Sunday, March 30, 2014

Western Looting Of Ukraine Has Begun

Paul Craig Roberts
Prison Planet.com
March 30, 2014

It is now apparent that the “Maiden protests” in Kiev were in actuality a Washington organized coup against the elected democratic government. The purpose of the coup is to put NATO military bases on Ukraine’s border with Russia and to impose an IMF austerity program that serves as cover for Western financial interests to loot the country. The sincere idealistic protesters who took to the streets without being paid were the gullible dupes of the plot to destroy their country.
Politically Ukraine is an untenable aggregation of Ukrainian and Russian territory, because traditional Russian territories were stuck into the borders of the Ukraine Soviet Republic by Lenin and Khrushchev. The Crimea, stuck into Ukraine by Khrushchev, has already departed and rejoined Russia. Unless some autonomy is granted to them, Russian areas in eastern and southern Ukraine might also depart and return to Russia. If the animosity displayed toward the Russian speaking population by the stooge government in Kiev continues, more defections to Russia are likely.
The Washington-imposed coup faces other possible difficulties from what seems to be a growing conflict between the well-organized Right Sector and the Washington-imposed stooges. If armed conflict between these two groups were to occur, Washington might conclude that it needs to send help to its stooges. The appearance of US/NATO troops in Ukraine would create pressure on Putin to occupy the remaining Russian speaking parts of Ukraine.
Before the political and geographical issues are settled, the Western looting of Ukraine has already begun. The Western media, doesn’t tell any more truth about IMF “rescue packages” than it does about anything else. The media reports, and many Ukrainians believe, that the IMF is going to rescue Ukraine financially by giving the country billions of dollars.
Ukraine will never see one dollar of the IMF money. What the IMF is going to do is to substitute Ukrainian indebtedness to the IMF for Ukrainian indebtedness to Western banks. The IMF will hand over the money to the Western banks, and the Western banks will reduce Ukraine’s indebtedness by the amount of IMF money. Instead of being indebted to the banks, Ukraine will now be indebted to the IMF.
Now the looting can begin. The IMF loan brings new conditions and imposes austerity on the Ukrainian people so that the Ukraine government can gather up the money with which to repay the IMF. The IMF conditions that will be imposed on the struggling Ukraine population will consist of severe reductions in old-age pensions, in government services, in government employment, and in subsidies for basic consumer purchases such as natural gas. Already low living standards will plummet. In addition, Ukrainian public assets and Ukrainian owned private industries will have to be sold off to Western purchasers.
Additionally, Ukraine will have to float its currency. In a futile effort to protect its currency’s value from being driven very low (and consequently import prices very high) by speculators ganging up on the currency and short-selling it, Ukraine will borrow more money with which to support its currency in the foreign exchange market. Of course, the currency speculators will end up with the borrowed money, leaving Ukraine much deeper in debt than currently.
 The corruption involved is legendary, so the direct result of the gullible Maiden protesters will be lower Ukrainian living standards, more corruption, loss of sovereignty over the country’s economic policy, and the transfer of Ukrainian public and private property to Western interests.
If Ukraine also falls into NATO’s clutches, Ukraine will also find itself in a military alliance against Russia and find itself targeted by Russian missiles. This will be a tragedy for Ukraine and Russia as Ukrainians have relatives in Russia and Russians have relatives in Ukraine. The two countries have essentially been one for 200 years. To have them torn apart by Western looting and Washington’s drive for world hegemony is a terrible shame and a great crime.
The gullible dupes who participated in the orchestrated Maiden protests will rue it for the rest of their lives.
When the protests began, I described what the consequences would be and said that I
would explain the looting process. It is not necessary for me to do so. Professor Michel Chossudovsky has explained the IMF looting process along with much history here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/regime-change-in-ukraine-and-the-imfs-bitter-economic-medicine/5374877
One final word. Despite unequivocal evidence of one country after another being looted by the West, governments of indebted countries continue to sign up for IMF programs. Why do governments of countries continue to agree to the foreign looting of their populations? The only answer is that they are paid. The corruption that is descending upon Ukraine will make the former regime look honest.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is now available.

Saturday, March 29, 2014

Common Core and UN Agenda 21: Mass Producing Green Global Serfs

Alex Newman
New American
March 28, 2014

As the Obama administration, Bill Gates, the United Nations, and other forces seek to finalize the decades-old effort to nationalize — and even globalize — education by bribing and bludgeoning state governments to impose Common Core, one of the key agendas behind the deeply controversial standards has been largely overlooked. In essence, official UN documents and statements by top administration officials reveal a plan to transform American children, and students around the globe, into what globalists refer to as “global citizens” ready for the coming “green” and “sustainable” world order.
In recent years especially, UN reports and top world leaders have been openly boasting of their globalist plot to create a top-down, planned, and regimented society that is completely at odds with the U.S. Constitution, national sovereignty, individual liberty, God-given rights, Judeo-Christian values, and Western traditions. A major component of the scheme surrounds so-called “sustainability” and a radical UN program known as Agenda 21 encompassing virtually every facet of life. To prepare humanity for their vision, however, requires a new form of “education,” globalists admit. UNESCO calls it “Education for Sustainable Development.”
On its website, UNESCO, the self-styled global education agency, actually boasts of its plans. “The UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014) seeks to mobilize the educational resources of the world to help create a more sustainable future,” the UN outfit explains. “Many paths to sustainability … exist and are mentioned in the 40 chapters of Agenda 21, the official document of the 1992 Earth Summit. Education is one of these paths. Education alone cannot achieve a more sustainable future; however, without education and learning for sustainable development, we will not be able to reach that goal.”
Before the term “sustainability” was in vogue, the late UN Deputy Secretary General Robert Muller, the architect of UNESCO’s “World Core Curriculum,” also offered some insight into the purpose of UN-led, globalized pseudo-education. The goals: “Assisting the child in becoming an integrated individual who can deal with personal experience while seeing himself as a part of ‘the greater whole.’ In other words, promote growth of the group idea, so that group good, group understanding, group interrelations and group goodwill replace all limited, self-centered objectives, leading to group consciousness.” Put another way, smash individualism and notions of individual rights, replacing them with collectivism.
Meanwhile, actually educating children in the traditional sense — teaching them reading, writing, critical thinking, math, real history, actual science, and more — is on its way out, as globalists openly admit in official documents and all across UN websites. In its place, UNESCO, Bill Gates, the Obama administration, and other powerful globalist forces are working quietly but fiendishly to impose global education standards on humanity. Among other schemes is a UN plot known as the “World Core Curriculum” that has been in the works for decades.
(For additional information on planetary efforts to standardize schooling, please see “UN, Obama, and Gates Are Globalizing Education Via Common Core.”)
So what will children learn in the “green” world order? In a 2010 speech at a “Sustainability Summit,” Obama Education Secretary Arne Duncan offered more than a few hints. Openly proclaiming the administration’s loyalty to the globalist UN “sustainability” agenda, Duncan boasts of how the U.S. government is foisting it all on American children via the Common Core national standards and a wide range of related federal and international programs.
 
In fact, he said, the U.S. Department of Education “is taking a leadership role in the work of educating the next generation of green citizens and preparing them to contribute to the workforce through green jobs.” Obama’s former “Green Jobs” Czar, Van Jones, of course, was eventually forced to resign after his own words exposed him as a self-described “communist.” The notion of a centrally planned, UN-directed “green” economy and “green” world order, however, never went anywhere. As Duncan makes clear, central planners will determine what jobs citizens will have, and central planners will train them accordingly.
Of course, the unconstitutional federal education bureaucracy is not alone in the plot to transform America’s youth, Duncan continued, pointing to numerous other U.S. agencies and departments that “have made important contributions linking education and sustainability.” In the United States, like the imposition of Common Core on state governments, Duncan explained that much of the federal effort to indoctrinate young Americans into the “sustainable development” agenda is being funded by the so-called “stimulus” plan.
At the global level, the World Bank, multiple UN agencies, Big Labor, Big Business, tax-funded so-called “non-governmental organizations,” and more are all involved in harmonizing and globalizing education as well. As Duncan made clear in a separate 2010 speech to UNESCO, the Obama administration is fully on board with the planetary schemes as well. “Our goal for the coming year will be to work closely with global partners, including UNESCO, to promote qualitative improvements and system-strengthening,” he said, quoting former South African President Nelson Mandela to add that education “is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.”
With the Obama administration as well as the nationalization and globalization of education via Common Core, domestic efforts will only intensify as well. “Historically, the Department of Education hasn’t been doing enough in the sustainability movement,” Duncan explained in his speech, omitting the fact that the federal government has been lawlessly pushing similar schemes to transform and undermine values on U.S. schools for decades now — under Republican and Democrat presidential administrations. “Today, I promise you that we will be a committed partner in the national effort to build a more environmentally literate and responsible society.”
The new “green” world order will be imposed using federal power over schools, Duncan re-iterated in the speech. “We must advance the sustainability movement through education,” he explained, perhaps unaware that the vast majority of parents send their children to school to be educated, not to advance the sustainability movement. “We at the Education Department are energized about joining these leaders in their commitment to preparing today’s students to participate in the green economy, and to be well-educated about the science of sustainability.”
The language may sound innocent enough to those who know little or nothing about what globalists mean when they refer to “sustainability” and the “green economy.” After all, taxpayers unwittingly spent many millions of dollars on “focus groups” and “market research” to help the schemers conceal the true agenda by identifying language and terms that the public would be most likely to embrace. But what exactly is it that Duncan, UNESCO, Common Core, and the Obama administration admit they are training your children to participate in?
In essence, according to UN documents and reports, the idea is to re-structure human civilization into a centrally planned global society under the control of international institutions such as the UN — all under the guise of “sustainable development.” In fact, they say so themselves in countless reports and documents; even though, ironically enough, central planning has always and everywhere produced environmental devastation in addition to human misery.
Official UN documents show, for example, that under the “green economy” banner, literally everything about human existence must dramatically change: Lifestyles, opinions, education, health, consumption, production, agriculture, diet, law, taxation, industry, governance, and much more. “Transitioning to a green economy requires a fundamental shift in the way we think and act,”explains a 2012 UN report entitled “Working towards a Balanced and Inclusive Green Economy.” A more recent UN report, developed with help from Obama policy architect John Podesta, noted that the “worldview and behavior” of every person on Earth must be “dramatically altered.”
On the other hand, national sovereignty, individual liberty, free markets, unalienable rights, traditional values, self-government, Biblical Christianity, and more must all be pushed aside. “But our commitment has to be about even more than career pathways,” explained U.S. Education boss Duncan, sounding like a Soviet commissar claiming that schools must “prepare workers” for jobs in the new green world order. “It also has to prepare all students with the knowledge they need to be green citizens.”
To that end, Duncan continued in his speech at the “Sustainability Summit,” the Obama administration is working to “build the science of sustainability into the curriculum, starting in kindergarten and extending until the students graduate from high school.” While the Common Core standards and related establishment schemes are solidifying that in the United States, the same phenomenon is taking place at break-neck speed around the world.
At the 2012 UN “Conference on Sustainable Development” in Rio, for instance — chaired by an anti-American Chinese Communist — virtually every national government on Earth committed to do what Duncan described in the countries they rule. “We therefore resolve to improve the capacity of our education systems to prepare people to pursue sustainable development, including through enhanced teacher training, the development of curricula around sustainability, the development of training programs that prepare students for careers in fields related to sustainability,” reads the text of the final agreement, dubbed “The Future We Want.” The “we,” of course, refers to the legions of bureaucrats, dictators, presidents, and mass-murderers at the UN sustainability summit — not the public.
Traditional and classical notions of education, however, have no place in the sustainable “green” world order. In a stunning admission posted directly on UNESCO’s website in a document about the agency’s “Education for Sustainable Development” machinations, the outfit makes that abundantly clear. “Generally, more highly educated people, who have higher incomes, consume more resources than poorly educated people, who tend to have lower incomes,” the UN “toolkit” for global “sustainable” education explains. “In this case, more education increases the threat to sustainability.”
Read that sentence again, and again: More education threatens their vision of “sustainability” (as do freedom, prosperity, humans, and more). Lest there be any doubt about the purpose of Common Core, the broader globalist vision for education, and the fact that it has been burrowing its way into U.S. schools for decades, consider a 1989 speech given to the federally funded National Governor’s Association — the unaccountable D.C.-based trade group that helped develop and impose Common Core on America — by a prominent player in the “reform” movement under contract with the U.S. Department of Education.
“What is happening in America today and what is happening to Kansas in the Great Plains is not simply a chance situation in the usual winds of change. What it amounts to is a total transformation of our society,” Dr. Shirley McCune, a senior official with a little-known education outfit involved in writing national standards, told the governors. “So we have to anticipate what the future is and then move back and figure out what it is we need to do today. That’s called anticipatory socialization or the social change function of schools.” Governors applauded.
Dr. McCune, who also worked with the National Education Association, the U.S. Department of Education, and more, was not shy about sharing the long-term agenda with the nation’s governors. “You have to understand the breadth of the task that’s before us,” she continued. “You cannot think about restructuring of education without understanding that our total society is in a crisis of restructuring and you can’t get away from it … what we are facing is a total restructuring of the society.”
Some two decades after that speech, following a long series of federal and international programs to pave the way, Common Core was officially born. It was developed by establishment forces infamous for openly advocating the nationalization of schooling, with funding from prominent globalists, and using federal bribes to foist it on states. So far, some 45 state governments have imposed the poor-quality national standards in exchange for “stimulus”-funded bribes and threats.
With the ongoing globalization of education under UN and Obama administration guidance, Americans are at a crossroads. One alternative is putting a stop to it all now, withdrawing from Common Core, rejecting unconstitutional federal bribes and mandates, and restoring proper education to promote a well-educated citizenry capable of critical thinking and maintaining liberty. The other option, as globalist voices have made clear, is a “green” economy — and everything that radical vision entails. Choose wisely.







VIDEO: IMF Says Everything You Have Will Be Taken



VIDEO: Police Execute Homeless Man For Camping




Friday, March 28, 2014

When and Where Did We Sign and Countersign the Government’s Obligations?

Michael S. Rozeff
Lew Rockwell Blog
March 28, 2014

Every balance sheet has two sides: assets and liabilities. A few words on the state’s assets, first. The state, having no standard assets, necessarily takes them from its citizens. When and where any of us who are forced to give up these assets to the government signed off on this taking are pertinent questions. If each of us is a sovereign who delegates power to the government, who delegated this power if I did not? I assuredly made no such delegation. And if I did delegate it in my sleep perhaps or delegated it when I was a baby and now have forgotten signing, where did I get a power to extract assets from other people? The state’s most basic asset, in a non-standard sense of the term asset, is its raw power to extract the ordinary assets of its subjects against their will.
The government, having seized assets, then reshuffles them. Part of it goes to the nomenklatura. Part of it goes to its many programs. The money is recycled, going into new hands. As if this were not enough power, the government also works on the liability side.
The liability side refers to the government’s obligations. The government makes promises, commitments, and guarantees of all sorts. It guarantees the security of Estonia, for example. It promises to pay the IMF money. It promises to pay its own debts. It issues obligations in unimaginable numbers.
The same kinds of questions can be raised about the issuance of these liabilities. Who among us citizens authorized them? When and where did we sign off or countersign off on the debt contracts? Where did people in America who cannot rub two nickels together (and even most of those who can) get the justifiable ability to issue debts in amounts that meant they were immediately insolvent, that they never could or would repay them? How could any of us justifiably issue debts that obligated taxpayers in the future? If we cannot do this as individuals, how could we delegate such a power to the government?
The answers are all the same. There is no justice either in the seizure of assets through taxation or in the issuance of government obligations. There is no “democracy” and no “constitution” under which any of us agrees to any of this or signs off on it. The constitution is a fig leaf that covers the sensitive organs of the state, and the main organ consists of its guns, forces and jails. These enforce the tax collections, and the tax collections support the obligations. None of us has ever signed or countersigned the obligations of the U.S. government. Most of us have no idea even what these obligations are, much less agreed to them. And none of us had a right to issue them, alone or in combination with some others, and then proclaim that they were obligations of every one of us, including all those who had nothing to do with their issuance.
Every time that I hear the current propagandists and con men in Washington speak of democracy and freedom, here or in Ukraine or some other land, I remind myself that they are glorifying nothing more than their own unjust power while to the best of their abilities obscuring what freedom and justice actually require of the relations between people and a government.

VIDEO: Michael Savage Interviews Alex Jones on The Savage Nation - (March 27, 2014)




Wednesday, March 19, 2014

VIDEO: Trunews February 20, 2014 Peter Schiff Preparing for the Crash



VIDEO: Peter Schiff Warning of economic collapse Financial Calamity!




VIDEO: Prepare Yourself For An Economic Crisis












VIDEO: The Stars Align For War On The Horizon / Retired Navy Intel Officer Reveals Globalists True Agenda in Ukraine

















Monday, March 17, 2014

If You Are Considering Buying A House, Read This First

Zero Hedge
March 16, 2014

In September of 2011, when looking at the insurmountable debt catastrophe that the world finds itself (which has only gotten worse in the past several years) we warned that “the only way to resolve the massive debt load is through a global coordinated debt restructuring (which would, among other things, push all global banks into bankruptcy) which, when all is said and done, will have to be funded by the world’s financial asset holders: the middle-and upper-class, which, if BCS is right, have a ~30% one-time tax on all their assets to look forward to as the great mean reversion finally arrives and the world is set back on a viable path.”
Two years later, the financial asset tax approach, in the form of depositor bail-ins, was tried – successfully (as there was no mass rioting, no revolution, in fact the people were perfectly happy to accept the confiscation of their savings) – in Cyprus, further emboldening the status quo, in this case the IMF, to propose, tongue in cheek, that the time has come for the uber-wealthy to give back some (“it’s only fair”), and to raise income taxes through the roof (which of course would mostly impact the middle class as the bulk of current income for the 1% is in the form of dividend income, ultra-cheap leverage extraction on assets and various forms of carried interest).
And now, a new tax is not only on the horizon but coming fast and furious to allow the insolvent global regime at least one more can kicking: one which will impact current and future homeowners across the world.

But first, let’s step back.
Last week, the IMF did what only the IMF could do: come to the realization that we proposed in 2009, and even the Davosites discussed earlier this year: namely that the middle class is effectively an endangered species, and rapidly on its way to wholesale extinction, and that the polarity between the rich and poor has never been greater. The IMF concluded, with the panache that only this comical organization is capable of, that income inequality “is weighing on global economic growth and fueling political instability.”
The WSJ reports:
The International Monetary Fund’s latest salvo came Thursday in a top official’s speech and a 67-page paper detailing how the IMF’s 188 member countries can use tax policy and targeted public spending to stem a rising disparity between haves and have-nots.
IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde has made the issue a high priority for the fund, warning—along with some of the fund’s most powerful shareholders—that inequality is threatening longer-run economic prospects. Last month, Ms. Lagarde said the income gap risked creating “an economy of exclusion, and a wasteland of discarded potential” and rending “the precious fabric that holds our society together.”
The IMF’s solution? The same as that of socialists everywhere: redistribute the wealth… because apparently socialism works every time, all the time, with stellar results.
“Redistribution can help support growth because it reduces inequality,” David Lipton, the fund’s No. 2 official and a former senior White House aide, said in a speech Thursday at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “But if misconceived, this trade-off can be very costly.”
“There’s a sense that the burdens of the crisis have been unevenly distributed, that the middle classes and the poor have footed more of the bill of the crisis than the economic elite,” said Moisés Naím, a senior economist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Venezuela’s former trade minister.
Oh is there a sense? Is that why the Fed has halted its QE program which takes from what little is left of the middle class and gives to those who already have more money than they can spend in several lifetimes. Guess not.
So how does the IMF suggest going about this wholesale, global socialist revolution? Simple: the way we explained nearly three years ago.
The IMF’s latest paper doesn’t prescribe country-specific measures, but it does offer several proposals that are likely to be controversial. Most notably, the IMF says many advanced and developing economies can narrow inequality by more aggressively applying property taxes and “progressive” personal income taxes that rise as incomes increase.
The median top personal income-tax rate across the globe has halved since the 1980s to around 30%. But the IMF says “revenue-maximizing [personal income tax] rates are probably somewhere between 50% and 60% and optimal rates probably somewhat lower than that.”
We wouldn’t be too concerned about income taxes. After all, one needs to have a job to have income, and as everyone knows by now, jobs also are on their way to extinction, and every central bank everywhere will merely print the money needed to cover the income tax shortfall, leading to that “other” alternative to fixing the debt problem: global hyperinflation (with a little precious metals confiscation on the side: just like FDR did in the 1930s).
But going back to the original point, here is why those in the market for a house should be worried. Very worried. From page 40 of the IMF’s paper on “Fiscal Policy and Income Inequality“:
Some taxes levied on wealth, especially on immovable property, are also an option for economies seeking more progressive taxation. Wealth taxes, of various kinds, target the same underlying base as capital income taxes, namely assets. They could thus be considered as a potential source of progressive taxation, especially where taxes on capital incomes (including on real estate) are low or largely evaded. There are different types of wealth taxes, such as recurrent taxes on property or net wealth, transaction taxes, and inheritance and gift taxes. Over the past decades, revenue from these taxes has not kept up with the surge in wealth as a share of GDP (see earlier section) and, as a result, the effective tax rate has dropped from an average of around 0.9 percent in 1970 to approximately 0.5 percent today. The prospect of raising additional revenue from the various types of wealth taxation was recently discussed in IMF (2013b) and their role in reducing inequality can be summarized as follows.
  • Property taxes are equitable and efficient, but underutilized in many economies. The average yield of property taxes in 65 economies (for which data are available) in the 2000s was around 1 percent of GDP, but in developing economies it averages only half of that (Bahl and Martínez-Vázquez, 2008). There is considerable scope to exploit this tax more fully, both as a revenue source and as a redistributive instrument,although effective implementation will require a sizable investment in administrative infrastructure, particularly in developing economies (Norregaard, 2013).
And there you have it: if you are buying a house, enjoy the low mortgage (for now… and don’t forget – if and when the time comes to sell, the buyer better be able to afford your selling price and the monthly mortgage payment should the 30 Year mortgage rise from the current 4.2% to 6%, 7% or much higher, which all those who forecast an improving economy hope happens), but what will really determine the affordability of that piece of property you have your eyes set on, are the property taxes.
Because they are about to skyrocket.

The Failure of Keynesianism

James E Miller
Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada
March 17, 2014

It’s hard not to agree with the old aphorism “history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” It’s nice to think we learn from our mistakes; yet we always seem to repeat them at some later date.
Reading the daily news, you would be hard-pressed to find mention that there is still an employment crisis unfolding in many industrialized countries. The New York Times recentlyreported that employers in the United States hired only 175,000 workers in February. This is apparently a cause for celebration among economists. The unemployment rate in the U.S. still remains at an historic high of 6.7%, and there appears to be no date in sight for a return of full employment, but no matter; the economy is supposedly gaining steam.

The only problem is, nobody seems to care much anymore. High unemployment is a constant reality now. Nearly six years of slagging job creation has created a cloud of apathy for most people. It’s just accepted that not everyone who wants to find work will be able to; or they will wander from low-wage job to low-wage job without any kind of security.
The current economic malaise is reminiscent of what the Great Depression was like. Persistently high unemployment with no conceivable end; massive government intervention in the marketplace; a changing industrial landscape; and even social and cultural transformation. We’re less than a century removed from the biggest economic hardship ever faced in America, and the same mishaps are unfolding in front of our eyes.

Then and now, something has remained perennial: the utter incompetence on government’s part to cure economic stagnation.
Newscasters, state officials, and academic economists all tell us government is capable of spending us into prosperity. No matter how much dough is thrown at the glob known as the “economy,” large numbers of people remain out of work. During the Depression, the glut of joblessness lasted for nearly fifteen years. Uncle Sam spent like a drunken sailor while swallowing up much of the economy in fascist scheme after fascist scheme.

The very same thing goes on today, all at the behest of Keynesian-type political actors who provide the intellectual ammunition necessary to justify government’s outstretched hand. With neatly obscure formulas and obtuse language, the apparatchik darlings of Keynes love branding themselves as deep-thinking scientists capable of engineering the perfect economy. When their policy is put to work, we get the opposite. Job creation stagnates, living standards slump, and misery spreads. The siphons of entrepreneurial growth don’t pump; they are bogged down with the grimy sludge of currency manipulation and government hubris.

After decades of constant failure, I mean this wholeheartedly: the followers of the Keynesian school don’t have a damn clue on how to fix the economy. Why my gauche phrasing? Their policy prescription is a complete and total failure. The Great Depression; the stagflation of the 1970s; the Great Recession we see today; in each instance, Washington was impotent to reverse the damage. Keynesians are either pathetically ignorant, or maliciously deceptive.

Taking rhetorical shots doesn’t mean much without some evidence. So let’s meet the Keynesians on their terms. First, economic science itself will be interpreted through the lens of positivism. That means data, in whatever form, will be used to justify whether something works or not. Of course the assumption will be made that spending is the driver of economic prosperity – not saving or investment. The same goes for boundless money printing, which is said to infuse the “animal spirits” with a rejuvenating elixir.

So what have they got for successes? Keynesians used to tout the efforts of Franklin Roosevelt (not so much Herbert Hoover, who was proto-Rooseveltian) during the Great Depression as vindication for their theory. I remember being told in no uncertain terms that Uncle Sam stepped up to save the downtrodden from excess capitalism in my American Presidency 301 class. Sure, it wasn’t an economics course; but it’s the same tale spun by economists anyway.

What does the data say? From 1931 to 1940, the unemployment rate never went south of 10%. From the onset of the Depression, Washington spending went up 97% under the Hoover Administration. According to the White House’s official statistics, the federal budget increased from $3.5 billion in 1931 to $13.6 billion in 1941, jumping in size year after year. A combination of deficit spending and tax hikes (admittedly not a Keynesian remedy) allowed for this gorge in consumption. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve goosed the economy by first stabilizing the monetary base and increasing the supply of money after the initial contraction during the Depression’s early years. According to the Historic Statistics of the United States, the Federal Reserve increased its holding of U.S. securities from $510 million in 1929 to over $6 billion in 1942. During the same period, the central bank’s balance sheet went from about $5.5 billion to $29 billion.

That’s no small stimulus. And yet the unemployment rate failed to drop significantly during the Depression years. Most of Keynes’s disciples admit that nearly fifteen years of high unemployment leaves much to be desired on the part of muscular government. The counterfactual is then deployed that Roosevelt’s domestic efforts lightened the economic burden foisted upon America. What finally put the Depression to bed, they argue, was the incredible amount of spending during World War II.
But as economic historian Robert Higgs showsmeasures of economic performance were highly skewed during wartime. Unemployment fell and production ramped up, but this was due to the draft and building of armaments. Rationing was widespread to the point where basic foodstuffs and toiletries were scarce. If a wartime economy counts as prosperity, then the homeless today are the living embodiment of luxury.

World War II is a bunk fantasy that in no way proves the Keynesian theory correct. The same goes for the fascist orgy known as the New Deal. Fast-forward to today, and the same charlatans are preaching from the gospel of government interventionism. They implore Washington to fight back against the Great Recession with the same blunted tools: spending and money printing.
When the housing bubble burst and the economy began to tank, then-Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke and crew nearly tripled the central bank’s balance sheet. As of right now, the Fed’s sheet stands at about $4 trillion. In 2008, it was at $800 billion. Not to be outdone, the federal government ramped up spending by running nearly-trillion dollar deficits year-after-year. Once again, all this effort has only made a slight dent in the unemployment rate.

From a strictly empirical perspective, the Keynesian theory is a disaster. Positivism wise, it’s a smoldering train wreck. You would be hard-pressed to comb through historical data and find great instances where government intervention succeeded in lowering employment without creating the conditions for another downturn further down the line.

No matter how you spin it, Keynesianism is nothing but snake oil sold to susceptible political figures. Its practitioners feign using the scientific method. But they are driven just as much by logical theory as those haughty Austrian school economists who deduce truth from self-evident axioms. The only difference is that one theory is correct. And if the Keynesians want to keep pulling up data to make their case, they are standing on awfully flimsy ground.

Sunday, March 16, 2014

VIDEO: Obama's Popularity Hits Rock Bottom




VIDEO: Former Obama Supporter Wakes Up To The Tyranny



VIDEO: Man Buys Pizza Filled With Bugs


VIDEO: The John McAfee Interview. NSA, CIA And Corporations Are Spying On Your Cell Phones / Do Antivirus Companies Create The Viruses They Claim To Combat?


















VIDEO: Pharmacist Reveals Foods and Minerals That Detoxify









VIDEO: Bill Gates Summons His Minions — 80% of Senators — For Face to Face




VIDEO: Smart Meter Home Invasion News



VIDEO: Gun Parts Manufacturer Files Restraining Order Against ATF



VIDEO: Senators Call Surveillance Treason When It's Done to Them



VIDEO: Setting The Record Straight On The Democratic Party Racism




Saturday, March 15, 2014

Obama Administration Turns the Internet Over to the Globalists

Plans to impose a censorship and mass surveillance framework may now commence

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
March 15, 2014

On Friday the U.S. Commerce Department released its grasp on the internet. Oversight of ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, will be passed on to the “global internet community” next year. ICANN, under a Commerce Department contract, has issued domain names since 2000.

The United States has played a leading role in managing internet technology but has faced pressure to globalize management of the internet over the last few years.
“We will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an intergovernmental solution,” said National Telecommunications & Information Administration boss Larry Strickling. The NITTA is an agency within the Commerce Department.
During the World Summit on Information Society more than a decade ago, it was proposed that governments not have too much control over the internet. “The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.”
In the intervening years the United Nations and the European Union have jostled for control the internet. During a meeting in Dubai last year the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the telecom branch of the United Nations, demanded rules governing the internet be rewritten. Specifically, the international organization proposed deep-packet inspection authority that would allow it to monitor and censor content on the internet. The United States walked out of the conference in protest.

Hamadoun Toure, Secretary-General of the ITU, released the fourth and final ITU/WTPF-13 report in May, 2013, outlining groundwork for internet governance and regulatory topics. The report calls for the creation of “Global Principles for the governance and use of the Internet” and proposes resolution of issues pertaining to “use of Internet resources for purposes that are inconsistent with international peace, stability and security.”
The proposed changes were backed by China, Russia, Brazil, India and other UN members.
“Internet freedom’s foes around the globe are working hard to exploit a treaty negotiation that dwarfs the importance of the [U.N.'s 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications] by orders of magnitude,” warned outgoing U.S. Federal Communications Commissioner Robert McDowell in testimony before Congress in a joint U.S. House subcommittee hearing on international Internet governance last February.
The European Union has proposed censoring the internet to protect children and fight terrorism. The Clean IT project proposed the creation of a censorship and mass surveillance framework for EU countries funded by the European Commission. “The Clean IT project aimed to start a constructive dialogue between governments, businesses and civil society to explore how to reduce the terrorist use of the internet. This dialogue resulted in a set of general principles and an overview of possible best practices,” the Clean IT Project web page explains. The plan called for police to patrol Facebook and other social networks in search of “extremist material” and propaganda. In addition to allowing users to flag “terrorist” content and turn other users in to the police, the proposals called for eliminating anonymity on the internet.
In addition to censorship, the ICANN transfer will allow for a globalist taxation scheme. “While the Obama administration says it is merely removing federal oversight of a non-profit, we should assume ICANN would end up as part of the United Nations,” former Bush administration State Department senior advisor Christian Whiton told The Daily Caller. “If the U.N. gains control what amounts to the directory and traffic signals of the Internet, it can impose whatever taxes it likes. It likely would start with a tax on registering domains and expand from there.”
The UN and EU have sketched out how the future internet will work. Now that ICANN has relinquished control of the medium, globalist institutions can move forward with plans to scrub the internet of all content unacceptable to the global elite and their apparatchiks at the United Nations and, as well, turn it into a revenue generating cash cow.

Thursday, March 13, 2014

VIDEO: Hillary Clinton's War On Women




Deluded Currency Cultists Believe The Dollar Is Invincible

Brandon Smith
Alt Market
March 13, 2014
http://www.prisonplanet.com/deluded-currency-cultists-believe-the-dollar-is-invincible.html

At the onset of the derivatives collapse in 2007/2008 it would have been easy to assume that most of America was receiving a valuable education in normalcy bias.

In 2006, the amount of ego on display surrounding mortgage investment was so disturbingly grotesque anyone with any true understanding of the situation felt like projectile vomiting. To watch the smug righteousness of MSNBC and FOX economic pundits as they predicted the infinite rise of American property markets despite all evidence to the contrary was truly mind blowing. When the whole system imploded, it was difficult to know whether one should laugh, or cry.

The saddest aspect of the credit crisis of 2008 was not the massive chain reaction of bankruptcies or the threat of institutional insolvency. Rather, it was the delusional assumptions of the public that the grand mortgage casino was going to go on forever. There is nothing worse than witnessing the victim of a Ponzi scheme defend the lie which has ultimately destroyed him. As much as I am for people waking up to the nature of the crisis, there comes a point when those who are going to figure it out will figure it out, and the rest are essentially hopeless.

The cultism surrounding the U.S. economy and the U.S. dollar is truly mind boggling, and by “cultism” I mean a blind faith in the fiat currency mechanism that goes beyond all logic, reason and evidence.

In recent weeks it has become more visible as global financiers play both sides of the Ukrainian conflict, luring Americans into a frenzy of false patriotism and an anti-Russo-sports-team-mentality. My personal distaste for Vladimir Putin revolves around my understanding that he is just as much a puppet of the International Monetary Fund and international banks as Barack Obama, but many Americans hate him simply because the mainstream media has designated him the next villain in the fantasy tale of U.S. foreign policy.

Open threats from Russia that they will dump U.S. treasury bond holdings and the dollar’s world reserve status if NATO interferes in the Ukraine have been met with wildly naive chest beating from dollar cultists. I am beginning to see the talking points everywhere.

“Let them dump the dollar, Russia’s holdings are minimal!” Or, “Let them throw out Treasuries, they’ll just be shooting themselves in the foot!” are the battle cries heard across the web. I wish I could convey how insane this viewpoint is, especially in light of the fact that many alternative economic analysts, including myself, have been predicting just such a scenario for years.

Despite the childish boastings of the dollar devout, there is an extraordinarily good possibility that the life of the greenback will be snuffed out in the near term. Here are the facts…

1) Russia will not be alone in its decouple from the dollar system. China, our largest foreign creditor, and India (a supposed ally) have clearly sided with Russia on the Ukranian issue. China has stated that it will back Russia’s play in the event that sanctions are brought to bear by NATO, or if a shooting conflict erupts.

2) China has already been slowly dumping the dollar as a world reserve currency using bilateral trade agreements with numerous countries, including Russia, India, Australia, Brazil, Germany, Japan, etc. These agreements allow FOREX currency swaps and export/import purchases to be made with China without the use of the dollar. China has been preparing itself for a divorce from U.S. economic dependence for at least a decade. The idea that they would actually follow through over political tensions should NOT surprise anyone if they have been paying attention.

3) A total drop of the dollar or U.S. treasury bonds by Russia and China would send shock waves through global markets. Russia is a major energy supplier for most of Europe. China is the largest export/import nation in the world. If they refuse to accept dollars as a trade mechanism, numerous countries will fall in line to abandon the greenback as well. The fact that so many Americans refuse to acknowledge this reality is a recipe for disaster.

The only advantage the U.S. has traditionally offered in terms of international trade has been the American consumer, whose unchecked debt spending partly fueled the rise of the industrialized East, not to mention the biggest credit bubble in history. The role of America as a consumer market is collapsing today, however. The mainstream media and the Federal Reserve can blame the steady decline in retail sales on the “weather” all they want, but negative indicators in global manufacturing often take many months to register in the statistics, meaning, this destabilization began long before the days turned cold.

4) China has been shifting away from export dependency since at least 2008, calling for a larger consumer based market at home. This process of enriching the Chinese consumer has almost been completed. The lie that China “needs the U.S.” in order to survive economically needs to be thrown out like the utter propaganda it is.

5) China (and most of the world) has ended new dollar purchases for their FOREX reserves, and has no plans to make new purchases in the future.

6) China executed the second largest dump of U.S. Treasury bonds in history in the past month.

7) Russia, China, and numerous other countries, including U.S. “allies”, have been calling for the end of the dollar’s world reserve status and the institution of a new global basket currency using the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights (SDR). Even Putin has suggested that the IMF take over administration of the global economy and issue the SDR as a world currency system. This flies in the face of those who argue that the IMF is somehow “American run”. The truth is, the IMF is run by global banks and no more answers to the U.S. government than the Federal Reserve answers to the U.S. government.



8) The Federal Reserve has been creating trillions of dollars in fiat just to prop up U.S. markets since 2008, and we are still seeing a considerable decline in global manufacturing, retail, personal home sales, and a general malaise in consumer demand. Without a full audit, there is no way to know exactly how much currency has been generated or how much is floating around in foreign markets. Any loss of world reserve status would send that flood of dollars back into the U.S., most likely ending in a hyperinflationary environment.

9) Another rather dubious argument I see often is the claim that the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury could simply “negate” a Treasury dump by refusing to acknowledge creditor liabilities. Or, that they could simply print what they need to snap up the bonds, much like the German government tried to do during the Weimar collapse. Unfortunately, this plan did not work out so well for the Germans, nor has it worked for any other nation in history, so I’m not sure why people think the U.S. could pull it off. However, this is the kind of cultism we are surrounded by. These folks think the U.S. economy and the dollar are untouchable.

Yes, the Fed and the Treasury could hypothetically erase existing liabilities, but what dollar cultists do not seem to grasp is that the dollar’s value is not built on Treasury purchases. The dollar’s value is built on faith and reputation. If a nation refuses to pay out on its debts, this is called default. A default by the U.S. would immediately damage the reputation of bonds and dollars as a good investment. Global markets will refuse to purchase or hold any mechanism that they think will not earn them a profit. How many investors today are anxious to jump into Greek treasury bonds, for instance?

Finally, it is unwise to operate on the assumption that foreign creditors will accept dollars as payment on U.S. Treasury bonds if they believe the Federal Reserve is monetizing the debt. When Weimar imploded under the weight of currency devaluation, many foreign governments refused to accept the German mark as payment. Instead, they demanded payment in raw commodities, like coal, lumber and ore. Expect that China and other debt holders will demand payment in U.S. goods, infrastructure, or perhaps even land.

10) Most treasury holdings in foreign coffers are not long term bonds. Rather, they are short term bonds which mature in weeks or months, instead of years. Dollar proponents constantly cite the continued accumulation of treasury bonds by other governments as a sign that the dollar is still desirable as ever. Unfortunately, they have failed to look at the nature of these bond purchases. When China rolls over millions in short term bonds and replaces them with other short term bonds, this does not suggest they have much faith in America’s long term ability to service its debt. It would also make sense that if China had plans to remove itself from the dollar system, they would move into short term bonds which can be liquidated quickly.

11) China is on the fast track to becoming the largest holder of physical gold in the world. Russia has also greatly expanded its gold purchases. Whatever losses they might suffer from a dump of their Treasury bond investments; it will be more than made up in the incredible explosion in precious metals prices that would follow.

12) The most common argument against the dollar losing world reserve status has been that such a shift would be “impossible” because no other currency in the world has the adequate liquidity needed to replace the dollar in global trade. These people have apparently not been paying attention to the Chinese yuan. China has been quietly issuing trillions in yuan denominated bonds, securities and currency around the world. Current estimates calculate around $24 trillion created by the PBOC and the banks under its control.

Mainstream talking heads are calling this a “debt bubble.” However, this debt creation makes perfect sense if China’s plan is to create enough liquidity in its currency in order to offer a viable alternative to the U.S. dollar. Linking the yuan to the IMF’s basket currency would complete the picture, forming a perfect dollar replacement while dollar cheerleading-economists stand dumbstruck.

13) China’s retreat away from dollar denominated investments has left a hole in the U.S. bond market. Recently, that negative space was filled by an unexpected source; namely Belgium. A country whose GDP represents less than 1% of total global GDP buying more U.S. bonds than China? The whole concept sounds bizarre. Where is the capital coming from?

Think about it this way – Belgium is the political center of the European Union and a haven for international financiers. There are more corporate cronies, lobbyists, bureaucrats, and foreign dignitaries in Belgium than in all of Washington D.C. But more importantly, Belgium struck a deal with the IMF in 2012 to begin pumping SDR denominated funds into “low income economies”. I would suggest that this funding flows both ways, and that now, the IMF is feeding capital into Belgium in order to buy U.S. Treasury Bonds. That is to say, the IMF is going to start using smaller member countries with limited savings as proxies to purchase U.S. debt using IMF money.

The ultimate danger of the IMF (run by internationalists, not the U.S. government) pre-positioning itself as the primary buyer of U.S. debt is that when the U.S. finally defaults (and it will), the IMF is likely to become the “guardian angel” of the U.S. economy, offering aid in exchange for total administrative control of our financial system, and the institution of the SDR as a world reserve replacement for the dollar.

14) The serious prospect of regional conflict or world war over tensions between the Ukraine and Russia, Japan and China, the U.S. and Syria, the U.S. and Iran, the U.S. and North Korea, etc., could make the effort of exposing the plan to shift economic power into a one world system centralized under the IMF almost meaningless. How many people will truly care about the financial power grab by banking elites if it drifts under the surface of catastrophic engineered wars? They’ll be too busy hating and fighting artificially created boogeymen to pay attention to the real globalist culprits.

I have been pointing out for quite a long time that globalists need a “cover event”; a disaster, an economic war or a shooting war, in order to provide a smokescreen for the collapse of the dollar. Alternative analysts have been consistently correct in predicting the trend towards the dump of the dollar. Years ago, we were laughed at for suggesting China would shift towards a consumer based economy and away from U.S. dependence. Today, it is mainstream news. We were laughed at for suggesting that nations like Russia and China would drop the dollar as a reserve currency. Today, they are already in the process of doing it. And, we were laughed at for suggesting that Russia or China would use their debt holdings as leverage against the U.S. in the event of a geopolitical conflict. Today, they are openly making threats.

I have to say, I’ve grown tired of the dollar cultists. How many times can a group of people be wrong and still argue with those who have been consistently right? The answer is that zealots never actually escape their own delusions, even when their delusions lead them and those around them to ruin. I suspect that in the face of complete dollar collapse, they will still be rationalizing the chaos and pontificating on our “lack of understanding” while the theater burns down around them.

VIDEO: Realist News 3/13/14. Stock Market Crash Coming Soon Guaranteed



Friday, March 7, 2014

World Health Organisation calls for sugar tax

Edward Malnick
London Telegraph
March 6, 2014

Sugar consumption should be halved to help reduce health problems such as obesity and tooth decay, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has warned.
The WHO set out draft guidance advising a dramatic reduction in sugar intake amid growing evidence that it contributes to chronic diseases.
The move follows calls by some leading scientists and campaigners for the current recommended daily limits on sugar intake to be halved to 5 per cent of an individual’s overall calorie consumption – the equivalent of six “level” teaspoons a day for the average adult.
The new guidance proposed by the WHO retains the current recommended limit of 10 per cent – around 12 teaspoons of sugar.

Full article here

Homeland Security Used Intercepted Emails to Quiz Woman About Her Sex Life

How is the DHS obtaining private communications?

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
March 7, 2014

A senior lecturer at Indiana University was confronted by Department of Homeland Security officials after the federal agency obtained copies of her emails and began quizzing her about the details of her sex life.

The ACLU is filing a lawsuit on behalf of Christine Von Der Haar after she was detained by Customs and Border Patrol at at Indianapolis International Airport during an incident in 2012.
The sociology professor traveled to the airport merely to help her friend pick up some computer parts that had been shipped separately. Greek national Dimitris Papatheodoropoulos had already arrived in the country under a valid business visa which allowed him to enter and leave the United States for a period of 10 years.
Both Von Der Haar and Papatheodoropoulos were detained by DHS officers and bombarded with questions about their private lives, including whether they had shared sexual relations, with feds alleging that the two secretly conspired so that Papatheodoropoulos could stay in the country illegally.
“Given that Mr. Papatheodoropoulos had retained his hard drive that contained the emails, the only way that the Customs and Border Protection Agents could have reviewed the emails is for someone to have surreptitiously monitored the communications between Dr. Von Der Haar and Mr. Papatheodoropoulos and reported those communications to the agents questioning her,” states the lawsuit. “Defendant Lieba admitted that employees of the United States had read email communications between Dr. Von Der Haar and Mr. Papatheodoropoulos.”
Customs and Border Protection seized Papatheodoropoulos’ passport and commenced proceedings to remove him from the country, claiming he had misrepresented his intentions. After Papatheodoropoulos consulted with lawyers and the Greek Consulate in Chicago, the proceedings were halted and his passport was returned. Papatheodoropoulos left the country of his own volition in August 2012.
“CBP officers grossly exceeded their jurisdiction. Dr. Dr. Von Der Haar’s US citizenship was never questioned; she wasn’t trying to enter, leave, or ship and goods in or out of the country; and she was never accused of any crime. In general, immigration (as distinct from customs) offenses are handled by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Border Patrol, not CBP. We’re curious what basis CBP will claim for its officers’ authority to detain and interrogate Dr. Dr. Von Der Haar or obtain her email,” asks Papers Please.
Either the DHS is obtaining Americans’ emails via their own undeclared (and illegal) snoop program, or they are being aided by the National Security Agency or some other government entity.
This case is not the only example of the DHS harassing travelers over personal information that the feds have no business or legal justification to know.
Last year we reported on the case of a Canadian woman was turned away by a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent as a result of being hospitalized for a mental illness a year previously.
50-year-old Ellen Richardson was barred from traveling to New York City after she was told that “system checks” had found she “had a medical episode in June 2012” and that because of this “mental illness episode” she would be required to undergo medical evaluation by DHS-approved doctors before being accepted.

VIDEO: The Global Economic Reset And Why Russia And The West Fight Over Ukraine





VIDEO: Tucker Carlson Reacts to Building 7 Implosion



VIDEO: Surviving The Invisible Economic Depression




VIDEO: Gregory Mannarino Economic Collapse News 3/7/14. The Ukraine Crisis will be a Gamechanger






Thursday, March 6, 2014

VIDEO: What's Next?


























Propaganda Rules The News

Paul Craig Roberts
Prison Planet.com
March 6, 2014
 
Gerald Celente calls the Western media “presstitutes,” an ingenuous term that I often use. Presstitutes sell themselves to Washington for access and government sources and to keep their jobs. Ever since the corrupt Clinton regime permitted the concentration of the US media, there has been no journalistic independence in the United States except for some Internet sites.

Glenn Greenwald points out the independence that RT, a Russian media organization, permits Abby Martin who denounced Russia’s alleged invasion of Ukraine, compared to the fates of Phil Donahue (MSNBC) and Peter Arnett (NBC), both of whom were fired for expressing opposition to the Bush regime’s illegal attack on Iraq. The fact that Donahue had NBC’s highest rated program did not give him journalistic independence. Anyone who speaks the truth in the American print or TV media or on NPR is immediately fired.
Russia’s RT seems actually to believe and observe the values that Americans profess but do not honor.
I agree with Greenwald. You can read his article here:http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37842.htm Greenwald is entirely admirable. He has intelligence, integrity, and courage. He is one of the brave to whom my just published book, How America Was Lost, is dedicated. As for RT’s Abby Martin, I admire her and have been a guest on her program a number of times.
My criticism of Greenwald and Martin has nothing to do with their integrity or their character. I doubt the claims that Abby Martin grandstanded on “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine” in order to boost her chances of moving into the more lucrative “mainstream media.” My point is quite different. Even Abby Martin and Greenwald, both of whom bring us much light, cannot fully escape Western propaganda.
For example, Martin’s denunciation of Russia for “invading” Ukraine is based on Western propaganda that Russia sent 16,000 troops to occupy Crimea. The fact of the matter is that those 16,000 Russian troops have been in Crimea since the 1990s. Under the Russian-Ukrainian agreement, Russia has the right to base 25,000 troops in Crimea.
Apparently, neither Abby Martin nor Glenn Greenwald, two intelligent and aware people, knew this fact. Washington’s propaganda is so pervasive that two of our best reporters were victimized by it.

As I have written several times in my columns, Washington organized the coup in Ukraine in order to promote its world hegemony by capturing Ukraine for NATO and putting US missile bases on Russia’s border in order to degrade Russia’s nuclear deterrent and force Russia to accept Washington’s hegemony.
Russia has done nothing but respond in a very low-key way to a major strategic threat orchestrated by Washington.
It is not only Martin and Greenwald who have fallen under Washington’s propaganda. They are joined by Patrick J. Buchanan. Pat’s column calling on readers to “resist the war party on Crimea” opens with Washington’s propagandistic claim: “With Vladimir Putin’s dispatch of Russian Troops into Crimea.” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37847.htm
No such dispatch has occurred. Putin has been granted authority by the Russian Duma to send troops to Ukraine, but Putin has stated publicly that sending troops would be a last resort to protect Crimean Russians from invasions by the ultra-nationalist neo-nazis who stole Washington’s coup and established themselves as the power in Kiev and western Ukraine.
So, here we have three of the smartest and most independent journalists of our time, and all three are under the impression created by Western propaganda that Russia has invaded Ukraine.
It appears that the power of Washington’s propaganda is so great that not even the best and most independent journalists can escape its influence.
What chance does truth have when Abby Martin gets kudos from Glenn Greenwald for denouncing Russia for an alleged “invasion” that has not taken place, and when independent Pat Buchanan opens his column dissenting from the blame-Russia-crowd by accepting that an invasion has taken place?
The entire story that the presstitutes have told about the Ukraine is a propaganda production. The presstitutes told us that the deposed president, Viktor Yanukovych, ordered snipers to shoot protesters. On the basis of these false reports, Washington’s stooges, who comprise the existing non-government in Kiev, have issued arrest orders for Yanukovych and intend for him to be tried in an international court. In an intercepted telephone call between EU foreign affairs minister Catherine Ashton and Estonian foreign affairs minister Urmas Paet who had just returned from Kiev, Paet reports: “There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition.” Paet goes on to report that “all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides . . . and it’s really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened.” Ashton, absorbed with EU plans to guide reforms in Ukraine and to prepare the way for the IMF to gain control over economic policy, was not particularly pleased to hear Paet’s report that the killings were an orchestrated provocation. You can listen to the conversation between Paet and Ashton here: http://rt.com/news/ashton-maidan-snipers-estonia-946/
What has happened in Ukraine is that Washington plotted against and overthrew an elected legitimate government and then lost control to neo-nazis who are threatening the large Russian population in southern and eastern Ukraine, provinces that formerly were part of Russia. These threatened Russians have appealed for Russia’s help, and just like the Russians in South Ossetia, they will receive Russia’s help.
The Obama regime and its presstitutes will continue to lie about everything.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is now available.