What to make of this U.S. "government shutdown"

Things to look for in deciphering the goals of the unity party's shutdown drama:

1) Will they allow all 800,000 "furloughed" workers to return to their "government jobs?" Over the years that term has become a perjorative. As this manufactured crises has shown, most of the anger should be directed at Legislators.

2) How is Wall Street doing? Have stocks fallen significantly? No, right? Search the net and the typical news is "Wall Street Shows Little Reaction to the Government Shutdown."

The dollar is in crisis.
U.S. military might is used  to buttress the power of the dollar.

"This system requires war." - Stan Goff

New World Order -- Small Wars, Limited War. Henry Kissinger on the record about U.S. foreign policy, July 7, 1958

What is “dollar hegemony?”

“The United States makes dollars. The rest of the world has to make things to get dollars.” -- Henry Lui (Economist)

3) What about "the debt ceiling" and it's relation to this drama? Remembering that Washington is where they print all the money, what's keeping them from paying off all they're debts? Significantly, all of the U.S.' debtors (basically all the world's major economies) are now heavily  invested in the U.S. , whose vulture capitalists control the globalized economy, with its interconnected markets. "The financial “hub” for the neoliberal world system is Wall Street. All lines go through that hub." They have a lot to lose if the U.S. defaults on its debt.

4) Supposedly, the issue for the Republicans is ObamaCare. They claim to want to "defund ObamaCare." They object to it as "government control of healthcare." They especially dislike the  "individual mandate" and "employer mandate" (delayed 1 year) insurance aspect of the new law. If the mandates remain intact it will land tons more new business for the private sector insurance companies. Republicans claim to be "the party of business," so it is counter to their ideology to kill ObamaCare, a bid to privatize healthcare.

That's the opinion of Pediatrician and "Green Cabinet" member Dr. Margaret Flowers of the Green Party. Dr. flowers thinks ObamaCare will lead to the privatization of health insurance.*

Rather than leading to government-run healthcare (like Medicare and Medicaid), ObamaCare signifies the attempt to privatize healthcare.

So the famous sign at a Tea Party rally was (inadvertently) right and not as assinine as "liberals" thought in defiantly declaring: "Get Your Government Hands off my Medicare!" The Affordable Care Act (ACA) aka ObamaCare will NOT lead to the implementation of a "public option."

Wiki: "The public health insurance option, also known as the public insurance option or the public option, was a proposal to create a government-run health insurance agency which would compete with other health insurance companies within the United States of America."

"Neoliberal theology asserts the primacy of the private, the value of small government; but neoliberal practice has been massively subsidized and legally protected from public accountability by the state. Without the state’s affirmative actions on behalf of the international business class, the system would collapse. Fast. Begin by thinking about how many battle groups from the US Navy are required to ensure the flow of fossil hydrocarbons into the industrialized metropolis, and you can extrapolate from there."

The above is excerpted from the "blog-book": Hillary's Bones - A Coup Tutorial by Stan Goff. It was posted at his now defunct blog "the Feral Scholar."

Thanks to archive.org this must read article is available online here.

*  Obamacare Debate: Flowers vs. Baker Economist Dean Baker and Dr. Margaret Flowers debate the merits of the Affordable Care Act -October 1, 2013

IMF Chief Strauss-Kahn Would not Spare the Dollar

IMF Managing Director at UN International Donors Conference
SIMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn (r), and President of the Republic of Haiti H.E. René Garcia Préval (l) prior to a bi-lateral meeting between Strauss-Kahn and Préval during the “International Donors’ Conference Towards a New Future for Haiti” at the United Nations in New York on March 31, 2010
IMF Staff Photographer/Michael Spilotro

Dominique Strauss-Kahn has resigned from the International Monetary Fund. Today he was granted bail and faces sexual assault charges involving housekeeper at the Sofitel Hotel in Manhattan.

The whole situation must be very surreal to him, given that, as recently as a month ago, on April 28, a French daily newspaper, Liberation, published an off-the-record comment by Mr. Strauss-Kahn described as voicing the fear that "political opponent would pay a woman more than $1m to allege rape"

DSK has said through his lawyer that there was no rape. He has pled not guilty and asserts that the sexual encounter was consensual.

Innocent until proven guilty. Critical thinking says we must question the evidence against Strauss-Kahn. After all, it is the job of the prosecution to prove its case. "Neither we nor anyone else—outside the accused and the accuser (and, perhaps, other interested and unnamed parties)—know exactly what went on in Strauss-Kahn’s suite at the Sofitel Hotel in Manhattan on Sunday. Whatever information the public possesses has emerged courtesy of the New York City Police Department, the alleged victim’s lawyer, and the mass media. None of these can be considered reliable sources."

Rape is a crime of control and violence. Strauss-Kahn was known as a seducer of women. Up to this point, he had never been accused of violently assaulting a woman who became the focus of his attentions, although since the attempted rape allegations, a woman has come forward to say that five years ago Strauss-Kahn acted like a "rutting chimpanzee."

Retired criminal defense attorney John Reed lays out a case for the defense of Strauss-Kahn:

"...first of all apply the Constitutional standard that Strauss-Kahn is innocent until proved guilty, and therefore, we must look with suspicion upon the facts asserted by the state at this point, including the alleged statement of the victim.

There are some very large red flags in this case, and if I had to choose right now whether I would rather prosecute this case or defend it, I would choose to defend it. I think it will be hard to prosecute.

First, my guess is that standard operating procedure in this hotel, like others, is for the maids to prop the door open with their cleaning cart as they work the room. So the defendant's prints better be on the handles of that cart since he had to remove it from propping open the door before he could commence the attack, and he had to do this without the maid seeing him.

Second, I would hire an expert to test the sound proofing of the room, and use an investigator to determine where the other maids and guests were are at the time of the assault. For if she did not scream when she could have been heard, then a reasonable doubt about a set up might arise.

Third, maids usually work in groups of two, and I would determine whether this was the normal procedure at the hotel in question, and why, if so, the procedure was not followed this particular morning. Fourth, hotel maids always determine whether a guest is in the room, including the bathroom, before they begin cleaning the room. They also make sure the guest has checked out. Neither was done in this case. Why? This kind of mistake does not happen in a $200 a day Hilton, let alone a room costing in thousands.

Fifth, why, considering that the rape shield law is preventing the release of victim's name, is the state keeping the alleged victim incommunicado, not even allowed to visit with her daughter, according to her attorney?

Sixth, why was the defendant not provided bail? He is one of the most famous men in the world. Certainly bail could be set high enough to insure his return. Moreover, the state would know his location despite the fact he travels internationally with frequency. If he failed to appear, he would not only look guilty, but he would simply be extradited eventually, and lose his bail money. [Bail was granted as of 5.91.11.]

While there's plenty of reasons to question the case against Mr. Strauss-Kahn, we must also look at the motive that "interested and unnamed parties" might have in railroading him.

According to an economics expert interviewed on Russia Today, Strauss-Kahn was a vocal advocate of widening the world money system and drawing the world away from the dollar as a reserve currency.

Adrian Salbuchi, is an economics and geopolitics author in Buenos Aires. Mr. Salbuchi interprets the dramatic circumstances surrounding the former IMF boss' resignation as a sign "that the powers that be were not very happy with him."

Russia Today is not the only alternate news source to smell something fishy about Strauss-Kahn's spectacular arrest. To many it's not making a lot of sense and the timing is really suspicious.

The UK Telegraph broke the scoop. Dominique Strauss-Kahn was mounting an attack against the dollar:

So, Strauss-Kahn finds himself in the same crowd as Saddam Hussein and Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, right? You may recall that Saddam switched from dollars to euros about a year before the war. Twelve months later Iraq was invaded, Saddam was hanged, and the dollar was restored to power. Gaddafi made a similar mistake when "he initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar." ("Libya: All About Oil, or All About Central Banking?" Ellen Brown, Op-Ed News) Libya has since come under attack by US and NATO forces which have armed a motley group of dissidents, malcontents and terrorists to depose Gaddafi and reimpose dollar hegemony.

To sum up the motives for the arrest:

1. Mr. Strauss-Kahn angered a lot of the big-money guys because he was a vocal advocate for drawing the world away from the dollar as a reserve currency.


2. DSK was planning to institute reforms at the IMF:
   

   Strauss-Kahn had set out on a "kinder and gentler" path, one that would not force foreign leaders to privatize their state-owned industries or crush their labor unions. Naturally, his actions were not warmly received by the bankers and corporatists who look to the IMF to provide legitimacy to their ongoing plunder of the rest of the world. These are the people who think that the current policies are "just fine" because they produce the results they're looking for, which is bigger profits for themselves and deeper poverty for everyone else."

3. The IMF issued a surprising report in 2009 – two years into Strauss-Kahn's tenure, which placed the blame for the global economic crisis on U.S. mortgage companies and financial industry associations. Read an evaluation of the report here.


4. In an interview with the French daily newspaper Liberation, Strauss-Kahn voiced the off-the-record fear, published as recently as a month ago, in April 28th, that this very situation might be engineered: "IMF chief 'feared political opponent would pay a woman more than $1m to allege rape"

   Michelle Sabban, a senior councillor for the greater Paris region and a Strauss-Kahn loyalist said: ‘I am convinced it is an international conspiracy.’

   She added: ‘It's the IMF they wanted to decapitate, not so much the Socialist primary candidate.

5. The IMF chief was ahead of Nicolas Sarkozy in the race. Sarkozy had a number of personal scandals and plummeting approval ratings. Strauss-Kahn was favored to be the next President of France.


6. The fact that Strauss-Kahn is a member of the French Socialist party cannot be ruled out of the equation, given the stigma attached to anyone labeled with having a "Socialist agenda" – as is erroneously the case with detractors of U.S. President Barack Obama.
   
   
   The Daily Mail reports that, "the first person to break the news of Strauss-Kahn's arrest was an activist in Mr Sarkozy's UMP party -- who apparently knew about the scandal before it happened. Jonathan Pinet, a politics student, tweeted the news just before the New York Police Department made it public, although he said that he simply had a 'friend' working at the Sofitel where the attack was said to have happened." Also, "The first person to re-tweet Mr Pinet was Arnaud Dassier, a spin doctor who had previously publicized details of multi-millionaire Strauss-Kahn's luxurious lifestyle in a bid to dent his left wing credentials."

The purported facts of the case as released by the police are suspicious. In the hands of a competent criminal defense lawyer who can punch wholes into the incredible story, Mr. Strauss-Kahn will likely be acquitted. Strauss-Kahn's attorney Benjamin Brafman, who has defended other high-profile clients, including Michael Jackson, is no slouch.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn was probably taken down because he advocated real change to a monetary system which is rotten to a the core. In this "new world order," failure is rewarded, up is down, down is up and we the people are always the ones who get screwed.

Therefore, his political career is affectively over before it began. He has lost his power, influence, reputation and sadly his freedom. To further prejudice the public, a rumor has been circulated that he is on suicide watch. No fear of him being offed while in jail, though. The ends have been achieved. Like they were with the jailing of Haiti's Father Gerard Jean-Juste, Yvon Neptune and other political prisoners globally who are deemed to pose a threat to those in power.

The IMF's first deputy managing director John Lipsky has stepped in as acting managing director of the global institution in the interim. When a new IMF chief is selected, that next individual will have great motivation for toeing the line and keeping the dollar king.

UPDATE 05.27.2011
Replacing Strauss-Kahn; "Pro-bank bailout" Lagarde is a shoo in by Mike Whitney

"Lagarde supports weaker regulations so that banks and other financial institutions can continue to rake in windfall profits while increasing the risks to the broader economy. She just announced her candidacy this morning (May 25), but already she's won the approval of Washington, Wall Street, the big banks, and the EU heads of state. She's a shoo."

"But Lagarde has not moved to the head of the pack due to her anti-worker bias alone, but because she's a trusted insider who will implement the IMF's privatization and structural adjustment programs without challenging their merit.

Strauss-Kahn's promises of "reform" at the fund were a constant source of anxiety for big finance. Lagarde won't make that same mistake. She won't go off the reservation, consort with progressives like Joseph Stiglitz, or veer from her script. Here's how The Guardian summed up Lagarde's impressive resume:

"Christine Lagarde stands for protecting big banks.....she's the most pro-bank bailout of the lot.

"The Americans are going to try and put in [White House adviser] David Lipton as number two. Lipton is Mr Bank Bailout. He worked for Citigroup. If they put in Lagarde and Lipton, what does that say? We are going with the total bank protection plan. That would be a disaster."

[...] So the belt-tightening will intensify under Lagarde, which is a signal to bankers that she can be trusted to protect their interests, and all the talk about "soft restructuring" or reforms a la Strauss-Kahn will end.

There will be no more talk about replacing the dollar with SDRs (Special Drawing Rights) either. Lagarde is not going to rock the boat. The only reforms she'll be working on are "labor reforms", a familiar buzzword among the financial elite for union busting.

[...] So, it looks like Wall Street may have found their replacement for the mercurial Strauss Kahn. There won't be any debt-restructuring, bondholders will be paid in full, and the dollar's dominant role as the world's reserve currency will go unchallenged."

Background:

• International Monetary Fund director Dominique Strauss-Kahn calls for new world currency | By Andrew Trotman


• Dominique Strauss-Kahn was trying to torpedo the dollar | By Mike Whitney


• The Amerikan Police State Strides Forward by Paul Craig Roberts


• The serious questions raised by the Dominique Strauss-Kahn affair by David North and David Walsh


• IMF chief Strauss-Kahn caught in "Honey Trap" by Mike Whitney


• Why We Need a "Marshall Plan" for Haiti by Dominique Strauss-Kahn

Financial Crisis is 'structural adjustment" for 1st world nations

Is the global economic crisis a manufactured opportunity for a "structural adjustment" of 1st world nations? Asere at Malcolm X Grassroots Movement (MXGM) explores the economic and human rights consequences in an essay entitled "The Hold Up."

Now that the financial bubble created by the big banks and Wall Street has burst, leaving people confused and disoriented from the shock, the "cartels" have succeeded in shifting the responsibility and consequences to taxpayers, nationalizing their debt/risk through passage of the unpopular 800 Billion bailout known as the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.

The big banks and investment companies created the financial crisis when they began the criminal practice of valuing debt/risk as assets and selling the bundled debt as "securities" to global investors. The current seismic financial shift will maneuver the affected communities closer to the financial condition of the world's poor majority, lowering their standard of living. The cycle of debt, dependency and indentured servitude is keeping the world enslaved to the global banking system (IMF, World Bank) that takes its orders from Washington and the other nations of the G7.

Many in the global north (North America, Europe, Scandinavia...etc) have no real concept of the conditions that exist in the global south, in the slums of Haiti, India, Philippines, Indonesia, Latin America, Africa... etc. Now the global North are realizing that they too are at the mercy of the policy makers who, aligned with the richest 1 percent are "centralizing" the global economy, consolidating economic power and redistributing the wealth. In the U.S. the target is the working class gains made during the decade following the October 1929 stock market crash; such as the social security act, the minimum wage, unions (National Labor Relations Act of 1935) and the 40 hour work week. "Today all these social and economic gains are under attack."¹ So structural adjustment has come to the the U.S. and the global north.

Structural adjustment has been a part of U.S. policy in Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa and other "developing countries" since the 1950s. In Haiti the Clinton administration demanded as a condition of restoring Aristide to power (after a U.S. supported military coup) the implementation of a structural adjustment program -- to the detriment of the Haitian people.

For decades, two sometimes divergent, sometimes convergent streams of U.S. policy have played an influential role in defining the economic and political system of Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Economic policy has steadily supported the interests of U.S. investors and exporters. U.S. political interests in Haiti have been less unified, careening between support for democracy and development and traditional U.S. collusion with the elites and the military. Too often, the interests of the Haitian people, who live in the poorest country in the Western hemisphere, have been sacrificed for the imperatives of Washington policymakers.

U.S. Policy in Haiti by Lisa A. McGowan

The failure of U.S. foreign policy is evidenced by the global financial crisis. And the feeding frenzy of these "gangstas" on the developing world's resources could not be stopped at America's shores. The U.S. controlled global banking system is now feeding on U.S. communities. The U.S. is in the process of becoming the "banana republic" that it has so long ridiculed in "developing countries," while supporting fostering the cruel system through its promotion of structural adjustment programs.

"The greatness of a nation is not measured by the height of its buildings or its steel output or its military might but by these three factors:

1. the rights and opportunities it extends all its citizens, especially the lowliest

2. the manner in which it absorbs and responds to the criticism of its citizenry and the world

3. the willingness and ability of its citizens to question and actively resist the propaganda of that nation's elites ... "

More of the essay here. at Charles Hugh Smith's website

Further info:
¹History shows potential for mass struggle by Milt Neidenberg
The Shock Doctrine - Naomi Klein
Dismantling the American Dream - by Kenneth Buchdahl
Life And Debt (2001) - Documentary directed by Stephanie Black

Haitian Mom Loses Son in Iraq & Faces Losing Her Home

Jocelyn Voltaire of Queens, New York lost her oldest son in Iraq. An auction is scheduled for today October 17 to sell her foreclosed home. Activist and bloggers are trying to save her home. Jocelyn Voltaire had a mortgage of $800 a month before she fell victim to predatory lenders. Her mortgage jumped to over $2000 a month. American News Project (ANP) is reporting that:

"Jocelyn fell victim to a predatory loan that ANP has traced back to Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street firm whose CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, made over $70 million last year.

Code Pink the anti-war activists are raising funds to help Jocelyn. You can go to CODEPINK’s website at codepink4peace.org for more information.

WATCH THE VIDEO

US "Tapeworm" Economics Causes World Financial Crisis

A pre- 850 billion bailout analysis of the American economic system written in February 2007 makes the point that we will change nothing unless we "change the way money works in our personal lives, our communities, and our world." The author Carolyn Baker credits Catherine Austin Fitts as the one person "on earth who has... clearly articulated the way sustainable and unsustainable economic systems work." Ms. Baker teaches history to college students and has written several books. She believes that US presidents have little influence and control over the American economic system, which she terms the "neo-liberal tapeworm" that feeds on its host (the U.S. citizen) and the world.

Naomi Klein, who wrote the book "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism." thinks that the current economic crisis and bail out is the "shock" that will prevent a president Obama from instituting the changes that his campaign is promoting; such as new sources of sustainable energy, universal healthcare, an overhaul of the education system and middle class tax relief.

"Tapeworm” is the name Fitts applies to the economic system of the U.S. which seeks to feed upon both its inhabitants and its neighbors, near and far, and at the same time, ingest them with toxins which cause them to crave the very elements which feed the Tapeworm, thereby establishing a perpetual search-and-destroy economic system. Inherent in Tapeworm economics is the primacy of centralized financial systems such as the Federal Reserve, national and worldwide banking networks, a complex global economic apparatus, reliance on agribusiness for food supply and distribution, and the privatization of resources—all without financial transparency or accountability.

Conversely, a sustainable economy is de-centralized and locally-focused, relying on small, well-managed local banks; food supplies which are grown, financed, and distributed locally; community ownership of land and resources; local commerce and industry; and above all, financial transparency.

Among the myriad advantages of categorizing economic systems in this way is the immediate exposure of federal election campaigns as unequivocally by, for, and about centralized financial systems which offer the illusions of “choice” and “change”.

No sincere proponent of a sustainable economy has the slightest possibility of emerging victorious in a country where centralized financial systems furnish, finance, and in the current milieu, manage electoral outcomes. Or as Aaron Russo’s documentary “America From Freedom To Fascism” underscored, voting in a national election is essentially making a choice between two crime families who are ostensibly at war with each other but will always join forces when their mutual interests are threatened.

Barack Obama has taken an active part in supporting the unpopular bailout of Wall Street to the tune of $850 billion dollars, so it should come as no surprise that the very same Wall Street firms to benefit from the bailout are the top five funders of the Obama campaign. OpenSecrets.org lists the top five Obama contributors as Merrill Lynch, Citigroup Inc, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase & Co. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates. The same top five contributors are listed for Senator John McCain.

Unfortunately, the bailout did not include measures to help middle class Americans; such as a moratorium on foreclosures, mortgage relief and restructuring and bankruptcy relief. The U.S. government is complicit in giving Treasury Secretary Paulson and his cronies on Wall Street a blank check and very little transparency and oversight to stop them from further theft and mismanagement. The very people who have exploited the system have been rewarded and are set to use this bailout as a windfall that will cover more risky investments and their assets.

The Baker article maintains:

If we attentively read United States history, we learn that particularly in recent times, financial systems, not presidents, dictate policy and that “Chief Executives” are themselves at the mercy of those systems--before, during, and after their term of office. Electing presidents changes little, but changing how money works changes everything.

Indigenous People Respond to the World Financial Crisis
An article in the Mohawk Nation News uses the parasite analogy to describe the U.S. economic system and its precipitous collapse, suggesting the necessity for revolutionary change:

"The public is crying out for major change to end the colonial racist greedy system. They have to look at Indigenous culture and harmonize their society with ours to survive. They need to renew all their arrangements with us to live, think and govern themselves so that the parasites are pushed aside. Sacrifices are necessary or humanity will destroy itself.

There is another world, a world of resistance. Our fate rests in our own humble hands. Indigenous people have survived. We kept our philosophy, our notions of governance, our duties to mother earth and our way of life which was terribly damaged. We have been able to resuscitate it and bring it back to a healthy life. We all have our strengths. We have an enormous evolved consciousness. People are beginning to see through this capitalist fraud.

Do U.S. President George Bush, Republican candidate John McCain and Democratic candidate Barack Obama want to really re-arrange the economy and society on a new basis? Do they want to dig up the roots of the colonial past and harmonize relations with the Indigenous people and mother earth?"

Ms. Baker writes that the "neoliberal tapeworm" is also being rejected in Latin America in countries like Venezuela, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, and Nicaragua for more sustainable economic systems. In Brazil, Senator Eduardo Matarazzo Suplicy sponsored "Citizen's Basic Income" legislation. In their book "The Ethics And Economics of the Basic Income Guarantee", Karl Widerquist and Michael Anthony describe Brazil's basic income law. A citizen in Brazil has the right to a basic income and to contribute to that developing nation building "a just and civilized society." Interestingly, in the U.S., Alaska has a guaranteed income in the form of the "Alaska Permanent Fund" which provides a guaranteed income to all of Alaska's citizens. This economic instrument is also being introduced in Iraq as an oil shares "dividend" to be distributed to Iraq's citizens.

Ms. Baker theorizes that an economic transformation must take place in the United States in order for humankind and the ecosystems to survive beyond the age of oil

"It first begins with a commitment to financial literacy in concert with sustainable economics.

Next, one must increase one’s learning curve regarding the reality of corruption in the United States. American “exceptionalism”, the puerile illusion that other countries are corrupt, but the U.S. is not, must be shattered...

As a result of this recognition, it then becomes crucial to illuminate corruption and Tapeworm economics in one’s own community, i.e., narcotics trafficking, fraud, entities such as universities, foundations, churches, non-profit agencies, and media that accept contributions from the Tapeworm and serve its interests...

...we have no business depositing our money in Tapeworm banks or using credit cards from those institutions. It is our responsibility to transact with institutions that keep the money in our communities, rather than drain it out...

Understand that personal debt finances the Tapeworm and ensures its continued success. Get out of debt, and if you must use credit cards at all, pay them off in full monthly... Investigate people-to-people lending arrangements such as those found at www.prosper.com.

Become involved with other activists in your community to block the privatization of land and resources and demand public ownership of them.

Recognize that “socially responsible investing” usually isn’t. Consult the Solari website for investment opportunities that genuinely promote sustainability while bringing an optimum return.

Consider investing in precious metals—silver or gold, and consult the Solari site for ways to begin doing so with small, affordable amounts. If you deposit money in a savings account, why not invest some of it in precious metals instead?

If we attentively read United States history, we learn that particularly in recent times, financial systems, not presidents, dictate policy and that “Chief Executives” are themselves at the mercy of those systems--before, during, and after their term of office. Electing presidents changes little, but changing how money works changes everything.

Update 10.22.08
I have the wrong link for Barack Obama's top contributors. Obama's top contributors are here. I mistakenly have John McCain's top campaign contributors instead. I regret the error.