Monday, June 21, 2010

To Restore Glass Steagall: Dump Barney Frank Now! | LaRouchePAC

Jeffrey Steinberg

June 21—On Sunday, June 13, 2010, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) lied through his teeth, in response to a direct challenge from Rachel Brown, the LaRouche Democrat who is challenging him for the party's Congressional nomination in the upcoming September Massachusetts primaries. Brown has focused her campaign on the reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act, the FDR-era law that created a wall of separation between the commercial and investment banks and insurance companies. Brown has also forcefully called for the impeachment of President Barack Obama, and for a vast expansion of the NASA manned space program, which President Obama has shut down.
Appearing together before the Brookline Democratic Club, Brown accused Frank of being one of the engineers of the destruction of Glass-Steagall, and one of Wall Street and London's key defenders on Capitol Hill.
In response to Brown, Barney lost his cool, and lied, repeatedly. I voted against the repeal of Glass-Steagall, Barney pleaded, and lied that the bill now working its way through House-Senate conference would be the strongest banking reform bill since the New Deal. Barney is going to eat those words!
About the only true thing that Barney said was that he did, indeed, vote against the Gramm, Leach, Bliley bill, the 1999 Financial Services Modernization act that repealed Glass-Steagall—but only after the House and Senate had caved in to Wall Street pressure, and passage was absolutely assured.
In fact, the House version of the Glass-Steagall repeal passed on July 20, 1999 without objection, and without any record of where individual Members of the House stood. The controversy between the House and Senate versions centered on the Community Reinvestment Act, which required banks to provide loans and banking services in low-income communities—not on the underlying issue of the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
And ever since the Nov. 4, 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall, Barney Frank has been a powerful and consistent advocate of Wall Street interests—against the interests of the vast majority of Americans.

* In 2007, Frank, as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, boasted that he had played a central role in blocking any consideration of the Homeowners and Bank Protection Act (HBPA), the emergency law proposed by Lyndon LaRouche, and endorsed by hundreds of city councils, state legislatures and leading politicians and labor leaders throughout the United States, that would have put an indefinite freeze on home foreclosures, and would have placed the banking system under bankruptcy protection, under revived Glass-Steagall standards.

* In the still-ongoing deliberations on a banking reform bill, Frank blocked any House consideration of Glass-Steagall, by preventing two House bills, by Reps. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and John Dingell (D-Mich.) from coming up for debate and vote. Both bills were referred to Frank's Financial Services Committee, and Frank tossed them in the trash can. He also blocked the Hinchey bill from being added to the House version of financial reform as an amendment.

* Now, Frank has further lined up with Wall Street, in the effort to remove the amendment, forcing banks to divest their derivatives trading desks, that was incorporated into the Senate bill, under the sponsorship of Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee. The Lincoln amendment, now Title 7 of the Dodd bill, is under massive attack from Wall Street's super-banks, and Barney has made clear which side of the barricade he is on.
First, on May 21, following a meeting at the White House, Frank publicly trashed the Lincoln amendment, declaring that it went "too far," and immediately, stock prices for Goldman Sachs and other mega-banks that would be hard hit by the derivatives ban, shot up.
When a group of New York Congressmen, led by Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), sent a letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Rep. Frank and Rep. Colin Peterson, on June 14, demanding that the Lincoln amendment be killed, Barney Frank boasted that he had encouraged the New Yorkers to keep pressing for its removal, in a June 15 interview with Huffington Post: "It's a legitimate concern of theirs, and I told them they should keep arguing."
Ackerman had flagrantly threatened to defeat the bill if the Lincoln provisions remained intact, boasting that the entire 26 Member New York delegation would defend Wall Street at all costs. "Wall Street is one of our umbilical cords, it's the oxygen," he told Huffington Post.
The darker secret that Barney Frank desperately wishes to avoid, particularly as the primary election campaign heats up, is that he has been, for the entire time he has served in the U.S. House of Representatives (since Jan. 1981), Alan Greenspan's boy toy.
A serious review of the 15-year Wall Street and City of London drive to kill Glass-Steagall tells the story that Barney is desperate to hide.

- JP Morgan Declares War -

In December 1984, JP Morgan, the most British of all the Wall Street investment houses, circulated an internal pamphlet, prepared by a team of inhouse economists, led by William C. Dudley. The pamphlet, "Rethinking Glass Steagall," was a clarion call for a fullscale war to break the Glass-Steagall Act, and return to the pre-FDR era of unbridled financier cartelization. At the time, Alan Greenspan was a JP Morgan director, and he would go on to be the single most important player in the takedown of Glass-Steagall.
"Rethinking Glass Steagall" was subtitled "The case for allowing bank holding company subsidiaries to underwrite and deal in corporate securities." The report summary was explicit: "Fundamental changes in our economy, important shifts in the demand for financial services, and the resulting competition among different classes of financial institutions in recent years have produced what is aptly termed a revolution in the financial services market. In this environment, competitive inequalities inherent in the rigid segmentation of the financial services industry provide another compelling reason to rethink Glass-Steagall.
"This study analyzes the major issues raised by proposals to allow bank holding company subsidiaries to underwrite and deal in corporate debt and equity securities. It first examines the arguments most commonly made to justify preservation of artificial barriers to competition imposed by Glass-Steagall and finds these arguments have little merit."
The conclusions reached by JP Morgan were no surprise: "The study concludes, and Morgan believes, that there is no valid reason to preserve the securities industry's protected position in capital markets." In other words, Glass-Steagall had to go.

- Morgan's Greenspan Takes Charge of the Fed -

Three years after "Morgan" concluded that Glass-Steagall had to be crushed, Alan Greenspan took over the Federal Reserve. In short order, Greenspan began to implement the takedown of Glass-Steagall, precisely as it was spelled out in the Morgan blueprint.
One of the tools that Greenspan employed, in illegally destroying Glass-Steagall years before the formal 1999 repeal, was the discretionary authority vested in the Fed Chairman, in a loophole, written into the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. The bill was intended to strengthen regulation of bank holding companies, and restrict interstate banking. However, the added powers vested in the Federal Reserve Board were abused by Greenspan, to allow banks to engage in securities trading.
Prior to Greenspan's arrival at the Fed, banks were only allowed to generate five percent of their earnings from non-commercial banking activities. Through the early 1990s, according to economic historian Charles Geisst, among others, Greenspan steadily boosted the percentage, to the point that, by 1996, banks were allowed to generate 25 percent of their earnings by investment banking.
Still, however, under Glass-Steagall, commercial banks were barred from owning brokerage houses or insurance companies, despite the fact that they were allowed now to engage in significant amounts of securities marketing.
Those barriers were smashed, by Greenspan, in 1988, when he granted a waiver to Travelers Insurance Company, then headed by Sanford Weill, to buy Citibank. Travelers owned Salomon Smith Barney, a large investment bank. The Travelers-Citibank merger, thus, for the first time since the passage of Glass-Steagall, allowed a single bank holding company to own a commercial bank, an insurance company and an investment bank.
It was a total violation of the law, but Greenspan, in his zeal to kill Glass-Steagall, granted Travelers and Citibank a two-year waiver. In that two year period, Weill and company would either be forced to break up the mega-bank that had just been created—or repeal Glass-Steagall once and for all.
In the run-up to the Travelers-Citibank merger, Weill had conferred directly with Greenspan and other at the Fed, and had been assured that his efforts were totally in line with their own commitment to smash Glass-Steagall.
Weill launched a massive lobbying campaign, targeting Congress to repeal Glass-Steagall before the time ran out on the waiver. Citibank alone spent $100 million in lobbying the Congress, and other major Wall Street banks, led by JP Morgan, joined the effort.
In early 1999, both the House and the Senate introduced versions of financial reform legislation that would kill Glass-Steagall. All of the arguments, presented from the floor of the Congress, and in the backroom sessions with Wall Street lobbyists, armed with massive amounts of cash, came directly from the 1984 JP Morgan pamphlet. Greenspan had been an avid participant in the preparation of that document, and, as a Morgan director, had given his personal impremature. As Geisst told a PBS-TV Frontline interviewer several years ago, without Alan Greenspan and his role at the Fed, the repeal of Glass-Steagall would never have taken place in 1999.
The 1999 Gramm Leach Bliley Act was bought and paid for by Sandy Weill, JP Morgan, and the other big Wall Street looters. On the Hill, as the bill pushed through conference for a final vote on Nov. 4, 1999, it was commonly referred to as "the Citi-Travelers bill," or, even more personally, as "Sandy's bill."
- The Impeachment Factor -
Without Alan Greenspan's maneuverings at the Fed, Glass-Steagall could still be the law of the land today. Without the impeachment drive against President Bill Clinton, the Gramm Leach Bliley bill would have potentially gone down with the stroke of a Presidential veto pen.
It cannot be underestimated how much the impeachment of President Bill Clinton was tied to the defeat of Glass-Steagall. The targeting of Clinton was strategic, it came directly from London and London's Wall Street allies, and it had everything to do with the drive to repeal Glass-Steagall.
Beginning with the so-called Asia financial crisis of 1997, and extending through the Aug. 1998 Russian default on their GKO government bonds, triggering the near collapse of the Longterm Capital Management (LTCM) hedge fund, President Clinton, along with his Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, came to realize that the unregulated flows of shortterm capital, brought on by the wave of deregulation, that began in the mid-1970s, shortly after the abolishing of the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate system, was reckless and destructive, and could bring about a systemic collapse. Rubin, as Treasury Secretary, also warned, sharply against the "moral hazard" of bailing out financial institutions that were "too big to fail." His famous diktat, "not one nickel to bail out the banks," resounded on Wall Street at the time.
In Jan. 1997, Lyndon LaRouche launched an international campaign for the convening of a New Bretton Woods conference, to reconstitute a global fixed exchange rate system, and to eliminate the very speculative capital flows that were about to gut the economies of such nation-states as Malaysia, Indonesia, South Korea, Russia and Brazil, over the course of the next two years.
While it would be an exaggeration to say that Clinton and Rubin fully embraced LaRouche's plan for a return to FDR's Bretton Woods, there is no question that the impact of LaRouche's forecasts and his proposal for a revival of Roosevelt's anti-colonial policies of global economic development, were felt strongly within the Clinton inner circles.
Beginning in early 1998, Clinton and Rubin launched an international campaign to formulate a "new global financial architecture." A combination of G-7 advanced sector and G-15 emerging economy nations formed the G-22, to study alternatives to the current, unregulated global system. Representatives of the 22 nations met in Washington, D.C. in the Spring of 1998, and established a series of ongoing working groups, to come up with plans for a new, more regulated international financial system.

These moves by Clinton and Rubin stood in stark opposition to the Greenspan-JP Morgan-Sandy Weill drive to bust up the last vestiges of restrictive bank regulation in the U.S.A.
When, in Sept. 1998, President Clinton traveled to New York City, to deliver a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, pressing for a "new global financial architecture" with far greater regulation and restriction of shortterm capital flows, all hell broke loose. Clinton was targeted for impeachment. Wall Street Democrats, led by Vice President Al Gore and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Ct.), joined with Britain's Daily Telegraph propaganda mill, to press for Clinton's resignation. The House of Representatives voted a bill of impeachment.
The issue was never the Monica Lewinsky affair. The issue was President Clinton's publicly announced commitment to overhaul the global financial system, to the detriment of speculators.
And the punishment was swift. From the time that President Clinton delivered his statement of intent to overhaul the global financial architecture at the CFR in late September, to the time that the House of Representatives voted for his impeachment, took less than 90 days. The City of London's demands for Clinton's scalp over his threat to reregulate the global financial system—in cooperation with developing sector countries that had been viciously looted by speculators—was delivered.

There was never a serious question about the outcome of the impeachment trial of President Clinton in the U.S. Senate. The Democratic majority was never about to vote up the articles of impeachment, despite the Gore-Lieberman efforts to seize the Oval Office. On Feb. 12, 1999, the Senate acquitted Clinton.
But the die had already been cast, and the drive for the repeal of Glass-Steagall benefited enormously from the Clinton impeachment distraction, which killed off any efforts at the new global financial architecture. On May 12, 1999, Robert Rubin resigned as Treasury Secretary, effective July 1 of that year. His replacement, Larry Summers, was fanatically committed to "Sandy's law," repealing Glass-Steagall. On Nov. 4, 1999, both the House and the Senate passed the Glass-Steagall repeal. A broken and distracted President Clinton signed it into law days later.
To Restore Glass Steagall: Dump Barney Frank Now! LaRouchePAC

Friday, June 18, 2010

Make These the 8 Days That Shook the World | LaRouchePAC

June 18, 2010 As Lyndon LaRouche emphasized on Tuesday, "We're looking at a general breakdown crisis, of trans-Atlantic economies, during the period of the end of this month, the latter half of June, and the beginning of July. As of now, such a collapse would seem almost inevitable, first of all, because the circumstances exist, and the conditions are approaching rapidly which will mean that. Therefore, the question of preventing that collapse, by a change of policy, in the United States, in particular, before the end of June, and before the beginning of July, is the most urgent point of concern for anybody in the United States, or, generally, on the planet. Because, once the trans-Atlantic community goes under, once the United States and Europe cave in, and they're on the verge of a breakdown crisis right now. When that happens, and if that happens, then the rest of the world will go soon, and the result will be a plunge of the entire planet into a dark age. So, we're not in a period where we want to talk about September or November, we're talking about NOW....

"But we have to have Obama out, now. Because, as long as he remains, with the prospect of the breakup of the U.S. economy, and the European economies by either some time in June or in July, we can not fool around: We must get Obama out, now, in the way I said we have to get him out. And we have to make certain changes in policy such as immediately going to what? First, Glass-Steagall in the United Unites. It must be put through right now, and I mean the original intent of Glass-Steagall, as U.S. policy. That must be put into effect, immediately."

The decision of the German Constitutional Court yesterday to deny the temporary restraining order against the super-bailout of the Eurozone, underscores the need for the implementation of the Glass-Steagall Act now in the United States, which is necessary, as LaRouche has said, to give Germany and other countries, including Russia, the option of joining a Glass-Steagall type of fixed- exchange-rate system initiated by the United States.

The reorganization of the British banking system also announced yesterday by the new Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, under the topdown control of the Bank of England, was undoubtedly dictated by the awareness of the British oligarchy of the imminent collapse of the system, and the oligarchy's desire to maintain control of that collapse process.

For us that means that our responsibility to remove Obama from office and to reinstate Glass-Steagall immediately — not after the collapse, but before the collapse, in order to prevent it — must be fully embraced and achieved now.

The potential to remove Obama from office has never been greater.

* On Wednesday, Judicial Watch called for the Office of the Special Counsel to investigate Emanuel and Messina for violation of the Hatch Act, thus backing up the referral by Rep. Issa to the Office of the Special Counsel to that effect on June 8;

* On June 11, Friday of last week, all seven Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a second letter to Eric Holder demanding a special prosecutor in the Sestak and Romanoff cases. The first letter had been sent on May 26, before the White House issued its Sestak memorandum and before Romanoff released the Messina e-mail;

* On June 11, Colorado Senator Michael Bennet admitted publicly that he knew beforehand, from his contact in the Obama Adminstration, that a job offer was going to be made to Romanoff, which makes him an accessory to a crime committed to his benefit. Also, Colorado Governor Bill Ridder admitted on June 14 that he had been in contact with the then chief of personnel in the White House, Donald Gibbs, about obtaining an international job for Romanoff to dissuade him from running against Bennet, whom he had appointed to replace Salazar; and

* On June 15, testimony was presented in the Blagojevich trial in Chicago by Joseph Aramanda, an associate of Tony Rezko, that after picking up a $125,000 kickback check, he was instructed by Rezko to make a $10,000 contribution to Barack Obama's U.S. Senate campaign.

These developments are just the tip of the iceberg and reflect the potential to oust Obama in the immediate period ahead.

The Blagojevich trial in Chicago has all the potential in the world to blow up in Obama's face. On June 6, Lyndon LaRouche had asked: "What has been done with Obama's buddy Rezko, who has been convicted but not sentenced? Is Blagojevich a patsy for the benefit of the President? Why was Rezko never sentenced, or was he sentenced secretly?"

In fact, Rezko is not the only prosecution witness or potential witness who has been convicted but not sentenced. As stressed in a motion filed by Blagojevich in April, there are nine prosecution witnesses who have been convicted, but not sentenced. Blagojevich had asked that their testimony be precluded on the grounds that the government was using the promise and/or hope of freedom as an inducement to obtain testimony by these witnesses, which he said is nothing short of bribery.

As Lyn stressed on Tuesday, the key flank that we have to bring down Obama, who is overripe for a fall, is the exposure of Barney Frank and his role as point man now in the effort to prevent the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, which was effectively repealed beginning in the 1980s through the treasonous actions of Greenspan, JP Morgan, et al.

We are already in the second half of June. Through the LPAC video operation, the three candidacies of Rachel Brown, Kesha Rogers and Summer Shields, combined with an expanded outreach throughout the country to pass the Glass Steagall resolution, we can and must create a firestorm in this country now to remove Obama from office and reinstate Glass Steagall.

Starting on today, Friday, June 18, we have 8 full organizing days until Lyn's next webcast on June 26.

Make these the 8 days that shook the world!

Make These the 8 Days That Shook the World | LaRouchePAC

Check out my website.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

There Is A Choice--Return to Glass-Steagall! | LaRouchePAC

June 17, 2010 (LPAC)-- The British Empire would desperately like to rewrite the outcome of the historic 1971 debate between Lyndon LaRouche and their toady economist Abba Lerner. You will recall that LaRouche destroyed Lerner by forcing him to explode in public that, if the fascist policies of London's Nazi-banker Hjalmar Schacht had only been adopted willingly by Germany, "Hitler would not have been necessary."
Almost 40 years later, London has deployed one of its current toadies, EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, to threaten the nations of Europe — and implicitly the whole world — with the same message: If you don't implement fascist austerity yourselves, we will be forced to implement fascism. You have no choice.

Barroso delivered the threat at a June 11 meeting with trade union leaders from across Europe, as the entire Eurozone banking system is visibly imploding, exactly as Lyndon LaRouche has warned would be the case with a June-July global financial meltdown. According to John Monks, the head of the European Trade Union Confederation, Barroso told them that Spain, Portugal, Greece, and other nations had to go all the way: "Look, if they do not carry out these austerity packages, these countries could virtually disappear in the way that we know them as democracies. They've got no choice; this is it." Monks added that Barroso's "apocalyptic vision" meant that "we're heading back to the 1930s, with the Great Depression and we ended up with militarist dictatorship."

Lyndon LaRouche responded that people uttering this kind of nonsense are either stupid or lying, and in either case, should be excluded from all policy making.

"This is crap. There is a choice. All you have to do is get rid of the phony debt. Cancel it altogether! Then you go back to a standard, regulated banking system, as established under Franklin Roosevelt and his 1933 Glass-Steagall legislation. Just cancel the phony debt, or put it in a place where it can die peacefully. Get rid of financial derivatives. We don't have to pay the debts we don't owe."
And those who are preventing an immediate return to a Glass-Steagall standard today should simply be removed from office — starting with President Obama and Rep. Bailout Barney Frank.
Barney's political days are numbered, now that LPAC-TV will release the real story of how Glass-Steagall was finally revoked in 1999. The operation was first orchestrated by the British out of their JP Morgan financial house, which in 1984 issued an internal pamphlet calling for "Rethinking Glass-Steagall." None other than swindler Alan Greenspan was a JP Morgan director at the time. Greenspan later went on to head the Federal Reserve system from 1987 to 2006, where he oversaw the formal repeal of Glass-Steagall, as well as the general destruction of the U.S. economy.
Today, Bailout Barney has been assigned the task of riding shotgun for London, to try to make sure that Glass-Steagall is never reinstated. But there is a growing clamor across the country for the adoption of Lyndon LaRouche's Glass-Steagall resolution, as spearheaded by the Brown, Rogers, and Shields campaigns.
That increasingly educated mass strike ferment should all be pulled together around Lyndon LaRouche's international webcast 10 days from now, on Saturday, June 26.
There Is A Choice--Return to Glass-Steagall! LaRouchePAC

Check out my website.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

The President Shows He's a Liar--For the Queen | LaRouchePAC

June 15, 2010 (LPAC)—President Obama's consistent lying on the case of BP's criminality in the Gulf, is nothing less than his service to his friend, the British Queen. At this point, it's not worth blaming BP; they're a known criminal entity. The blame belongs with the Queen, who heads the imperial enterprise of which BP is a part, and with the Queen's puppet, Barack Obama, stated Lyndon LaRouche today.

There will be no solution until Obama is removed from his current position.

Two elements of the President's lying behavior, exposed in an article called "The Spill, The Scandal, and the President" in the latest issue of Rolling Stone magazine, illustrate the case.

* First, there's the NOAA Story. As shown in a picture of a NOAA White Board in the NOAA "war room" in Seattle, Washington April 22, two days after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's best scientific estimate at that time was that the spill would be spewing 64,000 to 110,000 barrels per day. Yet, the Obama Administration succeeded in suppressing these figures, in favor of BP's own absurd declarations that 1,000 bpd, and then 5,000 bpd were spewing from the well. Only now, is the figure inching up toward the lower limit of the NOAA projection—to 55,000 bpd—when the cover-up is no longer possible.

* Second, there's the cover-up for BP, evident in the so-called Oil Spill Response Plan which is submitted prior to getting its license for the Deepwater Horizon facility, in April of 2009 (note—Obama was in office). This Plan was not simply a lie about BP's capabilities of handling a crisis, as we've exposed before; it's literally a joke. The 582-page "plan" includes provisions for protecting walruses, sea otters and sea lions! The Obama Administration obviously didn't even read it.

How many more lies is this President going to be allowed to get away with?

Check out my website.

Monday, June 14, 2010

Lindsey Williams Talks with Alex Jones About Deadly Gases Leaking from B...

Alex welcomes back to the show Lindsey Williams, author of The Energy Non-Crisis, who talks about Big Oil and the Gulf spill. Bilderberg hound and journalist for the American Free Press, Jim Tucker, gives a Bilderberg round-up following the latest elite confab in Spain. Alex also covers the news and takes your calls.

Lindsey Williams - The Energy Non-Crisis - Part 1 of 8

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Friday, June 11, 2010

LaRouche: BP Actions In Gulf Are An Act of War Against the United States | LaRouchePAC

June 10, 2010 (LPAC)—"There is no question that the continuation of this problem in the Gulf, is expressly the warfare-like intention of the British Empire against the United States," charged Lyndon LaRouche on June 8. LaRouche was referring to the utter failure of British Petroleum to deal seriously with the consequences of its own murderous negligence in the case of the Deepwater Horizon drilling station—including its ongoing lies about the size of the leakage, as well as its failure to mobilize anywhere near the resources required to mitigate the damage.

The British are effectively carrying out warfare against the United States, LaRouche said. In addition, "the President is a complicit traitor to the United States in this war."
Obama's traitorous behavior is demonstrated, first and foremost, by the fact that he has left the handling of the crisis in the hands of the British imperial company, refusing to exercise the sovereign powers of the United States government to expropriate them, and to take over the operations to save the United States population from further devastation of their livelihood.

Thus, by his failure to act, Obama has left the British criminal in charge of the crime scene, and subjected the American people to more destruction. Like the British agent he is, the President refuses to defend the United States against British depradations.
"Remember, BP is the personal asset of the British monarchy," LaRouche added. "It's an imperial, Anglo-Dutch imperial entity." It is carrying out "a sabotage operation against the economy and people of the United States."
The conclusion is clear: "This President must go, and must go now! He's unfit to be President, and those in elected office who support him, are not fit to be members of our government. They should git 'n scat, right now!"

LaRouche: BP Actions In Gulf Are An Act of War Against the United States LaRouchePAC

Check out my website.

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Russian Conference on Afghanistan Drug Production Opens | LaRouchePAC

Russian Conference on Afghanistan Drug Production Opens LaRouchePAC

June 10, 2010 (LPAC) — The two-day International Forum on Drug Production in Afghanistan: A Challenge to the International Community, opened in Moscow on Wednesday. As chairman of the Organizing Committee and one of the keynote speakers, Federal Narcotics Control Service chief Victor Ivanov brought out the strategic dimension of the Afghanistan drug boom, recounting not only the impact of drug consumption on the population, but the drug-money financing of terrorism worldwide. Russia's North Caucasus and the Uighur-populated regions of China are especially affected areas, Ivanov said.

U.S. economist Lyndon LaRouche's greeting and memorandum to the conference was published in the June 11 issue of EIR Online last night, and has now been released in Russian translation, as well, for circulation among conference participants. In the memo, LaRouche explained that an end to the Afghanistan drug plague, and the British perpetual imperial war strategy of which it is a part, depends on nations making a decisive break with thousands of years of imperial monetarist practice, and the past 250 years of British imperial domination, in particular.
Indeed, Russian patriotic forces who have rallied to the fight against the heroin onslaught, which is killing 30,000 Russians annually, are impelled towards being anti-British, but crucial aspects of Russian policy remain trapped in City of London schemes.
Besides Ivanov, other high-ranking Russian officials to address the Forum were President Dmitri Medvedev, Foreign Ministry Sergei Lavrov, and Russian Ambassador to NATO Dmitri Rogozin. Medvedev called the "globalization of criminal flows" of drugs a danger to the whole world, also citing its role as a funding source for terrorism. Lavrov presented the Russian policy he laid out in testimony before the State Duma several weeks ago, saying that Afghan narcotics should be declared a threat to international peace and security. "We consider it absolutely necessary," Lavrov added, "to include in the mandate of the international security forces in Afghanistan, the duty to fight the drug business more effectively, including by destroying opium poppy plantings and heroin laboratories."
Among the international speakers were Antonio Maria Costa, executive director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), and Chairman of the UN International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) Hamid Ghodse. Former UNODC head Pino Arlacchi, a renowned expert on organized crime and drug trafficking, told RIA Novosti that Russia and Europe are suffering the most from Afghan heroin and should cooperate on a "plan aimed at halting opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan, including not only crop eradication, but also creating a special program, giving Afghan people living sources, different from producing narcotics." Arlacchi said he agreed with Victor Ivanov on this, adding that "Russia is not only a vital power in maintaining world stability and international dialogue, but it can play a leading role together with Europe in implementing change in Afghanistan.... Such a shift should have been done 10 years ago, specifically, halting drug production in the country."
Alexander Rahr of the German Council on Foreign Relations, which hosted Ivanov at a conference in Potsdam and Berlin earlier this week, is another participant from Europe. According to on-the-scene reports, the highest ranking American at the Forum is an acting deputy director for supply reduction from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. Russian press played up a Novosti interview with U.S. Ambassador John Beyrle, who once again tried to justify not destroying the opium crops. Rogozin attacked this position during his speech, saying it made an "illogical" contrast with successful U.S. eradication efforts in Colombia.
RIA Novosti, host of the event, issued an overview wire about the first day, saying that participants were in agreement that "NATO's refusal to destroy opium poppy plantings in Afghanistan ... is blocking the process of combating the threat from Afghan narcotics, which are killing hundreds of thousands of people and helping to finance world terrorism."

Check out my website.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Crisis in the Gulf Part I: BP, Imperialism at Work

June 8, 2010 -- The BP crisis in the Gulf beckons the United States to exert it's National Sovereignty, by taking control of the situation; by expropriating BP's North American operation. Obama will not do this because he is a British Agent and supports the idea of an "Adam Smith" approach to letting "Empire" (BP) take control of the situation, even if that means completely wreaking the livelihood of Thousands of Americans and not to mention the Billions of life forms that will cease to exist. The Criminal, BP, is still in charge of the crime scene. Shut down BP, shut down the British empire.