noworldsystem.com


Drugs in Drinking Water Killing Our Brains

Drugs in Drinking Water Killing Our Brains

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGWWarqyp8I

 

Pharmaceuticals, Personal Care Products Found in New York City Water Supply

Natural News
December 31, 2009

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has issued support for a proposed law that would require the Department of Environmental Protection in New York City to test the city’s drinking water supply for personal care product and pharmaceutical residue. Citing numerous studies that have found measurable levels of such contaminants in water supplies around the nation, EWG is encouraging support for measures that would investigate and report contaminant levels to the public.

Reports have found that the nation’s water supplies contain various antibiotics, phytoestrogens and estrogenic steroids, and pharmaceutical and genotoxic drugs. New York City’s water supply is no exception. Since these contaminants have the potential to inflict widespread reproductive harm, neuro-degeneration, endocrine disruption, and cell destruction in humans, EWG is urging that New York City monitor contaminant levels and issue annual water quality reports that outline the results. Since most of these contaminants are currently unregulated, they are typically not disclosed in existing water quality reports.

Wastewater treatment facilities are capable of removing most contaminants from water, however a small percentage of fragments make their way back into the water supply. When combined with thousands of other fragments, the aggregate mass of contaminant particles can pose serious health risks. The extent to which such contamination causes harm has yet to be fully understood and observed.

As it currently stands, pharmaceutical drugs are not regulated in tap water. Drinking water is usually not tested for them and, when it is, the results are usually withheld from the public. Both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have failed to set any guidelines for pharmaceutical content in water. Thus any level of pharmaceuticals in water is considered to be legal.

Perhaps the most important call from EWG is for improvements in wastewater treatment facility technology. Current methods work for certain microorganisms and compounds but fail to adequately filter pharmaceutical drugs and other synthetic compounds from water. Ultraviolet treatment, activated carbon treatment, and ozonation are some of EWG’s suggestions for updating filter technology.

The goal of EWG is to promote water pollution reduction strategies that include raising public awareness about the issue, gathering and disseminating regular water quality data, and working to implement mitigation strategies both in the short and long terms.

Installing a home reverse osmosis system is a great way to ensure that one’s family is receiving clean water. Reverse osmosis is highly effective at purifying water, removing virtually every known particle and contaminant. It also removes chlorine, fluoride, and other toxic substances added to many municipal water supplies that would otherwise pass through most other water filtration systems.

STOP DRINKING CITY WATER: Get an EcoloBlue Atmospheric Water Generator!

 



The Other 95% Thanks Obama For All The Taxes!

The Other 95% Thanks Obama For All The Taxes!

 

“The Other 95%” Group Crashes Tea Party

 

Networks Fail to Report on VAT Tax Since Volcker Call for Tax Increases

Business & Media Institute
April 15, 2010

As procrastinators rush to beat the April 15 tax deadline and thousands rally at Tea Parties to oppose out of control government spending, politicians and the national news media are mulling the possibility of a new European-style national sales tax.

On April 6, former Federal Reserve chairman and current White House economic adviser Paul Volcker revealed the Obama administration’s possible strategy to tame massive deficits with a value-added tax (VAT).

“Volcker, answering a question from the audience at a New York Historical Society event, said the value-added tax ‘was not as toxic an idea’ as it has been in the past and also said a carbon or other energy-related tax may become necessary,” Reuters reported.

“If at the end of the day we need to raise taxes, we should raise taxes,” Volcker added that day. In Europe, VAT taxes range from about 16 percent to 25 percent with an average of roughly 20 percent, according to Olivier Garret of Casey Research. Garrett, who grew up in France, called the VAT “a license to steal without people knowing it.”

A VAT is a consumption tax “levied along stages of production,” according to the Wall Street Journal. In contrast to Garret, Fortune called it an “extremely efficient, virtually fraud-free way to collect money.” But it is also a regressive tax that hits the poor and middle-class and would contradict Obama’s pledge to protect taxpayers.

Despite the huge news that the White House was leaving the door open to additional taxes that would hit the poor and middle class especially hard, the three broadcast networks haven’t mentioned a VAT tax at all since Volcker’s speech. In the previous three months, only NBC’s “The Chris Matthews Show” has even brought up the issue.

In contrast to the networks’ silence, Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network have brought up the VAT in more than a dozen programs since Volcker’s speech. But some print and online news media, including Reuter’s columnist Christopher Swann and Fortune’s Shawn Tully, actually promoted the idea of a VAT.

On Feb. 10, Tully wrote, “America is hurtling towards a fiscal trap that is forcing us into the only option we’ll have to restore budgetary sanity: A Value-Added Tax.”

CNN.com also supported VAT on April 13 suggesting the U.S. “can learn from New Zealand when it comes to taxes.” The article cited New Zealand as the “best” example of a VAT.

“So who does it best? Tax experts and economists point to New Zealand, where a 12.5 percent goods and services tax applies uniformly to nearly everything with very limited exceptions – only rent paid for a private home, charitable contributions and interest earned are exempted. (The government offers clear details, too, on its website.),” wrote CNN’s Dody Tsiantar.

But according to Dan Mitchell, a CATO Institute senior fellow and Business & Media Institute adviser, a value-added tax would be “an economy-killer.”

“Don’t get me wrong: The VAT – on top of all the other taxes Washington imposes – is a terrible idea. Imposing it would pretty well finish the transformation of our country into a European-style slow-growth nation. The right way to close Uncle Sam’s gaping deficits is to reverse the continued explosion of federal spending,” Mitchell wrote in a New York Post op-ed.

Mitchell explained that a VAT has the “virtues” of simplicity and less economic distortion, but ONLY if it were to replace the Internal Revenue code. That, however, is not what Volcker or Sen. Kent Conrad and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have suggested.

In Mitchell’s opinion, the end result would be a huge expansion of government, rather than deficit reduction.

Liberals Predict, Promote VAT Tax

Especially after Volcker’s comments, the mainstream media should have been examining value-added taxes, talking to tax experts and publicizing the fact that this sort of a tax would be yet another violation of Obama’s pledge to protect the middle-class from tax increases. But they weren’t.

In the past three months, a value-added tax has only been mentioned on one network program: NBC’s weekend talk show “The Chris Matthews Show.”

Matthews casually mentioned the options for reducing deficits on his April 4 program, saying, “You know, cutting deficits comes down to two decisions: you’ve got to raise taxes somewhere with a value-added tax or something, or you’re going to cut benefits. Neither one are pleasant for politicians.”

Guest David Ignatius of The Washington Post joined the discussion predicting that Obama would “build a case for a value-added tax, which gets us out of the – out of this mess.”

The tax was mentioned on CNN during a special called “I.O.U.S.A. Solutions” April 11. That special hosted by Christine Romans aired video clips from the documentary and then discussed the proposals with several panelists.

Panelist Maya MacGuineas, who was in the documentary, told viewers that even with necessary spending cuts there is no way to fix the deficit without raising taxes.

Robert D. Reischauer, former director of CBO and President of the Urban Institute, claimed in the video: “We’re going to have to look at consumption taxes like a value added tax or some form of national sales tax as a mechanism for maintaining some of the benefits that we are promised through our entitlement programs.”

But in the panel discussion that followed no one pointed out the flaws of VAT or mentioned any of the harm it could do to the American economy.

On April 8, the overwhelmingly liberal cable network MSNBC mentioned the problem liberals have with a VAT.

“There is a problem. A value-added tax tends to be regressive. There are ways to deal with that – one way is to provide an income tax credit to offset the regressivity at the bottom. That might sound like a radical liberal proposal, but it’s basically the same thing the national retail sales tax or FairTax people have been proposing,” Leonard Burman of Syracuse University told Ed Schultz.

Burman was correct about the regressive nature of a value-added tax, but not about its similarity to the FairTax.

FairTax proponents would like to see the entire federal taxation system replaced with a progressive national retail sales tax. It would include a “prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level.” The recent calls for a VAT have been for additional taxation, not reforming the confusing current system.

I Wanna Be Like Europe (or New Zealand)

Proponents of a VAT often lament that the U.S. is only developed nation that doesn’t have one.

That was Alice Rivlin’s argument for a VAT in the film I.O.U.S.A. Solutions. Rivlin, senior fellow for the liberal Brookings Institution, said “all the industrialized countries have a national sales tax of some sort.”

CNBC guest co-host Mark Olson, Corporate Risk Advisors co-chairman, praised the success of value-added taxes in Europe.

“A VAT makes a little bit more sense … But the value-added tax, I don’t think there’s a chance that’s gonna happen this year. But it’s gonna be something – it seems to work well in Europe.” Olson said on “Squawk Box” April 12.

In response, “Squawk Box” co-host Joe Kernen groaned that “We’re turning into, we’re turning into” Europe.

Reuters economic columnist Christopher Swann supported the creation of a VAT tax. He called it a “money machine,” and said “America is alone among rich nations in not charging a VAT, and its continued unwillingness to do so will make it harder to cope with the fiscal challenges ahead.”

Instead of suggesting we emulate Europe, CNN.com highlighted New Zealand’s example calling it the “best.”

“In New Zealand, it [VAT] contributes about 25 percent to the government’s bottom line, and the Tax Policy Center in December projected that a 5 percent VAT tax here would generate over $3 trillion in revenue by 2019. That’s not enough to cover America’s huge debt obligations, of course, but it’s a start,” CNN said.

But conservative and libertarian tax experts like Dan Mitchell oppose following in the footsteps of Europe or New Zealand and warn that such a taxation plan will lead to bigger government, more spending and make it easier to raise taxes in the future.

Mitchell explained that “real-world evidence shows that VATs are strongly linked with both higher overall tax burdens and more government spending. In 1965, before the VAT swept across Europe, the average tax burden for advanced European economies (the EU-15) was 27.7 percent of economic output, versus 24.7 percent of GDP in the United States.”

Then Europe instituted VATs (and the European Union requires its member to impose VATs of at least 15 percent) and the tax burden of EU-15 nations rose to nearly 40 percent, compared to 28 percent in the U.S. According to Mitchell, government spending rose in Europe along with the VATs: from 30.1 percent of GDP to 47.1 percent of GDP.

Another CATO expert, Chris Edwards opposes adding to the tax burden and would prefer spending cuts. “I think America has prospered because the general level of taxation has been lower than Europe,” Edwards told CBSNews.com.

But even tax experts who “loathe” the idea of a VAT think the U.S. will head in that direction. Ryan Ellis, tax policy director at Americans for Tax Reform, told CBSNews.com “I think it’s coming, in the next five to 10 years certainly.”

 



“Global Regime” to Tackle Climate Change

Leaked U.S. Document Calls For “Global Regime” To Tackle Climate Change

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
April 12, 2010

A confidential U.S. government document obtained by the London Guardian highlights the ongoing agenda to create a structure of global governance in the name of combating climate change.

“Titled Strategic communications objectives and dated 11 March 2010, it outlines the key messages that the Obama administration wants to convey to its critics and to the world media in the run-up to the vital UN climate talks in Cancun, Mexico in November.” The Guardian reports.

The newspaper says that the document (full text below) was “accidentally left on a European hotel computer” before it was passed to their editors.

The number one item on the itinerary is to “Reinforce the perception that the US is constructively engaged in UN negotiations in an effort to produce a global regime to combat climate change.” (my emphasis)

The news comes on the back of revelations that rich countries have threatened to cut vital aid to developing nations if they do not back the deal agreed at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen last year.

Elsewhere, the leaked document pinpoints the need to continue “driving the climate change story” in the mainstream media, but also identifies the need to “disarm” critics and to bypass traditional media outlets to do so, focusing more on “new media”.

The document also highlights a need to “Create a clear understanding of the CA’s [Copenhagen accord’s] standing and the importance of operationalising ALL elements.”

Although the final Copenhagen agreement was largely dismissed as a failure by both the mainstream media and climate skeptics, it established the framework for a global government which will control climate finances via taxes on CO2 emissions.

The latest leaked U.S. document calls for operationalising the elements of that framework.

The final text of the accord (PDF) states that funds obtained from climate financing will be controlled by a “governance structure,” and that a “High Level Panel” will be appointed to decide where the money will come from. In effect, this means that a UN-controlled structure of global governance will override the sovereignty of nation states in collecting and doling out funds obtained under the justification of climate change.

The agreement also gives the green light for carbon trading markets, which as we have documented are all owned by climate kingpins like Maurice Strong and Al Gore, to be more heavily financed and expanded.

Leaked UN documents uncovered in February also highlighted the need to establish a global governance structure in the name of combating climate change by 2012.

“Moving towards a green economy would also provide an opportunity to re-examine national and global governance structures and consider whether such structures allow the international community to respond to current and future environmental and development challenges and to capitalize on emerging opportunities,” the leaked white paper stated.

The paper outlined that the imposition of such “global governance structures” will be achieved with the help of “vast wealth transfers” from richer countries (in the form of carbon taxes levied on citizens) to poorer nations, amounting to no less than $45 trillion dollars.

The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, has not been shy in proclaiming the unfolding agenda for a global governance structure to override national parliaments on the issue of climate change.

In an October New York Times editorial entitled “We Can Do It,” Ki-moon wrote that efforts to impose restrictions on CO2 emissions “Must include an equitable global governance structure.”

He re-iterated those sentiments in December following the Copenhagen summit, telling the LA Times “We will establish a global governance structure to monitor and manage the implementation of this.”

Last year at a forum in Oxford, England, Al Gore also called for global governance in order to implement global agreements on climate change.

Globalists are persistent and they will continue hammering away until they get what they want, not because the environment is on the verge of collapse, but because their agenda for world government is stalling as more people find out the true agenda behind the global warming scam.

Meanwhile, anyone who suggests global governance is on the agenda is derided as a conspiracy theorist, despite such open announcements of this very intention.

*******************

Text of the leaked document:

    Strategic communications objectives

    1) Reinforce the perception that the US is constructively engaged in UN negotiations in an effort to produce a global regime to combat climate change. This includes support for a symmetrical and legally binding treaty.

    2) Manage expectations for Cancun – Without owning the message, advance the narrative that while a symmetrical legally binding treaty in Mexico is unlikely, solid progress can be made on the six or so main elements.

    3) Create a clear understanding of the CA’s standing and the importance of operationalising ALL elements.

    4) Build and maintain outside support for the administration’s commitment to meeting the climate and clean energy challenge despite an increasingly difficult political environment to pass legislation.

    5) Deepen support and understanding from the developing world that advanced developing countries must be part of any meaningful solution to climate change including taking responsibilities under a legally binding treaty.

    Media outreach

    • Continue to conduct interviews with print, TV and radio outlets driving the climate change story.

    • Increase use of off-the-record conversations.

    • Strengthen presence in international media markets during trips abroad. Focus efforts on radio and television markets.

    • Take greater advantage of new media opportunities such as podcasts to advance US position in the field bypassing traditional media outlets.

    • Consider a series of policy speeches/public forums during trips abroad to make our case directly to the developing world.

    Key outreach efforts

    • Comprehensive and early outreach to policy makers, key stakeholders and validators is critical to broadening support for our positions in the coming year.

    • Prior to the 9-11 April meeting in Bonn it would be good for Todd to meet with leading NGOs. This should come in the form of 1:1s and small group sessions.

    • Larger group sessions, similar to the one held at CAP prior to Copenhagen, will be useful down the line, but more intimate meetings in the spring are essential to building the foundation of support. Or at the very least, disarming some of the harsher critics.

 



Huge New Tax is Coming, It’s an Economy Killer

Spend It Now! A Huge New Tax Is Coming…

Daily Wealth
April 9, 2010


Everything you buy is about to become 20% more expensive…

I’m not kidding. The latest idea out of Washington is to pay for its insatiable appetite for spending with what’s called a “Value-Added Tax.”

It’s like a huge new national sales tax, on everything. In simple terms, the difference is that with a sales tax, the consumer pays it. With a “VAT,” the manufacturer pays it. The consumer won’t see it in the price on the shelf or on their receipt.

Politicians love this tax because it’s a stealth tax… You can’t see it when you buy something, but they still get their money. And unless you make your voice known, chances are excellent we’ll eventually have a Value-Added Tax here.

The thing is, making things 20% more expensive here and giving that money to politicians won’t save America. It’ll make us less competitive. For Exhibit A, consider the state of European governments right now…

Greece, for example, has a VAT of 21%. Its government is bankrupt. The Value-Added Tax didn’t save Greece.

Italy and Portugal have a VAT of 20%, and they’re only a little less bankrupt than Greece.

Astoundingly to me, the Value-Added Tax in France has now crept up to a full 50% of France’s government revenues. So how are things going in France with a Value-Added Tax?

France is unable to compete in the world. Unemployment is terminally high. The unemployment rate is now 10% in France. In 2005, the unemployment rate was 10%. And back in 2000, unemployment stood at 11%. Like I said, it’s terminal…

Clearly, the system is not working. So why is the U.S. government in such a hurry to adopt it?

The Wall Street Journal explained it yesterday: “Taxes on the rich can’t begin to finance the levels of new spending that the current government has unleashed… ”

And foreign governments have been less willing to buy our government bonds lately. So the government needs a new source of a lot of money.

At first, a Value-Added Tax will be offered up by politicians as a small tax – just a temporary fix to get us over the hump on our current budget woes. But we know how it will go… Like all taxes (and parasites), it will become permanent in our lives and it will steadily grow. Remember, the VAT in France is now 50% of government revenue.

All we can do right now is let our politicians know we’re against more taxes… because we know down in our toes that governments spend every dollar that comes in… and then some.

Think about it this way: When your child has overspent on the credit card, you don’t hand over a new card to spend on.

We don’t want to give our politicians a new credit card to ring up charges. Reject their request for another massive credit card, in the form of a Value-Added Tax.

Oh, the other thing you can do is make all your big purchases soon, before a Value-Added Tax comes along and adds 10%-20% to the price of everything you buy…

 

VAT attack: Beware: ‘Value-added tax’ is an economy-killer

New York Post
April 12, 2010


Paul Volcker

One of President Obama’s top economic advisers, former Fed chief Paul Volcker, suggested this week that it’s time for America to adopt a VAT, or value-added tax. The White House yesterday downplayed the idea — but it’s sure to resurface: It’s an inevitable consequence of a government that’s too big now and likely to grow even bigger thanks to Washington’s reckless spending spree.

Don’t get me wrong: The VAT — on top of all the other taxes Washington imposes — is a terrible idea. Imposing it would pretty well finish the transformation of our country into a European-style slow-growth nation. The right way to close Uncle Sam’s gaping deficits is to reverse the continued explosion of federal spending.

The VAT is a type of national sales tax, levied on the value-added at each stage of production. Consider a piece of furniture: The VAT would be imposed when the raw timber is sold, when the sawmill produces lumber, when the manufacturer builds a chair, a tax at the wholesaler level and then when a retailer sells the chair to a consumer.

To avoid double taxation, each seller along the way gets a credit for taxes paid at earlier stages of the production process. So the final tax to the consumer, at least in theory, is the same as a retail sales tax of the same amount.

The VAT has its virtues: As a single-rate, consumption-based system, much like the flat tax or national sales tax, it would introduce far fewer economic distortions than today’s income tax — and a heckuva lot less paperwork.

That would be a persuasive argument — if proponents wanted a VAT to replace the Internal Revenue code. But that’s not what’s intended by Volcker — or Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who’ve also been chatting up the VAT.

The politicians want a VAT, and they want to keep the income tax. (To be more accurate, they want a VAT and to raise other taxes as well.)

They want the cash, of course, so they can continue buying votes by spending other people’s money.

This decade already has seen a huge expansion of government. In the Bush years, federal spending rose from $1.8 trillion in 2001 to $3.5 trillion in the last Bush budget. Now President Obama is well on the way to doubling outlays yet again.

He has already saddled the economy with $800 billion of “stimulus” and a giant new health-care entitlement, and his proposals for next year will push the federal budget even higher.

Meanwhile, our aging population and the built-in growth in federal programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security has a dramatic expansion in the size of government set to occur automatically in coming decades.

Simply stated, there’s no way to finance all this new spending without an added broad-based tax. But this is exactly why we should vigorously resist a VAT.

Blocking a VAT may not be sufficient to control the size of government, but it’s necessary. Handing Washington a whole new source of revenue would be akin to giving keys to a liquor store to a bunch of alcoholics.

Read Full Article Here

 



Obama OKs Assassination of U.S. Citizens

Obama OKs Assassination of U.S. Citizens

 



US Government Allowed Flight 253 to Happen

SMOKING GUN: US Government Allowed Flight 253 to Happen

globalresearch.ca
January 25, 2010

Nearly one month after passengers foiled an attempted suicide bomb attack aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 as it approached Detroit on Christmas Day, new information reveals that the White House and U.S. security agencies had specific intelligence on accused terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, far earlier than previously acknowledged.

Along with new reports, evidence suggests that the administration’s cover-up of the affair has very little to do with a failure by the intelligence apparatus to “connect the dots” and may have far more serious political implications for the Obama administration, and what little remains of a functioning democracy in the United States, than a botched bombing.

What the White House and security officials have previously described only as “vague” intercepts regarding “a Nigerian” has now morphed into a clear picture of the suspect–and the plot.

The New York Times revealed January 18 that the National Security Agency “learned from a communications intercept of Qaeda followers in Yemen that a man named “Umar Farouk”–the first two names of the jetliner suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab–had volunteered for a coming operation.”

According to Times’ journalists Eric Lipton, Eric Schmitt and Mark Mazzetti, “the American intelligence network was clearly listening in Yemen and sharing that information.” Indeed, additional NSA intercepts in December “mentioned the date of Dec. 25, and suggested that they were ‘looking for ways to get somebody out’ or ‘for ways to move people to the West,’ one senior administration official said.”

Clearly, the administration was “worried about possible terrorist attacks over the Christmas holiday.” These concerns led President Obama to meet December 22 “with top officials of the C.I.A., F.B.I. and Department of Homeland Security, who ticked off a list of possible plots against the United States and how their agencies were working to disrupt them,” the Times reports.

    “In a separate White House meeting that day” the Times disclosed, “Mr. Obama’s homeland security adviser, John O. Brennan, led talks on Yemen, where a stream of disturbing intelligence had suggested that Qaeda operatives were preparing for some action, perhaps a strike on an American target, on Christmas Day.”

In mid-January, Newsweek reported that the “White House report on the foiled Christmas Day attempted airliner bombing provided only the sketchiest of details about what may have been the most politically sensitive of its findings: how the White House itself was repeatedly warned about the prospect of an attack on the U.S.,” Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff disclosed.

According to the newsmagazine, “intelligence analysts had ‘highlighted’ an evolving ‘strategic threat,'” and that “‘some of the improvised explosive device tactics AQAP might use against U.S. interests were highlighted’ in other ‘finished intelligence products’.”

However, the real bombshell came last Wednesday during hearings before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee when Bushist embed, and current Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), Michael E. Leiter, made a startling admission.

CongressDaily reported on January 22 that intelligence officials “have acknowledged the government knowingly allows foreigners whose names are on terrorist watch lists to enter the country in order to track their movement and activities.”

Leiter told the Committee: “I will tell you, that when people come to the country and they are on the watch list, it is because we have generally made the choice that we want them here in the country for some reason or another.”

CongressDaily reporter Chris Strohm, citing an unnamed “intelligence official” confirmed that Leiter’s statement reflected government policy and told the publication, “in certain situations it’s to our advantage to be able to track individuals who might be on a terrorist watch list because you can learn something from their activities and their contacts.”

An alternative explanation fully in line with well-documented inaction, or worse, by U.S. security agencies prior to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and now, Christmas Day’s aborted airline bombing, offer clear evidence that a ruthless “choice” which facilitates the murder of American citizens are cynical pretexts in a wider game: advancing imperialism’s geostrategic goals abroad and attacks on democratic rights at home.

Leiter’s revelation in an of itself should demolish continued government claims that the accused terror suspect succeeded in boarding NW Flight 253 due to a failure to “connect the dots.”

However, as far as Antifascist Calling can determine, no other media outlet has either reported or followed-up CongressDaily’s disclosure; a clear sign that its explosive nature, and where a further investigation might lead, are strictly off-limits.

Taking into account testimony by a high-level national security official that terrorists are allowed to enter the country for intelligence purposes, one can only conclude that the alleged “failure” to stop Abdulmutallab was neither a casual omission nor the result of bureaucratic incompetence but rather, a highly-charged political calculation.

Read Full Article Here

 



Obama authorizes covert economic war against Venezuela

Obama authorizes covert economic war against Venezuela

Wayne Madsen
Online Journal
January 21, 2010

WMR’s intelligence sources have reported that the Obama administration has authorized an economic war against Venezuela in order to destabilize the government of President Hugo Chavez.

After a successful coup against Chavez ally, President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras, and the very thin 51-49 percent electoral win by Chile’s billionaire right-winger Sebastian Pinera on January 17, a buoyed Obama White House has given a green light for political operatives in Venezuela, many of whom operate under the cover of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), to set the stage for massive street demonstrations to protest Chavez’s devaluation of the bolivar, Venezuela’s currency.

Chavez devalued the bolivar by 50 percent to make Venezuelan oil exports less expensive, thus boosting revenue for his country. However, the devaluation has also seen price rises and inflation in Venezuela and the CIA and its subservient NGOs have wasted little time in putting out stories about consumers rushing to the stories ahead of an increase in consumer products, with imported flat-screen televisions being the favorite consumer item being hyped by the corporate media as seeing a huge price increase and long lines at shopping malls favored by the Venezuelan elites.

The state has exempted certain consumer goods such as food, medicines, school supplies, and industrial machinery from being affected by the bolivar’s devaluation through a different exchange rate and price controls, but it is the price increases on televisions, tobacco, alcohol, cell phones, and computers that has the anti-Chavez forces in Venezuela and abroad hyping the ill-effects on the Venezuelan consumer.

To battle against businessmen who are trying to capitalize on the devaluation of the bolivar, Chavez has threatened to close and possibly seize any business that gouges the consumer by inordinately raising prices. The first target of a temporary closure was a Caracas store owned by the French firm Exito.

International investment analysts praised Chavez’s decision to devalue the bolivar and said the decision was overdue considering the fall of oil prices worldwide. However, the CIA and NGOs, many aligned with George Soros’s Open Society Institute and the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy are planning large street demonstrations against Chavez’s handling of the economy.

National Assembly elections are scheduled for September but the Obama administration has decided that if Chavez can be removed now, his allies in Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, and some Caribbean island states will quickly abandon Chavez’s alternative to American-led Western Hemisphere financial contrivances and free trade pacts, the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA).

The Obama planners then see Cuba, once again, being isolated in the hemisphere and ripe for increased U.S. political pressure. Cuba was placed on the list of 14 countries requiring additional airline passenger screening as part of the policy to pressure and isolate Cuba. There is a possibility that with the outbreak of U.S.-inspired violence in the streets of Venezuela, that nation could join Cuba on the list as the 15th country.

The Obama administration’s assault is two-fold: economic and political. Pressure is being applied against the gasoline chain Citgo, which is owned by the Venezuelan state oil company, PDVSA, and Venezuelan investment favorability ratings. Politically, the U.S. is overtly and covertly funneling money to anti-Chavez groups through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and groups affiliated with George Soros.

There is also a small military component to Obama’s strategy of undermining Chavez. U.S., P-3 Orion overflights of Venezuelan airspace from bases in Aruba and Curacao are designed to intimidate Chavez and activate Venezuelan radar and command, control, communications, and intelligence (C3I) systems to gather electronic and signals intelligence data that would be used by the United States to jam Venezuelan military networks in the event of a U.S.-inspired uprising against Chavez by U.S. loyalists embedded in the Venezuelan military, police, PDVSA, and media. The U.S. is also stoking cross-border incursions into Venezuela by Colombian paramilitaries to gauge Venezuela’s border defenses. Last November, Colombian right-wing paramilitary units killed two Venezuelan National Guardsmen inside Venezuela in Tachira state. Weapons caches maintained by Colombians inside Venezuela have been seized by Venezuelan authorities. Venezuela has also arrested a number of Colombian DAS intelligence agents inside Venezuela.

Obama signed a military agreement with Colombia that allows the United States to establish seven air and naval bases in Colombia. An additional agreement by Obama with Panama will see the U.S. military return to that nation to set up two military bases.

It is estimated that some 25 percent of Venezuelans are likely Fifth Columnists who would take part in a revolt against Chavez. Many of them based in the Venezuelan oil-producing state of Zulia and the capital of Maracaibo, where successive U.S. ambassadors in Caracas have stoked secessionist embers and where the CIA and U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency have concentrated much of their efforts. In November, Venezuelan police arrested in Maracaibo, Magaly Janeth Moreno Vega, also known as “The Pearl,” the leader of the right-wing United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), which has been directly linked to Colombia’s pro-U.S. President Alvaro Uribe and members of his government, including former Colombian Attorney General Luis Camilo Osorio Isaza, appointed by Uribe as Colombia’s ambassador to Mexico.