by Al Martin
High Crimes of the Bush Cabal (Part 1)
A case for sedition can be made against the Bush Cabal, including George Herbert Walker Bush, James Baker, Cappy Weinberger, and the late Bill Casey et al. They perpetrated a series of frauds against the public purse under the thinly disguised veil of political policies, to wit, the tremendous increase in military and defense expenditures, in order to try to defeat the "Evil Empire" of the Soviet Union, which in itself was a ruse.
This enormous multi-trillion dollar increase in defense spending was used by the Bush Cabal to suck money out of the public purse by the commission of a variety of schemes and to bleed money out of defense appropriations by incessant payments from defense contractors to a shadowy network of Republican-controlled arms companies, security research consultant companies, and offshore research institutes.
This can be ascertained when you look at the big Research and Development (R & D) expenditures that were done on the so-called Star Wars missile defense program. You can see the endless list of "security consultants" that were put on as subcontractors, most of whom had absolutely nothing to do with the development of the weapons.
These security consultant firms would put together proposals for estimated usage of weapons, etc, but since they knew the weapons were never going to work, they knew it was really meaningless anyway.
In addition, there was the "spare parts industry" that goes along with the Bush Cabal, which increases the cost of spare parts (which don't work) by ten or twenty times.
These actions of the Bush Cabal then constitute gross economic malfeasance, which, in my view, could rise to the level of sedition. The definition of sedition is four pages long, and it can be found in Statute 792 of US Title Code 18.
In other words, the Bush Cabal knew that what they were doing would severely weaken the United States, both militarily and economically. The country is weakened militarily by loading US military inventories with a lot of high tech weapons systems that don't work. The country is weakened economically by many years of purported multi-hundred billion dollar deficits, claimed to be $350 or $400 hundred billion dollar deficits, but which were actually (as we have pointed out before) twice as high as claimed at any given time.
The Bush Administration just disguised the numbers through a series of smoke-and-mirror accounting tricks, as we have said before. (See Numbers Don't Lie, Bushes Do.)
The premise of the case is that this malfeasance was created, not under the Reagan-Bush Regime, as referred to before, but by the Bush I Regime.
The Bush I Regime, the period from 1980-1992, is so named because Ronald Reagan was simply a figurehead. Reagan never formulated any policies on his own and he hardly had any of his own people in the cabinet. When you think about it, the only pure Reaganite was Donald Regan, and he was intimidated by George Bush. He even publicly said so. The big powerhouses in the administration, like James Baker, Bill Casey, Cappy Weinburger, Brent Scowcroft, were all old Bush Cabalists. These were not Reaganites.
We need to remember that prior to 1980, before the use of the word "Reaganite," Ronald Reagan didn't have any political faction of his own. He wasn't a politician. He was a two-term governor of the state of California. When he left office, the State of California was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. That says a lot for his ability to manage things. People should have known then. When he first came in as governor of California, the state budget had a record surplus and all state accounts had surpluses. When he left two terms later, the state was nearly bankrupt and had a record deficit. California had asked for federal assistance to bail out several state agencies, and the surpluses were all gone.
Reagan never had a vested political constituency of his own. People ask — where did this term "Reaganite" or "Reaganomics come from? It was the Bush people in the Reagan Administration, who fostered the use of these terms. James Baker used it all the time, and that was to lay all the crap in Reagan's lap.
In marketing, it's called branding. They knew Reagan was the popular figurehead, not George Bush — so why not name everything after him?
It was easier to sell because of Reagan's popularity, and it also disguised the real power in the administration. The Bush people knew that what they were doing would severely weaken our government and our economy, but later on they'd have some political dodge by being able say, "Hey, Reagan was the president." In fact, everyone knew that George Bush controlled things, which was particularly true in Reagan's second term, when Reagan frankly didn't have any idea what was going on anymore.
Regarding the sedition issue, we must remember what George Bush said in 1992, when he was asked what Iran-Contra was all about. This was all done, as George Bush Sr. himself once said, for "the continuous consolidation of money and power into higher, tighter and righter hands." The implication is that there was a grand design behind this illegal covert operation of government, the greatest ever committed by the US Government, which had nothing to do with providing a bulwark against the growing Red Tide in Central America. In fact, it was a covert operation and like all other covert operations, which is what Bush implied, its real agenda was simply to form a political machine under the guise of an illegal covert operation of State to suck ever-increasing quantities of money out of the US Federal Treasury.
The "plan" was well publicized. To build an envisioned 50,000-man contra-army. That never happened. To impede the Soviet build-up of arms and influence in Central America. That never happened. To shore up our right wing dictatorial regime friends in Guatemala and El Salvador. That never happened.
All the stated goals of the stated cover story were not accomplished because nobody cared about accomplishing them. It was just a ruse.
Star Wars was the same thing - just a ruse - and they all knew that Star Wars was just a ruse. Jack Verona, then chief of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), probably could have gotten himself assassinated because he had loose lips. He used to like to drink at these Republican cocktail parties, and he was often reported off the record in the Washington Post, saying that the weapons systems we're spending hundreds of billions on are pie-in-the-sky. He stated that they either won't work, or in the case of the few that do have a chance of working, we wouldn't have the technology to make them work for another fifteen or twenty years.
The billions and billions (an aggregate $2.77 trillion dollars) that was spent on Star Wars programs at the time (the so-called "Brilliant Pebbles," "Bright Star" the ASAT program) was all wasted.
The Bush people would say that you have to commit to research and development in order to make a weapons system that works. That seemingly would make sense, but they knew going into it that it was untrue, based on what Verona kept telling them. Since he was the technical guy (the chief of DARPA), that was his job. He was supposed to tell the administration what was technically possible with technology at the time and what wasn't. And he told them that the technology to build what you want to build just doesn't exist - and it won't exist for decades.
The Star Wars program then had contractors making enormous soft-money donations to Republican institutions. You saw all these newly created companies in 1985 with names like VigiTech and SynDyne and SolarPlex — names that would imply "high tech." In fact, they were just shell companies with offices in McLean, Virginia with offshore accounts that were run by Republican interests. They had enormous subcontracting fees.
And what does this have to do with sedition? You must realize that most of the big, big Republican money (the trillion-dollar type money) was made by huge short positions in the market during the time frame of 1987-1989.
This was extensively discussed by Jeb Bush and others in 1985 — and rather openly so. They were shorting entire indexes, and that's what distorted the markets. That's why there was so much distortion in '87, '88 and going into '89, when all these different types of spreads came up, and people couldn't figure out what they were.
In other words, the Bush Cabal entered into a policy, which they knew would weaken the economic marketplace, the capital marketplaces of the United States, and hence worldwide, since when we sneeze, the rest of the world gets the flu, economically speaking. They capitalized on it further by instituting enormous short positions in a market because they were themselves the ones causing the economic damage to the underpinnings of the nation, which would eventually be felt in the nation's capital marketplaces.
The companies used were the same old list of favorites. Merrill Lynch. Goldman Sachs. Practically every Republican I knew at the time did business there. They would form offshore investment groups that they would all pool into. Trilateral Investment Group Ltd. was one name I remember. The Omni Investment Group Ltd. They would all be Republican-controlled, and they would institute huge short positions in the markets. A lot of times they were dealing with Republican controlled institutions, so if they got into an unsecured debit balance position, nobody ever put the arm on them for the money. They could carry positions much longer, outside of market rules.
They made enormous amounts of money. Alan Greenspan sent a series of secret memorandums to George Bush, prior to the market crash of 1987. He was very nervous during this time. He knew what they were doing, and he told George Bush secretly that you're undermining the capital markets of the United States. Where do you think this is all going to lead?
I have made this contention before-that the stock market collapse in October of 1987 was caused by a massive draining of capital out of the United States, principally due to a variety of schemes originally proffered by the Bushites.
The market did not reach its bottom until December 4, 1989, and enormous amounts of money were made in that period of time. It's a zero sum game. What was being done again is shifting money from the American citizen, this time in his capacity as an investor, to the all-powerful Bush Cabal. Previously we had simply been shifting money to the all-powerful Bush Cabal through citizens wearing their hats as taxpayers.
The Bush idea was (I remember Jeb used to say this) that, "Look, you hit them in every single hat they wear." That was the idea. He used to call them fodder. You hit the fodder in their hats as Taxpayers. You hit them in their hats as Investors and Savers. You hit them in their hats as Insurance Policy Owners through all these insurance scams his brother was involved in. Then there was, of course, Jeb's International Medical Corporation. Jeb also liked health care scams. But that was the idea the Bushes had, that you take the American taxpayer (which they called "One Fodder Unit," or OFU) and you hit them in every single hat they wear.
I don't know where the term came from, but "One Fodder Unit" became a popular term on the Republican cocktail party circuit in 1985. According to them, each individual American citizen equals One Fodder Unit.
Today we have the results of that. When George Bush left office, the federal budget deficit was actually twice what they claimed it was. They were able to hide about half of the federal budget deficit through the Bush Regime. Then Clinton came in, and he had a pretty good idea of what the problems were up front. That's one reason why he kept Alan Greenspan, by the way. It was because the marketplaces both here and abroad had a lot of faith in Greenspan. He told Greenspan early on that we're going to have to bring interest rates down and flood the market with money, which was done in '93. Interest rates fell precipitously, and then there was the sharp spike in '94. This was necessary to bleed some of the problems out of the economy.
After Bush got out of office, it was important that the economy be re-liquefied as quickly as possible, regardless of the inflationary impact. You can always control the inflationary impact later on by raising the interest rates.
Clinton had a good idea of the problems that the Bush Administration had created. Congressman Bill Alexander, who knew Clinton personally for years and used to have lunch with him, used to tell me (this is when they were trying to work out a deal for me) that Clinton was absolutely appalled and even frightened about the enormity of the situation. At the lunch that Bill Alexander had with him at the White House, Clinton looked at him and said, "Bill, I hope you have enough to pay for that lunch. The United States government doesn't have any money left."
When he got there, he realized there was nothing left. He said we are probably 14 or 15 trillion dollars in debt and we're continuing to bleed. Three days after taking office, he begins to discover the real story. And he was frankly scared out of his wits.
Can you imagine coming into the Oval Office and finding out that there are no capital reserves left, the nation is $14 trillion in debt, all of the capital marketplaces are shaky as hell, and the nation is bleeding red ink at the rate of one billion dollars a day, as the Bush Administration publicly admitted?
Clinton then found out that the actual red ink was about twice that amount (about $2 billion a day) and that there was an accumulated $14 trillion in debt - with the rest of the world still in recession.
And then there was another bombshell - an unknown and much more serious malfeasance by the Bush Cabal which Clinton inherited. The West German and Japanese governments started pressing Clinton for repayment of an aggregate $150 billion in secret loans they made to the Soviet Union in 1987, after George Bush Sr. put the arm on them to keep the "Evil Empire" financially afloat a little longer.
The concept was that Bush knew that the Soviet Union was going to collapse in 1987, and he was scared because it would reveal his lies to the American people about why he needed more money for "defense" and other military expenditures. Bush obviously knew that the United States couldn't lend them the money, a country we had spent trillions of dollars to defeat.
If the Soviet Union had collapsed in 1987, people would say - why did we have to spend trillions of dollars on "defense"? The Bush Cabal's lies were premised on the idea that the Soviet Union wouldn't fall apart until 1992.
Then they could say they were responsible for the collapse (the "defeat" of the "Evil Empire") rather than being responsible for wasting trillions of dollars.
The CIA's annual report of the Soviet Union's strength assessment was that the Soviet Union was falling apart. The Bush Administration would then issue two reports, one of them indicating that the Soviet Union was falling apart and the other, a false report, stating that the Soviet Union continues to get stronger.
George Bush Sr. then talked the German, Japanese and Korean governments into making direct intergovernmental loans to the Soviet Union in 1987 totaling about $150 billion dollars. The deal was that the United States would be the ultimate guarantor. That's another $150 billion dollars that US taxpayers would be responsible for.
After lending $80 billion to the Soviet Union at Bush's request, Germany's Chancellor Kohl told him that he couldn't hide any more from his government.
George Bush Sr. then lied to the Japanese about the money he wanted them to give the Soviet Union. He told them if the Japanese gave them the money, then the Russians would give back the northern island possessions the Russians illegally seized from the Japanese at the end of the Second World War. It was a complete lie.
After Gorbachev was gone, Yeltsin said he wouldn't honor the deal because he knew that this was a scam just between Bush Sr. and Gorbachev. It was a political scam that Bush and Gorbachev did in order to make Bush look good and make his policies "viable." Yeltsin actually knew the extent of the conspiracy that existed between Gorbachev and Bush.
It is no wonder that George Bush told reporter Sarah McClendon that "if the American people really knew what we had done, we would be chased down the streets and lynched." What George Bush said then is a case of what happens in Washington when you don't take your Prozac and you have a "lie lapse."
When Clinton came into office, he had a real sense of fear and foreboding.
Knowing what he knew, he used to kid about it. Bill Alexander told me this in April or May of '93. He said, "Six months after being here, I got high blood pressure. I got hemorrhoids. I got all these things wrong with me that I never had before."
If people understood what happened within the Clinton Regime… the fact that Clinton (who was a weak politician to begin with) was forced to accept a lot of Bush holdovers. That was one of the distinctions of the Clinton Regime. There was a record number, over 1,700 Bush holdovers in senior positions in various federal agencies.
Clinton managed to weed out some of them, although he didn't do it as quickly as he wanted because even he understood the bigger picture. He understood the temerity of the situation. He was often criticized - why didn't he weed out these Republican Cabalist holdovers? But he knew what they were there for - to control the liability of the Bush Administration. He was surprised by the numbers, but as he came to realize the enormity of the crime committed by the Bush I people, and the fact that it could literally take the whole world down economically, if the total of this gross economic malfeasance was to be revealed. And then there was the wholesale looting of the federal treasury, and the fact that trillions and trillions couldn't be accounted for.
Clinton understood that you needed Bush Cabalists who know how to control liability — even within his own administration. He used to tell Alexander that we're Democrats, and we don't have this inherent liability control structure that the Republicans have.
A Republican can go into a room full of a million documents in file cabinets, take one breath, and know exactly which one document you have to shred in the whole million. Republicans have an intuitive instinct of this that they've built up over the years.
Clinton did the right thing. Even he understood, at least early in his regime, what the Bush Cabalists (he used to call them the Bush Faction, or Cabalists, or Trilateralists) had done. He should be commended because he let this Republican control apparatus stay in his government and he gave them a very free hand.
Unfortunately there were many people who suffered because of it, whistleblowers who knew too much. You have to remember that in '91- '92, and even later in '93-'94, people were still suffering. People who knew too much were disappearing and dying under mysterious circumstances. And I was one of the people who suffered — but at least I understood the necessity of my suffering. There were some people who whined about it, but I maintained a constant position, that is, I am owed money. I was mistreated, lied to, and I was owed money — after always doing what I had been told to do. And that wasn't right - the way I was treated. I didn't whine about it. I didn't threaten anyone about it because I understood.
People have asked me why I didn't write the book ("The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran Contra Insider" http://www.almartinraw.com/book.html) in '91, or '92, or '93. I would answer that it would have been politically impossible at the time to write it. That's true, but I could have self-published it. The real reason I didn't is because I understood the bigger picture as well. As my attorney used to say to me back in '91 or '92, "Al, if you write a book now, we had better pray that people don't believe it."
But even I understood what the Bigger Picture was, and so did Clinton, who was smart enough to let that Republican control group exist because he knew what the repercussions would be, if everything that the Bushes had done became public. He knew there would be havoc. It's global in nature, but we're talking about a time in 1992 when the Bush Administration had just re-capitalized the nation's Savings and Loans - which the very same people including some of the Bush family's relatives had taken down.
When you just re-capitalized that at an enormous cost to the American taxpayer, the economy was still losing two billion dollars a day. The world's financial markets were tenuous at best. The Soviet Union had now converted over, but was in a state of crisis. Brazil had now effectively fallen apart. Argentina was falling apart for the first time. Mexico was right on the verge.
In other words, Clinton accurately understood that, had the Grand Bushonian Malfeasance been revealed, the massive loss of investors' confidence could have been the straw that broke the camel's back. Therefore he appropriately kept a guy like Greenspan, who had a good market reputation. Greenspan understood the temerity of the economic situation and stepped on the economic gas pedal. This is something that George Bush tried to get him to do in 1992 and he refused.
George Sr. has always blamed Greenspan for his defeat. He was fond of saying that the economy was on the upswing at election time — had Alan Greenspan stepped on the economic gas pedal earlier.
Bush threatened to have Greenspan dismissed, which is the president's power. And Greenspan said, go ahead and see what happens to the remaining confidence in the nation's marketplace. This was a real battle, which was unknown in history. Greenspan told George Bush Sr. that the nation's and the world's economy cannot survive another Bush term. He said I'm not going to get you reelected. And that's why he purposely kept the economic reins tight in '92, when the economy was showing some nascent signs of recovery, at a time when prudent economic policy would have dictated that the Fed would have begun to loosen. He purposely dragged his feet, thus choking off the nascent recovery and giving Bill Clinton a double whammy for free.
The double whammy was that the repressed consumer demand that was going on in the last half of '92 because Greenspan was keeping his foot on the economic brake was creating a repressed consumer demand. The minute you stepped on the gas, what would happen is that interest rates would come down.
Greenspan didn't do it to help Clinton politically. It was really done to pump up the economy in 1993. Greenspan was trying to provide every ounce of monetary stimulus he possibly could. One way was to keep pent-up demand that was occurring in 1992 pent up. He did it by refusing to lower interest rates. Then in the next administration, you step hard on the economic gas.
He dramatically increased the nation's short term (M1) and intermediate term (M2) money supply. He dramatically increased the liquidity, and in so doing, he increased short and intermediate term liquidity, thus allowing rates to fall quite substantially. This brought in additional consumer demand. There was a two-fold action going into the first quarter of '93 with left over demand from '92 (pent-up demand.) It was a demand for housing, for consumer goods, big-ticket durables, but that demand wouldn't come forth until rates came down. And that allowed this tremendous economic growth to happen which we had in '93 and for interest rates to fall so low.
The interest rates on the 30-year long bond had fallen 400 basis points from October '92 to October '93. That is a tremendous drop in interest rates. Because of that, Greenspan was able to get, through some crafty manipulation of monetary policy, an awful lot of bang for the monetary buck in terms of economic stimulation. It really changed the tone of the nation's capital marketplaces.
I've always said this, and I know that Greenspan personally thinks the same: 1993 was the pivotal year that saved the nation's (and possibly the world's) economy. There was a tremendous increase in GDP. A lot of banks and brokerage firms were able to re-liquefy again. It was re-liquefied by over-stimulating the economy. That in turn allowed previously illiquid assets to become liquid.
Greenspan shifted the economy into neutral, stepped on the economic brake hard (4th quarter of 1993), and contracted money supply very quickly, instead of doing it over 18 months. He knew that was a risk in an economy still so debt-leveraged. So he compressed the economic cycle. He knew he had over-stimulated which he felt necessary to save the whole world essentially and created incipient inflation in an economy that had to be weeded out. Instead of doing it the traditional way by creating a recession, he took a chance and compressed the entire cycle into less than twelve months, a cycle which ordinarily would have taken twenty-four months.
The key in the case for sedition against the Bush Cabal is that they knew what their policies would lead to. The Bush Administration knew they were creating policies in order for a certain cabal within government, a faction, a segment of society, industry that supports that cabal, to bleed ever larger and larger amounts of money out of the public purse. And they knew what they were doing.
"Industry" here refers to the entire Military-Industrial Complex and perhaps the entire Bush faction within government and the civilian population, which represents about 3,000,000 people or so. This was indeed a continuation of the consolidation of money and power to which Bush referred.
The key is that they knew what they were doing. They knew what the long-term economic impact would be for the United States. They purposely created that negative impact so they could capitalize on it by instituting huge amounts of institutional short positions, when the eventual and inevitable economic effects of all of this missing money began to be felt in the summer of 1987. At that time, suddenly banks looked around and said we don't have any capital left. Our capital base is depleted. Insurance companies looked around and said our insurance net reserves are depleted. There was nothing left. By the third quarter of 1987, the great and all-powerful Bush Cabal had drained so much money out of the economy, combined with perpetual federal budget deficits, that there literally was no money left in the country.
The actions of the Bush Cabal, George Bush Sr. and his cabal, some of the men we've named, and the profits they made, based on policies that they themselves enacted, or proffered and fostered, both legally and illegally — this rises to the level of sedition, insofar as they knew what they were doing.
And what is sedition? To willfully and maliciously act in a fashion as to sap, suborn or otherwise undermine the United States of America, its lawful authority, thereunto as duly constituted government, or its national security.
Is not economics the ultimate national security of the country? This is the
key in the case for sedition against the Bush Cabal.
Increasing Hostility and Bush Cabal Fraud (Part 2)
There is a common misperception that just as much money was stolen during the Clinton Regime as during the Bush Regime, but I would say that this contention is not true. Of course, the Department of Defense admits that $2.3 trillion disappeared, but that wasn't even in the same range as the amount of money that disappeared during the Bush Cabal's reign. Also it was not a State-sponsored systematic operation of fraud because they didn't have the Republicans' organizational capability. Besides the Clinton Administration (unlike the Bush Regime) did not specifically form operations to commit fraud.
You can simply look at all the people who were involved in all the large frauds of the 1980s (including members of the Vice President's and subsequent President's own family) as well as the number of assistant cabinet Secretaries, who were directly involved in the fraud by being members of limited partnerships and so on. They didn't even try to hide it.
It's not that $2.3 trillion is a small amount of money, but what made the Clinton Administration different is that there was not the State sponsorship of organized fraud, which had existed before. This would include a lot of the fraud committed against HUD, in which senior HUD officials were on the board of directors or involved in general partnerships of offshore secret limited partnerships and bogus real estate deals that were committing scams against their own agency. There was no real effort to hide it because it was State-acquiesced. And there was such control of the media (as there always is during a Republican regime), that there was little fear of it ever being exposed.
By the time of the Clinton Administration, things had changed. It was just an eight-year interlude or interruption in Bushonian control. Of course, I'm not saying that Clinton was wearing a white hat. He most certainly was not. But when you think about it, what was Clinton most noted for? The same old Democrat foibles: Women, Whiskey, and Weed. This is the well-known Achilles heel of the Democrats. The only difference this time is that the Republican Right was so well organized that they could make a big deal out of it.
Throughout the 1980s, there was Congressman Mills, who was involved with the stripper, Congressman Dellums with his cocaine habit, and Senator Boren with the little boys. Did you see the Republicans exploiting it? No, they didn't bother. They knew that in the American people's minds, Democrats are naturally associated with such peccadilloes.
When you think of foibles involving Women, Whiskey, and Weed, you naturally think of Democrats. Automatically. That's just what you do. How much additional political mileage can they get by pointing out what the American people already expect?
I am not defending the Clinton Administration and all their policies. God knows — I would be the last guy to do that, considering that they went back on their word to me in 1992-93. I kept my mouth shut about Clinton and Mena and Clinton and a lot of other things that I knew about. They promised to help me, but they pulled the plug on me. And in that way, they certainly acted like Republicans do in order to cover up their own liability. In context, though, when it comes to cutting up the Fraud Pie in Washington, the Democrats just get the crumbs.
Look at all the frauds the Clintons were involved in - Whitewater, Flowerwood Development, Beverly Enterprises, and on and on and on. These are all very small numbers — $300,000, $800,000, $1.8 million - that type of thing.
Compare that with the fraud that the Bush sons were involved in. You see numbers like $300 million, one billion, three billion. And again you could say — why don't the Democrats use that against the Republicans? The reason why they don't is that it goes the other way. The American people already expect it. The very word "Republicanism" is conjoined with fraud. People just roll their eyes and say, "Oh, it's just another right wing Republican Billion Dollar Fraud."
A question you can ask is this — does the Monica Lewinsky Situation even begin to approach the level of various frauds committed by the Bush Sons?
People should have a sense of perspective. For instance, there was Jeb Bush and his partner Miguel Recarey, the infamous Cuban swindler and their International Medical Corporation scam, which the General Accounting Office, by 1989, finally figured out cost the American taxpayers $353 million.
What's more important to the American people — that the president gets a blowjob, or that they get hit in the wallets for $353 million? Since they exert such influence in the American media, they can spin it and make a blowjob sound more injurious to the American people than a multi-billion dollar fraud.
Money certainly did evaporate during the Clinton years. The difference is that it was not a Government-Sponsored and Organized Scheme to defraud. You then decide for yourself what has a more negative impact on the nation. Fourteen trillion dollars in debt accumulated by the systemic waste, fraud, abuse, graft, and corruption of the Reagan Bush Regime? Or the fourteen blow jobs that Monica Lewinsky gave Clinton?
People get hung up on the politics and what they don't understand is that politics is meaningless - social agendas, even military agendas to some extent are meaningless. When someone says that a nation boils down to a political, economic, social, military, foreign policy sphere, it really doesn't. There's only one thing that makes any difference and that's economics. All other venues of government are subordinated to economics.
What media tries to do is to compartmentalize - that which is social, military, etc. without looking to the next level to understand that the only thing that makes any difference and where all power flows is from economics.
But to get back to the sedition of the Bush Cabal, there are actual historical parallels in this country, such as the activities of the great Robber Barons of the 1870s. Before there was regulation and before the trusts were broken, there was unbridled monopoly capitalism.
After the Civil War, from 1865 to the early 1890s, there was an enormous consolidation of money and power. By 1892, less than one half of 1% of the citizenry controlled 96% of the wealth of the nation. This led to a dramatic drop in economic liquidity, which is what happens when all the money congested into very few hands. It doesn't leave enough capital for the rest of the country to run. This in turn has often been blamed for the great economic depression of 1894.
Essentially the entire country became illiquid. This was before the time of the Federal Reserve, when the US Treasury would intervene directly into the economy. This is before any money supply was controlled. The illiquidity started at the US Treasury. We were then on a species economy and it was the scene of the Great Silver Debate. This was the time of Williams Jennings Bryan, who was called the "silver tongued orator." He promoted the concept of the "tyranny of gold," which was the original Democratic Party platform. Thirty years later, the famous economist John Maynard Keynes called gold "the barbarous metal."
There was such a consolidation of money, i.e. gold, in the hands of so few people and the Treasury had been so drained of this gold, that by late 1893, the Treasury ran out of gold and thus could produce no more gold-backed bank notes. That's where the illiquidity started, and then as it happens during the great recessions and depressions of the nineteenth century, there was a knee-jerk reaction in the rest of the business community.
It should be remembered that the Great Depression of 1894 was global; it was not just in the United States. What was different about the depression of '94 was that it was the first global depression. It was felt throughout the world and it nearly sunk the British Empire. This was the first time that the venerable Barings Bank nearly went down the tubes. A hundred years later it went down for good.
The illiquidity started as a gold shortage, which soon became worldwide. At the time, the Bank of England was the bank of last resort for the whole world. When the massive drain on Bank of England gold reserves began in late 1893, Britain ceased redemption of imperial currency and notes by July 1894 in order to preserve what gold they had left. That led to a massive loss of confidence.
The concept was to cease currency conversion of imperial bank notes and let it all fall apart. Then when it stabilized, they picked it back up again. That's why there were fierce debates with William Jennings Bryan who wanted a silver-backed economy. At the time the United States Treasury had over three hundred times the silver deposits that it had of gold. This country has always been richer in silver.
By the 1890s, the US Treasury was swimming in it. The counter-debate was that the US would lose their currency convertibility overseas. Trade by then had become a very important part of the US economy. US banknotes would effectively have to have a second tier market then. Britain and other countries complained that Bryan's idea would consistently force down the price of silver, and in fact, it did exactly that. The fixed value of an ounce of silver at $1.25 per toy ounce — this is one of the things that broke the Treasury. Because of Bryan's popularity, the price of silver had declined until it eventually reached $ .60 an ounce. The market reaction caused the price of silver to fall, and Bryan had actually made the situation worse without realizing it at the time.
Regarding the sedition issue, though, here is the chain of events instigated by the Bush Cabal's organized criminal conspiracy, which produced the net effect.
A. The thinly veiled political policies, which allowed the fraud to take place.
B. The mechanism of the fraud, that is, all the little nickel and dime companies which don't really exist.
C. Sharply declining financial capital marketplaces are the result, from which the conspirators take the money they've stolen from A to B, and use it to short the market.
D. The net result is a destabilized US Government, or sedition.
The question then becomes simple. Did A, B, and C in concert rise to the level of D, or sedition?
The proper forum for this kind of case would have to be a grand jury action directly by the People of the United States. That's the only way it would work It would be a People's Grand Jury.
And what would constitute standing in a case like this? The People of the United States would have to prove that they were harmed by these actions, that they were harmed as taxpayers, as investors, as savers, and as people in a society expecting an actual defense to be maintained to defend them. That wouldn't be hard. The argument is simple.
There have been many citizen grand juries in the past, but most of them haven't amounted too much because they represent such a minority of the people. The reason why this would have a chance is that it would be the People of the United States in its truest form.
It's in the law. People have the right to form a Citizens' Grand Jury, so that the plaintiff is no longer the government of the United States, but the People of the United States.
This is also better than a class action suit or a RICO suit because it gets around the statutes of limitation. The problem with RICO is that to get around the statutes of limitation, you have to prove OCC (Ongoing Criminal Conspiracy). As any attorney will tell you, this is not an easy thing to prove.
The People's Grand Jury is codified in law. It has been used numerous times, and it's as old as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The reason none have ever been successful is because there has never been a suit filed wherein you could say that the plaintiff is the entirety, or nearly the entirety of the nation.
The Republican Party used to form these Citizens' Grand Jury suits against the Roosevelt Administration incessantly in the early 1930s to prevent him from coming in with the New Deal and the Raw Deal and so on. The problem was that the Republicans were still only about 40% of the population at the time, and they were looked at as a political animal. You have to keep away from that, since that's been the problem with these things before. You have to also make sure that it's not perceived as a bunch of people acting out of sour grapes.
You would have to keep it bi-partisan, and you'd have to have big names involved. You would need to have figureheads from both sides of the aisle — the Grand Old Men of the moderate wings of both parties. These would be men who are known to be politically moderate and who are respected.
It would also be a unique idea to try a civil class action suit. In this case, you'd have a group of lawyers formed to represent the People of the United States, but it's probably not workable because you would have to send out a class action consent form to every person in the United States. As a practical matter, it would become unwieldy.
The whole point of this is to show that now we have another Bush Regime that is hell-bent on doing the same thing, except the ruse is different. Instead of Iran-Contra, we are now pummeled with the "war on terrorism" scam, another endless black hole of government expenditures, with the ultimate guarantor of this fraud being the American citizens.
Meanwhile there seems to be a significant shift in Bush Administration foreign policy. They are purposely antagonizing as many different nations as possible, particularly the Russians. It seems as though they are going out of their way to antagonize the Russians during the last several weeks. The latest problem was that the Bush Regime announced that they would begin Voice of America broadcasting into Chechnya - without telling the Russians first. The Russians were upset because it will be a lot of anti-Russian rhetoric. The week before, the decision was announced to lift the weapons ban against Azerbaijan - again without informing the Russians first. This means we will be allowing US arms dealers to sell Class One US armaments systems directly to Azerbaijan. This will effectively end the relationship of Azerbaijan being a weapons client of Russia. At some point, this would make Azerbaijan a potential threat to the Russian republic. As you can imagine, Putin was upset about that.
The week before, the Bush Administration announced unilaterally that we have come to an agreement to place US troops in Uzbekistan and to upgrade our military links with Uzbekistan — again without telling the Russians first.
It seems that we have purposely gone out of our way to antagonize the Russians. Instead of supporting the Putin Regime as we had been doing, we are effectively beginning to undermine Putin and the moderates in the Duma, the Russian Parliament. What is re-emerging in the Duma is the hard right, or the hawks, in other words.
The Putin regime wasn't that strong to begin with, and now, by this constant antagonizing of Russia, Bush is putting Putin in a very bad position. The hawks in the Duma are telling him that you're supposed to be an equal partner with the US. Why is it that you're not being told by the United States of its policy decisions in advance? Doesn't it clearly indicate that Russia is being stepped on and you, Putin, are being sidelined as a nobody?
Is this being done on purpose to push Putin and the moderates out? After all we had helped Putin get into power, but now we seem to be reversing that policy. We will then be left with a substantially more hostile Russia.
If Putin wants to survive politically, he will be forced to distance himself from the Bush Regime and from their new friends in Europe. In order to stay in office, Putin will have to increase the Russian troop presence in the Trans-Caucasus, to potentially defend their southern borders because Bush Administration has become so chummy with Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan.
Bush is offering to put troops into Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. We have negotiated separately with them, which broke our agreement that we would include the Russians in any deals.
What we are doing is militarizing the Russian Republic's Trans-Caucasus by becoming friendly to states, which are hostile to Russia to begin with, and we are placing US troops in those states and arming them with sophisticated weapons. We are purposely creating a threat to the Russian State.
The fact that all these states are well-known oil producers comes into the mix. We are trying to potentially guarantee oil supplies. The Azerbaijani Pipeline deal has come back to the fore, but instead of a joint US-Russian project, we're now talking about us, the US taxpayers, funding these weak individual states to build it — under US control. This would in turn destabilize the strategic situation between the Caucasus states and Russia.
The US then has the rationale to put in US troops to defend what would effectively be strategic assets of the United States. Putin will be put in a position where if he backs off, that's the end of him politically and the far right takes over in Russia. Or he's going to have to do what he can militarily - to threaten the United States. That is apparently what the Bush Administration is trying to do.
The United States has also recently changed a lot of its positions with China, and we have purposely antagonized Beijing. For example, the Bush Administration never cared about the issue of Tibetan independence. The Bush I regime never cared about it and Republicans in general don't care about that issue. It has only been the Democrats that tried to make an issue out of it. Now all of a sudden the Republicans are playing the "Great Humanitarian." They are beginning to increase pressure on China over the issue of Tibetan independence. Then they tell China they can't put more military forces into their far western regions to "quell rising Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorism."
Western China has the same problem with Islamic terrorism, but now we will tell the Chinese that they can't use their military within their own borders because the US is linking that to their human rights policy. Suddenly there's also the increase in pressure against China over the religious freedom issue. The Chinese responded to that by invading a few Protestant churches and overrunning them with Chinese troops. The ministers were even beat up.
In addition to that, out of the blue, we suddenly announced that we were upgrading military ties to Taiwan. We will begin to sell Taiwan more sophisticated weapons systems than we had originally agreed. And all of these things have antagonized the Chinese, putting the Chinese moderates in Beijing once again in a difficult position because we're strengthening the hand of the Chinese Army (the hawks), which is the other big faction. The hawks have been saying all along that the Chinese should never have entered into negotiations with the United States because it's not in China's best long-term interests.
From these actions, it can be determined that some group within the Bush Administration wants a more hostile world.
What we're doing is creating a global situation (which the Bush Faction has always wanted) of hard and fast boundaries and borders — military, psychological and commercial. We are creating the circumstances, wherein we are forcing others to build a new iron curtain.
The Pakistani situation has also changed. Suddenly the Bush Administration stopped pressuring Pakistan on the nuclear weapons issue. Now we are offering to re-supply them, while we purposely downgraded our relationship with India. India then immediately responded by increasing its nuclear posture against Pakistan, which then forced the Chinese to increase their nuclear posture against India, which in turn forced Russia to increase its nuclear posture against Pakistan.
The United States has been increasing hostilities worldwide. We have created a mess in the Middle East and the West Bank by essentially supporting agreements, which Arafat could not have possibly agreed to. We have threatened the Syrians outright about the 1967 border issue. The Lebanon situation is also becoming unraveled.
We are creating tension and hostility everywhere. It has to be a deliberate policy to ratchet up international tension. And I have said this from the beginning - the "War on Terrorism" in itself may be a ruse for something larger.
The Bush faction has consistently done this, even during the Reagan-Bush Regime, which as I've said before should be considered the Bush I Regime. One policy then becomes a ruse for a much larger policy.
Could it be that this "War on Terrorism" is in fact a ruse to disguise a larger agenda?
Simply put - it is to turn back the clock to a New Cold War. As Marlin Fitzwater used to say about the Cold War, " That's something we fat bald old Republicans understand."
And it's true. It is something the old Republican Cabal understands- a world which is divided, a world divided by hostility. They understand this because then you just spend endless money on defense in a cold war posture. The old military industrial complex becomes a lot more solidified when there is an enemy. It's a whole new spin on the way of looking at things.
Since September 11, we have followed a pattern of Bush lies. Just look at what Bush said on Sept 14, when he gave his first big speech on what was going to happen. He said we're going to go to Afghanistan and we're going to get Osama bin Laden and we're going to smash the al Qaeda. And that was it. Then suddenly that gets expanded to overthrowing the Taliban government, which no matter how you look at it, was a duly constituted government. So then we did that and installed a pro-western secular government at an enormous cost to the American taxpayers. Then we make preparations to get involved in Yemen and Somalia and Sudan. Then suddenly we get more deeply involved in Israeli- Palestinian negotiations. Then suddenly we're involved in the Philippines. We want to become involved in Colombia. We want to get involved in Indonesia. This was not what the American people were told up front.
In the end, the Bush Administration may find out it's biting off more than it can chew. What is the rationale of threatening "terrorist" groups, particularly in Colombia for instance, or in the Philippines, which have never threatened the United States? They have never attacked the United States, and they have never attacked US assets abroad.
Why do we suddenly encourage new enemies? Why are we going out and making new enemies?
The first thing the Bush Administration said was we're going to go out and make new friends in this world. No, we're not. That was a lie. We're going to make new enemies as a precursor to increase global tension, which in turn is a precursor to turn back the clock to a world that we understand, a world where the old cabal works, a world where it is the waste, fraud, abuse, graft, corruption, and malfeasance of yesterday that the Bushonian faction of the military-industrial complex understands. It is a world where things can remain hidden under "National Security."
One of the principal reasons why they love a "Cold War" is that so much can be hidden under "National Security"-defense appropriations, the way the money is spent, the way it's accounted for. That can all remain secret.
We are using a state of undeclared hostility, namely a "Cold War" to continuously expand the definition of that information which should be classified under "National Security."
Now we understand that what was called "National Security" information is really political information about Cabalist activities and frauds and corruption schemes.
It's really very simple. In order to hide behind the National Security Act, the United States must have an enemy.
When he was three-quarters of the way through a quart of Old Bushmill’s Irish Whiskey at the Turnberry Club in North Miami Beach, former Iran-Contra notable Major General Richard V. Secord used to say, “Son, there’s no more heroes, and nobody makes any money without a bogeyman.”
[Is there a significant body of truth in this article, with its language so direct? —each individual is left to the art of sensing truth when it is heard, for there are no authorities whose judgement we can accept. My conviction is that the US government will lie and deceive whenever it reasons that truth would lead to a diminishment of what they perceive to be power —money, which so thoroughly intoxicates, and the ability to inflict death. They do not know that the only way to the True Power is to seek to know and ever speak the Truth, dynamic as it be.]
Other Voices Back