Monday, May 30, 2016

AMERICA'S TWO-PARTY SYSTEM AS CAUSE OF WARS

POLITICS IS ALWAYS LISTED IN THE 'TOP 3' AS CAUSES OF WAR, WHETHER INTERNAL WARS OR GLOBAL ONES.

Many political scientists and foreign policymakers view war as the continuation of politics: When diplomacy fails, some states simply decide to use force.

While democracies don't hurry to go to war with other democracies, they are just as fast to go to war against non-democracies as any other form of government.

Since the early 1900s, America has been more prone to war than most other democracies.

She has been accused of "empire building", not to gain land, but to tap into the natural resources of other nations.
This, too, has been influenced by politics.


Some political beliefs favor war more than others.

WHEN OUR POLITICIANS DISCOVERED THAT, BY SIDING WITH THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX TO FUND THE GREAT WAR MACHINE, THEY COULD GET PAID TO DO SO, GET FINANCIAL REWARDS THAT WOULD UP THEIR CHANCES OF WINNING ELECTIONS, THEY HOPPED ABOARD THAT TRAIN AND SHOVED THE THROTTLE WIDE OPEN.

IT'S BEEN A RUNAWAY TRAIN EVER SINCE.

POLITICS: DESTROYING AMERICA....FROM WITHIN


IT BEGINS ON THE INSIDE AND GNAWS ITS WAY OUT.

"The two-party system is destroying America.
Democrats and Republicans are in a death match and the American people are caught in the middle.

The bitter fight between Democrats and Republicans has largely ground government to a halt.

[ IT HAS ALSO AFFECTED OUR ATTITUDE TOWARD GLOBAL INTERVENTION, UNDECLARED WAR, FUELED THE 'MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX' AS WE WILL SOON SEE.]

Partisans on both sides are so angry they can barely speak with the other, much less work together. The most extreme are convinced that members of the other party are treasonous and purposefully harming the nation.

This isn’t just a perception.


A recent Pew Research survey found that 36 percent of Republicans thought that liberal policies are “a threat to the nation’s well-being.” 27 percent of Democrats feel the same way about conservatives.
The more destructive problem is the way this skews the discussion of the issues facing the nation.

The [two parties] don’t just think they have better ideas or their opponents are misguided, EACH honestly believe that the other side is more interested in partisan gain than the well-being of the nation.

Many of the more extreme partisans simply refuse to work with the other side.

The result is that the two parties have the nation’s capital, and many state capitals, in a death grip.


Over the last thirty years the nation has grown more partisan and Congress has become less effective.
80 percent of Americans currently disapprove of Congress. ZERO PERCENT ARE BUSY FIRING THE BASTARDS.
THE AMERICAN VOTERS TEND TO VOTE FOR THE SAME CROOKS AND LIARS OVER AND OVER AGAIN.


 Each side is more extreme, and each bases their political agenda on demonizing the other side. Each side engages in political machinations, which include partisan gerrymandering and manipulating the rules of Congress to get their way, stymie their opponents, or deny them office completely. "


THE BATTLE BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES SPILLS OVER INTO INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS.

The military-industrial complex in a country typically attempts to marshal political support for continued or increased military spending by the national government.


 The term military-industrial complex was first used by U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his Farewell Address on January 17, 1961.

Before and during the Second World War, American industries had successfully converted to defense production as the crisis demanded, but out of the war, what Eisenhower called a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions emerged.

The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist, Eisenhower cautioned.
He warned that the federal government’s collaboration with an alliance of military and industrial leaders, though necessary, was vulnerable to abuse of power.


Ike then counseled American citizens to be vigilant in monitoring the military-industrial complex. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Ike also recommended restraint in consumer habits, particularly with regard to the environment.

"'As we peer into society’s future, we–you and I, and our government–must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage.'"


TODAY, WHICH POLITICAL PARTY HAS MOST OFTEN ALIGNED WITH THIS MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX?

WHICH PARTY HAS BECOME THE MORE WILLING SUPPORTER OF THIS WAR MACHINE?


CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM "THE DOGS OF WAR" GO TO THE "HAWKS" OF CAPITOL HILL.

"Because large corporations like Lockheed Martin can funnel millions into political campaigns, veterans and soldiers (and their families) create a massive voting block, and national defense is an easy slogan, America has seen its defense budget needlessly and uncontrollably burgeon, NO MATTER WHICH PARTY WAS IN CONTROL.

Congressmen funnel funds to the mega-corporations that build and replenish the machinery of war, and, in return, those huge companies give back to their friends on Capitol Hill EACH NEW ELECTION YEAR.

IT'S BEEN A MUTUAL LOVE FEST FOR HALF A CENTURY OR MORE.

Senate Republicans, for instance had no qualms appropriating $380 million for the widely lambasted MEADS (Medium Extended Air Defense System).

Even though the Congressional Budget Office recommended Congress “terminate” MEADS, Richard Shelby (R - Ala) expressed support for the program, calling it “the right thing to do.”
The program office is located in his home state.


Since Republicans are happy to reign in any spending other than military spending, they have a vice grip on the military voting block.
The military saps up 20 percent of the federal budget, at nearly $711 billion (the closest competitor, China spends a relatively meager $143 billion).

[NOTE:  THIS $711 BILLION DOES NOT REFLECT THE VARIOUS "SLUSH FUNDS", AS WE ARE NOT PRIVY TO THE AMOUNT OF MONEY IN THOSE FUNDS....NATIONAL SECURITY FORBIDS IT.]

Every billion spent on defense is a billion away from the school system, from public goods, from highways and environmental programs.

And while the United States is number one in defense spending (spending more than every other country combined) it lags behind Europe and China on infrastructure spending.


But the greatest cost exposes the greatest hypocrisy of the Republican Party: while the party laments the budget deficit to justify tax cuts on the wealthy or cuts to Medicaid, State Children’s Health Insurance Program, and school lunch programs, it refuses to accept that defense spending is partially responsible for the massive deficits.

Two-thirds of all discretionary spending goes to defense ($851 billion for defense and $410 billion for non-defense in 2013).

Admiral Michael Mullen recently said that the national debt is the greatest threat to national security.

The defense budget has grown at an unprecedented level in the past 13 years, the greatest and most prolonged build-up of the past half century.

AMERICA IS CONSTANTLY PREPARING FOR WAR.
"A massive defense buildup - like the one during the Reagan administration - is a dangerous proposal.

It is dangerous not just because it would enlarge US imperial power and add to an already bloated defense budget, but because it would allow Republicans to further pursue austerity measures.

Republicans have done this for 70 years.

Since World War II, Republicans have relied on the American defense budget to divert federal funds away from social welfare in support of a military-industrial complex that is ever-growing.


When The United States' military power failed to defeat guerilla forces in Southeast Asia, the defense budget was slashed, forcing contractors into an existential crisis.
But the crisis was temporary. Richard Nixon allowed the defense industry to avert criticism at home by exporting weapons abroad. Global arms sales surged after 1968. Weapons sales only escalated from this point, contributing to blowback against US foreign policy in the developing world.

Companies such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin have raked in large profits in arms deals, selling aircraft to the Saudis to wage war in Yemen and to the United Arab Emirates to bomb Syria.


And even when military contractors faced insolvency in the 1970s, Republicans in Congress bailed them out.

Faced with bankruptcy due to financial mismanagement and internal corruption in 1971, the federal government (CONGRESS) guaranteed Lockheed's loans totaling over $250 million, sparing the company from ruin.


Military contractors fared even better with Ronald Reagan. Reagan's policy of "peace through strength" meant vast gains for white-collar technocrats in the military-industrial complex.

The Reagan buildup, particularly programs like the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), was a boon to white, highly-educated scientists and researchers, who by the 1980s profited most from defense.
Expanding the Cold War abroad thus meant growing economic inequality at home during the Reagan years, when incomes began to separate the most.

During the presidency of George W. Bush, the defense budget doubled.

Bush also sent Cold War weaponry to police departments in suburban America to fight crime and the "war on drugs," militarizing poor communities in the process.

Moreover, the defense industry continues to profit from global conflagrations while laying off its domestic industrial workforce, marginalizing unions, closing factories and leaving many communities jobless.

Republican supporters of increased defense spending depict the United States' global military as necessary to the national security of the United States.

CREATING AND MAINTAINING THE LUCRATIVE "CLASS WAR"

The largest benefactors of the military-industrial complex continue to be wealthy suburbs in the South and West that also heavily lean Republican.

This explains why Republicans advocate wealth-creation through war while promoting tax cuts and deregulation for the rich.

The existence of the military economy has allowed the Right to sell the military as a remedy for joblessness, even while supporting austerity policies that enlarge the gap between the rich and poor.

It is therefore not enough to reject Republicans' demands for a bigger military budget. An economic alternative to war capitalism must be provided - one that provides full employment.

Doing so will offer Americans independence from a structure that has not served the broader interests of the poor OR working-class; or, the country as a whole."

OUR CONGRESSMEN ARE HORSE-TRADERS AND PORK DELIVERERS.

"Eisenhower, in a presentation to the American Society of Newspaper Editors on April 16, 1953, contemplated a world permanently perched on the brink of war—“humanity hanging from a cross of iron”— and he appealed to Americans to assess the consequences likely to ensue.
Largely overlooked by most commentators was a second theme that Eisenhower had woven into his text.
The essence of this theme was simplicity itself: spending on arms and armies is inherently undesirable.

Even when seemingly necessary, it constitutes a misappropriation of scarce resources. By diverting social capital from productive to destructive purposes, war and the preparation for war deplete, rather than enhance, a nation’s strength.
And while assertions of military necessity might camouflage the costs entailed, they can never negate them altogether.


“Every gun that is made,” Eisenhower told his listeners, “every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”

Any nation that pours its treasure into the purchase of armaments is spending more than mere money. “It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”


To emphasize the point, Eisenhower offered specifics:
"The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities…
We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.
We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people."


Yet in Cold War Washington, Eisenhower’s was a voice crying in the wilderness. As much as they liked Ike, Americans had no intention of choosing between guns and butter: they wanted both.

Military Keynesianism—the belief that the production of guns could underwrite an endless supply of butter—was enjoying its heyday.

At the time, the idea that militarizing U.S. policy might yield economic benefits outweighing the costs seemed eminently plausible.

The authors of the National Security Council report “NSC-68,” the 1950 blueprint for U.S. rearmament, had made this point explicitly: boosting Pentagon spending would “increase the gross national product by more than the amount being absorbed for additional military and foreign assistance purposes.”

Building up the nation’s defenses could serve as a sort of permanent economic stimulus program, putting people to work and money in their pockets.

So Americans disregarded Ike’s brooding about a “cross of iron” and a trade-off between guns and butter.
The 1950s brought new bombers and new schools, fleets of warships and tracts of freshly built homes spilling into the suburbs.

Eisenhower and his fellow Republicans were more than happy to pocket the credit for this win-win outcome.

Yet the president, if not his party, also sensed that beneath the appearance of Ozzie-and-Harriet prosperity, momentous and not altogether welcome changes were taking place.

The postwar boom in which the American middle class took such satisfaction was reconfiguring, redistributing, and redefining American power.

In 1952, when Ike was elected, our nuclear stockpile numbered some 1,000 warheads. By the time he passed the reins to John F. Kennedy in 1961, it consisted of more than 24,000 warheads, and it rapidly ascended later that decade to a peak of 31,000.

As commander in chief, Ike exercised only nominal control over this development, which was driven by an unstated alliance of interested parties:
generals, defense officials, military contractors, and members of Congress.
During the Eisenhower years, military outlays served as a seemingly inexhaustible engine of economic well-being.

Keeping the Soviets at bay required the design and acquisition of a vast array of guns and missiles, bombers and warships, tanks and fighter planes.

Ensuring that U.S. forces stayed in fighting trim entailed the construction of bases, barracks, depots, and training facilities.
Research labs received funding. Businesses large and small won contracts. Organized labor got jobs.

And politicians who delivered all these goodies to their constituents hauled in endorsements, campaign contributions, and votes.

For its beneficiaries, girding for war was a gift, and one they expected would never stop giving.

IKE KNEW BETTER.
But, to sustain the illusion he was fully in command, Ike remained publicly silent about what went on behind the scenes.
Only on the eve of his departure from office did he inform the nation as to what Washington’s new obsession with national security had wrought.


In his speech of 1961, as in 1953, his central theme was theft.
This time, however, rather than homes or schools, Ike suggested the thieves might walk off with democracy itself.


The Cold War, he emphasized, had transformed the country’s approach to defending itself. In the past, “American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well.”

But this reliance on improvisation no longer sufficed.
The rivalry with the Soviet Union had “compelled” the United
States “to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.”

As a consequence, “we annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.”


The “economic, political, even spiritual” reach of this conglomeration was immense, Eisenhower explained, extending to “every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government.”


With corporate officials routinely claiming the Pentagon’s top posts, and former military officers hiring themselves out to defense contractors, fundamental values were at risk.
“In the councils of government,” Eisenhower continued, "
we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted."


Eisenhower then advanced a striking solution: ultimate responsibility for democracy’s defense, he insisted, necessarily rested with the people themselves.
Rather than according Washington deference, American citizens needed to exercise strict oversight.

Counting on the national-security state to police itself—on members of Congress to set aside parochial concerns, corporate chieftains to put patriotism above profit, and military leaders to hew to the ethic of their profession—wouldn’t do the trick.


NO ONE TOOK HEED TO HIS WARNING.
THE REIGN OF "CAMELOT" HAD BEGUN, JFK HAD WON THE ELECTION.


So Ike departed, but military metaphysics survived intact and found particular favor in the upper echelons of the next administration.

On the campaign trail, Kennedy had promised higher defense spending, enhanced nuclear capabilities, and a reinvigorated confrontation with Communism.

Once in office, he proved as good as his word.
Today, 50+ years later, an aura of never-ending crisis still prevails—and with it, military metaphysics.

The national-security state continues to grow in size, scope, and influence.

In Ike’s day, for example, the CIA dominated the field of intelligence.
Today, experts refer casually to an “intelligence community,” consisting of some 17 agencies.

The cumulative size and payroll of this apparatus grew by leaps and bounds in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

Last July, The Washington Post reported that it had “become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.”

Since that report appeared, U.S. officials have parted the veil of secrecy enough to reveal that intelligence spending exceeds $80 billion per year, substantially more than the budget of either the Department of State ($49 billion) or the Department of Homeland Security ($43 billion).


Even more astonishing, annual U.S. military outlays now approximate those of all other nations, friends as well as foes, combined.

C. Wright Mills came closer to the mark about the power of the military-industrial complex than Ike did when he wrote of “a coalition of generals in the roles of corporation executives, of politicians masquerading as admirals, of corporation executives acting like politicians.”

Throw in the former members of Congress who lobby their successors on behalf of defense contractors, and the serving members who vote in favor of any defense appropriations that send money to their districts, and one begins to get a sense of the true topog­raphy.

With what result?
Not peace, and not prosperity.

Instead, American soldiers traipse wearily from one conflict to the next while the nation as a whole suffers from acute economic distress.

What has gone amiss?


Certain enterprises flourish, notably private security firms such as DynCorp, MPRI, and, of course, the notorious Blackwater (now known as Xe).

At MPRI, they like to say “We’ve got more generals per square foot here than in the Pentagon.”

But even if those generals are doing fine, the grandchildren of Ozzie and Harriet, coping with 9.8 percent unemployment and contemplating the implications of trillion-dollar deficits, see little benefit from our exorbitant Pentagon outlays.

To train, equip, and maintain one American soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan for just one year costs a cool million dollars.

Yet Ike would hardly be surprised.
He would reserve his surprise—and his disappointment—for the American people.

A half century after he summoned us to shoulder the responsibilities of citizenship, we still refuse to do so.

In Washington, military metaphysics remains sacrosanct.
No wonder we continue to get our pockets picked."

"Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.
An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.

In the Department of Defense, where more than two-thirds of the intelligence programs reside, only a handful of senior officials - called Super Users - have the ability to even know about all the department's activities.

BEING IN THE INNER CIRCLE PAY$
$~ Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, during his 2008 re-election campaign, received $209,000 in individual and political action committee contributions from defense industry sources, including $10,000 from Lockheed.

$~
Congressman Buck McKeon, a California Republican and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, accepted $228,200 from defense industry sources between 2013 and 2014, including another $10,000 from Lockheed. It’s unclear just what McKeon will do with this money since he is not running for his seat this election.

$~
Top-ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee was James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican. He received $373,700 in contributions from defense industry between 2009 and 2014, including $30,000 from Lockheed.

$~
Then-top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, ranking minority member Adam Smith of Washington, took in $274,200 from defense industry sources between 2012 and 2014 for his 2014 re-election, including $20,000 from Lockheed.-------

$~ The new chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee—Arizona senator John McCain, a Republican—took $246,300 from the defense industry, $32,500 of that from Lockheed.

$~ The new ranking minority member is Rhode Island senator Jack Reed, a Democrat who accepted $419,500 from the defense industry, including $40,000 from Lockheed.

$~ The new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Republican Mac Thornberry of Texas, benefited from $415,400 in defense industry donations—$20,000 of that from Lockheed.

Just as Ashton Carter traded in his high-level Defense Department positions for entry into a number of defense-interested firms, so do innumerable other former Pentagon officials, senior military officers and members of Congress and their staffs.
The behavior is rampant among senior generals and admirals. 

In a seminal article in 2010, the Boston Globe found that 80 percent of retiring three- and four-star generals went to work for defense related firms—and one year, 34 out of 39 did.


The issue is not that all these beneficiaries of the revolving door receive obscenely large compensation to enhance their already generous government pensions, it’s that the prospect of future pay can and does alter their decision-making while in government.
Much, but not all, of this behavior is perfectly legal.

That the laws governing post-government service are so full of loopholes is not an accident.
In fact, it’s the effect of the strong preferences of the military-industrial-congressional complex.


Industry-serving behavior has become THIS pervasive and repugnant today.

IT'S NO LONGER "JUST" THE MILITARY AND INDUSTRY ALIGNED TOGETHER....NOW OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS HAVE JOINED THAT 'COMPLEX'.

T'S A THREESOME...THREE FOR WAR, THREE FOR UNENDING, NEEDLESS AND IN MANY CASES WIN-LESS WARS, UNDECLARED, UNNECESSARY, DESIGNED AND IMPLEMENTED STRICTLY AS A MONEY-MAKING SCHEME OF THOSE WHO VALUE PROFITS OVER THE LIVES OF OUR MILITARY, MILITARY LIVES WHOM ALL THREE PLAYERS ARE WILLING TO SACRIFICE TO FATTEN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS AND INCREASE THEIR POWER.


PERHAPS WE CAN DETERMINE FROM ALL OF THE ABOVE JUST WHICH PARTY NOT ONLY IS MOST ALIGNED WITH THE OLD MILITARY-INDUSTRIALISTS, BUT HOW THAT HAS AFFECTED EVERYTHING, EVERY BILL, EVERY LAW, THAT COMES OFF THE SENATE AND HOUSE FLOORS.

LIKE PLANETS REVOLVING AROUND A SUN, CONGRESS REVOLVES AROUND THE MEGA-CORPORATIONS WHICH THRIVE BEST IN TIMES OF CONFLICT ABROAD.

WHAT FOLLOWS SHOULD SHOW EVEN THE MOST SKEPTICAL WHERE THE LOYALTIES LIE BY PARTY.
IT IS A LOT OF STATISTICS, AND, MANY WILL SKIP IT, BUT THERE ARE SOME "GEMS" OF INSIGHT FOR THOSE WILLING TO SEE FACTS.

In 2015, Pew research found that ...

ON THE SUBJECT OF GLOBAL DOMINANCE...

Despite the public’s ambivalence about U.S. global involvement, a majority of Americans (55%) support policies maintaining America’s status as the only military superpower.

Only about a third (36%) say it would be acceptable if another country became as militarily powerful as the U.S.
As in the past, there are partisan differences in opinions about whether the U.S. should try to maintain its status as the world’s sole superpower.
Two-thirds of Republicans (67%) say U.S. policies should be aimed at keeping the U.S. as the sole superpower, compared with about half of Democrats (50%) and independents (52%).
About twice as many Republicans (23%) as Democrats and independents (12% each) say the U.S. should be the single world leader.


ON THE FEAR OF TERRORISTS....

Twice as many Republicans (42%) see international 'terrorism' as more concerning than the economy (21%).
They fear terrorist attacks more than a collapsed financial system.

In just one year, 2014-2015, the Republican focus had switched to ISIS and more Republicans than ever expressed the urgency to put "boots-on-the-ground" in areas of the Middle east against ISIS.
66% of Republicans wanted to see U.S. ground forces in both Syria and Iraq.

Fully 72% of Republicans say that using overwhelming force is the best way to defeat global terrorism.

Notably, more than nine-in-ten Republicans (93%) cite ISIS as a major threat

Among Democrats, just 27% favor the use of overwhelming military force, while 66% say relying too much on military force creates hatred that leads to more terrorism.


As we can see in the graph above, Republicans are very preoccupied with "terror", with perceived threats from other nations.

Most Republicans (74%) say their bigger concern is the U.S. will not go far enough in stopping Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria


IMMIGRATION? REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT IMMIGRANTS, THANKS.
Republicans, overall, are far more opposed to immigrants entering the U.S. than their Democrat counterparts.

On the subject of America allowing refugees from Middle Eastern war-torn nations, two-thirds (67%) of Republicans said they disapproved of the plan; a nearly identical share of Democrats (69%) approved of it.

More than eight-in-ten GOP voters who support Trump (85%) say the refugees are a major threat to the U.S.

Republicans have often complained of the "Brown Tide" of both legal and  illegal immigrants
entering the U.S. from south of the American border.


Republicans in Congress have long opposed any and all immigration reform, voting against Presidents from their own parties who attempted to reform immigration, or who wanted to give amnesty to illegals who have lived in America for years.

INCREASE 'DEFENSE SPENDING'

The majority of Republicans are more for defense spending than for spending to feed the poor, spending to help returning veterans, or spending to create a better educational system. or spending to clean up and improve their environment. 


In essence, they'd rather feel "protected" than make things better for the poor, disabled, elderly, children or veterans, or make improvements n education, environment or infrastructure.


Since being whipped into a frenzy of fear by the attacks on 9/11, Republicans, more than any other group polled, see "Homeland Security" as necessary to their protection, even though it means less privacy and greater government control over their rights and freedom.

For Republicans those mythical "weapons of mass destruction" are still out there, somewhere, threatening our nation.


The share favoring more defense spending has increased 12 percentage points (from 23%) since 2013.

Fully 61% of Republicans favor higher defense spending, up 24 percentage points from 2013.
AMERICA'S FOREIGN POLICY? WHAT'S THAT?
This shift underscores the deep partisan and ideological divisions in attitudes about U.S. foreign policy – differences that extend to how to deal with terrorism, the nature of global threats, views of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and how deeply involved the United States should be in the world.

These are among the main findings of 'America’s Place in the World', a survey of foreign policy attitudes conducted periodically by Pew Research Center.

Trump’s primary campaign supporters stand out for their negative assessments of U.S. involvement in the global economy. 


Fully 65% of Republican registered voters who prefer Trump for the Republican presidential nomination say U.S. involvement in the global economy is a bad thing. 
Although many Americans believe the U.S. has become less powerful than it was in the past  , the predominant view among the entire general  public is that the United States is the world’s leading economic and military power.

72% say the U.S. is the leading MILITARY power, while 12% say it is China and 10% Russia.
The share saying the U.S. is the top military power has grown from 64% in 2013.


Again, these attitudes also are divided along partisan lines:
Republicans (67%) remain more likely than independents (48%) or Democrats (26%) to say that the U.S. has become less powerful and important.


GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE? IT'S A MYTH ACCORDING TO MOST REPUBLICANS
There are partisan differences over a number of global concerns, but the widest gap, by far, is over the threat to the United States from global climate change.

Nearly eight-in-ten Democrats (77%) view global climate change as a major threat to the U.S., compared with just 26% of Republicans.

Among Republicans, climate change is the lowest of the eight threats included in the survey.

Since few Republicans are concerned with climate change, few are willing to consider alternative forms of power.
This means more will favor, both now and in the future, America's "intervention" in foreign nations whose natural resources such as oil, natural gas, coal, etc, all fossil fuels, plus resources for powering nuclear facilities and America's nuclear arsenal, like sources of uranium, can be tapped into.
Large majorities of Republican voters, regardless of their primary preference, say their bigger concern is that anti-terror policies have not gone far enough to protect the country.
Among Sanders supporters, 51% say their bigger concern is that U.S. policies have gone too far in restricting civil liberties, while 33% say they have not gone far enough in protecting the U.S. Opinion among Clinton supporters is reversed (51% not gone far enough, 35% too far).

The number of Americans who say the U.S. should “mind its own business internationally” – which in 2013 surpassed 50% for the time in a half-century (52%) – has declined to 43% in the current survey.

However, just 37% say the U.S. “should HELP other countries deal with their problems,” while a majority (57%) say the nation should “deal with its own problems and let other countries deal with their problems the best they can.


ON FOREIGN AID TO 'DEVELOPING NATIONS'....FORGET ABOUT IT.
Nearly eight-in-ten Trump supporters oppose increasing foreign aid to developing nations (78%); two-thirds are against importing more goods from these nations (67%); and about six-in ten disapprove of increasing U.S. companies’ investment abroad (63%).


On the Democratic side, there are no significant differences between the views of Clinton and Sanders supporters on these issues.

BEATING THE DRUMS OF WAR. WHO BANGS LOUDEST?

Those who are … beating the drums of war should explain clearly to the American people what they think the costs and benefits would be.
“The notion that the way to solve every one of these problems is to deploy our military — that hasn’t been true in the past and it won’t be true now. …
Sometimes, it’s necessary, but we don’t do it casually. … We think it through. We don’t play politics with it.”

~Barack Obama, March, 2012, denouncing Republican “bluster” about war with Iran.

"Perhaps the president was referring to Republican candidate for president Mitt Romney’s pledge to a cheering throng to “station multiple carriers and warships at Iran’s door” and deny Tehran even “the capacity to make a bomb.”

Perhaps Obama had in mind John McCain’s call for U.S. air strikes on Syria, an act of war rejected even by GOP Speaker John Boehner as “premature,” since the “situation in Syria is pretty complicated.”

Have the Republican uber-hawks learned nothing from the war for which they beat the drums 10 years ago?


Then they told us Saddam Hussein was implicated in 9/11, that he had chemical weapons, that if we didn’t invade his country we could expect anthrax attacks by Iraqi crop-dusters up and down our East Coast.

[THEY ALL FAILED TO MENTION THAT "HIS COUNTRY" WAS SAUDI ARABIA, WHERE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THOSE 9/11 HIJACKERS CALLED HOME.]

Those who asked for proof Saddam was a mortal threat were dismissed by Condi Rice: “There will always be some uncertainty about how quickly Saddam can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

The price of our heeding that bluster? Some 4,500 American dead, 35,000 wounded, $1 trillion sunk, 100,000 Iraqi dead, half a million widows and orphans.

The fruits of our victory?
A Shia-dominated Iraq descending into sectarian and civil war.


The GOP’s political reward for marching us up to Baghdad?
Loss of both houses of Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008, when the antiwar Obama crushed the war hawk McCain."

ROUGHLY HALF OF AMERICA JUST HASN'T LEARNED FROM OUR RECENT PAST.
We are STILL in debt for the George H.W. Bush "Desert Storm" undeclared war of the 1990s
We are STILL paying for George W. Bush's hunt for WMDs in Iraq, 

While Pakistan harbored Bin Laden for YEARS, Bush, Jr. sent our troops into Iraq, Afghanistan and some of our troops are still there.

We've spent TRILLIONS on a futile, undeclared war on nations that had NOTHING to do with 9/11, while watching Bush, Jr, kissing the mouths of monarchs of the nation which helped fund that attack and strolling them through the White House rose garden....Saudi Arabia supplies us "cheap" oil, after all... and we kiss more than lips to keep that supply going.

Today’s repulsive national security system is corroding the security, not to mention the liberty, of every American.

We search in vain for a leader of conscience in the White House, Congress or the Pentagon to repair our broken national defenses.
Sadly, that search will remain entirely hopeless for as long as we permit our military and political leaders to accept defense contractor compensation or contributions.

The prospect of plush defense corporation jobs dangling over generals and civilian decision-makers throughout their careers—and the active flow of cash to politicians during and after their elected terms of office—suborn our democracy.

WHEN WILL THE NEXT THOUSAND OF OUR FINEST, OUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS, BE SENT OFF TO ANOTHER UNDECLARED WAR?

DO WE CARE ENOUGH TO DEMAND AN END TO THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL-CONGRESSIONAL COMPLEX?

IT APPEARS NOT.

JUST AS THE FEDERAL RESERVE PLACED US IN AN UNENDING CYCLE OF IRREDUCIBLE DEBT, SO OUR MEGA-CORPORATIONS' NEED FOR PROFIT HAS FOREVER ENTRAPPED US INTO SENDING THOSE WE LOVE OFF TO FOREIGN SOILS AGAIN AND AGAIN.

WE EITHER LEARN OR WE PERISH.

OBVIOUSLY, YET AGAIN, THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS CHOOSE TO PERISH... ALL IN THE NAME OF "PARTY LOYALTY", BR IT DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN.

THE TRUTH IS, BOTH PARTIES ARE THE SAME ...CORRUPT, SELF-SERVING, POWER-HUNGRY ASYLUMS FOR THE WEAK-MINDED WHO HAVE ACCEPTED THAT THEY MUST NEVER QUESTION ANYTHING THEIR PARTY DOES.

SELF-BLINDED, THOSE IN BOTH PARTIES ARE EASILY LED DOWN ANY PATH THEIR PARTY LEADERS TAKE THEM.

CHOOSING PARTY OVER NATION, NONE HAVE NOTICED THE DEATH OF AMERICA, JUST AS ALMOST NO ONE HAS NOTICED THE DEATHS OF THOSE WE HAVE SENT TO SERVE HER MONEY-HUNGRY CORPORATIONS AND POLITICIANS. 

ON THIS MEMORIAL DAY, WE WOULD NOT BE WRONG TO SAY THAT AMERICANS HAVE NO REAL MEMORY OF THE SACRIFICES IT HAS TAKEN TO KEEP THE WAR MACHINE WELL-OILED....A MACHINE OILED BY THE BLOOD OF OUR FALLEN...AND THAT ALL WE HAVE TO SHOW FOR THAT IS SERVITUDE AND DEBT.

THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY DIED FOR.





700,000 DEATHS YEARLY FROM 'SUPERBUGS'

The danger posed by bacteria's growing resistance to antibiotics should be ranked along with terrorism on a list of threats to the nation, the government's chief medical officer for England has said. It as a "ticking time bomb". 

Professor Dame Sally Davies  said: "If we don't take action, then we may all be back in an almost 19th Century environment where infections kill us as a result of routine operations. We won't be able to do a lot of our cancer treatments or organ transplants."

"We haven't had a new class of antibiotics since the late 80s and there are very few antibiotics in the pipeline of the big pharmaceutical companies that develop and make drugs," she said.

Newly Discovered Bacteria Can Resist All Antibiotics | TIME


Drug resistant infections will kill an extra 10 million people a year worldwide - more than currently die from cancer - by 2050 unless action is taken, a study says.
They are currently implicated in 700,000 deaths each year.

The analysis, presented by the economist Jim O'Neill, said the costs of this many dead and dying would spiral to $100 TRILLION USD (£63 TRILLION).


Above: SUPERBUG  "CRE"
This 'bug', carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, or CRE, is also known as the "nightmare" bacteria because of its resistance to antibiotics.


Above: Clostridium difficile.
This hard-to-treat bacteria, known as C. diff., can cause infectious diarrhea.
It's said to be a growing problem in hospitals, killing an estimated 14,000 people annually in the United States.


Above: result of Necrotizing fasciitis. Also known as the flesh-eating bacteria, this condition is rare but still kills in the United States.


Above: MRSA  stands for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, which is a type of Staphylococcus aureus that is resistant to the antibacterial activity of methicillin and other related antibiotics of the penicillin class.


MRSA infections are a particular problem in hospitals.
Caused by a bacteria commonly found on the skin or in the nose, staph infections can be deadly and some strains no longer respond to common antibiotics.

This is because Staphylococcus aureus can make a substance called ß-lactamase (pronounced beta-lactamase), that degrades penicillin, destroying its antibacterial activity.

OVER 700,000 PEOPLE WILL DIE THIS YEAR FROM BACTERIAL INFECTIONS THAT DO NOT RESPOND TO CURRENT ANTIBIOTICS.


"A tiny cut leaves you fighting for your life.
Basic treatments are ineffective. An operation proves deadly. Luck may be the only thing that saves you.

This isn't the plot of a poorly-executed science fiction novel but rather a startling new reality. A future without antibiotics, BECAUSE THEY NO LONGER WORK AGAINST SOME STRAINS OF BACTERIA.

THOSE BACTERIA ARE BEING CALLED "SUPERBUGS" AND THE MORE OFTEN ANTIBIOTICS ARE USED TO TREAT THEM, THE MORE RESISTANT THEY BECOME, GETTING STRONGER EACH TIME UNTIL, TODAY, THEY ARE IMMUNE TO ALL KNOWN ANTIBIOTICS WE HAVE TO FIGHT THEM.


In 2050, superbugs may kill 1 person every 3 seconds,


"We need to inform in different ways, all over the world, why it's crucial we stop treating our antibiotics like sweets.”

A 10-point plan for reducing antibiotic use and finding ways to curb bacterial resistance was outlined.
The ten points of the plan are to:

  • Create a global public awareness campaign
  • Improve hygiene and prevent infections
  • Cut antimicrobial use in agriculture
  • Improve global surveillance of drug resistant microbes
  • Promote new, fast diagnostics to ensure proper use of antibiotics
  • Promote alternative treatments to antibiotics, such as vaccines
  • Support infectious disease professionals
  • Establish a global fund for research on antimicrobials and resistance
  • Incentivize development of new drugs
  • Build a global coalition


Superbugs to kill 'more than cancer' by 2050 - BBC News


Drug resistant E. coli, malaria and tuberculosis (TB) would have the biggest impact.
"In Nigeria, by 2050, more than one in four deaths would be attributable to drug resistant infections, while India would see an additional two million lives lost every year."



The review team believes its analysis represents a significant underestimate of the potential impact of failing to tackle drug resistance, as it did not include the effects on healthcare of a world in which antibiotics no longer worked.
Without effective antibiotics, procedures such as joint replacements, Caesarean sections, chemotherapy and transplant surgery would become much riskier and in many cases impossible.

Mr O'Neill said his team would now be exploring what action could be taken to avert this looming crisis.
This would include looking at:
  • how drug use could be changed to reduce the rise of resistance
  • how to boost the development of new drugs
  • the need for coherent international action concerning drug use in humans and animals

WHEN ANTIBIOTIC DRUGS DON'T WORK, WHAT WILL?


~ Bacteriophage are a group of viruses which infect and kill bacteria.
They were discovered in 1915 in the former Soviet republic of Georgia and have remained part of medical practice there.

However, research on them was largely abandoned in the West due to the success of antibiotics.

Clinical trials on bacteriophage are taking place, but the subject area has attracted some critics who say the field has not delivered.

~ Professor Chris Thomas, molecular geneticist at the University of Birmingham, argues that "hygiene appears to be responsible for the reduction in MRSA cases" and that "we need to get back to careful nursing."

He concluded: "We need to pursue every possible link, having one strategy is like having all your eggs in one basket."

Beyond the above two possibilities, adding perhaps better, truly effective vaccines that don't kill people, there is little to hope for.


WHY AREN'T PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES DOING MORE RESEARCH INTO BETTER, NEW ANTIBIOTICS?

BECAUSE THERE'S NO LONG-TERM PROFIT IN ANTIBIOTICS.


To take a drug from discovery to market is estimated to cost £700 MILLION ($1,094 BILLION USD).

Colin McKay, from the European Federation of the Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, said: "It is very difficult to make economically viable models for antibiotics."

"With heart medication or anti-depressants a lot of people take them for a long time so you can make money back. An antibiotic that works is unlikely to be used for more than a couple of weeks."

He added: "A new way to promote research is needed and there is an ongoing debate into how to do it."

Health officials say other infections have now overtaken MRSA as major sources of healthcare-acquired infections.



In particular, cases of E.coli and Klebsiella bacteria have increased by two-thirds in recent years and are now the most frequent cause of hospital acquired infection.

I
n 1999, Sir Kenneth Calman and many others made pleas, saying the public had a responsibility not to demand antibiotics. 

Simple coughs and colds don't need antibiotic treatment, but should be allowed to run their course.

Honestly, patients, maybe especially parents of young children, who demand antibiotics for minor illnesses, or for illnesses that are viral in nature and so will not respond to antibiotics, are one of the main reasons we're in this crisis today.

We must also demand that those who raise livestock stop injecting those food animals with antibiotics as we then consume too many drugs in this way as well. 

The global loss of life, if we do NOT take these measures quickly, is staggering to contemplate.

ANONYMOUS ATTACKS WORLD BANKS, OPERATION ICARUS





Thomas Jefferson said that if he could add one more amendment to the U.S. Constitution it would be a ban on all government borrowing….

"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the federal government the power of borrowing."
HE WAS AFRAID FUTURE GENERATIONS WOULD BE SLAVES TO DEBT.
HE WAS RIGHT!
WE ARE....SINCE 1913.

REUTERS POSTED ONE SHORT ARTICLE ON MAY 4, 2016 ABOUT THE CYBERATTACK ON THE CENTRAL BANK OF GREECE BY THE GROUP "ANONYMOUS".

'FORTUNE' PICKED THAT UP AND ADDED, "Indeed, an apparent Anonymous member said in a video posted to YouTube that members of the hacking collective have decided to attack “central bank sites across the world.” While the video didn’t say which bank websites would be attacked, it was noted that the campaign would last 30 days.

THE VIDEO CALLS OTHERS "TO ARMS":


“This is a call to arms, brothers, who for too long have stood for nothing but have criticized everything,” Anonymous says in the video.
“Stand now, behind the banner of free men against the tyrannical matrix of institutions that oppose us.
Take your weapons and aim them at the Global Banking Cartel.
This is the operation to end all others.
In the beginning some people may stand to lose something from this, but the powers that be stand to lose much more.
Bring the rain, brothers!”

IBTIMES (INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TIMES) WROTE:

"Operation Icarus: Anonymous to attack stock markets and world banks in 30-day cyber assault.


FROM ANON: "We will be giving many tools to each and every 'Anon' all over the world, and we will be holding down PayPal, MasterCard, VISA, NASDAQ, Bank for International Settlements, all central banks, IMF, London Stock Exchange, and every major banking system will be targeted by Anonymous."


The news comes after hackers successfully disrupted the website of the Greek central bank by using a distributed-denial-of-service (DDoS) cyberattack. This method is frequently deployed by hackers and used to overwhelm a web server with traffic in order to knock it offline. The motivation, according to the hackers responsible, was to protest alleged corruption in the global banking system.


Alongside the hacking operations, a Twitter account purporting to be related to the cyberattacks has been posting regular updates.


 In one post roughly 24 hours after the Greek central bank takedown, the hacktivists documented using a DDoS attack against the central bank of the Dominican Republic.

The group claimed to have taken the website down for an entire day however, at the time of writing, the website is online and functioning.
Last year, it was heavily speculated that Anonymous-affiliated hackers were involved in the disruption of the New York Stock Exchange after it mysteriously went offline for three hours on the morning of 8 June."

THEN, AS OF MAY 15, FIVE MORE BANKS WERE 'HIT':

"The hacktivists have taken full advantage of Saturday and conducted a series of 250 Gbps DDoS attacks on the bank of France, Central bank of the United Arab Emirates, Central Bank of Tunisia, Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago and Philippine National Bank.

The websites of all targeted banks were forced to stay offline for hours but the bank of France was targeted twice in one day while the Philippine National Bank was targeted by Anonymous who told HackRead that the reason for targeting national bank website is to show their support for the hacker arrested by Philippine authorities last month for hacking the official website of the country’s election commission (COMELEC) and leaking entire voters’ database online.

OpIcarus was relaunched in March 2016, however, it gained popularity recently.

Since the relaunch, Anonymous and 'Ghost Squad' have conducted some massive DDoS attacks on banking and financial institutions worldwide. 


The previously targeted websites included Central Bank of Jordan, Central bank of South Korea and Bank of Compagnie, Monegasque, Central Bank of Montenegro, the bank of Greece, the central bank of Cyprus, Dutch Central Bank, Central Bank of Guernsey and Maldives Monetary Authority (Central bank and banking regulator), Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina.


To read HackRead’s previous coverage on OpIcarus
click here.



WHY CALL IT OPERATION ICARUS?

"According to the Greek myth, Icarus was the young man who flew too close to the sun with wings made of feathers and wax.  

His father warned him, but he did it anyway.  
The wax melted and he fell into the sea.

 But more importantly, the myth also illustrates why he did it.  

Many of the Greek myths had classic themes.  
In this case, the theme was centered on hubris
The word hubris means extreme foolishness, pride and arrogance. 

Now things become more clear.

Most people know what Anonymous normally does to organizations in their crosshairs. 
Their victims are often taken offline for a period of time, their defenses are breached, and their data is released online. 
The victims frequently make the headlines, and some of the headlines can be rather embarrassing. 

This is what Anonymous does.

As of May 17, reports have shown that the Bank of Greece, the Central Bank of the Dominican Republic, the Guernsey Financial Services Commission, the Central Bank of Maldives, the Dutch Central Bank, the National Bank of Panama, the Central Bank of Kenya, the Central Bank of Mexico, and the Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina, have experienced DDoS attacks, since the beginning of May."

[ADD Central Bank of Jordan, Central bank of South Korea and Bank of Compagnie, Monegasque, Central Bank of Montenegro, the central bank of Cyprus,
Central bank of the United Arab Emirates, Central Bank of Tunisia, Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago and Philippine National Bank.]

WHILE IT IS DOUBTFUL THIS WILL HAVE ANY LARGE OR LASTING EFFECTS ON THOSE ATTACKED, IT SHOULD AT LEAST SHINE A LIGHT ON THE PROBLEMS CREATED BY THE GLOBAL BANKING CARTEL.

Most Americans do not understand what the Federal Reserve is or why it is at the heart of our economic problems. 

When Americans get into discussions about the economy, most of them still blame either the Democrats or the Republicans for inflation, for the housing crash, for our rampant unemployment and for the national debt.

But the truth is that the institution with the most power over our economic system is the Federal Reserve, the "Central Banks", International PRIVATE BANKERS, collectively called a "Banking Cartel".



The following are 19 reasons why the Federal Reserve/Central Banks are at the very heart of our economic problems….

#1 The Federal Reserve system is a debt-based financial system.

[IT WAS CREATED TO ENSLAVE ENTIRE NATIONS AND THEIR PEOPLE.]

The way our system is designed, normally no money comes into existence without more debt being created.
But this creates a huge problem, because when a new dollar is created, the interest owed to the banking system on that dollar is not also created at the same time.

Therefore, the amount money that is created is not equal to the larger amount of debt that is also created.
This is a Ponzi scheme that is designed to drain wealth from the American people and transfer it to the banking system.

#2 The Federal Reserve and the bankers have a monopoly on the creation of this debt-based money.

In the United States today, the only people that can create money are the bankers.

You cannot create money.
You would go to jail if you tried.
Even the U.S. government cannot create money.
Although the U.S. Constitution specifically gives Congress the power to create money, the U.S. Congress has given that power to the Federal Reserve and to the banking system.

As I have written about previously, the way our system is designed is that all money is supposed to originally come into existence as government debt.
But the important part to take away from all this is that normally money is only created when debt is created, and the amount of debt to be paid back is always larger than the amount of money created.

#3 The power of money creation and debt creation is in the hands of private individuals – not the government.

The Federal Reserve claims that it is an “entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.”

That sounds so reasonable, but the truth is that the Federal Reserve is a legalized banking cartel that is privately-owned.
In fact, the Federal Reserve is about as “federal” as Federal Express is.

#4 The Federal Reserve itself is not much of a profit-making institution.  Rather, it is a tool that enables others to make obscene amounts of money.
There are many who think of the Federal Reserve as an evil profit-making machine. 
But the truth is that the Fed doesn’t make that much money. 
Rather, the system was set up so that others could make an obscene amount of money from U.S. government debt.


This is where the magic of the Federal Reserve system is.
It is in getting the U.S. government enslaved to debt and using that debt to transfer hundreds of billions of dollars of our wealth into the hands of others.

As interest rates go up, this phenomenon is going to become even more brutal.  Right now it is being projected that the U.S. government will be paying 900 billion dollars just in interest on the national debt by the year 2019.

As you fill out your tax return this year, just keep in mind that vast quantities of our money is going to pay interest on debt that the U.S. government never needed to become enslaved to.

#5 The Federal Reserve is a perpetual debt machine.

As mentioned above, the U.S. government is enslaved to debt.
So how did it get enslaved?
Well, instead of printing up and spending the money that it needs, the U.S. government borrows it through the Federal Reserve system at interest.

In fact, as noted above, the U.S. government cannot create a single new dollar without borrowing it.
But each new dollar that the U.S. government borrows creates more than a dollar of new debt.
As a result, the government eventually has to collect more in taxes than what it has borrowed.
This phenomenon creates an endless debt spiral.

If the Federal Reserve had never been created, and the U.S. government had been issuing debt-free currency all this time, it is entirely conceivable that we would have absolutely no federal government debt at this point.

Unfortunately, we are now trapped in a debt-based system.



#6 The Federal Reserve system is designed to cause inflation.

As U.S. government debt expands at an exponential pace, it inevitably causes inflation.


Most Americans believe that inflation is a fact of life, but the truth is that the United States has only had a major, ongoing problem with inflation since the Federal Reserve was created back in 1913.

Sadly, the U.S. dollar has lost well over 95 percent of its value since the Federal Reserve was created.
If the Federal Reserve did not exist, it is theoretically conceivable that we could have an economy with little to no inflation.

#7 The Federal Reserve has decided to play bizarre games with our money supply.

In a desperate attempt to revive the dying U.S. economy, the Federal Reserve has resorted to chucking [FRESHLY PRINTED, WORTHLESS] gigantic quantities of cash into the financial system.

Remember how earlier I explained that normally whenever new money is created that more debt is created?

Well, lately the Fed has been resorting to a trick called “quantitative easing”. 

What “quantitative easing” means is that the Federal Reserve zaps massive amounts of money into existence out of thin air and starts spending it on anything that it wants to buy. 
Lately, this has primarily been done to buy up U.S. government debt.

But isn’t that “monetizing the debt”?
Of course it is, and it is a blatant Ponzi scheme.

#8 The Federal Reserve is undemocratic.
Unelected elitists run the economy and make important economic decisions for the rest of us.

WE HAVE NO SAY-SO, NO VOTE IN THIS, MAKING THE WHOLE THING COMPLETELY UNDEMOCRATIC.


#9 The Federal Reserve COMPLETELY runs the U.S. economy.
[THIS IS 100% CONTRARY TO WHAT THE CONSTITUTION ESTABLISHED.]

Most Americans want to blame Obama or Bush or the U.S. Congress for the state of the economy.

But the truth is that it is the Federal Reserve that sets interest rates, it is the Federal Reserve that determines the money supply, it is the Federal Reserve that sets the “target rate” of inflation, it is the Federal Reserve that determines if unemployment is too high or too low and it is the Federal Reserve that rules over ALL of our banks.

NOBODY, NO GROUP, NO FEDERAL AGENCY
has the direct power over the economy that the Federal Reserve does.

#10 The Federal Reserve favors the big banks.

Not all financial institutions are treated equally by the Fed.
The truth is that the big banks (particularly those on Wall Street) are treated with great favor by the Federal Reserve.

If the Federal Reserve did not exist, the big Wall Street banks would not have such an overwhelming advantage. 

Most Americans simply have no idea that over the last several years the Federal Reserve has been giving gigantic piles of nearly interest-free money to the big Wall Street banks which they turned right around and started lending to the federal government at a much higher rate of return

In fact, it has come out that the Federal Reserve made over $9 trillion in overnight loans to major banks, large financial institutions and other “friends” during the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009.
When “small enough to fail” banks need assistance, they are usually told to go sell themselves to one of the big banks.


#11 The worse the debt problems caused by the Federal Reserve become, the more money the IRS needs to collect from the rest of us.


If the U.S. government could issue debt-free money, it is conceivable that we would not even need the IRS.
You doubt this? 

Well, the truth is that the United States did just fine for well over a hundred years without a national income tax.

But about the same time the Federal Reserve was created a national income tax was instituted as well. 
The whole idea was that the wealth of the American people would be transferred to the U.S. government by force and then transferred into the hands of the ultra-wealthy in the form of interest payments.


If the Federal Reserve was shut down, it is entirely possible that we would be able to shut down the IRS as well.


#12 The Federal Reserve creates artificial financial bubbles.

When you look back over the last several decades, you will find financial bubble after financial bubble.

So who created all of those bubbles?
Look at the above facts.

It was the Federal Reserve.


#13 The Federal Reserve is anti-free market.

In a true free market system, the marketplace would determine what interest rates are.

In a true free market system, the marketplace would determine which financial institutions survive.
In a true free market system, artificial financial bubbles would be far less likely.
But we don’t have a true free market system.


#14 The Federal Reserve tells the rest of the our banks what to do.

Most Americans don’t understand just how much power the Federal Reserve actually has over our local banks.

For example, just last year Federal Reserve officials walked into one bank in Oklahoma and demanded that they take down all the Bible verses and all the Christmas buttons that the bank had been displaying.

[IF THE FED DECIDES A BANK MUST CLOSE ITS DOORS, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS.]

#15 The people currently running the Federal Reserve pretty much have no idea what they are doing.

In case anyone has not noticed, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke had a very long track record of incompetence
Nearly every major judgment that he made wasdead wrong.


If one of us could go down the street and appoint the manager of the local Dairy Queen as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, it is very doubtful that person would do a worse job.


#16 Even though the Federal Reserve has such extraordinary power over the financial system, the American people are not permitted to examine their books.

The Federal Reserve claims that they are regularly audited, but when some members of Congress attempted to push through a true comprehensive audit of the Fed last year Federal Reserve officials threw a hissy fit.

The truth is that the Federal Reserve has never undergone a true comprehensive audit since it was created back in 1913.

WHAT ON EARTH COULD THEY BE HIDING FOR OVER 100 YEARS?
ANYTHING THEY PLEASED.
   



#17 The Federal Reserve has way too much power.


If the Federal Reserve did not exist, we would not have an unelected, unaccountable “fourth branch of government” running around that has gotten completely and totally out of control.  

Even some members of Congress are now openly complaining about how much power the Fed has. 

The Federal Reserve is now more powerful than Congress.

YET THEY DO NOTHING TO CHANGE IT.


#18 The Federal Reserve is dominated by Wall Street and the New York banks.

The New York representative is the only permanent member of the Federal Open Market Committee, while other regional banks rotate in 2 and 3 year intervals.  


The former head of the New York Fed, Timothy Geithner, was made U.S. Treasury Secretary. 

The truth is that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has always been the most important of the regional Fed banks by far, and in turn the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has always been dominated by Wall Street and the major New York banks. 


The cold, hard reality of the matter is that the Federal Reserve is just another one of the tools that the Wall Street banking elite use to dominate all the rest of us.


#19 The Federal Reserve has brought us to the brink of economic collapse.

[ACTUALLY, SOME IN CONGRESS AND MANY FINANCIAL EXPERTS SHOWED THAT THE FED WAS COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 'GREAT DEPRESSION', AND MANY ARE POINTING TO THE SIMILARITIES OF THAT PERIOD AND WHERE WE ARE TODAY....HEADING TOWARD A WORSE  ECONOMIC DISASTER THAN THE GREAT DEPRESSION.]


If the Federal Reserve had never been created, the American people would not be so enslaved to debt. 

At the very core of our economic problems is debt. 
American consumers are swamped with debt, state and local governments are facing horrific debt problems from coast to coast and the federal government has piled up the biggest mountain of debt in the history of the world.


We are living in an absolutely massive debt bubble, and when it bursts the world is going to experience financial chaos like it has never seen before.

Things did not have to turn out this way. 
We did not have to adopt a debt-based financial system. 
We did not have to allow the bankers to enslave us with debt.

But that is what happened.
Sadly, most Americans and the vast majority of our politicians are still clueless about these issues.

In 1922, Henry Ford wrote the following….
“The people must be helped to think naturally about money. They must be told what it is, and what makes it money, and what are the possible tricks of the present system which put nations and peoples under control of the few.”
MAYBE ANONYMOUS REMEMBERS WHAT JEFFERSON AND FORD WROTE, REMEMBER HOW OUR LEADERS OF 1913 LIED TO US WHEN THE FED WAS CREATED IN SECRET.

MAYBE THAT'S WHY THEY WANT TO TAKE DOWN THE CENTRAL BANKS.

I WISH THEM EVERY SUCCESS.