The facts are in and you're an idiot. You continue to vote in these 'law and order' assholes and you've managed to turn the greatest country on the planet into a zoo. While the politicians, pharmaceutical CEOs, Big Oil and Wall Street bankers laugh all the way to their offshore bank accounts.

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

UK surveillance agencies collected everyone’s communications data unlawfully and in secret, for over a decade

UK surveillance agencies collected everyone’s communications data unlawfully and in secret, for over a decade

In a highly significant judgment released today, The Investigatory Powers Tribunal has found that the UK’s intelligence agencies were secretly and unlawfully collecting bulk data on people in the UK without adequate safeguards or supervision for over a decade. This is one of the most significant indictments of the secret use of the Government’s mass surveillance powers since Edward Snowden first began exposing the extent of US and UK spying in 2013.

The Tribunal, which is tasked with hearing complaints against the security and intelligence services, concluded that the two regimes, which permitted the collection of vast amounts of communications data (Bulk Communications Data) and large datasets with personal information (Bulk Personal Datasets), were unlawful for over a decade.

The case exposed inadequate safeguards against abuse, including warnings to staff not to use the databases created to house these vast collections of data to search for and/or access information ‘about other members of staff, neighbours, friends, acquaintances, family members and public figures’. Internal oversight failed, with highly sensitive databases treated like Facebook to check on birthdays, and very worryingly on family members for ‘personal reasons’.


Oh, it ain't over motherfuckers. here is how to beat their surveillance-



By Christopher R Rice

We, the US gov., also prosecuted American soldiers for waterboarding during Nam. And you can not change the definition of torture as you go along. It is illegal to threaten, intimidate or cause mental pain to any detainee, Reagan signed the law.

Torturing also did not provide any intel., the CIA has admitted to lying to the President and the Congress about the effectiveness of torture. Osama was not caught till after Bush and Co. left ofc.

Torture only created more terrorist. Interrogators said that 90% of detainees fought because of the US torture policies.

And attacking and torturing the wrong country (Iraq) cost American lives, it did not save any. You stooped fucks.

FUCK AMERICA and ALL of HER LIES. The American gov. even tortures American citizens on American soil. FUCK AMERICA. READ MORE-

Worse than that? America has over 50,000 American citizens rotting in prisons for crimes they did not commit. READ MORE-


Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Leaked CLASSIFIED Report: U.S. Drone Strikes not against al-Qaeda
Underground Newz

A trove of leaked classified reports has confirmed what many had suspected – US drone kills in Pakistan are not the precision strikes against top-level al-Qaeda terrorists they are portrayed as by the Obama administration.
Instead, many of the attacks are aimed at suspected low-level tribal militants, who may pose no direct danger to the United States – and for many there appears to be little evidence to justify the assassinations.
Top secret documents obtained by McClatchy newspapers in the US show the locations, identities and numbers of those attacked and killed in Pakistan in 2006-8 and 2010-11, as well as explanations for why the targets were picked.
The statistics illustrate the breadth of the US ‘drone doctrine’ – which has never been defined by consecutive US administrations. Between 1,990 and 3,308 people are reported to have been killed in the drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004, the vast majority of them during the Obama terms.

In the 12-month period up to 2011, 43 out of 95 drone strikes in the reports (which give an account of the vast majority of US operations in the country) were not aimed at al-Qaeda at all. And 265 out of 482 people killed in those assassinations, were defined internally as “extremists”.
Indeed, only six of the men killed – less than two percent – were senior al-Qaeda leaders.
Some of the groups include the Haqqani network and the Taliban Movement of Pakistan, both militant organizations, but ones the US did not designate as terrorists until 2012 and 2010 respectively. Neither one has ever conducted an attack on US soil.
It also confirms that attacks during the George W. Bush era, were conducted on targets picked by ISI, Pakistan’s security agency, which has no obligations to comply with US legal criteria.
Furthermore, in some cases it is difficult to confirm that the targets were militants at all.



Military Denies Having a Secret Afghan Torture Jail

Military Denies Having a Secret Afghan Torture Jail

BAGRAM AIR FIELD, Afghanistan — Walking out of the new detention center and out into the dusty courtyard, I’ve got one final question for Gen. Mark Martins, one rooted in the U.S.’ post-9/11 history of detainee abuse: Is this all there is? Or, stripped to its subtext: Do you have any hidden torture chambers; and if so, can we pop in?

Martins, the Army one-star responsible for the day-to-day operations of the complex known as the Detention Facility In Parwan, drove from Kabul to escort me on a 90-minute tour of the place. His objective is plain: convince an American journalist that the abuse associated with the old detention site at Bagram is a relic of the past. Martins has moved me through Parwan briskly. But now he gets very deliberate.

Entering the back seat of the SUV that’ll take us back within Bagram’s main gates, Martins looks me in the eye. “You have looked at everything,” he says.

For nearly a year, human rights groups have had trouble believing him. Ever since the New York Times reported that Bagram has an off-the-books, closed-to-the-Red-Cross detention center, there’s been continued suspicions that the U.S.’s legacy of torture has survived President Obama’s January 2009 executive order banning undisclosed “Black Site” prisons. Those suspicions accelerated after the BBC claimed to have confirmed with the International Committee of the Red Cross in May that the new Parwan center has a “Black Jail.” Human Rights Watch speculated in June that the military now calls it a “transit facility” to throw reporters and humanitarian monitors off the scent.

But Martins is categorical. “There are no black sites,” he says. “There is not a ‘transit facility.’” There are, however, “field detention sites” to which U.S. troops bring Afghans shortly after immediate battlefield capture, holding them for “a small number of days” before either releasing detainees or sending them on to Parwan. But, he says, those adhere to the Geneva Conventions as much as Parwan does. And they’re not a surprise to anyone: “All [field detention centers] are known to the Afghan government. All field detention sites are known to the ICRC,” using the acronym for the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The ICRC backs Martins. Red Cross Simon Schorno tells Danger Room that the group “is notified by the United States of persons arrested by its forces in the framework of the armed conflict in Afghanistan, regardless of the structures in which they are being held. This has been routine practice since August 2009 and helps us monitor the fate of persons detained until they leave U.S. custody.” That includes access “to detainees at U.S.-run field detention sites in Afghanistan,” which the ICRC has had “since the beginning of 2008,” though “the frequency of our visits to these sites varies.”

But even if there’s not a “Black Jail” at Parwan beyond the eyes of the Red Cross, that doesn’t resolve the question of detainee treatment at Parwan — or what it’ll be next year, after the Afghans take control.

Parwan opened its $60 million doors to detainees earlier this year, even as the U.S. announced plans to transition it to Afghan control in 2011. And despite the suspicions about continued detainee abuse in Afghanistan, the military wants to show Parwan off. (Within limits: I’m not permitted to photograph it.) Located within a square mile on the outskirts of Bagram, it centers around four large housing blocs, some of which are shaped like aircraft hangars, that currently hold slightly more than 1000 detainees. (Current Gitmo population: 176.) They stay at Parwan for an average of 22 months and they’re out of their cells an average of 27 hours a week. The majority of them live communally, though there’s a Special Housing Unit of 104 individual cells for the “uncooperative” ones.

The SHU, as it’s called, feels like lockdown. Within the solid metal doors of a cell, there’s a plexiglass ceiling with a camera in one corner for the guards, who monitor the facilities at all times. There’s a western-style toilet in the cell, as well as a prayer rug, an arrow pointing the way to Mecca and a mattress placed on the ground. Outside the cells are placards indicating what earned its resident a stay. COMMUNICATING A THREAT, one reads, with ASSAULT ON A STAFF MEMBER outside the next door.

Outside the SHU, in the Bravo bloc, is the darkened hallway of interrogation booths. It’s dark in order to prevent detainees from seeing through the one-way glass, even as tiny cameras allow analysts to discreetly peer in. A table and three folding chairs are the only furniture.

Martins emphasizes that all interrogations comply with the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, the Geneva Conventions and the updated 2006 Army field manual on interrogations (PDF) that’s supposed to prevent future Abu Ghraibs. But the 2006 manual has come under fire from human-rights critics and anti-torture military interrogators for embedding what they consider abuse into its pages. Its Appendix M authorizes a technique called “Separation,” in which a detainee gets removed from the general population “to keep him from learning counter-resistance techniques.”

Martins acknowledges that Separation occurs at Parwan on “a small fraction” of detainees. As he tells it, it’s an emergency technique that occurs within strict oversight. Separation needs to be “approved by a general officer,” with specifics about how long interrogators will apply it, and alongside “what other techniques.” Interrogators can use it for up to 30 days, but interrogation sessions employing separation occur “no more than a couple hours at a time,” he says. That’s intended to prevent Separation from shading into banned techniques like sensory deprivation or isolation. But it’s not clear to me how different Separation and isolation really are.

Just outside the blocs, there’s a big tent for hosting “reintegration” meetings with family and community leaders before a detainee is released. Near the entrance, there’s a small plastic jungle gym for their kids to romp around when they visit. Literacy programs and the presence of moderate religious leaders at Parwan help refute insurgents’ calls to violence couched in Islamic terms. It’s part of Martins’ efforts to win what he calls the “most important six inches of counterinsurgency — between the ears.”

He doesn’t have much time. Parwan isn’t supposed to stay a U.S. military facility for long. Sometime next year, the Afghan Ministry of Defense will take control — a bureaucratic placeholder until the Ministry of Justice runs the place in 2014. At that point, Parwan won’t be a detention center, where enemy fighters are held, according to the law of armed conflict, without charge. It’ll be a jail, where prisoners serve their time after being sentenced according to a court of law — or what passes for it in Afghanistan.

That gives human rights groups pause. “The Afghan police and intelligence services are notorious for not treating prisoners humanely,” says Daphne Eviatar of Human Rights First — full disclosure: a former colleague of mine at the Washington Independent – in an email. “So how the U.S. government plans to turn people over to the Afghans… and also meet its obligations to not hand prisoners over to governments where they’d likely face abuse and torture, is a big question.”

The U.S. military’s answer? Training. Would-be Afghan guards get 21 weeks’ worth of instruction in “humane, effective, and legitimate detention operations that comply with Afghan and international law,” says Navy Captain Pamela Kunze, a spokeswoman for the detention facility, before they start training alongside U.S. guards. Over 700 guards are currently in the training pipeline, with more on the way.

Training is one thing, but there’s a higher-level policy decision that still awaits the U.S. and the Afghans: what to do about the acknowledged “less than 50” non-Afghans — mostly Pakistanis — caught up at Parwan, some of whom come from countries that torture their prisoners, complicating the U.S.’s ability to repatriate them under international law. All Martins says about them is that the U.S. is “committed to not having the Afghans deal with them alone.”

Another unsettled issue is what happens to the U.S.’ ability to detain Afghan insurgents once Parwan falls under Afghan control. “Soldiers must be given the opportunity to detain” during wartime, Martins says. But it remains to be seen how much of an impediment Afghan control of Parwan, operating under a law-enforcement framework, will present for the U.S.’s continuing ability to perform precisely those detention operations.

Those detention operations, by law and by policy, are supposed to be fully compliant with the Geneva Conventions. While the ICRC confirms that it has access to all detainees, it won’t publicly disclose anything about their treatment, in keeping with the group’s traditional bargain of trading access for confidentiality. “All our observations on conditions of detention and treatment of detainees are confidential and part of our ongoing confidential dialogue with the detaining authorities,” Schorno says.

Other humanitarian groups aren’t so sure. “We have not been allowed to interview the detainees,” says Human Rights Watch’s Andrea Prasow, who visited Parwan in June, “so it is impossible for us to fairly assess the prison and its conditions.”

As we drive back to the thin layer of Bagram gates separating the Parwan facility from the main air field — which will close for good after the Afghans control the detention center — Martins offers a bottom line. “We will continue to comply with the law,” Martins says, whether at the field detention sites or at Parwan. “If that’s ‘Black,’ I think that’s not a particularly helpful use of language.”

UPDATE: From Wikipedia:
The treatment of inmates at the facility has been under scrutiny since two Afghan detainees died in the 2002 Bagram torture and prisoner abuse case. Their deaths were classified as homicides and prisoner abuse charges were made against seven American soldiers. Concerns about lengthy detentions here have prompted comparisons to U.S. detention centers in Guantanamo Bay on Cuba and Abu Graib in Iraq. Part of the internment facility is called the Black jail.[2][3]
It was formerly known by the United States as the Bagram Collection Point. While initially intended as a temporary facility, it has been used longer and handled more detainees than the US Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba.[1] As of early June 2011 the Obama administration held 1700 prisoners at the military base; there had been 600 prisoners under the Bush administration. None of the prisoners has received POW status.[2]
In early 2012, Afghan President Hamid Karzai ordered that control of the Parwan Detention Facility be handed over to Afghan authorities after some inmates complained of being strip searched and put in solitary confinement.[18][19][20]
On December 11, 2014, the US Armed Forces transferred the facility to the Afghan government.

Related articles: Just a few bad apples...

Torture Inc. Americas Brutal Prisons 

‘The Bodies of Prisoners Are Commodities’ 

Marine’s case would draw attention to Afghan ‘sex slaves’

Marines Corps' Training Denigrate Local Residents, Hide Military Crimes

Justice Dept. Half of Sexual Abuse Claims in American Prisons Involve Guards, Study Says

Patients Say Abilify Turned Them Into Compulsive Gamblers and Sex Addicts

Patients Say Abilify Turned Them Into Compulsive Gamblers and Sex Addicts

A year after her father took hostages and committed suicide by cop, Lucy kept freezing in the supermarket aisle.
“I couldn’t breathe, literally, my husband would often have to come pick me up from whatever aisle of the store I was stuck in and drive me home,” the traumatized daughter confided in a letter she wrote to her attorney that he provided to The Daily Beast.

The woman who had been happily married for 25 years was now sitting on a psychiatrist’s couch and popping a daily regimen of meds that she called the “pharmaceutical cocktail.”

They included Abilify, which was supposed to aid in treating her post-traumatic stress disorder.
“So began a life that was hazy, kind of disconnected,” she described in the letter.

Lucy blames the drug for her insatiable hunger for gambling that saw her drive at all hours of the night to Cripple Creek, a legion of Wild West-themed casinos in Colorado.

“I started going all the time,” she wrote. “I never even won, never came back with so much as a dime in my pocket,” she confessed.

Lucy burned through unemployment checks, pawned her mechanic husband’s automotive tools, and lied about needing money to buy baby formula.

As she puts it in the letter, “Nothing was off-limits when it came to getting the money I needed to keep up the ruse.”

Fanatical about the casino, and filling time in-between with lottery scratchers, Lucy’s urge to roll the dice was so desperate she admitted how she mastered her very own disappearing act.

“I’d stuff my bed at night to fool my husband that I was asleep when actually I was spinning the slots,” she admitted in the letter.

Like Lucy, thousands of patients who had been prescribed Abilify say in a mass tort lawsuit the drug created compulsions for sex and gambling, and that the drug makers knew of the serious side effects (as evidenced by warning labels in Canada and Europe) but waited years not to warn U.S. consumers.

“There will probably be over 1,000 cases,” Stephen Hunt Jr., of the Alabama-based law firm Cory Watson, who is repping some of the gamblers and sex-obsessed victims airing their Abilify horror stories after his firm and others began a national ad campaign.


EDITORS NOTE: Do you understand what you just read? Voting is not like a box of chocolates. The Republicans and the Democrats do NOT care about you or your children or your family. No warning label was required in the US because our politicians work for Big Business not for you and me. When will you, Forrest Gump, get this through your thick empty skulls. The Republicans and the Democrats are destroying America, WAKE UP!!

Tell me Forrest, if they cared about you, why was there no warning label in the US but in Canada, it had to have a warning label? Where was the FDA? Taking bribes as usual, you stupid fuckin' American. I've been telling, yelling this since 1984 and you assholes don't even have the decency to comment back. I've wrote how many articles on this blog alone and you've had the decency to write back twice. You are a terrible pen pal, a horrible citizen and an even worse human being for allowing this to happen. Why am I the only one willing to stand up to this crooked system? Because every other American is Forrest Gump and voting is like a box of chocolates. Ya' never know what you're going to get. Hum, but I do.


Monday, November 28, 2016

You vote like Forrest Gump

You vote like Forrest Gump
By Christopher R Rice

Listening to my fellow Americans drone on and on in favor or in fear of Obama or Trump has brought me to the conclusion that when it comes to voting, you are Forrest Gump. Think about it for a second and it explains a lot, doesn't it? If you don't understand, I dug up an old article that might just help...

Obama Signs Bill To Extend Bush Tax Cuts
By Brian Montopoli CBS News December 17, 2010

In a display of compromise rarely seen during his time in office, President Obama has signed into law a $858 billion tax cut bill despite the misgivings of members of both parties.

"We are here with some good news for the American people this holiday season," Mr. Obama said.

The bill, which was largely worked out earlier this month between the White House and Congressional Republicans, extends the Bush-era tax cuts for all Americans for two years, extends unemployment benefits for 13 months and includes a one-year Social Security tax cut, among other measures.

The measure is not paid for, and costs more than Mr. Obama's controversial stimulus package that was harshly criticized by Republicans for exacerbating America's deficit and debt problem. 

The president acknowledged that the bill's cost and the coming effort to address the deficit, stating, "In some ways this was easier than some of the tougher choices we're going to have to make next year."

Mr. Obama said the bill would create jobs and boost the still-struggling U.S. economy. He called it a "substantial victory for middle class families" who would otherwise have seen a tax increase. 

"In fact, not only will middle class Americans avoid a tax increase, but tens of millions of Americans will start the new year off right by opening their first paycheck to see that it's larger than the one they get right now," he said.

The president also noted the bill included tax breaks for millions of college students and their families and extensions of the earned income tax credit and $1,000-per-child tax credit. It also includes extensions of tax incentives for businesses to invest and expand and lower taxes on capitol gains and dividends.

The 2 percent Social Security tax reduction would mean a savings of about $1,000 for a worker making $50,000 per year.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell was one of five Republicans present at the bill signing ceremony, along with 19 Democrats. It was Mr. Obama's 29th public bill-signing ceremony -- but the first at which McConnell was in attendance.

The tax cut package angered liberals in the president's party due to the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for the roughly two percent of highest-earning Americans, which comes at a cost of $120 billion over two years. They were also incensed at the level at which the estate tax was set in the measure, which exempts estates under $10 million for couples and taxes subsequent income at 35 percent.

But the bill passed overwhelmingly in the Senate and also got through the House, where angry Democrats eventually accepted what came to be seen as inevitable. Still, many complained that the bill was an expensive giveaway to the richest Americans at a time when America could not afford it.

Some fiscally conservative Republicans also expressed concerns about the cost of bill, though most GOP lawmakers supported it.

Had Congress not acted to address the expiring Bush-era tax cuts, all Americans would have seen a tax increase on January 1st. (The average tax increase per family, the White House said, would have been $3,000.) Mr. Obama, who had long opposed extending the Bush tax cuts for America's highest-earners, has argued he had no choice but to agree to GOP demands to do so in order to avoid a tax increase on the middle class.

In his remarks Friday, however, he cast the agreement as evidence that both parties can work together.

"Now, candidly speaking, there are some elements of this legislation that I don't like," he said. "There are some elements that members of my party don't like. There are some elements that Republicans here today don't like. That's the nature of compromise. Yielding on something each of us cares about to move forward on what all of us care about."

The president said the bill ultimately reflected "a good deal for the American people."

"The final product proves when we can put aside the partisanship and political gains, we can get a lot done," he said. "If we can keep doing it, if we can keep that spirit I'm hopeful that we won't just reinvigorate this economy and restore the American dream, I'm also hopeful that we might refresh the American people's faith in the capability of their leaders to govern in challenging times."

EDITORS NOTE: The president said the bill is "a good deal for the American people." And he said that with a straight face, he didn't snicker once. That's some good acting. When you can convince poor people that getting robbed by the rich is good for them, that's some amazing double speak. And the reporter making six figures just wrote what he was told. But why didn't my fellow Americans see through this pure hyperbole and raise up with pitchforks and demand justice? Why Lord why? Is it because everyone in America is Forrest fucking Gump or what?


Sunday, November 27, 2016

Reagan’s Legacy:

Reagan’s Legacy:
By Peter Dreier
As some Americans mourn the death of Ronald Reagan, let us recall that the two-term president was no friend to America’s cities or its poor. Reagan came to office in 1981 with a mandate to reduce federal spending. In reality, he increased it through the escalating military budget, all the while slashing funds for domestic programs that assisted working class Americans, particularly the poor.
Reagan’s fans give him credit for restoring the nation’s prosperity. But whatever economic growth occurred during the Reagan years only benefited those already well off. The income gap between the rich and everyone else in America widened. Wages for the average worker declined and the nation’s homeownership rate fell. During Reagan’s two terms in the White House, which were boon times for the rich, the poverty rate in cities grew.
His indifference to urban problems was legendary. Reagan owed little to urban voters, big-city mayors, black or Hispanic leaders, or labor unions – the major advocates for metropolitan concerns.
Early in his presidency, at a White House reception, Reagan greeted the only black member of his Cabinet, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Samuel Pierce, saying: “How are you, Mr. Mayor? I’m glad to meet you. How are things in your city?”
Reagan not only failed to recognize his own HUD Secretary, he failed to deal with the growing corruption scandal at the agency that resulted in the indictment and conviction of top Reagan administration officials for illegally targeting housing subsidies to politically connected developers.
Fortunately for Reagan, the “HUD Scandal” wasn’t uncovered until he’d left office.
Reagan also presided over the dramatic deregulation of the nation’s savings and loan industry allowing S&Ls to end their reliance on home mortgages and engage in an orgy of commercial real estate speculation. The result was widespread corruption, mismanagement and the collapse of hundreds of thrift institutions that ultimately led to a taxpayer bailout that cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
The 1980s saw pervasive racial discrimination by banks, real estate agents and landlords, unmonitored by the Reagan administration. Community groups uncovered blatant redlining by banks using federal Home Mortgage Disclosure Act information. But Reagan’s HUD and justice departments failed to prosecute or sanction banks that violated the Community Reinvestment Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in lending. During that time, of the 40,000 applications from banks requesting permission to expand their operations, Reagan’s bank regulators denied only eight of them on grounds of violating CRA regulations.
By the end of Reagan’s term in office federal assistance to local governments was cut 60 percent.
Reagan eliminated general revenue sharing to cities, slashed funding for public service jobs and job training, almost dismantled federally funded legal services for the poor, cut the anti-poverty Community Development Block Grant program and reduced funds for public transit. The only “urban” program that survived the cuts was federal aid for highways – which primarily benefited suburbs, not cities.
These cutbacks had a disastrous effect on cities with high levels of poverty and limited property tax bases, many of which depended on federal aid. In 1980 federal dollars accounted for 22 percent of big city budgets. By the end of Reagan’s second term, federal aid was only 6 percent.
The consequences were devastating to urban schools and libraries, municipal hospitals and clinics, and sanitation, police and fire departments – many of which had to shut their doors.
Reagan is lauded as “the great communicator,” but he sometimes used his rhetorical skills to stigmatize the poor. During his stump speeches while dutifully promising to roll back welfare, Reagan often told the story of a so-called “welfare queen” in Chicago who drove a Cadillac and had ripped off $150,000 from the government using 80 aliases, 30 addresses, a dozen social security cards and four fictional dead husbands. Journalists searched for this “welfare cheat” in the hopes of interviewing her and discovered that she didn’t exist.
The imagery of “welfare cheats” that persists to this day helped lay the groundwork for the 1996 welfare reform law, pushed by Republicans and signed by President Clinton.
The most dramatic cut in domestic spending during the Reagan years was for low-income housing subsidies. Reagan appointed a housing task force dominated by politically connected developers, landlords and bankers. In 1982 the task force released a report that called for “free and deregulated” markets as an alternative to government assistance – advice Reagan followed. In his first year in office Reagan halved the budget for public housing and Section 8 to about $17.5 billion. And for the next few years he sought to eliminate federal housing assistance to the poor altogether.
In the 1980s the proportion of the eligible poor who received federal housing subsidies declined. In 1970 there were 300,000 more low-cost rental units (6.5 million) than low-income renter households (6.2 million). By 1985 the number of low-cost units had fallen to 5.6 million, and the number of low-income renter households had grown to 8.9 million, a disparity of 3.3 million units.
Another of Reagan’s enduring legacies is the steep increase in the number of homeless people, which by the late 1980s had swollen to 600,000 on any given night – and 1.2 million over the course of a year. Many were Vietnam veterans, children and laid-off workers.
In early 1984 on Good Morning America, Reagan defended himself against charges of callousness toward the poor in a classic blaming-the-victim statement saying that “people who are sleeping on the grates…the homeless…are homeless, you might say, by choice.”
Tenant groups, community development corporations and community organizations fought to limit the damage done by Reagan’s cutbacks. Funding for low-income housing, legal services, job training and other programs have never been restored to pre-Reagan levels, and the widening disparities between the rich and the rest persist.
President Donald J. Trump, who often claims Reagan’s mantle, recently proposed cutting one-third of the Section 8 housing vouchers – a lifeline against homelessness for two million poor families.
We’ve already named a major airport, schools and streets after Ronald Reagan, and since his death some people have suggested other ways to celebrate his memory. Perhaps a more fitting tribute to his legacy would be for each American city to name a park bench – where at least one homeless person sleeps every night – in honor of our 40th president. READ MORE-
Copyright 2004
Peter Dreier is the E.P. Clapp Distinguished Professor of Politics and director of the Urban and Environmental Policy program at Occidental College in Los Angeles. He has co-authored two books, Place Matters: Metropolitics for the 21st Century and The Next LA: The Struggle for a Livable City, which will be published later this year.

Saturday, November 26, 2016

The Super Rich are bringing back Slavery

The Super Rich are bringing back Slavery
By Christopher R Rice

The site of my eldest son's first school has a plaque that marks it as the final stop of the "Underground railroad".
HUMAN BEINGS seeking LIFE outside the horror of psychopathic will for profit were delivered after HARROWING experiences to Canada.
I am astounded and humbled by this statement of Harriet Tubman's. It is so current and so valid today.

DEBT slavery to banks has made so many people live lives of 'quiet desperation' that no one realizes their slavery and NOW when the top .01% have made their final play to institutionalize SLAVERY again- people do not care to know.

Related article: Trump plan would mean middle class tax increase

No one knows or cares the Donald Trumps, the Clintons, the Bush's ENSLAVED our children to corporations- aka- the top .01% Who already sent kids of nations to war to die for their profit. Who already awarded themselves NOBEL PRIZES for LIES like Trickle down economics and beatified REAGAN and THATCHER for being their henchmen in the guise of SAVIOURS.
Trump cements slavery- eliminating environmental rights, labour rights (meaning HUMAN RIGHTS) and making themselves the 'court of appeals". MONARCHY with no MAGNA CARTA.
We are THROWING AWAY Harriet's life's work-

While the US keeps Bradley Manning and thousands of US citizens in solitary confinement, the equivalent of torture according to the UN and every human rights group in the world. Whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and thousands of unknown others remain on the lamb with a price on their heads. And from their own government. So I, Christopher R Rice wrote A new underground railroad for the coming fascism / emerging police state.
Welcome to the Underground


Fidel RIP

Fidel RIP
By Christopher R Rice

The Guardian: The CIA conspired with a Chicago gangster described as "the chieftain of the Cosa Nostra and the successor to Al Capone" in a bungled 1960 attempt to assassinate Fidel Castro, the leader of Cuba's communist revolution, according to classified documents published by the agency.

The disclosure is contained in a 702-page CIA dossier known as the "Family Jewels" compiled at the behest of then agency director James Schlesinger in 1973.

According to a memo written at the time, the purpose of the dossier was to identify all current and past CIA activities that "conflict with the provisions of the National Security Act of 1947" - and were, in other words, illegal.

The dossier covers operations including domestic surveillance, kidnapping, infiltration of anti-war movements, and the bugging of leading journalists.

The documents released yesterday describe how a CIA officer, Richard Bissell, approached the CIA's Office of Security to establish whether it had "assets that may assist in a sensitive mission requiring gangster-type action. The mission target was Fidel Castro".

The dossier continues: "Because of its extreme sensitivity, only a small group was made privy to the project. The DCI (Director of Central Intelligence Allen Welsh Dulles) was briefed and gave his approval."

The CIA is careful to cover its tracks. According to the dossier, Maheu told Roselli that he (Maheu) has been retained by international businesses suffering "heavy financial losses in Cuba as a result of Castro's action. They were convinced that Castro's removal was the answer to their problem and were willing to pay the price of $150,000 (£75,000) for its successful accomplishment".

Roselli was also told that the US government was not, and must not become aware of the operation.

Roselli in turn led the CIA to a friend, known as Sam Gold. In September 1960, Maheu was introduced to Gold and his associate, known as Joe. In a development that appears to underscore the amateurishness of the whole operation, Maheu subsequently accidentally spotted photographs of "Sam and Joe" in Parade magazine.

Gold was in fact Momo Salvatore Giancana, "the chieftain of Cosa Nostra (the mafia) and the successor to Al Capone". Joe was actually Santos Trafficante, Cosa Nostra boss of Cuban operations.

At a meeting at the Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami Beach, Gold/Giancana suggested that rather than try to shoot or blow up Mr Castro, "some type of potent pill that could be placed in Castro's food or drink would be much more effective".

He said a corrupt Cuban official, named as Juan Orta, who was in debt to the syndicate and had access to the Cuban leader, would carry out the poisoning. The CIA subsequently obtained and supplied "six pills of high lethal content" to Orta but after several weeks of abortive attempts, Orta demanded "out" of the operation.

The documents are available at: Who Killed JFK?  The evidence points to a right-wing faction of the CIA with some help from its friends.  In CIA lingo, friends are referred to as "assets."  CIA assets, including media assets, were employed to help cover-up the crime.  This CIA faction was angry at JFK for his refusal to commit to a full-scale invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, and for his efforts to seek an accommodation with the Soviet Union and Fidel Castro.  High-level CIA officers are implicated.  They include:  Richard Helms, James Angleton, David Phillips, E. Howard Hunt, Theodore Shackley, William Harvey, David Morales, Edward Lansdale, and George Joannides.  Type any of these CIA officer's names into any Internet search engine, along with the words "JFK assassination,".

Following Truman and drawing on his own experience as Allied commander for Europe during World War II, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower proceeded to wage the Cold War from the White House with the National Security Council as his staff and the CIA as his secret army. Among the 170 CIA covert operations in 48 countries that Eisenhower authorized, two must rank as major debacles, inflicting especially lasting damage on America’s global standing.

In 1953, after Iran’s populist Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq challenged Britain’s imperial monopoly over his country’s oil industry, Eisenhower authorized a covert regime change operation to be engineered by the CIA and British intelligence. Though the Agency came perilously close to failure, it did finally succeed in installing the young, untested Shah in power and then helped him consolidate his autocratic rule by training a secret police, the notorious Savak, in torture and surveillance. While Washingtonians toasted the delicious brilliance of this secret-agent-style derring-do, Iranians seethed until 1979 when demonstrators ousted the Shah and students stormed the U.S. embassy, producing a 35-year breach in relations that weakened Washington’s position in the Middle East.

During his last months in office in 1960, President Eisenhower also infamously authorized a CIA invasion of Cuba, confident that 1,000 ragtag Cuban exiles backed by U.S. airpower could somehow overthrow Fidel Castro’s entrenched revolutionary regime. Inheriting this operation and sensing disaster, President John F. Kennedy forced the CIA to scale back its plans without stopping the Agency from proceeding. So it dumped those exiles on a remote beach 50 impassable miles of trackless, tangled swamp from their planned mountain refuge and sat back as Castro’s air force bombed them into surrender.

"Military and intelligence officers did not take kindly to Kennedy's attempts to restrain this powerful conglomeration.  Kennedy angered these men by refusing to use U.S. military power to salvage the Bay of Pigs Invasion.  Then he added fuel to the fire by rejecting recommendations by the joint chiefs to bomb the missile emplacements in Cuba and to refrain from signing a nuclear test ban treaty with the Russians....  Some generals -- including Dallas mayor Earle Cabell's brother, Gen. Charles P. Cabel -- even went so far as to brand Kennedy a 'traitor.'  Cabell, after being fired by Kennedy as deputy director of the CIA, resumed responsibilities in the Pentagon."
--Jim Marrs, Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy

Bobby Kennedy came up talking to John Kennedy and saying, "You know, if you go too far in negotiations with Kruschev and with the Communists, you're going to get assassinated.  People in this country don't want the President of the United States to make deals with the Communists."
--Pierre Salinger (JFK's press secretary), video interview

CIA Director Allen Dulles, was fired by President Kennedy after the ill-fated 1961 CIA-backed invasion of Cuba. Lyndon Johnson appointed Dulles to the presidential commission that rubber-stamped Hoover’s fishy finding that President Kennedy was slain by a lone Communist nut with a cheap rifle and the assassin of the presidential assassin was just another wacko acting on his own.
 READ MORE: How the CIA Overthrew the United States of America

ISIS is a creation of Israel's MOSSAD

By John Moody, FOXNews Coping with this week’s violent attacks by ISIS sympathizers, a popular Shi’ite preacher in California who cla...