Category Archives: Kleptocracy

Trump – Mobbed-Up, Crony Capitalist Fraud

Posted on by

This comes from an investigative journalist who is a leftist Bernie Sanders fan, but the facts speak for themselves:

For example, how many of our readers knew that Trump was successfully sued by the Attorney General of New York for running an “illegal educational institution”? Students at “Trump University” paid a whopping $35,000 for “Elite” mentorships – but never even saw their mentor. And here’s a juicy little fact that fans of The Godfather and The Sopranos should appreciate: the contracting firm that constructed Trump Tower was owned by a pair of gentlemen who went by the monikers of “Fat Tony” Salerno and “Big Paul” Castellano.

When it comes to charity, Trump doesn’t even donate to his own foundation. Instead, he donates other people’s money – specifically, those who do business with him.

Can you say, “kickbacks”?

It only gets better: Trump was found guilty in federal court of cheating immigrant workers hired to demolish a multi-story building. He paid them less than $5 per hour under the table. He didn’t even furnish them with hard hats.  Oh, and all that talk from Trump about how he’s a “self-made billionaire”? It turns out that he had a bit of help from the taxpayers of New York. The mayor of NYC at the time, Abe Beame, happened to be good buddies with Donny-boy’s Daddy, Fred Trump. That little connection got Donald a tax abatement on a mid-town Manhattan property (right next door to Grand Central Station) in 1976. That was the old Commodore Hotel, which today is the Grand Hyatt New York. As of 2016, that little deal that his daddy made for him will have cost taxpayers $400 million.

So much for being a “self-made” billionaire.

Incidentally, Donald – how do you explain the fact that you paid zero income tax in 1978 and 1979, when you were busy remodeling that fancy Manhattan hotel? In fact, how do you explain not being able to pay your bills back in 1990, despite being a billionaire? And maybe you’d like to clarify to voters how you managed to run not one, but four companies into the ground? You want to run the country like you run business?

Heavens help us if that scenario ever came to pass.

At age 66, David Cay Johnston has not lost his edge when it comes to asking the hard questions. You can read all 21 of them, along with more details, right here. However, don’t expect the mainstream corporate media to be putting them to the Trumpster anytime soon.

Chances are, he’d just side-step them or refuse to answer anyway.

Watch Thom Hartmann address the issue of Trump and the mob, and The Young Turks address how Trump’s money was actually made by his father and Trump has actually invested it poorly.

 

Addition to Original Piece:

Andrew Reinbach, a journalist who published an article in the Huffington Post on this topic in April 2011, sent Ring of Fire an email adding the following information to this piece:

Trump Tower was not built by a company owned by Tony Salerno and Paul Castellano. Trump Tower’s general contractor was, I believe, The Trump Organization, itself. HRH Construction–the firm owned by Salerno and Castellano–supplied the concrete for the poured-concrete building. At the time, that company was the only supplier of concrete in Manhattan.

Salerno also controlled the Demolition Workers Local 95, and Trump had hired a demolition contractor from Herkimer, NY to handle demolition of Bonwit Teller, the old, distinguished department store that occupied part of the Trump Tower site. That’s who supplied illegal Polish immigrants to the project.

There’s no room to store supplies on the reconstruction site of a Manhattan tower, so daily supplies are trucked in from New Jersey on a very tight, orchestrated schedule geared to that day’s operations. Those truckers are of course Teamsters. But in one of America’s strongest union towns, Trump Tower experienced no labor problems, even though non-union labor was used.

So the lingering question has been: How did that happen? The answer is probably Tony Salerno and the lawyer he shared with Donald Trump–Roy Cohn. There is no way a violation of labor peace like this could have gone forward unless someone in a powerful position gave the go-ahead.

Matt Walsh: Trump Fans Are Embarrassing Conservatism

Posted on by

Matt Walsh rises to the top of the class in this outstanding commentary on Trump – the best I’ve read yet.

If only the rest of the conservative-libertarian chumps woke up and smelled the phony:

Illegal Mexicans are bringing crime. Got it. Agreed. But what about, like, everything else that’s going on? Anything on that, Trump? Anything?

Well, to be fair, The Donald has on rare occasion given the public a more in depth look at his views. For instance, he wrote a book back in 2000 where he discourses about the need for assault weapons bans, legal abortion, socialized medicine, and higher taxes.

This is your right wing hero, friends. But you shouldn’t be surprised. This is the man who spent the better part of the previous two decades using his money to keep Democrats in power.

He’s given a considerable amount to Republicans as well, but that doesn’t negate or mitigate the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars this “conservative businessman” gifted to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanual, Chuck Schumer, Charles Rangel, and other liberal darlings. He didn’t just vocally support liberal policies prior to his recent foray into Republican politics; he actively worked to empower the progressive tyrants who would enact those policies.

In fact, a look at Trump’s financial activity reveals that he was an especially active Democrat booster during the 2006 midterms; the election that put Reid and Pelosi in power. Meanwhile, Trump has solidified his conservative credentials by coming out, at various points, in favor of eminent domain, bailouts, and executing government whistle blowers.

So, alright, he’s a draft dodging, twice divorced reality star who supports gun control and abortion and corporate welfare, and who donates to Democrats, gives money hand over fist to the Clinton Foundation, and has worked tirelessly for many years to keep the worst sorts of liberals in office. At least, he was all of these things until about four years ago, when he decided to start scamming conservatives.”

And later in the same piece:

To quote Chesterton:

You will hear everlastingly that the rich man cannot be bribed. The fact is, of course, that the rich man is bribed; he has been bribed already. That is why he is a rich man.

Chesterton wrote that a hundred years ago, and I’m now convinced he composed it after being plagued with a prophetic nightmare about a future scam artist named Donald Trump.

And if Trump can question a man’s wartime heroism, isn’t it fair to point out that he was born rich? Trump came from wealth and managed to stay wealthy with the help of bankruptcy and reality TV. Nice. Congratulations. But if Trump can prefer soldiers who don’t get captured, I think I’m within my rights to prefer arrogant, haughty, dishonest billionaires who didn’t start off as spoiled, private schooled elites.

That’s just me, though. We all have our preferences. And really, I have a distaste for all arrogant, haughty, dishonest billionaires who want to be president, whether they’re self-made or, like Trump, got a head start from daddy.

Yes, Donald Trump says dumb things, but my issue with him goes much deeper than mere words. My issue is that he’s a spurious liberal swindler with little character, no integrity, no credibility, counterfeit ideas, and a feeble grasp on the issues. He does not deserve your support. He has done nothing for it, except spew a million hollow platitudes into a loudspeaker hoping a certain percentage of them resonate with the disaffected right wing masses. If you think that qualifies a man for the presidency, I don’t know what to tell you.

Yes, I know you are sick of typical politicians who lie and cheat and avoid taking a stand when it matters. I get it. I am too. And that’s exactly why you should be sick of Donald Trump.”

Globalists Reward Their Puppet Merkel

Posted on by

Some awards that the Polish-Jewish chancellor of Germany has received from her bosses for her faithful performance in power:

  1. 2006 Vision for Europe award for contributing to greater European integration (given by the Edmond Israel Foundation. The Foundation is named after the director of Clearstream, a Luxembourg financial company that provides post-trade settlement services and had assets under custody worth 12.2 trillion euros in 2014. It is a bank for banks.
  2. 2008 Charlemagne Prize for contributing to European unity (given by the City of Aachen).The first Charlemagne prize was given to Richard Count Coudenhove-Kalergi, the founder of the pan-European movement, a leading light of the NWO.
  3. 2008 B’nai Brith European Award of Merit. B’nai Brith (“Sons of the Covenant” in Hebrew) is one of the premier Jewish interest organizations.
  4. 2010 Leo Baeck Medal for the support of Jewish culture in Germany and the integration of minorities there (awarded by the Leo-Baeck Institute, which specializes in German-speaking Jewish culture).
  5. 2010  Global Leadership Award (AICGS) for strengthening German-American ties (given by the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies at Johns Hopkins University).
  6. 2013 Lord Jacobovits Prize (given by the Conference of European Rabbis) for opposing anti-Semitism and allowing circumcision in Germany, whereas it is forbidden elsewhere in Europe.Her stance was also supported by  Muslims, who practice female circumcision.

 

 

Bret Stephens On Donald Trump

Posted on by

Bret Stephens in a hard-hitting piece in the WSJ on Donald Trump:

For now let’s speak plainly about what the Trump ascendancy says about the potential future of the Republican Party and the conservative movement.

It says that we may soon have a conservative movement in which the American creed of “give us your tired, your poor” could yield to the Trumpian creed that America must not become a “dumping ground” to poor immigrants from Latin America, as if these millions of hardworking and God-fearing people are a specimen of garbage.t says that a movement that is supposed to believe in defending old-fashioned values and traditions against the assorted degradations of the postmodern left might allow itself to be led by a reality-TV star whose meretricious tastes in trophies, architectural and otherwise, mainly remind me of the aesthetics of Bob Guccioni“

and

“The leader isn’t the problem. The people are. It takes the demos to make the demagogue.”

Well, here Mr. Stephens is only saying things I said a while back:

“Rule of the Demos”

Regarding Donald Trump, I made a similar observation about his houses and his wives:

“Obama Birth Certificate A Forgery Says Sheriff Arpaio”

I once exchanged a couple of emails with Stephens, I guess before he took a look at my blog and passed out.

I take some faint consolation in thinking that a bit of my thinking got through to him in some way, perhaps not in the way I hoped for.

In any case, I know he’s a neocon, but not everything neocons say and do is wrong.

On Trump the demagogue, Stephens is correct and it’s a shame to see this impresario, who shilled for the oligarchy at the most crucial time, being passed off as a folk-hero by libertarians and conservatives, no less. I’ve no doubt the whole Trump candidacy is intended to make any rational criticism of immigration look bad and thus drive more people to the liberal-left consensus on that and other things.

Trump, the bankster-shill, is a Trojan-horse, and any knowledgeable person pushing him is not a dupe but a knave.

David Cameron: Scion of Opium Barons

Posted on by

A post on David Cameron’s ancestral ties to the ruling elites by a blogger named Brian Akira was republished by conspiracy researcher Henry Makow, without an issue, but Akira’s blog has been archived or suspended for terms of service violations. Whether that has to do with the content he published or something else is not clear.

Here are the juicy details:

David Cameron’s forebears have a long history in financial racketeering. His great-great grandfather, Emile Levita, a German Jew, was related to the German-Jewish Goldsmid banking family, and obtained British citizenship in 1871. He was the director of the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China.

The Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China was founded in London in 1851 following the grant of a Royal Charter from Queen Victoria. It opened its first branches in 1858 in Calcutta and Bombay and then Shanghai. The Shanghai branch of Chartered bank began operation in August 1858. Initially, the bank’s business was in large volume discounting and re-discounting of opium and cotton bills.

Although opium cultivation gradually increased in China, opium imports still increased by more than 50% between 1863 and 1888. Transactions in the opium trade generated substantial profits for the Chartered Bank and the Jews and Freemasons who controlled it.

Later, the Chartered Bank also became one of the principal foreign banknote-issuing institutions in Shanghai. In 1862, the bank was authorized to issue bank notes in Hong Kong, a privilege it continues to exercise to this day. Over the following decades, it printed bank notes in China and Malaya.

With the Rothschilds’ opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 (Jewish Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli was accused of undermining Britain’s constitutional system, due to his lack of consent from Parliament when purchasing the shares with funding from the Rothschild Jews), Chartered was well placed to expand and develop its dope-running and other rackets.

Besides usury, the bank also dealt in cotton from Bombay, indigo and tea from Calcutta, rice from Burma, sugar from Java, tobacco from Sumatra, hemp from Manila and silk from Yokohama. In 1912, Chartered Bank became the first foreign bank to receive a license to operate in New York.

In 1927, the bank acquired 75% of the P&O Bank, which had offices in Colombo, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Canton. P&O Bank also owned Allahabad Bank.

In 1957, the Chartered Bank acquired the Eastern Bank, giving it a network of branches in Aden, Bahrain, Beirut, Lebanon, Qatar and the UAE. It also bought the Ionian Bank’s Cyprus Branches.

Chartered Bank merged with the Standard Bank of South Africa in 1969, and the combined bank became the Standard Chartered Bank. It’s motto is “Here for Good” so you know they’re evil.

Chartered Bank Director, Emile Levita married Catherine Plumridge Rée, the daughter of Hermann Philipp Rée (from an prominent Danish Jewish family.) Their children were Arthur Levita, Cecil Levita and Enid Levita.

Arthur Levita of Panmure Gordon stockbrokers, together with Sir Ewen Cameron (London head of the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, and member of the Council for Foreign Bondholders and the Committee for Chinese Bondholders) played key roles in arranging loans from the Rothschild syndicate, including Jacob Schiff, to the Japanese central banker (later Prime Minister) Takahashi Korekiyo [????] to finance the Japanese war against Orthodox Christian Russia in 1905.  Cecil Levita was chairman of the London County Council. [DELETED] Enid Levita married Sir Ewen Cameron’s son.

Enit Levita is David Cameron’s paternal grandmother. His father, Ian Cameron, was a successful stockbroker, a partner at Panmure Gordon, like his father and grandfather.”

33% US Population On Government Welfare

Posted on by

Welfare statistics:

Welfare Statistics
Total number of Americans on welfare 110,489,000
Total number of Americans on food stamps 41,700,000
Total number of Americans on unemployment insurance 10,200,000
Percent of the US population on welfare 35.4 %
Total government spending on welfare annually (not including food stamps or unemployment) $131,900,000,000
Welfare Demographics
Percent of recipients who are white 38.8 %
Percent of recipients who are black 39.8 %
Percent of recipients who are Hispanic 15.7 %
Percent of recipients who are Asian 2.4 %
Percent of recipients who are Other 3.3 %
Welfare Statistics
Total amount of money you can make monthly and still receive Welfare $1000
Total Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than an $8 per hour job 39
Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than a $12 per hour job 6
Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than the average salary of a U.S. Teacher 8
Average Time on AFCD (Aid to Families with Dependent Children)
Time on AFDC Percent of Recipients
Less than 7 months 19%
7 to 12 months 15.2%
1 to 2 years 19.3%
2 to 5 years 26.9%
Over 5 years 19.6%
Top 10 Hourly Wage Equivalent Welfare States in U.S.
State Hourly Wage Equivalent
Hawaii $17.50
Alaska $15.48
Massachusetts $14.66
Connecticut $14.23
Washington, D.C. $13.99
New York $13.13
New Jersey $12.55
Rhode Island $12.55
California $11.59
Virginia $11.11

How Lenin Looted Russia

Posted on by

From PassportMagazine.ru:

Since 1991, with the partial opening of archives in Russia, it has become apparent, through the work of historians like Edvard Radzinsky and Dmitri Volkogonov, that Lenin was at least as bad as Stalin, in terms of his thuggery………

Lenin did not have the apparatus of repression available to him which Stalin had. But the viciousness and violence with which he responded to even the slightest challenge to his authority seems to indicate that if he had had, he might well have used it as savagely (and counter- productively) as Stalin did. But that is speculation — at least it was until Sean McMeekin published the extraordinary book under review. In it he describes in minute detail how Lenin and his cohorts destroyed Russia in order to take power for themselves.

What is so interesting about Mc- Meekin’s approach to the subject is his primarily economic analysis — by their loots ye shall know them! This makes a refreshing change from tales of the Gulag and the Lubyanka. No one has yet made so careful a study of the Bolshevik’s economic crimes. Yet this story is central to any understanding of how the Communists killed Russia.

It is extraordinary to discover that Marxists, who operated on the axiom that economics determined everything, understood nothing whatsoever about the practical workings of an economy — any economy, whether capitalist or socialist. They really had no ideas in their collective head other than theft and destruction, plus arrest and murder for anyone who opposed them. If McMeekin drives one point home above all else, it is that the Bolshevik revolution was entirely negative. There was not a single redeeming aspect of idealism in the make-up of any of the major figures. Lenin was the worst of the lot.

Winston Churchill was one of the first to appreciate this. But even he, who wanted ‘to strangle Bolshevism in its cradle’, was only half right when he said of the Father of the Revolution: ‘His aim – to save the world; his method – to blow it up.’ The first part of that sentence, we now know, was nonsense. Lenin’s aim was to take power, keep it and to make sure the Russian people paid for everything he required in order to enslave them.

McMeekin starts by describing just how wealthy Russia was in 1914. Though a country with considerable economic problems, and burdened with a political regime which was medieval and inimical to progress, Russia nonetheless had the fourth largest industrial economy in the world, one which was growing at a rate of 8-9% per annum.

It was also the world’s largest exporter of food. It had Europe’s largest gold reserves — about 1,200 metric tonnes — due to running a continual trade surplus. The stock exchange was booming; agriculture was being modernized; and the arts and culture were all flourishing. It was a desirable place to be. McMeekin comments: ‘Russia in the last days of the tsars was a substantial net importer of both people and capital, a telling fact that, after 1917, would never be true again.’

In his Prologue, McMeekin poses the question his book aims to answer:

‘All this wealth taken together was the national patrimony of centuries… The riveting scenes of the Revolution, which saw desperate Russians selling priceless jewels and family heirlooms for food and fuel to survive the winter, would be repeated again after the collapse of Communism in 1991 — with one crucial difference. At the century’s end, in a crude measure of how badly the Bolsheviks had beggared the country, Russia’s dispossessed hawked not expensive jewellery, but ragged mittens and small handfuls of vegetables raised on dacha plots. It was an extraordinary fall: from world-famous opulence to subsistence agriculture in only seventyfi ve years. How did it happen?’

The short answer is that the Bolsheviks stole everything, then squandered it on armaments and their own comfort.

Lenin established a system whereby every item of value in the country was confi scated without compensation. This went from the gold reserves and the stock of rubles in the Central Bank, through to art treasures in public and private hands, and down to any items of value, like clocks, icons and silver spoons, which were held by individuals or the Church. Those family heirlooms sold on the streets were often disposed of simply in order to pre-empt the kommissars.

One of the most original parts of Mc- Meekin’s book is the long description of how all the money raised by selling this loot abroad was used for purchasing armaments with which to fight the people from whom it was stolen. Lenin made peace with the Germans at Brest–Litovsk in March 1918, then started trading with them, initially through sympathetic bankers in Stockholm. He bought pistols, machine guns, military uniforms, artillery, aircraft, trucks, field telephones, signalling equipment, locomotives and all the other apparatus necessary to wage war on his real enemy – the Russians.

Though the country was starving, the Bolsheviks bought food only for themselves — in fact considerable quantities of it. (Lenin also purchased spare parts for the Rolls-Royce he used, which can now be seen in the museum at Leninsky- Gorky.) The Red Army was the only well-fed group of people in the country, apart from the Communist leadership. The war, McMeekin says, was essentially a war for control of the food supply so that once the gold, roubles, art-works, jewellery and church silver ran out, the Communists could still feed themselves, courtesy of the now enslaved peasantry.

By this stage, even Lenin’s original power base in the urban factories had largely deserted him. McMeekin says that by the winter of 1919-20 only 2 percent of industrial laborers still belonged to the Bolshevik Party.

Why did the Germans co-operate? They did so because, McMeekin says, ‘they were blinded by anti-Allied rage and imperial greed.’ They had a dream of colonizing Russia with the aid of the Bolsheviks. Only Allied victory on the Western Front prevented that from happening.

Even after defeat, the Germans continued helping the Bolsheviks, right up to 1931. In that year, their government allowed the Soviet Union, now ruled by Stalin, to place orders worth $10 billion in today’s money for armaments to be used in the final showdown with the peasants during the collectivization of agriculture. The result was that ‘the Bolsheviks had imported enough German Mausers, machine-guns, and motorcars to ensure that resistance to Stalin’s collectivisation off ensive in the Ukraine could be suppressed with ease by army and secret police enforcers.’

Five months later, the Soviet Union, pleading poverty, defaulted on the bill for all of this, thereby getting it from impoverished Weimar Germany effectively for nothing, just at the time Hitler was emerging onto the political scene arguing that Bolshevism should be opposed rather than assisted.

Is it not legitimate to ask whether, in these circumstances, the Soviets themselves did not bear a small part of the responsibility for creating the public mood in Germany which made the Nazi revolution possible?”

Citizen Statement Against Indian DNA Profiling

Posted on by

An excerpt from a Petition against Biometric profiling through Aadhar and Human DNA Profiling:

Notably, Human DNA Profiling Bill has been prepared and which when enacted could require the citizen to give one’s DNA to the state. What ambitions does this reveal? This would complete the journey of subjugation which started with fingerprints and is possibly ending in DNA profiling.
The profiling, and the intrusion of privacy, that is a central aspect of these projects are, among other things, contrary to the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 4th July, 2011 [Writ Petition (Civil) NO. 176 of 2009] where it reiterated that the Right to Privacy is a part of the constitutional Right to Life. The central government has shown disdain towards this judgment by launching aadhaar related projects on the basis of biometrics which is untested and untried, and which have surveillance, tracking, profiling, tagging and convergence at its core.

UIDAI had set up a Biometrics Standards Committee which revealed that ’the biometrics will be captured for authentication by government departments and commercial organisations at the time of service delivery.’ The commercial organisation mentioned herein is not defined. The working paper of the UIDAI revealed that the ’UID number will only guarantee identity, not rights, benefits or entitlements’. It is also said that it would not even guarantee identity, it would only provide ’aid’ in identification. In fact it makes right to having rights conditional on having biometric aadhaar.
Notably, Biometrics Standards Committee had categorically stated that UID/aadhaar’s is meant only for “civilian application” but the order on aadhaar enabled biometric attendance system has been extended to defence employees as well. The fact remains UID was first adopted by USA’s Department of Defence, later by NATO. It has subsequently been pushed through World Bank’s eTransform Initiative in partnership with France, South Korea, Gemalto, IBM, L1, Microsoft, Intel and Pfizer.

Some of them have signed agreements with UIDAI. This constitutes breach of national security.


Across the globe very stringent data privacy law has been framed wherein one’s personal data cannot be used by anyone including the government without your specific consent. But in India there is no data protection law. Aadhaar is akin to a piece of collar which the transnational powers want to tie on the neck of Indian citizens. Government has allowed itself to be misled and it has failed to protect personal sensitive information which has already gone to foreign companies.

It must be recalled that Dr. Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister had distributed Unique Identification (UID)/ Aadhaar numbers among the villagers of Tembhali village in Nandurbar District of Maharashtra on 29th September 2010. “The Aadhaar number will ease these difficulties in identification, by providing a nationally valid and verifiable single source of identity proof. The UIDAI will ensure the uniqueness of the Aadhaar numbers through the use of biometric attributes (Finger Prints and Iris) which will be linked to the number”.

It has now come to light as per a RTI reply of April 2015 that out of 83.5 crore aadhaar numbers issued so far, only 2.19 lakh i.e. 0.03 % comprised of them who did not have a pre-existing ID proof.

It shows how Indians were taken for a ride.

It must also be noticed that even the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, of colonial vintage, reads: “The object of this bill is to provide legal authority for taking measurements, finger impressions, footprints and photographs of persons convicted of, or arrested in connection with, certain offences.” According to the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, at the time of the acquittal of the prisoner, his biometric data is required to be destroyed. Since 1857, fingerprint identification methods have been used by police agencies in India and around the world to identify suspected rebels, political dissidents and criminals. The method is unfolding to indiscriminately profile citizens in general to identify them. The UID/aadhaar project, however, stores the biometric data forever.

It should be noted that in its report to Parliament, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance has taken on board studies done in the UK on the identity scheme that was begun and later withdrawn in May 2010, where the problems were identified to include”(a) huge cost involved and possible cost overruns; (b) too complex; (c)untested, unreliable and unsafe technology; (d) possibility of risk to the safety and security of citizens; and (e) requirement of high standard security measures, which would result in escalating the estimated operational costs.” Countries like China, Australia, UK and France have also rejected it.

This open declaration of war against citizens’ sensitive personal information like biometric data by transnational entities and governments captured by them paves way for the enslavement of present and future generations through aadhaar database that lies on cloud beyond Indian jurisdiction. Such initiatives must be stopped and boycotted else it will spread its tentacles in every sphere of life and mobility in the country.

Notably, central government itself has filed several written affidavits in the Hon’ble Court contending that right to privacy is a fundamental right. It is remarkable that one former Union Law Minister has complained to the Prime Minister informing him about the blunders being committed by the law officer in question.

There is a compelling logic for rejection of those parties which implicitly or explicitly support tracking, profiling, databasing and mortgaging of citizens’ rights and their sovereignty under the dictates of their donors and non-state actors. The biometric idea is aimed at making citizens transparent before the all mighty Governments so that Government, their servant can remain opaque to safeguard the interests of undemocratic and ungovernable social control technology companies.

In a case of breach of trust central government has proposed to make aadhaar mandatory although the very first promise which legally questionable UIDAI made in its aadhaar enrolment form is/was that it is “voluntary”.

This Public Statement is a follow up of the Statement of Concern against UID/aadhaar issued by 17 eminent citizens at a Press Conference at Press Club of India in New Delhi on 28th September 2010. These citizens included Justice VR Krishna Iyer, Retired Judge, Supreme Court of India, Prof Romila Thapar, Historian, K.G.Kannabiran, Senior Civil Liberties Lawyer, Kavita Srivastava, PUCL and Right to Food Campaign, Aruna Roy, MKKS, Rajasthan, Nikhil Dey, MKKS, Rajasthan, S.R.Sankaran, Retired Secretary, Government of India, Upendra Baxi, Jurist and ex-Vice Chancellor of Universities of Surat and Delhi, Uma Chakravarthi, Historian, Shohini Ghosh, Teacher and Film Maker, Amar Kanwar, Film Maker, Bezwada Wilson, Safai Karamchari Andolan, Trilochan Sastry, IIMB, and Association for Democratic Reforms, Prof. Jagdish Chhokar, ex- IIMA, and Association for Democratic Rights, Shabnam Hashmi, ANHAD, Justice A.P.Shah, Retired Chief Justice of High Court of Delhi and Deep Joshi, Independent Consultant.

A Dalit activist who was one of these eminent citizens said, “This project wants to fix our identities through time. Even after that we are dead. The information held about us will be fixed to us by the UID number. Changing an identity will become impossible. We are working for the eradication of the practice of manual scavenging, for rehabilitation of those who have been engaged in manual scavenging, and then leaving behind that tag of manual scavenger. How can we accept a system that does not allow us to shed that identity and move on? How can a number that links up databases be good for us?”

We reiterate our demand that Bills like Human DNA Profiling Bill 2015 and projects like biometric aadhaar “should be halted before it goes any further”.

Signatories

1. Prof. Anil Sadgopal, Scientist, All India Forum for Right to Education (AIFRTE), Bhopal, Email: anilsadgopal@yahoo.com
2. Prof. Kalpana Kannabiran, Director, Council for Social Development, Hyderabad, Email: kalpana.kannabiran@gmail.com
3. Prof (Dr) Mohan Rao, Centre of Social Medicine and Community Health (CSMCH), Jawaharal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi, Email: mohanrao2008@gmail.com
4. Dr Meher Engineer, Scientist, former President, Indian Academy of Social Science, Kolkata Email: mengineer2003@gmail.com
5. Ram Bahadur Rai, noted senior journalist, Email: rbrai118@gmail.com
6. Dr Babu Rao Kalapala, Scientist, formerly with National Institute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad, Email: baburaokalapala@gmail.com
7. Kavita Krishnan, Secretary, All India Progressive Women Association (AIPWA), Email: kavitakrish73@gmail.com
8. Prof D M Diwakar, Professor of Economics, A N Sinha Institute of Social Studies, Patna, , Email: dmdiwakar@yahoo.co.in
9. Arun Kumar, former Member, Press Council of India, Indian Journalists Union, General Secretary, Bihar Working Journalists Union & President, The Times of India Newspaper Employees Union, Patna, Email: karunpatna@gmail.com
10. Sankar Ray, veteran journalist, Email: sankar.ray@gmail.com
11. N D Jayaprakash, Disarmament Researcher & veteran activist seeking justice for victims of Bhopal disaster, Email: jaypdsf@gmail.com
12. Qaneez Sukhrani, urban affairs analyst, Pune, Email: qaneez.sukhrani@gmail.com
13. Kshetrimayum Onil, Lead Coordinator, REACHOUT, Manipur Email:onilrights@gmail.com
14. Shabnam Hashmi, social activist, Anhad, Email: shabnamhashmi@gmail.com
15. Irfan Ahmed, General Secretary, All India Tanjin-e-Insaf, Bihar, Email: irfan.tree@gmail.com
16. Guman Singh, Himalaya Niti Abhiyan, Himachal Pradesh, Email:guman107@yahoo.co.in
17. Dr Umakant, Human rights advocate & independent scholar, New Delhi, Email: uk4in@yahoo.co.in
18. PT George, Intercultural Resources, Delhi, Email: ihpindia@gmail.com
19. Wilfred D’ Costa, Indian Social Action Forum, Delhi, Email: willyindia@gmail.com
20. Prakash K Ray, Editor, bargad.org, Email: pkray11@gmail.com
21. Gopal Krishna, Member, Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL), Email: 1715krishna@gmail.com

Hong-Kong Introduces “DNA Shaming”

Posted on by

To get an inkling of the abuse possible with DNA profiling of the kind being considered in India, take a look at a public health initiative called “Hong-Kong Clean Up.”

The South China Morning Post has this:

The Face of Litter campaign was launched on Global Earth Day last month for the Hong Kong Cleanup Initiative, organised by online magazine Ecozine and the Nature Conservancy. It was aimed at raising awareness of the extent of littering in the city by pinpointing those responsible and encouraging people to change their behaviour.”

That should ring a bell just there.

“Earth Day” is a holiday central to the ecological movement and, not coincidentally, it is celebrated on April 22, which is the  birthday of Vladimir Lenin, the blood-drenched architect of the communist revolution in Russia in 1917.

A number of people have spotted this coincidence as further proof of the underlying communistic agenda of environmentalism.

Population control,if not depopulation, is its real goal.

Virginia-based Nature Conservancy is a corporate “do-gooder” that I’ve dealt with before.

You can read about its shenanigans in this excellent series published in the Washington Post.

Nature Conservancy has a long history with Goldman Sachs, which just supplied this “non-profit” with a CEO for a mere $700,000.

Nature Conservancy is in the business of monetizing (i.e. putting a financial figure on) environmental efforts, through such mechanisms as “cap and trade” and the “carbon exchange,” both regarded as useless rackets by grass-roots activists.

So what did “Hong-Kong Clean Up” do with the litter it picked up?

It used DNA from the litter to reconstruct the faces of the litterbugs and then posted the faces publicly to shame them.

The firm behind this DNA scheme is PR giant Ogilvy & Mather and the lab tests were done in the US by Parabon Labs.

Ogilvy & Mather has a history of complicity in the US Government’s propaganda efforts, including the War on Terror, the Drug War, and so-called “Greenwashing” – repackaging companies with bad environmental practices as good guys.

Why people resident in Hong-Kong should have their DNA fingered by Americans is anybody’s guess.

Reed Collins, the Ogilvy chief creative officer who led the campaign, says 27 facial composites were created from a combination of 24 DNA samples taken from litter and three controlled samples donated by volunteers.

The faces were used to create “wanted posters” and digital banners, which were displayed in high-traffic areas, including 10 MTR stations and at “the scene of the crime”.

“Because age is impossible to determine through DNA alone, but still integral in creating an accurate portrait, DNA data has been combined with other factors, such as demographics based on the type of litter and where it was collected to determine the approximate age of the litterer,” Collins says.”

Christensen says that although DNA alone can only produce a high probability of what someone looks like, the purpose of the campaign was not to point fingers at specific individuals.”

Despite Ogilvy & Mather’s disingenuous disclaimers, this is on so many levels outrageous.

It breaches privacy in the grossest fashion.

It has endless potential for abuse –

Identity theft

Falsification of evidence

Framing innocents

Blackmail

Refusal of insurance, housing, or other services

Racial and genetic profiling

Targeting for abortion/contraception advertising

Targeting for drug-testing

Targeting for drugs and porn advertising

Targeting for bio-weapons and depopulation programs.

If you think that’s over-reaction, consider the centrality of population control and eugenics in the thinking of every major thinker in the modern leftist pantheon.

Margaret Sanger, Bertrand Russell, Havelock Ellis, and dozens of other influential leftist thinkers, were all enamored of eugenics, population control, and the elimination of undesirables.

The question is not IF DNA profiling will be abused. The question is only WHEN.

 

Secret Corporate Espionage, Harassment Of Citizens

Posted on by

From Alternet.org:

Hiring cops, spooks and vets to do corporate dirty work leads to one more trend enabling corporate espionage to flourish. That is a lack of accountability or legal consequence for espionage that clearly breaks domestic law, such as stealing documents, wiretapping, etc. In France or England, where some of these same activities have come to the attention of authorities, those responsible have been prosecuted and some perpetrators have even gone to jail. Not so in the U.S.

“Hiring former intelligence, military and law enforcement officials has its advantages,” the report notes. “First, these officials may be able to use their status as a shield. For example, current law enforcement officials may be disinclined to investigate or prosecute former intelligence or law enforcement agents… In effect, the revolving door for intelligence, military and law enforcement officials is yet another aspect of the corporate capture of federal agencies, and another government subsidy for corporations.”

What Americans Don’t Know

As detailed as the Center for Corporate Policy report is, author Gary Ruskin says most of the information was obtained “by accident.” It wasn’t freely given. It was the result of lawsuits, a handful of whisteblowers, mistakes by those hired to do the corporate espionage, boasts in trade press and other somewhat random sources.

But even so, there is a dark playbook that comes into view. Nonprofits are scrutinzed for vulnerabilities. Computers are hacked. Documents are copied or stolen. Phone calls and voice mail are secretly recorded. Personal dossiers are compiled. Disinformation is created and spread. Websites are targeted and taken down. Blackmail is attempted. Just as bad, Ruskin says, the Justice Department and Congress look the other way.

“The entire subject is veiled in secrecy,” his report says. “In recent years, there have been few serious journalistic efforts—and no serious government efforts—to come to terms with the reality of corporate spying against nonprofits.”

Steven Rosenfeld covers national political issues for AlterNet.

My Comment:

This excellent article describes the rampant misuse of surveillance technology to invade the privacy of thousands of ordinary citizens, to blackmail, harass, and threaten them.

It perfectly sums up my experience since 2007:

1.  Phone-tapping, landline and cell phones.

2. Appearance of private conversations in websites, in a disguised form, recognizable only to myself or very close friends.

3.  Innuendo and slander republished by internet trolls and sometimes blogs. No facts or evidence, just reiteration of the slander, personal abuse. Cyber-stalking.

4.  Infiltrators or spies posing as clients, customers, or visitors, attempting to enter into business with me.

5. Emails deleted or blocked.  Computer trojans, spyware inserted.  VOIP conversations recorded. Blog hacking. Manipulation of Google hits. Threats to readers of the blog.  Manipulation of search results for specific posts. Monitoring via “fake” readers/commenters (they know who they are).

6. Work projects sabotaged.

7. Professional relations sabotaged.

8. At least one accident that seems to have been intentionally staged.

9. Theft of IP.

10. Using proxies to threaten, attack, or discredit through staged provocations. Street theater (paying random individuals to engage in behavior calculated to threaten/cause anxiety).

 

error: Content is protected !!