The Legal and Organized Political Power

The components of national power of the state, qualitative and quantitative factors of economic, political, social and military power are needed to interpret the same state as a dynamic social relationship, which necessarily interacts with all facets of social behavior.

The combination of these optical multidisciplinary appreciate the history and present of nations, as part of social and institutional contents of the country, under the deposit of state powers in the government figure, defines the policies to follow. This statement is of particular importance as it cannot be separated from the external to internal power, and in many ways, the way state acts have to do with the image it has of himself, that reaching out and that others have of it.

Schematically, the assertion that the national and international power means "... The power or ability of the subjects of international society to impose its own will on others, based on the preparation of its population, as well as the quantity, quality and use of resources at their disposal, in determining the degree of organization and development they have attained in all spheres: political, economic, legal, social, cultural, scientific, technical, military, etc.. as well as the objectives of its foreign policy, and supported by the ability of its armed forces and the complexity of their arms. Therefore, power is a complex global power that determines the specific weight of each actors of contemporary international society.

The ability and willingness to exercise ( power) reflects the degree of cohesion and direction in national policy and have given concrete expression in the international arena. In this perspective is the conceptualization of Raymond Aron, external action is not only diplomacy, in the narrowest sense of the term... but also influences or pressures, voluntary or otherwise, brought by the country on other countries, both because of what it is, and because of what he does, and both its multinational companies as their diplomats.

National Power reflects possibilities and limitations in it. National Power flows from state power, the exercise of delegated to the nation state, which has the power to establish and implement the political-legal process. Thus, the State, such as monopolizing the use of force, avoiding anarchic violence between individuals and gives the government the means to enforce the institutional comprehensiveness of the National Power is the result of the agglutination of all means available to the nation: political, economic, social (psychosocial) and military. National Power serves the domestic and foreign policy externally is surety instrument of sovereignty, aimed to conquer and preserve national objectives relating to international relations.

These are called the sovereign independence of states, the absence of a higher power, the detachment from all external brake, which attaches to relations between states his peculiar sense of anarchy. There are three powerful imperatives: the prestige, fear and interest, as it is natural that the weak law is dominated by the strong. Power has formed an indissoluble part of the study of relations between states and ways in which power became the main catalyst for the evolution in the forms of political organization.

Without explaining the power it cannot be explained the historical evolution of the social community clustered in the political, from the primitive commune to the supranational schemes today. Hence the use of power in relations between states was analyzed also as a synonym of "power politics", generally from the perspective of "realpolitik". The power in international relations is the ability of a nation to use its tangible and intangible resources, so that they can affect the behavior of other nations.

According to a more specialized, the politics of power are a system of international relations in which groups regard themselves, as the ultimate goals, employ at least vital purposes, the most effective means at their disposal and are measured according to their weight in case of conflict.

Power politics generally are interpreted from the perspective of interstate and as sources of power have their own internal conditions of which becomes its capacity. Hence, National Power, Foreign Policy and Political Power as communicating vessels are the sources of power and capacity.

Thus we can summarize these power politics as a means to achieve the purposes of the nation, and also view internal policies (or domestic), and in foreign policy, because in all these are seeking for power.

The effectiveness of power and significance of their policies is measuring and valuing power, played by objective basis for defining and quantifying multidisciplinary sectors, e.g. - In the effective and efficient use of national power. While power is a relative term, the capabilities are not.

Often it is stated that the power of a nation is simply the sum total of their abilities but always entails power capabilities, is also related to other dimensions. It is important that, while the skills can be delimited objectively, the power must be assessed in every case in terms of psychological and subtle relationship.

In the same vein, Kissinger said that "most of history has shown a synthesis of military, political and economic, which has generally proven to be symmetrical. The sheer will is not enough to the satisfaction of interests; you need the ability to do so. In this summarizes the genesis of power: to prioritize the satisfaction of the interests that man needs to use available means and resources and ensure that they can impose their will, so you can secure control over the obstructions to the achievement of their interests reflecting the possibilities and limitations of National Power.

So does the ability by the end of this century and millennium, a financial institution charged with the uncompromising defense of the principles of neoliberal and monetarism emerged from the Chicago school in the eighties, the World Bank, the state role revalues and emphasizes the full use of state capacities, under the sign of efficiency.

An effective state is essential to have the goods and services - and the rules and institutions-that allow markets to flourish and people to lead healthier and happier life. Experience taught us that the state is central to the process of economic and social development, but not as a direct provider of growth but as a partner, catalyst and initiator of this process. The world is changing and with it also changes our ideas about the role of government in economic and social development.

http://sites.google.com/site/cliptheschoolbeginning/
http://sites.google.com/site/arturvictoriasite/

Rape As a Political Weapon

Politically motivated sexual violence directed against women is an issue that is seldom the subject of widespread media coverage yet it profoundly affects millions of women in communities worldwide. Organized rape is a tactic used to denigrate and repress political prisoners and victims of war and it is often under reported due to the stigma attached to being a victim of this crime in many parts of the world. Rather than existing as a side effect of war, in countries such as Darfur, Pakistan, Peru, Serbia and Rwanda mass rape has been systematically used as a tool for ethnic cleansing, to spread HIV, extract information and to terrorize rival tribes, movements and dissidents.

In the Rwandan genocide of 1994 is it calculated that approximately half a million women were raped by the Hutu militia in an effort to ethnically cleanse the Tutsi minority. It is estimated that seventy percent of the survivors are living with HIV/AIDS today and this legacy has had a devastating effect on the populace. In Serbia rape camps were used as a methodical instrument of ethnic cleansing to demoralise and disperse the Muslim and Croat population, the Karadzic leadership used a sports complex in the town of Foca to systematically rape women from these communities for two months in 1992. In Sierra Leone the United Nations reports the widespread institutional abduction of girls and women by militias for rape and sexual slavery. In rural India sexual violence has been used to suppress poor communities who defy the elite to demand land rights and higher wages, it has also been used by the police to silence activists who uncover corruption. In Tibet, China has orchestrated unsanctioned mass sterilization and organized rape against Tibetan women, imprisoned female political activists and nuns are repeatedly sexually assaulted as a tactic to break the spirit of the dissident community. In Iran there is a 30 year documented history of sexual violence used as a torture method to humiliate prisoners and victims often remain silent due to the cultural stigma attached to speaking about such incidents. In some cases both children and women are reported to have been raped in front of their husbands, relatives and communities as a barbaric strategy to quash resistance and break down society to achieve military aims.

The true scope of the problem can only be estimated as rape is often used as a precursor to murder in many cases. For the most part sexual assault goes unpunished due to the attitude of indifference towards many forms of violence against women and the implicit acceptance of rape as an unavoidable consequence of war. Victims are often afraid of reprisals if they pursue prosecution and in many parts of the world legislation omits rape in times of war as a prosecutable offence. Unfortunately some peace pacts provide amnesty for the perpetrators and in many cultures a woman who has been raped is considered "unmarriageable" or may be rejected from her community if she is known to be a victim. As a result these crimes frequently go unreported and accurate figures of how pervasive the problem is are often difficult to obtain.

Only now are some countries taking steps to ensure women's rights are protected in conflict zones. Two weeks ago the Philippine government enacted legislation which calls for specialized training to be provided to military, police and civilians to protect women during armed conflicts and post-conflict reconstruction. The new legislation promotes the participation of women in the peacekeeping and conflict resolution process and also calls for a monitoring and reporting system to ensure that violations of women's rights are evaluated and dealt with accordingly.

Recently the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) declared that rape is a form of genocide, The commission stated that "sexual assault formed an integral part of the process of destroying the Tutsi ethnic group and that the rape systematic and had been perpetrated against Tutsi women only, manifesting the specific intent required for those acts to constitute genocide" The tribunal set a precedent in designating rape as a war crime rather than a "trophy of war," to date it has completed 21 trials and convicted 29 accused persons whilst another 11 trials are in currently in progress.

As the issue becomes more accurately documented there is hope that awareness will breed action in the international community. Activists are terming this form of violence against women "sexual terrorism" and the United Nations Secretary General praised the ICTR's recognition of this issue, stating "in a number of contemporary conflicts, sexual violence has taken on particularly brutal dimensions, sometimes as a means of pursuing military, political, social and economic objectives." Hopefully more initiatives will be taken to help evaluate vulnerable communities and take steps to prevent sexual violence against women in conflict zones in the future.

by Naomi Pattirane

About the Author

Naomi Pattirane is an Indonesian American human rights journalist and activist. She is the founder and editor of the online magazine World Women International and an author of slipstream fiction. Her work has been featured on the United Nations site Stop Rape Now to promote action against sexual violence in conflict zones

http://www.worldwomeninternational.com

Support the United Nations campaign against sexual violence in conflict http://www.stoprapenow.org/

The Drawbacks of Canceling Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986

For military personnel who had served the United States with utmost dedication and service, it would be very difficult for them to recognize the issues that are more serious to the "national security" than how the men and women of the U.S. armed forces will benefit from military retirement.

In the U.S., military retirement plans are one of the best gratifications these people should have by the time they have reached their retirement age. Considering the services and dedication that the military personnel have offered, military retirement is the best reward to compensate their performances.

Today, under the Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986 (REDUX), military people are enjoying a 50% compensation based on their "basic salary" while they were still on service. This is after they have opted to retire upon accumulating 20 years of military service. This is applicable to any military personnel who have joined the service on or before July 31, 1986.

Consequently, based on REDUX rules, anyone who was able to join the military after July 31, 1986 is expected to receive 40% of his basic compensation upon completion of a 20-year service in the military.

However, with the perilous weaknesses of the government, the compensations that military retirement plans are expected to provide becomes a threat instead of a reward.

On its current state, the Federal government is presently considering the cancellation of REDUX. As a result, military retirement benefits will be fixed on a 50% compensation upon completion of 20-year service for all the personnel.

Sounds good? Think again.

While military retirement benefits may increase upon the cancellation of REDUX, many people still say that it is not advisable that the government should take drastic changes on important matters like the proposed REDUX cancellation.

Statistical reports show that abolishment of REDUX will charge the government a whopping $6 billion for the following 6 years and approximately $1.5 billion a year after that.

This may not sound like a disadvantage at all considering the fact that the military personnel are the ones who will benefit from such action.

However, what the opposition would like to say is that making significant changes in the military retirement plan is critical based on the following reasons:

1. Effect not clearly determined

The effects on maintenance of the military funds brought about by such major changes in the military retirement are hard to uncover in a snap. In fact, many people claim that the objectives of canceling REDUX were not even clearly put into details.

2. Changes like this are rare

Political and military analysts say that changes in the system like that of the military retirement plans are "politically" hard to establish. In essence, changes like the proposed REDUX cancellation are very uncommon.

For this reason, one can simply understand that people, especially those in the military, can still do away with what they have now. That means they can still survive for years without having to change the military retirement plans.

All of these things are boiled down to the fact that in a matter of serious change in an ongoing political system like the military retirement, important considerations must be made and taken into account before even thinking of drafting the proposal.

All sides of the coin must be well considered, both pensively and on purpose. Changes to be made in military retirement should not be dealt with as of the moment but more on the long-term effect.

The complexity of choices and issues concerning military retirement should not propose a threat on the personal growth of every individual who have served in the military.

Keep in mind that retirement is something that every worker should enjoy after his or her retirement age. The war is over. Why prolong the agony of the military people?

retirementdotcom.com is a free information site that offers articles and resources on Retirement Planning. If you want to read or share information on Finance:Personal-Finance [http://www.retirementdotcom.com/2006/05/31/military-retirement-reform/], you're always welcome!

What Is The Best Suitable Form Of Government For Nigeria From Year 2007

What can prevent this country from political unrest that we are going to witness in the year 2007?

What type of government can give this country of political stability? What can save this country from bloodshed election 2007? Nigeria politicians are prepared for war, which is verified to the fact that "two rams want to drink from a pot" at a time.

The North are saying that they are born to rule, and the South says that what is good for the goose, is also good for the gander". That they also can rule this country. Then what can we do to prevent this country from war, because the South was rumored to have imported sophisticated weapons.

There are three major types of government and one can prevent this country from war, they are unitary system of government, Federal system of government, and confederal system of government. As of now Nigeria is practicing Federal system of government in which the president is the executive head of the country and head of state, Furthermore, federal system of government could be defined as one in which all government power that exist in the country is shared between the Central government and the component regions. The north and south are fighting to this presidential office thus federal system of government may lead this country to internal war, if care is not taking.

The military brought unity to Nigeria country by using unitary system of government, The word Unitary is define as one in which all governmental powers are concentrated in the hands of a single authority or central government, this single authority does not share governmental powers, with any other body, but delegate power to other subordinate bodies, this type of government is usually used by military system of government.

Both Federal and Military system of government is not suitable for Nigeria as of what we are experiencing now, if that should be the case the third form of government should be taking into consideration, Therefore the best suitable form of government that can give this country a political stability and that can ensure faster development is CONFEDERAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT which can be defined as a one in which there is loose political arrangement in which autonomous, on sovereign, or republic state comes together to form a union in which almost the major functions are reserved exclusively for the component regions with a weak centre. The central government gets its moral and financial and human support from the components regions.

The United State of America as practice this form of government between year 1783 to 1789.

Confederal System is not common in these day, but it exist when geo political zone is fitting for a political office, Confederal system of government is the best system of government that Nigeria can adopt from the year 2007, perhaps let every each region go back to his/her state and specialized on their exclusive power list. The features of confederal system of government are that she has a weak centre, flexible constitution and right to secede which means each component regions can withdraw from their membership.

In federal system of government independency of the Judiciary is one of the feature of the Federal System of Government but Nigeria denied it, as a result it cost us nothing to deny right to secede.

If the Centre is weak there will not be a region that would be fighting for presidential office again because it will just be like a councillorship office which will not bring along violence or political crises.

Written and rigid constitution is one of the features of Nigeria Federal system of government which has been violated and said do be unwritten and flexible constitution, which means Nigeria has indirectly adopted a confederal system of government. For example Nigeria written and rigid constitution does not go along with the impeachment of Governor Ladoja of Oyo State because the Constitution states that before a political office holder can be impeached two third majority of the house must support this procedure, Ladoja was impeached despite the fact that they were not up to the required No, hence is it true that we are practising Federal System of Government?

Moreover, Nigeria adopt federalism because of the following reasons:-

- Tribal differences

- Fear of domination

- Fear of Inter ethnic rivalry

- An even development for security reason

- Desire for Union

but all this aim is nullified by Nigeria politicians since all this aims is render nullified why can't we adopt a confederal system of government that will favour each and everyone of us.

Furthermore, Nigeria adopt Federal system of government so as to create more employment opportunities, 60 percent of Nigerian graduates are unemployed due to political unstability. Nigeria citizen in and DIASPORA are looking for Job as a result Nigeria is witnessing NEOCOLONIALISM. Nigeria citizen are afraid of coming back home because lack of security and we still insist in practicing federal system of government.

In my own view as a political thinker, Confederal System of Government is the best form of Government that can ensure Unity, Security, Rapid and faster development, Employment opportunity and political stability for the citizen of Nigeria.

Eventually, Nigeria politician, Masses, Pressure groups let us try and adopt confederal system of government in order to enjoy all the benefits listed above.

The Politics Behind the Candidates in Iran

As you know, prior to election in Iran, I wrote in our blog that I did not believe that anything good will come as a result of the current election. Looking at the Guardian Council's decision of selecting Ahmadinejad for president, I would have preferred a one candidate election. Why put all these old revolutionaries who have profited from the Islamic regime on the stand to run for president, when at the end of the day the average Iranian has no say in the election?

Unfortunately, absolute power corrupts absolutely under any regime. This is evident in today's Iran more than ever. As the election debates took shape the week before the election, the profiteering of Muslim ex-revolutionaries became obvious. In the debates Mr. Ahmadenijad accused the reformers of systematic theft and looting of nations wealth by reform candidates and its supporters. I was surprised that why a sitting president that had this information for 4 years while being in office did nothing about it until election night. Why Aytolah Khamenai would give these men the right to run for election if they or the immediate family had done some of these looting. For the average Iranian it has been obvious for years that Rafsanjani and Karubi had enriched themselves with public wealth. Still for many this was an awakening to see beyond the mask of religion and billions that these folks have taken from the Iranian nation's wealth. It is clear that ideologies are served for the masses while mass looting of country's wealth has taken place over the past 30 years under these old guards.

For folks that are not familiar with the Iranian factions, let's be clear that all these old men do not represent anything new. The two main characters in this battle are not Mousavi and Ahmadenajad, but Rafsanjani and Khomeini who are old guards of the revolution. Since they are old, they are no longer fighting for power for themselves. They are guarding the nepotistic ideals so that the sons and daughters of these revolutionaries can benefit from continued control over the government and its resources and maintain the nepotistic lines of governance.

Iran's hope for theological democracy under Islam was put to rest under the previous leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khatami, the president of Iran prior to Ahmadinejad. Unfortunately because of the divisions within the reform movement at the time the reform movement was put to rest at the voter level. After the first four-year term of president Khatami, the same revolutionary guards insured that the reform in Iran politics does not happen. How did this happen? They simply banned sitting member of the parliament from running in subsequent terms. They became disenfranchised. These parliamentary elected officials no longer met the needs of the Islamic Republic ruling dictators Rafsanjani and Khomeini. They got forced out of politics.

In his second term, president Khatami used his executive power to open news papers and magazines, and soon hundreds of news papers flourished in Iran. With the selection of Ahmadinejad as president, these magazines and voices again became disenfranchised and were quickly shut down. Many reformers got barred from journalism. As I have stated in my book, the supreme leader and the clergy system in Iran controls who is allowed to run based on a selection of old revolutionaries and mullahs out of Qom. This is effectively a one party system.

As I was watching the election, I thought what must have been shocking to the viewers from the West was the absence of a forum for a challenger to regroup and be able to mobilize its base. Mr. Mousavi and his supporters could only go to the streets to voice their opposition towards the election in illegal rallies. No political party in the parliament was visible to voice a challenge, or unite and plan for the next election. By the design the government has placed an executive judicial and parliamentary system that is full of yes men, and that follows the orders of the regime. No other voice can be heard in Iran, and even if it could, it would be dealt with brute force.

This video shows how the current leaders 20 years ago supported each other and to the opposition of senior clergy at the time sidelined Aytollah Montazeri. Grand Aytollah Montazeri in Iran during the Iran-Iraq war was always expected in the 80's to replace Aytollah Khamanei. Montazeri spent 5 years in jail himself. He was sidelined because he did not believe in Islamic republic that did not represent democratic ideals of the masses. He also protested against the wave of execution that the Islamic republic committed against the voice of opposition views in Iran.

Now as the same Guardian Council and mullahs have reclaimed power at the expense of the current generation of youth in Iran, the question is- Where does Iran reform movement go from this point?

The options are clear. First, the nepotistic revolutionary leaders will not give up the wealth that their families have made. They will not surrender the thrown or loose respect for the crimes of looting that their daddies did in the country. They will continue to fight each other as the losing party may end up hung or expelled from the country. The last real leader Iran had after the death of Ayatollah Khomeini was Grand Ayatollah Montazeri. In the 80s when I attended the Friday prayers with my parents and I remember the laud orchestrated chants that Ayatollah Montazeri was the hope of Iran. He had lost three kids as martyrs to establishing the regime and was the Ayatollah Khomeini's exiled partner. He was quickly sidelined by Rafsanjani and Khamenei at the time, and after the death of Ayatollah Khomeini, he was no longer a figure in the Iranian government and was put under house arrest and silenced. Even though he was a great revolutionary responsible for carrying the torch since he believed in open government with each Iranian having a voice, he was sidelined for the strict conservatives to rule.

This was fine for the neoconservatives in the White House at the time since they wanted a fundamental religious government in Iran. Remember that it was during the Reagan years that the Iran-Contra scandal broke out and the CIA funded sales of guns to Iran by importing cocaine into the U.S. The Reagan's neoconservatives even negotiated with the Islamic regime to keep the hostages for 444 days so that it would kill President Carter's chance of reelection and they got conveniently released when Reagan took office.

The fact is that the neoconservatives and the religious conservative government in Iran are not after ideologies. They use ideologies for the masses only to mold the public opinion. As the end goal is power, no amount of power is sufficient for these folks. They are happy to change ideologies and viewpoints in order to reach the end goal. For the conservatives in the white house at the time the end goal is dominance over nation wealth.

Before the election the neoconservatives hoped that Iran would select Ahmadenijad. Why? Because it would create the next war for them to be engaged in and control a population rich in culture and resources to create more military bases and to have the next war to fund the military industrial complex that relies on its base of support. The neoconservatives like senator McCain do not have the interests of the people of Iran in mind. They are encouraging actions that would help Ahmadenijad. They are OK with the concept of Iranians killing Iranians indefinitely, just like they have been OK with funding both sides of the Iran-Iraq war. Additionally, it gives a reason to the hawks in Israel to buy more guns with the U.S. tax payer's dollars and use them in Iran. That will draw the U.S. into a fight with Iran and send my fellow Iranians back to the dark ages, very similar to what happened in Iraq. Remember that in Iraq, after the first war, the same neoconservatives told the Shiite majority that they would support the uprising and at the end they sat by the sidelines while Iraq military crushed the Shiite majority in the south in the most brutal way possible. Besides the next war and a permanent military base in Iran they have no other agenda. With that base established, they can run heroin out of the golden triangle all the way to Afghanistan, Iran and Kurdistan to fund the next dictator for another war. Therefore the cycle of violence between nations continues and they all profit from it.

Iranian government has used this to its full advantage to clamp down on its own people. You see for the Iranian revolutionaries it is better if the Israel does attack the nuclear development infrastructure. The conservative government can again consolidate power by reminding of the great evils outside of Iran's borders. By having Israil attack they can continue to use the military to suppress all opposition.

Civil disobedience is the path to Iran's future:

In Iran the concept of civil disobedience to this regime must take hold. You cannot bring a change in government with setting buildings on fire or throwing rocks. At the end, this level of violence only hurts the Iranians. In this regard I refer to the Iranians in the Basij, the revolutionary guard and the student protesters who are all mostly under 30 years of age. These young men and women represent the next generation of great Iranian minds that will be lost in such protests. The sons of the elite that rule with an ironed fist will not be impacted as they have taken the wealth of the nation to offshore bank accounts. We will only lose the poor, the middle class and other valuable Iranians to street protest.

The leaders who can possibly lead the country out of this mess such as Khatami or Mousavi are sidelined and it erodes the base of support for them if this violence continues. Continuation of violence is not what these leaders are asking for. What course of action should the average Iranian take?

The one course is the logical path for the resistance to any oppressor and that is nonviolent civil disobedience and resistance. For this we should only look at how the French are able to shut down the government by taking on peaceful strikes. Recently the union of Iranian bus drivers went on strike. This form of disobedience is the best form of resistance against tyranny. If doctors, city employees, nurses, lawyers called national strikes it would bring the ruling regime to its knees. National strikes combined with the shouts of Allah Akbar on rooftops will force this government to change without the need for another stone being thrown or innocent protester being shot in a violent act. This form of unrest is the course for all Iranians.

The demand for these protests needs to be clear: to establish political parties in Iran, open access to media, and stop filtering of election candidates by the religious theocracy. Non of this can happen without having fair elections held in the country. If the Iranian Majles (parliament) members that are still have some allegiance to the reform movement need to make the above issues and the fair elections its daily priority. See the latest video from the Iranian parliament.

In regards to the U.S. politics towards the region, I hope that President Obama continues with the current stand offish approach, as any sign of threat by the West will only be used to again consolidate power by the Islamic regime, commit mass genocide by purging the anti revolutionaries, and create the next wave of exile of war refugees in Iran. Of course this is the course that Israel would love to see since they would then be able to receive the green light to attack Iran. See the videos attached on the site link bellow.

As I watched the Shell and Chevron clean energy commercials in between broadcasts of CNN and Fox on Iran, I wondered how the media will portray things in Iran over the next few months. I have been going through the latest videos on YouTube each night looking for new materials that I could post on our site. To my amazement hundreds of new videos appear each night on YouTube. When I look at these gruesome images, my heart melts and I am deeply saddened to see them. The fact is that many new posts are not new but recycled from previous days and cut over with music and revolutionary slogans in order to increase the passion of the youth of Iran to continue the street fights and protests. The LA Iranians that left as part of the old regime all want to portray the current government as more violent than the Shah so they can put Mr. Pahlavi to rule once again and repaint him as a less violent king than the religious conservatives.

The U.S. news coverage has been amazing in regards to this election with no coverage of Haiti or the Moroccan election that took place. They keep recirculation of Iran videos as new footage. Is this because the oil companies are now buying more advertisements on these media outlets since they would be the first to benefit from the next war? Are the advertisement sales department and the editor's desk in cahoots to serve content that they can get large corporate sponsors for? I am sure that is the case. This is similar to the case of the war generals and analysts working for the media who remained on the U.S. government payroll. The media did not only look the other way but acted to pass the war propaganda to the masses on behalf of the government. Are they now getting extra advertisement dollars from the oil companies when they keep running the same footage of carnage again and again on TV? Or is it because of the heavy hand of the AIPAC Zionists and the religious conservatives with the help of the U.S. tax payers' money that is funding these continues reruns of the violence in Iran. So I would expect that over the next few months as the public opinion is shaped by these broadcasters on how evil Iran is they hope to force President Obama to change course and give Israel permission to attack Iran.

In the above scenario, the Ahmadinejads are victorious since they can once again claim power and say -- I told you so, this reform movement is from the expatriates and Israel so let's all rally around the flag, country and god and defend the nation. Finally, millions of Iranian lives will be lost defending the country but to the benefit of the neoconservatives and the nepotistic kings and princes of the region.

While Iranians die to drum beats of another war, the military industrial complex benefits from selling guns, and the oil companies from looting the Iranian wealth. The sons of these current leaders will than take residence in friendly countries with the wealth that they looted from Iran.

A site dedicated to social justice from around the globe. With the single focus of helping to build similarities from different races and cultures. By helping to highlight the plight of humanity by our collective shared experience of dealing with poverty, war, racism and social injustice. Iranian-American author Vahid Razavi and his dedicated team from Belgrade Serbia covering global issues from Iran, Middle East, US and the Balkans.
http://theageofnepotism.com/2009/07/the-politics-behind-the-candidates-in-iran/#more-786

E-mail Comment Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Furl

Military Intelligence: A True Oxymoron if not a Dangerous Blend

For some reason, the average American citizen is awed by the presence of high government officials, especially those reputed by executive department sources and the media to have been privy to state secrets as spies or intelligence agents. They are said to have such honest eyes and believable faces. I suppose that modern movies, which portray exaggerated and propagandized renditions of fictional federal intelligence operations and the heroic paramilitary agents who go about saving the world from disaster, are responsible in large part for the public's favorable impression of professional spies. Porter Goss is one of those individuals about whom a curriculum vitae has been officially written and circulated by highly talented government propagandists who have recently regaled the impressionable U.S hoi polloi with stories about Goss's forty-year service with the federal government. Little, however, is actually known about the real Porter Goss, and other people like him, who have done the clandestine bidding of the Central Intelligence Agency, the federal spy corps with the annual three billion dollar budget.

All we actually know about Goss is that he graduated from Yale in 1960, joined the U.S. Army, and was later recruited into the CIA in 1962. After that point, Mr. Goss became a shadowy professional prevaricator, in the ambiguous name of national security, and assumed a trail of pseudonyms and aliases which accompanied him on his exploits in espionage throughout the world. What Mr. Goss officially did as a CIA operative has been classified regardless of whether or not the particular operation was, or was not, sanctioned by Congress. If the covert operations were properly sanctioned by the House and Senate oversight committees, they, in most cases, were correctly classified as top-secret. If the operations weren't sanctioned, and were illegal rogue activities (which in many cases they was), they was conveniently classified in order to obfuscate the devastating truth.

One of the more curious aspects of Porter Goss' federal career was his continued under-cover employment with the CIA clandestine services during the time he was supposedly a newspaper publisher and a Florida congressman. Official sources say Goss retired from the CIA in 1970 due to health matters, but other much more reliable sources report that he didn't actually retire, but assumed cover as an ex-CIA member when he began publishing a Florida newspaper, The Island Reporter, with two other former agents.

In 1974, Goss was formally appointed to the City Council of Sanibel, Florida and was later elected as the city's mayor. Time passed while Goss assumed a prominent Republican Party status in Florida politics while still on the CIA payroll. In 1983, Goss was abruptly appointed by Florida's Governor, Bob Graham, to be on the Lee County Commissioner Board. By 1988, Goss had attained so much political popularity and leverage that he declared himself a candidate for Congress with Republican Party approval, and subsequently won a seat in the House of Representatives while still employed by the CIA. This premeditated failure to disclose his professional association and alignment with the CIA to the Florida electorate was in violation of federal election law. What Goss has done in Congress since 1988 to advance the conservative Republican and CIA-NSA agendas may only be a matter of speculation. Yet, his appointment by Dubya as CIA Director, in 2002, came as no surprise to those who were aware of Goss's continued association with the agency. His immediate confirmation by the U.S. Senate was quite laughable, with those senior committee Senators, who knew about Goss' ongoing association with the CIA, pretending that he actually retired in 1970. The truth about the Goss merger, of the intelligence community with the military and federal politics, is certainly appalling, and begs the question of how many more active spies have been elected to Congress as senators and representatives?

The stark reality about the CIA is frequently difficult to handle, especially by those who elevate its leaders to high positions on the morality pedestal. What we do know as facts about the CIA, after its inception in 1948, comprises a litany of corruption, deceit, and false representations to the American public. Remember that it was the CIA that covertly used American soldiers and marines in Vietnam, in 1968 and later, as guinea pigs in horrible experiments to determine the effects of LSD and other hallucinogenic chemicals on the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese regulars. As many as 200 young soldiers and marines unknowingly suffered permanent neurological damage as a result of the illicit experimentation, of which the Executive Branch has, of course, summarily denied any knowledge.

In 1947, after the Army's Office of Strategic Services was transformed into the CIA, there was a regular secret flow of Nazi scientists and Gestapo agents, genuine war criminals, into the ranks of the military Intelligence corps, which was the vanguard of the newly organized CIA. This utter hypocrisy practiced by the CIA, and the later-organized NSA, under the nose of Congress, was kept away from the American public through a thoroughly refined Executive Branch propaganda ministry. This well-oiled Machiavellian tax-financed government machine was the later means of keeping the facts about the illegal onset of Vietnam away from the American public. It was before, and after, 1962, that the CIA controlled most of the operational strategies used in Southeast Asia by the U.S. military commands.

It was the CIA that grossly misrepresented the general elections in Saigon, in 1964, in showing that American intervention was favored by a majority of the South Vietnamese people. The U.S. news media reflected in print, and on television, the manipulative efforts of the CIA and NSA to deceive the American voters. Lyndon B. Johnson knew, however, that the majority of the South Vietnamese wanted the American military to leave Vietnam, but exhibited unrestrained hubris and continued to escalate the fighting, which resulted in the eventual deaths of over 58,000 American warriors. In 1968, Porter Goss was among the CIA operatives who were ultimately responsible for the implementation of operational military policy in Laos, and Cambodia. In all likelihood, he was one of the prime movers of the political strategies that exacerbated the military confrontation against the North Vietnamese people, which lasted fourteen years and ended in humiliating defeat for the United States.

The diastrophic effect which has resulted from using military personnel to provide intelligence operations for the CIA and NSA, has proven to be almost fascist in nature. Any military service thrives on an austere implementation of an effective dictatorship, where the dogface GI is strictly required, at the threat of death or other severe punishment, to follow orders, whether or not the orders are moral and legal. The U.S. military is governed under such a set of regulations known as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

By enlisting in the U.S. military, a person, in most cases, unknowingly signs away his constitutional rights and becomes military property. Most military commanders will assert that the average enlisted soldier or marine does not have the mental capability of determining whether or not a direct order is lawful and moral. The subordinate warrior is expected to follow orders without asking questions. This factor is what makes the grunt warrior expendable when orders are issued requiring that immoral and illegal acts be committed in the amorphous name of national security. Therefore, by putting the military in charge of intelligence gathering and the implementation of subversive executive orders (which currently have all the force of statutes), the overall result is inevitably aversive to the maintenance of the constitutionally mandated separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. Porter Goss is the perfect example of the many paramilitary GS-14 civilian spies who have routinely put on the uniforms of field grade military officers in order to deceive and manipulate military units into following their orders. A career spy officially impersonating a military officer is, to me, the height of ignominy.

In and of itself, the U.S. Armed Forces has become a self-perpetuating and autonomous system within a republic and under the total command of one executive official, the President. This is basically why the President, Secretary of Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff totally resent constitutionally mandated congressional oversight. This condition has resulted not from the application of law, but, rather, from the indulgent allowances offered by the Congress to the chief executive ever since George Washington issued the first presidential decree without congressional consent. Though strange, unchallenged traditions can eventually be claimed to possess the effect of settled law, even if they clearly violates the letter of the U.S. Constitution. I personally believe that what is clearly unconstitutional cannot be made constitutional by capricious declarations of the U.S. Supreme Court. If this be so, a higher law should appropriately intervene to reverse such a ruling. And such a higher law should only be a vocally dissenting majority of the U.S voting age population, which unites to oppose and abolish such an illegality.

It may be presumed that George W. Bush's recent nomination of Michael Hayden, an Army general and former head of the NSA, to head the CIA as Director of Central Intelligence, is a major step toward a fascist military approach to intelligence gathering and covert unsanctioned operations. It is a matter of record that our sitting president has already, under a banner of national security, secretly ordered the establishment of secret foreign CIA prisons and an extensive program of spying on the American public. In an effort much more technologically sinister than J. Edgar Hoover's covert tape recording of public figures around the world, which the deranged man found sexually arousing, the NSA has spied on and recorded millions of American telephone conversations. Dubya has used clandestine executive orders since early 2001 to authorize the CIA and Department of Defense to engage in highly unscrupulous, if not illegal, activities. Case-in-point, a high-level CIA officer's secret meeting with Osama Bin Laden at a French hospital where Bin Laden was undergoing renal surgery. This meeting was in August 2001, immediately prior to 9/11, while an existing order for Bin Laden's arrest had been in effect since late 2000, signed by President Clinton. This particular CIA officer left Bin Laden resting comfortably after a suspicious two hour dialogue and immediately returned to Washington to report to his superiors at Langley. Why wasn't Bin Laden surveiled at the hospital and subsequently taken into custody? Was the CIA somehow involved in the subsequent 9/11 WTC and Pentagon bombings? These questions were not posed by the 9/11 Commission for investigation. Why do you suppose this was so?

From the dawn of recorded history, the failure of developing governments to heed the lessons taught by the mistakes of previously fallen regimes has invariably resulted in sad replays of calamities perpetrated by deviously conspiring men and women of political and financial means. Most of these mistakes have been derived from the misuse of the military in aggressive foreign policy entanglements. The tragic Iraq War debacle is but a replay of the awful Vietnam saga, and the prevailing illicit machinations of the Bush administration are but a revisiting of the deceitful Nixon and Reagon years multiplied by a thousand. So when will it all stop? When will our supposedly wise and intelligent leaders begin to learn from sad experience? By placing the military in charge of the already semi-fascist U.S. intelligence community, the resulting effect will be like putting the insatiable fox in the henhouse, and will only make existing matters worse. The American republic will be unable to continue withstanding the continued and resisted umbrage against its already wounded standard, the Constitution of the United States. As Thomas Jefferson sagaciously wrote in the Declaration of Independence, "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." His words are as true now as they were then.

Norton R. Nowlin is a published free-lance writer and essayist residing in northern Virginia. Mr Nowlin holds M.A. and B.A. degrees in political science and psychology from the University of Texas at Tyler, completed a successful year of law school at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, in San Diego, California, and holds an ABA-approved advanced paralegal certification from Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, Washington.

Albanian Governances - Beyond Tax Policy

Governments use their taxation systems to get their hands on, and then spend, between 10 percent and 40 percent of national income. That is a lot of money. There is little doubt that taxing is one of the most important things that governments do. Correspondingly, it is widely agreed that it is important that governments should get tax policy right.

When people debate and argue about tax policy, they mostly address some aspect of four big questions:

- How much money should government gather as tax? It should be enough to meet public spending needs and contribute to fiscal stability, but not so much as to encourage the government itself to be wasteful or to appropriate money that could be better used in private hands.

- How should the tax burden be distributed among actual taxpayers? This issue may be argued either in terms of fairness in burden sharing, or in terms of the potential instrumental advantages of using tax policy to help achieve other public policy goals, for example, encouraging businesses to locate in poorer regions or to invest in particular sectors, or actively redistributing income or wealth from one group of citizens to another.

- How can the potential adverse economic costs of taxation be contained or minimized? Taxpayers tend to be alert to the costs that they directly incur, whether these take the less damaging form of complex and costly paperwork and record-keeping obligations, or the more malign form of harassment: arbitrariness on the part of tax collectors and the need to pay bribes. If collectively well organized, taxpayers or their legislators may inquire into the efficiency of the tax administration itself.

- How much of the money that it raises is absorbed in the collection process? Economists also routinely focus our attention on the indirect costs of revenue raising that taxing any activity almost inevitably discourages it. If, for example, a government chooses the easy option of raising most of its income by taxing chrome exports, it may be biasing the whole economy, in an inefficient way, against producing chrome for export. It is probably more efficient simply to spread the tax burden broadly. These tax policy questions are very important.

These questions will continue to dominate debate about taxation in most countries and to absorb the attentions of tax policy specialists. However, they are not the only important tax policy issues. In particular, there is a growing debate focused on poorer countries and on governments enjoying large incomes from grants and borrow funds or from oil, and mineral exports that addresses a different and in some ways more foundational set of questions: not ''What is good tax policy?'' but ''How does the taxation relationship between state and citizens itself contribute to the quality of governance?''

Taxation and Governance?

Governments need to command the services of a large number of people and acquire substantial monetary and material resources. Historically, governments have depended on two main kinds of material resources, extracted from the societies over which they rule: conscript manpower, mainly for military purposes, and financial resources to pay the salaries of civilian and military personnel and to meet the other capital and recurrent costs of warfare and government.

The most convincing evidence on the connections between tax dependence and governance is now emerging from comparisons between local governments within the same country. They depend substantially but with significant inter local variations on fiscal transfers from central government and, in a few cases, local revenues from the specific region industry. The local governments most dependent on broad taxation of their citizens had historically been more democratic. When provincial governments were most generously supplied with financial transfers from central government or specific region industry revenues, local political leaders had been better able to buy off or suppress competition from democratic oppositions.

I have compared some economic statistics of big local governments in Albania, a country in which central and local revenue raising is often coercive. I term ''coercive taxation 'an assessment and collection conducted in ways that are likely to be validly perceived by taxpayers as arbitrary, extractive, unfair, or brutal. Why? There is a formal answer: Taxpayers have few rights. But why do they have few rights? I don't have a complete answer, but I can see some reasons why public authorities in Albania are motivated to tax coercively.

The structure and organization of economy and businesses are the main reason that matters. It is difficult actually (a) to collect taxes from middle-income services-agrarian businesses like economy of Albania is organized in small and medium size enterprises that lack formal, bureaucratic structure and operate without extensive use of banking systems and written or electronic records of economic transactions, and (b) to collect without resorting to arbitrariness and coercion. In this model of economy, tax collecting tends to be coercive and conflictual. The dearth of records of economic transactions and the limited use of banking systems encourage face to face interaction between taxpayer and tax assessor or collector and oblige the latter to make discretionary decisions about tax liabilities that cannot easily be independently validated. The inspector who tells you what you owe also gets his hands on the money. These logistical factors endow tax collectors with considerable discretionary power, facilitate corruption and perhaps extortion, increase the leakage of tax revenues into private hands, generate resentment and tax resistance on the part of taxpayers, establish taxation as the issue of choice for political rebels, and make it practically and politically difficult for governments to appropriate a high proportion of national income through taxation, especially direct taxation.

How Much Do Citizens Pay in Taxes?

The potential causal interactions between the state and taxpayers are many and relatively complex, especially because government face choices between taxing broadly and thus engaging with citizens, and exploiting unearned revenues, which requires to be engaged with a narrow range of other actors and monitors or a small number of large companies, public or private, in the oil, construction, telecommunication and minerals sector. The question of how heavily government tax citizens is distinct and conceptually less complex. How the level of revenue demand might impact the political actions of taxpayers? We know that the political implications are not straightforward. Increases in the tax take are unlikely to occur in isolation. They will generally result also in increases in public expenditure, which might in turn intensify the processes through which the politics around public expenditure ''confuses'' the politics around revenue raising. However, there are good, logical reasons, to believe that the more of their income the citizens pay in tax, the more they are likely to be politically engaged in and demanding of the government. Marked increases in the level of tax burdens has mobilized taxpayers, as well as recent statistical evidence indicating that increases in revenue demands precede by only a few years shifts toward more democratic tax resistance. In sum, there is compelling evidence that the dependence of state on unearned income is likely to have adverse effects on the quality of governance and that the overall level of taxes does help mobilize citizens politically.

Who and what is taxed and how are taxes assessed and collected?

Government is more accountable and responsive to their citizens when dependent on them for revenue. Does that also imply that governments are only accountable and responsive to taxpayers that is, those citizens who pay taxes? Is the policy implication that we should find ways of ensuring the poor are taxed to prevent government being accountable and responsive only to the non poor, at the expense of the poor?

The answer to the last question is no. There are two reasons:

The first is cautionary: We simply do not know enough about the effects of taxation on political behavior to justify this kind of experimental social. The second is that there is good reason to believe that the entire polity and all social groups normally will benefit from greater state responsiveness and accountability to taxpayers. Why? Especially, in Albania with relatively fragile public institutions, politics is rarely the kind of rational public finance game that economists love to model, in which one particular definable group for example, small entrepreneurs will be calculating in detail the benefits of, say, exchanging reduced simplified profit tax for a stronger legal commitment to employees' rights. The more that politics is like that, the more we should be concerned about the problem of accountability only to taxpayers. However, in some of the regions with which we are concerned the poorest, and those dependent on aid and mineral resource wealth the pressure for government to be accountable or responsive to taxpayers is likely to have more positive effects at a more basic level of the polity by encouraging the creation of the kinds of stable institutions and predictable political behaviors that are often in deficit. Poor people will normally benefit and rarely lose out when ruled by government that, because they are dependent on general taxes, face incentives to coax rather than simply extract revenues from citizens, and therefore confront restraints on their power, are motivated to protect human and property rights, and understand that they and citizens share a common interest in economic growth.

What is needed then?

Take a look at the logistical advantages enjoyed by tax collection agencies in wealthier economies. Four factors facilitate their task and help to explain the historical shifts from levying taxes on specific items (oil, tobacco, beverages, landed property, houses) to levying them according to accounting categories (especially income, value added, and profits rather than simply asset values):

- Extensive written and electronic records of economic transactions help collectors to hunt down their quarry accurately and to create effective checks against misappropriation within the tax bureaucracy itself.

- The relative insulation of most economic transactions and incomes from seasonality or the weather makes it feasible to collect most taxes in regular installments over the course of a year.

- The widespread use of banking and other indirect systems of money transfer reduces the need for tax collectors to meet personally with most taxpayers.

- The prevalence of bureaucratically organized economic enterprises provides opportunities to place the collection process on the impersonal and quasi-automatic basis that underpins most contemporary company taxation and employees' pay-as-you-earn systems.

When local populations have the greatest potential economic mobility, and therefore the widest scope to flee from coercive local and national taxation, local and central government spend higher proportions of their revenues on providing services for their citizens and less on themselves. In different ways, studies provide evidence for the balance of power hypothesis: When governments face the strongest pressures to finance themselves by coaxing rather than extracting revenues from their citizens, they are more likely to rule democratically or to spend money providing services to citizens.

It's pity, but true the fact that in Albania there are no great intellectual or organizational wars that need to be fought and won before government is in a position to change tax policies in ways that will improve governance: abolish some taxes, replace them with more modern and effective alternatives that can be levied less coercively, use widely known techniques to make the taxpaying experience less coercive, and find national revenue sources to replace the former coercive techniques in the long term. Let's hope to see soon the change needed to go ahead.

Gaining an Online Education in Government

Completing a degree program in government prepares students to take on a large number of jobs. Careers can be forged in the public sector, education, politics, and much more. The wide breadth of schooling opportunities can be pursued through online education.

Online education is offered in numerous areas. Students can study government in degree programs such as homeland security, international affairs and public service. Perhaps the most taken path in entering a career in government is gaining a degree in political science. Online education teaches students to understand the development of government so they can explore how to integrate new and improved concepts into the system. Obtaining a degree online allows students to enter various fields of work that can include:

Foreign Affairs
Military Services
Journalism
Legislation
Law

Online education in government allows students to apply their knowledge to these areas because of the knowledge gained. For example, students that pursue a bachelor's degree in political science learn the basics of today's political systems. Online courses establish the understanding of the economic, social, and cultural influences that shape society and influence politics. Bachelors degree programs allow students to step into government positions as market researchers, campaign workers, and political research assistants. Further study is recommended because students can enter a specialty that will focus on online courses in public administration, international relations, and law. These fields of study are further explored in online courses on constitutional law and government philosophy.

Masters degree programs expand student's comprehension of political and government structures. Online schools teach students about government by breaking down specific concepts and covering them in depth according to their specialization. Energy policies, military operations, foreign policies, American politics, and comparative politics are some government areas that students can expect to study online. Students that specialize in comparative politics learn about the different global structures of government. Students interested in working in diplomatic communication can step into a concentration where schooling focuses on international relations. Students learn how to integrate new concepts regarding international relations through the understanding of administration and political theory. Further education is for students that want to work in academic careers.

A PhD is a terminal degree and provides students with a thorough understanding of government and politics. Specific online course subjects explore political economy, public policy implementation, and administrative analysis. Upper-level jobs as policy analysts, academic researchers, and professors can be entered upon graduation.

Through the complete educational understanding of the origin, development, and contemporary use of government systems students have the knowledge to work in multiple areas. The study of government can be pursued through various accredited educational degree programs. Agencies like the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration ( http://www.naspaa.org/ ) can fully accredit quality programs that provide students with the best education possible. Online government studies provide students with the required knowledge to meet their career goals. Students can find the right program by examining what accredited training opportunities are available in their field of interest.

DISCLAIMER: Above is a GENERIC OUTLINE and may or may not depict precise methods, courses and/or focuses related to ANY ONE specific school(s) that may or may not be advertised at PETAP.org.

Copyright 2010 - All rights reserved by PETAP.org.

Renata McGee is a staff writer for PETAP.org. Locate Online Government Schools and Colleges as well as Campus Based Government Schools and Colleges at PETAP.org, your Partners in Education and Tuition Assistance Programs.

Politics - Bread and Circuses

There's an old saying: "If you want to know what's really going on, follow the money trail."

If you do not understand money, banking and finance, you cannot really understand politics. For the motivation of politics and politicians is ultimately the accumulation of money and resources. Money and resources = power.

Many people object to this statement. One of my clients said, "I grew up in the 60's during the civil rights movement. That was a purely political and altruistic agenda that had nothing to do with money."

In the 1960's however, the United States was unquestionably the world's greatest economic power. Our currency was strong. When you are abundant and strong, you feel magnanimous. In 2007, our economy is weak, our debt is high and our currency is declining. The current corrupt and mean-spirited political environment is a reflection of our country's declining economic status.

The OMB predicts that by the year 2012, the national debt of the United States will be 11.466 trillion dollars. This figure does NOT account for unfunded liabilities like Social Security.

The total amount of dollar denominated debt (including unregistered derivatives securities) worldwide has been estimated at 1.2 quadrillion dollars. That's right folks. 1.2 quadrillion. The dollar has been hyper-inflated on a planetary scale.

How has this happened? To understand that, you have to understand how money is created and manipulated. A great place to start is to read the book called "The Creature From Jekyll Island.

The money we use is monetized debt. It has no value whatsoever. Today, money is not backed by anything tangible, other than the "full faith and credit of the United States." What does that mean? It means the future work, sweat and productivity of the American people.

It is a startling fact that if all dollar denominated loans and debts were paid off, all of our money would disappear. Therefore, even if Congress wanted to pay off the national debt, it could not do so without destroying the economy!

Look at the top of any bill of any denomination, and you will find "Federal Reserve Note." Do you know what a note is? It is a promise to pay, a certificate of debt. The money we use are just a fancy IOU's. Unfortunately, the Fed, in cooperation with Congress, has played fast and loose with our currency. When you discover how money is created, you will understand the truth of this statement: "Money DOES grow on trees." Those who control the creation of money control the economy, and the lives of everyone in the nation. Economic cycles of boom and bust are not natural economic occurrences, but artificially created conditions due to the manipulation of the money supply.

Did you know that legal tender laws FORCE Americans to use Federal Reserve Notes? Look on the left hand side of the bill: "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." It is illegal in the United States to use gold or silver as money. If you refuse to accept Federal Reserve Notes in exchange for your valuable goods and services, you can be thrown in jail. The power of the State is used to enforce legal tender laws.

The debasing of our currency (and thus our economy) is the most important crisis facing our country, and the world, because the dollar is the linchpin of international finance. [1] The growth of the unregistered derivatives market has hyper-inflated the dollar to the point where the international financial and banking system is in turmoil. At the present moment, and behind the theater of politics, the world is confronted with an international banking and currency crisis which is being completely ignored by the mass media in the United States (so what else is new?)

Called "Wantagate" by those in the know, it is a story of fraudulent financial manipulation that involves the highest banking and political officials in the United States, and the world.

How can such a gigantic crisis go unreported?

Because the focus is on politics!

Pick up a copy of the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the L.A. Times. Listen to the news. Listen to NPR. The news is, almost exclusively, political. What economic news is reported is mostly mundane stuff like the Dow Jones industrial average.

Politics and political intrigue obscures the fundamental economic and financial realities underlying the actions politicians take. In other words, the bread and circuses of politics takes your attention away from the money trail. Following the money trail will ALWAYS explain the actions of politicians.

For example, why did we go to war in Iraq?

The government says that we did it to establish democracy, or remove WMD's, or destroy Al Queda, blah, blah, blah. Former secretary of State Jim Baker said facetiously that we invaded Iraq because of "oil, oil, oil." Well that, at least, is partially true. According to Christopher Story, noted U.K. intelligence analyst, one of the fundamental reasons for invading Iraq was the takeover of the Rafidain Bank, Saddam Hussein's private bank. The Rafidain Bank had trillions of dollars worth of assets and billions in gold bullion. That money properly belongs to the people of the United States via the U.S. Treasury, as the spoils of war. According to Story, Saddam's money was stolen by criminal operatives within the U.S. intelligence community -- with full knowledge of officials at the highest levels of government, including the President, the Vice President, the Treasury secretary and the Homeland Insecurity chief -- and parked in offshore bank accounts. This money is "off the books," because the people who stole it cannot identify source of funds. In any legitimate banking transaction, official codes are issued which identify the financial institutions on both ends of the transaction, and where the money came from. This is not possible with stolen money. For the rest of the story, see the link below in the Resource Box.

We are spending 10 billion dollars every day to fund the war in Iraq. The war has so far, as of this writing, cost almost 500 billion dollars and President Bush has just submitted a request to Congress for 200 billion more. Moreover, the war in Iraq is being privatized, which means that private contractors are making billions from this war. Meanwhile, our brave men and women in the military fight and die -- for what? [2]

Governments throughout history have printed money and debased the currency to fund their conflicts. When the currency becomes devalued, it loses its purchasing power, and prices rise. This is the genesis of inflation. Inflation is not rising prices, it is the debasing of the currency.

The only legitimate way for governments to get money is through taxation. But politicians do not like to raise taxes because the voters will throw them out of office. However, the political scientists in Congress and the monetary scientists at the Fed have devised a brilliant scheme to spend more and more money and keep themselves in power: simply print and create more and more of it. The process by which this occurs is complex and obfuscated, but the bottom line is that the population is taxed by inflation when the money supply increases too rapidly. Each dollar buys less and less, you see. Inflation is a hidden tax -- a cowardly trick imposed by politicians (and bankers) who hide behind the power of the state to enforce legal tender laws.[3]

Moreover, when money is created from nothing, the size and power of government grows larger and larger, sapping the economy. Money that would have been used to start businesses and employ people is wasted by government cronyism. Regardless of who is in power -- capitalists, socialists, liberals, conservatives, Democrats or Republicans -- political parties always use the power of the state to enforce their decrees. Thus, government grows and the political structure of a nation becomes more and hierarchical, fertile soil for the growth of tyranny.

Political parties and groups exist first and foremost to advance an economic agenda. Study the bills Congress passes. Almost all of them have language benefiting special interests -- tax breaks, government contracts, etc.

Political parties did not exist in 1789. Many of the founders of the United States were against the establishment of political parties. George Washington, in his farewell address in 1796, said,

"They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests."

Although the motivation of the founders of the United States was rooted in the ideals of freedom, economic issues -- such as taxation -- played a very important role. Moreover, the creation of a central bank was one of the fundamental issues that divided the founders. Whether or not a political party begins it's life with a set of high ideals, once it becomes established, it 's main motivation is to stay in power. Then it always becomes a vehicle to protect the vested interest.

So people, do not become distracted by the bread and circuses of political theater, for that is what politics is.

Look underneath the superficialities of the news and always ask yourself these questions:

1) Who stands to gain financially by a declared government policy?

2) Where is the money trail?

In this way you may uncover the true motivations behind the actions of the actors on our political stage.

You can then begin to identify people who are open and honest, and vote for them. The crooks, of course, stand out like sore thumbs.

_________________________________

Footnotes:

[1] In an interview for the German magazine Stern, Allan Greenspan, former Fed chief, says that the Euro is rapidly replacing the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Greenspan said that the dollar is still slightly ahead in its use as a reserve currency, but added that "it doesn't have all that much of an advantage" anymore. And why is that, do you think?

[2] According to the FRONTLINE documentary "Private Warriors," private military contractors comprise the second largest "force" in Iraq. There are as many as 100,000 civilian contractors and approximately 20,000 private security forces currently in Iraq, and the number is growing.

[3] Here's an historical example (there are many): The Continental Congress, beginning in 1775, simply printed money to fund the colonial rebellion. The Continental, which was worth 1 dollar in gold in 1775, was by 1779 trading for less than a penny. A loaf of bread cost $5,000! In a letter to Samuel Cooper in 1779, Benjamin Franklin wrote, "This Currency, as we manage it, is a wonderful machine. It performs its Office when we issue it, it pays and clothes Troops and provides Victuals and Ammunition, and when we are obliged to issue a Quantity excessive, it pays itself off by Depreciation."

Kenneth James Michael MacLean has written 8 books, dozens of articles, and produced two movies.
Read more free articles, see free movies, and get the Spiritual Wisdom newsletter at The Big Picture
To check out "The Creature from Jekyll Island" Click Here
For a story on Wantagate, Click Here.

Why is Airbus Bidding on a US Military Air Tanker Contract

The World really is getting much closer together in regards to trade. But some ask why is an Airbus being retrofitted for the military to use? Why not an American company? Why is Airbus a European Union Company going to bid on Making a United States Military Air Tanker?

Well there are lots of reasons for this, one reason is that the DOD and the Senators are trying to teach Boeing a lesson for playing games with the “leases” on a bid for the flying gas stations in the past in an aerial re-fueling aircraft scandal. John McCain took it on as a personal political issue. Since Boeing has little competition in this matter, they are allowing Airbus.

Of course there are other reasons for instance we want access to their markets as well. Many nations in the EU need to replace their old fighter aircraft in case of a future conflict of political will being settled by war with a new Super Power like China. Our Industrial Military Complex would like to them jets, planes, tanks, missile defense systems and Smart Munitions. Also we would like some levers to prevent the EU from selling modernized weapons to potentially future rogue nations, which may not be politically stable in the future period, ushering yet another era of war.

Also the politics of Boeing being black balled world wide because that company although it is broken into sectors; military, satellite, commercial aviation, submarines, etc. is said to be subsidized by our military and government; just as we point to Airbus Commercial Airlines being subsidized by EU nations. It is a big issue in the EU over competition and state sponsored business.

Also this affects US Companies like Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Monsanto, Drug companies over there in European markets. There is a lot of cross multi-national conglomeration pull in international politics. Look at ChevronTexeco, ExxonMobile, BP in the oil sector or Roche and our pharmaceutical companies. You have to remember who is really running the world and how it all has to gel together to work. It is a giant chess board and it all has to work. You see?

Even the contract for the Future Presidential Helicopters will have Westwind, a UK based company rotor blades on the Marine One in the future? Same type of thing and you must also realize Halliburton is building UK Aircraft Carriers? We need to kind of keep our doors open so we can all find our niche and allow them to bid on our contracts to keep our companies honest and get the best price for the taxpayer.

Plato would have liked this. For instance if every corporation does what it is best at and alleviated from what they suck at, then the universal community is best served you see? Read the Republic by Plato or go pick up the cliffs notes and read this if you have some more time;

[http://worldthinktank.net/wttbbs/index.php?s=7f4036c0bf6bc904ff71536468d447d1&showtopic=150]

Here is the deal, in the future we will need to act more like a global market and if we want to compete, then we will not be able to block out European Union allies from bidding on our lucrative Military Contracts. At first glance this may all look like some sort of conspiracy, but in the end it will be the best for all concerned, free markets usually are. Think on this.

"Lance Winslow" - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/. Lance is an online writer in retirement.

Avian Flu Fright: Politically Timed for Global "Latrogenocide"

Dr. Len Horowitz's Avian Flu Fright Commentary

To: All grassroots activists, health and vaccination networkers.

Please forward this urgent e-mail, to help save lives, to everyone in your network.

Avian Flu Fright: Politically Timed for Global "Iatrogenocide"

A Public Health Warning and Political Essay by a Harvard-trained Author of Fifteen Books Including the American bestseller, Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola-Nature, Accident or Intentional?

Leonard G. Horowitz, DMD, MA, MPH

Abstract

If avian flu becomes more than a threatened pandemic, it will have done so by political and economic design. This thesis is supported by current massive media misrepresentations, profiteering on risky and valueless vaccines, gross neglect of data evidencing earlier similar man-made plaques including SARS, West Nile Virus, AIDS and more; continuance of genetic studies breeding more mutant flu viruses likely to outbreak, inside trading scandals involving pandemic savvy White House and drug industry officials, curious immunity of these pharmaceutical entities over the past century to law enforcement and mainstream media scrutiny, and published official depopulation objectives. With the revelations and assertions advanced herein, the public is forewarned against this physician assisted mass murder best termed "iatrogenocide."* This genocidal imposition is expected to serve mainly economic and political depopulation objectives.

Background

In April, 2003, a social experiment called SARS, said to have arrived from Asia, heavily struck Toronto. I was there throughout most of this Asian flu-foreshadowing fright. This bizarre new pneumonia-like illness was named Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. It was said to be the latest threat in an ongoing series of attacks on humanity by mysteriously mutating "supergerms."

A careful study of the scientific and medical-sociological correlates and antecedents of this "outbreak" revealed something amiss far more insidious than SARS. I critically considered Toronto's media reaction as any Harvard-trained public health expert in media persuasion behavioral science might. The scourge had all the earmarks of a novel social experiment conducted by white-collar bioterrorist.

It seemed clear to me that this unprecedented population manipulation effectively indoctrinated the mass mind in support of a grossly ineffective, albeit legislated, public health response in advance of the arrival of "the Big One." Throughout the "SARS Scam,"(1) repeated references were made to biological agents that might facilitate decimation of approximately a third to half of the world's population. Having extensively reviewed political population control literature and contemporary objectives of leading global industrialists, I noted these predictions were in close keeping with current official population reduction objectives.(2)

Canada's response to SARS in 2003 was, for the first time in history, directed by the United Nations and World Health Organization (WHO). Having reviewed the intimate financial and administrative ties between these organizations, the Rockefeller family, Carnegie Foundation, and the world's leading drug makers, "the fox," in essence, reigned over Canada's "chickens."

The truth about plagues includes the fact that "no grand pandemic ever evolved divorced from major socio-political upheaval." SARS advanced a political agenda more than a public health emergency. If public health officials earnestly intended to prevent these new emerging diseases, or successfully treat them at their roots, I repeated, they would study their obvious origins from the merged military-medical-biotechnology arena. A basic course in medical sociology simply justifies this utilitarian counsel.

"Experts" had been predicting the arrival of a super-plague for decades. What was HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS about the mysterious and terrifying arrival of SARS, however, was its timing. It synchronously arrived with the global war on terrorism, and the Anglo-American war with Iraq. It seemed a convenient distraction from the fact that the earlier Bush administration had shipped Saddam Hussein most of his deadly biological weapons arsenal including anthrax and West Nile Virus. SARS was pathognomonic (i.e., symptomatic and characteristic) of what I had predicted and explained in the book, Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism and Toxic Warfare (Tetrahedron Publishing Group, 2001; http://www.healthyworlddistributing.com/), a prophetically-titled text that predated the 9-11 attacks on America by several months, and provided a contextual analysis of certain globalists' links to recent "outbreaks."

In essence, I provided insight into the broad application of a new form of institutionalized "bioterrorism" consistent with state sponsored biological warfare. Saddam Hussein was said to have exposed populations in his and adjacent lands with biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. SARS and the current avian flu fright is sanctioned by military-medical-pharmaceutical-petrochemical industrialists likewise operating above the law in many documented instances. Having testified before the U.S. Congress, I personally experienced how premiere pharmaceutical industrialists direct our political-economic representatives in government. Emerging diseases complement the political "War on Terrorism," and our bioterror-influenced culture. This agenda serves two primary objectives: profitability and population-reduction.

Political Reality Versus Mass-Mediated Myths

The ever increasing madness around us is eerily consistent with globalist think tank recommendations for the current "conflicts short of war." Beginning in the late 1960s, "economic substitutes for standard militarization" were sought and found by leading global industrialists. New biological threats, the "war on terrorism," and increasing numbers of "natural disasters" including space-based threats and superstorms were considered economically and politically expedient compared with the first and second world wars. These "conflicts short of war" were decidedly more manageable and economically viable. For this reason, especially their profitability, they were leading options among Anglo-American policy makers.

Nelson Rockefeller's protégé, Henry Kissinger, for instance, as National Security Advisor (NSA) under Richard Nixon, oversaw foreign policy while considering Third World population reduction "necessities" for the U.S., Britain, Germany, and other allies. This Bush nominee to direct the 9-11 conspiracy investigation, a reputed war criminal, then selected the option to have the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) develop biological weapons, according to the U.S. Congressional Record of 1975. Among these new man-made biological weapons were germs far deadlier than the avian flu.

For example, by 1968, when Kissinger requested and received updated intelligence on useful "synthetic biological agents" for germ warfare and population control, mutant recombinant flu viruses had just been engineered by Special Virus Cancer Program researchers O'Conner, Stewart, Kinard, Rauscher and others.(3) During this program, influenza and parainfluenza viruses were recombined with quick acting leukemia viruses (acute lymphocytic leukemia) to deliver weapons that potentially spread cancer, like the flu, by sneezing. These researchers also amassed avian cancer

(sarcoma) viruses and inoculated them into humans and monkeys to determine their carcinogenicity. In related efforts, Raucher et al. used radiation to enhance avian virus's cancer-causing potential. These incredible scientific realities have been officially censored and generally neglected by the media's mainstream.

Similarly, the Institute of Science in Society (IoSS) in London raised the genetic engineering question in the origin of SARS. "Could genetic engineering have contributed inadvertently to creating the SARS virus?" they asked. "This point was not even considered by the expert coronavirologists called in to help handle the crisis, now being feted and woed by pharmaceutical companies eager to develop vaccines." Those living in glass houses should not throw stones. The above emphasis is added to show IoSS they had "not even considered" intentional SARS deployment in their scientific, allegedly unbiased, purview.(4)

Conflicts short of war, like the "War on AIDS," "War on Drugs," "War on Terrorism," "War on Cancer," and now "War on the Avian Flu" require sophisticated propaganda programs employing fear campaigns for social acceptance and popular support of legislated policies. These psychological operations (officially termed PSYOPS) for "command and control warfare"

(technically called C2W), experts advise, best support the emerging "Revolution in Military Affairs" (RMA). The RMA's capabilities include "a form of human slavery" in which the world's captive populations would not know they are enslaved.(2)

The RMA undoubtedly incorporates the use of debilitating biologicals and chemical agents most generously on behalf of drug and vaccine makers. A classic example is the toxic carcinogenic organophosphate pesticides deployed against human populations, said to target "mosquitoes," in the "War Against the West Nile Virus." Such "non-lethal warfare" agents, as these are militarily termed, are indeed deadly, but mortality results slowly from toxic exposures allowing more profits to be made by allied pharmaceutical and medical industrialists. Victims of the "non-lethal" exposures die slowly from chronic debilitating diseases. Expensive hospitals and long-term care facilities are virtual concentration camps. The ailments generated for "iatrogenocide" include the plethora of autoimmune diseases and newer cancers virtually non-existent 50 years ago. This fact, alone, strongly suggests a genocidal socio-economic and political agenda.

Avian Flu for Profit

In response to SARS, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, Michael Fumento, published an economic thesis in Toronto related to the one I advance here. The "Super-bug or Super Scare," he wrote was published in Canada's National Post. Canadians were warned to "quarantine themselves," wear masks, and in some cases stay home. The Ontario Health Minister declared a "health emergency," as the media dubbed the "mysterious killer" a "super-pneumonia." Recoiling from the hype, Fumento asked and answered a few "real questions . . . How lethal, how transmissible, and how treatable is this strain?" The answers, he concluded, "leave no grounds for excitement, much less panic." The same may be said for this new curse of avian flu.(1)

Lethal?

At this writing, the avian flu is said to have killed "about 65 people" in Southeast Asia during the past two years! Little to no data is available on these individuals who most commonly had immune-compromising medical conditions. Further, all deaths were in Asian countries with questionable health services.

Conversely, other forms of flu kill more than 40,000 North Americans annually, generally the immune-compromised elderly.

Transmissibile?

According to USA Today (October 9, 2005), "European health officials are working to contain the [avian flu] virus, which so far has not infected anyone in the region." Although, allegedly "more than 140 million birds have died or been destroyed, . . . and financial losses to the poultry sector have topped $10 billion." This propaganda actually admits, "the current virus, known as H5N1, has not yet mutated to the point at which it can easily spread from person to person." In fact, it is likely to have never spread from person to person other than during laboratory handling!(5)

Treatability?

"The U.S. Senate has already approved a $3.9 billion package to buy vaccines and antiviral medications, and the Administration is also preparing a request for an additional $6 billion to $10 billion," according to a current BusinessWeek report.( 6)

"Beam me up Scottie, there is no intelligent life on this planet." This largely explains why the public puts up with this deadly deception. Even USA Today bemoans, "there is no human vaccine yet." So how come the U.S. Senate is rushing to spend all these billions for an avian flu vaccine?

I suppose we should overlook the fact that the current frightening strain of H5N1 avian flu virus has never readily jumped from human to human, and not commonly from birds to humans either. Thus, an effective vaccine can only be prepared by mutating this virus, thus creating what the world fears most. Let me explain. . . .

To make the human vaccine specific for the H5N1 mutant virus, you must start with the human virus which does not yet exist, except in perhaps military-biomedical-pharmaceutical laboratories. In fact, this is precisely what is being prepared based on news reports. To produce the human pathogen, the avian virus must be cultured for lengthy periods of time in human cell cultures, then injected into monkey and ultimately humans to see if these experimental subjects get the same feared flu. Thus, the flu virus the world currently fears most is either: 1) now being prepared in labs paid by industrialists with massive wealth-building incentives to "accidentally" release the virus; or 2) has already been prepared in such labs to take advantage of this current fright and future sales following the virus's release.

Remember, to be effective against a virus, a vaccine is said to require specificity. If authorities were to now have the main H5N1 avian flu strain feared to spread at some future date there's no assurance by the time they developed the vaccine the strain would remain sufficiently the same for the vaccine to be effective anyway due to expected viral mutations. Viral mutations over time is a function of the agent's newness. New man-made viruses, laboratory creations, like the ones currently being prepared for vaccine trials, are less stable not having evolved over the millennia. Thus, the entire vaccine effort is largely, if not entirely, a sham with ulterior motives.

Remember too, that a vaccine's reliability requires years, or at least months, of testing in the targeted population. Vaccine injury data must, or should, be meticulously collected over this period to assure the vaccine is not killing and maiming more persons than it is helping or saving. Can you seriously believe this assurance will be provided by government or pharmaceutical industry officials in this pandemic's wake? FEMA's failed Katrina response pails by comparison to this public health liability and vaccine-injury certainty.

I say "vaccine-injury certainty" because of the extensive list of newly developed vaccinations, highly touted when brought to market, that caused horrific results. This list includes the first swine flu vaccine, polio vaccines, smallpox vaccine, anthrax vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine, and most recently Lyme disease vaccine that crippled approximately 750,000 people within months of its release and prior to its recall by the FDA.

Most people fail to realize all vaccines carry a list of ingredients that typically increase human disease and death (i.e., morbidity and mortality). These include toxic elements and chemicals such as mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde and formalin (used to preserve corpses), MSG, foreign genetic material, and risky proteins from various species of bacteria, viruses, and animals that have been scientifically associated with triggering autoimmune disorders and certain cancers. A growing body of scientific evidence strongly suggests vaccines are largely responsible for increasing cases of autism and other learning disabilities, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, Lupus, MS, ALS, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, hay fever, allergies, chronic draining ear infections, type 1 autoimmune diabetes, and many, many more pandemics. These chronic ailments are said to require long-term medical care for the patients' management causing toxic side effects resulting in America's leading killer--iatrogenic disease. That is, vaccines and other pharmaceutical industry inventions are literally killing or disabling millions with little effort on the part of government officials and their drug industry cohorts to arrest this scourge.

For all we know, governments are ordering an avian flu vaccine that will precisely deliver this pandemic to the world to affect population control. Absurd thesis? Read on.

[Continued in Part 2 ~ including references]

Last Updated ( Thursday, 24 November 2005 )

Russ Miles is author of the novel, For Sale By Owners:FSBO. A ?Seasoned Real Estate NAR? Broker,? disabled by Multiple Sclerosis, Russ writes books & articles on varied subjects. FOR SALE BY OWNERS:FSBO ISBN 0-595-28703-4,in trade paperback, is available by phone or Internet:1-800-Authors to order direct! Adobe e-book & hard cover editions also available at Amazon.com at Barnes and Noble and other fine booksellers. Comments: MilesRuss@Gmail.com. Please visit Russ Miles's website MilesBooks.com for other informative features, health cocerns, and information of interest.