Swine Flu Psychological Operation

Swine Flu Psychological Operation

Plans for Mass Graves Confirmed: Government Surveying Cemetery Readiness for Flu Outbreak

By Aaron Dykes, Jones Report
April 3, 2009

The State of New York Division of Cemeteries has sent out "Mass Fatality forms" to cemeteries in that state to collect data about their ability to deal with the high volume of casualties that would occur if their were a flu pandemic or other disaster. The form letter that this office received was dated April 4, 2007 (PDF), so clearly preparation for such disasters has been ongoing for some time.

Along with other data, cemetery officials were asked in this survey:

"Should a prolonged mass fatality disaster or pandemic flu occur in your community would your cemetery be able to provide temporary or permanent internment space for a significant number of disaster or flu deaths in additional to your current burial services?"

Cemetery owners were also asked to detail the business structure and capacity of their facilities, including proximity to roads, train lines and airfields. The Division of Cemeteries requested data to calculate the number of acres that could be made available "at 950 graves per acre."

It is clear that emergency and disaster forces are being mobilized at the state and federal level. There is no data to predict what disasters could come – forces of nature, false-flag attacks, biological attacks/flu outbreaks, quarantines etc. However, a pattern of data including news items, reports, photos and tips have all pointed to an incremental gearing up for a cataclysmic situation that includes mass casualties.

Whether it is half a million plastic coffin liners videotaped at a truck depot, or massive expansion at dozens of cemeteries across the country, or FEMA and Homeland Security agents preparing for an avian bird flu outbreak, it is clear that government agencies are expecting something to happen, and their agencies are expanding in accordance.

As previously reported, a number of incidents have demonstrated a federal preoccupation with a mass casualty incident – and it started before 9/11 ever happened.

The state of Colorado issued an executive order in 2000 asserting its authority to bury victims in mass graves and/or cremate bodies under emergency situations. Jim Erickson of The Rocky Mountain News reported February 8, 2003 that:

The state of Colorado could seize antibiotics, cremate disease-ridden corpses, dig mass graves under extreme circumstances, and executive orders drafted for use in the event of a bioterrorism attack.

D.H. Williams reported in February on an Indiana county municipal official who received detailed requests from FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security in regards to locations for mass graves, preparations for regional refugees, preparations for economic collapse, and budget cuts under a GM collapse, as well as the locations of major installations, emergency assets, and more.

The official says that he became concerned about the intentions of the FEMA and DHS officials after repeated meetings where scenarios were discussed that included a bird flu outbreak as well as fires, floods and earthquakes.

The authorities have warned in their white papers that United States could face rioting; financial collapse seems very possible; and now it is clear that preparations include widespread death and emergency conditions. What do they see coming?

Flu Pandemic Hype: Another Pretext for World Government

By Kurt Nimmo, Infowars
April 27, 2009

During the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) Summit in Montebello, Canada in 2005, the “three amigos” (Bush, Harper and Calderon) released “North American Plan for Avian and Pandemic Influenza,” described as a “collaborative North American approach that recognizes that controlling the spread of avian influenza or a novel strain of human influenza, with minimal economic disruption, is in the best interest of all three countries.” The plan outlines how “Canada, Mexico and the United States intend to work together to prepare for and manage avian and pandemic influenza.”

Ban Ki-moon said the Mexican flu outbreak is the “first test” of the “pandemic preparedness work undertaken by the international community over the past three years.”

It was hardly a coincidence that at the same time the U.S. Northern Command, or NORTHCOM, created a webpage dedicated to avian flu and subsequently ran exercises in preparation for the possible use of U.S. military forces in a continental domestic emergency involving avian flu or pandemic influenza.

In 2006, NORTHCOM held an international exercise with more than 40 international, federal, and state agencies “designed to provoke discussion and determine what governmental actions, including military support, would be necessary in the event of an influenza pandemic in the United States.” In addition, NORTHCOM participated in a nationwide Joint Chiefs of Staff-directed exercise code-named Exercise Ardent Sentry 06 to rehearse cooperation between Department of Defense and local, state, federal agencies, and the Canadian government.

In 2005, then president Bush shifted U.S. policy on avian flu and pandemic influenza and placed the U.S. under international guidelines. “The policy shift was formalized Sept. 14, 2005, when Bush announced a new International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza to a High-Level Plenary Meeting of the UN General Assembly in New York,” Jerome Corsi wrote in September, 2007.

“The new International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza was designed to supersede an earlier November 2005 Homeland Security report that called for a U.S. national strategy that would be coordinated by the Departments of Homeland Security, Health and Agriculture.”

In other words, any U.S. response to an avian flu pandemic would be directed under WHO, WTO, UN and NAFTA directives. Congress and U.S. agencies would be cut out of the picture. “The UN-WHO-WTO-NAFTA plan advanced by SPP features a prominent role for the UN system influenza coordinator as a central international director in the case of a North American avian flu or pandemic influenza outbreak,” Corsi adds.

Dr. David Nabarro, WHO executive director of sustainable development and health environments, was appointed the first UN system influenza coordinator. In 2005, Nabarro said during a press conference that his number one priority was to prepare for the H5N1 virus, known as the avian flu. Nabarro played into the global fear that an epidemic was inevitable.

“I’m not, at the moment at liberty to give you a prediction on numbers, but I just want to stress, that, let’s say, the range of deaths could be anything from 5 to 150 million,” said Nabarro. On March 8, 2006, during a UN press conference Nabarro predicted an outbreak of the H5N1 virus would “reach the Americas within the next six to 12 months.”

On Monday, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stoked the fear of a global flu pandemic. He said the Mexican flu outbreak is the “first test” of the “pandemic preparedness work undertaken by the international community over the past three years.” Ban Ki-moon said if “we are indeed facing a pandemic, we need to demonstrate global solidarity. In our interconnected world, no nation can deal with threats of such dimension on its own.”

For Ki-moon and the global elite, “global solidarity” in “our interconnected world” translates into yet another push for world government. Ki-moon’s dire warning falls on the heels of the G20 summit where plans were announced for implementing the creation of a new global currency to replace the U.S. dollar’s role as the world reserve currency. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and others repeatedly called for “global governance” and a “New World Order.”

The current flu pandemic hype serves as punctuation mark between the G20 held in London and the upcoming one to be held in Italy in June. “The G20 summit has agreed to try to kick start stalled Doha trade liberalization talks at the next G8 meeting,” Reuters reported on April 2. So-called “trade liberalization” is code for the neoliberal plan to “privatize” public and private industries around the world, impose “flexibilization” of labor markets (create massive unemployment), “deregulate” consumer and financial markets, and foster foreign buyouts, layoffs, wage cuts, transient employment, higher prices, and potentially destabilizing capital flows.

As noted by the Eagle Forum in October, 2007, the SPP’s North American Plan for Avian and Pandemic Influenza “is not only about combating a flu epidemic but is far-reaching in seeking control over U.S. citizens and public policy during an epidemic.” The Plan would give authority to international bureaucrats “beyond the health sector to include a coordinated approach to critical infrastructure protection,” including “border and transportation issues.”

On April 26, Infowars covered the Department of Defense’s “Implementation Plan for Pandemic Influenza” that proposes nothing less than the militarization of health care, military augmentation of civilian law enforcement, and the mass vaccination of the population as directed by the government.

Ki-moon, the United Nations, and the globalists, with the participation of the globalist-dominated corporate media and the ruling elite in Mexico, are hyping the flu outbreak as a possible pandemic in order to sell us their scheme for world government.

It is an ongoing process.

Swine Flu Vaccination Propaganda from 1976
World Health Organization Confirms Swine Flu Outbreak in U.S.
Slideshow: Swine Flu
Video: Swine Flu Fears Prompt Global Quarantine Plans
World Govt's Race to Contain Swine Flu Outbreak
The Bottom-line You Need to Know About Swine Flu
Swine Flu in Mexico: The “New” Bird Flu
Is Swine Flu A Biological Weapon?
Government “Template” for Mass Vaccination
On the Flu Bug and Those Disappearing Microbiologists
Swine Flu Psychological Operation
The Great Swine Flu or the Great Flu Swindle?
Scientists see this flu strain as relatively mild
Scientist predicted swine flu in 2004
Fox News: Martial Law If It’s a Pandemic?
Will NorthCom take over in Swine Flu Outbreak?
CDC Wants ‘Pandemic Coordinator’ in Workplace
Obama Promises to Give Big Pharma Cos. Billions to Address Bogus H1N1 Pandemic
Senator Harkin: Free Flu Shots for All
Alex Jones TV: Weekend Special — “Exposing the H1N1 Hoax”
Ron Paul on H1N1 Hoax: “Scare the People to Death”
H1N1: Government May Soon Tell Australians to Stock 14 Days of Supplies
Herd of Pigs in Central Alberta, Canada Come Down with Swine Flu - A pig herd in central Alberta has been infected with the swine flu virus in what could potentially be the first human-to-animal virus transmission case, provincial officials confirmed this afternoon.
Doctors Warned to Prepare for “Much Worse” Flu Outbreak in Autumn - “Our evidence from all previous pandemics is you get two phases. So you get a first wave which is often very mild and then you get a much more serious wave that comes along in the autumn and the winter.”
Pandemic Nonsense: Flying Pig Flu - Are globalist fear-mongers driving the media to panic the public into universal healthcare solutions? Or federally-mandated vaccinations? Instead of calling it swine flu, it would be more appropriate to call it the flying pig flu.
Swine Flu a Hoax, But Martial Law All Too Real
Doctor Documenting Vaccines and Autism Struck from Medical Register
The “Vaccine Shock” of the Year
Conflicts of Interest: WHO and the pandemic flu “conspiracies”

Updated 6/5/10 (Newest Additions at End of List)

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

The Obama Youth Brigade

The Obama Youth Brigade

The Hitler Youth was a paramilitary organization of the Nazi Party; it existed from 1922 to 1945. This video is a comparison of the Hitler Youth from the movie Cabaret and Obama's singing youth brigade.

According to Duane Lester in "The Threats to Homeschooling: From Hitler to the NEA," the Nazi Party didn’t take control of Germany until 1933, but the Hitler Youth were numbering over 1,000 members as early as 1923. By 1925, they ballooned to 5,000 members. Less than ten years later, they numbered over two million.

He alone who owns the youth, gains the future. - Adolf Hitler

Hitler knew that if you control the youth, you control the future. He used many different methods to increase his influence over the young, from setting himself up as a father figure, to holding huge rallies and directing their focus at a specific “enemy.” He also worked to keep them ignorant, letting them learn only what he felt they needed to know.

In 1937, Hitler ordered all German children into the government schools. He said:

“The youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of innoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing.”

Homeschooling was officially outlawed in Germany. Hitler wanted the state to have total control over the education of the nation’s youth. He knew that they were the key to his success, the key to a totalitarian rule.

HR 1388 or the Obama Youth Brigade Bill

By Duane Lester, All American Blogger
March 26, 2009

The Hitler Youth were started in the 1920s, and by 1933 numbered more than 100,000. Hitler said his goal was a strong Germany. In 1934, he told a crowd at a Nuremberg Rally, "regardless of whatever we create and do, we shall pass away, but in you, Germany will live on and when nothing is left to us, you will have to hold up the banner which some time ago we lifted out of nothingness.

In 1939, membership was compulsory for children over 17. Its membership comprised 90% of the country’s young. In 1941, membership was mandatory for any child over ten.

There are former members of the Hitler Youth living today, including the current Pope. One has to wonder what they think of HR 1388, the “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education,” which would create what some are calling the Obama Youth Brigade.

On Monday, the House passed it. It is currently in the Senate, where enough Republicans are weak enough to vote for it.

The bill has more than a few reasons to create worry:

1. The bill will substantially increase the size and reach of an existing federal government program;
2. The bill will burden taxpayers with more than 5 billion tax dollars at a time when we should be cutting back, not spending more;
3. The bill will steer funding and volunteers for public service away from churches, individuals, neighbors, and others who would like to lend a helping hand and toward organizations selected by bureaucrats;
4. The bill is full of vague language and has insufficient safeguards to prevent left-wing special interest groups from using tax dollars to advance their agenda in the name of “community service;”
5. The bill risks politicizing charity and community service by funneling funds and volunteers toward the preferred organizations picked by ideologues;
6. The first 25% of this bill is really education legislation, and should be in an education bill at the state level; and
7. The bill will compound the disincentives created by new limits on federal tax deductions for charitable giving, thereby decreasing the role of families, churches and other local organizations in their communities.

When you look at the details – one realizes that it’s far worse than even that… more along the lines of full-scale indoctrination camps toward Statism. The legislation will, in many circumstances, force our children to participate in charitable activity as part of school – and that activity may well be chosen by or approved by a bureaucrat. The bill causes a federally chartered, Washington-based institution to, essentially, pick priorities and winners and losers in the charitable universe – undoubtedly putting many charities at a significant disadvantage…

Here’s another disturbing part of the bill. It directs a committee to look into mandating service, i.e. making it compulsory:

"The effect on the Nation, on those who serve, and on the families of those who serve, if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service. Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds."

If the program is made mandatory, and it’s hard to believe it won’t be, it will mandate middle and high school students to 50 hours a year. College students will be on the hook for 100 hours. And with this mandatory service, aka forced labor, comes some other restrictions on your liberties: it prohibits religious activities. That means no church attendance or witnessing. Again, is this what America voted for?

Here is part of the HR 1388’s wording:

SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:

SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:

(1) Attempting to influence legislation.

(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes…

(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

For those of you who find themselves still clinging to those religious beliefs, the service will help you with that.

Obama Urges Citizens to Undertake National Service

Associated Press
April 21, 2009

Calling on Americans to volunteer, President Barack Obama signed a $5.7 billion national service bill Tuesday that triples the size of the AmeriCorps service program (started by President Bill Clinton) over the next eight years and expands ways for students to earn money for college. "What this legislation does, then, is to help harness this patriotism and connect deeds to needs," said Obama, a former community organizer in Chicago.

It creates opportunities to serve for students, seniors and everyone in between," he said. "And it is just the beginning of a sustained, collaborative and focused effort to involve our greatest resource — our citizens — in the work of remaking this nation."

Joining Obama was Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who has been battling brain cancer. Kennedy championed the legislation with Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and the bill was named in honor of the Massachusetts Democrat.

Kennedy told the audience that included former President Bill Clinton, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former first lady Rosalyn Carter that Obama's efforts echoed those of his late brother, President John F. Kennedy.

"Today, another young president has challenged another generation to give back to their nation," Kennedy said, citing his brother's advocacy for the Peace Corps.

The service law expands ways for students and seniors to earn money for college through their volunteer work. It aims to foster and fulfill people's desire to make a difference, such as by mentoring children, cleaning up parks or buildings and weatherizing homes for the poor.

"I'm asking you to help change history's course, put your shoulder up against the wheel," Obama said. "And if you do, I promise you your life will be richer, our country will be stronger, and someday, years from now, you may remember it as the moment when your own story and the American story converged, when they came together, and we met the challenges of our new century."

Bolstering voluntary public service programs has been a priority of Obama, who credits his work as a community organizer in his early 20s for giving him direction in life. The president cited his work in Chicago as an example of how one person can make a difference.

"All that's required on your part is a willingness to make a difference," Obama said. "And that is, after all, the beauty of service: Anybody can do it."

Obama visited the SEED School of Washington, a public boarding school that serves inner-city students facing problems in both the classroom and at home, for the signing ceremony. Afterward, Obama and first lady Michelle Obama joined Clinton to plant trees at a national park site along the Anacostia River in northeast Washington. At the Kenilworth Park and Aquatic Gardens, Obama rolled up his sleeves with volunteers from the Student Conservation Association and local public high schools.

"Somebody forgot my boots," Obama joked to the students.

Obama on Tuesday also nominated Nike Inc. vice president Maria Eitel to lead the federal agency that oversees the country's national service programs. Eitel, who's also president of the Nike Foundation, would have to be confirmed by the Senate to become CEO of the Corporation for National and Community Service.

Congress passed the bill last month with largely bipartisan support and Obama is seeking $1.1 billion to fund it next year. Some Republicans complain it is too costly and is an unnecessary intrusion by government into something Americans already do eagerly and in great numbers — helping their neighbors and communities.

The legislation provides for gradually increasing the size of the Clinton-era AmeriCorps to 250,000 enrollees from its current 75,000. It outlines five broad categories where people can direct their service: helping the poor, improving education, encouraging energy efficiency, strengthening access to health care, and assisting veterans.

AmeriCorps offers a range of volunteer opportunities including housing construction, youth outreach, disaster response and caring for the elderly. Most receive an annual stipend of slightly less than $12,000 for working 10 months to a year.

AmeriCorps has seen a recent surge in applications, according to the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees the program. In March, the organization received 17,038 online AmeriCorps applications, nearly double those received in the previous month and nearly triple the 6,770 received last March.

Alan Solomont, who chairs AmeriCorps' board, said former President John F. Kennedy's call to service inspired more people to help others than just those who joined the Peace Corps. He said this national service legislation could produce the same effect.

"It is not unlike the moment in 1960 when President Kennedy asked Americans, you know, to serve, but it is certainly going to engage millions more today," Solomont said in a conference call arranged by the White House.

The bill also ties volunteer work to money for college. People 55 and older could earn $1,000 education awards by getting involved in public service. Those awards can be transferred to a child, grandchild or even someone they mentored. Students from sixth grade through senior year of high school could earn a $500 education award for helping in their neighborhoods during a new summer program.

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

Merciless Robots to Fight Future Wars By 2015

Merciless Robots to Fight Future Wars By 2015

A robot is seen on the sidewalk in front of the north gate of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, April 15, 2009, after tax protesters threw what appeared to be a box of tea bags over the White House fence on Pennsylvania Avenue. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Military 50 Percent Robotic By 2015

AFP
February 6, 2009

Robots will be armies of the future in a case of science fact catching up to fiction, a researcher told an elite Technology Entertainment and Design (TED) gathering on Wednesday.

Peter Singer, who has authored books on the military, warned that while using robots for battle saves lives of military personnel, the move has the potential to exacerbate warfare by having heartless machines do the dirty work.

“We are at a point of revolution in war, like the invention of the atomic bomb,” Singer said. What does it mean to go to war with U.S. soldiers whose hardware is made in China and whose software is made in India?”

Singer predicts that U.S. military units will be half machine, half human by 2015.

The U.S. Army already recruits soldiers using a custom war videogame, and some real-world weapon controls copy designs of controllers for popular videogame consoles.

Attack drones and bomb-handling robots are already common in battle zones.

Robots not only have no compassion or mercy, they insulate living soldiers from horrors that humans might be moved to avoid.



“The United States is ahead in military robots, but in technology there is no such thing as a permanent advantage,” Singer said. “You have Russia, China, Pakistan and Iran working on military robots.”

There is a “disturbing” cross between robotics and terrorism, according to Singer, who told of a website that lets visitors detonate improvised explosive devices from home computers.

“You don’t have to convince robots they are going to get 72 virgins when they die to get them to blow themselves up,” Singer said.

Robots also record everything they see with built-in cameras, generating digital video that routinely gets posted online at YouTube in graphic clips that soldiers refer to as “war porn,” according to Singer.

“It turns war into entertainment, sometimes set to music,” Singer said. “The ability to watch more but experience less.”

Robotics designer David Hanson offered hope when it comes to making robots a little more human. Hanson builds robots that have synthetic flesh faces and read people’s expressions in order to copy expressions. “The goal here is not just to achieve sentience, but empathy,” Hanson said. “As machines are more capable of killing, implanting empathy could be the seeds of hope for our future.”

Hanson demonstrated a lifelike robotic bust of late genius Albert Einstein that makes eye contact and mimics people’s expressions.

“I smiled at that thing and jumped out of my skin when it smiled back,” TED curator Chris Anderson quipped. “It’s freaky.”

Scientists Debate a Robot War in New Book ‘Wired for War’

Canadian Press
February 11, 2009

In the 1921 play that invented the word “robot” - Czech writer Karel Capek’s “Rossum’s Universal Robots” - mechanical, highly intelligent slaves mount a revolt and kill all humans but one.

Ever since, science fiction has explored the idea of robots outsmarting, dominating and destroying the human race. Author P. W. Singer, at 33 a Senior Fellow at the highly serious Brookings Institution, can’t resist the fascination of the topic, but he isn’t writing fiction. He treats the possibility with appropriate seriousness in “Wired for War,” a meticulous account of the latest military robots.

Two earlier books by him have explored two of the hottest issues in 21st century military developments. One was “Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry,” the reinvigorated ancient profession of mercenaries. The other deals with something relatively new: “Children at War” - the recruitment and enslavement of boys and girls in their teens and even younger.

Singer says some 40 countries are making military robots. The motive: reduced casualties. “When a robot dies, you don’t have to write a letter to its mother,” Singer quotes one unit commander as saying.

Military robots are already being built with greater endurance, firepower, precision and - for the moment, submissiveness - than human soldiers. The trend is to make them more autonomous, able to take decisions according to built-in commands, unmoved by fear, pity, revenge or other human emotion.

Whether they can or should be endowed with a system of ethics is controversial. How to tell a ragged soldier from a ragged civilian?

Scientists foresee the day when robots will develop what is called “strong AI” - high level artificial intelligence - and use it reproduce themselves without human intervention. Singer quotes Vernon Vinge, mathematician, computer scientist and science fiction writer, as predicting more than 15 years ago:

“Within the next 30 years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly thereafter, the human era will be ended.”

Rodney Brooks, chief technical officer at iRobot, is more optimistic. The firm takes its name from Isaac Asimov’s “I, Robot,” which posits “laws” that robots must never harm humans. The firm also makes the first mass-produced robotic vacuum cleaner. Brooks says there’ll never be a robot takeover because by then, people will be part computer, part human.

Singer’s exhaustively researched book, enlivened by examples from popular culture, ends with a hint that he’s worried, too.

“We are creating something exciting and new, a technology that might just transform humans’ role in their world, perhaps even create a new species,” he concludes. “But this revolution is mainly driven by our inability to move beyond the conflicts that have shaped human history from the very start. Sadly, our machines may not be the only thing wired for war.”

Pentagon Exploring Robot Killers That Can Fire on Their Own

McClatchy Newspapers
March 27, 2009

The unmanned bombers that frequently cause unintended civilian casualties in Pakistan are a step toward an even more lethal generation of robotic hunters-killers that operate with limited, if any, human control.

The Defense Department is financing studies of autonomous, or self-governing, armed robots that could find and destroy targets on their own. On-board computer programs, not flesh-and-blood people, would decide whether to fire their weapons.

“The trend is clear: warfare will continue and autonomous robots will ultimately be deployed in its conduct,” Ronald Arkin, a robotics expert at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, wrote in a study commissioned by the Army.

The pressure of an increasing battlefield tempo is forcing autonomy further and further toward the point of robots making that final, lethal decision,” he predicted. “The time available to make the decision to shoot or not to shoot is becoming too short for remote humans to make intelligent informed decisions.”

Autonomous armed robotic systems probably will be operating by 2020, according to John Pike, an expert on defense and intelligence matters and the director of the security Web site GlobalSecurity.org in Washington.

This prospect alarms experts, who fear that machines will be unable to distinguish between legitimate targets and civilians in a war zone.

“We are sleepwalking into a brave new world where robots decide who, where and when to kill,” said Noel Sharkey, an expert on robotics and artificial intelligence at the University of Sheffield, England.

Human operators thousands of miles away in Nevada, using satellite communications, control the current generation of missile-firing robotic aircraft, known as Predators and Reapers. Armed ground robots, such as the Army’s Modular Advanced Armed Robotic System, also require a human decision-maker before they shoot.

As of now, about 5,000 lethal and nonlethal robots are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Besides targeting Taliban and al Qaida leaders, they perform surveillance, disarm roadside bombs, ferry supplies and carry out other military tasks. So far, none of these machines is autonomous; all are under human control.



The Pentagon’s plans for its Future Combat System envision increasing levels of independence for its robots.

“Fully autonomous engagement without human intervention should also be considered, under user-defined conditions,” said a 2007 Army request for proposals to design future robots.

For example, the Pentagon says that air-to-air combat may happen too fast to allow a remote controller to fire an unmanned aircraft’s weapons.

“There is really no way that a system that is remotely controlled can effectively operate in an offensive or defensive air-combat environment,” Dyke Weatherington, the deputy director of the Pentagon’s unmanned aerial systems task force, told a news conference on Dec. 18, 2007. “The requirement for that is a fully autonomous system,” he said. “That will take many years to get to.”

Many Navy warships carry the autonomous, rapid-fire Phalanx system, which is designed to shoot down enemy missiles or aircraft that have penetrated outer defenses without waiting for a human decision-maker.

At Georgia Tech, Arkin is finishing a three-year Army contract to find ways to ensure that robots are used in appropriate ways. His idea is an “ethical governor” computer system that would require robots to obey the internationally recognized laws of war and the U.S. military’s rules of engagement.

“Robots must be constrained to adhere to the same laws as humans or they should not be permitted on the battlefield,” Arkin wrote.

For example, a robot’s computer “brain” would block it from aiming a missile at a hospital, church, cemetery or cultural landmark, even if enemy forces were clustered nearby. The presence of women or children also would spark a robotic no-no.

Arkin contends that a properly designed robot could behave with greater restraint than human soldiers in the heat of battle and cause fewer casualties. “Robots can be built that do not exhibit fear, anger, frustration or revenge, and that ultimately behave in a more humane manner than even human beings in these harsh circumstances,” he wrote.

Sharkey, the British critic of autonomous armed robots, said that Arkin’s ethical governor was “a good idea in principle. Unfortunately, it’s doomed to failure at present because no robots or AI (artificial intelligence) systems could discriminate between a combatant and an innocent. That sensing ability just does not exist.”

Selmer Bringsjord, an artificial intelligence expert at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., is worried, too.

“I’m concerned. The stakes are very high,” Bringsjord said. “If we give robots the power to do nasty things, we have to use logic to teach them not to do unethical things. If we can’t figure this out, we shouldn’t build any of these robots.”

Bailiffs Get Power to Use Force on Debtors
20,000 More U.S. Troops To Be Deployed For "Domestic Security" (December 2008)
Pentagon Deploys U.S. Troops for Terrorist Attack or Other Catastrophe (December 2008)
Combat Troops in Iraq Deployed to U.S. to "Help with Civil Unrest" (October 2008)
Gates Memo Announces Final Assimilation of National Guard and Reserve
America Under Martial Law (Video Part 1 of 3 - October 2008)
Brain-Machine Interface Technology Enables Controlling of a Robot by Human Thought Alone
Posse Comitatus on the Ropes: Northcom Responds to North Dakota Flooding
U.S. Recruiting Misfits for Army (Felons, Racists, Gang Members Fill in the Ranks)
U.S. Military Will Offer Path to Citizenship
Militarizing Police Depts. With Your Bailout Money
Pentagon Wants Packs of Robots to Detect "Non-cooperative Humans"
Is FEMA & DHS Preparing for Mass Graves and Martial Law Near Chicago?
Pentagon's Pain Beam to Get Tougher, Smaller, More Powerful
General Wants to Scan More U.S. Irises, Fingerprints
Internment Camps Readied for Mass Illegal Alien Influx? (February 2009)
New Orleans: Bombs, Choppers During Military Exercises Startle Residents (February 2009)
New Legislation Authorizes FEMA Camps in U.S. (January 2009)
En Route to Military Rule and the Demise of Civilian Government
U.S. Military Preparing for Domestic Disturbances
Life-Like Walking Female Robot Unveiled
Top Professor: Autonomous Killer Robots in the Field
Military Recruits Thousands More Warbots for New Unmanned Surge
Unmanned "Surge": 3000 More Robots for War
Tiny Weapons, Jet Engines in Killer Drone Upgrades
Robots are Narrowing the Gap with Humans
Killer Robots and a Revolution in Warfare
Robots That Kill for America
March of the Killer Robots
U.S. Air Force Unmanned Aircraft Systems Flight Plan 2009-2047
Upcoming Military Robot Could Feed on Dead Bodies
Are we on the brink of creating a computer with a human brain?
Secret U.S. spontaneous human combustion beam tested
Test brings SciFi depictions of laser weapons vaporizing targets into reality
Police give man CPR after shooting him with Taser
Rebellion-B-Gone: Chemical Neurowarfare
Police Buy Military-Style Sonic Devices
The Criminal Behavior of G-20 Police in Pittsburgh
Robocops Employ Scary Crowd-Stopping Technology at Pittsburgh Protests
Cops May Get Portable Pain Weapon
Test of Tactical Laser from a C-130 gunship burns hole in hood of vehicle
TSA Body Scanning Technology Strips Away Privacy
Israeli Robots Remake Battlefield
Welsh robot Adam takes A.I. to the next level
Robot Border Guards to Patrol Future Frontiers
First Annual National Robotics Week Is in Full Swing in US
MEART: the Machine that's Part Robot Part Rat
DNA Robots on the Move
iRobot’s Military Swarm of Wifi Bots Flips Into Action
Stanford’s Stickybot is Climbing Faster, Human Project Coming Soon? (video)

Updated 10/3/10 (Newest Additions at End of List)

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

No New Refineries Means Higher Gas Prices at the Pump and Bigger Profits for American Oil Companies

What Causes High Gas Prices?

By imagery, weatherimagery.com
Originally Published on May 24, 2007

Although there are many different things which contribute to high gasoline prices, the biggest reason for an increase in gasoline prices has to do with refining capacity.

Even if oil were super cheap, we would still have a problem converting that oil into gasoline that fuels our economy, which would keep gas prices high. When gasoline supplies are low due to an inability to refine oil into gasoline, prices increase. This is all part of supply and demand economics, and it works well in that high prices curtail usage.

If gas remained cheap despite how much was available, we may find gas stations hanging “out of fuel” signs on their pumps because consumers wouldn’t cut back on consumption. So high gas prices do serve a purpose; they deter consumption so that we don’t completely run out of fuel.

But how high is too high? Is there such a thing? Is the refining industry artificially inflating gas prices by reducing their refining capacities so as to improve profit margins?

Contrary to what some think, gasoline isn’t the only product refined from crude oil. Only about 51.4% of an oil barrel is used to make gasoline. The rest of the oil is used to make other products such as jet fuel, asphalt, road oil, heating oil and liquefied refinery gas. This makes oil a high demand commodity around the world; and because most countries don’t produce enough oil of their own, they have to import it from other countries that have more than they know what to do with.

This creates a global market in which prices can fluctuate depending on who needs oil and how much. For example, China has a booming economy and requires more oil now than they did in years past. As a result, increased global demand causes a shortage in crude oil supplies which results in higher prices for these commodities (jet fuel, lubricants, gasoline, heating oil). Therefore, the price per barrel of oil increases to curtail demand.

This price increase eventually gets passed along to the consumer; and as the price for these products increases, fewer people are willing to pay for them. As a result, the demand retreats and eventually so do the oil prices.

There are a few more complexities to it (such as shipping costs and where we get it from), but that’s generally how it works.

In the past, gasoline prices pretty much mirrored the price per barrel of oil. If oil was in short supply and the price increased, gasoline prices would also increase. However, in the early part of this decade, we saw a new anomaly with gasoline prices: they started to spike.

But is the price of oil really the cause of our high gas prices?

• The price per barrel of oil in 2005 was about $70 at its peak and gasoline prices averaged about $2.85 a gallon.
• In early 2007, the price per barrel of oil was about $60 dollars ($10 less per barrel), but the price of gasoline was averaging about $3.25 a gallon or about $.40 more.
• In the later part of 2007, the price per barrel of oil shot up to $98, but a gallon of gasoline was down around $2.95 on average.

It would appear something other than the price of oil has a much greater affect on the the price of gasoline.

In the above graph, you can see the pink line (gasoline prices) and the green line (crude oil prices) don’t mirror each other all that much. While oil prices do have some affect on gasoline prices, it’s apparently not that much. After all, when oil was half the price it is now, gasoline wasn’t half its price.

Something else is at work.

When the oil companies get their oil, they transport it to refining facilities across the country, most of which are in Texas. The refining facilities are responsible for taking the crude oil and converting it into usable products.

When the demand for gasoline increases (summer months and holidays), these refineries start to approach their maximum operating capacity in order to keep up with demand. That is, they reach the limit of how much oil they can convert into gasoline.

Once this happens, a bottleneck develops and the rate at which gasoline can be made hits a maximum.

However, our demand for the gasoline continues to rise and, once again, the economic principal of supply and demand kicks in.

As demand increases and the supply remains the same (maximum refining capabilities), the price increases. It’s like pouring water into a funnel: a fixed amount will come out the small end no matter how much you pour into the big end.

Riddle me this: if the price of gasoline is directly related to the price of oil, why was the national average for a gallon of gasoline in 2007 $3.25 when a barrel of oil cost $60 and now that oil is $100 a barrel the price for a gallon of gasoline is $2.80?

Consolidation in the refining industry has limited our refining capabilities. The three biggest American oil companies ExxonMobile, ConocoPhillips, and ChevronTexaco used to be six individual companies. There was a time when the oil industry wasn’t making a profit (hard to believe, but it wasn’t that long ago). When they combined, they also bought out some of the smaller refiners.

The top five refiners now control more than half of the domestic refining capacity in the United States. Unfortunately, this has allowed the big refiners to tightly control gasoline reserves thus greatly affecting availability and prices. Is this bad? It depends. If they are deliberately reducing refining capabilities to reduce the amount of gasoline they produce, thus increasing their profit margins, then yeah … it is.

Without a competitive market, the consumer will continue to suffer because there is no incentive for Big Oil to increase refining capacity when there is a shortage. Spending millions to construct new refineries to produce gasoline faster will only lower their profit margins. They like the prices high because it costs them the same amount of money to make the gasoline regardless of its price.

In other words, their profit margins increase significantly when the price of gas goes up. It costs virtually the same for them to produce gasoline now as it did five years ago except they are selling their product for twice as much. Big Oil companies made multi-billion dollar profits in 2005 with Exxon Mobile leading the way by posting a profit of $36 billion dollars. Amazingly, in 2006 it beat that mark by earning $39.5 billion dollars on revenue of $377.6 billion dollars. Even more amazing is, in 2007, they beat that mark for a $40+ billion dollar profit, more than any other company in US history.

Where does all this money go? Big Oil will tell you they are reinvesting the money into new drilling technologies and exploration. However, ask Lee Raymond, ex-CEO of Exxon, who in 2006 received one of the most generous retirement packages in history, nearly $400 million in cash including pension, stock options and other perks, such as a $1 million consulting deal, two years of home security, personal security, a car and driver, and use of a corporate jet for professional purposes. All that money came from our pockets during 2005 when gasoline prices hit an all-time new high.

Where did all that money come from? It came out of yours and my pockets. Instead of using that money to build new refineries, they gave it as bonuses and salary increases.

More of the money is being used to find more oil, but this won’t solve the problem. This will do NOTHING to increase the refining capacity and will only make the problem worse. They did use some of the money to improve upon some of the older refineries, but this has had virtually no affect on their refining capacity; otherwise, we wouldn’t be setting new record highs on the price per gallon of gasoline.

The refining industry will say there’s no place to build new refineries. That communities proclaim the “not in my backyard” excuse, but this isn’t the case. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not stopped new refineries from being built. In fact, from 1975 to 2000, the EPA received only one permit request for a new refinery. In other words, a new refinery hasn’t been built in 28 years! They are not interested in increasing their gasoline output because this would lower gasoline prices, thus cutting into their large profits.

What can we do about high gas prices? Absolutely nothing. There is nothing you can do to stick-it-to the gasoline companies except buy an electric, fuel cell or hydrogen vehicle whenever you get the chance. Boycotts won’t do a bit of good. If you don’t buy fuel today, you will have to buy more of it tomorrow. To make a boycott work, you would have to give up driving all together, not simply delay when you buy the gas. Unfortunately, you as a consumer who is dependent on gasoline are at the mercy of “Big Oil.” As time goes on, demand will continue to increase; and since no new refineries are scheduled to be built to increase refining capacity, prices will only get higher.

At $3 a gallon, this may be a bargain considering $4 is just around the corner. Don’t think it won’t happen. I can remember people thinking $3 a gallon was out of the question in 2005 because we had just recently surpassed $2 a gallon. The price has never dropped below $2 and it may never drop below $3 after 2007. Time will tell.

Good News! Gasoline Supply to be Increased with Seven New Refineries!

By see-dubya, MichelleMalkin.com
Originally Published on June 12, 2008

Bad news! They’re in Iran.

A senior Iranian official said the refineries would increase capacity by more than 1.5 million barrels per day and end gasoline imports.

The official said all seven refineries would begin operations by 2012.

If they don’t need to import gasoline, then I’m guessing the “we’ll embargo sales of gasoline” plan I discussed here will be pretty much moot. It might put some near-term pressure on them, but unless all these new refineries are sabotaged or destroyed, there won’t be much leverage left there.

So, back to the drawing board.

Don’t say I’ve never said anything nice about the mullahs: Iran recognizes a strategic vulnerability, and they do something about it. Unlike our own unclued caribou-smooching clownshow.

There will be no new refineries (July 23, 2008)
Oil companies won't be building more refineries, because there won't be enough oil left to refine by the time new refineries could pay for themselves. There hasn't been a new refinery built in the US since 1976. In 1982, there were 301 operable oil refineries in the U.S and they produced about 17.9 million barrels of oil per day. Today there are only 149 refineries, and they're producing 17.4 million barrels. This increase in efficiency is impressive but not a miracle. As with everything these outputs are carefully calculated to optimize profitability. Let me explain.

The Biggest Conspiracy with Oil: Lack of Refineries (May 29, 2007)
As far as I am concerned the biggest joke on all of us is the Annual gouging of us during the Summer season. We are always told that it is due to demand outstripping production yet it seems convenient for the Oil companies to have an accident at a refinery or "scheduled Maintenance" at a refinery just before Memorial day? Doesn't that strike you as odd? Even odder, even though our usage of gas has gone up since the seventies, supposedly we haven't built any additional U.S. based refineries. Why? It's not like Big oil couldn't foot the bill for one with their big profits. Even then they would just pass the cost down to us. The price of oil hasn't kept pace with the increases we see at the pump. And U.S. refinery profit margins have stayed consistently above those around the world. We are being shafted IMO.

U.S. refineries can't match demand for fuel (July 27, 2000)
Every fall, Marcus Hook and scores of plants like it across the nation begin regular scheduled maintenance, a process that significantly reduces production.n any other year, that might not be a concern. But this year, the repairs come at a time when heating oil, diesel and jet fuel supplies are already thin nationwide, and refineries can't keep up with demand. While critics of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) have been quick to blame the oil cartel for the latest spate of rising prices, the inability of refineries to keep pace with demand has made a difficult situation worse.

Cradle to Grave Surveillance

Cradle to Grave Surveillance

VIDEO: Ubiquitous Computing: Big Brother's All-Seeing Eye, Part 2

Obama, Think Smart Cards

By Sramana Mitra, Forbes.com
Originally Published on December 12, 2008

Barack Obama has announced the single largest new investment in the nation's infrastructure since the creation of the interstate highway system in the 1950s under Eisenhower. Speculation begins to build up about the precise nature of this investment.

I have been in Singapore for the last two weeks and have been observing how this tiny country has created a superbly modern infrastructure that flows seamlessly by leveraging technology and process automation.

From the minute I walked through immigration, I began noticing the country's well-conceived mechanisms for efficiency enhancement. Singapore residents have a special smart card that lets them clear immigration without human intervention. Taxis link up via transponders to a central system through which the country implements congestion control, including peak hour and business district surcharges.

As I have watched the city in motion during my stay, it has made me think about the possibilities for infrastructure modernization in the U.S., now that we're embarking on a new era. The problems--health care, energy, traffic congestion, education, poverty and security--each have major implications when you apply smart-card-based process control in the Singaporean way.

Dominique Trempont, former CEO of smart-card firm Gemplus Corp. (now part of Gemalto), believes that the U.S. should roll out one multi-application smart card to the entire population in order to automate various government and private-sector functions. "The card can be partitioned into application segments, and the companies rolling out applications on it can pay for the privilege," Trempont says.

The first application category for a smart card is a government-owned, centralized patient record database that then becomes the heart of the U.S. health care system. A patient goes to a new doctor, and the doctor's office can access the records with the card, without the hassle of gratuitous paperwork handling by multiple office administrators and without the frustration on the part of the patient. Insurance claims and processing could also be integrated with this central system, closing the loop with the doctor's office and the insurance company.

A second application category could belong in the realm of security and identity. Passports and driver's licenses could be implemented on the smart card: it can enable a smooth transition through immigration and other functions, such as traffic management. After all, why do we need cops to monitor whether drivers are staying within the speed limit? If there is scientific evidence that the most energy-efficient speed at which cars should be driven is 60 mph, then drivers should pay for driving above that speed limit. Fines can be automatically charged on a smart card. Congestion-control applications can also be implemented on the same infrastructure based on time, geographical zoning, vehicle type (with incentives for fuel-efficient cars and penalties for gas guzzlers), etc.

"Not only is a smart-card-based infrastructure great for efficiency enhancement, it can be a major revenue generator," Trempont says. No kidding! If every car that drives above 60 mph is charged a fine, and there were an efficient way of collecting congestion taxes, that revenue alone could be enough to finance the $136 billion that the nation's governors need for infrastructure projects related to roads, bridges and railway. It will also generate ongoing revenue for years to come that can pay for many more ambitious projects.

Trempont also foresees applications for welfare management. In Mexico, for example, food stamps are administered by a smart-card system. Cards are issued to women for their children. The cards record whether the children are attending school regularly, getting appropriate vaccinations, and so on. If the records are perfect on all those measures, then the card releases payment for food at stores with whom the government has pre-negotiated subsidy arrangements.

"In this case, the card serves as a behavior-control mechanism, beyond simple payment administration," says Trempont. The welfare money cannot be frittered away at liquor stores, for example.

No matter which way we look at the population, given where we are today, a portion of people will have to go on welfare. Encouraging and enforcing responsible behavior for this segment would be a critical piece of the effort to push them out of welfare and back into productive employment. The Mexico example offers interesting pointers to the efficient administration of a host of social services.

Now, if a "universal card" were made available to all U.S. residents, corporations could also offer services based on that platform. In Singapore, for example, a universal payment system is about to get standardized. The system, baptized NETS, will be universally accepted by merchants, from taxis to grocery stores, making it a competitor to Visa or MasterCard.

The U.S. universal card could have Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Paypal and others as partners. And consumers, instead of carrying multiple cards, could just carry one. VISA, et al., would then have to pay the government a fee to use the infrastructure, making it yet another interesting revenue channel for the government.

Pushing the logic further, the universal card could also become the single-sign-on key to all the various Internet sites that we access and store all our passwords in. It could become the key that opens free, public broadband access. The key that unlocks numerous other password-controlled services!

So far, no company has been able to offer this centralized identity management with adequate security and authority. A government-issued universal card may just be the right place to finally address all the open issues around security, identity management and access control.

In conclusion, I urge President-elect Obama to look beyond the obvious places for infrastructure spending--roads, bridges and broadband--toward technology-enabled process control and establish the right public-private partnerships to make America an efficient, modern society that can keep up with what its more nimble counterparts in Asia seem to have already created.

Sramana Mitra is a technology entrepreneur and strategy consultant in Silicon Valley. She has founded three companies and writes a business blog, Sramana Mitra on Strategy. She has a master's degree in electrical engineering and computer science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Her first book,Entrepreneur Journeys (Volume One), is available from Amazon.com.

National ID Cards and REAL ID Act of 2005 - The Real ID Act of 2005 was approved by both the House and Senate (the bill passed unanimously, 100-0, in the Senate on May 10, 2005) as part of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief (H.R.1268) and signed into law on May 11, 2005 by President George W. Bush. On March 1, 2007, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff extended the deadline for state compliance with the REAL ID Act from May 11, 2008 to the end of 2009.

Meet the 'Digital Angel' – from Hell (February 2000)
Digital Angel® to Be Unveiled Soon - 'Wearers' Monitored by GPS, Internet (August 2000)
Digital Angel - Human-Tracking Subdermal Implant Technology Makes Debut (October 2000)
Indonesian AIDS Patients Face Microchip Monitoring
VeriChip Selected to Offer Personal Health Record through Microsoft HealthVault
Microsoft Wants to Get Under Your Skin
Video Surveillance Outfit Chips Workers
The Bill Nobody Noticed: National DNA Databank
Obama's Government Job Creation Includes Shifting to a Paperless Health System
New RFID Technology Allows You to be Tracked WITHOUT Your Knowledge
The GPS Revolution: There's Hardly a Device That Isn't Being Upgraded with a GPS Chip
How RFID Tags Could Be Used to Track Unsuspecting People
Shoppers to Use Fingerprints or Eye Scans to Pay for Goods
Out of Financial Chaos, Futurist Predicts Cashless Society and Robocops
Humans 'Will Be Implanted with Microchips'
Whistleblower Says NSA Monitors Everybody, Targets Reporters and Dissidents
Free Google Software Tracks People
U.K. to Begin Microchipping Prisoners
Stimulus Plan to Digitize Health Records and Ration Health Services
Arizona Tracking Prescription Drug Users
Google and NASA Back New School for Futurists
Real ID Mandate Resisted in Virginia
“Pork” Bailout Bill Could Mean Government Control of Health Records and Services
Speak Out Against NAIS
Fight Against Terror Must Mean the End of Ordinary People’s Privacy, Says Ex-Security Chief
Columnist Admits VeriChip Often Implanted in Wrist
Government Prepares the Public for Cradle to Grave Surveillance
Radio Chip Coming Soon to Your Driver's License?
Smart Grid: Government Spying Targets Rural America
NY Times: Mileage Tax Would ‘Track Where Motorists Have Been’
Your Own Personal Microchip Implant
Florida Legislator Wants Random Drug Tests for the Unemployed
Big Brother Might Be Watching You Booze
Pentagon Seeks Fleet of Massive Spy Blimps
Pentagon Plans Blimp to Spy from New Heights
Nano Sized’ GPS Tracking Device - The Next Best Thing to an Implanted GPS Tracker
Psychiatrist Hails GPS Tracking for Dementia Patients as ‘Major Breakthrough’
Traffic Cameras Could Help Wipe Out Chicago's Projected Deficit
NSA to Build Huge Facility in Utah

Smart Card Alliance - Electronic Payment Evolution
Founded in 1997, ASK is today a leading supplier of contactless cards, tickets, RFID tags and readers to the mass transit, access control, banking, ID, supply chain, and logistics markets. More than 51 million contactless cards, tickets and RFID labels are already in service worldwide. Banks worldwide are testing and adopting contactless technology, with important trials currently under way in North America and Asia. “CashCard is the first banking card that ASK will deliver on a nationwide scale (in Singapore), and it is a sign of things to come." - Patrick Sure, Cards Product Marketing Manager, ASK

Updated 10/14/09 (Newest Additions at End of List)

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

All Roads Always Lead Back to Goldman Sachs

All Roads Always Lead Back to Goldman Sachs

On May 30, 2006, Henry "Hank" Paulson Jr. was nominated by President George W. Bush to serve as United States Treasury Secretary. Paulson previously served as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs. Each of Paulson's three immediate predecessors as CEO of Goldman Sachs (Jon Corzine, Stephen Friedman, and Robert Rubin) left the company to serve in government: Corzine as a U.S. Senator (later Governor of New Jersey), Friedman as chairman of the National Economic Council (later chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board) under President George W. Bush, and Rubin as both chairman of the NEC and later Treasury Secretary under President Bill Clinton.

Goldman Sachs received $10 billion of the $700 billion bailout (TARP funds) in October 2008 and an additional $13 billion of AIG's taxpayer bailout funds for a total of $23 billion in taxpayer handouts.

Goldman Sachs Tries to Shut Down Financial Blogger

By Mike Whitney, Global Research
April 15, 2009

Mike Morgan is a registered investment adviser and a scrappy shoot-from-the-hip guy who doesn’t mince his words. Recently Morgan has come under fire from investment giant Goldman Sachs for his hard-hitting web site “Facts about Goldman Sachs.” According to the U.K. Telegraph:

"If you just look at Wall Street and where the money came from, you will realize that Barack Hussein Obama is nothing more than a puppet of Wall Street."

"Goldman Sachs is attempting to shut down a dissident blogger who is extremely critical of the investment bank, its board members and its practices. The bank has instructed Wall Street law firm Chadbourne & Parke to pursue blogger Mike Morgan, warning him in a recent cease-and-desist letter that he may face legal action if he does not close down his website." According to Chadbourne & Parke’s letter, dated April 8, the bank is rattled because the site “violates several of Goldman Sachs’ intellectual property rights” and also “implies a relationship” with the bank itself.

Unsurprisingly for a man who has conjoined the bank’s name with the Number of the Beast – although he jokingly points out that 666 was also the S&P500’s bear-market bottom – Mr Morgan is unlikely to go down without a fight. He claims he has followed all legal requirements to own and operate the website – and that the header of the site clearly states that the content has not been approved by the bank.

On a special section of his blog entitled “Goldman Sachs vs Mike Morgan” he predicts that the fight will probably end up in court.

“It’s just another example of how a bully like Goldman Sachs tries to throw their weight around,” he writes.” (UK Telegraph)

Morgan agreed to answer a few questions about Goldman Sachs, the TARP and the ongoing financial crisis.

Mike Whitney: Is Goldman Sachs trying to shut down your web site?

Mike Morgan: Yes

MW: Why?

Morgan: The legal answer to that would be . . . you need to ask them the question. I would think it is because we are exposing the truth . . . and the truth hurts.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
William Cohan
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

MW: Have you libeled them or published privileged information?

Morgan: No.

MW: Could you tell us something about yourself so that readers can trust your criticism of G-Sax?

Morgan: I am 53 years old and believe all of the answers for how we should live are in the Bible… God gave David the choice of paying the consequences at the hands of David’s enemies or at the hand of God. David chose God’s consequences. Hank Paulson and the thousands of wicked men like him deserve the wrath of the millions of lives they have destroyed. We must go after the crooks and make them pay the consequences for their greed and the total disregard for anyone other than themselves. We need to start with Hank Paulson, who as CEO of Goldman Sachs was more responsible than any 10 men combined for the violent Depression we are about to enter.

MW: Why was G-Sax given $10 billion out of the TARP funds before federal regulators checked their books to see if they were solvent?

Morgan: Because King Henry (Henry Paulson) said so. As former CEO of Goldman Sachs, the last thing he wanted to see was a collapse of Goldman Sachs. And as Treasury Secretary with a big stick, he could do whatever he pleased . . . and he did.

MW: It was widely believed that most of the five biggest investment banks were leveraged 30 to 1. If that’s the case, then G-Sax probably would not have survived the downturn in the market without government assistance. Do you agree with this analysis?

Morgan: I agree.

MW: After Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros. defaulted, Merrill Lynch quickly sold out to Bank of America.

Morgan: Merrill was being run by John Thain, the former Goldman Sachs executive that helped Hank Paulson force out Jon Corzine who at the time was c–CEO with Paulson.

MW: That left Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley as the next likely candidates to be taken down by short sellers.

Morgan: Short sellers are not the issue. If short sellers drive down a stock below market value, then it becomes an opportunity for anyone that thinks the stock is a buy to bury the shorts.

MW: This is when SEC chief Christopher Cox – who had never intervened in the market prior to this – put emergency rules in place to stop the short selling of financial institutions. What was Cox’s action all about?

Morgan: The SEC is toothless and I still don’t know why Cox is not in jail. He not only looked the other way on the Madoff issue, but since he left, the SEC has gone after more than a dozen scams. Are you going to tell me everything was fine three months ago on Chrissy Cox’s watch? No, but I can tell you there is much more to this story… As for the SEC and short sellers, that was King Henry. Period. Full Stop.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
The Money Honey Bee
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

MW: Was this mainly an attempt by Washington elites to pull G-Sax’s bacon out of the fire?

Morgan: Goldman Sachs and other companies affiliated with Goldman Sachs. Kinda like the old MCI Friends and Family Program.

MW: Recently it was revealed that G-Sax had been paid more than $12 billion for credit default swaps (CDS) it held with insurance giant AIG. Financial institutions that buy these CDS know that they are accepting additional risk because they are unregulated and outside government oversight. That said, Treasury’s payoff to G-Sax on these CDS was equivalent to paying off a gambler’s losses at the race track. Why was G-Sax compensated for their CDS; why was it kept secret; and who authorized it?

Morgan: King Henry and his loyal lieutenant Neil Kashkari. Most people don’t realize Neil Kashkari was King Henry’s lieutenant at Goldman Sachs. Neil is 35 years old with little experience other than being a very private executive assistant to King Henry when he was CEO of Goldman. Let’s ask ourselves . . . why exactly is Kashkari still on the job? Easy answer . . . because our President and Chris Dodd were both bought with Goldman Sachs’ money. These two men have received more money from Wall Street than any politician in the history of the United States. By the way, Obama was only around for two years, while Dodd was there for more than a decade. Obama received more money from Wall Street in two years than Dodd did in a decade.

MW: What is the nature of the relationship between G-Sax and the political establishment in Washington?

Morgan: If I answered that question I would need to increase the thickness of my Kevlar body suit.

MW: Why is Treasury a revolving door for investment bankers that are tied to Wall Street?

Morgan: Because the American public allows it. Benjamin Franklin said . . . Well done is better than well said. Too many Americans gripe and moan, but when it comes time to doing anything . . . they sit back on the couch with a bag of chips and the TV. We think it is cute to use the TV to amuse our toddlers. Do you think it is any different for 75 percent of the American public?

MW: Are special interest groups dictating policy in the Obama White House?

Morgan: I can’t count that high. But if you just look at Wall Street and where the money came from, you will realize that Barack Hussein Obama is nothing more than a puppet of Wall Street.

MW: An article which appeared in The Atlantic Monthly, a former chief economist of the IMF, Simon Johnson, had this to say:

“The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States… recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true depression, we’re running out of time.”

Do you agree with Johnson that banks have a stranglehold on the political process and that “we are running out of time”? If so, how do we go about removing these people from office and replacing them with people who will operate in the public’s interest?

Morgan: First, I think guys like Simon Johnson are the guys that should be running the show. Simon along with William Black, Elizabeth Warren and Ron Paul. There are more, but if we had that trio at the helm, we’d be moving to a world of light, instead of a world of deep, violent darkness.

As to your question about how to remove these people from office, I believe it will be very violent . . . and very well deserved. We are two Biblical generations removed from the Great Depression of 1929. In 1969 we had race riots. We lost a true leader when we lost Martin Luther King, and the country paid the consequences. Here we are 40 years later . . . a Biblical generation, as we enter what I believe will be a period of violence beginning this summer. When you can’t feed your kids, and the folks at Goldman Sachs are sitting around the pool sipping cocktails and munching on snacks . . . that’s when those without go after those with.

The problem now is very simply . . . companies like Goldman Sachs created a financial system that was double stacked. One, they skimmed trillions of dollars out of our pension fund and other fiduciary money under their management. Two, like drug dealers, they provided very creative financing to hundreds of millions of people around the world . . . which those folks can no longer afford to pay back. But the boys and girls and Goldman Sachs have already walked off with the money, leaving the people that bought the debt with little more than a piece of paper . . . and those that owe the debt, with the inability to ever pay it back.

MW: Will you fight Goldman in court?

Morgan: Yes. I’m prepared to fight them with several attorneys and law professors that are anxious to take this one on. I hope they do press the issue in court, but I kinda doubt it.

Bush Taps Goldman CEO Paulson to Head Treasury - May 30, 2006
Does CEO Hank Paulson Run Goldman Sachs for Himself or Shareholders?
Goldman Sachs Hires Law Firm to Shut Down Blogger Mike Morgan
Mike Morgan's Blog: Facts About Goldman Sachs
Goldman Beats Wall Street Forecasts with $1.66 Billion Profit 1st Quarter 2009
Calculated Risk: Goldman Sachs Reports $1.8 Billion Profit
Goldman Sachs Group - 54th on the Forbes 500s in 2003 with Market Value of $31.5 Billion
Goldman Sachs Group
Full List of Bailed-out Banks
Morgan and Goldman are the Sole Survivors
Top Senate Democrat: Bankers “Own” the U.S. Congress
Geithner: Fed “Best Positioned” to Become “Super Regulator”
Max Keiser: Goldman Sachs gang are ’scum’ who have co-opted U.S. gov’t

Updated 7/17/09 (Newest Additions at End of List)

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page