Tag Archives: propaganda

Elite Mouthpiece Taunts Ron Paul On Failure Of Fed Campaign

Posted on by

Added July 21, 2012:

How did I see the confrontation? I thought Paul did as well as anyone could in the time given. Except for a few word slips, he was pretty cogent and effective. Bernanke looked discomfited in the middle, when he was questioned about the transfer of authority from Congress to the Fed and when the issue of secrecy was brought up. Other than that, he was impassive and spoke little.  Paul wasn’t “subdued” at all. I don’t watch all his videos, but I’ve seen him a number of times in debate, and that was fairly straightforward Paul. If there was a white flag, I didn’t see it.

If he wasn’t as combative as some seem to think, it’s most likely because it’s his last such confrontation. He’s retiring, I’m told. Too bad.

I thought it was a fairly effective performance and a good wrap up of his major arguments. I think if you’d known nothing about the Fed until then, you would have got the salient points of the anti-Fed argument: he described Bretton Woods,  exchange-rate and interest-rate manipulation; big government financing through debt; transfer of wealth from the poor and middle-class to the wealthy; malinvestment; money supply expansion versus CPI inflation; the housing bubble; and the need for Congressional oversight.

I wouldn’t call it a knock-out, simply because Bernanke was so impassive through out.

That of course helps the media to reframe the confrontation anyway it suits them. Which is what Dana Milbank promptly did.

Paul Vs. Bernanke video

“Ron Paul Vs. Bernanke: final battle ends on surprising note,” David Grant, Christian Science Monitor, July 18, 2012

“Ron Paul Has The Final Say,” Bob Adelman, New American, July 19, 2012

ORIGINAL POST

“Skull & Bones affiliated establishment journalist Dana Milbank taunts Ron Paul about the end of the “End the Fed” campaign in a piece entitled, “Ron Paul Fed Up With Trying To End The Fed” (Washington Post, July 18, 2012)

Well, I have plenty of problems with the whole Ron Paul movement these days (for a view from a Paul supporter see  this:), but the piece does more than criticize Paul.

What it does is gloat.

Here are some lines from it, with my parsing.:

“He didn’t even make a dent in it.”

[LR: The Fed is unassailable]

“…Paul raised the white flag.”

[LR: The Fed has won…]

“For the fiery Paul, it was a subdued surrender.”

[LR: So now you know how powerful we really are, old man.]

“….treating him with the cautious affection one might use to address a crazy uncle.”

[LR: You didn’t reach the point where we’d have to assassinate you, so we’ll just let people know that you and your supporters can’t be taken seriously.]

“But Paul faded away with surprising deference.”

[LR: Yes. He’s under our thumb. We call the shots. He knows what’s good for him, so he’s fading away.]

“The one substantial challenge to Bernanke — Paul’s “audit the Fed” bill, which the House is expected to approve next week before it dies in the Senate — was easily dispatched by the Fed chairman,”

[LR: Audit the Fed is croaking.]

“The Paul to Bernanke word ratio this time was 12 to 1.”

[LR: He’s just a rambling  old man. Real men don’t talk, they print.]

“There’s no constitutional reason why Congress couldn’t just take over monetary policy,” he said. “But I’m advising you that it wouldn’t be very good from an economic policy point of view.”

[LR: We’re the constitutionalists, not you. Audit the Fed is only about Congress taking over monetary policy, folks. Imagine! They can’t run a post office. How do you think they’re going to do with deep stuff like economics?]

“”At this point, the committee chairman cut him off. Paul’s time had expired.”

[LR: We’ve put up with you long enough, grandpa. Your time’s up. The game is over.]

The framing of the whole piece is quite masterful. There is not one substantial piece of analysis about the actual policies in question. We are not told what is involved in either “End the Fed” or “Audit the Fed.”

We are instead given information about procedure….rules regarding how bills go through the house, and how speakers get to speak. A contrast is set up between the grave, measured proceedings of the state and the law (the constitution) and the self-indulgent rambling of an aging politician.

The roles are reversed.

Paul becomes the political class. Bernanke becomes the embodiment of the constitution and of law.

From beginning to end we’re told how to think about what’s going on.

This is what we’re supposed to think:

Bernanke is sage, powerful and indulgent.

Paul is a crazy old man, who doesn’t know the elements of civility….or the constitution.

He’s an anti-government politician, but he’s for the government control of the money supply.

He cuts into other people’s time. He rambles on. He talks too much.

Paul is just a “supplicant” before the great Fed chairman. The final word is with the Fed.

So, even though he gets his fifteen minutes, it’s clear Paul doesn’t really understand the constitution or money.

And he’s for the government!

Notice how the piece distorts Paul’s position to make it look as if “Audit the Fed” (Paul’s fall-back position from “End the Fed”) is about putting arcane and complex professional matters into the hands of politicians.

Milbank turns Bernanke into the “private” expert and Paul into the bumbling government man.

That is sure to appeal to Americans of every political stripe. The average reader would immediately distrust anyone who intends to subject policies about the country’s money-supply to ignorant legislators driven by partisan bias.

What that does is clear.

It turns the  whole anti-government argument against anti-government activists.

It also turns  the pro-constitution argument against constitutionalists.

This is propaganda of the highest order.

Legendary Journalist, Alexander Cockburn, Dies Of Cancer

Posted on by

L.A.Time reports (h/t David Kramer, LRC) some sad news:

“Alexander Cockburn, the leftist journalist, has died. The 71-year-old had been living in Berlin and fighting cancer.

Cockburn was the co-editor with Jeffrey St. Clair of the political newsletter Counterpunch. On the publication’s blog, St. Clair writes, “Alex kept his illness a tightly guarded secret. Only a handful of us knew how terribly sick he truly was. He didn’t want the disease to define him. He didn’t want his friends and readers to shower him with sympathy.” Cockburn was a dedicated leftist; St. Clair described him as “friend and comrade.”

Jeff St. Clair describes him writing and publishing right through chemotherapy until the end.

This is really too bad.  I used to write quite a bit for Counterpunch, but stopped during the financial crisis, because I felt my views on economics weren’t in synch with theirs. But I’ve never stopped reading their combative and committed writing.  Both were good friends of India, as well. And both collaborated successfully on some of the most seminal works on propaganda and intelligence.

As long back as I can remember Alex  Cockburn defined smart, rowdy journalism, not afraid to roll up its sleeves and sock it to them, but always with wit and panache.  He will be sorely missed.

Ron Paul Dithering Suspiciously About Romney

Posted on by

Oh dear. I told you Ron Paul has been looking worse by the minute these past few months.

See this from Politico (h/t Wenzel):

“Asked on the Fox Business Network’s “After the Bell” on Thursday if he will cast his ballot for Romney, Paul responded, “I’ve not made a decision.”

Look, he seems to be a nice man. He’s cleaner than most people in politics. He’s been a huge name-draw for millions and brought attention to major issues that are important to anyone opposed to war and empire or the bankster regime.

But, am I deaf, an anti-white racist, an Indian spy or a potential terrorist, if I say the obvious – these are weasel words….. at least to my brown ears.

And I blogged about Paul’s weasel words before.

What’s difficult about saying NO?

As in, not, nein, nope, nah, nay, nada, nyet, noway, nohow,untilhellfreezesoverbuster

And what’s with Romney tweeting “audit the fed”

This is co-option central!

Thousands Attend Cremation Of Bollywood Legend, Rajesh Khanna

Posted on by

Rajesh Khanna, who died yesterday, was the biggest Bollywood star ever until Amitabh Bhachchan.

Khanna was cremated in Vila Parle in Mumbai, as thousands of people followed the cavalcade in the monsoon rains. Present at the cremation was Bachchan, a big fan himself, who complained that the huge crowd had come out to see the dozens of film stars at the funeral and not Khanna.

Khanna made some 120 films and had millions of fans who mobbed him each time he set foot outside his house. Known as India’s leading heart throb, Khanna had female fans who were known to marry pictures of him and write his name in blood.

Thus has India been ruled since independence.  Escapist film spectaculars and star-gazing for the impoverished millions, a form of narcotics.  For the intellectual and bureaucratic ruling-class, there is a different kind of escape, the coconut political/literary circles funded by the West and dominated by its ideologies, all shot-through with the malevolent intent of western state-craft, ceaseless in its goal of total dominion.

The masses of middle-class people who actually create value in society, remain invisible to a Western world fed a diet of media hype alternating between jet-setting  maharajas, models, and tycoons on one hand, and slums, sex-gurus, and call-centers on the other.

Obama Birth Certificate A Forgery, Says Sheriff Arpaio

Posted on by

Update (July 20): The Daily Bell has an interesting theory that this whole controversy might be engineered to rescue Obama in public perception. Their reasoning is that Sheriff Arpaio is himself a polarising figure guilty of many controversial practices and making him the center piece of the storm over the certificate (which broke in 2008) might be an clever way to diffuse the scandal. Additional proof for this theory is that the forgery itself is so clumsy that people have been speculating it was intended as a trap.

Well, well, well. Lookee here (chuckle, and h/t EPJ)…

Turns out Barack Obama’s birth certificate is definitely forged.

“I have to respect the science of document examination and the evidence there points to the forgery pictured above.  There are also serious signs that the forger of the Obama birth certificate released by the White House did not understand codes and numbers associated with the document.  Analysis of the numbers and code revealed that the document is not genuine.  The evidence is more than compelling.

The biggest error came as a result of the age of the document forger.  He or she was obviously too young to be aware of correct terms used to classify what we today call African-Americans. The creator of the phony document listed Obama’s race as African.  That is a huge red flag because that term was not applied as a race title until well into the 1980’s.  That term and the moniker, Black would have been considered politically incorrect and racist back when Obama was born.  The proper term throughout history until the late 1970’s was Negro. The government did not change this until well into the 1980s.

“Additionally the United States government standardized the acceptable terms for all identification documents.  Eventually Negro became an apparent derogatory term that sensitive politically correct Americans abandoned in the 1980’s.

This so-called birth certificate document was the product of a criminal conspiracy.  It needs to be investigated by Congress and the State of Hawaii.   The problem here is politics prevents the orderly administration of justice.  Democratic politicians have total control and are breaking the law by obstructing justice. “

Comment:

President Obama’s release of a long form birth certificate in April 2011 didn’t assuage his critics. They insisted it was forged.

The persistence of such doubts, die-hard Obama defenders in the media replied, was yet another yahoo conspiracy by bitter clingers.

Here are some reminders of what the mainstream said (courtesy of wikipedia):

Michael Tomasky called it racial paranoia “Birthers and the persistence of racial paranoia” The Guardian (London) April 27, 2011

[A guy called Tomasky would never express racial paranoia, I suppose]

Dan Vergano said it was racial prejudice, “Study: racial prejudice plays role in Obama citizenship views”. USA Today, May 1, 2011

[USA Today would never, never cater to racial prejudice.}

The New York Times said it was an embarrassment, “A Certificate of Embarrassment”. The New York Times. April 27, 2011.

[The NY Times is never embarrassed by the baldfaced banditry in its own backyard]

Fareed Zakaria said it was coded racism, “Fareed Zakaria on Donald Trump and coded racism”. Global Public Square (CNN), April 22, 2011.

[Zakaria apparently doesn’t mind racism when it involves dropping bombs on strangers in the Middle East]

Real estate mogul Donald Trump’s taste in wives  is much better than his taste in wedding-cake mansions…..or in bankster bail-outs, but he scored a bulls-eye on this one.

The fudge with “African” instead of “Negro” was discussed a long while back.

So what’s the news in the recent claim?

Apparently, a 95 year old retired state worker was able to point out numerical codes that hadn’t been filled in, while the boxes for race and employment had.

I’m not sure what to make of it yet, but I already know what to make of how it’s being spun.

I googled Obama birth certificate, and right after a couple of sites with the hot news at the top, where you’d expect it to be,  were sites that dismissed the birth certificate controversy as “birther” conspiracy.

They were in  third or fourth place when I saw them, which would seem to be pretty high when the news that’s breaking is that big.

Usually new stuff buries the old stuff and sends it way back past the fourth or fifth page in an Internet search…at least for the first day after a big story.

But not here.

Then I hunted for images to put up on my blog so people could see what the Sheriff’s team means about the fudge about “African.”

Well, when I searched google and then looked on the left-hand side of the search results for what comes up under IMAGES, the very first image on the left was the certificate.  But instead of getting a bunch of different sites where the image was posted, google kept redirecting me instantly to Snopes.  The redirection was blatant.

So why would google heart snopes?

Snopes, according to its ABOUT page, was founded in 1995 by Barbara and David Mikkelson of Los Angeles, to explore urban legends and such. Naturally, it just became the web’s leading “touchstone” for rumor research. Naturally, they got a couple of “Webbies” and “Best of the Web” awards and have been invited onto all the major networks.

So naturally, no one in their right mind would take them at face value.

And so it is.

Read anti-Zionist activist Maidh O’Cathail’s piece at Dissident Voice, exposing its pro-Israeli bias in covering 9-11 research.

See also the conservative blog called Huffington Riposte which considers Snopes a left-liberal propaganda outlet.

On the other hand, here are some Kossacks (from Daily Kos) claiming it pushes right-wing views.

My diagnosis of something that sounds left to the right and right to the left and reeks of big bucks?

You guessed it. George Soros.

US Navy Kills Indian Fisherman Near Dubai

Posted on by

Update:

To make my original post a bit clearer, you’d have to understand what is called “convergence” by some people. I call it the “commie-capitalist” kiss up.

What this amounts to is this. The elites try to subvert a country by soft and by hard power. The soft power angle is worked by human rights groups intentionally misrepresenting or exaggerating valid social concerns in a way that provokes rioting, secession, terrorism or civil war.

This then gives an excuse for intervention by the hard power arm of the empire (NATO police action, arms sales, legal actions, war financing).

In the case of India, you have a concerted ideological war on Hinduism played out in the looting of temples through communist-dominated/Christian friendly state governments.

Then you have the human rights focus on the plight of Dalits (socially the lowest caste). Their legitimate grievances are amplified and manipulated by Western interests to fracture the social fabric and enable legal action against state and federal governments which ultimately accrue to the benefit of Church-sponsored  NGOs and the Western powers themselves. Thus, in increasingly globalized Tamil Nadu,  Tamil secessionism is encouraged. Rumors of CIA/ Mossad involvement in the area should also not be discounted.

Then you have the communists in the West making common cause in the media with the communists in China (on the one hand)… and on the other, conflating the just demands of the Palestinians in the Middle East with revanchist Caliphate claims in India. This also incites secession among Muslim dominant states.

As someone who believes Asia has always been the main focus of the global elites since the end of WWII, the convenient Muslim terrorism narrative provides cover for both the expansion of Western hard and soft power in Asia, as well as a feint behind which covert operations against alleged allied of the US, like India, are conducted. In that sense, India is less an ally as it is a host incubating a parasite  that will eventually kill it.

Simultaneously, the globalist elites pressure the government through psychological war and cyber-war.  This explains the increase in negative portraits of India, the recurrent attacks on the political leadership for not giving into the demands of multinationals. For example, Arcelor-Mittal CEO  Lakshmi Mittal has  demanded that the Indian economy grow at the rate of 10 percent. The expulsion of Rajat Gupta (connected to Manmohan’s opening of the economy) displays the fist behind Mittal’s request.

Mittal has recently joined the board of Goldman Sachs (2011), and like the bank,  works with Rothschild interests, which were behind the opening of the Indian economy in the 1990s.

ORIGINAL POST

The Statesman reports on American naval fire on an Indian boat off the coast of Dubai.

Although so far it seems to be only an accident,it wouldn’t be far-fetched to wonder if it wasn’t a shot  in the low-grade psy war on India, about which I blogged here (Chinese cybera attacks on Indian naval HQ in Vizag) and here (Time’s derogatory cover of Manmohan Singh) and here (the criminal prosecution of Rajat Gupta, the man who opened up the Indian economy, most likely  by connivance between the government and the banking elites)  and  here (Rajiv Malhotra’s thesis of a US strategy of “breaking India” via  postmodern transnationalism, US intelligence and human rights activism all converging in NGO’s like Wikileaks that act as the soft power arm of  empire).

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — An Indian fisherman aboard a boat shot at by the U.S. Navy off Dubai’s coast has told officials the crew received no warning before being fired upon, India’s ambassador to the United Arab Emirates said Tuesday. The account differs from that provided by the Navy, which said it resorted to lethal force Monday only after issuing a series of warnings. One Indian was killed in the incident, and three of his countrymen were seriously wounded. The shooting underscored how quickly naval encounters can escalate in the increasingly tense waters of the Gulf.”

Note that this isn’t the first naval accident recently. In February 2012  an Italian cargo ship fired on an Indian trawler off the coast of Kochi in South India, killing two Indians. The equivalent of this would be Barack Obama’s face appearing in The Indian Express with the word ‘loser’ under it; Carly Fiorina arrested and convicted on weak evidence in India, while Indian CEOs guilty of multicrore fraud played witness for the prosecution; Indian and Iranian war ships shooting and killing American fishermen and officers off the coast of Florida and Scotland; and a pallid Indian hacktivist with an arrest record haranguing America on its internal affairs from the pages of a Chinese paper.

Rothbard – Fudged Money Supply Figures?

Posted on by

I came across this on the Mises forum, in my search for any other examples of Rothbard’s tendency (noted by several people) to manipulate facts to support his objectives.

I’ve noted some of them before. His treatment of Ayn Rand seems to be the strongest example and the best documented. The others I can’t judge yet, but they include

misrepresentation of Adam Smith (which provoked a rebuttal by David Gordon, which was then answered by David Friedman)

misrepresentation of Milton Friedman’s work (addressed by David Friedman)

and a couple of examples from banking history I’ve noted elsewhere.

Here is another example from Civil War history. Again, there could be other explanations for it (oversight, confusing data etc.), but it’s one more question mark. I have no wish to exaggerate his failings (as he did others), but it’s at the least very curious and troubling.

Here’s the comment as it appears on the forum (I’ll add links later):

I’m starting to research into the Panic of 1873 for a college project I have. Among other economic literature, I reviewed Rothbard’s “A History of Money and Banking in the United States”. Upon scrutinizing his money supply statistics, I’ve noticed either a vague (i.e, not explicitly distinguished) or downright false money aggregate of his.

At the beginning of his talk about the Civil War, Rothbard mentions that “over the entire war, the money supply rose from $745.4 [sic] million to$1.773 billion, an increase of 137.9 percent, or 27.9 percent per annum.” (p.130).

However, on page 153, Rothbard writes that “Total state and national bank notes and deposits rose from $835 million in 1865 to $1.964 billion in 1873, an increase of 135.2 percent or an increase of 16.9 percent per year.” (p.153)

So what happened here? At first I suspected that Rothbard was being ambiguous by referring to the later statistic as “bank money”, but later Rothbard seems to use it as his total statistic of “money supply”. Even if this wasn’t the true money supply, then that means Rothbard was lobbing off roughly $1billion (and more as currency increased) in all of his subsequent monetary calculations.

Did the total money supply drop by a “cataclysmic” 50% from 1865 to 1867, was Rothbard wrong on his money supply statistic for the Civil war or his later money supply statistic, or am I missing something here?

Note that if we treat $1.964 as the money supply as he seems to do, then using his earlier estimate (1.773) the expansion over nearly ten (8) years increased by a paltry10.77%, or 1.34% per year. In a similar statistic (though with different money aggregates), Friedman states that the money stock from 1867 to 1873 increased by 1.3% per year. Although this is inflationary, one wonders how such a small increase in the money supply could have caused a very serious banking panic/business cycle in 1873 (say what you will about the subsequent recession, the actual panic was very supposedly severe).

Although still optimistic there’s a way to make sense of this, I’m a little disgruntled by this mistake/ambiguity made by Rothbard. Either he just wanted to calculate a “total money supply only for the Civil War” and then proceeded to concentrate solely on bank deposits, or there is a large error in his statistics. I know he gets his money sources from the historical statistics, which I plan on consulting, but that doesn’t seem to answer his ambiguity/incorrectness.

Any thoughts on these money supply statistics? Any help is appreciated.

Well I got the book, 1957 and all. I felt an air of history as I pulled it off the shelf and sifted through its yellow and fading pages.

From what I can tell, there is good news and bad news.

The good news is that Rothbard’s money supply statistics add up, at least according to this book. All of his Civil War totals are obtained by adding total bank deposits, state bank notes, gold coins, silver  subsidiaries, fractional currencies, other U.S currency, greenbacks,  and national bank notes.

The bank news is that judging by this book, some of the statistics are questionable, and Rothbard should be severely criticized for his misleading interpretations. The most obvious is his 1865-1873, state and bank deposits and notes increased about 16.9% per annum. From the book, this is correct, but using highly suspect statistics. It is true that state and national bank notes and deposits increased from 1865 (roughly $869) to $1.964 in 1873, an increase of 16.9% per annum. However careful inspection reveals that according to the statistics, the number of deposits did not increase really increase 16.9% per annum, but rather 50% between last two reported years (1872-1332 and 1873-1964)! My guess is that the bank money (and to a greater extent total money supply) did not explode in one year, but rather the amount of banks voluntarily reported their deposits to the state banking authority. It even says in the forward to the particular section Rothbard used that “Prior to 1896, figures shown here include all national banks and all State banks that voluntarily reported to State banking departments in the United States..”. My guess is that with the Panic in 1873 and more banks under distress, they contacted the state authorities more so than before.

Taking out 1873, and just taking the totals from 1865 to 1872 (for whatever they are worth, considering that they are probably low due to faulty reports), the annual percentage increase was much lower, roughly 4% per year! For Rothbard to report these statistics that bank money increased 17% per annum when it reality it seems to have come only from 1)the last year 2)more likely bad statistics is downright sloppy and poor research.

Regardless of the factual accuracy of the Historical Statistics (I’m extremely hesitant to see bank totals increasing by 50% in one year), even with the statistics he is using they clearly did not increase 17% per year, as Rothbard is claiming.

The problem is he isn’t really stating that the annual expansion in bank deposits wasn’t 16.9%. It’d be one thing if the yearly averages were 10, 20, 12, 15, etc etc, which averaged out to 16.9%. But in the last year when you have a 50% increase lifting an otherwise 7-8 year statistical average of 4%, and then claiming that there was an average of 17% bank credit expansion,it  is very misleading and  resembles an outlier. In addition, it seems likely that the overall expansion wasn’t that great and there were less banks reporting in the late 1860s/early 1870s their financial conditions, which means the bank deposit figures for that time period (1860s) was abnormally low, giving the illusion of great bank credit growth than what actually occurred. Either the statistics are 1) Entirely truthful,which would give great doubt as to why no one has written about one of the U.S’ greatest yearly MS expansions 2)Not accurate, and Rothbard was misleading to use these aggregates and conducted poor research. Even if he wanted to use these numbers, he should have at least written in a footnote that the totals weren’t accurate, especially the 16.9% figure he was using.

EDIT: “The problem is he isn’t really stating that the annual expansion in bank deposits wasn’t 16.9%. It’d be one thing if the yearly averages were 10, 20, 12, 15, etc etc, which averaged out to 16.9%. But in the last year when you have a 50% increase lifting an otherwise 7-8 year statistical average of 4%, and then claiming that there was an average of 17% bank credit expansion,it  is very misleading and  resembles an outlier. In addition, it seems likely that the overall expansion wasn’t that great and there were less banks reporting in the late 1860s/early 1870s their financial conditions, which means the bank deposit figures for that time period (1860s) was abnormally low, giving the illusion of great bank credit growth than what actually occurred. Either the statistics are 1) Entirely truthful,which would give great doubt as to why no one has written about one of the U.S’ greatest yearly MS expansions 2)Not accurate, and Rothbard was misleading to use these aggregates and conducted poor research. Even if he wanted to use these numbers, he should have at least written in a footnote that the totals weren’t accurate, especially the 16.9% figure he was using.”

Beneath this comment is a response from someone who lays out various possible explanations and seems to think Rothbard wouldn’t have manipulated the data intentionally.

There could be many reasons for this error.  I don’t think he was lying.

He states clearly that this is the result of pyramiding of state bank deposits on top of national bank deposits and it doesn’t explicitly say that this happened in one year.  It says “…after 1870…” not in 1872.  Also, he says, “From then on [May 1871] paper money would be held consonant with the U.S. Constitution.” (p. 153)  Although, his stating it as ‘percent per year’ could be considered dubious and was very generous to his argument.

If we are to assume that the statistics prior to May 1871 (the under-reporting) would not have counted all of the paper money as some states had made it illegal. (p. 152).  And my guess is that the unreported money that was being counted after 1871 was so because the state banks had a new Federal law forcing them to redeem all of the paper they had and were using. (Kind of an argument that if the Federal government would have stayed out of it there would never have been the statistical explosion that Rothbard is exploiting, which ironically Rothbard would have wanted.)  To me this could be an explanation as to the dramatic rise that Rothbard was seeing in total money supply.  Again, he could also have been following, or interpreting, again in a possibly conspicuous manner, along with the Federal law.  But lying, I don’t think.

Rand Paul: Welshing On No Aid To Israel?

Posted on by

If I were a young libertarian who’d emptied my wallet into Rand Paul’s campaign, I’d  be painting his face on the basement wall and throwing darts at it, especially after the recent revelation at Liberty Fight about Rand Paul’s apparent silence on the $9 billion dollars in aid guarantees to Israel.

That’s after Rand spent the whole of 2011 (just google) swearing he’d cut aid to Israel. It’s not 100 percent clear what happened with the vote, some are making excuses and giving plausible explanations,  but at this stage of the game,  it doesn’t look good.

Also, one thing that seems to have missed comment is that the Senate summary of the bill specifies support for Israel as a “Jewish state,” not just once, either. Delete Israel and substitute, say, “Malaysia as a Muslim state,” and then you’ll get how just preposterous business-as-usual in DC is.

Not only is this vast sum of tax-payer money going to a foreign government (that’s all aid is anyway), it’s going to a form of government that runs counter to something the Constitution stands for – the US is against a state establishment of religion.

Meanwhile, the same people who applaud “Israel as a Jewish state” every day of the week will foam at the mouth and bark like rabid dogs if someone suggests that the US is a Christian state or that India is a Hindu state.

The h*** with Rand.

Ron Paul Implosion: End The Fed To Technology Revolution…

Posted on by

The Pauls have lost all credibility with me.

Read their latest missive, blogged at EPJ

And reported here at Forbes: “Ron Paul Takes Up Internet Freedom with New Technology Revolution.”

They’ve abandoned the financial battle.

I guess the financial coup of 2008, completed in 2010, is now sealed and cordoned off from prosecution. Last month, as if to confirm that, the White Queen (the City)  took down the Black Knight (Gupta) that had infiltrated the highest ranks of her court, while the White Bishop (Lloyd Doing-God’s Work Blankfein) was witness for the prosecution.

“End the Fed,” which  Rand Paul converted to” Audit the Fed,” is over.

The Pauls have now skipped forward to their new, new project –  the  “Technology Revolution.”

I  never thought that much of “End the Fed,” because, as I’ve blogged previously, the elites can manufacture money from other places besides the Fed, like the BIS and the reconstituted IMF.

But, apparently,  End the Fed doesn’t even work as a popular slogan any more.

So, what do I think about the new campaign?

I think it will be about as effective as their “End the Fed” campaign, which is to say, not effective at all.

See my comment at The Daily Bell in 2010:

Posted by Lila Rajiva on 11/23/10 11:55 AM
Daily Bell: “But by pursuing his strategy, he has made his opponents look like fools and perhaps altered the course of history.”

Lila: Let’s hope. Personally, I agree with Doug Casey on this:
“As a lone voice, his father was a breath of fresh, more principled air, but he didn’t change anything at all that I can see”

(Doug Casey on Presidents, LRC)

But it will be a great platform for the Pauls to sell books, promote ideas and launch political careers for their family members.

I only hope it won’t be done on the backs of idealistic young people. There were many who put change they could hardly spare in a tough economy into the Paul’s war chest.

The new campaign, which dubs itself  “The Internet Versus The Machine” is obviously a rebranding campaign to move young people away from what Forbes calls “the archaic” (they mean arcane) issues of finance.

Instead, the Pauls will focus on the hip world of the net.

Forbes:

“Young people have been a driving force in the Paul campaign, and the focus on internet freedom should only bolster that support.”

I’m going to call foul on that.

Their new “campaign” is in support of the Technology Revolution on the Internet?

Last I looked the tech revolution has been around for a while, getting on quite well without the Pauls.

One part of  the new project is going to be defending big business from attempts by consumers to scrutinize their data collection.

I kid you not. Here is Buzzfeed on the subject.

“The Pauls also take a stand for the growing industry known (and widely criticized) as “big data.”

“They deride the notion that “private sector data collection practices must be scrutinized and tightly regulated in the name of ‘protecting consumers,’ at the same time as government’s warrantless surveillance and collection of private citizens’ Internet data has dramatically increased.”

So does this mean that Ron Paul is going to be fighting to prevent European governments or NGOs  like EFF or Asian governments from scrutinizing Google’s data collection practices?

Remember that I just blogged that Google’s CEO Larry Page should be arrested for privacy violations and espionage against foreign governments?

I was being satirical about US surveillance of foreign CEO’s and money-managers.

For instance, in the Galleon -Gupta cases, the government used wire-taps whose authorization was obtained pre-textually in violation of the defendants’ constitutional rights.

I don’t recall that the Pauls said a word about that, although the Galleon insider case has dominated the financial media for a couple of years now, and is directly tied via Rajaratnam’s funding of Tamil charities to  issues like terrorist money-laundering  with which Paul adviser Bruce Fein – once employed by an alleged front group for the Tamil Tigers –  is intimately connected.

A recent Washington Post article described how the military is outsourcing surveillance in Africa to private contractors (with little accountability, significant cost over-runs, and little to show for the expense).

Densely populated China and India are both locked in battles with the West for access to resources and agricultural lands.  Indian and Chinese companies compete with American and European countries on the African continent.  China and India have also complained about American corporate espionage.  American companies in turn complain about IP theft from the Indians and Chinese.  Meanwhile the US government itself is involved in IP theft through its pervasive global surveillance.  Where does data collection for corporations end and espionage for the state begin, anyway? Where does the government end and the private sector begin, when private companies are outsourced arms of the government and the government is the enforcement arm of the companies?

Ron Paul is not oblivious to the complexities of all this. He is far too shrewd.

Rajat Gupta’s conviction shows evidence in my opinion of being a  set up by the government, with some arm-twisting from Goldman Sachs. Likely it was an important blow in the  covert psy war against India, an ostensible US ally, about which I blogged here (“Coconut Imperialism”and here, “Educating the Gentoos In India”)

The obvious response from foreign governments (such as India) would be to treat American CEO’s the same way and wire-tap them.

So, is it just coincidental that the Pauls suddenly abandon their financial campaign (which never involved a word against Goldman Sachs), and suddenly rush to head off any animosity toward Google?

On their silence on G Sachs, here is a comment I made (one among many) below the same Daily Bell article:

Posted by Lila Rajiva on 11/23/10 11:40 AM

@Pisano.

Why would it distract him?
How hard is it to say, unequivocally, “Goldman Sachs and several other banks, are involved in corrupt actions and should be investigated and prosecuted.”

There. Back to “business.”

He certainly had no problem drawing a hard line over relatively trivial things like a monument to Rosa Parks. If he was really afraid of distraction, why would he make a fuss over something like that, and then on something crucial, suddenly go silent?

Why doesn’t he state clearly – “9-11 needs to be investigated. There is credible evidence that there was some kind of conspiracy involving intelligence agencies, US and foreign.”

I like Ron Paul and want to believe the best of him.

But this excuse doesn’t hold water for two seconds.”

This looks like more material to add to the mounting evidence (see  here) that Paul fronts for financial interests.

Perhaps he cannot avoid doing it, as I’ve said.

But there’s no need to be suckered into what could well be a counter-attack against foreign governments who defend themselves against espionage by Google/Facebook/Hotmail/Skype/TOR and the rest of the government-corporate spy sector, by couching the issue as a defense of the private sector.

That explanation also takes care of Paul’s pandering to the left.

The financial world (which controls the media) is left-leaning, in contrast to non-financial businesses.  Paul’s recent moves make quite a bit of sense when understood that way.  He acts to co-opt the brand of libertarianism appropriately called the Marxism of the right by deploying what seem to be ideologically inflexible positions in the service of  larger imperial goals.

So, I have to ask. Will the two Pauls now be collecting money from young people to defend multi-billion dollar multinationals like Google from scrutiny by the governments on which they spy?

I mean, if you phrased that in the appropriately anti-state way, there will be enough libertarian lemmings who’ll rush to defend Google, I’m sure.

This theory might explain why the financial media, usually so vocal in defense of insider-trading, when it’s done by Michael Milken or Ivan Boesky, is suddenly so quiet  about South Asian insider-trading not a tenth as bad.

Does it also explain why large parts of the alternative press  have had nothing but praise for Julian Assange, another front for western financial interests? And why the Pauls have promoted Assange?

Talk about Trojan horses.

Big corporations cannot be analyzed separately from government.

When the state outsources its spying to corporations, for someone to argue that the state should not limit corporate surveillance because it’s engaged in surveillance itself is confused, at best, and downright misleading, at worst.

Especially when it comes from seasoned politicians like the Pauls.

Parts of the government are scrutinizing the private sector. Often they’re right to.

Other parts of government are much worse than the private sector when it comes to privacy violation.

Those parts of the government are often most incestuously allied with corporations. This is the corporate-state or intel-industrial complex that produces programs like Echelon.

So it’s quite bizarre for the Pauls to claim that Microsoft (or Google or Apple) are pure private-sector entities, when they gain market share directly because of concrete government actions on their behalf and because of endemic and pervasive state-created judicial/legal/financial corruption.

One more thing.  Microsoft wasn’t prescient at all about the net, as the Pauls claim in their new manifesto.

It was way behind. Gates himself admitted it.

There is, finally, another reason why the Pauls may have turned their attention to protecting Big Data,

It looks like Big Data is bankrolling him.

Here’s Reason’s Brian Doherty, making the point:

“With Peter Thiel, founder of the controversial “big data” company Panantir, having made a $2.6 million investment in the (somewhat feckless in the end) superPAC “Endorse Liberty” during campaign season, perhaps the Paul machine sees this as a cause that can energize both grassroots and big money.”

And that’s all  I want to say now about this turn of events until I learn a bit more what is really going on.

But, if you were waiting to see Ron Paul libertarianism implode, it happened this week.

Preet Bharara – Overhyped and Toothless

Posted on by

Gary Weiss in Salon

“Yet nowhere in Gabriel Sherman’s well-researched piece in New York is there even one mention of Preet Bharara.

There’s a simple reason for that:  Preet Bharara is not busting Wall Street. He’s not collaring the masters of the meltdown. He’s done nothing to even slightly discomfit Wall Street’s still-ferocious money machine, or has yet to bring to justice the architects, enablers and continuers of the 2008 financial crisis — the bankers who got us into that mess, and the ones who are continuing to extract pain from foreclosed homeowners, in the New York area and beyond.

As a matter of fact, his over-hyped insider-trading prosecutions, the main focus of the Time piece, are doing the Street a favor, by targeting people who actually ripped off Wall Street — individuals like hedge fund managers Raj Rajaratnam and Danielle Chiesi, who functioned a bit like the goons who used to dope race horses in the old days.

Bharara’s insider trading targets rigged the game for their own profit by illegally misappropriating information, in effect stealing from their employers and other investors, just as the horse-dopers cheated racetracks and other betters. Another analogy, also from the racetracks of old, would be to the scam artists who used to “past-post”: bet on races after they knew the outcome.

That’s how insider trading works. It’s a form of theft and cheating. It’s bad. Bharara was right to prosecute them, just as he has aggressively pursued drug gangs in the outer boroughs. But let’s be clear on something: The big players, the Goldman Sachses, Merrill Lynches, Banks of America and so on, don’t like insider trading any more than Preet Bharara does.

And none of his criminal prosecutions to date — including his recent bust of three high-ranking former Credit Suisse execs, accused of rigging the value of mortgage bonds they held in 2008 — had any connection to the pain being felt by Americans today, which can be directly traced to the misconduct of mortgage bankers and derivatives traders in the run-up to the financial crisis.

The real perps of the financial crisis haven’t been in Bharara’s — or the Justice Department’s — cross hairs for a single moment since Barack Obama took office three years ago. It’s one of the most troublesome failings of his administration.”