Were helping us avoid having other nations fall to the sway of the Godless commies.
That is what we were told, but it had little to do with the real reason the CIA was involved where it was involved.
In truth, when we became involved through our CIA overthrow of the democratically elected President in Iran, 1953, it was on account of OIL.
When we got involved in Vietnam in early sixties through to Spring 1975, it was on account of OIL.
When we got involved in Central America in 1980's, it was on account of the need to keep American corporate interests happy with total control of the peasantry in those nations.
Panama was an actual vengeance game, played out on the part of the head of the Bush Crime family to deliver retribution to the Noriega for Noriega's screwing over said American Crime Family.
Note that in Vietnam, in addition to OIL interests, the CIA saw to it that marijuana and hashish and opium and heroin flooded the streets of the USA, brought back in the coffins of dead US Americans.
Iraq I and II was again about OIL.
Afghanistan is a nation we now know has over five hundred billions of dollars of minerals, which our American companies want for their Corporate Interests. That will come later, but right now, heroin is flooding the streets of America, just as it did back in the 1960's and 1970's.
Rachel says what her handlers tell her to say. On the one hand you can indeed make out a case for our CIA being a bunch of bumbling idiots, but anyone connected to their internal workings has become rich and powerful beyond belief. I can guarantee the fact that George Walker Bush never had to worry about a check he wrote bouncing, nor did Cheney.
We have lost our own democracy on account of this agency. So please don't put out there that it is powerless. Like Bill Casey stated in his first remarks as newly installed CIA head, to a group of CIA new recruits, early 1980's:
(Paraphrasing) "It is our job over the next twenty years, to see to it that everything the American public believes is false."
When the people lead, the leaders will make their actions illegal, and then drive them out of the country.
Abby Martin discusses the various legal measures that various cities and other communities have undertaken to rid themselves of the urban blight that is the poor.
Numerous communities have made it illegal for people to sleep, even in their own vehicles. Or to even sit inside their communities.
It is also illegal in some Florida communities to give out food to the poor, since the local government cannot determine the calorie count, fat content or carb content of what is being given out. A $ 500 a day permit to feed the poor can be obtained though!
I responded, and I believe that I replied and hit "send."
I hit send after confirming I didn't want to add any explanation, and I did want to send it off, but I haven't gotten any email regarding the overall decision made by that jury.
Did my computer wank out on me? Does that penalize me for being considered in the future? (Sometimes if my anti virus software is scanning, things on my end don't go as planned.)
Or does the jury system voting system sometimes fail on DU's end of things? (Doesn't seem like the problem would be on DU's end, but maybe a glitch?)
Note (On edit) : I just got a reply about my jury service - but the reply took 40 minutes or more!
"I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it is for or against. I'm a human being, first and foremost, and as such I'm for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole."
-- Malcolm X
Probably goes without saying, but at the time of his assassination, few in Democratic Party mourned the loss of this "radical."
Very much like the drug wars, drug penalties, clinic shutdowns and drug sweeps - the agency itself has the authority to make the situation right.
But how much easier it is for officials to serve their Masters by saying "there is not one thing we can do."
DOJ head Holder could simply re-classify the ganja, and FCC could simply undo its own rules.
Meanwhile the Great and Elevated and Annointed One could prod them to do the right thing, but he invokes "separation of powers" whenever the public needs him to act.
We have plenty of agencies in this country that have oversight over the situation with deepwater oil rigs. And BP had a catastrophic event occur while operating a drilling rig in the Caspian sea, just months before its catastrophe in our Gulf of Mexico.
So just what type of shenanighans went on, politically speaking, that allowed for BP to go ahead and drill, baby, drill, with even the US Congress agreeing that it was the right thing for them to do.
And now they are going to be back there in the Gulf drilling again.
Here is an intriguing read from Greg Palast about the BP company, its corrupt ways, and how it gets its way. (With nary a jail cell for any of the crooks at its helm.)
Just five months before the Deepwater Horizon spill, RaineyBPs vice president for Gulf explorationtestified before the U.S. Congress that the company had drilled offshore for the last 50 years in a manner both safe and protective of the environment. BPs testimony was a lie. The Caspian rig had blown out a year earlier.
But the lie was good enough for Congress. Based on Raineys assurances, legislators pressured the Department of the Interior to drop objections to plans for drilling in the Gulfs deep waters.
Withholding information from Congress is a felony. But Rainey has one heck of a defense: The U.S. State Department was in on the cover-up.
Deep in the pile of confidential State Department cables released by one courageous U.S. soldier, Pfc. Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning, we have the notes from a secret meeting between the U.S. ambassador to Azerbaijan, Anne E. Derse, and the chief of BPs Caspian operation. The hugger-mugger was demanded by BPs American partners, Chevron and Exxon. The U.S. oil companies had complained to the State Department that they were no longer getting their piece of the Caspian loot and BP wouldnt tell them why. (Youll remember that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was a member of Chevrons board.)
In the memo, which you can see in our film Vultures and Vote Rustlers, the U.S. ambassador provides the details of the blowout of the bad cement on the BP rig. The State Department kept schtum (quiet) about it, not even warning U.S. safety regulators. And Exxon and Chevrons chiefs joined BPs Rainey in the mendacious sales pitch to Congress, testifying, despite their knowledge, that their offshore drilling methods were as safe as a game of checkers.
Let's say the department of measures and weights knowingly lets Big Corporations use a scale, that although marked with ounces and pounds, is mis-calibrated so that the "pounds" as measured by this corrupted scale are fifteen ounce pounds.
You may say it is corrupt, but if the system is that corrupt, then any 'scientific measurements" coming from that corrupted system is the same (to me, anyway) as "Woo."
I doubt we are going to agree. To me, and to many of my activist friends, once corruption has been institutionalized, than the system itself is woo.
Tony Tweedale, a scientist, researcher and commentator I respect greatly wrote: "About 40 years ago, a toxicity protocol that was called Good Laboratory Practices (or "GLP" came about and was mandated by the FDA. This happened after gross laboratory frauds by life science and petrochemical companies occurred. So GLP imposes simple record keeping chain of custody and test data standardization requirements on toxicology laboratories."
Most Americans remain in the dark about all the many games that are played by the American Corporate "safety" experts and investigators, even as they purport to follow the GLP..
One failure is the simple failure of the Huge Big Pocketed Organization, such as Monnato, to properly disclose the ingredients in a product. (In other words, the lies, and the damn lies that come from Industry-sponsored scientists.) America's EPA is the only agency in charge of licensing corporate products that does not now and probably never will in the future run a full gas spectrometric assessment of ingredients. If Monsanto says Product X contains only glyphosate and water, then the EPA says, "Thanks so much, Boys, for telling us that."
Then decades later the public comes to find out that formaldehyde is contained as well. (Although over the last fifteen years, it is possible that another aldehyde is in place of the formaldehyde.) One organic chemist I know had a slap to the forehead "Duh" moment when realizing that formaldehyde had been contained in the original formulation of Roundup: "After all, Carol, without an aldheyde of some kind, the glyphosate in RoundUp would remain in cake form, and the product would not be sprayable."
Also, it is well worth noting that one of the things other nations do in order to protect their citizenry's health is that their EPA-equivalent agency actually does run these gas spectrometric assessments, or other equivalent assessments of a product's actual ingredients. That way when the government is lied to, the government knows it! But we don't even do that.
Then the second thing that is done is this: we let the manufacturer devise the tests and run the tests that prove the safety of their product. Conflict of interest, anyone? yes our EPA lets the company itself do the testing of a product's safety and then provide those results to the EPA. Does anyone else here think maybe that means that the tests that are devised, the protocols etc - all of that can be devised to the Industry's liking so that Industry might devise a test that totally allows the product to escape being tested for the actual dangers.
Example: when glyphosate had to be tested for its safety, regarding RoundUp, the Monsanto scientists decided to have dogs drink water that had been substantially laced with glyphosate. The dogs all lived. But in reality, very few pet owners go out and buy RoundUp and liberally pour it into their dog's drinking water. The real test of the product's safety would have examined the dogs who had been sprayed with the product. Of course, Monsanto's scientists and advisers knew full well that the acids secreted in the stomach linings of the affected dogs would help the dogs survive the drinking water test. But had the dog's been sprayed, and examined after a suitable time, the lungs have no capacity to absorb the product and the results would have been different. (Especially true statement if Monsanto had been required to test all the ingredients in the product and not simply the glyphosate! But the POEA, which breaks down into formaldehyde and an aldehyde as well, as per the actual formulation)
But if the company had doen that, they probably would have jimmied with the time factor. For instance, when BP wanted to have a product used for oil dispersement on the troubled oil-drenched waters of the Gulf, the EPA had fish set up in a tank whe e the oil dissolving product was used. Then the fish were released one week alter, and all were reported to be in good health.
However one very ambitious EPA worker kept a tanks of fish for an additional two weeks, and within that time, all the fish died.
So which is woo? The ambitious EPA researcher who kept the fish longer, or the EPA workers who conformed by the protocols of the testing that was done in accordance with BP's wishes? (The product that dispersed oil was a product that BP was about to make a lot of money on!)
Additionally, the Big Corporate TakeOver of agencies like FDA and EPA mean that indie researcher are continually asked for their raw data before they have even finished their tests. But, of course, double standards apply. Big Corporate "scientists" are allowed as much time as (or as little time as) they want, they offset the risk to benefit factors by purging data that doesn't meet their requirement and numerous other manners and methods of jimmying the data exist. All that is accepted by the Media and by those agencies allied with Big Industry.
Tony Tweedale points out that additionally: "industry's toxicity studies have failed to modernize in over 100 years, still relying on the visible light microscope to see gross changes in slides of organ tissues. Many biological end points are ignored, and the standards on dosing and and test animals have not advance d nearly as far as those of independent researchers. Very high does are used to assure statistical significance, due to insensitivity of the assays, but such near poisoning levels may have little to do with what happens to organisms that are exposed to smaller, real world doses. Also, the dosing is missing the complexity of development, the cause of many diseases. Lastly, test animals are killed before o0ld age, masking most developing diseases. In short, the GLP manner of testing uses protocols that cannot find the toxicity."
BTW, Tweedale has given up working here in the all too often corrupted laboratories of American, corporate owned Laboratories. He now works in Europe.
On edit: here is all of Tweedale's abstract that I utilized in this reply. Sections I did not quote are even better than the ones I did. http://jech.bmj.com/content/65/6/475.extract
Fellow DU'ers, about four months ago, I began having dreams that repeated themselves. In the dream, I was shown into a room, where "elders" were working on a problem.
I had not had dreams about these elders since perhaps 2004, around the time I was dealing with the situation of my father's passing, at the age of ninety in 2002. (A lifetime long Republican, his last political act was voting for Al Gore in 2000. When asked "Why?" he said simply, "Gore is brilliant; Bush a dunder head," and I could only blink in amazement that finally "he got it."
Now after having the new "elders" dream the third time, I asked in the dream what immense problem they were involved with. There is a coming World War, a terrible war few will survive, I was told. They are working to see that it stops before it begins, because once elements are in place, it will be much harder to stop. .
Tyler Durden wrote this article. Pls Note: Except where (on edit ) is expressed, the words are his, not mine.
Every major international crisis for the past century or more has ended with an even greater consolidation of world power into the hands of the few, and this is no accident.
When I discuss the concept of the false left/right paradigm with people, (snip) I often see a light turn on, a moment of awareness in their faces.
Many of us understand the con game because we live it day to day. We see far past the superficial rhetoric of Republican and Democratic party leadership and take note of their numerous similarities, including foreign policy, domestic defense policy and economic policy. The voting records of the major players in both parties are almost identical. One is hard-pressed to find much difference in ideology between Bush and Barack Obama, for example; or Obama and John McCain; or Obama and Mitt Romney, for that matter. (On edit - the main differences would be only in terms of social matters, that is: abortion, women's reproductive rights, LBGT marriage, etc)
When I suggest, however, that similar false paradigms are used between two apparently opposed nations, the light fades, and people are left dumbstruck. Despite the fact that globalist financiers shoveled capital into the U.S., British, German and Soviet military complexes all at the same time during World War II, many Americans do not want to believe that such a thing could be happening today.
Profile InformationName: Carol
Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Northern California
Home country: USA
Current location: Office chair
Member since: Sun May 15, 2005, 01:28 PM
Number of posts: 32,324
About truedelphiI joined DU following the election melt down that produced the second George the Lesser Term of Office. I am outraged by war, by out-sourcing of jobs, by Corporate control of both parties, and enheartened by my fellow citizens who are bravely part of "Occupy!"
- 2016 (45)
- 2015 (43)
- 2014 (147)
- 2013 (146)
- 2012 (110)
- 2011 (5)
- December (5)