Terry Mauro
-
Posts
1,791 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Terry Mauro
-
-
HOW FDR WRECKED THE LONDON ECONOMIC CONFERENCE AND SAVED THE WORLD
By Glenn Mesaros
"I'm prouder of that than anything I ever did." FDR to Arthur Krock in 1937, (FDR, by Jean Edward Shepard, 2007).
“The trouble is that when you sit around the table with a Britisher he usually gets 80 percent of the deal and you get the remainder.” (FDR, quoted in “The World in Depression, 1929 – 1939”, by Charles P. Kindleberger)
Why would Franklin Roosevelt cite his "torpedoeing" of the 1933 London based World Monetary and Economic Conference as his proudest accomplishment four years after he created the New Deal, with its CCC, TVA, WPA, social security, and myriad other world changing programs?
The conference had been scheduled at the behest of London bankers before the November, 1932 elections to deal with the currency fluctuations resulting from the Great Depression financial collapse of the gold standard. However, it did not convene until after the famous "100 Days" of the FDR administration, around June 1, 1933.
Britain itself left the gold standard in 1931, and FDR took America off it during his 100 Days. Every nation in Europe was either in, or lurching towards, communism or fascism, including Great Britain, where a sizable political faction supported Mussolini, and the Hitler "experiment". The book, "Royals and the Reich", (2006, by Jonathon Petropoulus) documents this, and shows a youthful Prince Philip, (current Duke of Edinburgh, and married to Queen Elizabeth), marching in a 1937 Nazi funeral, with SA and SS officers.
The German and British Royal families were intermarried through the House of Sachsen-Coburg and Gotha, as the current British monarchy descends from this German family. In fact, they retained their German name until WWI, when the Kaiser's "Gotha" Dirigible (airship) showed up over London to bomb it. The British Royal Family quickly changed their name at that time to the House of Windsor.
Hitler took constitutional power in Germany in early 1933, and then quickly burned down the Reichstag, and declared martial law, and a 1000 year Reich.
Franklin Roosevelt was well aware of this history when dealing with European bankers, including the Nazi Hjalmar Schacht, head of the German Reichsbank. FDR had met several of Hitler's top ministers, and he characterized all of them as "madmen".
Americans were so impressed by the Hundred Days, and supportive of FDR, that 250,000 people lined the streets when he passed through Boston, Massachusetts, in early June, 1933, to take his first Presidential sailing vacation on the New England coast. Newspapers already gave him premature credit for ending the Depression.
Secretary of State Cordell Hull, a determined, and Southern, Free Trader, led the American delegation to the London conference, and was prepared to sign any agreement that "stabilized" the major currencies, including the Pound Sterling and Dollar. FDR had already met various European leaders, including British Ramsey McDonald, during the 100 Days in Washington, and gave them his usual platitudes about "sound money" and "balanced budgets".
However, FDR knew that, while American exports comprised 1/6th of world trade, and American imports comprised 1/8th of world imports, these totals only comprised 5% of American gross domestic product, compared to 25% for Great Britain. He also knew that the European bankers, led by the British Empire (mistakenly called the "Commonwealth"), wanted to tie America down to their deflationary program, which would fix the dollar to trade at $3.50 to the pound sterling. (FDR, Champion of Freedom, by Conrad Black)
By taking the dollar off the gold standard during the 100 Days, it now traded with the pound in a range $ 4 to 4.50, thus making American exports more available to European trading partners. FDR had thus "devalued" the dollar to promote raising domestic farm, and other prices. This had actually raised American wheat prices from 30 cents to One dollar in 1933.
Now, during his sailing vacation, Roosevelt was accosted on all sides by "financial" advisors on the World Monetary and Economic Conference. Delegate James P. Warburg, son of the Federal Reserve Founder, Paul Warburg, sent urgent memos from London demanding that the President agree to "temporary" stabilization; FDR refused. Warburg later joined the proto fascist Liberty League in opposition to the New Deal.
During a stop in Gloucester, Massachusetts, on June 21, the legendary Colonel House of the Wilson Administration, and the well known deflationary Budget Director Lew Douglas, climbed aboard FDR's yacht, the Amberjack, for a prearranged meeting.
Colonel House brought FDR two "gifts": a paper by inflationary monetarist George Warren, from Cornell University, and a book by British economist Sir Basil Blackett, entitled, "Planned Money". Warren had been promoting various monetarist schemes to raise commodity prices.
Blackett was an associate of John Maynard Keynes, and a well known British imperialist, with financial credentials in India and London's Bank of England. If he had not been killed in a car accident in 1935, we would probably know him today as well as Keynes.
Blackett authored his book in 1931 in preparation for the the London Conference, and he cited the recent Report of the Committee on Monetary and Financial Questions of the Ottawa Conference, a British Imperial meeting of the Empire in Canada, as the basis for the British program at the World Monetary and Economic Conference.
"His Majesty's Government desires to see wholesale sterling prices rise... and recognizes that an ample supply of short term money at low rates may have a valuable influence..." This reflects the usual monetarist "wall of money" to placate any credit crisis, as we see today in "Helicopter" Ben Bernanke, and his Federal Reserve system.
The Ottawa report continued, "At the same time it is necessary that these favorable monetary conditions be achieved, NOT by the inflationary creation of additional means of payment to finance public expenditure, but by an orderly monetary policy...." In other words, NO WPA, No TVA, and No New Deal.
Blackett continued in another chapter entitled, "A British Monetary Programme": "There is a strong body of opinion in Germany, and not the least among the Nazis, which would see in the new programme the opportunity for which it has been looking to escape from the tyranny of the gold standard." He wrote this in 1931, before Hitler even took power, and it clearly represents the British proclivity for Nazi hegemony in continental Europe, under British Empire supervision.
"Much would depend on the force with which the British proposals were presented.... the British government ... and other governments ... must be convinced that a stable level of internal prices can be successfully maintained by a group of countries which does not include the United States...."
"Historical causes and the logic of existing facts would naturally give British sterling a special position... the sterling area, or the sterling Empire, or even 'Sterlingaria'.... in view of the greater experience of London in management of currency and exchange..."
More than a decade later, Blackett's sidekick, John Maynard Keynes, showed up at the Bretton Woods International Monetary conference, and proposed a similar "world monetary system", which would revolve around the London directed "bancorp" unit. FDR appointees, led by Harry Dexter White, who was later accused by neo-cons of being a Soviet agent because he collaborated with our Russian allies during WWII, vetoed this policy, and Keynes had to submit to the US dollar as the main world currency, backed by gold at $35 an ounce.
The Bretton Woods Conference of 1944 represented what FDR knew could NOT be achieved in 1933, and created stable world economic growth for 30 years until Nixon ended it 1971. Since then the Anglo-American bankers have torn down the FDR New Deal programs, and given us the Great financial Crash of 2008, and potential New Dark Age.
Meanwhile, June, 1933, FDR continued his New England sailing vacation, amidst a swirl of conflicting messages to and from the London Monetary and Economic Conference. A speculative frenzy hit the dollar, driving it to 4.43 per pound, as the gold bloc countries at the conference threatened to abandon their precious gold standard. FDR replied to Hull: "I do not greatly fear setback to our domestic price level restoration even if all these nations go off gold."
FDR serenely sailed his yacht into Campobello Island, on the Maine coast, where he had contracted polio in 1921, and invited four correspondents to his cottage there on June 30, where he expounded on the London conference for one hour. This informal press conference became the famous New York Times article, datelined from Campobello, which sank the London conference.
He told the correspondents that the US would not at this time agree to any stabilization agreement, and furthermore, "not allow the dumping of products by any cheap producer on American markets."
On Sunday, July 2, FDR boarded the USS Indianapolis to return to Washington, D.C. During this trip, he composed a further message to the London Conference in the Captain's cabin, which said,
"I would regard it as a catastrophe amounting to a world tragedy if the great Conference of Nations, called to bring about a more real and permanent financial stability and a greater prosperity for the masses of all nations, should, in advance of any serious effort to consider these broader problems, allow itself to be diverted by the proposal of a purely artificial and temporary experiment affecting the monetary exchange of a few nations only... The sound internal economic system of a nation is a greater factor in its well being than the price of its currency in changing terms of the currencies of other nations."
He called stabilization one of the "old fetishes of so-called international bankers".
This naturally created a storm in London. Lord Philip Snowden called the FDR message a "classic example of conceit, hectoring, and ambiguity." British Prime Minister Ramsey MacDonald wept, and told FDR emissary Ray Moley that "this doesn't sound like the man I spent so many hours with in Washington." The conference ended on July 27, 1933.
However, Americans greeted the news with great joy, since their (correct) perception had been of European leaders deceiving every president since Woodrow Wilson had his pious 14 points dumped into the garbage of the Versailles Treaty which ended WWI, and created WWII.
Columnist Ernest K. Lindley, who had written the famous FDR "Oglethorpe" campaign speech in 1932, spoke for all Americans when he opined that Roosevelt had shown the world "that the United States has a President whose first regard is the national interest."
Will Rogers, the famous entertainer, similarly concurred that Uncle Sam had finally taken part in an international conference without being "taken" by wily Europeans.
Kindleberger makes the point that FDR had to protect American recovery in 1933 with his 100 Days program, and thus block the British at the London Economic Conference. Later FDR created the Bretton Woods International monetary system of fixed exchange rates in 1944. This created world development for several decades until the “old fetishes” of British Bankers recreated the floating exchange rates and inflation of the 1970's.
Today, in 2009, we happily see that President Obama, whose grandfather was tortured by the British in Kenya during the 1950's*, openly snubbed British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in his recent visit, and even returned former President Bush's Oval Office bust of Winston Churchill to him, to be replaced by one of Abraham Lincoln.
However, we still saw Congress openly groveling to Gordon Brown, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer for a speculation decade under Tony Blair, and a close friend of Alan "Bubbles" Greenspan, for whom he procured a Knighthood from Queen Elizabeth in 1992. (See "Gods that Failed", 2009, by Guardian Economics Editors)
If President Obama learns anything from FDR, he should fire derivatives bookie Larry Summers, and immediately end his Bailout Policy of the Banks, and submit them to standard bankruptcy proceedings, as called for in Larouche's Homeowners' and Bank Protection Act, written in July, 2007. The trillions of speculative derivative debts cannot ever be paid, and must be written off.
The world will not end when he does this. It will begin again.
- 30 -
Based on FDR: The New Deal Years 1933 - 1937, by Kenneth S. Davis.
* Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain's Gulag in Kenya.
-
Josiah,
I can certainly understand why you, or anyone else, would pick particular areas of interest in this case. However, the questions I asked you are fundamental in nature. I'm curious as to how you feel about these aspects of the case, because it appears to me that you don't fully believe that a conspiracy took the life of John F. Kennedy. If I'm wrong, please correct me. That's just a suspicion I have, and I could easily be wrong about that. It wouldn't be the first time.
I'm very sensitive about this subject because so many former believers in conspiracy appear to have become what I call "neo-cons" or even outright lone nutters. Among these would be Gary Mack, Todd Vaughn, Dave Perry, Dale Myers, Vince Palamara, Gus Russo and Dave Reitzes. All these individuals are very knowledgable and once did good work on the subject. Their transformation into lone nutters or neo-cons is mysterious and unexplained. I attempted to ask some of them about this on forums in the past, and none was able to give me any kind of logical answer. My guess is that you once thought, as nearly everyone associated with this case did, that the backyard photos were amateurish and obvious forgeries. Now you say that they are "probably genuine." What makes you believe this?
You wrote one of the early essential books on this subject. You regularly frequent this forum and Lancer (don't know about any others). Thus, surely you must be interested in something else besides film alteration and/or Jim Fetzer. I do respect your work, and value your opinion. Please share your views with us.
Don, the vast majority of Americans believe in conspiracy in the murder of JFK. The problem still remains "who was behind the conspiracy" and what was their "motive"? Few Americans can do more than regurgitate the same old laundry list of bogey men. They simply don't know, and the thousands of conspiracy books, articles, TV specials have only helped to cloud the issue. That's the intent of most conspiracy books in my opinion.
It is far easier to switch sides when the murder itself has been used as a "parlor game" for all these many years. In truth the JFK assassination signaled the demise of the United States as the single leading power for progress and good in the world. Most of the time the JFK murder is used to blame and discredit the US Government.
I wouldnt worry too much about all the defections from conspiracy to the "lone nut" argument. Americans will continue to see the JFK murder as a case of conspiracy. The problem remains however the nature of the conspiracy. That has never been addressed with all the thousands of articles, books etc. pumped out by the media all these years.
-
The Geithner Plan Failed in 1932
by Glenn Mesaros
"This is not a bubble!"
Clinton White House Moderator at the April, 2000, "Conference on the New Economy".
Author Ron Chernow recently called for a new "Pecora Commission" in a New York Times op-ed, which hearkened back to the anti Tammany Sicilian immigrant who personally brought down the Wall Street scion Jack Morgan as the investigative chairman for the Senate Banking Committee in 1933.
He also revealed in his book, House of Morgan, that a facsimile to the Geithner Fund (PPPIP) failed to end the banking crisis in that year. President Obama, please take note. Your Wall Street advisors are wedded to a failed policy matrix.
Derivatives and Credit Default Swaps are nothing new on Wall Street. They facilitated the 1907 Panic. Back then, the banksters created "bucket shops" which bet on the stock market.
After JP Morgan personally contained the 1907 panic, New York state authorities outlawed such bucket shops. Unbelievably, when Greenspan, Bernanke, and Geithner deregulated the financial system in 1999, their "Financial Services Modernization Act" specifically forbade state authorities from regulating "bucket shops".
Since there was no precedent in 1932 for the Federal Reserve or Treasury Department for spending trillions of tax dollars to provide Wall Street liquidity, JP Morgan's son, Jack, assumed he could intervene again in the Great Depression to prop up the bond markets.
In the 1920's, the Wall Street banksters had bond selling departments which deployed thousands of brokers to saturate Americans with Latin American bonds, and other worthless securities. They securitized them to spread the risk, and savings banks lapped them up.
In April, 1932, after three years of economic depression, Jack Morgan felt it was time for another great Morgan "public service for profit" intervention to save the financial system: he organized 35 banks to pledge to buy $100 million in "high quality" bonds to prop up the sagging bond markets, when savings banks were failing after cashing in worthless securities.
They gave the new pool of securities a name: "Stars and Stripes Forever".
Jack Morgan wrote his Paris partners about the new venture, "If the organization of the Corporation ... should have any degree of reassuring effect upon the public so much the better."
The bond fund proceeded to make a little profit for its investors, but had no impact on the spiraling downward economic depression: 7000 banks out of 25,000 in America failed by the time FDR took office in March, 1933.
Financial devastation continued on Wall Street: Brokerages gave employees unpaid vacation days to sell apples on the streets of New York City. Some enterprising souls used worthless stock certificates to paper the walls of the Union League Club. They called Manhattan's finest new skyscraper the "Empty State Building".
Fortunately, Americans voted 22,815,539 to 15,759,930 to elect Patrician Franklin Delano Roosevelt President in November, 1932. Main Street turned irreparably against Wall Street, as Hoovervilles sprang up around the country, including Riverside Park in Manhattan.
Bar signs went up around America that said:
Hoover Blew the Whistle,
Mellon Rang the Bell,
Wall Street Gave the Signal,
and the country went to hell!
Crusty old Montana Republican Senator Burton Wheeler, who had run for Vice President, as an Independent, with Wisconsin Senator Robert Lafollette in 1924, and garnered 17% of the vote, said that the government should go after bankers like they were Al Capone.
White Shoe Morgan banker and partner Russell Leffingwell sent a note to FDR in the summer of 1932, entitled, "Dear Frank: You and I know that we cannot cure the present deflation and depression by punishing the villians, real or imaginary, of the first post-war decade (1920s), and that when it comes down to the day of reckoning nobody gets very far with all this prohibition and regulation stuff."
When "Frank" responded that the bankers were responsible for "grave abuses", and should support reforms, Leffingwell retorted, "The bankers were not responsible for 1927 - 1929 and the politicians were. Why then should the bankers make a false confession."
President Hoover had actually started the later named Pecora Commission in 1932 when he prodded the Senate Banking Committee to investigate short selling by Democratic financiers, such as the Baruch/Raskob crowd, who were the George Soros bandits of that time.
After the election, the Committee named Sicilian immigrant Ferdinand Pecora, former New York assistant District Attorney, to head up their investigation. Rolling up his sleeves, and smoking a cigar, Pecora deployed a small army of bank auditors to take over lower Manhattan. The committee gave him subpoena power to invade the sacrosanct 23 Wall Street, headquarters of the House of Morgan.
Very shortly, Pecora announced that "never before in the history of world has there been such a powerful centralized control over finance, industrial production, credit, and wages as is at this time vested in the Morgan group."
He quickly called Jack Morgan to the witness stand, and revealed that the bankster had not paid (legally) any income taxes from 1930 - 1932, using tax shelters to write off his taxes as stock losses.
When the scrappy Pecora demanded the Morgan partnership agreement, the Committee blanched, and went into executive session, as Pecora produced a hand lettered scroll which stipulated that Jack Morgan had absolute powers to arbitrate disputes, allocate undivided profits, and even dissolve the bank.
Morgan retaliated by denigrating Pecora as the "dirty little wop". As the Glass Steagall Act became law, Leffingwell blamed Chief Justice Brandeis for the private banking provisions, "I have little doubt that he inspired it, or even drafted it. The Jews do not forget. They are relentless ... I think you underestimate the forces we are antagonizing ... I believe that we are confronted with the profound political economic philosophy, matured in the wood for twenty years, of the finest brain and the most powerful personality in the Democratic party, who happens to be a Justice of the Supreme Court."
Morgan mobilized his entire mob of lawyers to stop the Glass Steagall bill, and the SEC bill, saying it would turn Wall Street into a "deserted village." Thomas C. Corcoran later exclaimed, "Rayburn and I stood alone against the batteries of lawyers sent by Morgan's and Stock Exchange, and we won out!"
The Italians, Jews, and Irish had routed the White Anglo Saxon banksters. Utah banker Mariner Eccles took over the Federal Reserve, and moved its power center from New York to Washington.
After the new laws went into effect, the House of Morgan split up on September 5, 1935. Morgan Stanley took over the bond business, and moved next door to the Morgan Bank. They underwrote $1 billion of insurance business in the following year, about 25% of the market totals.
Jack Morgan died a rich man, but the name "Roosevelt" was forbidden in his household.
- 30 -
-
...... as a good chunk of the membership here think I'm the devil incarnate or a least a "disinfo" agent.......
Surely just one of those strange coincidences, like those you love to champion.
No it's not a coincidence people hate having their pet notions challenged and disproven. Many in frustration and/or a vain attempts to salvage their theorems resort to ad homs and character assassination. You know the type, the ones on several occasions have labeled those they disagree with Nazis etc.
You're very cleverly trained [professionally, I think....and it is free to believe what one believes], but you won't even discuss the family member close to you who was involved in the conspiracy of Big Tobacco [namely RJR Tobacco].....he worked hard [chief scientist to RJR, I believe] to conceal the truth of the deadly powers of tobacco to the user. You apparently follow in his wake, concealing the truth of other deadly conspiracies of today, IMO. You have [iMO] been highly trained at obfuscation, unconventional warfare, disinformation/propaganda/diversion/etc. No one but YOU on this forum to my knowledge has caused a mass exodus nor interfered with other Forum members business off the forum - oh, yes there is one other I know of.....
...your 'calm', 'cool', 'collected' style the newbee noticed is just the essence or the tarpit to suck in new victims, IMO.
Peter,
Are you referring to Frank Colby?
QUOTE:
Frank Colby: Started with Reynolds in 1951 and eventually became the company's manager of scientific information and associate director of scientific issues, retiring in 1983. He was RJR's point man on many smoking-and-health issues and still acts as a company consultant
QUOTE:
In 1979 Colby proposed a more indirect method of recruitment. In trying to neutralize an anti-smoking trend in Brazil because of concern about health he suggested that:
RJR-Brazil personnel [should] try to find among their personal acquaintances, one or more Brazilian physicians who had an open mind on the smoking and health controversy. This (or these) physician (s) in turn would try to find one or more Brazilian medical University professors who had a similar attitude. Other things being equal, it would be desirable to select the most prominent of those professors.4
Colby would then speak to these professors and turn them to the industry position. In 1982, Colby urged the industry to make their own connections to the Brazilian medical establishment, and perhaps then fund some of the physicians to do research, “at least on a modest scale."5 In a follow up letter to Carlos Jardim of RJR Tabacos do Brasil, Ltd. Colby presented a list of twenty Brazilian authors and what they had been working on (using NIH databases), suggesting which ones might be suitable to approach. In one case, a Dr. A.P.M____ “seems to have a very strong anti-smoking position and should, in my judgment, not be approached unless there is a good ‘pipeline’ to him, so that one might try to convince him that his current stance is quite unreasonable."6
In 1988 Herman Gaisch of Philip Morris and David Remes of the law firm Covington Burling gave full details of how to recruit and turn scientists to industry use in a remarkable presentation to their colleagues from Rothmans, Imperial, Gallaher and British American Tobacco. Sharon Boyse of BAT authored the meeting memo:
Quote:
3. Corporate evasion
Brazil is contemplating a law suit against the industry. It has the benefit of seeing reams of industry documents, reported on in a brief like this one and elsewhere. In the early 1980s, however, the number of impending lawsuits against the tobacco industry in the U.S. 4 caused RJR to remove secret files from the company’s offices so as to evade discovery. Frank G. Colby, Director of Scientific Issues, had to send his working documents and memos on all scientific aspects of tobacco, from “why people smoke” to “passive smoking” and “lung cancer” (and everything in between) - including all his RJR-Brazil files - to New York City; most likely to the long-time tobacco industry counsel firm of Jacob, Medinger.5 In fact, Colby did so much of his work from these files, whether at RJR or at the literature retrieval division (LRD) of the industry’s Council for Tobacco Research (CTR), that their unavailability threatened his job: “Discussions were held in Washington with Mr. Jacob and Mr. Finnegan [an RJR lawyer] on FGC’s future career, and on the consequences of the cut-off from the LRD data base.6 Only a few non-descript items and the previous year’s work were left behind to be discovered: “Important note: None of the material left can be discarded at the present time because of the Dewey subpoena.”7 The tactic worked as lawyers for Claire Dewey, for example, were unable to gain access to the truth, and the president of RJR, Edward A. Horrigan, could blandly deny any knowledge of everything that is now well known, and get away with it.8 Horrigan was quite familiar, of course, with his company’s activities in Brazil.9
-
Removing The Mask
Between 1930 and 1933 more than 9000 banks closed their doors. .... who were brainwashed by the Viennese school of Friedrich von Hayek. ... In the 1980’s under the influence of people like Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of ...... including a stay at his chalet at Klosters, in the Swiss Alps. In August 2008, ...
http://omnadelight.com/mask.htm - Similar pages
-
Rupert Murdoch's Fox News joins in on the freak out against President Obama.
-
Will Obama break with the British and follow the path set by FDR?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...rdon-Brown.html
President Obama returns bust of Winston Churchill
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle5622197.ece
Hi Terry, the Telegraph, or as it is called here,Torygraph, is doing its usual anti Labour muck raking, and if it can smeer Obama at the same time, so much the better. I'd give it scant regard if I were you.
GREECE & ROME: MACMILLAN & KENNEDY
The second great special relationship between leaders was the Mac and Jack show. The ageing patrician PM Harold Macmillan and the young thrusting President Kennedy hit it off immediately, Macmillan's Britain played wise old Greece to America's warlike Rome. The leaders even discovered they were distant relatives. The British ambassador in Washington, David Ormsby-Gore, was also a kinsman of Kennedy and enjoyed unalloyed access to the White House. Never before or since has the special relationship enjoyed such literal blood ties.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...th-America.html
-
An economic and philosophic fascist by any other name.....
I think former Fed Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was part of Ayn Rand's cult during the 1950's.
-
Will Obama break with the British and follow the path set by FDR?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...rdon-Brown.html
President Obama returns bust of Winston Churchill
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle5622197.ece
-
If people are too dim to recognize a problem without hearing from Cynthia McKinney, then they're beyond hope anyway.
Good point.
And as John Simkin and others have pointed out, the only sure outcome from this genocide is a new generation of Palestinians committed to the destruction of Israel.
Israel and its apologists claim that launching rockets into their territory is unacceptable. Cigdem posted that 20 Israeli deaths have resulted in the last ten years. I have read it is 17 deaths in the past seven. Either way, it's about 2.5 deaths per year. This is a miniscule price to pay for the misery heaped on these people (Israel's neighbours) over the last 100 years. Fairminded observers can see this because they are not blinded by the religious hatreds evident in the posts of Bill K and David H.
As this piece from Diane Mason outlines, the Jewish population in Palestine at the time of the first settlements in the late 19th century was about 3.3%, according to the census of the Ottoman Empire.
http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2008/12/what-if.html
The Palestinians have witnessed the colonial powers bestow their land to a people whose brutality and bellicosity have become a unique trademark. They have become not only strangers in their own land, but prisoners in a modern day concentration camp. Of course, Israel has yet to abide by UNSC Res. 242 and 338. They never will, imo. Israel always claims their security is at stake but they are the regional superpower, with nuclear weapons to boot. One must ask, how much security does Israel require?
How dare Israel demand that the Palestinians renounce terror (i.e. resistance) and pay homage to their brutal overlords. Any who refuse to pay homage, like the democratically elected Hamas, are immediately denounced as terrorists by Israel and its mainstream media partners. By this definition, I would be classified as a terrorist, too.
Moreover, for the last two or three years Israel has been pushing the US to attack Iran, brainwashing the world into believing that Iran is a threat to global security. What is evident however, is that it is Israel who is the greatest threat to global peace. An attack on Iran would enflame the entire region instantly and almost certainly gain the attention of Russia and China. Thus it is Israel who are willing to risk a global conflagration in order to suit their own selfish ends, once again.
A mature and peace loving Israel would recognise that they were fortunate indeed to be granted a new home in the land of their biblical ancestors. They would behave like responsible residents in the region and respect the rights of their less powerful neighbours. They are the newest kid on the block, after all. Instead, they use cluster bombs and phosphorous. They slaughter the children of their neighbours.
Israel, in their present form, have forfeited their right to exist, imo.
"Israel, in their present form, have forfeited their right to exist, imo."
--Mark Stapelton
and you're suggesting WHAT, praytell?
*****************************************************
"...and you're suggesting WHAT, praytell?"
Take away their nuclear warheads.
-
Terry, is it true that Schacht testified at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials? If so, it is not out of the question that it may be available via youtube......A company called Video Images produced a video a few years back entitled 905 Nazi War Crimes Trials - Newsreels and documentary footage of the fate of Goering, Hess, Schacht, Streicher, Keitel and the other remaining Nazis. Not for the squeamish. (1945) 67 minutes total.
Some Nuremberg footage can be found on youtube via the Soviet Newsreels, but I am not sure that the two are one and the same.
If memory serves correctly, wasn't Robert Morris one of those who did the questioning at Nuremberg, I always wondered if Morris questioned Schacht........
*******************************************
I came across this article from TIME Magazine, recently. Not sure if it addresses all you're asking about.
Interesting.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...45405-1,00.html
-
I'm not the only one critical of America and its policies.
But you are not really are you?
What has happened Mark is that you have allowed your mind to be infected by the oldest conspiracy of them all - your views on many topics appear rooted in the far right populism that purports to interpret history as dominated by Jews, freemasons, the "illuminati" and "international bankers".
Such delusional belief systems whilst interesting in themselves, and engagingly simplistic for the unregenerate child in us all, are potentially disastrous once exploited by politicians.... I believe there are a few examples from history which could be cited.
*************************************************************
"What has happened Mark is that you have allowed your mind to be infected by the oldest conspiracy of them all - your views on many topics appear rooted in the far right populism that purports to interpret history as dominated by Jews, freemasons, the "illuminati" and "international bankers."
WRONG! You can dispense with the Jews, freemasons, and illuminati, but stick with the international banking cartel, aka The IMF, The World Bank, and the biggest crooks of all, The Federal Reserve.
-
Yea, you can predict he will respond to your posts bashing Americans to set you straight.
If you can change your mind so quickly after reading about the appointment of Rahm a long a ding dong, then you should better inform yourself.
Here's the women behind Rahm, Sarah Feinberg, "enrolled in a master's program, studying Middle East foreign policy at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington."
I'm not the only one critical of America and its policies.
America's foreign policy is owned by Israel. Destabilisation its regional neighbours is Israel's aim, via US foreign policy.
Iran has every right to a nuclear capability. Israel's nuclear capability was obtained by deception, which you would acknowledge if you were better informed. No IAEA rules and guidelines burden Israel, because they have effectively placed themselves outside the regulatory structure. The inflammatory rhetoric in the western media aimed at Iran is merely cowardly warmongering and intimidation. America has a long and disgraceful record of intervention in sovereign nations.
Israel is engaged in ethnically cleansing Palestine. The US, while sometimes paying lip service to peace plans, continues to support Israel financially, militarily and diplomatically.
You're a very long way from setting me straight, precious.
*********************************************************
"America has a long and disgraceful record of intervention in sovereign nations."
You got that right! It's called breaking the law, by having total disregard for The Geneva Accords.
"The US, while sometimes paying lip service to peace plans, continues to support Israel financially, militarily and diplomatically."
EXACTLY! Last I heard, back in 1994, it was to the tune of 11 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.
Who knows what it's been jacked up to over the last 14 years? And, what have they done for us, lately? Nothing but aid and abet our sorry asses into another money pit of delusion and paranoia aimed at separating the U.S. taxpayers from more billions of our hard-earned and dwindling cash reserves. And, for what? In order to eminent domain more of the Islamic Middle East's oil fields?
I'm fed up with being a "Hebrew slave" just so Israel can allow itself to be coddled and coerced by the C.I.A. into one skirmish after another with every country in their vicinity. Their nuclear warheads should be pulled, along with capping the missile silos. What good is it for them to have WMD at their fingertips, anyway? Whose interests are they suppose to be protecting? Not mine. They should be able to confront each other on an equal and conventional style battle field. All I see is a weak little outpost, set up by the C.I.A. from which to conduct more of their dirty tricks and black-ops campaigns on the rest of the Middle East's countries, for the specific purpose of exploiting their oil and "poppy" reserves.
Bottom line is, there should be NO NUCLEAR or WMD's allowed in the Middle East. But, if one country is allowed to be armed with them, then the rest of them should be allowed to, as well. How can you blame Iran, or Syria, when the U.S. has already and intentionally stacked the deck against them?
We need to get the hell out of there and let the chips fall where they may. And, cut that damned umbilical cord of a hemorrhaging cash flow.
wrmea.com
* ABOUT WRMEA
* CONTACT US
* SUBSCRIBE
* DONATE
* ADVERTISE WITH US
* WRMEA AD CAMPAIGN
* MIDDLE EAST BOOK CLUB
* PALESTINIAN ARTS & CRAFTS
* JOIN OUR MAILING LIST
* CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS
* LINKS
* KEEP TRACK OF AIPAC
* U.S. & LOCAL NEWS
Home > U.S. Aid to Israel
U.S. Financial Aid To Israel: Figures, Facts, and Impact
Summary
Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid
Since 1949 (As of November 1, 1997)
Foreign Aid Grants and Loans
$74,157,600,000
Other U.S. Aid (12.2% of Foreign Aid)
$9,047,227,200
Interest to Israel from Advanced Payments
$1,650,000,000
Grand Total
$84,854,827,200
Total Benefits per Israeli
$14,630
Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S.
Aid to Israel
Grand Total
$84,854,827,200
Interest Costs Borne by U.S.
$49,936,680,000
Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers
$134,791,507,200
Total Taxpayer Cost per Israeli
$23,240
Special Reports:
* Congress Watch: A Conservative Total for U.S. Aid to Israel: $91 Billion—and Counting
* Congressional Research Report on Israel: US Foreign Assistance by Clyde Mark (213K pdf file)
* U.S. Aid To Israel: The Strategic Functions
* U.S. Aid to Israel: What U.S. Taxpayer Should Know
* U.S. Aid to Israel: Interpreting the 'Strategic Relationship'
* The Cost of Israel to U.S. Taxpayers: True Lies About U.S. Aid to Israel
THE STRATEGIC FUNCTIONS OF U.S. AID TO ISRAEL
By Stephen Zunes
Dr. Zunes is an assistant professor in the Department of Politics at the University of San Francisco
Since 1992, the U.S. has offered Israel an additional $2 billion annually in loan guarantees. Congressional researchers have disclosed that between 1974 and 1989, $16.4 billion in U.S. military loans were converted to grants and that this was the understanding from the beginning. Indeed, all past U.S. loans to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress, which has undoubtedly helped Israel's often-touted claim that they have never defaulted on a U.S. government loan. U.S. policy since 1984 has been that economic assistance to Israel must equal or exceed Israel's annual debt repayment to the United States. Unlike other countries, which receive aid in quarterly installments, aid to Israel since 1982 has been given in a lump sum at the beginning of the fiscal year, leaving the U.S. government to borrow from future revenues. Israel even lends some of this money back through U.S. treasury bills and collects the additional interest.
In addition, there is the more than $1.5 billion in private U.S. funds that go to Israel annually in the form of $1 billion in private tax-deductible donations and $500 million in Israeli bonds. The ability of Americans to make what amounts to tax-deductible contributions to a foreign government, made possible through a number of Jewish charities, does not exist with any other country. Nor do these figures include short- and long-term commercial loans from U.S. banks, which have been as high as $1 billion annually in recent years.
Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .001 percent of the world's population and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes. Indeed, Israel's GNP is higher than the combined GNP of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. With a per capita income of about $14,000, Israel ranks as the sixteenth wealthiest country in the world; Israelis enjoy a higher per capita income than oil-rich Saudi Arabia and are only slightly less well-off than most Western European countries.
AID does not term economic aid to Israel as development assistance, but instead uses the term "economic support funding." Given Israel's relative prosperity, U.S. aid to Israel is becoming increasingly controversial. In 1994, Yossi Beilen, deputy foreign minister of Israel and a Knesset member, told the Women's International Zionist organization, "If our economic situation is better than in many of your countries, how can we go on asking for your charity?"
U.S. Aid to Israel: What U.S. Taxpayer Should Know
by Tom Malthaner
This morning as I was walking down Shuhada Street in Hebron, I saw graffiti marking the newly painted storefronts and awnings. Although three months past schedule and 100 percent over budget, the renovation of Shuhada Street was finally completed this week. The project manager said the reason for the delay and cost overruns was the sabotage of the project by the Israeli settlers of the Beit Hadassah settlement complex in Hebron. They broke the street lights, stoned project workers, shot out the windows of bulldozers and other heavy equipment with pellet guns, broke paving stones before they were laid and now have defaced again the homes and shops of Palestinians with graffiti. The settlers did not want Shuhada St. opened to Palestinian traffic as was agreed to under Oslo 2. This renovation project is paid for by USAID funds and it makes me angry that my tax dollars have paid for improvements that have been destroyed by the settlers.
Most Americans are not aware how much of their tax revenue our government sends to Israel. For the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, the U.S. has given Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion falls under Israel's foreign aid allotment and $526 million comes from agencies such as the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Information Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72 billion figure does not include loan guarantees and annual compound interest totalling $3.122 billion the U.S. pays on money borrowed to give to Israel. It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli charities. (Donors claim approximately $1 billion in Federal tax deductions annually. This ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280 million to $390 million.)
When grant, loans, interest and tax deductions are added together for the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, our special relationship with Israel cost U.S. taxpayers over $10 billion.
Since 1949 the U.S. has given Israel a total of $83.205 billion. The interest costs borne by U.S. tax payers on behalf of Israel are $49.937 billion, thus making the total amount of aid given to Israel since 1949 $133.132 billion. This may mean that U.S. government has given more federal aid to the average Israeli citizen in a given year than it has given to the average American citizen.
I am angry when I see Israeli settlers from Hebron destroy improvements made to Shuhada Street with my tax money. Also, it angers me that my government is giving over $10 billion to a country that is more prosperous than most of the other countries in the world and uses much of its money for strengthening its military and the oppression of the Palestinian people.
U.S. Aid to Israel: Interpreting the 'Strategic Relationship
by Stephen Zunes
"The U.S. aid relationship with Israel is unlike any other in the world," said Stephen Zunes during a January 26 CPAP presentation. "In sheer volume, the amount is the most generous foreign aid program ever between any two countries," added Zunes, associate professor of Politics and chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco.
He explored the strategic reasoning behind the aid, asserting that it parallels the "needs of American arms exporters" and the role "Israel could play in advancing U.S. strategic interests in the region."
Although Israel is an "advanced, industrialized, technologically sophisticated country," it "receives more U.S. aid per capita annually than the total annual [Gross Domestic Product] per capita of several Arab states." Approximately a third of the entire U.S. foreign aid budget goes to Israel, "even though Israel comprises just…one-thousandth of the world's total population, and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes."
U.S. government officials argue that this money is necessary for "moral" reasons-some even say that Israel is a "democracy battling for its very survival." If that were the real reason, however, aid should have been highest during Israel's early years, and would have declined as Israel grew stronger. Yet "the pattern…has been just the opposite." According to Zunes, "99 percent of all U.S. aid to Israel took place after the June 1967 war, when Israel found itself more powerful than any combination of Arab armies…."
The U.S. supports Israel's dominance so it can serve as "a surrogate for American interests in this vital strategic region." "Israel has helped defeat radical nationalist movements" and has been a "testing ground for U.S. made weaponry." Moreover, the intelligence agencies of both countries have "collaborated," and "Israel has funneled U.S. arms to third countries that the U.S. [could] not send arms to directly,…Iike South Africa, like the Contras, Guatemala under the military junta, [and] Iran." Zunes cited an Israeli analyst who said: "'It's like Israel has just become another federal agency when it's convenient to use and you want something done quietly."' Although the strategic relationship between the United States and the Gulf Arab states in the region has been strengthening in recent years, these states "do not have the political stability, the technological sophistication, [or] the number of higher-trained armed forces personnel" as does Israel.
Matti Peled, former Israeli major general and Knesset member, told Zunes that he and most Israeli generals believe this aid is "little more than an American subsidy to U.S. arms manufacturers," considering that the majority of military aid to Israel is used to buy weapons from the U.S. Moreover, arms to Israel create more demand for weaponry in Arab states. According to Zunes, "the Israelis announced back in 1991 that they supported the idea of a freeze in Middle East arms transfers, yet it was the United States that rejected it."
In the fall of 1993-when many had high hopes for peace-78 senators wrote to former President Bill Clinton insisting that aid to Israel remain "at current levels." Their "only reason" was the "massive procurement of sophisticated arms by Arab states." The letter neglected to mention that 80 percent of those arms to Arab countries came from the U.S. "I'm not denying for a moment the power of AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee], the pro-Israel lobby," and other similar groups, Zunes said. Yet the "Aerospace Industry Association which promotes these massive arms shipments…is even more influential." This association has given two times more money to campaigns than all of the pro-Israel groups combined. Its "force on Capitol Hill, in terms of lobbying, surpasses that of even AIPAC." Zunes asserted that the "general thrust of U.S. policy would be pretty much the same even if AIPAC didn't exist. We didn't need a pro-Indonesia lobby to support Indonesia in its savage repression of East Timor all these years." This is a complex issue, and Zunes said that he did not want to be "conspiratorial," but he asked the audience to imagine what "Palestinian industriousness, Israeli technology, and Arabian oil money…would do to transform the Middle East…. [W]hat would that mean to American arms manufacturers? Oil companies? Pentagon planners?"
"An increasing number of Israelis are pointing out" that these funds are not in Israel's best interest. Quoting Peled, Zunes said, "this aid pushes Israel 'toward a posture of callous intransigence' in terms of the peace process." Moreover, for every dollar the U.S. sends in arms aid, Israel must spend two to three dollars to train people to use the weaponry, to buy parts, and in other ways make use of the aid. Even "main-stream Israeli economists are saying [it] is very harmful to the country's future."
The Israeli paper Yediot Aharonot described Israel as "'the godfather's messenger' since [israel] undertake the 'dirty work' of a godfather who 'always tries to appear to be the owner of some large, respectable business."' Israeli satirist B. Michael refers to U.S. aid this way: "'My master gives me food to eat and I bite those whom he tells me to bite. It's called strategic cooperation." 'To challenge this strategic relationship, one cannot focus solely on the Israeli lobby but must also examine these "broader forces as well." "Until we tackle this issue head-on," it will be "very difficult to win" in other areas relating to Palestine.
"The results" of the short-term thinking behind U.S. policy "are tragic," not just for the "immediate victims" but "eventually [for] Israel itself" and "American interests in the region." The U.S. is sending enormous amounts of aid to the Middle East, and yet "we are less secure than ever"-both in terms of U.S. interests abroad and for individual Americans. Zunes referred to a "growing and increasing hostility [of] the average Arab toward the United States." In the long term, said Zunes, "peace and stability and cooperation with the vast Arab world is far more important for U.S. interests than this alliance with Israel."
This is not only an issue for those who are working for Palestinian rights, but it also "jeopardizes the entire agenda of those of us concerned about human rights, concerned about arms control, concerned about international law." Zunes sees significant potential in "building a broad-based movement around it."
The above text is based on remarks, delivered on. 26 January, 2001 by Stephen Zunes - Associate Professor of Politics and Chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at San Francisco University.
The Cost of Israel to U.S. Taxpayers: True Lies About U.S. Aid to Israel
By Richard H. Curtiss
For many years the American media said that "Israel receives $1.8 billion in military aid" or that "Israel receives $1.2 billion in economic aid." Both statements were true, but since they were never combined to give us the complete total of annual U.S. aid to Israel, they also were lies—true lies.
Recently Americans have begun to read and hear that "Israel receives $3 billion in annual U.S. foreign aid." That's true. But it's still a lie. The problem is that in fiscal 1997 alone, Israel received from a variety of other U.S. federal budgets at least $525.8 million above and beyond its $3 billion from the foreign aid budget, and yet another $2 billion in federal loan guarantees. So the complete total of U.S. grants and loan guarantees to Israel for fiscal 1997 was $5,525,800,000.
One can truthfully blame the mainstream media for never digging out these figures for themselves, because none ever have. They were compiled by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. But the mainstream media certainly are not alone. Although Congress authorizes America's foreign aid total, the fact that more than a third of it goes to a country smaller in both area and population than Hong Kong probably never has been mentioned on the floor of the Senate or House. Yet it's been going on for more than a generation.
Probably the only members of Congress who even suspect the full total of U.S. funds received by Israel each year are the privileged few committee members who actually mark it up. And almost all members of the concerned committees are Jewish, have taken huge campaign donations orchestrated by Israel's Washington, DC lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), or both. These congressional committee members are paid to act, not talk. So they do and they don't.
The same applies to the president, the secretary of state, and the foreign aid administrator. They all submit a budget that includes aid for Israel, which Congress approves, or increases, but never cuts. But no one in the executive branch mentions that of the few remaining U.S. aid recipients worldwide, all of the others are developing nations which either make their military bases available to the U.S., are key members of international alliances in which the U.S. participates, or have suffered some crippling blow of nature to their abilities to feed their people such as earthquakes, floods or droughts.
Israel, whose troubles arise solely from its unwillingness to give back land it seized in the 1967 war in return for peace with its neighbors, does not fit those criteria. In fact, Israel's 1995 per capita gross domestic product was $15,800. That put it below Britain at $19,500 and Italy at $18,700 and just above Ireland at $15,400 and Spain at $14,300.
All four of those European countries have contributed a very large share of immigrants to the U.S., yet none has organized an ethnic group to lobby for U.S. foreign aid. Instead, all four send funds and volunteers to do economic development and emergency relief work in other less fortunate parts of the world.
The lobby that Israel and its supporters have built in the United States to make all this aid happen, and to ban discussion of it from the national dialogue, goes far beyond AIPAC, with its $15 million budget, its 150 employees, and its five or six registered lobbyists who manage to visit every member of Congress individually once or twice a year.
AIPAC, in turn, can draw upon the resources of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, a roof group set up solely to coordinate the efforts of some 52 national Jewish organizations on behalf of Israel.
Among them are Hadassah, the Zionist women's organization, which organizes a steady stream of American Jewish visitors to Israel; the American Jewish Congress, which mobilizes support for Israel among members of the traditionally left-of-center Jewish mainstream; and the American Jewish Committee, which plays the same role within the growing middle-of-the-road and right-of-center Jewish community. The American Jewish Committee also publishes Commentary,one of the Israel lobby's principal national publications.
Perhaps the most controversial of these groups is B'nai B'rith's Anti-Defamation League. Its original highly commendable purpose was to protect the civil rights of American Jews. Over the past generation, however, the ADL has regressed into a conspiratorial and, with a $45 million budget, extremely well-funded hate group.
In the 1980s, during the tenure of chairman Seymour Reich, who went on to become chairman of the Conference of Presidents, ADL was found to have circulated two annual fund-raising letters warning Jewish parents against allegedly negative influences on their children arising from the increasing Arab presence on American university campuses.
More recently, FBI raids on ADL's Los Angeles and San Francisco offices revealed that an ADL operative had purchased files stolen from the San Francisco police department that a court had ordered destroyed because they violated the civil rights of the individuals on whom they had been compiled. ADL, it was shown, had added the illegally prepared and illegally obtained material to its own secret files, compiled by planting informants among Arab-American, African-American, anti-Apartheid and peace and justice groups.
The ADL infiltrators took notes of the names and remarks of speakers and members of audiences at programs organized by such groups. ADL agents even recorded the license plates of persons attending such programs and then suborned corrupt motor vehicles department employees or renegade police officers to identify the owners.
Although one of the principal offenders fled the United States to escape prosecution, no significant penalties were assessed. ADL's Northern California office was ordered to comply with requests by persons upon whom dossiers had been prepared to see their own files, but no one went to jail and as yet no one has paid fines.
Not surprisingly, a defecting employee revealed in an article he published in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs that AIPAC, too, has such "enemies" files. They are compiled for use by pro-Israel journalists like Steven Emerson and other so-called "terrorism experts," and also by professional, academic or journalistic rivals of the persons described for use in black-listing, defaming, or denouncing them. What is never revealed is that AIPAC's "opposition research" department, under the supervision of Michael Lewis, son of famed Princeton University Orientalist Bernard Lewis, is the source of this defamatory material.
But this is not AIPAC's most controversial activity. In the 1970s, when Congress put a cap on the amount its members could earn from speakers' fees and book royalties over and above their salaries, it halted AIPAC's most effective ways of paying off members for voting according to AIPAC recommendations. Members of AIPAC's national board of directors solved the problem by returning to their home states and creating political action committees (PACs).
Most special interests have PACs, as do many major corporations, labor unions, trade associations and public-interest groups. But the pro-Israel groups went wild. To date some 126 pro-Israel PACs have been registered, and no fewer than 50 have been active in every national election over the past generation.
An individual voter can give up to $2,000 to a candidate in an election cycle, and a PAC can give a candidate up to $10,000. However, a single special interest with 50 PACs can give a candidate who is facing a tough opponent, and who has voted according to its recommendations, up to half a million dollars. That's enough to buy all the television time needed to get elected in most parts of the country.
Even candidates who don't need this kind of money certainly don't want it to become available to a rival from their own party in a primary election, or to an opponent from the opposing party in a general election. As a result, all but a handful of the 535 members of the Senate and House vote as AIPAC instructs when it comes to aid to Israel, or other aspects of U.S. Middle East policy.
There is something else very special about AIPAC's network of political action committees. Nearly all have deceptive names. Who could possibly know that the Delaware Valley Good Government Association in Philadelphia, San Franciscans for Good Government in California, Cactus PAC in Arizona, Beaver PAC in Wisconsin, and even Icepac in New York are really pro-Israel PACs under deep cover?
Hiding AIPAC's Tracks
In fact, the congress members know it when they list the contributions they receive on the campaign statements they have to prepare for the Federal Election Commission. But their constituents don't know this when they read these statements. So just as no other special interest can put so much "hard money" into any candidate's election campaign as can the Israel lobby, no other special interest has gone to such elaborate lengths to hide its tracks.
Although AIPAC, Washington's most feared special-interest lobby, can hide how it uses both carrots and sticks to bribe or intimidate members of Congress, it can't hide all of the results.
Anyone can ask one of their representatives in Congress for a chart prepared by the Congressional Research Service, a branch of the Library of Congress, that shows Israel received $62.5 billion in foreign aid from fiscal year 1949 through fiscal year 1996. People in the national capital area also can visit the library of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in Rosslyn, Virginia, and obtain the same information, plus charts showing how much foreign aid the U.S. has given other countries as well.
Visitors will learn that in precisely the same 1949-1996 time frame, the total of U.S. foreign aid to all of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean combined was $62,497,800,000--almost exactly the amount given to tiny Israel.
According to the Population Reference Bureau of Washington, DC, in mid-1995 the sub-Saharan countries had a combined population of 568 million. The $24,415,700,000 in foreign aid they had received by then amounted to $42.99 per sub-Saharan African.
Similarly, with a combined population of 486 million, all of the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean together had received $38,254,400,000. This amounted to $79 per person.
The per capita U.S. foreign aid to Israel's 5.8 million people during the same period was $10,775.48. This meant that for every dollar the U.S. spent on an African, it spent $250.65 on an Israeli, and for every dollar it spent on someone from the Western Hemisphere outside the United States, it spent $214 on an Israeli.
Shocking Comparisons
These comparisons already seem shocking, but they are far from the whole truth. Using reports compiled by Clyde Mark of the Congressional Research Service and other sources, freelance writer Frank Collins tallied for theWashington Report all of the extra items for Israel buried in the budgets of the Pentagon and other federal agencies in fiscal year 1993.Washington Report news editor Shawn Twing did the same thing for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
They uncovered $1.271 billion in extras in FY 1993, $355.3 million in FY 1996 and $525.8 million in FY 1997. These represent an average increase of 12.2 percent over the officially recorded foreign aid totals for the same fiscal years, and they probably are not complete. It's reasonable to assume, therefore, that a similar 12.2 percent hidden increase has prevailed over all of the years Israel has received aid.
As of Oct. 31, 1997 Israel will have received $3.05 billion in U.S. foreign aid for fiscal year 1997 and $3.08 billion in foreign aid for fiscal year 1998. Adding the 1997 and 1998 totals to those of previous years since 1949 yields a total of $74,157,600,000 in foreign aid grants and loans. Assuming that the actual totals from other budgets average 12.2 percent of that amount, that brings the grand total to $83,204,827,200.
But that's not quite all. Receiving its annual foreign aid appropriation during the first month of the fiscal year, instead of in quarterly installments as do other recipients, is just another special privilege Congress has voted for Israel. It enables Israel to invest the money in U.S. Treasury notes. That means that the U.S., which has to borrow the money it gives to Israel, pays interest on the money it has granted to Israel in advance, while at the same time Israel is collecting interest on the money. That interest to Israel from advance payments adds another $1.650 billion to the total, making it $84,854,827,200.That's the number you should write down for total aid to Israel. And that's $14,346 each for each man, woman and child in Israel.
It's worth noting that that figure does not include U.S. government loan guarantees to Israel, of which Israel has drawn $9.8 billion to date. They greatly reduce the interest rate the Israeli government pays on commercial loans, and they place additional burdens on U.S. taxpayers, especially if the Israeli government should default on any of them. But since neither the savings to Israel nor the costs to U.S. taxpayers can be accurately quantified, they are excluded from consideration here.
Further, friends of Israel never tire of saying that Israel has never defaulted on repayment of a U.S. government loan. It would be equally accurate to say Israel has never been required to repay a U.S. government loan. The truth of the matter is complex, and designed to be so by those who seek to conceal it from the U.S. taxpayer.
Most U.S. loans to Israel are forgiven, and many were made with the explicit understanding that they would be forgiven before Israel was required to repay them. By disguising as loans what in fact were grants, cooperating members of Congress exempted Israel from the U.S. oversight that would have accompanied grants. On other loans, Israel was expected to pay the interest and eventually to begin repaying the principal. But the so-called Cranston Amendment, which has been attached by Congress to every foreign aid appropriation since 1983, provides that economic aid to Israel will never dip below the amount Israel is required to pay on its outstanding loans. In short, whether U.S. aid is extended as grants or loans to Israel, it never returns to the Treasury.
Israel enjoys other privileges. While most countries receiving U.S. military aid funds are expected to use them for U.S. arms, ammunition and training, Israel can spend part of these funds on weapons made by Israeli manufacturers. Also, when it spends its U.S. military aid money on U.S. products, Israel frequently requires the U.S. vendor to buy components or materials from Israeli manufacturers. Thus, though Israeli politicians say that their own manufacturers and exporters are making them progressively less dependent upon U.S. aid, in fact those Israeli manufacturers and exporters are heavily subsidized by U.S. aid.
Although it's beyond the parameters of this study, it's worth mentioning that Israel also receives foreign aid from some other countries. After the United States, the principal donor of both economic and military aid to Israel is Germany.
By far the largest component of German aid has been in the form of restitution payments to victims of Nazi attrocities. But there also has been extensive German military assistance to Israel during and since the Gulf war, and a variety of German educational and research grants go to Israeli institutions. The total of German assistance in all of these categories to the Israeli government, Israeli individuals and Israeli private institutions has been some $31 billion or $5,345 per capita, bringing the per capita total of U.S. and German assistance combined to almost $20,000 per Israeli. Since very little public money is spent on the more than 20 percent of Israeli citizens who are Muslim or Christian, the actual per capita benefits received by Israel's Jewish citizens would be considerably higher.
True Cost to U.S. Taxpayers
Generous as it is, what Israelis actually got in U.S. aid is considerably less than what it has cost U.S. taxpayers to provide it. The principal difference is that so long as the U.S. runs an annual budget deficit, every dollar of aid the U.S. gives Israel has to be raised through U.S. government borrowing.
In an article in the Washington Report for December 1991/January 1992, Frank Collins estimated the costs of this interest, based upon prevailing interest rates for every year since 1949. I have updated this by applying a very conservative 5 percent interest rate for subsequent years, and confined the amount upon which the interest is calculated to grants, not loans or loan guarantees.
On this basis the $84.8 billion in grants, loans and commodities Israel has received from the U.S. since 1949 cost the U.S. an additional $49,936,880,000 in interest.
There are many other costs of Israel to U.S. taxpayers, such as most or all of the $45.6 billion in U.S. foreign aid to Egypt since Egypt made peace with Israel in 1979 (compared to $4.2 billion in U.S. aid to Egypt for the preceding 26 years). U.S. foreign aid to Egypt, which is pegged at two-thirds of U.S. foreign aid to Israel, averages $2.2 billion per year.
There also have been immense political and military costs to the U.S. for its consistent support of Israel during Israel's half-century of disputes with the Palestinians and all of its Arab neighbors. In addition, there have been the approximately $10 billion in U.S. loan guarantees and perhaps $20 billion in tax-exempt contributions made to Israel by American Jews in the nearly half-century since Israel was created.
Even excluding all of these extra costs, America's $84.8 billion in aid to Israel from fiscal years 1949 through 1998, and the interest the U.S. paid to borrow this money, has cost U.S. taxpayers $134.8 billion, not adjusted for inflation. Or, put another way, the nearly $14,630 every one of 5.8 million Israelis received from the U.S. government by Oct. 31, 1997 has cost American taxpayers $23,240 per Israeli.
It would be interesting to know how many of those American taxpayers believe they and their families have received as much from the U.S. Treasury as has everyone who has chosen to become a citizen of Israel. But it's a question that will never occur to the American public because, so long as America's mainstream media, Congress and president maintain their pact of silence, few Americans will ever know the true cost of Israel to U.S. taxpayers.
Richard Curtiss, a retired U.S. foreign service officer, is the executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
Home > U.S. Aid to Israel
-
Pat Speer is right when he suggests that Dubbya is a menace. Indeed, I think it's fair to say that George has done more damage to the U.S. than Khalid Sheik Mohammed could ever have dreamed of doing.
Richard Nixon, on the other hand, is something else.
In Arrogance of Power, Tony Summers quotes Mobologist Ralph Salerno to the effect that "Organized crime will put a man in the White House someday, and he won't even know it until they hand him the bill." Summers then proceeds to connect the dots that link Nixon, via Murray Chotiner and others, to organized crime figures such as Meyer Lansky and Mickey Cohen. The Kennedy family's in-house spook, Walter Sheridan, is then summoned to pose a rhetorical question: "...who would you invest your money in? Some politician named Clams Linguini? Or a nice Protestant boy from Whittier, California?"
It's a good point. (Though I would add that an even better investment might be a nice Catholic boy from Hyannis Port - especially someone whose father had made the right contacts during Prohibition.)
But that's just me.
In reality, of course, Nixon was on several payrolls. Indeed, he'd only agreed to run for Congress in 1946 on the condition that those who backed him would supplement his congressional salary to make it commensurate with what he might have earned as a lawyer in private practice. So, even from the beginning, he was on the pad (or pads).
In a long ago interview with John Mitchell, I suggested (rather tentatively) that the disgraced president might have been, well, just a bit corrupt. Mitchell bristled at the suggestion, fulminating that Nixon was "a Boy Scout" who would never take a dime improperly - then pausesd and added, unless, you count "the money from the Paradise Island Bridge" linking Nassau to the Resorts International casino.
I gaped. Mitchell chuckled. I started to press him on the issue, but he shook his head with a Cheshire grin, and changed the subject. To this day, I don't know if he was being serious or if he was just winding me up. (He was like that.)
But I do know that in the early 1970s a private investigator named Norman Casper (a/k/a "the Friendly Ghost") obtained a print-out of secret accounts at the offshore Castle Bank & Trust in the Bahamas and Cayman Islands. He did this as a sort of bounty hunter for the IRS, collecting "a moiety in law" - i.e., a percentage of the monies retrieved - from the Revenooers. The Castle Bank & Trust print-out sparked a red-hot IRS investigation that was shut down soon after it started when a sensitive investigative dossier was released through "a bureaucratic mistake." Or so it was said. According to Casper, however, the investigation was shuttered for a different reason. Among the names on the print-out of Castle's clients was a man named "Richard M. Nixon."
The Kennedy family seems to me to be Organized Crime in Government. At least the political machine that put JFK in office .
Members of the Kennedy Justice Department left government in the mid 1960's to take important roles with either "INTERTEL" or Louie Jacobs organized crime front "Emprise/Sportsystem" ( now called Delaware North Companies "DNC" headed by Max and Jeremy Jacobs).
William Hundley and Robert Peloquin joined Meyer Lansky's Intertel
Henry Peterson joined Max Jacobs Emprise
Stanley Mills, William O. Bittman, David Holloman, Thomas Kennedy, and Horace Webb all joined Emprise. While Thomas Mckeon joined Hundley and Peloquin at INTERTEL.
Meyer Lansky's Resorts Internation owned 86.1% of Intertel as late as the late 1970's. According to this document, they planned to buy the remaining outstanding shares making Intertel a wholly owned subsidary of Resorts (pg 291-292)
http://njlegallib.rutgers.edu/legallib/njar/v10/p0244.pdf
Edward M. Mullin, Intertel's director of intelligence operations, was with Division Five of the FBI and later with the CIA as an assistant deputy director in charge of clandestine services. Mullin's private security front in Washington, D.C., was in famous as the base of operations for E. Howard Hunt during the time of the Watergate break-in. Mullin is also directly tied into the Miami Double-Chek outfit that is implicated in several Permindex-run assassinations, including the JFK killing.
So a direct connection to both the JFK assassination and Watergate seems to run through Permindex, and later Resorts International and Intertel. This organized crime "Dope Inc". front operates as an assassination bureau along with black ops capabilities like we saw with Watergate. They operated through this nexus of former Kennedy Justice Department operatives, who among other things "burned" Jimmy Hoffa and the teamsters under RFK and Walter Sheridan.
But the Kennedy Political Machine is a dirty group, likely responsible for both the murder of President Kennedy and the operation that brought down Richard Nixon in the Watergate affair.
PS- speaking of Larry O'Brien wasnt he given the plum job as Commissioner of the NBA? Intertel was the suppossed security firm (keeping out organized crime
) with the National Football League and the NBA. And the Jacob's family Sportsystem (now Delaware North Company) has all the major concession contracts with most major league sports teams, be it MLB, NFL or NBA.Professional sports is dominated by organized crime.
-
Mark,
Please point out where I missrepresent the situation and you don't.
You said the USA invaded and bombed Syria, an act of war, when in fact, as the details come out, a joint British SAS/US Task Force unit went in and killed a dozen terrorists, including Abu Ghadiya, sentenced to death by Jordan and primary supplier of documents to al Quada fighters in Iraq.
You don't want to discuss or learn more about this incident, you just want to rant and rave about Americans.
Are you British? Where's the outrage against the British for this bombing of innocent civilians and invasion of Syria?
Because you're not interested in what really happened, just ranting and raving against America.
And yes, I read Ron, and if you think the economy will have any effect on Americans going after guys like Abu Ghadiya then you just don't understand.
But Abu Ghadiya, and the "Sword of Justice," understood.
BK
I already said I'm not getting into a slanging match. I'll let those who read this thread make up their own minds. But it seems that I''m not the only one ranting and raving about America:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/10/30-4
Syria Puts US Embassy Under Guard as Tens of Thousands Join Protest
Troops carrying batons and shields are stationed in Damascus as crowds decry American 'terrorist' raid on border
by Haroon Siddique and agencies
Tens of Iraqi refugees in Syria protest against a US raid on a Syrian village at Sukkeriyah, 8 km from the Iraqi border, that killed eight people, in downtown Damascus on Wednesday Oct. 29, 2008. The protestors chanted anti-US slogans and carried Iraqi flags. Syria's deputy foreign minister said Wednesday that Damascus wants America and Iraq to apologize to Syria for a U.S. commando raid mounted from Iraq that killed eight and pledge not to repeat it again. (AP Photo/Bassem Tellawi)Hundreds of Syrian riot police surrounded the US embassy in Damascus today as tens of thousands of protesters gathered nearby to denounce a US raid that killed eight people near the Iraqi border.
The crowds converged on Youssef al-Azmi square, about a mile from the embassy - which was closed for the day because of security concerns.
Troops wearing helmets and carrying batons and shields took up positions around the embassy and the adjacent US residence building. Two fire engines were parked nearby.
There were no signs of violence as protesters formed circles and danced traditional dances
"America the sponsor of destruction and wars," read one banner, as protesters waved national flags and pictures of the Syrian president, Bashar Assad.
"We will not submit to terrorism," read another banner.
Hussam Baayoun, a 20-year-old university student, said the US raid was a "criminal act". "We want the Americans to stop their acts of terrorism in Syria, in Iraq and the rest of the world," he said.
The Syrian government has demanded a US apology for the attack in the eastern border community, which it says left eight civilians dead. It has threatened to cut off cooperation on Iraqi border security if there are more raids on its territory.
Syrian security around the embassy is usually tight and Americans in the country are generally made to feel welcome but when the US invaded Iraq protesters attacked the embassy.
The American school has been shut for the day. The Syrian government has ordered the school to shut down - this is expected within a week - and the immediate closing of the American cultural centre linked to the embassy.
In Washington, a state department deputy spokesman, Robert Wood, said yesterday that the White House was considering how to respond to the order to shut the cultural centre and American school. He stressed that the US expected the Syrian government to "provide adequate security for the buildings". The US embassy warned its citizens in Syria to be vigilant.
There has been no formal acknowledgment of the raid from Washington, but US officials speaking on condition of anonymity have said it killed Badran Turki al-Mazidih, a top al-Qaida figure who operated a network smuggling fighters into Iraq. An Iraqi national, he also uses the name Abu Ghadiyah.
Washington lists Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism and has operated sanctions since 2004. In recent months Damascus has been trying to end years of global isolation. Assad is seen as less hardline than his father, the previous president.
US accusations that Syria is not doing enough to prevent foreign fighters from crossing its borders into Iraq remain a sore point in relations. Syria says it is doing all it can to safeguard its long, porous border.
Looks like you have a major PR problem on your hands. Good luck with that.
Mark,
It's not my PR problem. I can't take on the disinforation of nations, but I can set you straight about Americans bombing children and committing acts of war.
I can see how these emotions can be whipped up by propagandists who say Americans bombed innocent Syrian workers and children when that is pattently not the case.
Will you please acknowldge that the US did not bomb innocent Syrians, that the British were also part of the operation, and announce what your nationality is?
And I'd like to hear from John Simkin when he checks in to see what he has to say about the British being involved in this American Imperialism.
Thanks,
BK
It's really America (under Dick Cheney) involved in British Imperalism. The "Special Relationship" is alive and well.
-
Terry, if you can arrange a debate between myself and ole Lyndon on the topic of music and its role in society, I promise to wipe up the floor with him.
I have 25 gold and platinum records on my wall. I have had thousands of meetings with label owners and artists. And not once has anyone mentioned "Geez, if only people were more scared, they might buy our record." That's not the way it works. People sell freedom ("this band is really wild and wears a lot of funky costumes and the kids are gonna wanna be like them") and friendship ("this guy's songs are so personal you feel like he's confessing his soul to you and you wanna be his friend") and sex ('Just look at her, she's gorgeous, and listen to that voice, she's gonna be a star.")
If there's any music that feeds off fear, it's country music. Was Johnny Cash part of a British plot? Maybe we should ask ole Lyndon what he thinks about Toby Keith.
BTW: reggae music was ANTI-British, and many of its leaders were persecuted by the Jamaican police.
P.S. I found Chaitkin's book quite provocative, and considered it somewhat credible--particularly as it related to Aaron Burr. Your posts demonstrating that his research was only part of an over-all scheme designed to blame everything on the Brits, however, makes me doubt it has any merit whatsoever.
And George Shulz is not a Nazi! He was probably the most moderate leader of the Reagan/Bush era. Calling him a Nazi has no more merit than calling Obama a communist via his connection to Frank Marshall Davis.
Believe it or not I dont have a direct line to Lyndon LaRouche. But based on your rebuttal I would have to place my cash on him in any debate between the two of you. You sound like the guy who claimed to have taken drugs over a long period and boast "It never hurt me", and therefore drugs are not harmful. I dont see how your gold records or meetings with executives proves a darn thing. You do however prove that todays music is all about the senses and how it makes you "feel". Typical boomer garbage.
I never said that "fear" sold records. You misunderstand the entire premise.
As far as Tony Chaitkin and his book Treason in America, I made no such claim that he wrote his book in order to lay blame on the British. This is another of your fantasies. You mention that you found the book provocative and singled out Tony's work on Aaron Burr. Well the whole purpose was to expose Burr as an agent of the British Empire who's goal was to thwart the founding of the US Republic , which was established as a counterpoint to British hedgemony in the world. You either read the book or you did not. If you did read the book then it should require no explanation.
I believe Tony is a member of this forum. He was invited to join based on his book about George Herbert Walker Bush.
Maybe John Simkin can ask him to elaborate on his book Treason in America? He might also weigh in on the counter culture. Chaitkin was born in 1943 so he had a front row seat to the changes made in America after the murder of President Kennedy.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;hl=chaitkin
For my part, around 1979 I read an atrocious piece in the New York Times celebrating Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton's killer, as a misunderstood romantic rebel. Wondering why the New York Establishment would side against such a pillar of the naton as Hamilton, I began reading the original sources - the works of Hmailton and other pro-republic historical leaders. I found that the historiography in our era did not simply misplace these historical figures on the political spectrum, but that the philosophical-political mental map of these former leaders was several orders of magnitude more profound and more pro-human than anything in the mental map of our era's available politics. There is a legacy and a tradition of republicanism, and republican leadership in science, art and statecraft, from Greece and Egypt and revived and expanded later, which has always been responsible for human progress.
As you may know, by 1986 the demand for our scalps from Henry Kissinger and others (the George Shultz and Felix Rohatyn breed of bankers) had grown to hysteria, with many thousands of press attacks at once. Kissinger wrote to the FBI that we were a national security threat. On October 6, 1986, 400 men from federal and state police agencies, with helicopter and armored car, raided our publishing offices in Leesburg, Virginia. Seven days after George Bush Sr. took office as President, LaRouche was imprisoned. A couple of dozen others were jailed, with sentences of up to 40-50 years. When Clinton came into office, LaRouche was released, and all the others were in time released as well.
I have a certain specific family background which helped spur me into historical and investigative work
On the JFK assassination: in a sense, it was the coup against the country, and specifically against the Franklin Roosevelt legacy, perpetrated by the authors of the murder, that led to our political initiative. I have done a certain amount of sharply original work around the Lincoln assassination, and our Executive Intelligence Review pioneered the work that helped propel the Garrison investigation on a fruitful international track.
And what about the topic of this thread Aldous Huxley? I'll bet you still havent listened to his 1962 speech. Am I correct?
-
The words below were written by another "conspiracy buff" from another popular JFK website .
The counter culture was created to provide an escape for the suburbanite baby boomers who found themselves increasing frightened and traumatised by the events of the 1960's. You see another indication of this with the message below. What the author left out of course was his use of drugs in combination with Beatles rock music.
"Music helped to sooth my doubts about the world". So did drugs, eh?
xxxxx wrote:
xxx wrote:
It was right around 1968 when I really became entrenched in music. RFK and MLK had just been assassinated, and their murders came just a short time after the assassination of JFK. Music helped sooth my doubts about the world. Here is song (written by George Harrison) that I will always remember from that era... (live version from 2005)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKO1kb-dvYQ
Yes! I also liked 'White Room'...
-
No one truly familiar with American blues, jazz, and rock and roll music can honestly believe that "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" was a British invention. It was quite the opposite.
The Brits were so uptight that the playing of Bill Haley's song "Rock Around the Clock" in The Blackboard Jungle caused riots. Elvis' cultural impact on Britain and the world dwarfed that of the Beatles.
AMERICAN Rock N Roll changed the world. The fact that some boys from Liverpool, under its influence, were able to modify it a bit and change America as well, is not a sign of any conspiracy. Music was and is a two-way street.
Reggae music grew out of American R & B. Now I suppose we'll be told that Bob Marley was part of some British conspiracy to blind us all with ganja. Oooh, maybe he was murdered so he wouldn't spill the beans.
Call me superstitious but I say never trust anyone named Lyndon.
I have Chaitkin's Treason in America in my bathroom. Seeing where these anti-British rants lead makes me want to flush it.
Has Lyndon told Terry yet that Madelyn Lee Payne Dunham (Barack Obama's grandmother) comes from English stock. Is it possible that his visit to see her is to receive final instructions on how to rule the United States on behalf of Britain?
John,
This is for you. Statements made by LaRouche in January 2008. Enjoy.
Barack Obama's Role
Freeman: This is a question on the Presidential campaigns, from a Presidential campaign, but it's not on policy, it's more on strategy.
"Lyn, this is a more mundane question than some that you've been asked, but it's on the minds of a lot of us, and you keep bringing up Bloomberg, so I thought I'd ask it. Barry Obama keeps presenting himself as the candidate of change, and it's also the case that many people assume that simply because he says he's black, that that also makes him progressive, and they just never learn. He hasn't said very much specific about what his actual policies would be, were he to be elected, and this is probably a conscious policy on his part. Yet, despite the fact that he hasn't said what he would do, and despite the image that he tries to convey, it is the case that he enjoys the support of Wall Street and the most conservative Democratic senators and governors that we know. My question to you is the following: Does he know what he's doing? Is he a witting player in all of this, or do you think that he's just a throwaway?"
LaRouche: I think there's some of both elements in that. He is intrinsically a throwaway: The intention of the people he might think are backing him, is to throw him away. The key political figure to look at, to understand this, is Schwarzenegger, whose father was a true Nazi—he was engaged in the Nazi police force in enforcing, killing people in Eastern Europe, and that's his tradition. And he's also nothing but a tool of Shultz, who's another fascist, the man who brought Pinochet into South America with the help of Felix Rohatyn, and who brought in some Nazis by way of Spain, veteran actual Nazis, to apply Nazi methods to the Southern Cone in the first half of the 1970s, under the Nixon administration. So, this is the kind of reality you're dealing with. Shultz is a factor.
The Chicago Board of Trade is all I could find on Obama, as a major controlling factor. He has a history, part of which he wrote himself, in books which are published and also by one biography written by others, who did a study. And there's nothing there that gives me any confidence. Now, he may be intelligent, but he has not revealed that to me. And in my view, Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger, who are owned by Nazi types—Bloomberg fits the profile of the Mussolini who was put into power by the Bank of England, with the support of relevant people in New York City, whereas Adolf Hitler was put into power by the Bank of England, with support from Harriman, for example, in New York City, and other Manhattan bankers.
In dealing with the ownership of someone who is receiving favorable treatment from financial interests which I know are at issue, it means that either he's intended to be a stooge for them in government, or that he's simply, like other candidates, one of those they're trying to run—they're trying to run the campaign in such a way that no visible candidate receives a significant, dominant support for the nomination. In that case, then, the Democratic Party officials, as opposed to elected or designated delegates, take over. And then you get a backroom decision, which could be something like Bloomberg.
We are very seriously in danger of a fascist government being installed in the United States at this time. The governor of California is a fascist dictator, in fact, by virtue of practice. And he is supported by, principally, by George Shultz, his controller, who also has a Nazi pedigree. The policies of Bloomberg are those of Mussolini. Corporativism! He said it; his people said it, his supporters said it. Corporativism, which is a form of fascism, a name for fascism as introduced under Mussolini, which was copied by Hitler! So, Mr. Obama, before he would get one iota of blessing from me, for his candidacy, would have to satisfy me that these unfortunate indications concerning his background and influences upon him can be explained away.
-
No one truly familiar with American blues, jazz, and rock and roll music can honestly believe that "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" was a British invention. It was quite the opposite.
The Brits were so uptight that the playing of Bill Haley's song "Rock Around the Clock" in The Blackboard Jungle caused riots. Elvis' cultural impact on Britain and the world dwarfed that of the Beatles.
AMERICAN Rock N Roll changed the world. The fact that some boys from Liverpool, under its influence, were able to modify it a bit and change America as well, is not a sign of any conspiracy. Music was and is a two-way street.
Reggae music grew out of American R & B. Now I suppose we'll be told that Bob Marley was part of some British conspiracy to blind us all with ganja. Oooh, maybe he was murdered so he wouldn't spill the beans.
Call me superstitious but I say never trust anyone named Lyndon.
I have Chaitkin's Treason in America in my bathroom. Seeing where these anti-British rants lead makes me want to flush it.
You didnt care for Treson in America? It didnt fit your notion of America as the evil empire?
And you mention Bob Marley. Isnt Jamaica under control of the British Empire? You might want to re read Chaitkin's Treason in America,
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html...9649D94699ED7CF
And if you hated Treason in America then your certain to fall flat reading the "Racist Roots of Jazz".
http://www.wlym.com/drupal/node/263
PS- did you listen to the Huxley speech? You might note that he even makes reference to the work of one Timothy Leary. This was long before Leary became the poster child for LSD.
-
Terry reveals yet another topic about which she is woefully ignorant, the pop music and counterculture of the 60’s. I can’t imagine having my view on just about everty thing shaped by one person.
She can’t even get her facts straight Clapton and Ormsby-Gore never got married.
Historical curiosity: In 1972 LaRouche’s possibly Jewish girlfriend/common law-wife left him for an Englishman*. Shortly after that his obsession with the British and the Jews began. Coincidence?
John
I didn’t know you were such a hipster
* I suspect she was Jewish because her name was Carol Schnitzer
What a suprise to see Sir Rubbish weighing in on the subject.
You're right Gore's daughter never married Clapton. They were engaged to be married, my mistake. I also didnt know that she had died of a heroin overdose. But that doesnt change the fundamental issue, that a high ranking British official Ormsby Gore, took to spreading the "rock, sex, drug", counter culture after the murder of his "in law" by marriage John F. Kennedy. It also ended up killing his daughter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Ormsby-Gore
And good call on Carol White. Yes, she left LaRouche for an Englishman due to LaRouche's obession with the British and Jews.
Now you're a gossip columnist for LaRouche's love life? And there's nothing like cribbing from the Heritage Foundation and Chip Berlet. I just cant believe someone would allow such dirty networks to do their thinking for them! Carol wrote her own book on the British Dark Age faction, so you're wrong again. What does Lamson call you, Mr Google?Here is her book from the 1980's on this very topic of culture and the British.
http://www.amazon.com/New-Dark-Ages-Conspi...n/dp/093348805X
-
Aldous Huxley 1962 speech at Berkeley where he discusses his wet dream of creating a "concentration camp of the mind" through the use of mind altering drugs- " where people will rather love their servitude". After November 22, 1963 with the advent of the "counter culture", exported into the US from Great Britain, this was no longer such a far fetched theory.
I'm wondering if any of the Brits on the Forum are familiar with any British cult figures claiming that everything bad in the UK came courtesy of the States.
It's clear that the British invasion was heavily influenced by the music of American "negroes". It's also clear that the musicians of the British invasion were first introduced to psychedelic drugs via American musicians.
I wasn't there, of course, but it's been reported that the cultural impact of American GI's on British culture during WWII was significant.
One wonders then if there are Brits who see the decadence and decay of modern society as an American import.
I didnt know the Beatles were an American product? I also didnt know that Sir George Martin was an American "negro"?
I take it you didnt bother to listen to Huxley's speech?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldous_Huxley
Under what conditions can you entice an entire generation (baby boomers) to turn their back on the ideas set forth by John F. Kennedy at the start of the 1960's? A general commitment to progress through the development of science and technology.
Tavistock pyschiatrist William Sargent wrote in 1957 in his book "Battle for the mind", under conditions of repeated "shock trauma" you can induce an entire society to accept ideas that they would otherwise reject.
If you look at the 1960's you see in a 5-6 year period, one shock trauma after the other hitting the American population, especially the little baby boomers from the suburbs. The Cuban Missile Crisis, followed by the murder of JFK, the Vietnam War followed by the successive murders of Malcomb X, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy. You can throw in the urban riots for good measure.
The baby boomers went insane under these conditions of repeated shock trauma. British social planners like Aldous Huxley had the perfect placebo to help the boomers ease their fears- "sex, rock and drugs".
Even British Ambassador to the USA David Ormsby Gore got into the act. He introduced the Beatles to the Washington set just a few months after the Kennedy assasination. Gore known later as "Lord Harlec" would get in on the ground floor promoting Tavistock brainwashing Woodstock styled concerts throughout Europe. He even married off his daughter to herion addict and British pop culture icon "Eric Clapton".
http://www.eruditor.com/books/item/9781883536060.html.en
As usual you got it all backward. No wonder you cant solve the JFK murder.
-
As well as JFK two of Britain's most important writers died on 22nd November 1963: Aldous Huxley and C.S. Lewis.
Both writers had the gift of imagination highly developed, as did JFK. His death stands out because he had the power to go beyond imagination and make things happen.
His death also stands out because he was murdered, and his killers escaped undetected (though not unsuspected).
Aldous Huxley is also the author of books that Lee Harvey Oswald checked out of the New Orleans library, including Doors of Perception, which may have stimulated Oswald's interest in mind-expanding drugs, including LSD, exhibited in his questioning a lawyer about their legality. (As detailed in a Rolling Stone Magazine article, and mentioned in Dick Russell's OTTOTJFKA.
BK
Aldous Huxley 1962 speech at Berkeley where he discusses his wet dream of creating a "concentration camp of the mind" through the use of mind altering drugs- " where people will rather love their servitude". After November 22, 1963 with the advent of the "counter culture", exported into the US from Great Britain, this was no longer such a far fetched theory.
http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/art...keley_Part1.mp3
http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/art...keley_Part2.mp3
-
Garrison was just a cover up artist who protected Mafia interests and concealed the truth to protect illegalities and David Ferrie was also a sleazy, Carlos Marcello, Mafia asset.
I don't even understand why anybody would bother to write a book about these criminals...I don't think you will find the truth about them in any document -criminals don't document their criminal activity.
On January 21, 1969, after nearly two years of concocting and playing out his bizarre charges in the national media, Jim Garrison finally tried the accused, Clay Shaw, in a court of law in New Orleans. Even though Garrison had announced on February 24, 1967, that he had "positively solved the assassination of President John F. Kennedy" -and one week later, arrested Clay Shaw for conspiring to kill the president because that's what people do when they want the actual culprit to get away with murder, they produce a smokescreen. Jim Garrison provided cover for co-conspirators like David Ferrie when he handed him over to the FBI in 1963, because reports that Oswald carried Ferrie's library card threatened to unravel the case
The last known person to speak to Ferrie was George Lardner, Jr., of the Washington Post, whom Ferrie had met with from midnight to 4:00 a.m. on February 22, 1967. During this interview, Ferrie described Garrison as "a joke". Several hours later, Ferrie died of a cerebral hemorrhage [he was probably murdered because that's what "the joke" needed, to promote his bizarre allegations] Jim Garrison was clearly the hero of those who conspire to bury the truth about the Kennedy assassination -the way Ferrie was buried.
Wow! I'm amazed at your allegations. Hoover and Garrison were at opposite ends of the spectrum.
When Garrison decided to begin the investigation I was teaching literature at Loyola in New Orleans.
One of my students was Louis Ivon, who became Garrison's Chief Investigator. Both Louis Ivon and Jim Garrison were as honest as the day is long. Louis told me that Garrison at one point had mortgaged his house to continue the investigation. Garrison and his office were hasseled endlessly and villified with continual smears. How else could the Government, the CIA, the FBI, Bobby Kennedy have misled the nation as to what actually happened in Dealy Plaza. It's what they did to Oswald too.
I covered the Clay Shaw trial for the New Orleans Review. I thought Clay Shaw was guilty. The jury found Shaw innocent because he lied about his CIA connections. During the House Select Committee on Assassination, Helms admitted that Shaw was a CIA operative.
You're blowing smoke when you put Nixon, Hoover and Garrison in the same pot. Garrison, at least as one point was worried about being assassinated himself. Louis Ivon told me the story. When Garrison was being released from the hospital in St. Bernard Parish, he wanted his two bodyguards to wheel him out to the car with their guns drawn. There was a big flap because they wouldn't do it, but Garrison was worried about a drive by. Doesn't sound like a man in on the cover-up.
As for his connections to the Mafia, the FBI listed Carlos Marcello as a tomatoe salesman. Carlos owned a number of bars in New Orleans, but he lived in Jefferson Parish and he had his office in Baton Rouge. I was with the Vice Squad when they busted Mike Roach, "The King of Prostitution,"
according to the Times-Picayune (that had a very unhealthy relationship with the NO Police Department). Mike had 5 girls working for him. Some king! I also witnessed the clean up of Boubon Street, a joint effort between the NOPD and Garrison's Office. New Orleans had a long history of corruption, and Jim Garrison cleaned it up. There was never any evidence that would have resulted in an indictment of Carlos Marcello, which may have been the reason Bobby illegally kidnapped Carlos and dumped him in Guatamala.
You're blowin smoke, Lynn.
Thanks for posting.
Do you have any thoughts or opinion, either your own or through Garrison as to Clay Shaw connection to Mortimer Bloomfields "Permindex"? Clay Shaw was listed as a "director" of Permindex.
-
Well I know that I would never want to be a member of a forum who allow someone like me to be a member. - BK
*****************************************
You were voted in "YES," unanimously, Bill.
But, you never got back to us.
It's still open, and will remain open, should you change your mind.
) with the National Football League and the NBA. And the Jacob's family Sportsystem (now Delaware North Company) has all the major concession contracts with most major league sports teams, be it MLB, NFL or NBA.
Carroll Rosenbloom
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
And how about the NFL's security firm "INTERTEL" a wholly owned subsidary of Meyer Lansky's Resorts International. INTERTEL was run by former Kennedy Justice Department personnel "Robert Dolan Peloquin" and "Willam Hundley".
The rest of the former Kennedy men from Justice went to work for Max Jacobs Sportsystem/ Emprise operation.
http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau.../8282/index.htm
What a deadly web we weave.