Bailout for Spain & Italy is a Prelude to ‘German Empire’

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com

The London Telegraph’s Bruno Waterfield breathlessly reported as many other news outlets had that “On Thursday night, Italy and Spain plunged an EU summit into disarray by threatening to block “everything” unless Germany and other eurozone countries backed their demands for help.

 

How much “disarray” there in fact was is debatable.  Whether the “threat” to “block ‘everything’” had any real teeth or motivation is similarly – dubious.  The cynicism is due to the fact that in Europe all boats rise and fall together.  The German economy relies heavily on exports of which 60% comes from the Eurozone, conversely the Eurozone relies on a growing and healthy consumer base in Germany to buy their exports.

While German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her finance minister Wolfgang Scheauble have balked at mutualization of debt across the eurozone they have signaled it could become more palatable if stricter controls and robust accountability were imposed on individual countries’ spending and borrowing.  Who will decide those controls and regulations will undoubtedly be heavily influenced by Europe’s largest and most healthy economy why any centralization of power may lead to a new “German Empire”.

Motivating factors, however, have seemingly come into play and begun to melt German resistance to common borrowing and other similar proposals and may even lead Germany to rethink their own constitution, which precludes them from such activities.  Fox News reports many analysts:

“…think a downturn would force more Germans to recognize how much they depend on other European nations to buy their goods and support the German economy. They could become more willing to jointly accept the risks of backing weaker countries’ debts.”

Indeed as German business optimism fell in June due to a slowing in manufacturing, at the heart of their export led growth, look for more capitulation like the agreement reached on Friday to save Italy and Spain.

According to the Telegraph:

"Under the deal [reached at the EU summit on Friday], Spanish banks will be recapitalised directly by allowing a €100 billion EU bailout to transferred off Spain’s balance sheet after the European Central Bank takes over as the single currency’s banking supervisor at the end of the year."

The decision detailed in a seven-page document by the “Gang of Four” EU presidents aims at putting the Eurpoean Central Bank (ECB) at the center of a “effective single supervisory mechanism.”  The summit rationalized the move: “We affirm that it is imperative to break the vicious circle between banks and sovereigns.”  How yielding sweeping controls and expansive powers over to a central bank will address the underlying problem of competition, innovation and growth is not addressed in the document.

Relief for Spain was accompanied by promises to purchase Italian bonds using EU bailout funds in order to reduce Italy’s borrowing costs and to “examine the situation of the Irish financial sector” offering possible relief to Ireland by relieving the government balance sheet debt burden.

 

Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council of EU leaders and one of the Gang of Four who crafted the European Federation document to be formally presented in December, lauded the agreement as an important step “to reassure markets and to get again some stability around the sovereign bonds of our member states.”

He did, however, warn the new aid measures would be reserved for “countries that behave themselves” by abiding by the EU’s fiscal rules and austerity measures, but without sticks so far and bailout after bailout seemingly without end these milquetoast threats have had all the credibility of a spoiling mother.   Considering the clear interdependency in the eurozone and the propensity to kick the can down the road one must wonder what “controls” and “accountability” will be incorporated later this year.  But if the economic conditions worsen, especially for Germany look for more bailouts and “draconian” control measures of which all will color the character of this new economic empire.

The Obamanation Stands, 'Bitches'

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

Thank the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney not Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi – they merely took the health care handoff.  While you’re at it, thank George W. Bush for wildly expanding Medicare and nominating Chief Justice John Roberts who sided Thursday with the central powers ethos of our ailing Constitution.  Make no mistake the over 2,700 page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known lovingly as Obama Care is an abomination borne of the dysfunctional marriage between Republicans and Democrats.

This is no Car Insurance

The linchpin of the entire health care reform relies on the individual mandate, the brainchild of Stuart M. Butler of the conservative Heritage Foundation.  In 1989 Butler published “Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans,” which included a provision to “mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.”

In 1993 amidst the Hillary Care years Republican senators Orin Hatch and Charles Grassley proposed two bills including the mandate.  In 2006 then Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney was “very pleased” with his insurance mandate.

Over the last 20 years the mandate has been often rationalized as similar to requiring motorists to purchase car insurance.  The major difference of course is not everybody drives.

Purchasing, leasing or borrowing a car moreover, involves a choice prior to the requirement of obtaining car insurance and even then the “minimum coverage” is designed to offset others’ costs in the result of an accident, not your own.  You being a bad driver results in higher premiums, confined to you alone, not spread out over a large risk pool.

That being said, none of us were given the choice to live.  Had we been notified we’d be living under the thumb of centralized medical control perhaps some of us would have taken the bus, taxi, a bike – hell maybe we would have ran and saved millions in preventive care by staying in shape.

The Fallacy of Insurance

Like football players who believe a helmet will protect them from harder and harder hits on the field and pursue that behavior until an inevitable concussion or brain damage debunks their faith the idea that insurance will always be there to protect us from our risky lifestyles is self deluding.

Millions of Americans are taking part in a revolution of nutrition and exercise nothing of, which is addressed under Obama Care.  One may argue the impetus for this change was in fact rising health care costs.  It was obvious to many merely pumping ourselves full of drugs at an old age at great cost was pointless and unsavory.

Our medical model is not expensive necessarily because of unscrupulous corporations, although it will be as Obama Care is implemented, but because of the treatment model rather than focusing on prevention.  Our medical establishment performs wonders in the emergency room, in acute care and major surgery, but when it comes to some of the biggest killers it continues to provide little besides pain management and a fund raising bonanza for scientific research.

Real health care is a life long and dutiful process of mitigating the affects of our environment, the modern medical establishment offers next to nothing by way of prevention besides the regular check up.  Traditional medical schools madate little in the way of nutritional, physical education or behavioral modification.

As we detailed in the War on Fact Expands so does Big Government, prexisting conditions are often similarly a part of risky behavior.  Consider the number of women giving birth into their 40s and 50s and beyond is at record levels.  This choice is generally fraught with developmental problems, birth defects and other maladies, which are then thrown into this “preexisting” category.

In recent years it has become more and more accepted that major diseases like multiple schlerosis, diabetes, cancer, etc. are a result of dietary malfeasance.  While susceptibility is most assuredly genetically predetermined actually developing a disease is vastly influenced by lifestyle.  The concept we are victims of our genetic baggage is in many ways a hangover from the years of eugenic theology.

On the individual level the motivation to explore healthful alternatives are sapped when faced with universal coverage.  Similarly on the corporate level, if prevention is no longer a preeminent strategy, more research and development (if it gets approved) will be devoted to invasive and life numbing treatments like chemotherapy, radiation and the cornucopia of pharmaceuticals addicting swaths of the American citizenry.

Who Benefits?  Not Liberals Just Insurance Companies who Wrote the Law

Sensing the prevailing winds it is of course understandable that the insurance companies injected themselves into the debate.  This is what invariably happens when government decides to regulate or wholly remake one sixth of the economy.  The power of central government beckons legions of lobbysists to its steps and the mantra of lobbying if you “can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” inevitably prevails.

Here are some quotes compiled by Kurt Nimmo writing for Infowars.com:

“This is a very good bill for insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies,” said Rep. Stephen Lynch, a Democrat, in 2010. “The insurers still rule,” Lynch added. “Were just pumping subsidies into the current system, but that won’t drive down costs.”

-

In December of 2009, Howard Dean, the former Democratic National Committee Chairman, said the legislation before Congress “is a bigger bailout for the insurance industry than AIG.” Dean characterized it as “an insurance company’s dream.”

-

Congressman Dennis Kucinich characterized the bill as “a bailout for insurance companies…Maybe what we’re looking at here is another way that Wall Street’s speculative engine can be fueled, this time with the help of the premiums of tens of millions of Americans,” he said.

-

“If a government healthcare plan materializes, it might actually generate more work for insurance companies. A new government program would probably subcontract much of its administrative work to existing insurance companies — which is what Medicare does,” writes Rick Newman for U.S. News & World Report.

-

Do insurance companies hate Obamacare as Democrats insist? Not at all. This bill is almost identical to the plan written by AHIP, the insurance company trade association, in 2009. The original Senate Finance Committee bill was authored by a former Wellpoint VP. Since Congress released the first of its health care bills on October 30, 2009, health care stocks have risen 28.35%.

States in a Straight Jacket 

The Medicaid ruling specifically, according to Justice Kennedy’s dissent, puts states in false choice position: “States must choose between expanding Medicaid or paying huge tax sums…for the sole benefit of expanding Medicaid in other states.”  The dissent also foreshadowed more friction between the states and the federal government “usher[ing] in new federalism concerns and places an unaccustomed strain upon the union.”

The union will no doubt be under increasing pressure as many of Obama Care’s provisions have yet to be made manifest.  A growing body of administrative agencies including an army of IRS agents will attend to that.

Most of our laws in this country are created by these agencies, which interpret the mandate provided by congress and detail specific provisions.  The Federal Register for example in a 12-month period, which ended in March of 2006 contained a breathtaking 77,537 pages including laws passed from over 319 independent and executive agencies.

Barack Obama after the passage of Obama Care tentatively created 159 new bureaucratic bodies ostensibly to encourage efficiency and cost effectiveness in the new health care system.  While it most assuredly with fail in this endeavor it will be able to pass laws as most other agencies do with little impunity or oversight as the size of the executive branch and its czars continues to eclipse the elected representatives in Congress and as it will eventually the laws of the several states.

Robert’s Manufactured Opinion and Another Reason to Repeal the Income Tax

Paul D. Clement, representing Florida and 25 other states objecting to the health-care law, argued that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law, which he said compels people to buy a product.  Unfortunately, this argument on whether it was within Congress’s constitutional powers to force citizens to purchase a health insurance product was in essence settled nearly a century ago after the passage of what was originally Social Security “Insurance” under President Franklin Roosevelt.

Similar opposing arguments were lain out then, were rebuffed and under the same “tax” provision as construed under the individual mandate, officially known as the  “minimum coverage” provision.  The main difference is Obama Care wasn’t envisaged to be a tax.  Roberts did not reinterpret, but in fact manufactured a contradictory argument in the face of what Congress called a penalty, not a tax.

The Washington Post reports:

“Roberts wrote: ‘The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part.’ He said the individual mandate ‘cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the commerce clause,’ which allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce but ‘not to order individuals to engage in it.’"

Roberts added: ‘In this case, however, it is reasonable to con­strue what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Con­gress’s power to tax.’"

Roberts therein supplied his own basis for upholding the law in absence of a similar rationalization by Congress, or argument by the deputy attorney general and contrary to the President who signed the legislation into law.  According to the Post: “Neither the plaintiffs in the case nor the Obama administration had argued before the court that the individual mandate was a tax.”

Obama himself expressly refuted opponents of Obama Care who claimed that it was in fact a tax.  In an ABC interview Obama emphatically declared: “I absolutely reject that it’s a tax increase.”

The Silver Lining

It may be that Obama Care will be the kick in the pants sovereign states of America need to start ignoring the federal government when it clearly exceeds it constitutional powers.  States where once a part of federal decision-making, via their legislature’s appointed ambassadors, but no longer this may provide the fuel state governments need to enforce there devolved powers.

In the end Mitt Romney may be right when he defended Massachusetts’ health care reform on 10^th Amendment grounds.  After all the laboratories of democracy would produce 50 different options for all of us to decide rather than the one size fits all monstrosity about to be imposed on us from Washington.

The Uncomfortable Irony

Mitt Romney today stood up and told us everything we’ve already heard over the past two and a half years: it is time to “repeal and replace.”  Is it not ironic that the man who developed the blueprint for Obama Care, albeit he managed to pass it in some significantly smaller than Obama’s tome, and who was the first to nationalize health care is the only option this country has for repealing it?  For now in the words of DNC executive director @patrickgaspard:

“It’s constitutional. Bitches.”

Gang of Four’s Plan to Enslave Europeans Under Economic Empire

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

 

“The euro is a protection shield against the crisis.”

—European Commission President, José Manuel Barroso, 5 February 2010

On Thursday and Friday EU leaders will meet to discuss the future of the Europe.  While some compelling speculations would suggest it is merely the beginning of the end for the Eurozone, arguing that ultimately “the wealthy nations of Europe [will be] unwilling to pay for the poorer ones” it is also important to note the summit may play midwife to the birth of an abomination.  It is, after all, forgivable to allow the rabble a place at the table if they pledge their financial subservience.

Dismantling the German Constitution (again)

On Tuesday the London Guardian obtained a shocking seven-page document drafted by the “gang of four” — a quartet of European presidents: Herman Van Rompuy of the European Council, Mario Draghi of the European Central Bank, José Manuel Barroso of the European commission, and Jean-Claude Juncker of the 17-country Eurogroup.

Within the seven pages there was not one mention of freedom, liberty or law, but no less than 25 times did it mention – “strength,” “strong,” and “stability.”   It should be clear this federation is not meant to free the people of Europe, but to enslave it.

Ian Traynor writing for the Guardian calls it a:

“…Radical plan to turn the 17 countries of the eurozone into a full-fledged political federation within a decade in an attempt to placate the financial markets by demonstrating a political will to save the single currency in the medium-term.”

The plan quickly establishes a new European banking union, giving the European Central Bank (ECB) authority over EU banks, proposes common resolution funds for “winding up bad banks” funded by a banking levy to spare EU taxpayers and a common deposit guarantee for Europe’s savers.  The EU’s new pemanent bailout fund, the European Stablility Mechanism (ESM), would provide a “fiscal backstop” for the proposed federation and recapitalization of troubled banks.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel on the eve of the summit echoed her fierce resistance to “mutualize” this liability across the Eurozone.

“Apart from the fact that instruments like eurobonds, eurobills, debt redemption schemes and much more are not compatible with the constitution in Germany, I consider them wrong and counterproductive.”

The question is then what conditions would need to arise that would force Merkel to undermine her constitution or change it.  As Europe’s leading economy the Germans have a lot to gain were this political federation to come to fruition.  Considering the rebuff is coming from a leader who backed bailouts for many nations in the first place it sounds as if Merkel is merely saving face, thereby avoiding a sticky political situation back in Berlin, but perhaps she’s just dutifully biding her time.

At the weekend Germany’s finance minister Wolfgang Scheauble proposed Germans should vote on a new constitution and argued it should be sooner rather than later.  To be sure, the rest of Europe agrees with billionaire financier George Soros that action needs to be taken immediately to save the union.  When Germany seizes the role it is destined to assume Soros has predicted “a German empire with the periphery as the hinterland” ahead.  In order to do that, however, they'll need to abandon their constitution.  The last time the Germans did so, it didn't work out that well.

Sweeping and Expansive Powers May Grow the Eurozone not Break it Up

While some are anticipating the European Union to crumble under its own weight, this author included, it may not happen now or in the near future if the central planners have their way.  In fact the proposed European federation may even become larger as the “gang of four’s” draft proposes that it should extend beyond the Eurozone.  Rather than spreading the wealth it seems all the One Europe crowd wants to spread the liabilities.

“An integrated financial framework should cover all EU member states, whilst allowing for specific differentiations between euro and non-euro area member states on certain parts of the new framework that are preponderantly linked to the functioning of the monetary union and the stability of the euro area rather than to the single market.”

The proposal further addresses Merkel’s mantra: “no liability without controls.”  As financial, budgetary and economic frameworks come under the dominion of Brussels the powers of the EU are magnified enabling the central authority to dictate and enforce a “robust framework for budgetary discipline” subordinating national decision-making on a wide range of issues previously excluded from the EU’s purview.  Changes in labor markets, taxes, budgetary allocations and civil services, will ultimately be approved by Brussels as well as control Military of the EU which eclipses in active military personnel even the United States.

Words Mean Nothing 

For all of the posturing and nay saying it is prudent to remember the persistent flip flops of the European Union’s leadership.  Here is a series of now ridiculous statements compiled from Open Europe by The Daily Capitalist:

“The Community shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of any Member State, without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project.”

—Article 104b, Maastricht Treaty, 1992.

“We have a Treaty under which there is no possibility of paying to bailout states in difficulty.”

—German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, 1 March 2010

“[Greek Prime Minister] Papandreou has said that he didn’t want one cent. The German government will not give one cent, anyway”.

—German Economy Minister, Rainer Brüderle, 5 March 2010

Who and what to believe at this point may be a futile exercise, but it is clear the European elite wish to keep markets as “stable” as possible and their dream alive.  To address fundamental issues for the long term at the expense of a few years in agony is out of the question.  Equally as abhorrent to them is abandoning their failed experiment in order to do so.  In the new inquisition of Europe it is heresy to speak of small states – to govern locally not globally.  The fact that Greece should be the first to possibly exit the euro is nothing short of poetic justice; Western civilization owes itself to Greek city states not grand unions.

Perhaps it is something more esoteric passed down from millennia of European struggle.  If in fact this modern monstrosity is achieved, albeit guaranteed to fail, and a European Superstate is constructed.   German, France, Spain, Italy and possibly England in their rotating roles as Presidents of the EU will experience a kaleidoscope of empire their predecessors could not achieve through centuries of military conquest.  Empowering the European people is not discussed in these machinations of ancient pedigree.

Assad: Syria Officially in State of War

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com 

Assad: "We live in a real state of war."

After over two decades of being in Western crosshairs Syrian President Bashar al-Assad declared to his new cabinet “We live in a real state of war from all angles.”  He couldn’t be more right as virtually the entire northern hemisphere in one way or another converges on this ancient plot of land in the eastern Mediterranean.

No doubt due to the Turkish warplane shot down last week Tukey has moved from passive facilitator of the foreign insurrection in Syria to active aggressor and is mobilizing its military for war.  On Tuesday the Times of Israel reported:

"Large numbers of Turkish troops — including at least 15 long-range artillery pieces and tanks – moved to the Syrian frontier from the eastern city of Diyarbakir. A video published by the Turkish Cihan News Agency showed Turkish tanks being transported by carrier trucks toward the frontier."

While the circumstances surrounding the downed fighter are hotly contested we must remember that truth is the first casualty of war.  Who did what and when is irrelevant.  To risk the peace of the entire region over one fighter jet shows the motives for war rest with NATO and its front line ally Turkey as they are obviously not in the interests of Syria or the embattled administration of al-Assad.

 

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced that the “rules of engagement have changed” since the shoot-down and in caustic eloquence declared “As awe-inspiring as Turkey’s friendship is, Turkey’s wrath is equally awe-inspiring.”  Erdogan alludes to a friendship with Syria, however, it would be quite disingenuous to claim that friendship ended only after last week’s incident. 

Erdogan admonished Syrian authorities: “"Every military element approaching Turkey from the Syrian border and representing a security risk and danger will be assessed as a military threat and will be treated as a military target."  This is quite ironic since for over a year the Syrian National Council (SNC) and Free Syrian Army (FSA) rebels, peppered with foreign back terrorists, have been using the safety of the Turkish border to coordinate and launch sorties into against the Assad regime.

This was of course the plan all along.  Considering Tukey’s  problem with the PKK and their own brutal crack down on Kurdish separatist “terrorists” they could not very well attack Syria for justly attempting to restore order.  As any fight begins with knocking the chip off the others shoulder Turkey has in effect placed it forcefully upon Syria.  How is that for friendship?  But why have they turned their back?

Two reasons come to mind.  The first is the US government and the rest of NATO has a long standing commitment to use the lowest cost means for its designs in the Middle East, which is to say, they prefer staying out of the fight choosing to directly fund and train terrorists or coordinate its Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) proxy states to do so.  Turkey, after reviewing the deep bench of NATO backed secessionist militias including Al Qaeda affiliate Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) currently consulting the FSA, Iranian MEK trained in the Nevada desert, and among others their PKK antagonists with whom they've been fighting since the 80s, Ankara is more than willing to lend a helping hand to avoid any “uprisings” of their own.

The second (probably the most compelling) motive among the Turkish elite to aid the West is to become part of the neoliberal “New Middle East,” in other words, to be a good soldier in the New World Order.  Similar to jumping in a prospective gangster or taking a “young blood” out for his first drive by Syria is going to oust for the Anglo-European Empire their first Middle East dictator.  Rather than pursuing economic prospects with the BRICS as priority the new and improved US-Turkish relations may bring forward the carrot of an otherwise nonexistent US-Tukey free trade zone paved in the blood of one Syrian tyrant. 

The immediate feeling from new more brazen attacks on Assad's elite guards only miles away from the center of Damascus shows an increasingly emboldened rebellion and foreign insurgency.  Save a decisive effort on the part of Russia, China and or Iran Syria will increasingly bear all the hallmarks of Libya.  Assad's days appear numbered.  Whether Libya's dystopian post-revolution will resemble Syria's is almost assured. 

What We Can Learn From Greece…2500 Years Ago

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

Greece Lightning at the Parthenon

The recent Greek elections for better or worse signaled that Greece would remain a part of the European Union.  The retired class of Greece, fearful of losing their benefits, came out en masse and voted for the “center-right” New Democratic party, the socialist Pasok party and their pro bailout platforms.  The loss came at the expense of the “left” Syriza party, lead by charismatic Alexis “Sexy Lexis” Tsipras, and shook the cradle of Western Civilization out of its secessionist frenzy.

“I am relieved,” New Democracy leader Antonis Samaras told Reuters. “I am relieved for Greece and Europe…The Greek people voted today to stay on the European course and remain in the euro zone,” Samaras said in a victory speech. “There will be no more adventures, Greece’s place in Europe will not be put in doubt.”

Since the crisis began the world has been focused on the causes, but most feverishly on the countermeasures.  Fans of free market have lambasted austerity alarmists like Paul Krugman for claiming “Austerity Is So Wrong” and that it’s killing the great economies of Europe.  Indeed, the free marketers claim “austerity” in Greece and throughout Europe have been anything, but austere and in fact Greek leadership has made only minor cuts while raising taxes grinding the Greek economy to a halt.

“…Critics of cutting government spending in a weak economy ignore academic research showing that significant spending cuts, structural reforms to entitlements, and loosening labor regulations are proven ways to reduce debt loads and get countries moving again” writes Nick Gillespie and Jim Epstein of Reason Magazine.

Spending after all is how the Greek economy got into debt 160% of their GDP in the first place is it not?  Digging a deeper hole to China seems a little counterintuitive, unless you’re a Keynesian or Paul Krugman.  If more spending is the answer you’re merely empowering the same people, finance oligarchs and unscrupulous politicians, who signed Greece onto fraudulent debt not merely the monies actually spent on addictive entitlements and economic relief.  But what is the real cause for Europes woes, socialism or some virulent form of capitalism?  Perhaps Sexy Lexis and his anti-bailout crew are right.  It may be that Greece is too big.

How Peisistratos’ “Small” Banking Experiment Created Western Civilization

In Leopold Kohr’s discussion on the Breakdown of Nations notes that classicist Kathleen Freeman “has shown in a study of Greek city states that nearly all Western culture is a product of the disunited small states of ancient Greece.”  This makes perfect sense if you understand the Renaissance occurred amidst the divided city-states of Italy and the neck breaking expansion of the early United States when territories, states and frontier townships formed a robust tapestry.

Peisistratos a popular tyrant who ruled Athens when it was a relatively inconsequential city-state during the 6^th century BC is a testament to Freeman’s thesis.  Rather than oppress the Athenian population through violence, as we understand modern tyrants to do, Peisistratos, according to Aristotle and Herodotus, governed idyllically, and dutifully preserved the proto-democratic reforms of the Athnian statesman and lawmaker, Solon.  He didn’t attempt to rout the rule of law and in fact Aristotle wrote that “his administration was temperate…and more like constitutional government than a tyranny.”

This is not necessarily a result of being a city-state as there were belligerent polities like the Spartans who cared little for innovation and comfort outside of military barracks and weaponry.  It is Peisistratos’ archaic Athens, then small, which confined and focused his activities, that aided in producing an unprecedented economic expansion and provided the impetus which forged Athens the seat of power in the region it kept for thousands of years.

Today Greek politicians clamor for more money from the European Central Bank, for the Federal Reserve and its enforcers on Wall Street to streamline the effort and bless each and every step.  For what?  Does this put money into the hands of the people who need it or merely those who have the influence to direct where it ultimately goes?  Does mere “stability” for the sake of stability produce growth?  No and no.

Peisistratos created one of the world’s first micro-loan programs for those in need expanding on Solon’s accomplishments in emancipating the poor from state dependency by planting olive trees.  Rather than a grain subsidy, outright entitlement or relief measure in poor harvests Peisistratos established a fund that provided easy and low interest loans for the neady – invariably the Hyperakrioi who lived in the hills.

These loans helped farmers invest in capital-intensive projects, namely olive trees and their prized oil.  It also helped them purchase the tools and equipment necessary.  Unlike today’s Greece Peisistratos reduced taxes while providing these low interest (free at times) loans.  Duties paid at Athenian harbors and extracted from silver mines in Mount Pangaeum funded this financial operation, not printing money or borrowing from other states.

The intimacy that was commonplace in Athens over two millennia ago is not something we can find easily today under the rule of the One-Worlders those who wish to unite evermore nations under one government.  Peisistratos for instance, in a famous story: “saw a farmer digging in a field of stones and asked what his income was. When the farmer replied, ‘Just so many aches and pains; and of these aches and pains Peisistratos ought to take his 10 percent,’ the tyrant remitted all taxes to the frank farmer.”  Peisistratos had the benefit of living within the same community as his people, while modern rulers are ensconced in their ivory towers in Washington, Brussels and Beijing.

Athens, as a result of Peisistratos travelling courts, low taxes, inventive financing, real investment in tangible goods and the resulting wealth, produced more for Athens than just prized olive oil and agrarian revolution it laid the foundation for economic expansion.  His calm and even rule enabled public projects providing evermore jobs and an economic boom, which emancipated individuals to pursue science, philosophy, literature, drama, art and architecture – the crucible of Western civilization.  To be sure, Aristotle recorded the tyranny of Peisistratos as the age of Cronus, the golden age.

How will historians record our time?

Syria: The West and Gulf Allies Arming Terrorists and WMDs Return

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

The New York Times on Thursday came out with the shocking headline - that is if you weren't paying attention: “C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition."  However, rather than attempt to detail the larger context of the Syrian crisis it is obvious the author Eric Schmidt and this kingpin of the mainstream media (MSM) have merely moved on to the next chapter in Syrian propaganda in light of an increasingly astute alternative media and informed public.

When the uprising began in Janurary of 2011 during the larger Arab Spring (Arab Nightmare, whatever you’d like to call it) the media painted the Syrian uprising suffuse in glowing terms of fledgling democracy – the demonstrators could do no wrong and why would they?

The dark underbelly of the uprising, left untouched and out of regular reports by MSM journalists for over a year, is its connections with the larger geopolitical machinations of Washington and nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance.  Slowly, reality set in as the actors once called “demonstrators,” changed to “protestors,” then to “activists,” then “opposition,” and “rebels” until now, peppering the rebels, it is finally being acknowledged that there is a sordid mixture of foreign back terrorists hailing from all over the region.

The Cold War II Panorama

Syria is just one piece of America’s greater hegemonic mosaic planned by realist and neoconservative cliques since the fall of the Soviet Union.  It encompasses the whole of what has been envisioned as the "New Middle East," the Pacific and the rest of the world.

Syria is witnessing first hand the clash of a newly realigned international political system between the NATO alliance and its ostensible counter balance - the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).   The SCO, most importantly its prominent members China and Russia, is a mutual security organization and as an economic bloc of major eastern powers it is of great import.   Its emerging prominence is what Paul Wolfowitz, then Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, in the ensuing years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, referred to as the “rise of the next superpower” and what the neoliberal agenda has been preparing for over two decades since.

As early as 1991 Syria was slated for regime change.  In 2002, then US undersecretary of State, John Bolton added Syria to the growing “Axis of Evil.”   In 2005 the Washington Post revealed that millions of dollars were funneled through various State Department proxies to Syrian political opposition groups and other endeavors including an anti-regime satellite channel, Barada TV, based in England.

The US government has also taken an active role in training activists and developing new technologies to help protect them against prosecution by authoritarian governments.  In an April 2011 the French news agency AFP reported that the US government for two years budgeted $50 million dollars to train 5,000 activists from various parts of the world including Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.  When these democracy cells were sent home they spread and created, what a State Department official referred to as, “ripples,” which reverberated throughout the region during the Arab Spring.

While this type of social intervention is an example of freedom of association we must remember we are not speaking of private individuals, but the fate of nations. This subversive strategy may be disagreeable to many taxpayers, it may not, and how this type of social engineering is justified under the Constitution is, if anything, unclear, unfortunately it’s also irrelevant to a certain extent because it is only one part of the larger geostrategic stratagem.

These relatively innocuous covert actions merely lay a foundation of leverage against a target government.  The subsequent acts are promoted by a complicit, gullible and negligent media enamored with the idea of democratic struggle regardless of where it may lead.  It is finally brought to a crescendo in the eyes of the international community and eventually acted upon by multilateral military intervention.  Call it humanitarian intervention or as CNN last Thursday attempted to inject no less than five times – securing weapons of mass destruction.

Imagine for instance the Chinese handpicking the brightest and most charismatic activists among US society during Occupy Wall Street or the Tea Party Movement then training, funding and equipping them for political sabotage.  It would make the Citizens United case pale in comparison.

Regardless of the merit, foreign political influence (to be distinguished from cultural, business, etc.) of any kind especially to this degree creates massive distrust and unrest and therefore opportunity for intervention and bloodshed with no guarantee a liberal democracy will replace autocratic rule.

Lack of Context

Eric Schmitt while detailing much of the dubious actions on the part of US intelligence and the Obama administration narrows the scope of the Syrian civil war within the known paradigm.  Without question the goal of “regime change” is advanced.   Schmidt reports for the New York Times:

“The weapons [being supplied to Syrian rebel groups] including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the officials said.

The C.I.A. officers have been in southern Turkey for several weeks, in part to help keep weapons out of the hands of fighters allied with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, one senior American official said. The Obama administration has said it is not providing arms to the rebels, but it has also acknowledged that Syria’s neighbors would do so.”

If Libya is any indication of how the US government refuses to help “fighters allied with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups” Syria is in big trouble.  The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) ranked #28 on the US State Department’s list of terrorist organizations was the beneficiary of the NATO led no fly zone that aided opposition groups – of which LIFG (an Al Qaeda affiliate as of 2007) made up a significant part – in their deposal of dictator Muammar Ghaddafi.
 

Leaders of Al Qaeda affiliate LIFG have been helping the Syrian National Council and its Free Syrian Army in repeated reports since at least late last year.  The US government has since the Carter administration had a dubious history of creating, funding and training known terrorist organizations.  In the region the US governement was reported to have trained the Iranian Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) in the deserts of Nevada. 

Schmidt's article continues:

"With Russia blocking more aggressive steps against the Assad government, the United States and its allies have instead turned to diplomacy and aiding allied efforts to arm the rebels to force Mr. Assad from power."

"Diplomacy" is evidently a catch all term, which occupies the space outside of direct military action.  When Joe Sixpack thinks of diplomacy ambassadors, summits and negotiations come to mind.  The problem is the US has had no official diplomatic relations with Syria since 2005, and according to the administration diplomacy, as most would understand it, will only occur after regime change.

Schmidt additionally neglects to mention Iran and China are also attempting to thwart a possible invasion and are supporting the Assad regime in kind, fearing a war would undoubtedly destabilize the region and allow western interests to set up shop for the inevitable confrontation with Iran.  Syria, in other words, is the Path to Persia.  Continuing:

"By helping to vet rebel groups, American intelligence operatives in Turkey hope to learn more about a growing, changing opposition network inside of Syria and to establish new ties. “C.I.A. officers are there and they are trying to make new sources and recruit people,” said one Arab intelligence official who is briefed regularly by American counterparts."

Indeed this is the endgame, “to establish new ties.”  By doing so western powers can more easily back the right horse during a bid for leadership and therefore have a great influence on the decision making in any subsequent administrations.  Additional support like “providing satellite imagery and other detailed intelligence on Syrian troop locations and movements” or setting “up a rudimentary intelligence service” all serve this purpose and future designs in the Middle East.  And finally:

"The struggle inside Syria has the potential to intensify significantly in coming months as powerful new weapons are flowing to both the Syrian government and opposition fighters."

The “allies,” a term which is supposed to bring us back to WWII, and the new “axis” of China, Russia and Iran are playing Syria like a game of Rock’em Sock’em Robots.  The thing is the Syrian people and their nation aren’t a toy and western citizens should refrain from using them as such in some vain attempt at reliving the democratic revolutions of our own past.

Global Research’s Professor Michael Chudovksy gives a comprehensive breakdown of Syria.  More importantly that the "protests" was in fact an armed insurrection from the beginning:

Supremes F the FCC

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday against the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) policy on certain expletives over the airwaves, vacating the lower court’s decision on due process and fair notice grounds.

Airwaves?  The term “airwaves” brings up old memories like the “information super highway” or pagers – mere anachronisms.  Today we consume information – TV programs, movies, news – from around the world and from a variety of sources including radio (over the internet and real radio waves), streaming Netflix, a wide array of video websites, cable and satellite DVR and various on demand providers.

Amidst this constellation of choices does it make a difference what is “broadcast” TV versus any of the aforementioned forms?  No.  But it does to an FCC hanging on to archaic doctrine.  They make it seem as if one “broadcasts” something the subject matter is endowed with all of the strength of a locomotive and the unwitting citizen memorized by the power of the medium is powerless to change the channel.

The FCC penalizes TV and radio stations for airing programs that “describe or depict sexual or excretory organs or activities” in ways that are “patently offensive.”  Suffice it to say their rubric is highly subjective and the reason why this is becoming an extra ideological issue, one in which we can all agree it is time to say: F the FCC.

The Supremes avoided on Thursday the looming and larger First Amendment issues about regulating broadcast indecency in another case, Fox v. FCC.  The Fox case concerned several rather hefty fines leveled against Fox and ABC in the middle of the last decade, after Cher and Nicole Richie each let a fuck fly on live television.  The show NYPD Blue had the gall to allow seven seconds of ass cheeks on air.

While dickhead and bullshit statements may be allowed on news broadcasts there is no official “news exemption” according to the FCC, albeit it may satisfy the “third prong” of their obscenity test – that “[obscene] material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”  In other words, if they have their way we’ll have to continue to settle for their idea of what is of “serious value.”

Although the Supreme Court had endorsed the FCC’s authority to regulate broadcast indecency over three decades ago, the commission officially started punishing censors’ specific failures to hit the bleep button during President George W. Bush’s first term.  When it was originally granted these powers content-based regulation relied on the argument that TV and radio were “uniquely pervasive” and “uniquely accessible to children.”

Considering there is a dizzying amount of children friendly programming and combined with the fact that nine out of 10 households are served by cable, satellite, fiber-optic TV or in a younger generation by nothing other than an internet connection it would be “unique” if a child or anyone else for that matter had access to “broadcast” TV.

Makes me feel like a song and dance:

In what will hopefully become a trend Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concurred in the judgment.

Don’t be too optimistic though.  As history has shown government agencies, especially ones with the authority to control communication have a tendency to stick around.  There are forces in the American government who would love to retain the services of the FCC to monitor “chatter” across multiple mediums, regulate the internet itself through innocuous sounding terms like “net neutrality” or resurrect in a different form the now dead fairness doctrine.  Keep your fucking eyes peeled.

Obama: Fast and Fhürerious

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

How inaccurate?

A House Oversight Committee chaired by Daryll Issa (R) has passed a rare contempt measure against embattled Attorney General Eric Holder today after months of hearings over a controversial clandestine gun walking operation by the ATF ran aground.  From the Washington Post:

"The panel’s actions will be reported to the full House, where Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and GOP leaders have scheduled a floor vote for next week unless Holder hands over the documents before then. If passed by the House, the matter would then move to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Ronald C. Machen Jr., who is an employee of the Justice Department."

Holder has refused to publicly produce documents requested by the committee, but President Obama in the 11^th hour claimed executive privilege over the internal communications in question clouding the entire process with suspicion.

Republicans feel they have been “stonewalled” during the investigation of who knew what and when in the upper echelons of the Department of Justice (DOJ), while apologists of Atty Gen Holder claim it as a clear witch hunt and potentially a “never-ending process” aimed at threatening a Democratic administration during an election year.

Holder and the DOJ have thus far released over 7,600 pages of documents and 11 hearings, unfortunately it hasn’t satisfied Issa’s subpoenas.  Should it?  Given multiple major retractions by the DOJ over crucial elements of the case Republicans, 2^nd Amendment advocacy groups, open government activists and conservatives are chomping at the bit for resolution and Holder's job.  To be sure, both sides are unanimous that the documents sought would be damning not only to Holder, but possibly the entire administration.

In a letter to the president Holder claims the internal cables and documents focus mainly on the “response to congressional oversight and related media inquiries,” in other words, the DOJ’s public relations strategy.  Holder’s letter implies that internal communications did not necessarily weigh in on the moral issues at hand, which is to say, they did not address whether or not the DOJ and ATF wrestled with any constitutional or legal quandaries over flouting federal gun laws.

It is the absence of such discussion, rather focusing entirely on response, which Holder and Obama may wish to conceal.  To be fair the Republicans don't seem to care even though a similar strategy was operating under George W. Bush.  Therein lies the rub, this Fast and Furious scandal is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the War on Drugs and government entities circumventing law in order to uphold it and why hammering Holder is merely pruning the branches of corruption.  From CNN:

“In a letter to Obama seeking the assertion of executive privilege, Holder said…that release of internal executive branch documents would have “significant, damaging consequences.”

Holder also said releasing the documents would “inhibit the candor of executive branch deliberations in the future and significantly impair the ability of the executive branch to respond independently and effectively to congressional oversight.”

Saving Eric Holder and the administration from such “damaging consequences” Obama asserted executive privilege over the documents in question.  Coming from a President who has abhorred such “privilege” exhibited in previous administrations and who has promised unparalleled levels of transparency it is a startling move - that is if your new to politics.

Why So Fhürerious?

This is just the latest example of how the executive branch is becoming a dictatorship.  Most of the laws, embodied in the Federal Register, are passed by executive agencies – offices occupied by unelected officials appointed by the president to govern.  They are known within the Beltway as the czars.

Why a country, which heralds “democracy” ad nauseum would feel comfortable referring to its expanding politburo of czars is beyond the grasp of this author.  The fact of the matter is Congress has long since abdicated its role in the creation of most of the laws in this country.  Barack Obama is therefore merely an inheritor of this corrupt system similar to most dictators in the past, but he has thus far exhibited no qualms in exercising his “privileges” passed down to him – the Fast and Furious Scandal is merely the latest exhibition.

Since the beginning of the Obama presidency he’s shown to be an aggressive administrator.

Obama Care

Opposition to Obama Care was bipartisan.  In order for it to be passed it was necessary for the president and congressional leaders to convince those in their own party on the fence that they would be spared some of the onerous provisions within the legislation.  It is because of this arm-twisting and outright bribery that the Corn Husker Kickback and the 2^nd Louisiana Purchase are infamous.  Even “socialist” Bernie Sanders (D-VT) had misgivings of the special interest written bill, which he quickly dismissed once Medicare provided $10 billion for community health centers in Vermont were slid into the legislation.

The mechanism Obama used was Kathleen Sebelius, his Health and Human Services czar, to distribute ultimately thousands of waivers, through executive fiat, to corporations and special interests.  Obama has allowed thousands to escape, ad hoc what for the rest of us would be a universal mandate to purchase health insurance.  Not only is the mandate unconstitutional, which the Supreme Court will undoubtedly declare this week, but the entire mammoth legislation flies in the face of transparency and the “few and defined” powers delegated to the federal government under the Constitution.

NDAA

Tucked into a routine defense authorization bill is one of the most insidious provisions in American history.  The “indefinite detention” of those deemed to be terrorists by the administration and the National Security Council struck at the foundation of due process and legal mores dating back to the Magna Carta of 1250.  It has met the opprobrium of civil libertarians, the American Civil Liberties Union and has recently been struck down in federal court.  

Obama’s efforts to subordinate civil rights to the perpetual war on terror is borne from the corrupt system mentioned earlier exacerbated by pressures from determined and deep forces within our government and his own lack of a constitutional rudder, all the markings of a modern dictator.  Today's tyrants after all don’t need to wear ridiculous costumes or black leather, they understand that when they refrain from the cartoonish people often don’t notice them.

Let us never forget that Obama “deemed” Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen born in New Mexico, a “terrorist” and without due process, formal indictment or any attempt to capture al-Awlaki summarily dispatched him along with his teenage son.  Obama claimed his “due process” was protected during private deliberations within the NSC.  While many now may rest easy, convinced by his words, students of history understand this is often the first act in a long tragedy.

Unconstitutional Wars 

Often flying under the radar like the thousands of drones under his command, Barack Obama, has been wildly successful at dismantling the anti war movement since his inauguration.  While it may have simultaneously exposed their partisan bent and ignorance to world affairs it more profoundly exposed the repulsive progressive hypocrisy and has helped plunge the American public into denial over the endless warfare being waged in the Middle East and throughout the world.  Both liberals and conservatives can hardly believe that there are over 100 ways Barack Obama is just like George W. Bush.

To Bush’s credit he did seek Congressional approval for Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama saw it fit to seek international approval only when he imposed a no fly zone over Libya.  Albeit the Senate passed a resolution against Libya, Obama never conceded he needed their support in spending over $1 billion in taxpayer money deposing Muammar Ghadafi.  In fact Leon Panetta in shocking testimony reminded Congress he would “inform” them should international approval be acquired and force deployed in the growing Syrian civil war.

The Cult of the Presidency

When Congress becomes ineffectual “talking shops” and the people become restless for change they invariably wish for a strong and charismatic leader.  Trusting in an amorphous body of representatives and or unelected judges isn’t tangible enough mankind at times, thus we’ve supercharged the office of the presidency.  We’ve imbued the head of state with all the powers we believe necessary to solve the problems we ourselves have created.

From the Cato Institute’s review of The Cult of the Presidency:

“When our scholars lionize presidents who break free from constitutional restraints, when our columnists and talking heads repeatedly call upon the “commander in chief ” to dream great dreams and seek the power to achieve them—when voters look to the president for salvation from all problems great and small—should we really be surprised that the presidency has burst its constitutional bonds and grown powerful enough to threaten American liberty?”

Until we address the how all presidents have similarly run roughshod over our the Constitution we will never be able to reduce the executive office back to its proper role.