Gradual Subversion of the Democratic Party

Many of the traits that we either have or admire in other people...that make us human - loyalty, trustworthiness, faithfulness, a tendency to seek out heroes, etc. - unfortunately, also makes us more likely to ignore evidence that contradicts what we believe to be true. In fact, the evidence to the contrary can manifest itself as large as an elephant, yet we still ignore. In other words, our humanness makes us vulnerable to master manipulators who may very well be less than human.

This brings me to why I believe in the co-option of the left.  The modern liberal – typically associated with the Democratic Party - fears the extremes of wealth and poverty under unrestrained capitalism; thinks all citizens are entitled to the basic necessities of life; champions the protection of the environment, and puts the welfare of all people above the ability of a few to profit enormously from what we’ve been led to believe is the “free market”.

Unlike the Republicans - who,  regardless of their status in life, seem to support the less humanitarian, less "bleeding heart" values of those who dwell at the apex of society - the positions that the Democrats  usually take, make the Democratic Party, in particular, more threatening to the powerful and wealthy. Simply put, the Democrats [used to] believe in speaking truth to power, whereas the ruling class is not interested in truth...only in growing and keeping all of their their wealth and power to themselves.

Therefore, it makes sense, that if the elitists want(ed) to secure their power base, throwing the Democrats/progressives/liberals off their scent...even better, engaging them in the task of defending/supporting their "cause" just might make their road a little easier.  So, why not push their agenda through the Democratic Party; albeit, much more covertly than they do, through the Republican Party.

How?

That's simple, when you consider the aforementioned traits that make us human. It's all about making good use of timing; infiltration, semantics (Orwellian doublespeak); consensus making -  placement of "change agents" or "facilitators" and "divide and conquer" technique (Delphi technique), and let's not forget the Hegelian dialectic (problem-reaction-solution), and/or psychological warfare.  In other words, deceiving the liberals by embedding their operations in issues that appeal to the left.

The evidence for this transformation is right in front of our eyes.  Ever since President Clinton took office, the Democratic Party has gradually moved so far to the right that it's transformed into the Republican party. Moreover, from "the environment" to "family planning", the issues or causes that the Democrats have traditionally supported have been, more or less, co-opted by the ruling class to mask their true motives. 

“I think Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we’ve had in a while.”

MR. RUSSERT: Let me pick up on some interviews that you’ve given this week as you’ve been touring, talking about your book, “The Age of Turbulence.” You said this: “I think Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we’ve had in a while.” Republican?

MR. GREENSPAN: I’m sure he doesn’t like that joke, but if you look at his record compared to what I think appropriate policy ought to be, he’s for free trade, he’s for globalization, he was for welfare reform, fiscal restraint and—true enough, he’s not a Republican. I’m sorry, President Clinton, I didn’t mean to say that. But I must say, I had to follow an awful lot of your particular guidelines and found them very compatible with my own.

Remember DADT/DOMA-signing President Clinton promising that NAFTA wouldn't hurt a bit? Welfare Reform Act of 1996? Repeal of Glass-Steagall Act? DADT?

Fast forward a bit and we have President Bush 2.0 Obama who is a master at cloaking his almost neo-con "actions" in moderate, democratic rhetoric.  Obama, who Jeremy Scahill called "Blackwater's New Sugar Daddy" has upgraded America’s network of overseas detention facilities or ‘black sites’; approved the assassination of American citizens; signed a defense bill that blocks his bid to close Guantanamo Bay;  supports a 3-year extension of Patriot Act surveillance; extending the Bush-era tax cuts for two years, etc. Sure President Obama throws a bone to his base every once in a while, just like the Clinton administration did, but, for the most part, it's just a bone. Unless he's got some super secret strategy I'm unaware,  President Obama is as "Republican" as former President Clinton.

Regarding the co-opting of issues,  take global warming, of which a very strong argument can be made proving it's not man-made.  To be sure, the issue of global warming falls under the category of a "liberal" cause; however, if you dig deep enough and research Agenda 21, "sustainable development" and Global Biodiversity Assessment (the blueprint for Agenda 21) you will find a huge profit motive whose carbon reducing methods exploit all of us, but especially, those who have the least.

In the US, tighter controls on levels of consumption, and standards of living, intrusive carbon taxes, tolls, massive land grabs, conservation easement, zoning restrictions, energy audits, forcing small business to become energy efficient,  etc. are supposed to take place. Some already have.

"... an ‘agricultural world’ in which most human beings are peasants, should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people, probably more if the large agricultural population were supported by an industry-promoting agricultural activity. In contrast, a reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be one billion…” -- U.N. Global Biodiversity Assessment Report, states at page 773:””Whittaker and Likens (1975)

Former President Kennedy defined a liberal as the following:

“ ...someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal', then I’m proud to say I’m a 'Liberal'.

Granted, as a 'Liberal', he didn't make it far, and maybe that's why he was our second to last liberal president. Former President Johnson was probably our last.

Read more...

Beware the Heart of Darkness that May Beat Behind the Benevolence of Billionaires

It shouldn't come as any surprise that power increases moral hypocrisy,  nevertheless, that's what  Dutch researchers found who tested the aforementioned hypothesis.  They noted, “the powerful impose more normative restraints on other people, but believe that they themselves can act with less restraint.” In other words, we, the less powerful, cannot afford to trust the rich and powerful, therefore, it's incumbent upon us to educate and inform ourselves beyond the elite propaganda.

The billionaires were each given 15 minutes to present their favourite cause. Over dinner they discussed how they might settle on an “umbrella cause” that could harness their interests.

The issues debated included reforming the supervision of overseas aid spending to setting up rural schools and water systems in developing countries. Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority.

Take god  tech-titan, Bill "Microsoft" Gates, who gathered some of the world's wealthiest and most powerful billionaires, in secret, to discuss curbing  global population, something he claims is the most important issue of our time. During his speech, "Innovating to Zero", he clearly states his agenda, “First we got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

Considering Mr. Gate's history, that falls on the sociopathic end of the spectrum,  and his dedication and investment (the Gates Foundation is actually an investment firm which reaps vast financial gains every year from investments that contravene its good works) to vaccinating the entire planet, his words are a little disturbing to say the least.

The Gates Foundation has poured $218 million into polio and measles immunization and research worldwide, including in the Niger Delta. At the same time that the foundation is funding inoculations to protect health, The Times found, it has invested $423 million in Eni, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and Total of France — the companies responsible for most of the flares blanketing the delta with pollution, beyond anything permitted in the United States or Europe.

So first, we should ask ourselves: Is overpopulation the overarching problem that Bill Gates asserts?  



Next, we must explore beneath the surface of Mr. Gate's persuasive rhetoric, because, in general, the truth is seldom found on the surface, however, in Mr. Gate's case, you can be certain, no matter how sincere his posture, it is only a pretense disguising his real purpose:  covert coercion to his will.

The Gates Foundation’s investment portfolio, included 500,000 shares of Monsanto - The short list of Monsanto`s toxic products includes Agent Orange, PCBs, aspartame, rBGH, and Ready Roundup. - stock.   Monsanto recently purchased the services of Xe (Blackwater) Intelligence Services and it was within that same time frame that Bill Gates purchased 23 million dollars (US) of Monsanto stocks, marking a substantial increase from its previous holdings, valued at just over $360,000.

Neo-Eugenics masquerading as altruism?

According to Edwin Black in his book, War Against the Weak, the eugenics movement got its start at the turn of the last century.  "American corporate philanthropy combined with prestigious academic fraud to create the pseudoscience eugenics". The Rockefeller Foundation funded eugenics research in Germany through the Kaiser-Wilhelm Institutes in Berlin and Munich, including well into the Third Reich and it was John D. Rockefeller III, a life-long advocate of eugenics, who used his “tax free” foundation money to initiate the population reduction neo-Malthusian movement through his private Population Council in New York beginning in the 1950’s.

In William Engdahl's book, Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, he reports that using vaccines to covertly reduce births in the Third World is not new.  Bill Gates’ good friend, David Rockefeller and his Rockefeller Foundation were involved as early as 1972 in a major project together with WHO and others to perfect another “new vaccine.”

GMO crops and patented seeds were developed in the 1970’s with significant financial support from the pro-eugenics Rockefeller Foundation, by what were essentially chemical companies—Monsanto Chemicals, DuPont and Dow Chemicals. All three were involved in the scandal of the highly toxic Agent Orange used in Vietnam, as well as Dioxin in the 1970’s, and lied to cover up the true damage to its own employees as well as to civilian and military populations exposed.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, along with David Rockefeller’s Rockefeller Foundation, the creators of the GMO biotechnology, are also financing a project called The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) headed by former UN chief, Kofi Annan. Accepting the role as AGRA head in June 2007 Annan expressed his “gratitude to the Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation, and all others who support our African campaign.” The AGRA board is dominated by people from both the Gates’ and Rockefeller foundations.

The bottom line seems to be that the partnership between government, the major foundations and the agribusiness industry reaps far more reward than do the purported recipients of the billionaire's "benevolence".

Links:

US v. Microsoft Timeline

Microsoft v. US trial on Youtube

Docs Reveals Blackwater-Linked Companies Provided Intel & Security to Multinationals Like Monsanto, Chevron

Read more...

Blackwater's Expanding Global Web of Power Relations.

How in the name of all that's despicable does Blackwater keep track of itself? One would think that, by now, Mr. Prince would've caught himself up in the web of aliases he continues to spin at a pace that would make Charlotte blush. To be sure, spinning false fronts that form crucial connections back to Blackwater, in this shell game he plays to win government and corporate contracts, is not so much to hide from governments and corporations, because they already know.  Rather, the idea is to shield himself, and the governments and corporations that he forms an alliance, from the bad publicity that would indeed generate, upon the public finding out about Blackwater's tie-ins to so many institutions vital to the established routines and events taking place here and abroad.

The latest conquest: Blackwater, now known as Xe gets a slice of a new $10 billion state department contract , despite repeated violations, which includes the murder of 17 Iraqis, including women and children,

According to State’s statement, the contracting process for the new Worldwide Protective Services deal included a “review” to ensure that companies met “minimum criteria” for eligibility. “This review included a process to determine whether any offerors had been suspended or debarred from the award of federal contracts,” it said. Despite Blackwater guards killing 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad’s Nisour Square in 2007, killing two Afghan civilians on a Kabul road in 2009, and absconding with hundreds of unauthorized guns from a U.S. military weapons depot in Afghanistan using the name of a South Park character, federal contracting authorities have never suspended or debarred Blackwater.

Let's see. What else? Oh yeah...in addition to their $100 million contract with the CIA, and  $220 million deal in Afghanistan, they handle intelligence operations, training and security services for several multinational corporations... publicly traded companies, one of which includes acting as "the "intel arm" of Monsanto, offering to provide operatives to infiltrate activist groups organizing against the multinational biotech firm." Other companies include: Chevron, the Walt Disney Company, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines and banking giants Deutsche Bank and Barclays.

So, why didn't the red flag begin to wave after finding out Blackwater began to seek training contracts from foreign governments and other foreign organizations without adhering closely to American regulations? Not to mention, shipping automatic weapons and other military equipment for use by its personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan in violation of export controls, hiding its actions in some cases?

Well the flag did wave, but not enough to stop Blackwater.  Trace all the Blackwater links, which are completely unrestricted by geographical limits, and then consider the fundamental politics they embrace, and the entity's likeness to that of a government, keeping in mind the vast infrastructure, people involved, and its substantial hardware inventory, it illuminates that this private, unaccountable army, given immunity from prosecution it seems, "the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power" that former President Eisenhower spoke of "exists and will persist, endangering our liberties or democratic processes."

"We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist, endangering our liberties or democratic processes. As we peer into society's future, we must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering the precious resources of tomorrow." -- President Eisenhower

Links:

Announcement of the contract award  “International Development Solutions,”

Read more...

Reconsidering the Death Penalty in a Time of Economic Crisis

Update: A new study has revealed that ending the death penalty could save the US millions.

Even when executions are not carried out, the death penalty costs the US hundreds of millions of dollars a year, further depleting budgets in the midst of economic crisis.

Capital punishment is rated as one of the least effective crime deterrents, is very costly, and irreversible in a court system enveloped in error. Richard Dieter, director of the Death Penalty Information Center and author of the report "Smart on Crime: Reconsidering the Death Penalty in a Time of Economic Crisis", said, in just one death penalty trial

"the state may pay one million dollars more than for a non-death penalty trial. But only one in every three capital trials may result in a death sentence, so the true cost of that death sentence is three million dollars," the study's author said.

"Further down the road, only one in ten of the death sentences handed down may result in an execution. Hence, the cost to the state to reach that one execution is 30 million dollars,"

That is, if the people we murder for murdering, actually did murder someone. We can never be 100% sure, 100% of the time, that when "we" flick the switch, or inject the lethal cocktail, that the person on the other end is indeed guilty.

However, the death penalty only applies to certain people for the most part. In fact, some murderers are compensated and anyone who protests their life snuffing practices, such as the seven peace activists back in late 2007 - Steve Baggarly, Beth Brockman, Mark Colville, Peter DeMott, Mary Grace, Laura Marks and Bill Streit - members of Dorothy Day's Catholic Worker movement get arrested at the headquarters of Blackwater USA for simulating the shooting of Iraqi civilians, resisting arrest, trespassing and destruction of property.

American politicians campaign using their tough stance on crime, declaring death-row inmates as "cold-blooded killers" who deserve to die. Yet our government is responsible for more death and violence than any one of these death-row inmates could possibly bring about... paid for by our tax dollars.

We may not have pulled the trigger, nevertheless, just because we close our eyes to the atrocities that take place in our name, all over the world, does not mean our hands remain without blood. How can we condone and champion taking another person's life in the name of justice when our own hands are still dripping with the blood of innocent people?

Kenneth Boyd's -- the 1,000th prisoner to be put to death in the US since the death penalty was reinstated -- final words were “God bless everyone in here.”

Kenneth Boyd's last words should remind Christians, especially, that when we ritualistically murder other people, we are not doing Jesus Christ's work, we are murdering Jesus Christ all over again thus exposing the cold-blooded murderer in all of us.

Read more...

Obfuscating the Real Issues.

While everyone is waxing hysterical over the manufactured controversy regarding President Obama's speech to schoolchildren, clearly a non-issue, there are real controversial issues that need to be addressed.

For example, why is President Obama continuing some of the Bush administration's disastrous policies, specifically retaining Blackwater (rebranded Xe pronounced “z”obviously a ploy to operate in the shadows rather the limelight of their murderous past), which is owned by right-wing religious fanatic, and "Christian" crusader, Erik Prince, who is currently accused of murder.

Why isn't Obama doing more to reverse the Bush Administration's destructive courses of action and instead relying on what can only be called, "Bush-era tactics." ?

Why isn't he doing more to stop the senseless bloodshed...to stop the hiring of mercenaries from "for profit" war corporations, who currently comprise more than half of all military forces in U.S. war zones?

Why does the Congressional research group, report civilian contractors working for the Pentagon in Afghanistan not only outnumber the uniformed troops, but also form the highest ratio of contractors to military personnel recorded in any war in the history of the United States?

What happened to the Stop Outsourcing Security Act? , which would have phased out the use of private military contractors? Open Congress reports that secure it's interests regardless of costs in collateral damages.

Could it be that war profiteering is just too profitable to the corporate elite to put a halt to mercenary armies?

Do we really need a new super-sized U.S. embassy in Islamabad that rivals the scale of Bush's giant U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, which was completed last year after construction delays at a cost of $740 million?

So, why not hire private contractors, especially when our military is stretched so thin in various places around the world?

Jeremy Scahill eloquently answers this question and I will do my best to paraphrase. He basically says, when it becomes a necessity to hire an army of people to fight a war, it’s not a reflection of the will of “we the people”. If this were truly a war of national defense, people would willingly sign up, and the government would impose a draft. In this situation, however, imposing a draft would almost certainly put an end to this war as it would surely serve as the fuel needed to fire "we the people" up.

180,000 private contractors are in Iraq right now working for "for profit" war corporations. There are only 150,000 US soldiers. There are 630 corporations on the US government payroll in Iraq. 40% of the money being spent on the occupation in Iraq goes directly to these corporations.

This administration has circumvented the democratic process in order to keep a draft off the table. They have replaced a system of negotiation or international diplomacy or coalition of willing nations with a coalition of corporations. This not only violates democratic principles in the United States, it violates the sovereignty of nations around the world because they are hiring people from countries who are against the war.

On of the gravest matters regarding this issue is that the contractors have not been held to the same standards as the military. They are not held accountable under any system of law whatsoever. 70 soldiers have been court marshaled on murder related charges alone since the beginning of the Iraq war. Not one armed contractor has been prosecuted for any crime under any legal system.

Our soldiers are lucky if they're earning $40,000/year. Their families are at home saving their own money to buy body armor, meanwhile these contractors are making six figures and have much better equipment than our soldiers, manufactured by one of the companies that make up the Prince global empire. In addition, our soldiers often pay the price for the misconduct of the contractors, as they are above the law.

It wasn't all that surprising to see our government stoop so low as to hire Blackwater contractors take on the truly "dangerous" .... dying cancer patients, when Bush was in office, because, after all, President Bush was in office. However, it is surprising to see the escalation of some of Bush's most controversial policies under President Obama.

The bottom line is we need to differentiate between real issues and manufactured issues designed to steer us away from what is in our best interest.

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

Contracts to Blackwater USA from 2000-2008

Triple Canopy and DynCorp.

Read more...

Will Same-Sex Marriage Be the Next Thing on Blackwater's Agenda?

Imagine this. You and your loved one tie the knot. A few years later, the major breadwinner, the one who makes the most money and the health insurance that covers the both of you, is transferred to Virginia. If you don't go, the breadwinner will lose his job.

What do you do? Simple right? You go.

However, what if going means you and the one you pledged your undying love for will cease to be married? Do you refuse the transfer and risk financial ruin or move to Kansas and annihilate your marriage?

Let's take it one-step further. Same scenario, but you are married with children and one of you has decided to stay home and raise the children and take care of the home. You are all covered under his health insurance.

What do you do? Once again, a no-brainer. You go. That is, if you are a heterosexual married couple. If not, sorry, you're on your own. Go, and you dissolve the marriage, losing all the advantages you have gained by making a legal commitment or if you choose to stay, you may keep your marriage intact - as long as the federal authorities allow it to stay that way - but risk financial ruin.

Same-sex married couples are tax-paying American citizens! Why should they have to endure what the vast majority of married couples do not? Shouldn't all citizens reap the benefits of both the state and federal laws? Are the same people who are exempt from reaping the benefits of following the "rule of law" exempt from the penalties incurred by opposing the "rule of law"? No, of course they're not. Not only do the gay married couples miss cashing in on the advantages of being married, they are exposed to an even greater number of penalties because the advantageous part of the law does not apply to them.

Now, back to my original question. Since the Bush Administration is coming to an end, what will Blackwater's role encompass? It's fairly safe to say, if Obama wins, Blackwater may not be as much of an issue, however if the "new" McCain wins, and continues devolving himself in order to squeeze into the self-righteous neocon mold, chances are Blackwater, a.k.a., the "Praetorian Guard" will continue to prevail with the same lack of oversight and just as unaccountable as they are now.

So, what's to stop the Blackwater "thugs" from trumping state statutes on gay marriage, in order to enforce federal law? Just as it appears happened when our government issued the order for the federal raid on a medical marijuana facility in California.

Nothing, because the intersection of federal and state law does not exist for gay married couples. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the provision in the United States Constitution that requires each state to give "Full Faith and Credit" to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

As it is, federal agencies like the IRS do not recognize gay marriage, making it twice as hard for gay married couples to do their taxes, not to mention, all the money gay couples lose because they do not qualify for the federal benefits opposite gendered married couples are automatically entitled.

The function of the Supreme Court is translation of the Constitution, nevertheless, judges are political human beings and subject to the same biases we all are. This is one of the reasons judicial nominations can turn into what can only be described as a three-ring circus. Everyone knows how important it is to get the judge nominated who agrees with his or her views.

Gay marriage cannot be left to the states, because it essentially leaves same-sex married couples at the mercy of the political whim of those in power at any given time. Taking the time to fight for gay marriage, state by state, is counter productive because the optimum outcome is precarious at best and ultimately it is designed to fail.

What good is a marriage license that can be revoked at any time? What good is a marriage license that exempts you from most of the advantages of marriage? What good is a marriage license that confines you to one state? What good is a marriage license that makes you face the cruel process of deciding between your marriage and financial stability? What good is a marriage license that exposes you to the potential tyranny of federal law?

Links:

PEW Forum Gay Marriage Issue Page

The Gay Entrepreneur’s Toolkit: 100 Networking Resources, Guides, and Links

Gay Executive

Read more...

When Governments Start Going After the Weak it's Not a Good Sign.

Notice the t-shirt on one of the agents involved in the federal raid on the sick and the dying in the photo at left. Could it be that Blackwater contractors are now taking on the truly dangerous ...dying cancer patients?

Now, I don't want to jump to any conclusions, however, the photo at left was pulled from an LA Times news report on a federal raid at the Culver City medical marijuana dispensary on August 1.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Victor B. Kenton authorized the seizure of "controlled substances, including marijuana; derivatives thereof, and edible products containing marijuana . . . receipts, notes, ledgers, records . . . reflecting the proceeds of those activities . . . electronic equipment . . . photographs, negatives, videotapes, films, addresses and/or telephone books . . . records, documents, programs, applications. . . ." according to the LA Times article, and this action comes on the same day an appellate court in San Diego rules that federal law does not preempt California's medical pot law.

"Marijuana remains a controlled substance, and it is illegal under federal law to possess, dispense or cultivate marijuana in any form," -- Sarah Pullen, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles office of the agency.

As one commenter pointed out, the Controlled Substances Act, Schedule I excludes substances that have "an accepted use in medical treatment in the United States".
So, why are we busting medical marijuana patients with valid doctor's prescriptions? Why all the bravado? I mean, come on...what are they trying to prove? Some of these people can barely lift their head off their pillow.

Perhaps, easily grown, inexpensive marijuana threatens the Pharmaceutical industry's potential profit margin. Perhaps, the "Rambo" tactics are meant to send a clear message. Perhaps, "Big Brother"..."Big Business"..."The Man" is sitting on a big secret(s), a secret(s), that if it ever got out, could decorpocratize America.

Read more...

Will the Real Prince of Darkness Please Stand Up?

Erik D. Prince
Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and Erik D. Prince, (D for darkness, perhaps) are all supreme candidates for this diabolical title ... I should probably rename this blog searching for the antichrist.

Dick Cheney, the mastermind behind the privatization of the military bureaucracy, and possibly the puppet master in the Bush Administration, surely makes him a contender for this epithetical title. His efforts resulted in radically transforming the US military and national security infrastructure from the public sector to the private. How is that a bad thing? In a nutshell, he runs the risk of making profit motive the primary impetus behind national security which is potentially very dangerous to any nation's security, particularly intelligence.

However, as far as devils go, look at that face above...those eyes...something about this picture reminds me of The Final Conflict. I don't know, maybe it's his resemblance to Sam Neill, the actor who portrayed Damien Thorn, 20 years ago. Then, combine the names Erik D. Prince, son of Edgar D. Prince, with the name of Mr. Prince's company, Blackwater, and the name of the swamp Mr. Prince's company emerged, Great Dismal Swamp, and it sounds more and more like something out of Edgar Allan Poe's imagination. Well, let's see if Mr. Prince qualifies under the standards I've imposed in my last post on the Antichrist - level of insidiousness and and the extent of his power and influence - for the exalted designation of "Antichrist". I guess blogging about the Antichrist only reinforced my insanity...oh well.

As far as the insidious factor, or how far this man will go to avoid the radar, Mr. Prince lives his life in the shadows. All his executives must sign confidentiality agreements, prohibiting them from talking about Mr. Prince once they leave the company. Reclusive and secretive, Mr. Prince does not like his photo taken and often uses his hands to shield himself from photographers. Is there anything in devil doctrine that precludes photographs from being taken?

The book, "Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army," by Jeremy Scahill, is convinced Mr. Prince is a "neo-crusader", a "Theocon" with a Christian-supremacist agenda. Mr. Prince's idea of Christianity is severely skewed to the point of no return...the polar opposite of what he says he is so dedicated too.

"I saw a lot of things I didn't agree with -- homosexual groups being invited in, the budget agreement, the Clean Air Act, those kinds of bills." -- Erik Prince on his internship in the White House under President George H. W. Bush

Blackwater Worldwide, a privately owned company, has made over $1 billion from its security contracts alone and is only part of Mr. Prince's global business empire. The Prince Group LLC formed Total Intelligence Solutions as its intelligence gathering and analyzing part of the business...in other words, it's the CIA for hire. Graystone Limited (promotional video) is an international company Mr. Prince acquired in 2004, and this company has managed to avoid the radar completely. Aside from the tax benefits of incorporating in the Barbados, Mr. Prince chose that spot to "better position the company for international contracts." It's primarily responsible for marketing its services to foreign governments and as Mr. Prince increasingly, recruits more and more of his foot soldiers from third world countries - "discount soldiers"

"They're going to pay these people a lot less, and they're not going to respect the same type of employee and labor rights that U.S. nationals would require," -- Erica Razook, an Amnesty International lawyer whose work focuses on private-security contractors.

- and aggressively pursues business from foreign governments Greystone has become Prince's primary recruiter of "foreign military muscle".

Isn't that comforting, considering Mr. Prince's involvement in the intelligence industry? Remember, this is all for profit and the oversight of these companies is non-existent. There is nothing to prevent the use of "intelligence" to help a client who may be highly profitable to the Prince Group. I'm sure Mr. Prince's alleged patriotism is easily thwarted for profit.

"I think it's extraordinarily dangerous when a nation begins to outsource its monopoly on the use of force ... in support of its foreign policy or national security objectives. The billions of dollars being doled out to these companies, he says, "makes of them a very powerful interest group within the American body politic and an interest group that is, in fact, armed. And the question will arise at some time: to whom do they owe their loyalty?" -- Joe Wilson, who served as the last US ambassador to Iraq before the 1991 Gulf war

The evidence more than supports Mr. Prince's desire to keep everyone in the dark. When testifying about the 17 Iraqi civilians gunned down by Blackwater operatives in the city of Baghdad, even after it was brought up that "we the people" pay 90% of his salary, he refused to disclose his earnings.

However, just this week, President Bush signed into law, as part of the Defense Supplemental Spending Bill, Representative Murphy’s legislation that includes a provision to increase the transparency of government contracts with private defense firms. It requires companies doing more than $25 million of business with the government to disclose who their top executives are and how much they are paid (subtract 10 points from Mr. Bush's Antichrist score).

So, why not hire private contractors, especially when our military is stretched so thin in various places around the world?

Jeremy Scahill eloquently answers this question and I will do my best to paraphrase. He basically says, when it becomes a necessity to hire an army of people to fight a war, it’s not a reflection of the will of “we the people”. If this were truly a war of national defense, people would willingly sign up, and the government would impose a draft. In this situation, however, imposing a draft would almost certainly put an end to this war as it would surely serve as the fuel needed to fire "we the people" up.

180,000 private contractors are in Iraq right now working for "for profit" war corporations. There are only 150,000 US soldiers. There are 630 corporations on the US government payroll in Iraq. 40% of the money being spent on the occupation in Iraq goes directly to these corporations.

This administration has circumvented the democratic process in order to keep a draft off the table. They have replaced a system of negotiation or international diplomacy or coalition of willing nations with a coalition of corporations. This not only violates democratic principles in the United States, it violates the sovereignty of nations around the world because they are hiring people from countries who are against the war.

On of the gravest matters regarding this issue is that the contractors have not been held to the same standards as the military. They are not held accountable under any system of law whatsoever. 70 soldiers have been court marshaled on murder related charges alone since the beginning of the Iraq war. Not one armed contractor has been prosecuted for any crime under any legal system.

Our soldiers are lucky if they're earning $40,000/year. Their families are at home saving their own money to buy body armor, meanwhile these contractors are making six figures and have much better equipment than our soldiers, manufactured by one of the companies that make up the Prince global empire. In addition, our soldiers often pay the price for the misconduct of the contractors, as they are above the law.

The Bush Administration has no interest in prosecuting contractor crimes in Iraq. It would be bad for business as this occupation couldn't function without the private contractors. The US has banned Iraq from prosecuting contractors in Iraqi courts and President Bush does not recognize international law, not to mention, there are serious question as to whether military or civilian law would apply to these contractors in the US. In fact, the Bush Administration offered the Blackwater contractors involved, "Limited-use" immunity, meaning they were promised they would not be prosecuted for anything they said in interviews with the authorities as long as their statements were true.

Consider this. Blackwater operatives just showed up on the streets of New Orleans after Hurricaine Katrina hit, "wielding M4 assault rifles, pistols strapped to their legs, flak jackets, dressed in all khaki" as one observer described them, with no government contractor authorization at all. Granted, one week later they had a government contract to protect FEMA, however, it's kind of scary to think a military unit like that can transcend the government's authority so easily. Blackwater made $70 million dollars from Katrina, that's $240,000 per day, and they billed US taxpayers $950 per person, per day. With that kind of power and apparent ability to transcend the law, it's hard not to wonder about the possibility that Blackwater could turn its massive firepower and army of mercenaries against US citizens.

It works like this: Blackwater, for example, will win a U.S. government contract; it will then subcontract with itself—that is, with Greystone—to do the job. From there, Greystone looks to its network of international affiliates, firms like Pizarro's Grupo Táctico in Chile or ID Systems in Colombia, which maintain informal relationships with what are known in the trade as "briefcase recruiters"—individuals with connections to the local paramilitary scene. These men find the recruits and funnel them back up the chain until, finally, they are deployed alongside U.S. forces in Iraq. The practice also serves as a convenient firewall, shielding U.S.-based companies from direct liability for the actions of their subcontractors. "If a court is looking at these issues, where the contract is signed is a factor. There is a lot there that would take it out of a U.S. court's control." -- Erica Razook

With the exception of congressman Henry Waxman, Democratic Congressman from California, almost no one in the Congress has done anything to effectively take on these individuals or this company. Although Obama has a very good understanding of what's going on and has even authored legislation to combat the problems outsourcing security causes, he will not sign the Sanders-Schakowsky bill, Stop Outsourcing Security Act, which seeks to ban the use of these companies in U.S. war zones and make all of the diplomatic security agents full-time employees of the U.S. government, meaning an accountability structure would be in place.

At any rate, just as President Bush is anti Christ, Mr. Prince is a Prince of darkness and anti Christ to boot. As for the "Antichrist" or "Prince of Darkness", the search continues, however, I'm leaning toward Mr. Prince right now.

Read more...

Toll that Contracting and Profiteering are Taking on Our Armed Forces

Robert Greenwald, director of "Iraq for Sale" testified to the House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense about the effects war profiteering and private contractors have on our military in Iraq.

[...]

He saw Halliburton advertising a job for truck drivers in Iraq and he signed up. When Shane started telling me that empty trucks were being driven across dangerous stretches of desert, I assumed he was mistaken. Why would they do that? Then he explained that Halliburton got paid for the number of trips they took, regardless of whether they were carrying anything. These unnecessary trips where putting the lives of truckers at risk, exposing drivers and co-workers to attack. This was the result of cost-plus, no-bid contracts.

Another young Halliburton worker named James Logsdon told me about the burn pits. Burn pits are large dumps near military stations where they would burn equipment, trucks, trash, etc. If they ordered the wrong item, they'd throw it in the burn pit. If a tire blew on a piece of equipment, they'd throw the whole thing into the burn pit. They burn pits had so much equipment, they even gave them a nickname -- "Home Depot."

The trucker said he would get us some photos. And I naively asked, how big are they, the size of a backyard swimming pool? He laughed, and referred to one that he had seen that was 15 football fields large, and burned around the clock! It infuriated him to have to burn stuff rather then give it to the Iraqis or to the military. Yet Halliburton was being rewarded each time they billed the government for a new truck or new piece of equipment. With a cost- plus contract, the contractors receive a percentage of the money they spend. As Shane told me, "It's a legal way of stealing from the government or the taxpayers' money."

[...]

Sgt. Phillip Slocum wrote to us and said, "In previous experiences I went off to war with extra everything, and then some. This time however, Uncle Sam sent me off with one pair of desert boots, two uniforms, and body armor that didn't fit."

In addition, Greewald discovered the huge role contractors (CACI and JP London) played in the Abu Ghraib torture scandal and how they were rewarded with more power and even larger profits.

[...]

I was also shocked to discover the role of contractors in the tragedy of Abu Ghraib. Its images are seared into the minds of people throughout the world, yet few realize the role of CACI and its interrogators. As our team dug deeper and deeper into the numerous contracts, CACI and JP London kept appearing over and over. The Taguba report, the Fay report, and the Human Rights Watch report "By The Numbers" all made clear that CACI had played a significant role in the torture. As Pratap Chatterjee, head of CorpWatch has stated, CACI was using "information technology contracts through the department of Interior. So either somebody was in a big hurry or they did this deliberately so nobody would ever be able to track this ... CACI does a lot of work directly with OSD, Office of the Secretary of Defense."

And even after the investigations, there were no consequences; in fact, CACI continued to receive more and more contracts with no oversight. Later, CACI and JP London were even hired to process cases of fraud and incompetence by contractors! I kid you not -- CACI, a corporation that had profited enormously from the war and whose CEO JP London personally made $22,249,453 from his stock and salary in 2004 -- was being hired to oversee other contractors!

Our soldiers and countless Iraqis are dying and suffering the most devastating injuries imaginable all to help a few Bush-connected corporations amass a fortune off the total destruction of Iraq.

Read more...