police and police informants; and a group of rightwing ideologues, including J. Michael Waller and Michael Boos, whose spying operations have been sponsored by a number of rightwing patrons and, in some cases, financed by the US government. (2)

“Collaborated in the surveillance, imprisonment and possible deaths of salvadoran refugees who have been deported back to el salvador where they were met by salvadoran authorities who had been alerted to their arrival by the fbi.

“Ignored more than 85 reported break-ins and thefts of files at the offices and homes of central american activists around the country.  While the fbi maintains it did not commit the break-ins, many vicitms suspect the bureau has received data gathered by burglars. In addition, the fbi has declined to investigate the break-ins, contending that since it has no evidence of government involvement, it has no jurisdiction to investigate.

“As a result of the fbi’s operations, tens of thousands of names have been added to the bureau’s terrorism files- names of people whose only offense has been to write a letter in support of the nuclear freeze movement (which the fbi obtained by virtue of a mail intercept on the post office box of freeze organizers) or to attend a meeting of cispes or other groups (where the fbi recorded and traced license plates and other information in order to identify activists) (3)

“The FBI’s five year, nationwide investigation did not result in the arrest of a single activist for criminal or terrorist activities.

“Even before he took office, president-elect reagan signalled a major change in foreign policy goals. Human rights was out and counter terrorism was in. That was the message to the nations’s law enforcement and intelligence communities. It was also the message that Ret. Maj.  Gen. John Singlaub and Daniel O. Graham, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, brought to Central America in 1980. After meeting with Singlaub and Graham the leaders of Guatemalas’ fanatic rightwing were delighted because they were given the distinct impression that “Mr. reagan recognized that a good deal of dirty work has to be done.” (4)

“While the administration trumpeted its anti-terrorism policies to justify its alliance with repressive central american governments, it buried under the deepest kind of cover its campaign against hundreds of thousands of law abiding dissenters inside the US.

“According to a 1980 Heritage Foundation report [a policy white paper presented to president-elect reagan] compiled by an anonymous group within the intelligence community, “extremist political groups should be kept under surveillance, at first by reading and fileing publicly available information … the more serious surveillance can be carried out by the use of such intelligence techniques as wiretapping, mail intercepts, informants and, at least occasionally, surreptitious entries.” (5)

“The report noted that terrorist groups may be difficult to detect, since “clergymen, students, businessmen, entertainers, labor officials, journalists and government workers may engage in subversive activities without being fully aware of the extent, purpose or control of their activities.” (5)

“Lamenting the weakening of law enforcement capabilities in the wake of the revelations by the church and pike committees in the 1970’s [these congressional investigations dealt with past abuses of the fbi and cia during the vietnam era], the report recommended “contracting with one or several of the many private groups that have specialized in providing and disseminating relevant information with legal complications.”  [meaning illegally obtained information] (5) ……

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.activism.progressive/ZT_HnlJshD0/HBVfwcIK1RgJ

These days the FBI needn’t go to such trouble to be accomplices to mass murder, repression and the  wholesale export of american jobs to such sweat shop democracies.  The NSA makes it all very easy. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering

See “War at Home” in the reference section.

Chomsky Clueless About Monetary System

So he has a new book out called “Masters of Mankind”, a collection of essays and lectures.  Ironically he’s completely blind to who the real masters are.  This is what you call “controlled opposition”.

There are so many inaccuracies here (such as the claim that clinton ran a surplus when it was based on looting the social security trust fund by swapping marketable bonds for IOU’s) that it’s hard to keep up.  But the elephant in the living room is that the fed’s private owners (see file# 0042817 at http://corp.delaware.gov/onlinestatus.shtml ) have a built-in conflict of interest: their insider knowledge and control of upcoming fed policy allows them to tailor both their investments and the policies to maximize their profits at the expense of everyone else. It’s now an open secret that the fed caused (i.e. engineered) the great depression (more properly called the Great Ripoff) just as it caused the current crisis via greenspan’s historically unprecedented bubbles for the same reason: infinite greed.  They were already profiting immensely by their malfeasance well before the “bailout”.   http://thoughtcrimeradio.net/2014/03/reprise-bernanke-admits-fed-caused-great-depression/ And now they’re flush with QE cash, ready to clean up after the collapse, although that money is already making profits for them. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/07/confirmed-federal-reserve-policy-is-killing-lending-employment-and-the-economy.html

For me, chomsky became irrelevant when he dropped the ball on 9/11, a tragically lost opportunity for real change served up on a silver platter.  It may have been our last chance as a nation. http://thoughtcrimeradio.net/2012/01/mind-control-on-the-left/

Further reading: http://prosperityuk.com/2000/09/thomas-edison-on-government-created-debt-free-money/

http://monetary.org

http://webofdebt.com

 

Big Brother Doesn’t Like Being Watched

When communities attempt to police the police, they often get, well… policed.

In several states, organized groups that use police scanners and knowledge of checkpoints to collectively monitor police activities by legally and peacefully filming cops on duty have said they’ve experienced retaliation, including unjustified detainment and arrests as well as police intimidation.

The groups operate under many decentralized organizations, most notably CopWatch and Cop Block, and have proliferated across the United States in the last decade – and especially in the aftermath of the events that continue to unfold in Ferguson, Missouri, after officer Darren Wilson fatally shot unarmed, black teenager Michael Brown.

Many such groups have begun proactively patrolling their communities with cameras at various times during the week, rather than reactively turning on their cameras when police enter into their neighborhoods or when they happen to be around police activity.

Across the nation, local police departments are responding to organized cop watching patrols by targeting perceived leaders, making arrests, threatening arrests, yanking cameras out of hands and even labeling particular groups “domestic extremist” organizations and part of the sovereign citizens movement – the activities of which the FBI classifies as domestic terrorism.

Courts across the nation at all levels have upheld the right to film police activity. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and photographer’s assocications have taken many similar incidents to court, consistently winning cases over the years. The Supreme Court has ruled police can’t search an individual’s cellphone data without a warrant. Police also can’t legally delete an individual’s photos or video images under any circumstances.

“Yet, a continuing stream of these incidents (often driven by police who have been fed ‘nonsense‘ about links between photography and terrorism) makes it clear that the problem is not going away,” writes Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy & Technology Project. …

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/26527-police-departments-retaliate-against-organized-cop-watch-groups-across-the-us

The feds are training these cops to be both violent and clueless about the bill of rights.  The rot started at the head of the snake.

Revolving door between Human Rights Watch and U.S. Gov’t

Why did Human Rights Watch select a former CIA official (Miguel Díaz) to sit on its advisory committee for eight years?

Human Rights Watch characterizes itself as an “independent, international organization” — and yet its staff, board of directors and advisory committees boast deep ties to the highest levels of the U.S. government.

Background:
Nobel Peace Laureates to HRW: Close Your Revolving Door to U.S. Government
Keane Bhatt: The Hypocrisy of Human Rights Watch
Chase Madar: Hawks for Humanity
More Than 100 Latin America Experts Question HRW’s Venezuela Report


Before becoming HRW’s Washington advocacy director, for example, Tom Malinowski served as a special assistant to President Bill Clinton. Now he’s President Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.

In 2009 he argued that “under limited circumstances” there was “a legitimate place” for CIA renditions — the illegal practice of kidnapping and transferring terrorism suspects around the planet. In 2011 he wrote approvingly about Obama’s unconstitutional NATO bombing campaign on Libya. …

http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9860

Fukushima: Florida Hit with Highest Level of Radioactive Fallout Outside Japan

Analysis of data from sensitive U.S. monitoring stations for the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear reactor accident, Journal of Environmental Radioactivity: [A] major nuclear event at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station… resulted in a breach of the nuclear fuel integrity and release of radioactive fission products to the environment. Fission products started to arrive in the United States via atmospheric transport on March 15, 2011… Atmospheric activity concentrations of 131I reached levels of 3 x 10^-2 Bq/m³ [30,592 microBq/m³] in Melbourne, FL. The noble gas 133Xe reached atmospheric activity concentrations in Ashland, KS of 17 Bq/m³… [These levels] were well above the detection capability of the radionuclide monitoring systems within the International Monitoring System [IMS] of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty [CTBTO]… it should be noted that non-IMS stations located in Richland, WA detected the event one day earlier than any other systems within the US IMS network… The iodine detections reported in this manuscript are solely representative of the particulate iodine atmospheric activity concentration. It is recognized that the gas phase iodine was not collected via aerosol filtration [which] would be useful to assess the event and to quantify the total radioiodine atmospheric activity concentration. …

http://www.globalresearch.ca/florida-hit-with-highest-level-of-radioactive-material-from-fukushima-outside-japan/5406146

Hong Kong “Occupy Central” Protest Scripted in Washington

Protest co-organizer Martin Lee sets stage, introduces “Occupy Central” characters in April 2014 talk before US State Department’s National Endowment for Democracy.

October 5, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci – LD) – The slogans, leaders, and agenda of the “Occupy Central” movement are supposedly the manifestations of Hong Kong’s desire for “total democracy,” “universal suffrage,” and “freedom.” In reality, the leaders of “Occupy Central” are verified to be directly backed, funded, and directed by the US State Department, its National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and its subsidiary, the National Democratic Institute (NDI).

Despite admitting this overwhelming evidence, many “Occupy Central” supporters still insist the protests are genuine and now some propose that the “Occupy Central” leadership does not truly represent the people of Hong Kong. While the leadership of “Occupy Central” indeed in no way represent the people of Hong Kong, the fact still remains that the protest itself was prearranged at least as early as April 2014, revealed by “Occupy Central” co-organizers Martin Lee and Anson Chan before NED in Washington DC.

The talk titled, “Why Democracy in Hong Kong Matters,” spanned an hour, with NED regional vice president Louisa Greve leading the duo through a full introduction of the “Occupy Central” movement, its characters, agenda, demands, and talking points. Anson Chan – Hong Kong’s Chief Secretary under British rule – in particular, with her perfect British accent, insisted repeatedly that the issue was China’s apparent backtracking on “deals” made with the UK over the handover of Hong Kong in the late 1990’s.

Lee, as well as members of the audience, repeatedly stated that Hong Kong’s role was to “infect” mainland China with its Western-style institutions, laws, and interests. Lee also repeatedly appealed to Washington specifically to ensure they remained committed to defending American interests in Hong Kong.

Both Lee and Chan would also state that since China appears to be concerned over global perception of how it rules its people, this could be exploited to excise from Beijing concessions over Hong Kong’s governance. This included mention of previous protests, including those led by “activist” Joshua Wong and his suspicious “Scholarism” organization that has been tracked since at least 2012 by the US State Department’s NDI. And of course, future destabilization was submitted as a viable solution to bending Beijing toward Western concessions.

For those able to listen to the entire 1 hour interview as well as questions and answers, the entire “Occupy Central” narrative is laid bare, verbatim, in Washington DC months before demonstrations began in the streets of Hong Kong. For a supposed “pro-democracy” protest seeking self-governance and self-determination and denouncing “interference” from Beijing, that their leaders are funded by foreign interests, and the plans for “Occupy Central” laid in a foreign capital is ironic at best – utter and very intentional deceit at worst….

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/entire-occupy-central-protest-scripted.html

Do you see the pattern?  First the money masters industrialized china while undermining the US, and now that it’s become a credible military force, they set us up for war.  A very profitable business model that goes back at least to WWI, with the same financial interests involved.  Of COURSE they’re satanists, it’s the only philosophy compatible with their life style.

None of this is to say the protesters are unworthy of support.  Everyone deserves a decent government, including us.