One doesn't fix a nation

I can't fix a nation!

But I can clean a house!

I can't heal a nation!

But I can heal a mouse.

.

And if I can heal a mouse,

maybe we can heal a nation.

And if we can heal a nation,

Maybe we can heal the world!

Occupy Crackdown coordinated from before Occupy created

Naomi Wolfe detailed last year one of the the things I pointed out in some earlier posts this year;(Surveillance Metastasizes, Bush's Loogie and "The Ghost of J. Edgar Hoover". In her blog she tells us the crackdown on Occupy was both more devious and more:

"...more sophisticated than we had imagined: new documents show that the violent crackdown on Occupy last fall – so mystifying at the time – was not just coordinated at the level of the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and local police. The crackdown, which involved, as you may recall, violent arrests, group disruption, canister missiles to the skulls of protesters, people held in handcuffs so tight they were injured, people held in bondage till they were forced to wet or soil themselves –was coordinated with the big banks themselves."[emphasis mine]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy

She goes on to refer to a document from a recent law suit showing just what a threat to civil liberties this is, showing:

...a terrifying network of coordinated DHS, FBI, police, regional fusion center, and private-sector activity so completely merged into one another that the monstrous whole is, in fact, one entity: in some cases, bearing a single name, the Domestic Security Alliance Council. And it reveals this merged entity to have one centrally planned, locally executed mission. The documents, in short, show the cops and DHS working for and with banks to target, arrest, and politically disable peaceful American citizens."

Domestic Security Alliance Council

This council is probably the most dangerous body our country has ever constituted. Anyway, the document was summarized here:

http://www.justiceonline.org/commentary/fbi-files-ows.html

For more on DSAC read: http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-domestic-security-alliance-council.html

And the FBI document:

"http://www.justiceonline.org/commentary/fbi-files-ows.html#documents"

So instead of surveilling and cracking down on Financial Fraud, the FBI worked with the Fraudsters to crackdown on folks protesting getting defrauded. Really great.

We definitely are being rolled, not just by Bandar, but this box has steel walls.

This is a follow on to my post from the weekend Syrian Chemical Weapons attack: False Flag or not?, since then the UN inspectors went home, the UN repeated it's allegation that the Rebels used Chemical Weapons, I've seen evidence that the Rebels used Chemical Weapons before, were caught at the Syrian border with them, and allegations that Assad had used them before. Meanwhile I'm seeing an administration that dismisses inconvenient facts and am even more convinced we are being rolled [again] by the Military-Industrial establishment. I still believe:

One: Unilateral action would be dumb.

Two: The US is discounting warnings that the Saudis/Al Nusra are involved in these chemical attacks and that this is a false flag -- even though many of their own rank and file believe this.

Three: Unless the USA can at least get more evidence on who launched those attacks, they risk falling into a trap.

The Blog "Who What why" reminds us that Wesley Clark testified back around 2008 that a neo-conservative agenda included Syria and has since 9/11 provided them with the opportunity. Who What Why Reminds us that he said at the time:

"2007, Gen. Wesley Clark claims America underwent a “policy coup” at the time of the 9/11 attacks. In this video, he reveals that, right after 9/11, he was privy to information contained in a classified memo: US plans to attack and remove governments in seven countries over five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran."

http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/08/31/classic-why-real-reason-for-syria-war-plans-from-gen-wesley-clark/

Wesley Clark wrote recently in USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/08/29/syria-wesley-clark-kosovo-nato/2726733/. He compares the attack on Syria not to Kosovo, but to Clinton's punishment strike on Saddam Hussein for a plot to assassinate GHW Bush in 1993

"First, Kosovo was a much larger effort. In terms of scope, a more analogous precedent to a strike on Syria would be President Clinton's strike against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's intelligence center in Baghdad with cruise missiles in 1993, in punishment for Saddam's alleged plot to assassinate former president George H. W. Bush."

But wait, at the time I heard that was to punish Saddam for outrages he'd perpetrated against his Shiites in the south and the Kurds in the North. I guess I should be used to lies as a cover for real reasons by now. Anyway Clark supports a reaction to the use of chemical weapons:

But President Obama has rightly drawn a line at the use of chemical weapons. Some weapons are simply too inhuman to be used. And, as many of us learned during 1990s, in the words of President Clinton, "Where we can make a difference, we must act."

But of course, if the Saudis were using chemical weapons to try to start a false flag, I'm not sure that punishing Assad as they want us to, is going to do it. We need concerted action, and we need to make sure that we don't get tricked into doing what our frenemies want us to do instead of what is good for us and the world as a whole.

And the UN Secretary warns (and so Does Wesley Clark obliquely:

"I take note of the argument for action to prevent a future use of chemical weapons. At the same time, we must consider the impact of any punitive measure on efforts to prevent further bloodshed and facilitate the political resolution of the conflict," Ban said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/us-strike-syria-_n_3861209.html

So we need to do something, as a world. Not sure the United States is going to win out by launching a punitive strike that helps the Al Nusra/Saudi's at our expense. But something is needed. And everyone, agrees:

Ban did not blame any party for the alleged attack on a Damascus suburb, saying that "If confirmed, any use of chemical weapons by anyone under any circumstances will be a serious violation of international law and an outrageous war crime."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/us-strike-syria-_n_3861209.html

We need an international intervention. And we need the various greedy parties to set aside their destructive "grand game" and do the right thing (for a change):

"Whatever the source, this latest allegation should be as wakeup call for the international community," Ban said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/us-strike-syria-_n_3861209.html

So, while I'm still convinced we are being rolled, the US needs to be active here. Maybe go to the UN next. But striking Assad? Not sure we'll get the kind of "bang for a buck we really want. Because the blowback from such a thing can be hell, and because we aren't likely to get rid of them at this point, since both sides have them.

He stressed that an ongoing investigation by U.N. chemical weapons experts "is uniquely placed to independently establish the facts in an objective and impartial manner."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/us-strike-syria-_n_3861209.html

Too Bad the UN doesn't have a court with International Sheriff powers and genuine Juries.

"UN chief: US attack to punish alleged Syria chemical weapons attack could unleash more turmoil."

"http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/chief-us-attack-punish-alleged-syria-chemical-weapons-20144839"

Oh well. We are definitely being rolled by a whole lot of greedy, ambitious and perverse players. But this box has steel walls. I'm listening to Chris Hayes and am hoping he has better ideas than I have at this moment, because nobody is following my ideas. I'll publish this as soon as I hear what he has to say.

Oh s**t. Chris sees this even darker than I do. He's really sure that a strike will make things much worse. He sees Assad's regime as desperate, and that if he used Gas, it was as a statement that he and his followers have their backs to the wall and are in this together. So we attack, and they are not going to stop, but raise the ante instead. He also points out what I've been pointing that the Rebels include Jihadi's whose program makes Assad's look enlightened by comparison. And he suggests that we spend money actually supporting refugees, and preparing to repair the problems.

As I noted today, cruise missiles are really expensive (Chris gives the numbers) and aren't a strap on Phallic symbol, but a very expensive piece of equipment guaranteed to kill civilians (especially if it does hit chemical weapons). There has to be a better solution to the Syrians than the USA bombing the smithereens of them. I don't think it is good for the USA. I know it's not good for the long term survival of anyone, especially Israel and Israelis, and it may satisfy the atavistic urges of a few chicken hawks (who never send their own kids). But it will make a few people very rich, and so as John Stewart says:

"The idiot parade is in town!"

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsVW9pjjA7g"

Prosecutors should be officers of the court first

I see it all over the place. Prosecutors who charge people based on what they can get away with rather than what is appropriate, and lawyers in general who treat justice as a big money game: How to get off those with the most money, and sock it too everyone else. This, of course is not how it is supposed to be, and you almost never will see a lawyer admit that that is the game. But I've been trying to help a family member with a judicial problem, and that is the confession I hear from all the lawyers I consult. Don't have too much more to report on this one. But when the judicial system is a game for the lawyers that is injustice and tyranny not justice. We need major reforms to the incentives and disincentives of all our major systems.

Syrian Chemical Weapons attack: False Flag or not?

Normally, I prefer to believe people are being straight up with me. I don’t’ like conspiracy theories or theorists. They usually don’t get their facts right and they usually misuse those facts to go after their personal prejudices. So it really bothers me when something doesn’t smell right and I find out that they have a point. I prefer explanations for events to follow Occams razor – the simplest explanation is often the right one.

That being so, sometimes the facts require me to agree with folks I ordinarily don’t agree with. Like in this case Pat Buchanan:

Buchanan said on Newsmax about the allegations against the Syrian Government.:

“This thing reeks of a false flag operation,” Buchanan told Newsmax. “I would not understand or comprehend that Bashar al-Assad—no matter how bad a man he may be—would be so stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack on civilians in his own country, when the immediate consequences of which might be that he would be at war with the United States.”

Unless Assad has a secret death wish Buchanan is right. It does the Syrians no good to use chemical weapons on their own people – but it is a great opportunity for Syrian Rebels seeking outside support.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/buchanan-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-reeks-of-false-flag-operation/

This makes a good place to start. For the Republicans and their front groups disinformation is a stock in trade. Crooks recognize each other. So when two crooks duke it out in public that is often when we learn the dirty laundry both sides had been hiding.

Government Claims:

The government assessment of the attack makes most of it’s claims based on Signal intelligence (Sigint) and Satellite intelligence. The administration claims:

Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21. Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred – including Kafr Batna, Jawbar, ‘Ayn Tarma, Darayya, and Mu’addamiyah. This includes the detection of rocket launches from regime controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared in social media. The lack of flight activity or missile launches also leads us to conclude that the regime used rockets in the attack.

So, the government’s claim is that the Syrian Government prepared for this attack and launched it early in the morning of August 21, 2013. They further complain that they have intercepts and humint intelligence. Summarizing:

… “there is a substantial body of information that implicates the Syrian government’s responsibility in the chemical weapons attack that took place on August 21.As indicated, there is additional intelligence that remains classified because of sources and methods concerns that is being provided to Congress and international partners.”

But is this information reliable?

But is this information all the information, is it accurate? The trouble with our Espionage act and our SIG-INT and SAT-INT intelligence is that the days when we could be sure the intelligence was really truly accurate are long over, and were an illusion in the first place. Secrecy and Honest intelligence analysis can go hand in hand, but depend on military officers with a kind of integrity that isn’t always in evidence anymore. Even if we concede that the missiles in the attack were fired from within Syrian Government controlled lines, that doesn’t mean that the Syrian Government necessarily fired them. It might give analysts reasonable confidence, but only if one assumes that those lines are stable. The attacks occurred at night, and the rockets were launched around 2 AM. That is plenty of time for rebels to setup and fire their weapons, with plenty of time to return to their own lines, assuming that the Syrian Army even actually in fact controls those lines by day. That is the nature of irregular warfare. A false flag is extremely possible, and if our security forces are compromised by frenemies (such as Prince Bandar’s Saudi Secret Service) then they know exactly where to position rockets to setup a false flag attack that would fool our CIA Satellites. Assuming our CIA isn’t in on the con.

So “substantial” body of information is not enough given the untrusted and untrustworthy environment we work within, and the untrustworthy past behavior of our CIA and it’s past “mistakes” all of which bear an uncanny resemblance to what is going on now.

In 2003 we were told that they had a substantial body of information to implicate Iraq in having Weapons of Mass Destruction, and supposedly the Iraqis were developing a Nuke WMD capability as well. The Iraqis were complaining that they were complying with the WMD treaty obligations they’d signed after the first gulf war but no one was listening to them. Later it turned out we were being played by an Iraqi Shiite operative who was lying to us. Facts that contradicted the official narrative were stepped on, and Colin Powell gave a presentation at the UN on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, that later turned out to be based on pure fabrication….

Understand why most of us who remember this are alarmed?

Evidence for False Flag attacks:

The Turks intercepted Al Nusra (Al Qaeda group under Prince Bandar's control) delivering chemical weapons through their country:

"The EGM identified 12 members of the AL Nusra terrorist cell and also [seized] ceased fire arms and digital equipment. This is the second major official confirmation of the use of chemical weapons by Al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria after UN inspector Carla Del Ponte’s recent statement confirming the use of chemical weapons by the Western-backed terrorists in Syria."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/turkish-police-find-chemical-weapons-in-the-possession-of-al-nusra-terrorists-heading-for-syria/5336917

Dale Gavlak, who used to work at Salon but now works at “Mint Press” and Yahya Ababneh who speaks fluent Arabic were in the Damascus region, interviewing victims and investigating the subject ( http://www.sott.net/article/265653-Syrian-rebels-and-local-residents-testify-that-Saudi-intelligence-chief-Prince-Bandar-bin-Sultan-supplied-chemical-weapons-to-al-Qaeda-linked-group) They write:

Ghouta, Syria - As the machinery for a U.S.-led military intervention in Syria gathers pace following last week's chemical weapons attack, the U.S. and its allies may be targeting the wrong culprit. ."

Of course Syria and it’s allies are making the same claims, but nobody is listening.

”Interviews with people in Damascus and Ghouta, a suburb of the Syrian capital, where the humanitarian agency Doctors Without Borders said at least 355 people had died last week from what it believed to be a neurotoxic agent, appear to indicate as much."

So, the people on the ground seem to believe they were attacked by Rebels:

”The U.S., Britain, and France as well as the Arab League have accused the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for carrying out the chemical weapons attack, which mainly targeted civilians. U.S. warships are stationed in the Mediterranean Sea to launch military strikes against Syria in punishment for carrying out a massive chemical weapons attack. The U.S. and others are not interested in examining any contrary evidence, with U.S Secretary of State John Kerry saying Monday that Assad's guilt was "a judgment ... already clear to the world."

But as we found out from the Iraqi debacle, the people “on the ground” often have more accurate information about what is going on than governments:

”However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.”

The story they recount claims that some of the rebels were given weapons to use against Assad that turned out to be chemical weapons:

”Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons

when they apparently inadvertently set off the weapons they’d been given by “a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion.”

”The father described the weapons as having a "tube-like structure" while others were like a "huge gas bottle."

And of course he is describing chemical weapons . The rebels stored the weapons in tunnels and fired them at night. And he says his son died during the chemical weapons attack, apparently from weapons they’d been given by “Jabnat al Nusrat” allies. They interviewed a rebel named “J” who said:

"We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,"

Further reading on this:

http://www.sott.net/article/265653-Syrian-rebels-and-local-residents-testify-that-Saudi-intelligence-chief-Prince-Bandar-bin-Sultan-supplied-chemical-weapons-to-al-Qaeda-linked-group

But of course that is Hearsay.” But the Wallstreet journal reported months ago that Bandar was leading the effort to fight the Syrian regime, and that their intelligence operatives have been our primary sources for allegations against the Syrian regime

Further reading on this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323423804579024452583045962.html

Syrian Rebel Rocket Attacks:

We know that statements that Syrians can’t carry out rocket attacks are a lie because the Syrians have been successfully using Rocket launchers and rockets, starting with smaller models back in April. On Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:01am EDT Reuters reported an article by By Amena Bakr from DUBAI titled

Saudi supplying missiles to Syria rebels: Gulf source

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/17/us-syria-crisis-missiles-saudi-idUSBRE95G0DK20130617

Those were followed by anti-tank and larger rocket platforms. Reuters reporter Suleiman Al-Khalidi AMMAN | Thu Aug 15, 2013 11:45am EDT reported:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/15/us-syria-crisis-arms-idUSBRE97E0QH20130815

Headline: “New Saudi-supplied missiles boost rebels in south Syria” “(Reuters) - Rebels in southern Syria have fired newly acquired anti-tank guided missiles supplied by Saudi Arabia in a significant boost to their battle against President Bashar al-Assad, rebel, intelligence and diplomatic sources say.

So when the administration claims that the rebels couldn’t have fired rockets, they are wrong.

Gavlak’s article then references an article by Peter Oborne, which is in the Daily Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10271248/The-rush-to-judgment-on-Syria-is-a-catastrophic-and-deadly-error.html

”Consider this: the only beneficiaries from the atrocity were the rebels, previously losing the war, who now have Britain and America ready to intervene on their side. While there seems to be little doubt that chemical weapons were used, there is doubt about who deployed them. It is important to remember that Assad has been accused of using poison gas against civilians before. But on that occasion, Carla del Ponte, a UN commissioner on Syria, concluded that the rebels, not Assad, were probably responsible.”

So not only could the rebels use rockets and poison Gas, but they’d been caught using poison gas before.

Further reading:

http://nsnbc.me/2013/08/31/debunking-us-chemical-weapons-intelligence-claims/

http://www.examiner.com/article/breaking-news-rebels-admit-gas-attack-result-of-mishandling-chemical-weapons

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10271248/The-rush-to-judgment-on-Syria-is-a-catastrophic-and-deadly-error.html

Al Qaeda and Bandar

But the interviews by Gavlak and his confederate show some other juicy facts. Maybe, just maybe Bandar is revealing some things that he probably should have kept more circumspect. For example, while the Saudis are funding moderate rebels, most of their funds are going to the radical and the radicals refer to Bandar affectionately:

”rebels interviewed said Prince Bandar is referred to as "al-Habib" or 'the lover' by al-Qaida [Al Nusra] militants fighting in Syria.”

Bandar has also boasted recently about being in control of the Chechen Rebels against Russia.

Reuters also reported:

I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the Syrian territory’s direction without coordinating with us. These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence in Syria’s political future.”

To which Putin is said to have replied:

“We know that you have supported the Chechen terrorist groups for a decade. And that support, which you have frankly talked about just now, is completely incompatible with the common objectives of fighting global terrorism that you mentioned. We are interested in developing friendly relations according to clear and strong principles.”

The Chechen rebels that Bandar supported were doing the equivalent of Al Qaeda in Russia, attacking train stations, schools, and killing innocent people far from Chechnya. Bandar is also famous for supporting Bin Laden. Supposedly breaking with him when he started plotting 9/11, but all the attackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia or Yemen. Whose side are we on here? There is only circumstantial evidence leaking Bandar to 9/11, but the evidence there is stronger than claims that Iraq had anything to do with it – or Syria.

Following President Carter's advice:

I almost forgot the most important thing, a kind of post script. President Carter suggests:

"ATLANTA....The use of chemical weapons on August 21 near Damascus is a grave breach of international law that has rightfully outraged the world community. The United States and some of its European allies are calling for military strikes on Syria, but apparently without support from NATO or the Arab League. Predictably, Russia, Iran, and Syria are predicting dire consequences. At Syria's invitation, a U.N. investigation is already underway and will soon make its report. A punitive military response without a U.N. Security Council mandate or broad support from NATO and the Arab League would be illegal under international law and unlikely to alter the course of the war. It will only harden existing positions and postpone a sorely needed political process to put an end to the catastrophic violence. Instead, all should seek to leverage the consensus among the entire international community, including Russia and Iran, condemning the use of chemical weapons in Syria and bringing under U.N. oversight the country's stockpile of such weapons."

"It is imperative to determine the facts of the attack and present them to the public. Those responsible for the use of chemical weapons must bear personal responsibility," said President Carter. "The chemical attack should be a catalyst for redoubling efforts to convene a peace conference, to end hostilities, and urgently to find a political solution."

http://www.cartercenter.org/news/pr/syria-083013.html

Doctors Without borders

Doctors Without borders reports: http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/press/release.cfm?id=7033&cat=press-release

Response to Government References to MSF Syria Statement

Over the last two days, the American, British, and other governments have referred to reports from several groups, including Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), while stating that the use of chemical weapons in Syria was “undeniable” and designating the perpetrators.

"MSF today warned that its medical information could not be used as evidence to certify the precise origin of the exposure to a neurotoxic agent or to attribute responsibility."

"On August 24, MSF announced that three hospitals it supplies in Syria’s Damascus governorate had reportedly received 3,600 patients displaying neurotoxic symptoms, of which 355 died. Although our information indicates mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent, MSF clearly stated that scientific confirmation of the toxic agent was required, and therefore called for an independent investigation to shed light on what would constitute, if confirmed, a massive and unacceptable violation of international humanitarian law."

"MSF also stated that in its role as an independent medical humanitarian organization, it was not in a position to determine responsibility for the event. Now that an investigation is underway by United Nations inspectors, MSF rejects that our statement be used as a substitute for the investigation or as a justification for military action. MSF's sole purpose is to save lives, alleviate the suffering of populations torn by Syrian conflict, and bear witness when confronted with a critical event, in strict compliance with the principles of neutrality and impartiality."

"The latest massive influx of patients displaying neurotoxic symptoms in Damascus governorate comes on top of an already catastrophic humanitarian situation facing the Syrian people, one characterized by extreme violence, displacement, the destruction of medical facilities, and severely limited or blocked humanitarian action."

Further reading:

Articles read but not cited, or suggested to be read for follow up:

This Zero Hedge fund had the first raw translation I saw of the meeting between Putin and Bandar:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-27/meet-saudi-arabias-bandar-bin-sultan-puppetmaster-behind-syrian-war

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/24/the-risky-missile-systems-that-syrias-rebels-believe-they-need/?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

Even if Bandar weren't providing new missiles, the rebels are also using looted missiles:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/28/syrian-rebel-missiles-assad-aircraft

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2013/08/saudi-russia-putin-bandar-meeting-syria-egypt.html#ixzz2dZBAwvCl

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html

Russian Sources:

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows-rebels-launching-gas-attack-in-syria/

Two Cons and the Emperor's new clothes

The Security con and most securities cons have one important thing in common. They are both variations of the "emperor's new clothes" con. Both rely on often faulty intelligence and analysis Sometimes folks really know what they are doing, but it is easier to play the con, and cheaper. In real life the more data one has the more muddy the picture of what is going on usually is. To get information out of that data one must analyze it, and that introduces personal biases, group biases, cultural, and emotional biases. For that reason it is easier to simply apply those biases and pretend one's data is better quality than it is in fact. Both the security game and the financial game rely on secrecy to make that so much easier.

You remember the story:

A group of salesmen come to the Kings court and tell the king they are weavers of the most wonderful clothing. They arrange an audience with the king in which they pay people to help them convince the king they are selling such clothing. They show him bolts of cloth so magical that only a fool can't see it's wondrous qualities, and all the people in the room nod and pretend that they are looking at real cloth while there actually is nothing there. They then take money from him and begin pretending to weave, and next thing you know he's parading down the street stark naked. All are convinced "that only a fool can't see this cloth" and so everyone watches in awe, pretending that the clothes are magnificent. Meanwhile the grifters abscond with their takings and head for the hills. In the story sometimes a little boy notices the nakedness and points it out and that is how the con is revealed. In some versions they stone the little boy and don't realize the con until they see the grifters have robbed the pallace during the parade.

Our Financial and Security industries have been running such cons.

There are legitimate reasons to keep both economic information and military-industrial-police-security information secret and private. Ironically the main reason is to protect that information from falling into the wrong hands. However, while the "wrong hands" are usually sold to people as outside enemies. The most likely enemy to individual security, safety, privacy and wealth, is usually found in the trustees of that information. Thus we are in most danger for our personal wealth from our security personnel and from those we've trusted to invest our money. Our republic is in danger, not from outside enemies (they are a danger more to their own communities than ours), but from these grifters who are using our injust laws and spy state to steal from us and empoverish us. In the name of "security, jobs, and prosperity." We once had nice clothes, now all of us are naked because of the cons.

Catch 22 and unintended/Intended consequence

The other day in my article "Surveillance metastasizes" I wrote how the NSA has basically been spun off into various daughter organizations, Fusion Centers, and various program agencies. All this was ordered by an National Security Directive you can find at the Whitehouse website. The article detailed a few of the orders, but not all of them. But it shows how fiendishly transparent our government can be in a Catch 22 Milo Minderbinder kind of way. Anyway one of the organizations had these Instructions:

"Using the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center, an interagency and inter- national law enforcement task force established in 2000 and led by ICE, to assist with combating intellectual property theft and maintaining the integrity of public health, public safety, the military, and the U.S. economy."

... and I deduced (predicted): that "We can expect to find out that NSA intelligence sharing is helping Giant Companies go after people who download movies, pirate software and who knows what else." Well I was right (of course) the referenced organization exists and is relentless in it's pursuit of housewives, teachers and other people in search of material long in the public domain:

http://www.iprcenter.gov/reports/public-service-announcements is their website. And they have a mission:

"The National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center) stands at the forefront of the U.S. government’s response to global intellectual property (IP) theft. As a task force, the IPR Center uses the expertise of its member agencies to share information, develop initiatives, coordinate enforcement actions, and conduct investigations related to IP theft. Through this strategic interagency partnership, the IPR Center protects the public’s health and safety, the U.S. economy and the war fighters."

"http://www.iprcenter.gov/about-us"

So they've been active since 2000. With some successes world wide! An article in the blog "Daily dot" claims " Mega founder Kim Dotcom had some key intelligence on his online activity, provided by a foreign government's spy powers" which were used to bring him down. They've also made it possible to arrest folks buying knock off purses and such in New Yorks Manhattan Garment District. That would have killed my late wife twice.

All these fusion centers and orgs are not strictly speaking NSA, so when NSA demurres from claims it spies on school teachers downloading files for teaching materials -- they are technically right. Our Catch 22 rules are secret, so if you want to see them you have to fill out a form. But what you will see, if you are ever allowed to see it, will be redacted.

Lots in the news today.

And when the NSC decided to protect "intellectual property" I'm sure they had more Kim Dotcom in mind than the school teachers they so openly went after recently. It's just easier to go after teenagers, cheap purse buyers, and moms, than Mega companies or actual Pedophiles who might be coaches at important universities or Senators, or Wall Street kleptarchs. Thus we find the FBI working with spies to go after folks protesting Wall Street instead of Wall Street. It's just easier and your benefactors will pay you. That's the law of intended/unintended consequences. Modern Catch 22.

Daily Dot: http://www.dailydot.com/politics/nsa-kim-dotcom-xkeyscore-gcsb/

PBS article on the spies spying on journalists and politicians to keep them in line: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs/july-dec13/whistleblowers_08-01.html

Yesterdays' post reviewing Sirota's article:The Ghost of J. Edgar Hoover lives on

Catch 22: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Minderbinder

AP Report on court decision about NSA: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/nsa-collected-thousands-us-communications