WingMakers Forum

Current Events & News
Page 83 of 87

Author:  Shayalana [ Tue Mar 15, 2016 3:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Current Events & News

In the Fifth Interview with Dr. Jamisson Neruda, James mentions Madeleine Albright, when she was Secretary of State in the US gov. When she was interviewed about whether it was right to sacrifice children for the sake of war she answered yes. And in that war thousands of childrenwere killed and others too. Here is an article banning her and her staff and/or associates of her NGO in Russia. They will not sanction such a monster. It seems transparency and expansion is accelerating for how many of these people are being made accountable if not banned from various countries where there is a price on their heads for war crimes. There wealth, prestige, job or whatever else they depended on to sanction their criminal acts won't save them. The playing field has changed and is no longer in their control and they don't know what to do.

Prosecutors brand Madeleine Albright’s NGO as undesirable in Russia


The Prosecutor General’s Office has ruled that the National Democratic Institute, chaired by a former US secretary of state, poses a threat to Russian security and constitutional order. It proposed including the NGO on the list of undesirable organizations.

The proposal to blacklist Madeleine Albright’s NDI group has been forwarded to the Justice Ministry, but as everything that is left is pure formalities the ban can be considered as already imposed.

According to NDI’s website the group operated in Russia directly since late 1980s. In 2012 it closed its office in the country, but continued to implement its programs through partner organizations.

READ MORE: Foreign Ministry praises law banning undesirable foreign groups in Russia

Russia introduced the Law on Undesirable Foreign Organizations in late May 2015. The act requires the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Foreign Ministry to make an official list of undesirable foreign groups and outlaw their activities. Once the group is recognized as undesirable, all its assets in Russia must be frozen, offices closed and distribution of any of its information materials must be banned.

If the ban is violated, both the personnel of the outlawed group and Russian citizens who cooperate with them face punishments of heavy fines, or even prison terms in case of repeated or aggravated offence.

About a month after the law came into force, Russia’s upper house released a list of foreign organizations it plans to declare undesirable. The list consisted of 12 entries, including such groups as the National Democratic Institute, the US National Endowment for Democracy and the Open Society Institute also known as the Soros Foundation.

READ MORE: Communists want Soros Foundation branded ‘undesirable’ group

In late July, the Justice Ministry fulfilled the prosecutors’ request to officially list the US National Endowment for Democracy as an undesirable group after law enforcers had discovered that the US NGO had spent millions on attempts to question the legitimacy of Russian elections and tarnish the prestige of national military service.

In December last year, the Justice Ministry added George Soros’s Open Society Institute and the Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation as undesirable groups. Also in December the US-Russia Foundation for Economic Advancement and the Rule of Law (USRF) was added to the list. ... ights-ngo/

Putin ain't no dummy he is well aware of the treachery of what he is dealing with and what he must do.

Author:  Shayalana [ Thu Apr 14, 2016 10:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Current Events & News

Something to be aware of: Synthetic biology

Synthetic biology is "extreme genetic engineering". A broad coalition of 111 organisations world-wide in March 2012 released The Principles for the Oversight of Synthetic Biology - to govern synthetic organisms and their products, to protect public health and the environment, and to meet economic, social and ethical goals. The coalition calls for a moratorium. SynBio not only cuts and pastes genes but also writes genetic code to create new genes, genetic traits and new life forms from scratch.


Global Citizens Declaration calls for precaution on synthetic biology
Sydney Australia & Washington DC USA — Today a broad coalition of 111
organisations world-wide releases The Principles for the Oversight of Synthetic Biology.
This is the first global civil society statement of principles necessary to govern synthetic
organisms and their products, to protect public health and the environment, and to meet
economic, social and ethical goals. The coalition calls for a moratorium on any release or
commercial use of artificially created organisms until these principles are implemented.
Synthetic biology is “extreme genetic engineering” — not only cutting and pasting
genes but also writing genetic code to create new genes, genetic traits and new life forms
from scratch. Industry and governments are pouring billions into the creation of new living
things and the market for synbio products may be $10.8 billion by 2016. Despite this,
governments have failed to legislate, assess or eliminate the novel risks from synthetic
organisms that have never existed before.
The diverse coalition includes environmental, religious, consumer, scientific, worker and
human rights groups all calling for the strong governance of synthetic biology, that puts
human and environmental health before corporate profits.
The global coalition calls for seven principles to help safeguard public health and the
environment, including open, genuine and full public participation in all synbio decisions:
• Apply the Precautionary Principle
• Require mandatory synthetic biology-specific regulations
• Protect public health and worker safety
• Protect the environment, including biodiversity
• Guarantee the right-to-know and democratic participation
• Require corporate accountability and manufacturer liability
• Protect economic and environmental justice
“These Principles are an important milestone, as a diverse, global coalition of civil society
groups calls for all aspects of synthetic biology to be strongly regulated in ways that
protect the public interest,” says Bob Phelps, Director of Gene Ethics.
“Self-regulation of the synthetic biology industry would be too dangerous and the present
laws on Genetic Manipulation (GM) are outdated and inept. For instance, our regulators
use the concept of ‘substantial equivalence’ to compare the safety of GM and ordinary
foods. But synthetic organisms never existed and have no history of safe use, so cannot
be compared. If released, synthetic organisms will also evolve into ‘who knows what?’
“Our Principles document asks governments from the international to local level to all
enact laws and play their part to protect us from the hazards of new synthetic organisms.
For instance, they should all sign and ratify the Biosafety Protocol to the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) which aims to safely regulate the international transfer, handling
and use of Living Modified Organisms. Australia and Canada have not signed while the
USA is not even a signatory to the CBD.
“Synbio is also set to deepen social and economic inequalities and injustices. Synthetic
micro-organisms designed to make fuels, chemicals, plastics and other industrial materials
will be fed on biomass that now feeds, clothes and houses people, many in less
industrialised countries. The gap between rich and poor is set to get worse, not better.
“We call for a global ban on the release and commercial use of all synthetic organisms
until a public interest research and public policy agenda is set to examine all the options
for meeting every-one’s needs – fairly and equitably.
“We also call for the ban on synthetic organisms until stringent laws and regulations are
enacted to ensure biosafety. We humans living now have an obligation to safeguard future
generations and to be wise in our development and use of new technologies that may
threaten life on Earth,” Mr Phelps concludes.
The full Principles report will soon be available online at:

Remember these people doing this don't really know the consequences, and ethics have little or no governing effect with this, funny how these bio whatevers handily leave out Ethics. They are still very much experimenting and hoping no-one knows how little they know. Just like with GMO's. I do wonder if this is related to the Transhumanist agenda as well since nanobots are very much a part of that too. And ethics as most decent people would think of them is not a part of the Transhumanist agenda either. And...when all of this is done for profit first and foremost you know nothing good will come from it, greed and corruption, it can't end too soon.

Fidelity Investments promos on YouTube

Synthetic biology promo on YouTube 2.26min) and ... ure=relmfu (30 second summary)

Synthetic biology is a set of radical new genetic manipulation (GM) techniques, to use Nature as a “manufacturing platform” and DNA as patentable raw material. Craig Venter recently created the first synthetic microbe ever built from scratch. Now Fidelity Investments see more new life forms being created in the lab than the 1.7 million organisms found in Nature. Their lego view of the world sees life as ‘biobricks’. They conclude, “Nothing has the power to change how we live more than changing life itself.”

The failed promises of existing GM techniques – e.g. goat milk with spider silk, bigger fish and anti-malarial drugs – are the basis for claims that SynBio is just an extension of GM, so relax. Nothing is further from the truth.

The utterly blind arrogance in thinking they have it over nature when they barely have a fraction of knowledge of how she works is astonishing. Let them experiment on themselves to prove their theories. So little is known about the quantum and how it works and little to none about the sub quantum or sub sub sub whatever....that's where our salvation is. I AM WE ARE.

Author:  Shayalana [ Tue Apr 19, 2016 6:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Current Events & News

Obama Went From Condemning Saudis for Abuses to Arming Them to the Teeth

In the 2002 speech against the Iraq War that helped propel him to the presidency, then-state Sen. Barack Obama denounced not just the looming invasion of Iraq, but also human rights abuses by our “so-called allies” in Saudi Arabia:

Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

And he spoke out against the U.S.’ role as weapons supplier to the world:

Let’s fight to make sure … that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

Thirteen years later, Obama is making his fourth trip to Riyadh, having presided over record-breaking U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia while offering only muted criticism of the kingdom’s human rights violations.

And don’t expect the president to speak up while he’s there. Obama last traveled to Saudi Arabia in January 2015, cutting short his trip to India after the passing of the former Saudi king, Abdullah ibn-Abdulaziz al-Saud. During that visit, Obama was criticized for not speaking out against the flogging of prominent Saudi blogger and dissident Raif Badawi. In 2014, Badawi was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes for “insulting Islam” and “going beyond the realm of obedience,” with the first flogging session taking place weeks before Obama arrived.

In January, after a record-setting year for Saudi beheadings, Saudi authorities set off protests by executing Shia cleric and regime critic Nimr al-Nimr. U.S. response was muted. The State Department merely said the execution “risks exacerbating sectarian tensions at a time when they urgently need to be reduced” — and then fell silent on the repression of the following protests.

Last year, amazingly enough, Saudi Arabia became the head of the 47-member U.N. Human Rights Council. When a State Department spokesperson was asked for his reaction, he responded: “Frankly, we would welcome it. We’re close allies.”

Obama administration officials have not offered on-the-record explanations for why Saudi human rights abuses don’t play a greater role in U.S. policy. But in the trove of documents released from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server, Clinton acknowledges that the U.S. government holds the Saudis to a different standard.

In one email chain, dated June 22, 2011, aide Cheryl Mills forwarded Clinton a New York Times opinion column in which Maureen Dowd mused that it would “have been thrilling” if Clinton, on a recent trip to Saudi Arabia, had “smacked around the barbaric Saudi men who force women to huddle under a suffocating black tarp.” Clinton asked Mills what she thought about the column and Mills remarked that “we/DOS/USG may have different standards we apply when it is pushing Saudi.” “No doubt about that!” Clinton responded:

READ HER RESPONSE HERE: ... ocument/p1

Obama’s visit this week will be taking place in the shadow of an ongoing U.S.-supplied, Saudi-led campaign in Yemen, where Saudi airstrikes have killed thousands of civilians.

Since the Saudi coalition began its campaign last March, it has relied on U.S.-produced aircraft, “smart bombs,” guided missiles, and internationally banned cluster bombs. A recent report from Human Rights Watch, for instance, found evidence that the coalition used American bombs in a March 15 attack on a market in northwestern Yemen where nearly a hundred civilians were killed. As Iona Craig reported in November, Yemen’s architectural history is also being destroyed by bombs sold to Saudi Arabia by the United States.

According to a new poll released earlier this month, 82 percent of Yemenis between the ages of 18 and 24 now view the United States as an enemy.

On Wednesday, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., introduced a bill blocking arms transfers unless the State Department certifies that the Saudi military is taking every “feasible precaution to reduce the risk of harm to civilians.”

But arms sales in general — and specifically to Saudi Arabia — have been a consistent element of Obama’s tenure.

“Many Americans would be surprised to learn that his administration has brokered more arms deals than any administration of the past 70 years, Republican or Democratic,” said William Hartung, a senior adviser to Secure Assistance Monitor, a progressive group that tracks arms sales.

The primary vehicle for international arms transfers is the Pentagon’s Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program; in 2015, the FMS program hit a record high of $46.6 billion.

The Saudis have been major clients. “During the first six years of the Obama administration, the United States entered into agreements to sell over $190 billion in weapons and training to Saudi Arabia. And in 2015, the administration announced its intention to sell another $22 billion to the kingdom, parts of which have yet to be embedded in formal agreements,” Hartung said.

To put that in context, in his first five years as president, Obama sold $30 billion more in weapons than President Bush did during his entire eight years as commander in chief.

Saudi Arabia maintains a huge network of D.C. lobbyists, public relations experts, and a subsidized think tank to promote its cozy relationship with Washington. And as Lee Fang reported in December, it launched a particularly massive new charm offensive shortly after beginning its air and ground assault in Yemen.

Murphy expressed hopes that Obama would press the Saudi king on his conduct in Yemen. “Right now, the Saudis’ focus on Yemen is distracting them from the war against violent extremists,” Murphy said in a statement emailed to The Intercept. “And personally, I hope President Obama takes this opportunity to have a frank discussion with Saudi Arabia about their continued backing for religious and educational institutions around the world that promote sectarianism and intolerance.”

But many activists are losing hope that the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia will change.

“The reality is the U.S. foreign policy establishment, including the State Department and Pentagon, are happy with the Saudi relationship,” said Stephen McInerney, executive director of the Project on Middle East Democracy. “In order to change course, meaningfully, it would take real leadership and investment in doing so, and President Obama — although his instincts might be that the Saudis are problematic in a number of ways — he hasn’t shown any serious desire to bring about a change of policy.” ... the-teeth/

Author:  Shayalana [ Tue Apr 19, 2016 6:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Current Events & News

Here’s a Way to Shut Down Panama Papers-Style Tax Havens — If We Wanted To

by Jon Schwarz

IT WOULD HAVE been infuriating at any time of the year to learn about the massive tax evasion by the global 0.01 percent revealed by the Panama Papers leak. But it’s especially maddening for regular American schlubs to hear about it in April, just as we’re doing our own taxes.

According to estimates by Berkeley economist Gabriel Zucman in his book The Hidden Wealth of Nations, rich individuals and big corporations use various machinations to pay at least a third of a trillion dollars less than they owe every year. For everyone else, this translates directly into higher taxes, more national debt, and less government spending.

Conservatives like to argue that it’s impossible to shut down the dizzyingly complex world of shell corporations and tax havens — a position that supports their argument that there’s no point in raising taxes on the wealthy. As George W. Bush proclaimed in 2004, “Real rich people figure out how to dodge taxes.”

However, Zucman makes a persuasive case that it wouldn’t be technically difficult to crush the tax haven industry. The enormous challenge would be mustering the political will — and not just in one country, but on a global level.

Tax havens serve two functions: tax evasion, which involves hiding assets and is illegal, and tax avoidance, which is done by multinational corporations in the open and is legal (since the same corporations have conveniently made sure the laws work that way). Eliminating them requires different strategies.

Tax Evasion

Let’s consider one example: Say you’re an American business owner and you want to hide $10 million from the Internal Revenue Service. As Zucman explains it, there are three steps.

First, you set up a shell corporation — say, Definitely Not an Illegal Tax Shelter LLC — in a location like the Cayman Islands with strict privacy laws about disclosure of company owners, so no one knows that DNAITS belongs to you.

Second, you create a bank account for DNAITS in Switzerland.

Third, you have your real, U.S. company buy $10 million in fictitious services — maybe “consulting” — from DNAITS, sending that $10 million to your Swiss bank account.

Now you can take that $10 million and invest it in whatever you want: real estate, stocks, bonds, mutual funds. In theory, you’re legally obligated to declare your interest, dividends, and capital gains each year and pay taxes on them. In reality, the IRS may never find out that the money belongs to an American, especially since your Swiss bank may itself not know who owns DNAITS.

Let’s say you’ve invested it all in a Vanguard mutual fund that provides a return this year of 5 percent, or $500,000, in taxable dividends. If you were to follow U.S. law and declare it, you’d have to pay taxes on that $500,000 dividend income at a rate of 20 percent, costing you $100,000. So you don’t, and your money continues compounding each year tax-free.

For Americans who aren’t super-rich, there’s no way to hide your income from the government. Employers and banks automatically report your wages, interest from savings accounts, and any meager dividends and capital gains to the IRS. (In fact, the government knows so much that there’s no need for most people to do their own taxes — the IRS could just send you a tax return already filled out for your approval, as is done in Sweden, Denmark, and Spain.)

The main service provided by tax havens is simply that — since they’re not bound by other countries’ laws — they don’t report the income of foreigners to the relevant tax authorities.

Based on the history of previous attempts to crack down on tax evasion, successful and not, Zucman argues that the U.S. and European Union could stop most of it with a two-pronged attack: concrete consequences for tax havens, and an international financial register.

The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, passed by Congress in 2010, imposed our national rules on all financial institutions worldwide. That is, under FATCA, banks in Switzerland, Luxembourg, the British Virgin Islands, and everywhere else must search their records for accounts held by U.S. citizens, and automatically report their income to the IRS.

While FATCA has flaws, it’s been successful in making it more difficult for Americans to evade taxes. What’s needed, says Zucman, is even stronger measures to force tax havens to automatically report the income of all foreigners, not just Americans, to the tax authorities in their countries.

The U.S. can force tax havens to comply because we’re so big and powerful. But smaller countries could also bring tax havens to heel if they act in coalition, especially since tax havens themselves are generally tiny and dependent on exports. Zucman calculates that if Germany, France, and Italy slapped a tariff of 30 percent on Swiss goods, this would cost Switzerland more than it makes as a tax haven — and such a tariff would be legal under World Trade Organization rules, since it would enable the three countries to recover approximately the amount in tax revenues that Switzerland is costing them.

Of course, as with the hypothetical Definitely Not an Illegal Tax Shelter LLC, bankers may be able to honestly say they don’t know who owns many assets. That’s where an international financial registry comes in.

Zucman contends that a global registry of who owns which assets is “in no way utopian.” Countries have long had national registries of who owns all their land and property. More recently, corporations have set up private, large-scale registries: the Depository Trust Company (which keeps track of the ownership of all stock issued by U.S. companies), Euroclear Belgium and Clearstream (bonds issued by U.S. companies but denominated in European currencies), Euroclear France (French corporate stock), and other national repositories.

Thus it’s not hard to imagine the databases being merged under the supervision of a public, international institution with financial expertise — and fortunately we already have one of those, the International Monetary Fund.

Of course, the registry would in many cases record that assets are owned by corporations or trusts whose owners are unknown. Tracing the financial chain through many layers of obfuscation back to the actual human beings who hold the assets would require an enormous, costly, and possibly ineffective IMF bureaucracy.

Zucman proposes a fiendishly clever solution: the global registry should impose a small, refundable wealth tax to make it in the financial interest of anyone with hidden wealth to disclose it.

Here’s how it would work:

Imagine that the IMF registry imposed a wealth tax of 3 percent on everything in its records: stocks, bonds, mutual funds, land, property, etc.

Now think again of your $10 million held by Definitely Not an Illegal Tax Shelter LLC, and the $500,000 it’s earned this year in dividends from your Vanguard mutual fund. Your Swiss bank records that DNAITS has received this $500,000 in income, but doesn’t know you own DNAITS, and so can’t report it to the IRS as your income.

However, the global financial registry records that $10.5 million in the Vanguard mutual fund is held by DNAITS — and taxes it at a rate of 3 percent, or $315,000.

You now have two choices. First, you can keep silent about your ownership of DNAITS and let the IMF keep the wealth tax, leaving you with $10,185,000.

Or second, you can prove to the IRS that DNAITS belongs to you. And since there’s no wealth tax in the U.S., you’d get all of the $315,000 back. All you’d have to pay is the $100,000 in income taxes you owe on your $500,000 income, leaving you with $10,400,000.

Of course, with such a system in place there would be no point in trying to hide your $10 million in the first place. Instead, you and almost everyone else would simply pay what you lawfully owe — so you don’t have to pay more.

None of this is to say that setting up such a system would be politically simple. In particular, conservatives in all countries would suspect that such a global financial registry would make it easier for countries to impose taxes on wealth in addition to taxes on income — and they’d be right. On the other hand, this also makes a global registry an attractive goal for all political parties concerned about wealth inequality. A global financial registry would also be politically difficult to openly oppose, since it would not just hamper tax evasion but would also be a key tool in fighting money laundering and the financing of terrorism.

Tax Avoidance

The U.S. has, by world standards, a peculiar corporate tax system. Multinational companies headquartered in the U.S. must pay an ultimate tax rate of 35 percent on all their profits earned anywhere on earth.

That is, if a corporation makes money in a foreign country with a corporate tax rate of 10 percent, it must pay the IRS an additional 25 percent on its profits booked in that country. But to make things even more complicated, it only has to pay that additional tax when it brings the profits back to the U.S. If it keeps the profits overseas, it can postpone paying the tax bill indefinitely — which is why U.S. corporations are now holding over $2 trillion in profits in other countries.

This creates two obvious incentives for U.S.-based multinationals.

First, they’re continually tempted to engage in corporate “inversions,” in which they move their formal headquarters to a country with lower tax rates — even as their factories, workers, and customers stay in the same places. This is why Medtronic, founded in Minneapolis in 1949, is now formally Irish, even as its “operational headquarters” remain in Minnesota.

Second, they tend to engage in accounting chicanery to make it appear as if their profits were “earned” by foreign subsidiaries in countries with low corporate rates. This is a particularly attractive strategy for internet companies, whose value is largely non-material. For instance, Google licensed its highly profitable search and advertising technology to a subsidiary in Bermuda, where the corporate tax rate is zero percent. Google “pays” that highly profitable subsidiary billions in royalties each year.

Corporations keep these profits overseas in hopes of striking a deal with the U.S. government allowing them to bring the money home at a reduced tax rate. This already happened once before in 2004, when Congress let corporations pay just 5 percent on repatriated profits. New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer is currently working with Republicans on a similar plan.

All of this is done in the open, and is totally legal. Regular Americans despise it, but the tax system is so complex that it seems impossible that the IRS could ever keep up with armies of highly paid corporate lawyers.

However, there’s a feasible solution suggested by Zucman (and many others): Completely throw out our current corporate tax system and begin using something far simpler called “formulary apportionment.”

Formulary apportionment starts by discarding the weird fiction that a multinational corporation’s subsidiaries are separate companies. Instead, it treats the corporation as what it is, one unitary company, with one unitary amount of profit. Next, a formula based on the location of three concrete factors — the corporation’s payroll, physical capital like factories, and sales — is used to apportion percentages of the multinational’s profits to the different countries in which it operates. The IRS would get 35 percent of the U.S. apportionment.

This isn’t a untested daydream. Individual American states have long used formulary apportionment to determine tax rates for multi-state corporations. The principle would be exactly the same for multinational companies.

There’s no “right” formula, though for decades most U.S. states placed an equal weight on each factor. For example, a manufacturing multinational might have 66.6 percent of its payroll, 33.3 percent of its physical capital, and 50 percent of its customers in the U.S. Added together and divided by three, that means that half of its profits should be apportioned to the U.S. and can be taxed here.

Thus a formulary apportionment system would make corporate inversions and the fictitious booking of profits in low-tax countries pointless — neither would change a corporation’s U.S. tax liability.

It’s true that moving to such a system would be, if anything, more politically difficult than creating a global wealth registry. It would be ferociously opposed by many big U.S. corporations. On the other hand, explained clearly it would be extremely popular with regular Americans. There might also be some unexpected corporate support from CEOs who are tired of terrible PR and spending huge amounts of money on those otherwise-useless armies of tax lawyers.

Moreover, the European Commission (the executive body of the European Union) is pushing for individual EU countries to use a formulary apportionment system. This means that both U.S. states and European countries may soon have analogous approaches to corporate taxes. And as Zucman points out, the proposed Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Area would create one free trade zone covering the U.S. and European Union. Groups fighting tax avoidance could push to make a fusion of the two corporate tax bases part of any TAFTA treaty, which would make it far easier to set up formulary apportionment at the level of the U.S. and EU.

So, as Zucman writes at the end of The Hidden Wealth of Nations, this is “above all a battle of citizens against the false inevitability of tax evasion and the impotence of nations.” Money launderers, crooked politicians, and huge corporations want the system to be so complicated that only their shady bankers and lawyers can comprehend it. But if regular people worldwide can educate ourselves about the costs the current system imposes on all of us, and mobilize to agitate for possible solutions, there’s a path in front of us to a tax system for everyone that’s far simpler, fairer, and more transparent. ... wanted-to/

Now read the comments: ... 1#comments

More info: ... 15012.html

Author:  Shayalana [ Tue Apr 19, 2016 8:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Current Events & News

Q&A: Julian Assange on the Panama Papers

The WikiLeaks founder speaks to Richard Gizbert about secrets, leaks and why all 11.5 million files should be

With leaked data sets getting increasingly larger, cooperation between news outlets is becoming a standard operating procedure.

News outlets that once were chasing the exclusive are now willing - or maybe compelled - to join forces with competitors and to even keep a lid on juicy stories for months or longer - all in the spirit of collaboration.

One organisation at the forefront of this trend is WikiLeaks.

When its founder and editor-in-chief Julian Assange decided to partner with a few news outlets on the Afghan War Logs, he created a reporting model that would go on to grow larger, with more and more partners, with subsequent leaks.

Al Jazeera's Richard Gizbert went to the Ecuadorian embassy in London to sit down with Assange and discuss the Panama Papers, multi-newsroom collaborations and how to handle leaked documents.

Al Jazeera: What are the very first steps that lead to these kinds of investigations - the sources, the whistleblowers. Who are they and what are their motives?

Julian Assange: Assuming they were an insider, or they were an individual computer hacker coming from the outside, this is a technical person or this person had help from a technical person.

I think it's likely that this represents the radicalisation of the technical class, that's something that we have seen for example with Snowden.

So these, usually young men, who are technically educated know how to extract material. But of course they have to have the idea and the idea is given to them by successful examples. And now there have been a range of successful examples.

Al Jazeera: It's also to do with hardware though isn't it? Because back in 2010, most journalists and most news organisations wouldn't have had a clue about encryption. Most Guardian journalists he was dealing with, he had to school. Now many news outlets are providing these boxes, these - for lack of a better term - safe havens for data that five years ago, only organisations like yours and a few others did. That's a big change as well isn't it?

Julian Assange: Well I don't believe that Suddeutsche Zeitung got their material that way. However, their journalists have been educated in the technology. But it's no surprise that it was a German newspaper because Germany is the centre of technical education of journalists and is also the centre of the political radicalisation of the technical class, both of those two things combined.

Al Jazeera: The head of the ICIJ - coincidentally is another Australian - Gerard Ryle. I think it's fair to say you're not on great terms. He said that the ICIJ has no plans to release the full data set. He said: "We're not WikiLeaks. We're trying to show that journalism can be done responsibly."

Julian Assange: Yeah that's a concern. We're very pleased about the work that SZ (Suddeutsche Zeitung) - did in the beginning in developing that source. We think that's really good work. The work of the source of course is the most impressive and then pulling together that collaboration is also impressive work.

Saying that you're going to censor and not release a lot of the material, in fact what must be 99 percent of the material, that's a big problem. It's fine to have some kind of staggered release because you want to balance the supply and demand curve. But what I want to hear is that there is a path, a transparent path to publishing the vast majority of that data set because that's what's interesting from a legal perspective, from a historical perspective.

One of the fundamental missed lessons of the WikiLeaks experience is about how to deal with scale. OK, one part of dealing with scale is stitch together a big international collaboration, get more bodies, more eyeballs on the material. The other way to deal with scale is that scale is inherent in the material. When you've got millions of documents, you need to make millions of documents available, citable so it's not just a few hundred journalists, it's all the lawyers in the world, it's all the police in the world.

Al Jazeera: As someone who pretty much wrote the book on multi-media outlet collaborations - you knew that this stuff was coming. When you saw the first wave, the first two or three days of reporting, what stood out for you and what did you not see that you thought you would in the reporting?

Julian Assange: Well we've been covering offshore sector for a long time since 2007. In fact, WikiLeaks has used the offshore sector for protection from banking blockades so we even had to research it for our own purposes. But in terms of the initial angling of the story, that can be a bit strange. There was clearly a conscious effort to go with the Putin bashing, North Korea bashing, sanctions bashing etc. I didn't think that was necessary for that story, it's not as if the blowback from the US DoJ or the US State Department needs that kind of political protection but for some reason some papers, like The Guardian, thought that that was necessary.

Al Jazeera: Have we seen any other examples in parochial reporting - media outlets from various countries doing what The Guardian appears to have done which is point at a distant target while not paying as much attention - proportionally speaking - to domestic targets much closer to home.

Julian Assange: Sure that was done in Sweden with SVT, the Swedish state TV, beating up on Iceland. Iceland is a small Scandinavian neighbour, sort of viewed as quite provincial and fun to beat up on. But at the Swedish trusts were not really examined.

Al Jazeera: Am I the only one who is surprised that more than 100 news organisations can get involved with a story like this and somehow in an industry that is famous for rumour-mongering and incurable gossips they manage to keep the lid on the whole story until it came out?

Julian Assange: I think it is interesting, we knew ... we know other people and other news organisations who knew but didn't say anything I think because there was no story that was being worked on. No one knows of the law firm concerned, it doesn't have name recognition. Then, the individual details are quite technical. You can't tweet this story, you can't spill the beans with just a small comment so I think there just was not the market to do it. It could also be that so many news organisations were involved so they have incentives to not report.

Al Jazeera: The other thing that strikes me about this is that we're sitting in an embassy in London that you are not free to leave. And that a lot of politicians primarily in the United States but also elsewhere, when the leaks came out in 2010, they turned you into the embodiment of the problem, your organisation as the standard bearer for something that they wanted to stop. And in a way it kind of reminds me of the Napster story when they found out that Napster wasn't their problem - the technology was their problem - that there is no music industry per se. I'm wondering if there is a parallel or whether you draw any satisfaction when you see stories like this come out whether you feel like now would be a good time to point out that you weren’t necessarily their problem and that you can't lock that up in an embassy in west London.

Julian Assange: WikiLeaks set an example and the example was the threat. And the example was the threat because the technology, over time, became more available to other people who could then follow the example. But examples really are threats, once they're copied you're not just dealing with one threat any more, you're dealing with normalisation of a particular practice. But we're actually only halfway there. So our technology has been adopted for some of the inputs, a little bit for organisational-to-organisational communication. But unfortunately not much yet on the publishing side. That's still a big problem.

Looking forward as to how I think the Panama Papers will go, it's going to be very hard to get reform without a bulk publishing effort. There's just not the mass, if there are 300 journalists involved that is just not enough mass to deal with the reliance that the establishment of the UK, United States and in fact most countries have in the offshore sector.

Now what you have in practice at the moment is basically a two-tiered tax system where the middle class and the working poor pay income tax and the wealthy essentially don't pay anything. That's a question about the structure of society and that big picture angle is not being engaged with in the journalism that it's done. It is all oh North Korea, oh Russia or sanctions breaking or maybe someone dodging inheritance tax a little bit. But there is a big picture here as well.

Al Jazeera: The stories that we can put a face on. They like to do the stories that they can put a face on ...

Julian Assange: You know, scandals and stories you can put a face on. It can be good for marketing reasons, but what are you marketing in the end? What WikiLeaks does, and what I believe should've been done with this story, is that the scandals are there to market the archive because it's archive that has the scale that can deal with the problem. ... 10398.html

Author:  Shayalana [ Tue Apr 19, 2016 9:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Current Events & News

Ukraine’s Petro Poroshenko: The biggest loser from the Panama Papers?

The media hype has focused on Vladimir Putin (who was actually not named) and David Cameron (who wasn't either). However, the biggest loser from the Panama Paper’s fallout just might be Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko.

By now, you’ve endured more than two years of the Western popular press ranting and raving about “Euromaidan,” which they describe as Ukraine’s “revolution of dignity”. You’ve consumed endless op-eds and profiles white-washing Petro Poroshenko as some kind of noble protector of democratic values in the “New Ukraine.” You’ve also been exposed to endless propaganda about Ukraine’s “European choice” and misled to believe that the country is united in its desire to re-orientate westward.

By contrast, Russian media has consistently labeled Maidan, a “coup.” Lots and lots of folk on the Western think-tank circuit and opinion pages - which are often indivisible - are angry about that. They've long accused the Russians of trying to hoodwink people. ‘Weaponizing’ nouns, if you like.

In reality, the Russian media is right. Maidan was not a revolution. The term revolution implies that there was a dramatic structural shift in Ukraine. But there wasn’t anything of the sort. In a real transformation, the entire elite are replaced. For example, a new civil service is created and probably a fresh police force.

A Fake Revolution

In Ukraine, this didn’t happen. The same state structures still exist, like before. More or less the same people run the security services, for instance. And the media remains, broadly, owned by the same bunch of oligarchs who controlled it two years ago. The President, Poroshenko, served as Trade Minister under Viktor Yanukovich, who was deposed in the coup.

#Ukraine inches toward early elections. Polls show weaker #Poroshenko, stronger #Tymoshenko
— Balazs Jarabik (@BalazsJarabik) April 6, 2016

According to polls, his biggest current rival is Yulia Timoshenko. She was Energy Minster when Leonid Kuchma ran the show. In fact, none of the principles are raw greenhorns, new to the scene. Rather, the situation is quite the opposite. It’s Back To The Future, with bullet proof Porsche Cayenne’s instead of cute little Deloreans.

So, Ukraine didn’t experience a genuine revolution. Instead, there was a minor change, equivalent to shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. A group of, nominally “pro-Russian” (although many would venture “pro-themselves” and “pro-money”) oligarchs from the eastern regions were replaced by a group of ostensibly “pro-Western” oligarchs from the central and western areas. The new crew speaks better English and practices more skilled PR. That’s about all that has changed.

Poroshenko came to power promising the sun, the moon and the stars. But not the plough and stars, which he removed from Ukrainian society by banning the Communist Party, in a (hardly democratic) gesture ignored by the West.
Life is like a box of chocolates

During his campaign, the then billionaire pledged to divest himself of his Roshen confectionary business.“If I get elected, I will wipe the slate clean and sell the Roshen concern. As President of Ukraine I plan and commit to focus exclusively on welfare of the nation,” Poroshenko told Germany’s Bild tabloid before the election. He never did this.

Despite his assurances, it now appears that Poroshenko has been more concerned with his own welfare than Ukraine’s over the past couple of years. He hid money offshore, thereby depriving the struggling country of vital taxes, at the same time that a civil war has raged there. While conscripting youth from poor families to serve in an underfunded army, he’s not only been unwilling to commit his own massive wealth to the cause, he’s even refused to pay his own fair share.

Poroshenko’s attitude is best summed up the events of September 1, 2014. That day, the ‘Chocolate King’ alleged that Russia had openly attacked Ukraine. Many governments and opinion-formers took his information at face value and it led to a serious deterioration in relations between Russia and the West. Meanwhile, Poroshenko's mind was very far away from Donbass. Now, the Panama Papers reveal that the same day, he supplied Mossack Fonseca, the Panamanian law firm at the centre of the scandal, with a copy of a utility bill to prove his home address. This is damning.

You never know what you are going to get

Last weekend, Poroshenko bemoaned the timing of this week’s Dutch referendum on Ukraine’s controversial association agreement with the EU. Back then, his reasoning was that “the real purpose for the internal Dutch discussion is about the future of the European Union and internal political clashes.” The oligarch suggested Ukraine’s chances of a favorable outcome would be damaged by Dutch domestic issues. He also, rather bizarrely accused the New York Times of “hybrid war” against his country for exposing rampant corruption. We can now assume that he was fully aware of the imminent publication of information about his own dealings, when making these statements.

As it happens, nothing has done more to kibosh Kiev’s EU prospects than the Panama Papers. Even the Kremlin’s greatest minds couldn’t possibly conceive of something so damaging. Ultimately, Poroshenko only has himself to blame here. If he’d kept his campaign promises, his white knight act might have been believable. However, his grubby financial dealings expose him for what he is, a relic of the 1990’s oligarch culture which helped to destroy much of the ex-USSR, both economically and socially, bringing untold misery to millions.

Campaigners for a Dutch ‘No’ vote have warned against admitting another large, poor and systemically crooked eastern European nation to the EU. Ukraine’s supporters continuously countered that Maidan had changed all that. This week’s revelations prove one thing. Regardless of the endless spin, Ukraine’s fundamentals remain the same. Nothing has changed.

If Dutch voters return a negative verdict in this week's referendum, Poroshenko can't blame "hybrid war" or Russian meddling. He can instead stare at one of his, undoubtedly expensive, mirrors and blame the figure he sees there. ... est-loser/

Author:  Shayalana [ Wed Apr 20, 2016 11:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Current Events & News

Things are getting curiouser and curiouser I don't normally post things like this but given our history of our human bodies on the planet being a co-creative effort of the Sirians, Annunaki and Reptilians here it is. Some think that Nibiru is a second sun and some think there has always been a second sun it was just hidden behind the one we have now and because of earth's orbit we could never see it. Whatever. As usual a big grain of salt should be used when discerning for the grain of truth there may be in this.

Putin reveals Alien Hybrids ‘Reptilians’ are the Ruling Class

Shockwaves are reverberating around the Kremlin today as word spreads regarding an extraordinary meeting called by Vladimir Putin yesterday where, according to sources, the Russian president said that “95% of the world’s ruling class are not even human,” but are “cold-blooded hybrids” who are “members of an ancient cult.”


Resisting gentle attempts by close aides to stop the President ‘going there, Putin said that the evidence was everywhere, and that he personally had intimate knowledge of their dealings.

According to yournewswire, he said that he was not one of them, but they are afraid of him and have attempted to lure him into their “ancient Babylonian cult.”


Author:  Shayalana [ Wed Apr 20, 2016 11:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Current Events & News

Get your salt ready.

We're Getting America Back in 2016. Here's How we did it !!

Published on Apr 1, 2016

Celebrate. We are definitely getting America back from the bad-guys. Here is an update on what's happened so far. We are legally and actively arresting the financial sector criminals (Wallstreet, etc.) worldwide starting February 2015 - - which is when the United States was reborn under the original Constitution. This includes 100 Indian Nations.
We bring you proof that the 2012 transition is real, and that the Light Alliance is coordinating everything. The Light Alliance is our neighbors in the Cosmos, and beyond, who have done a tremendous amount, kept a very low profile so far. That will change.

**************** Links to Referenced Videos ****************

QTZ1002 Benjamin Fulford
QTZ1003 Drake - The USA
QTZ1004 US.Bankruptcy QTZ1005 Judy Wood 9/11
QTZ1006 - Lesson 1 (The Bad Guys) -

Author:  Shayalana [ Wed Apr 20, 2016 11:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Current Events & News

Organic Farmers celebrate!! Senate Defeats Monsanto GMO Labeling Bill called the Dark Act.

Published on Apr 12, 2016

Monsanto’s Dark Act was defeated in the Senate on 3/16/2016. GMO Labeling of food can begin; (ii) Califonia now requires Roundup labeled as “Known to Cause Cancer”; (iii) FBI Probing Monsanto’s guilt in the Chipolet Restaurant poisonings; (iv) Monsanto profits down 25% again.

Author:  Shayalana [ Wed Apr 20, 2016 12:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Current Events & News

Brazil's Government is Falling Apart...and it's Good News? Currency Reset

Brazil's Government is Falling Apart...and it's Good News?
By: vlogbrothers
Published on Mar 18, 2016
During the presidency of Lula Da Silva, billions of dollars in bribes were taken to allow construction companies to overcharge the government-owned oil company, Petrobras. Now, Brazil has corruption, but it's actually pretty good for a developing country. But the people of Brazil have come to expect more, and they have been left down.

Current president, Dilma Rousseff, was chairwoman of Petrobras during the period of corruption, but no one knows whether Lula or Dilma were involved or aware. But Lula was under investigation before Rousseff appointed him to be her chief of staff, a move that means he can no longer be prosecuted by a normal court.

I think this whole thing speaks very highly of Brazil. A reckoning had to come, and I'm pleased the citizens are holding the government accountable. However, I can't stop seeing parallels between the awful partisan situation here in the U.S. and the lack of skepticism people in this story have when it comes to believing awful things about their political opponents.

Using this scandal to clean up Brazil must be done, but using it to score political points or gain power is going to rip the country apart.
This is an epic story, and no one knows where it ends. Whether Rousseff retains power and who gets elected once the house is fully cleaned out will say a lot about how this very young democracy handles its economic and cultural growth when people's perceptions are controlled largely by social media.

I think there are many good things in Brazil's future, but leaders will have to do more than fight for power. They will have to actually lead.

Author:  Shayalana [ Wed Apr 20, 2016 12:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Current Events & News

Yep, the turmoil in Brasil is a direct result of the cabal and their fear of BRICS creating a money system not controlled by the cabal. A money system based on gold reserves.

Cabal Stronghold in Brazil - Currency Reset Delayed; Brazil is the next MidEast

Published on Apr 4, 2016

Now that the Mid East and the USA are contained, the next frontier (bottleneck) for the Light Alliance is Brazil. Brazil is participating in the BRICS currency reset, but the Cabal in Brazil has to be dealt with first.

Author:  starduster [ Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Current Events & News

wow, great job, Shay, keeping us up to date with current events ... I have only heard snippets about the Panama Papers, that suggested that their was an "alternative motive" for letting them leak ... and I am glad that Julian is still operating his service - even in his confined quarters
but what really caught my eye were the two articles, that validate the WMMs ... Putin is one my "heros" - I don't care if he was KBG or if he stole the election ... his people love him - and I believe, for good reason... and the way he has exposed the NWO and the "elite" as ET hybreds takes some real guts - not to forget he has built underground cities for his people and their news doesn't HIDE "nibiru" but features the 2nd sun in its nightly news so that they will be prepared, if it causes the poles to shift ... and to stay away from GMOs - which are banned in Russia ... glad to see that our farmers are waking up but with cloned beef being sold for $16 a pound (for a rib-eye steak) - who's going to be able to afford it? I suggest we all look into "farm shares" to encourage farmers to raise organic foods - so that all the profits don't go to the middle man - non-gmo feed is way expensive - almost all the alfalfa and corn (their main staples) are GMOs - I've been lucky to find farmers who still raise their own ... because even the "grass-fed" beef is tough and relatively tasteless, without corn... I raised my own little field of heritage corn - it was intentionally for me (and the family) but the corn worms are merciless and most of it goes to the livestock, who will eat the entire plant and not just the ears of corn - with much gusto ... I'm not equipted to make silage but I am real picky about my hay ... last year I got a load that wasn't even rained on .... for half of what I normally pay per bail - 'cause he had more than he needed for his dairy cows ... the Feed Stores, do carry "organic" feed ... but I can only afford it for the chickens ... but there are good deals to be made, if you look hard enough ... good article on our "alien" DNA too ... all but confirms the Fifth Interview.

Author:  Shayalana [ Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Current Events & News

Edward Snowden Trolls David Cameron Over Panama Papers

Published on Apr 6, 2016

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden trolled David Cameron on Twitter Monday for the British Prime Minister’s call for privacy following the Panama Papers leak on Sunday. Cameron claimed his late father’s tax affairs are “a private matter” after the leak revealed Ian Cameron avoided paying taxes on his estate for 30 years. We look at the Cameron’s hypocrisy and the impact of the Panama Papers leak on the Lip News with Elliot Hill and Joya Mia Italiano.

Author:  Shayalana [ Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Current Events & News

starduster wrote:
wow, great job, Shay, keeping us up to date with current events ... I have only heard snippets about the Panama Papers, that suggested that their was an "alternative motive" for letting them leak ... and I am glad that Julian is still operating his service - even in his confined quarters
but what really caught my eye were the two articles, that validate the WMMs ... Putin is one my "heros" - I don't care if he was KBG or if he stole the election ... his people love him - and I believe, for good reason... and the way he has exposed the NWO and the "elite" as ET hybreds takes some real guts - not to forget he has built underground cities for his people and their news doesn't HIDE "nibiru" but features the 2nd sun in its nightly news so that they will be prepared, if it causes the poles to shift ... and to stay away from GMOs - which are banned in Russia ... glad to see that our farmers are waking up but with cloned beef being sold for $16 a pound (for a rib-eye steak) - who's going to be able to afford it? I suggest we all look into "farm shares" to encourage farmers to raise organic foods - so that all the profits don't go to the middle man - non-gmo feed is way expensive - almost all the alfalfa and corn (their main staples) are GMOs - I've been lucky to find farmers who still raise their own ... because even the "grass-fed" beef is tough and relatively tasteless, without corn... I raised my own little field of heritage corn - it was intentionally for me (and the family) but the corn worms are merciless and most of it goes to the livestock, who will eat the entire plant and not just the ears of corn - with much gusto ... I'm not equipted to make silage but I am real picky about my hay ... last year I got a load that wasn't even rained on .... for half of what I normally pay per bail - 'cause he had more than he needed for his dairy cows ... the Feed Stores, do carry "organic" feed ... but I can only afford it for the chickens ... but there are good deals to be made, if you look hard enough ... good article on our "alien" DNA too ... all but confirms the Fifth Interview.

Have you heard about companion planting? Find out what plant would defer that particular pest and plant the seed with your corn seed. it's an old old practice that works especially for the Mexicans whose main crop is corn.

Author:  Shayalana [ Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Current Events & News

Gerald Celente On Soros & The Panama Papers & Why A Hillary Clinton Presidency Means War

Author:  Shayalana [ Wed Apr 20, 2016 3:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Current Events & News

It's interesting to see the different dimensions at play here. We truly are time shifted with each other. What is constant throughout these perspectives of what is going on or not, is change. No matter how it's looked at, things really are changing. I find it amazing how so much seems to be backfiring on the elite. It's worse now for them than ever. This latest Panama fiasco is not working as planned it is showing them up for how corrupt and greedy they are and how much they assume we don't know. It just presents an even more vivid contrast of them having an obscene amount of money compared to the majority suffering through austerity measures imposed by them! Their timing is terrible! And so many of the youth are especially taking a stand because the corruption and greed is very obvious to them and how it manifested and the consequences of it will be on their shoulders, especially. They don't want it, they want to create a more equitable system for everyone. And as usual like them, I just love the internet! It also occurred to me that way back when before we were tricked into bodies the majority on the planet were Atlanteans that they were curious about the technology the Annunaki had. That tech was used against the Atlanteans. Now we are learning to bypass the tech from within and with our Energetic Hearts while the Annunaki cannot touch or access the higher frequencies we mutate with and into by coming from within our Energetic Hearts. What they called our weakness is our greatest strength and their ignorance of it their greatest weakness. Their technology will not save them. The Sovereign Integral cannot be or is at all effected and the enormous amount of energy and effort needed by the elite and their masters to contain it all is breaking down. Truth is their worst enemy. This election is really interesting and so unpredictable. As usual they think they have it in the bag , but earth herself may have something more important to reveal....There are more major earthquakes predicted and some may happen in places not predicted. Best be in tune with her. We'll see. Hiliary seems to be getting a touch of hysteria and Trump has an ego that won't quit...yet... both still have their roles to play. It reminds me of Gollum in LOTR. Frodo asked Gandalf why Bilbo didn't kill Gollum when he had the chance. And Gandalf said it was because of Bilbo's compassion that staid his hand. And Gollum still had a role to play in the bigger picture that would help defeat Sauron, and he had many chancves to change, but couldn't. As it turned out Gollum helped to defeat Sauron because of his own insane greed and corruption for the evil power from the ring which Sauron had invested in it. It killed both Gollum and Sauron in the end by imploding on them. The earth just keeps getting denser. Something like that now is happening with how much more density we are dealing with because of corruption, greed and power, its weight just can't be held up any longer , something has to give,especially when the masses realize the truth and run with it.

Author:  Shayalana [ Wed Apr 20, 2016 11:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Current Events & News

The Panama Papers - What You're Not Being Told

Author:  Shayalana [ Wed Apr 20, 2016 11:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Current Events & News

John McAfee Explains the Panama Papers Leak & Government Corruption

Published on Apr 7, 2016

The Panama Papers leak is looked at with Libertarian presidential candidate and cybersecurity expert John McAfee. McAfee explains why the US government has the most to gain from the hack and argues that the privacy of American citizens will be non-existent if we don’t stand up and fight for our freedoms, in this uncensored Antidote interview hosted by Michael Parker.

Author:  Shayalana [ Thu Apr 21, 2016 2:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Current Events & News

Just another reason I don't like Google. i just noticed this on a website I went to. There is NO privacy if Google is involved. Why would they be tracking every video anyone viewed? Be aware of their tracking and/or don't use anything that Google owns. And remember they are leading the charge for Transhumanism with DARPA.

YouTube Privacy Warning

YouTube (owned by Google) does not let you watch videos anonymously. As such, watching YouTube videos here will be tracked by YouTube/Google.

Author:  Shayalana [ Thu Apr 21, 2016 6:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Current Events & News

You'll like this star...

Vladimir Putin United States Citizens. Do Not Give Up Your Guns

"These days, there are few few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bare arms and use deadly force to defend one’s self and possessions.

This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items.

People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.

Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor.

This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds.

It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington’s clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.

Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lieing guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors.

Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed.

The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot. Peter Fonda: Obama is a ‘F – king Traitor’.

Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population.

From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers." ... your-guns/

Author:  Shayalana [ Thu Apr 21, 2016 7:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Current Events & News

I think the Panama papers are just the tip of the iceberg especially since the MF is only the 3rd largest of its kind of business.
Clintons friends and associates were named only how about the company taking care of Clintons "trust funds" in the Cayman Islands with all those others who profited from wars and the backs of the American people?

Vladimir Putin - Russia Issues International Arrest Warrant For Rothschild & Soros

Author:  Shayalana [ Thu Apr 21, 2016 8:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Current Events & News

Steven Seagal about Obama, Putin, Russia and the United States

Published on Feb 16, 2015

Lawman and vigilante, fighter and peacemaker. He has played many roles in his career, but few seem as likely as an ambassador between the US and Russia. From disarming a nuclear weapon to helping with the War on Terror, can an actor become a true action hero, succeeding where countless politicians have stumbled? Steven Seagal joins Oksana to thrash out these issues.

Author:  Shayalana [ Sat Apr 23, 2016 6:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Current Events & News

How many still think Bernie Saunders is still the worst candidate he tried preventing them from doing this .

Bill That Obama Extolled Is Leading to Pension Cuts for Retirees

By David Dayen

Photo: Allison Shelley/Getty Images
Bill That Obama Extolled Is Leading to Pension Cuts for Retirees
David Dayen
Apr. 20 2016, 3:33 p.m.

One of the many obscure provisions jammed into a last-minute budget bill in 2014 endorsed and signed by President Obama is leading to what would be the first cuts in earned pension benefits to current retirees in over 40 years.

The Washington Post reports that the Treasury Department is on the verge of approving an application from the Central States Pension Fund – a plan that covers Teamster truckers in several states – to cut worker pensions by an average of 23 percent, and even more for younger retirees. Over 250,000 truckers and their families would be affected. Workers over 75, or those who have acquired a disability, would be exempt from the changes.

The bill that enables this — known as the “CRomnibus” because it was partially a continuing resolution to fund the government (CR) and partially an omnibus spending package to fund other parts of the government for a full year — was littered with riders, nonbudget changes in law that attached themselves to the legislation like barnacles to a ship. These riders included the elimination of an entire section of Dodd-Frank derivatives regulations (as written by Citigroup lobbyists) and a large increase in the donation limits to party committees.

Despite the riders, Obama endorsed the bill and even whipped for its passage, assisted by JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon.

The pension changes in the CRomnibus enable trustees of multi-employer plans — union-negotiated pension benefit funds that cover employees across entire industries like trucking or construction — to apply to the Treasury Department to cut benefits for current retirees in order to stretch the fund’s resources. This changed the ban on cutting such benefits written into the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974, which governs private-sector pension plans.

There were no public hearings on this change to pension law, and the details were only made available days before the vote. The bill’s sponsors, Republican John Kline and now-retired Democrat George Miller, insisted that the rider was necessary to extend the life of the pension plans through collective sacrifice. Roughly 150 to 200 multi-employer plans covering 1.5 million workers face significant fiscal strains that could cause a drain on funds in the next 20 years.

But Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times warned in 2014 that “panicky trustees — usually union and employer representatives — could act prematurely, cutting the income of retirees who can’t make it up from other sources.”

The Central States Pension Fund was the first to take advantage of the law and apply for a benefit cut. The trustees deemed this necessary to extend the solvency of the fund, which could otherwise run out by 2025. Investment losses during the financial crisis, increased numbers of retirees, and fewer companies contributing to the plan put the fund in precarious financial straits.

Retirement security advocates fear that the Central States decision will trigger a number of other pension funds to use the new law to shirk obligations made to workers for decades. Three other pension plans have already applied to make benefit changes.

The Treasury Department’s main criterion for approving Central States’s and other pension funds’ plans is that they extend the solvency life of the fund. Since cutting benefits would do so by definition, approval is fairly likely.

One safeguard — a vote of approval on any pension changes by both active workers and retirees — may not save Central States pensioners. The Post writes, “even if a majority of the members vote against the proposal, the pension fund is so large that the Treasury Department may still be required to implement the cuts.” That’s because the Treasury has an obligation to protect the Pension Benefit Guaranty Program, the government entity that aids bankrupted pension funds.

Treasury has a deadline of May 7 to announce its decision. Cuts to retiree paychecks would begin July 1.

Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced legislation last year to repeal the CRomnibus rider that allowed for the pension cuts. “We made a commitment 40 years ago to workers in this country that companies will never renege on a pension promise,” Sanders said in a statement accompanying the bill. “We need to restore that commitment.” ... -retirees/

Author:  Shayalana [ Sat Apr 23, 2016 7:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Current Events & News

To See the Real Story in Brazil, Look at Who Is Being Installed as President — and Finance Chiefs

By Glenn Greenwald

It’s not easy for outsiders to sort through all the competing claims about Brazil’s political crisis and the ongoing effort to oust its president, Dilma Rousseff, who won re-election a mere 18 months ago with 54 million votes. But the most important means for understanding the truly anti-democratic nature of what’s taking place is to look at the person whom Brazilian oligarchs and their media organs are trying to install as president: the corruption-tainted, deeply unpopular, oligarch-serving Vice President Michel Temer (above). Doing so shines a bright light on what’s really going on, and why the world should be deeply disturbed.

The New York Times’s Brazil bureau chief, Simon Romero, interviewed Temer this week, and this is how his excellent article begins:

RIO DE JANEIRO — One recent poll found that only 2 percent of Brazilians would vote for him. He is under scrutiny over testimony linking him to a colossal graft scandal. And a high court justice ruled that Congress should consider impeachment proceedings against him.

Michel Temer, Brazil’s vice president, is preparing to take the helm of Brazil next month if the Senate decides to put President Dilma Rousseff on trial.

How can anyone rational believe that anti-corruption anger is driving the elite effort to remove Dilma when they are now installing someone as president who is accused of corruption far more serious than she is? It’s an obvious farce. But there’s something even worse.

House Speaker Eduardo Cunha.

Photo: Dida Sampaio/Estadao via AP
The person who is third in line to the presidency, right behind Temer, has been exposed as shamelessly corrupt: the evangelical zealot and House speaker Eduardo Cunha. He’s the one who spearheaded the impeachment proceedings even though he got caught last year squirreling away millions of dollars in bribes in Swiss bank accounts, after having lied to Congress when falsely denying that he had any accounts in foreign banks. When Romero asked Temer about his posture toward Cunha once he takes power, this is how Temer responded:

Mr. Temer defended himself and top allies who are under a cloud of accusations in the scheme. He expressed support for Eduardo Cunha, the scandal-plagued speaker of the lower house who is leading the impeachment effort in Congress, saying he would not ask Mr. Cunha to resign. Mr. Cunha will be the next in line for the presidency if Mr. Temer takes over.

By itself, this demonstrates the massive scam taking place here. As my partner, David Miranda, wrote this morning in his Guardian op-ed: “It has now become clear that corruption is not the cause of the effort to oust Brazil’s twice-elected president; rather, corruption is merely the pretext.” In response, Brazil’s media elites will claim (as Temer did) that once Dilma is impeached, then the other corrupt politicians will most certainly be held accountable, but they know this is false, and Temer’s shocking support for Cunha makes that clear. Indeed, press reports show that Temer is planning to install as attorney general — the key government contact for the corruption investigation — a politician specifically urged for that position by Cunha. As Miranda’s op-ed explains, “The real plan behind Rousseff’s impeachment is to put an end to the ongoing investigation, thus protecting corruption, not punishing it.”

But there’s one more vital motive driving all of this. Look at who is going to take over Brazil’s economy and finances once Dilma’s election victory is nullified. Two weeks ago, Reuters reported that Temer’s leading choice to run the central bank is the chair of Goldman Sachs in Brazil, Paulo Leme. Today, Reuters reported that “Murilo Portugal, the head of Brazil’s most powerful banking industry lobby” — and a long-time IMF official — “has emerged as a strong candidate to become finance minister if Temer takes power.” Temer also vowed that he would embrace austerity for Brazil’s already-suffering population: He “intends to downsize the government” and “slash spending.”

In an earning calls last Friday with JP Morgan, the celebratory CEO of Banco Latinoamericano de Comercio Exterior SA, Rubens Amaral, explicitly described Dilma’s impeachment as “one of the first steps to normalization in Brazil,” and said that if Temer’s new government implements the “structural reforms” that the financial community desires, then “definitely there will be opportunities.” News of Temer’s preferred appointees strongly suggests Mr. Amaral — and his fellow plutocrats — will be pleased.

Meanwhile, the dominant Brazilian media organs of Globo, Abril (Veja), Estadão — which Miranda’s op-ed discusses at length — are virtually unified in support of impeachment, as in No Dissent Allowed, and have been inciting the street protests from the start. Why is that revealing? Reporters Without Borders just yesterday released its 2016 Press Freedom Rankings, and ranked Brazil 103 in the world because of violence against journalists but also because of this key fact: “Media ownership continues to be very concentrated, especially in the hands of big industrial families that are often close to the political class.” Is it not crystal clear what’s going on here?

So to summarize: Brazilian financial and media elites are pretending that corruption is the reason for removing the twice-elected president of the country as they conspire to install and empower the country’s most corrupted political figures. Brazilian oligarchs will have succeeded in removing from power a moderately left-wing government that won four straight elections in the name of representing the country’s poor, and are literally handing control over the Brazilian economy (the world’s seventh largest) to Goldman Sachs and bank industry lobbyists.

This fraud being perpetrated here is as blatant as it is devastating. But it’s the same pattern that has been repeatedly seen around the world, particularly in Latin America, when a tiny elite wages a self-protective, self-serving war on the fundamentals of democracy. Brazil, the world’s fifth most populous country, has been an inspiring example of how a young democracy can mature and thrive. But now, those democratic institutions and principles are being fully assaulted by the very same financial and media factions that suppressed democracy and imposed tyranny in that country for decades. ... ce-chiefs/

Author:  Shayalana [ Sat Apr 23, 2016 11:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Current Events & News

War criminals against war crimes

By Dan Glazebrook

Satire died the day Tony Blair was appointed Peace Envoy to the Middle East. But William Hague’s fronting of a campaign against sexual violence is pissing on its grave.

Ibtisam was 15 when Islamic State (also known as ISIS/ISIL/Da’esh) came to her village. It was 9 a.m., and the gunfire of the approaching forces was getting louder. Her family piled into their car and fled; in need of baby milk, they passed by the city of Duhok, Iraqi Kurdistan to stock up. That was when they were caught. The men were executed immediately; Ibtisam and her two younger sisters were taken into captivity in the city of Tal Afar.

After several weeks they were moved to another building with around 700 other women and girls, where her younger sisters – one of them five months old – were forcibly removed from her. She and another girl were singled out by a much older man who took them home and raped them. The next morning, finding the house apparently empty, they were able to escape. They reached a road and hailed a taxi; luckily the driver was sympathetic and gave them refuge in his home, hiding and disguising them as best he could. But it soon became unsafe for them to stay there, so he took them to a friend’s house. Passing through a checkpoint, they were again caught by ISIS, and taken to a basement full of other women and girls. There they were beaten regularly, as a message to any others who might try to escape. When her friend started vomiting blood, they were taken to a hospital; but when she stopped, they were taken back to the basement and beaten again. They were again sold as sex slaves, and resold and raped repeatedly over the months that followed.

This is one of many disturbing testimonies from a report published this month by the House of Lords Committee on Sexual Violence in Conflict. Ibtisam (not her real name; the testimonies in the report are anonymous) was a Yazidi, one of hundreds if not thousands who have lived through similar experiences. The plight of the Yazidis was briefly front-page news in autumn 2014, but the Committee’s report shows that such experiences are far from unique.

In fact, the report refers to 19 countries in which conflict-related sexual violence is particularly prevalent. That list derives from another report, prepared by the UN Secretary General for the Security Council last year. Across all 19, the report noted, “non-state actors account for the vast majority of incidents," referring in particular to “those pursuing extremist ideologies in Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Nigeria, Mali, Libya and Yemen.”

That list is significant, for violent extremism it not the only thing these countries have in common. The other is that all of them have been willfully destabilized by British government policy, creating the conditions for that extremism to flourish.

Take Yemen, for example. The depth of British involvement in the Saudi bombing campaign which began last year is on such a scale that it could be seen as a British war by proxy. Since it started, Britain has overtaken the US to become the leading supplier of weapons to the Saudis, providing all the bomber jets, missiles and bombs necessary for the campaign, which has killed at least 10,000 people, left 90 percent of the population without access to safe water and sanitation, and pushed 14 million to the brink of famine. The British military also have six “advisors” embedded with the Saudi Air Force to help with targeting, with suspicions that nearly 100 more British soldiers are also involved in some capacity.

The Secretary-General’s report on sexual violence was issued before the Saudi bombing started. But he noted that 148,108 people had already been internally displaced by the fighting in Yemen, with “the majority of those displaced… women and children, who faced increased vulnerability to sexual and gender-based violence. A marked increase in violence against women has been observed in conflict-affected areas, with the most prevalent manifestations being rape, sexual assault and early marriage. A disturbing link exists between the presence of armed groups and an increase in early and forced marriage, resulting in the sexual abuse of some of the poorest and most vulnerable girls in society.”

The 148,000 refugees exposed to such risks has now increased to an estimated 2.5 million, as a direct consequence of the British-supplied and directed escalation. British government policy, then, has likely facilitated an approximately 16-fold expansion of sexual violence in Yemen.

But a similar story could be told for every country on the Secretary-General’s list. In Syria, the “non-state actors…pursuing extremist ideologies” that “account for the vast majority of [sexual violence] incidents” have been consistently supported by the British government, and continue to be so. Providing diplomatic support and even special forces for the insurgents since 2011, Britain has been encouraging and facilitating their expansion ever since, implicated in the delivery of 3000 tons of weapons to them in November 2012 (delivered via Croatia to evade an EU arms embargo) and successfully lobbying the EU to end the arms embargo altogether the following year.

It has been training these militias in Jordan, and is now providing them with air support: in discussions prior to airstrikes last year, David Cameron explicitly stated that his allies on the ground would not be the non-sectarian Syrian Arab Army under the control of the elected government, but rather 70,000 militia fighters, 40,000 of which have been identified by his own national security advisor Mark Lyall Grant as “radical Islamists.” As is well known, ISIS emerged precisely out of the groups Britain had been helping to destroy Syria, and even now, in the midst of a supposed “war against ISIS,” Britain still refuses to attack the group when they are fighting the Syrian government.

Equally well established is that it was precisely the foothold they gained in Syria, with Western support, that allowed ISIS to then take control of large swathes of Iraq, itself already weakened by decades of British-US bombings, sanctions and occupation. The 1,500 civilians estimated by the UN to be held in sexual slavery by ISIS in Iraq, then, like those suffering sexual violence in Yemen, largely have Britain and its allies to thank for their predicament.
Read more

Then, of course, there is Libya. Early in 2011, Britain led calls for NATO intervention in support of a violent and racist insurgency led by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, originally the Libyan franchise of Al-Qaeda. The utterly predictable outcome of NATO’s destruction was the country’s rapid slide from the most developed and prosperous in Africa to the continent’s latest failed state, with all the attendant poverty, kidnappings, gang warfare and sexual violence that entails. “Extremist activity in Libya,” said the UN report, “is a source of serious concern given regional trends regarding sexual violence committed by armed groups” – that is, the armed groups armed and brought to power by NATO.

But NATO’s actions in Libya were much more far-reaching than this. The destruction of Libyan state authority meant that, following the collapse of the government, most of the army’s arsenal fell into the hands of the region’s various militias. As a report by Al-Jazeera Center for Studies (AJCS) noted, “terrorist groups like AQIM [Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb] acquired heavy weapons such as SAM-7 anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles, transporting them back to the Sahel region” (encompassing parts of Mali, Burkina Faso, Algeria, Chad, Nigeria and elsewhere). Subsequently, “courtesy of AQIM, these arms have been transferred to groups such as Ansar Dine [and] Boko Haram… emboldening and enabling them to mount more deadly and audacious attacks.”

Both the 2012 war in Mali, and the rise of Boko Haram, then, are the direct fallout of NATO’s Libya war. Of Boko Haram, the UN report wrote that “forced marriage, enslavement and the “sale” of kidnapped women and girls are central to Boko Haram’s modus operandi and ideology.” As for Mali: “In November 2014, non-governmental organizations filed 104 criminal complaints against armed groups for incidents of conflict-related sexual violence against women and girls that took place in 2012 and 2013. These incidents were filed as war crimes and crimes against humanity, and have been attributed to members of the Mouvement national de libération de l’Azawad, Ansar Dine and the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa,” all of them beneficiaries of the regional instability and weapons free-for-all generated by NATO’s war.

The British government, then, has played a pivotal role in not only igniting those conflicts characterized by serious sexual violence, but in directly supporting and arming the very groups perpetrating that violence. For that same government to now be claiming to be leading a global “Initiative” to “Prevent Sexual Violence in Conflict” is a supremely sick joke – and that it is fronted by William Hague, the foreign minister who oversaw British support to Al-Qaeda and their allies in Libya and Syria, is an insult to the thousands of victims of that policy. ... -violence/

Page 83 of 87 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group