Tuesday, March 18, 2014

In The News:

Dead Bankers, Common Core, And Destruction Of The Middle Class

Coincidence? No! The implementation of Common Core Standards is part of the educational plan to strip children of their self-determination and to establish a one-world economy. The educational system is not intended to accomplish this act alone. The impending collapse of the financial markets will complete the mission.
According to the Canadian Free Press, changes in banking rules under the Clinton administration created opportunities to consolidate wealth through the destruction of the middle class. Numerous bankers subpoenaed to testify about this criminality are missing or have been found dead under suspicious circumstances. The undermining of wealth held by the middle class began decades ago, and so did the undermining of the American educational system.

When educational experts Benjamin Bloom and B.F. Skinner decimated the educational system in the 1950s, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Education Reform was commissioned. The conclusions were that a foreign government imposing our current educational system on Americans would have committed an act of war and that the failing American educational system destabilizes American prosperity, security, and civility. 
To accept a world economy and a one-world order, students must be taught a belief and value system that induces Americans to surrender their Constitutional Republic, their sovereignty, and their freedoms. Educational theorists acknowledge this fact.

Like those manipulating the banking system to control the wealth of the middle class, educators are manipulating educational standards and curriculum to strip children of their individuality and render them willing to become part of a collectivistic form of government.
John Dewey, educational expert from the 1930s, is credited with explaining that children who think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent." Dewey was co-author of the Humanist Manifesto where he espoused secular belief and value systems that are also reflected in his educational policies.
The Canadian Free Press article explains that a cabal of globalists exists within all sectors of our government bent on "eradicating the middle class" by implementing a "giant Ponzi scheme and we, the American citizens, are the suckers".  Deceased bankers from JP Morgan, the Deutsche Bank, and the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis were representatives of the banking cabal accused of undermining the banking system and of the educational cabal that support Common Core Standards.

Israel’s Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon issued a scathing critique of the Obama administration, an Israeli newspaper reported Monday, declaring that Israel cannot rely on the US to thwart Iran’s nuclear program, accusing the administration of broadcasting weakness throughout the world, and warning that its perceived weakness was inviting further terrorism against US targets.

Speaking at a Tel Aviv University event on Sunday reported by the Haaretz daily, Ya’alon said Israel could not afford to rely on the Obama administration to lead an action against Iran’s nuclear program, and that Israel could only rely on itself. Israel had believed that “the one who should lead the campaign against Iran is the US,” but instead, “the US at a certain stage began negotiating with them, and unfortunately in the Persian bazaar the Iranians were better,” he said. Therefore, “we (Israelis) have to look out for ourselves.”

In his reported remarks Sunday, Ya’alon was adamant that “Iran is fooling the world” about its nuclear program,” but said the West preferred to put off any confrontation — “to next year, or the next term; but it will blow up in the end.” The Iranians had been “on all fours” because of sanctions and diplomatic isolation, but had been allowed to recover, he charged. The interim deal signed in Geneva in November “is very comfortable for the Iranians,” he said, enabling them to establish themselves as a threshold state “and break out to the bomb when they choose to do so.”

The recent round of terrorist attacks from Gaza again begs the question of whether Israel can rely on international (NATO) forces, as was proposed for areas in the West Bank. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s insistence that there not be Israeli security forces in the Jordan Valley is unviable as the proposal falls far short of Israel’s primary responsibility of protecting the nation’s citizens.

The unfortunate truth of the matter is that the odds are extremely slim that a NATO peacekeeping force, or any other international force for that matter, will be able to guarantee Israeli security, and thus allay Israel’s security concerns. For proof, one need only look back at the events of the past few decades.

Consider the history of international peacekeeping missions. Israel experienced firsthand the lack of security provided by international peacekeepers in 1967. Abdel Nasser of Egypt ordered UN peacekeepers out of the Sinai as he began amassing his army on Israel’s border, poised to attack. The peacekeepers left obediently, leaving Israel alone to face the Egyptian army.

UNIFIL, the peacekeeping force in Lebanon, did not prevent any of the rockets Hezbollah fired into Israel, nor Hezbollah’s kidnapping of three Israeli soldiers, both of which led up to the 2006 Israel- Lebanon War. Peacekeepers also retreated from their missions in Somalia and Rwanda, failing to prevent the genocides and mass murders that ensued. The Bosnian civil war paints another dubious picture for international peacekeeping.

As genocide raged, the UN guaranteed the town of Srebrenica as a safe haven for refugees and those seeking protection from the onslaught. In 1995, the 400-strong peacekeeping force stood by as thousands of Bosniaks in Srebrenica were killed.
Israel is kept safe because Hamas, Syria, and Hezbollah all know Israel will not hesitate to send soldiers to the front lines, or conduct raids in light of suspicious activity, nor will it hesitate to fire back when fired upon. Can NATO truly guarantee that if things heat up in Jenin, or on the border of Syrian, it will do all that is necessary to keep Israel secure? Or will it more likely be a hindrance? To make matters worse, if Israel were to leave the West Bank as part of a peace agreement without leaving a military presence, there would almost certainly be an inpouring of terrorist groups. We have already seen Hamas seizing power in Gaza after Israel withdrew in 2005, and we have already seen al-Qaida enter the Sinai, despite the presence of the multinational force stationed there. Israel cannot afford for the same to happen in the West Bank, a few short miles from our major cities.

As the breakup of Syria makes the region a magnet for global jihad terror groups like al-Qaida, Israel risks inviting the same problems through the Kerry- brokered peace agreement it hopes to sign with the Palestinians. The Israeli disengagement from Gaza, the aftermath of the Iraq war, and the Syrian civil war are all instructive models that teach us that terrorist cells will converge on any power vacuum and establish a foothold on any acre of land left unguarded.

Ukraine despatched tanks into the rolling terrain of the Donbas basin on Monday, putting its biggest guns back on the scene of the biggest armoured clash in history.
It was in this bleak but fertile landscape along what is now Ukraine's border with Russia that the Red Army routed Nazi Panzers to turn the course of the Second World War.
But as Ukraine's dilapidated tank units moved to muddy berms in the fields south of Donetsk city as part of face-saving mobilisation, the guns of T-64 and T-72 models were this time pointed towards Russia.
In responding to a reported Russian military build-up, however, Ukraine's military immediately ran into groups of activists who tried to obstruct their movements. In the village of Elenvola on the edge of the great plain, there was anger at the manoeuvres from their own countrymen.

Ukraine’s deputy national security chief and leader of the nationalist group Right Sector threatened to destroy Russia’s gas pipelines in retaliation for the country’s recent actions in Ukraine.
Dmitry Yarosh, who is also running for president in the upcoming May elections in Ukraine, told media that this aggressive action would have to be attempted to stop “World War III” and punish Russia for their intervention into his native country, Forbes reports.
“We cannot allow the enemy to carry out a blitzkrieg attack on Ukrainian territory,” Yarosh said, according to The International Business Times.

“Let the ground burn under the feet of the occupiers! Let them choke on their own blood when they attack our territory! Not one step back! We will not allow Moscow’s beserk, totalitarian regime to spark a Third World War!” Yarosh declared in his interview with Ukrainian media.
This is not the first time that Yarosh has made an incendiary call for violence against Russia. Earlier in March,he called on a notorious Islamic terrorist to carry out attacks against Russia in the wake of worsening tensions between Ukraine and the Russian Federation.

On March 17, commodities adviser Jim Sinclair spoke in an interview with Greg Hunter of USA Watchdog on gold, the markets, and ongoing events taking place between the U.S. and Russia over Ukraine. During the 30 minute interview, Sinclair laid out a chilling scenario where Russia has positioned themselves to be one move away from collapsing the U.S. economy, and that one wrong move by President Obama could set the entire scenario in motion.

Since the U.S. tied the dollar to oil, the future of America's monetary system and economy was reliant upon all global oil producers following the Petro-Dollar agreement, which from 1974 to the present has been backed by our economic and military power. But as Russia rose from the ashes of the former Soviet Union, and grew into becoming the world's largest oil producing nation, the U.S. could no longer enforce the Petro-Dollar through economic and military threats since Russia is their equal when you consider their alliances with China and other BRICs nations.
It is said that stock markets are forward thinking and project what will happen six months into the future. And if you look at what has taken place for the dollar since Ukraine's uprising started and Russia moved into the Crimea, the dollar itself byfalling below 80 on the dollar index, is telling the world that it not only recognizes the potential of becoming irrelevant should Russia bypass the SWIFT system and begin selling oil in any other currency or asset class, but that the U.S. could potentially trigger its own demise by imposing sanctions using the SWIFT system as a weapon, and force Russia to enact their nuclear economic option.

In a global environment where perceptions are reversed, and the United States is now being seen by the world as the 'Evil Empire', Russia is using America's own Petro-Dollar system against them to grow in power and bring the U.S. to the brink ofeconomic collapse. And whether it is Russia or the U.S. itself that pulls the trigger, the future is inevitably rushing towards an end of dollar hegemony. The only question that remains is whether the U.S. has another plan ready to fill the gap, just as they did when they left the gold standard and replaced it with the oil standard forty plus years ago.

While Marc Faber is adamant that "there’s lots of funny things that are happening in China. And when the whole thing unwinds it will be a disaster," it is his comments with regard Ukraine (and Russia) that are worth paying significant new attention to. As The Gloom, Boom & Doom Report editor notes in this brief Bloomberg TV interview, if you put yourself in Putin's shoes "he did the right thing from his perspective," given Crimea's strategic importance. However, as Faber concludes, "Crimea moving to Russia gives essentially a signal to China that one day they can also move and seize some territory that they perceive belongs to them."

Submitted by Ron Paul of The Ron Paul Institute,
The reaction of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to last week’s revelations that the CIA secretly searched Senate Intelligence Committee computers reveals much about what the elites in government think about the rest of us. “Spy on thee, but not on me!”

The hypocrisy of Sen. Feinstein is astounding. She is the biggest backer of the NSA spying on the rest of us, but when the tables are turned and her staff is the target she becomes irate. But there is more to it than that. There is an attitude in Washington that the laws Congress passes do not apply to Members. They can trample our civil liberties, they believe, but it should never affect their own freedom.

Remember that much of this started when politicians rushed to past the PATRIOT Act after 9/11. Those of us who warned that such new powers granted to the state would be used against us someday were criticized as alarmist and worse. The violations happened just as we warned, but when political leaders discovered the breach of our civil liberties they did nothing about it. It was not until whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and others informed us of the abuses that the “debate” over surveillance that President Obama claimed to welcome could even begin to take place! Left to politicians like Dianne Feinstein, Mike Rogers, and President Obama, we would never have that debate because we would not know.

Washington does not care about our privacy. When serious violations are discovered they most often rush to protect the status quo instead of defending the Constitution. Senator Feinstein did just that as the NSA spying revelations began to create pressure on the Intelligence Community. Her NSA reform legislation was nothing but a smokescreen: under the guise of “reform” it would have codified in law the violations already taking place. When that fact became too obvious to deny, the Senate was forced to let the legislation die in the committee.

What is interesting, and buried in the accusations and denials, is that the alleged CIA monitoring was over an expected 6,000 page Senate Intelligence Committee report on the shameful and un-American recent CIA history of torture at the “gulag archipelago” of secret prisons it set up across the world after the attacks of 9/11. We can understand why the CIA might have been afraid of that information getting out.

When CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou exposed the CIA’s role in torturing prisoners he was sent to prison for nearly three years. But Senator Feinstein and her colleagues didn’t lift a finger to support him. So again you have the double standards and hypocrisy.

The essence of this problem has to do with the difficulty in managing the US empire. When the government behaves as an empire rather than as a republic, lying to the rest of us is permissible. They spy on everybody because they don’t trust anybody. The answer is obvious: rein in the CIA; remove its authority to conduct these kinds of covert actions. Rein in government. Lawmakers should not defend Fourth Amendment rights only when their staffs have been violated. They should do it all the time for all of us. The people’s branch of government must stand up for the people. Let’s hope that Sen. Feinstein has had her wake-up call and will now finally start defending the rest of us against a government that increasingly sees us as the enemy.

No comments: