UPDATED: Valdai Discussion Club: World Order: With Rules or No Rules

I’m still listening to this presentation. In Putin’s presentation, there is talk about how our many of our institutions are obsolete, and that one of the problems with the United Nations is that countries interpret things to satisfy their own vision(s). There is also discussion about the root cause(s) of terrorism and strife in the Middle East.

In the second presentation, three things are identified as needing change: security, financial systems, and constitions (Hint! Hint!)

In the third presentation, the phrase “New Rules” is used, repeatedly.

Around the 1:50:00 mark, there is discussion of territories and borders that changed in various wars. We’ve heard rumours of political borders being redefined. Could this be precursor to redefining our borders? -LW


Putin lashes out at US, West for destabilizing world

Vladimir Putin lashed out at the United States and the West for destabilizing the world order of checks and balances for its own gains. He also accused the West of inflaming the situation in Ukraine and said Russia is not interested in building an empire.

The Russian President delivered a fierce broadside aimed at the United States in a speech for the Valdai Club in Sochi, which is an informal group of scholars. He hit out at Washington for behaving without regard to the rest of the world’s interests

“The system of international relations needed some changes, but the USA, who believe they were the winners of the Cold War, have not seen the need for this.”He added that the US has been trying to create the world “for their own gains.”The Russian President added that because of this, regional and global security had been weakened.

During his speech, Putin used the Russian version of the Latin phrase, “Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi” (what is allowed for god, is not allowed for cattle,) alluding to the double standards used by Washington.

 

US sponsoring Islamic extremism

Putin also touched on the issue of the growth of Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, and also accused the West of, “turning a blind eye,” to the encroachment of international terrorism into Russia and Central Asia. Putin believes the US has played a considerable role in sponsoring the growth of Islamic extremism, using the example of Washington’s funding of the Mujahidin in the Afghan-Soviet war in the 1980’s, which eventually gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

“It never ceases to amaze me how our partners have been guilty of making the same mistakes time and again. They have in the past sponsored Islamic extremists who were battling against the Soviet Union, which took place in Afghanistan. It was because of this the Taliban and Al-Qaeda was created,” the president added.

Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) is the latest terrorist organization, which is destabilizing the world and Putin was scathing of countries that have been helping to fund the Islamist militants by buying cut price oil they are selling.

“Terrorists have been selling oil at really low prices and those countries who have been buying it and then selling it on, are financing terrorism, which will eventually come back to bite them,” the Russian President said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) and former Chancellor of Austria Wolfgang Schussel during the final plenary meeting of the 11th session of the Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi October 24, 2014. (RIA Novosti / Vitaliy Belousov)

Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) and former Chancellor of Austria Wolfgang Schussel during the final plenary meeting of the 11th session of the Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi October 24, 2014. (RIA Novosti / Vitaliy Belousov)

 

Putin all for Nuclear cuts

Relations between Russia and the US have been plummeting for months; however Vladimir Putin accused the US of using the EU to further its own gains against Russia. He hit out at the numerous sanctions that have been imposed on Moscow, saying, “This was a mistake, which has a knock-on effect on everyone.”

“The USA, which has implemented sanctions against Russia, is sawing at the branches, upon which they are sitting,” President Putin added.

The reduction of nuclear arsenals was another issue, which was high on the agenda for the Russian President and once again, he was not afraid of having a dig at Washington for their reluctance to cut the number of nuclear missiles. He mentioned that unfortunately many countries see the only way to preserve their sovereignty is, “To make a nuclear bomb.”

The reduction in nuclear arsenals was initially proposed by the Obama administration and Putin admitted it had potential, before talks about decreasing weapons stockpiles collapsed.

“Russia has been all for the continuation of talks about the reduction of nuclear arsenals,” and according to President Putin, “Moscow is ready for serious talks, but without “double standards.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks at the wrap-up session of the 11th Meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi on 24 October 2014. (RIA Novosti / Vitaliy Belousov)

Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks at the wrap-up session of the 11th Meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi on 24 October 2014. (RIA Novosti / Vitaliy Belousov)

 

Genie out of the bottle

Perhaps Putin’s harshest criticism was reserved for the West’s creation of color revolutions and “controlled chaos,” which he a likened to “letting the genie out of the bottle,” with particular reference to Ukraine.

“We have been trying to discuss the Ukraine issue with the EU for a long time, but we were told this was none of our business. They then put two countries against each other, which has led to countless destruction of infrastructure. When I asked why did they do this, they just shrug their shoulders and don’t have an answer,”Putin added.

President Putin made reference to the ‘Bear’ defending its territory to take a swipe at the US for its continued encroachment towards Russia’s territory. “He is considered the owner of the Taiga, but he, I know for a fact, does not want to go to a different climatic zone, as it is uncomfortable for him there. However, he will not give it to anyone else; I think that this should be clear,” he said.

The Russian President said that there is no truth whatsoever in claims from the West that Russia is interested in empire building and that Moscow is looking to destabilize the world order. With relations between Russia and the West at a very low ebb, Putin also hinted Russia will look to develop allies further afield.

“Russia has made its choice – we want to develop our economy and develop democratic values. We work with our counterparts in the Shanghai Cooperation, the BRICS union for example. We want our opinions to be respected likewise. We all need to be cautious to not make hasty and dangerous steps. Some of the players on the global front have forgotten about the need for this,” he said in another barb directed at Washington.

Source.

Vote all you want. The secret government won’t change

The people we elect aren’t the ones calling the shots, says Tufts University’s Michael Glennon

By Jordan Michael Smith | OCTOBER 19, 2014

ISTOCK/PHOTO ILLUSTRATION BY LESLEY BECKER/GLOBE STAFF

THE VOTERS WHO put Barack Obama in office expected some big changes. From the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping to Guantanamo Bay to the Patriot Act, candidate Obama was a defender of civil liberties and privacy, promising a dramatically different approach from his predecessor.

But six years into his administration, the Obama version of national security looks almost indistinguishable from the one he inherited. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone strikes have escalated. Most recently it was reported that the same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for promoting nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing and revitalizing America’s nuclear weapons.

Why did the face in the Oval Office change but the policies remain the same? Critics tend to focus on Obama himself, a leader who perhaps has shifted with politics to take a harder line. But Tufts University political scientist Michael J. Glennon has a more pessimistic answer: Obama couldn’t have changed policies much even if he tried.

Though it’s a bedrock American principle that citizens can steer their own government by electing new officials, Glennon suggests that in practice, much of our government no longer works that way. In a new book, “National Security and Double Government,” he catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the term “double government”: There’s the one we elect, and then there’s the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.

RELATED: ‘National Security and Double Government’ by Michael J. Glennon

Glennon cites the example of Obama and his team being shocked and angry to discover upon taking office that the military gave them only two options for the war in Afghanistan: The United States could add more troops, or the United States could add a lot more troops. Hemmed in, Obama added 30,000 more troops.

Glennon’s critique sounds like an outsider’s take, even a radical one. In fact, he is the quintessential insider: He was legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a consultant to various congressional committees, as well as to the State Department. “National Security and Double Government” comes favorably blurbed by former members of the Defense Department, State Department, White House, and even the CIA. And he’s not a conspiracy theorist: Rather, he sees the problem as one of “smart, hard-working, public-spirited people acting in good faith who are responding to systemic incentives”—without any meaningful oversight to rein them in.

How exactly has double government taken hold? And what can be done about it? Glennon spoke with Ideas from his office at Tufts’ Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. This interview has been condensed and edited.

IDEAS: Where does the term “double government” come from?

GLENNON:It comes from Walter Bagehot’s famous theory, unveiled in the 1860s. Bagehot was the scholar who presided over the birth of the Economist magazine—they still have a column named after him. Bagehot tried to explain in his book “The English Constitution” how the British government worked. He suggested that there are two sets of institutions. There are the “dignified institutions,” the monarchy and the House of Lords, which people erroneously believed ran the government. But he suggested that there was in reality a second set of institutions, which he referred to as the “efficient institutions,” that actually set governmental policy. And those were the House of Commons, the prime minister, and the British cabinet.

IDEAS: What evidence exists for saying America has a double government?

GLENNON:I was curious why a president such as Barack Obama would embrace the very same national security and counterterrorism policies that he campaigned eloquently against. Why would that president continue those same policies in case after case after case? I initially wrote it based on my own experience and personal knowledge and conversations with dozens of individuals in the military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies of our government, as well as, of course, officeholders on Capitol Hill and in the courts. And the documented evidence in the book is substantial—there are 800 footnotes in the book.

IDEAS: Why would policy makers hand over the national-security keys to unelected officials?

GLENNON: It hasn’t been a conscious decision….Members of Congress are generalists and need to defer to experts within the national security realm, as elsewhere. They are particularly concerned about being caught out on a limb having made a wrong judgment about national security and tend, therefore, to defer to experts, who tend to exaggerate threats. The courts similarly tend to defer to the expertise of the network that defines national security policy.

The presidency itself is not a top-down institution, as many people in the public believe, headed by a president who gives orders and causes the bureaucracy to click its heels and salute. National security policy actually bubbles up from within the bureaucracy. Many of the more controversial policies, from the mining of Nicaragua’s harbors to the NSA surveillance program, originated within the bureaucracy. John Kerry was not exaggerating when he said that some of those programs are “on autopilot.”

RELATED: Answers sought on CIA role in ‘78 JFK probe

IDEAS: Isn’t this just another way of saying that big bureaucracies are difficult to change?

GLENNON: It’s much more serious than that. These particular bureaucracies don’t set truck widths or determine railroad freight rates. They make nerve-center security decisions that in a democracy can be irreversible, that can close down the marketplace of ideas, and can result in some very dire consequences.

IDEAS: Couldn’t Obama’s national-security decisions just result from the difference in vantage point between being a campaigner and being the commander-in-chief, responsible for 320 million lives?

GLENNON: There is an element of what you described. There is not only one explanation or one cause for the amazing continuity of American national security policy. But obviously there is something else going on when policy after policy after policy all continue virtually the same way that they were in the George W. Bush administration.

IDEAS: This isn’t how we’re taught to think of the American political system.

GLENNON: I think the American people are deluded, as Bagehot explained about the British population, that the institutions that provide the public face actually set American national security policy. They believe that when they vote for a president or member of Congress or succeed in bringing a case before the courts, that policy is going to change. Now, there are many counter-examples in which these branches do affect policy, as Bagehot predicted there would be. But the larger picture is still true—policy by and large in the national security realm is made by the concealed institutions.

IDEAS: Do we have any hope of fixing the problem?

GLENNON: The ultimate problem is the pervasive political ignorance on the part of the American people. And indifference to the threat that is emerging from these concealed institutions. That is where the energy for reform has to come from: the American people. Not from government. Government is very much the problem here. The people have to take the bull by the horns. And that’s a very difficult thing to do, because the ignorance is in many ways rational. There is very little profit to be had in learning about, and being active about, problems that you can’t affect, policies that you can’t change.

Related coverage:

Jordan Michael Smith is a contributing writer at Salon and The Christian Science Monitor.

Source.

MSM Blackout: Eric Holder’s DOJ Implicated on Multiple Corruption Charges

Judge Morrison C. England Jr. ordered the entire judiciary recused from a case another judge called “egregious” and “reprehensible”

In perhaps the most stunning documentation yet of abuses by Eric Holder’s Justice Department, two former Assistant United States Attorneys spoke to defense attorneys and revealed appalling deceit and corruption of justice. This latest litigation time bomb has exploded from multi-million dollar litigation originally brought by the Department of Justice against Sierra Pacific based on allegations that the lumber company and related defendants were responsible for a wildfire that destroyed 65,000 acres in California.

In what was dubbed the “Moonlight Fire” case, the tables are now turned. The defendants have discovered new evidence and filed a stunning motion. The new evidence and disclosures are being taken seriously by the Chief Judge of the Eastern District of California—as they should be. In a shocking action, Judge Morrison C. England Jr. ordered the recusal of every federal judge in the Eastern District of California.

Sierra Pacific Industries and other defendants were compelled to pay $55 million to the United States over a period of five years and transfer 22,500 acres of land to settle massive litigation brought against them by the United States alleging that they caused a 2007 fire that destroyed 65,000 acres in California. Sierra Pacific has always maintained that the fire started elsewhere and that the state and federal investigators and Department attorneys lied. Now that settlement may go up in smoke because of the new evidence of outrageous misconduct by the federal prosecutors and the investigators from state and federal offices, as well as findings earlier this year by a state judge.

In an extraordinary development, Judge England, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, ordered the recusal of all the Eastern District judges from the case because of serious allegations that the Court itself was defrauded by the government in the original prosecution. To avoid any appearance of partiality, he has referred the case to Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski to appoint a judge from outside the Eastern District to handle the case going forward. Judge Kozinski has excoriated prosecutors for failing to meet their legal and ethical obligations.

The order notes that the defendants filed an action this week to set aside the $55 million settlement because, as the defendants allege, “the United States presented false evidence to the Defendants and the Court; advanced arguments to the Court premised on that false evidence; or, for which material evidence had been withheld, and obtaining court rulings based thereon; prepared key Moonlight Fire investigators for depositions, and allowed them to repeatedly give false testimony about the most important aspects of their investigation; and failed to disclose the facts and circumstances associated with the Moonlight Fire lead investigator’s direct financial interest in the outcome of the investigation arising from an illegal bank account that has since been exposed and terminated.”

The Sacramento Bee reported on the Defendant’s filing. Indeed, the Defendants’ motion informs us that a former Assistant United States Attorney came forward and disclosed that he believes that he was removed from the original prosecution by “his boss, David Shelledy, chief of the civil division in the United States Attorney’s office,” because he “rebuffed” pressure to “engage in unethical conduct as a lawyer.” Of course, like other former prosecutors who were unethical, Mr. Shelledy is to receive Attorney General Holder’s highest award for excellence—this week.

The defendants also reveal that another former federal prosecutor, Eric Overby, left the Moonlight Fire prosecution team also, stating: “It’s called the Department of Justice. It’s not called the Department of Revenue.” According to the motion, Mr. Overby told defense counsel that in his entire career, “I’ve never seen anything like this. Never.”

Well, sadly we have, and we’ve been reporting on it as fast as we can. This is part of a disturbing and rapidly increasing pattern of abuses by this Department of Justice to line government coffers or redistribute the wealth to its political allies—using its overwhelming litigation might and federal agencies as a tool of extortion and wealth redistribution.

The entire original prosecution against Sierra Pacific appears to have been driven by the Department of Justice’s interest in hitting a “deep pocket” for millions of dollars of revenue. The Defendants’ motion to set aside the settlement reveals a series of fraudulent acts by federal and state authorities that defiles our system of justice.

Dick Beckler, an attorney for the company who used to be at DOJ and is now with Bracewell Giuliani, told the Observer, “Sierra Pacific is looking forward to having its day in court and proving all the facts of the government’s fraud on the court.”

A California state judge, Leslie C. Nichols, in a related state case issued orders earlier this year describing what he called “egregious,” “pervasive,” and “reprehensible” abuses in the investigation and prosecution amounting to “government corruption.” He found the state case to “betray the primary purpose of the judicial system—to reveal the truth.” He awarded $32 million in fees and expenses to the Defendants, finding as the Sacramento Bee reports, that the state agency, Cal Fire, “withheld some documents, destroyed other evidence and ‘engaged in a systematic campaign of misdirection with the purpose of recovering money’ from Sierra Pacific.”

It’s encouraging to see Judge England join Judge Emmet G. Sullivan and Judge Bates, and others, as our Article III judges begin to demand that federal attorneys and agents follow the law and their oaths of office. But there remains a lot more work to do. It’s way past time to hold Holder accountable.

When will the next litigation time bomb and scandal explode on Mr. Holder and this administration? He can’t run fast enough.

This story has been updated to add comment from Sierra Pacific’s attorney.

 

Source.

Soldier and assailant dead after chaotic Parliament Hill attack

First the US had a gunman walk into the White House. Now, Canada has a gunman firing shots on Parliament Hill. Do you think this was a staged event? -LW


A Canadian soldier was killed and a security guard wounded. An assailant has also died.

At least 30 shots are fired inside the main building of Canada’s Parliament Hill, after a gunman shot and killed a soldier at the Canadian War Memorial in Ottawa.


By:  Ottawa Bureau reporter,  Ottawa Bureau reporter, Published on Wed Oct 22 2014

OTTAWA — A Canadian soldier was killed and a Parliament Hill security guard wounded Wednesday morning in a chaotic attack on the nation’s capital that police believe involved more than one assailant.

One assailant was also killed.

Shootings occurred at the National War Memorial and Parliament Hill. Contrary to early reports, no shooting occurred near the Rideau Centre mall, Ottawa police said.

Witnesses described seeing the soldier, who was serving as a ceremonial guard at the foot of the cenotaph, shot at point-blank range before the gunman ran off in the direction of Parliament Hill.

Sirens blared and buildings in the area went under lockdown as police and soldiers continued the manhunt into Wednesday afternoon.

Source.

Operation Hollywood

This interview is from 2004. With everything we are witnessing in the news today, it seems truer than ever, doesn’t it? -LW


How the Pentagon bullies movie producers into showing the U.S. military in the best possible light

—By Jeff Fleischer

To keep the Pentagon happy, some Hollywood producers have been known to turn villains into heroes, remove central characters, change politically sensitive settings, or add military rescues to movies that require none. There are no bad guys in the military. No fraternization between officers and enlisted troops. No drinking or drugs. No struggles against bigotry. The military and the president can’t look bad (though the State Department and Canada can).

“The only thing Hollywood likes more than a good movie is a good deal,” David Robb explains, and that’s why the producers of films like “Top Gun,” “Stripes” and “The Great Santini” have altered their scripts to accommodate Pentagon requests. In exchange, they get inexpensive access to the military locations, vehicles, troops and gear they need to make their movies.

During his years as a journalist for Daily Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, Robb heard about a quid-pro-quo agreement between the Pentagon and Hollywood studios, and decided to investigate. He combed through thousands of Pentagon documents, and interviewed dozens of screenwriters, producers and military officials. The result is his new book, “Operation Hollywood.”

Robb talked with MotherJones.com about deal-making that defines the relationship between Hollywood and the Pentagon.

MotherJones.com: How far back does collaboration between the U.S. military and Hollywood go?

David Robb: The current approval process was established right after World War II. Before that, the Pentagon used to help producers, but it wasn’t very formalized, like it is now. They helped producers going back to at least 1927. The very first movie that won an Oscar, “Wings,” — even that got military assistance.

MJ.com: What steps does a producer take to get assistance from the military? How does the process work?

DR: The first thing you have to do is send in a request for assistance, telling them what you want pretty specifically — ships, tanks, planes, bases, forts, submarines, troops — and when you want this material available. Then you have to send five copies of the script to the Pentagon, and they give it to the affected service branches — Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard. Then you wait and see if they like your script or not. If they like it, they’ll help you; if they don’t, they won’t. Almost always, they’ll make you make changes to the military depictions. And you have to make the changes that they ask for, or negotiate some kind of compromise, or you don’t get the stuff.

So then you finally get the approval, after you change your script to mollify the military, put some stuff in about how great it is to be in the military. Then when you go to shoot the film, you have to have what I call a “military minder” — but what they call a “technical advisor” — someone from the military on the set to make sure you shoot the film the way you agreed to. Normally in the filmmaking process, script changes are made all the time; if something isn’t working, they look at the rushes, and say, “let’s change this.” Well, if you want to change something that has to do with the military depictions, you’ve got to negotiate with them again. And they can say, “No, you can’t change it, this is the deal you agreed to.” As one of the technical advisors, Maj. David Georgi of the Army, said to me, “If they don’t do what I say, I take my toys and go away.”

After the film is completed, you have to prescreen the film for the Pentagon brass. So before it’s shown to the public, you have to show your movie to the generals and admirals, which I think any American should find objectionable — that their movies are being prescreened by the military.

MJ.com: At that stage, with the film finished, what can the military do if they have a problem?

DR: This happened on the Clint Eastwood movie “Heartbreak Ridge.” He finished the film, showed it to them, and they went through the roof. There was a scene in the script where he shoots an injured and defenseless Cuban soldier. They said, “You have to take that out. It’s a war crime. We don’t want that.” They hate having war crimes in movies. So with “Heartbreak Ridge,” Eastwood shot the film, and the scene ended up in the movie anyway. They said, “We told you to take that out.” He said he thought it was only a suggestion, that he didn’t know he had to. So they withdrew their approval. The film was still released, of course. But at the end of a movie that gets military assistance, there’s always a little tagline that says “thanks to the cooperation of the U.S. Army” or whatever branch. They said, “We’re not going to let you put that on there. We’re withdrawing cooperation.” And they can stop it from being shown in military theaters overseas or on bases in the U.S., which can really hurt the box office of a film. They’ve done this to numerous films. Also, at that time, Clint Eastwood was the chairman of Toys for Tots, the Marine Corps Christmas gift program for poor children. He wanted to screen the movie at a premiere to benefit Toys for Tots, and they said, “We’re not going to let you do that.” They can be very spiteful, they can hurt the box office of a film, and they don’t forget, either. So you do this at your peril. They can’t arrest you, they can’t stop the film. But if you want cooperation again, and you’ve screwed them like that before, you’re not going to get it. People almost never screw the Army on these deals.

MJ.com: What criteria does the Pentagon use in deciding whether to help a film?

DR: The most important one is that the film has to “aid in the retention and recruitment of personnel.” I don’t want to say that’s the whole thing, but it’s the main thing. They also say it has to reasonably depict military operations. And if it’s based on history, they say it has to be historically accurate, which is really a code. They’re much less interested in reality and accuracy than they are in positive images. They often try to change historical facts that are negative. Like with the movie “Thirteen Days,” which was very accurate but very negative toward the military during the Cuban missile crisis, showing that they would have taken us down the path toward World War III. During the negotiations with the producers, Peter Almond and Kevin Costner, the military tried to get them to tone down the bellicose nature of Gen. Maxwell Taylor and Gen. Curtis LeMay — who the record is very clear on, because before Nixon was taping in the White House, Kennedy was taping in the White House, and all the conversations from October 1962 are on tape. When Kennedy rejected LeMay’s insistence that we attack Cuba — when Kennedy said let’s put up a naval blockade, we don’t want to get into war — you can hear Curtis LeMay say, “This is the worst sellout since Munich.” He actually said that, when he didn’t think anybody was listening. Well, the military wanted to change it anyway, saying he was too bellicose and they had to tone it down. To their credit, Kevin Costner and Peter Almond stood up to the military, refused to buckle under, and made their film without military assistance.

MJ.com: Why don’t more producers take that approach?

DR: A lot of the studio heads tell their producers, “We’re not going to make this film unless we get military assistance, because it would be too expensive. So you’d better make sure the script conforms to what they want.” Also, what you don’t see in these documents is the self-censorship that goes with knowing you need their assistance and that they’re going to be your first audience. Writers write stuff to get that military assistance. So there’s no documents saying, “In “Black Hawk Down,” let’s leave out the whole part about the soldiers being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.” Jerry Bruckheimer knows that if they have that in there, the military’s just going to tell them to take it out or they won’t help them. I asked Ridley Scott, the director, if “Black Hawk Down” could have been made without military assistance. He said, “Yeah. We just would have had to call it ‘Huey Down’.” So there’s this self-censorship. When you know the government is looking over your shoulder while you’re typing, that’s a very bad situation.

MJ.com: Aside from showing war crimes, what are some of the other things the military balks at?

DR: They never — at least that I’ve seen — help movies with aliens. Usually in those movies, the military is shown to be ineffective in combating the aliens, and it’s always some tricky, enterprising person who figures out how to defeat them. Like in “Mars Attacks!,” a grandma playing Slim Whitman over her radio blows the aliens’ heads up. Well, the military didn’t want to help them. They don’t want to help any movie that shows them being ineffective, even in combating aliens. They have no sense of humor! They wouldn’t help “Independence Day.” The military could not get over the fact that one of the key plot points was that the U.S. was secretly working on a spaceship captured at Area 51, so the film ended up not getting assistance.

Another thing, they don’t like drinking or drugs in the military. They’ll make you change that. Like in “Stripes,” they made them take out all drug references, and the original script had lots of drug references. They don’t want to see any pot smoking, even in Vietnam. The former Navy Secretary James Webb, after he left that post, he became a book writer. He’d been a Marine in Vietnam, and one of his books was semi-autobiographical, with many of the things he saw and knew for a fact happened in Vietnam: fragging of officers, smoking pot, burning Vietnamese villages. He had a screenplay and wanted to turn it into a movie. They said, “No, you have to change all this stuff,” and he wouldn’t do it. So that’s a film that never got made. Many films have never been made because they couldn’t get assistance.

MJ.com: In the book, you give examples of how the Pentagon won’t allow military characters to be depicted as bad guys.

DR: Right. For example, there was an HBO movie “The Tuskegee Airmen,” where the military made them replace the villain. This was a movie about the first black airmen during World War II, where the bad guy was a general at the base where these guys were training, and the good guy was a white congressman. Well, the army said they didn’t like that, so they ended up changing it. I have a letter where the producers wrote to the military, to Phil Strub, who’s the head of the Pentagon’s film office. The producers wrote, “The following changes are in the works and will soon be fully executed by the writer. It is our intention to reverse the characterization of General Stevenson and Senator Powell, making the senator the source of bigotry. General Stevenson will be revealed as someone who is loyal to the efforts of the Tuskegee Airmen.” Now when people saw that film, they had no idea that the good guy and the bad guy had been reversed, just so the military could meet its recruiting goals.

MJ.com: You also talk about the military targeting children by encouraging pro-military storylines in shows like “The Mickey Mouse Club” and “Lassie.”

DR: In those cases, they recognized that children are the future recruits. With the “Mickey Mouse Club,” it’s kind of a long story, but they used to show these little documentary films called “Mouse Reels.” For example, they took these kids out on the U.S.S. Nautilus, which was the first nuclear submarine. And there’s a Pentagon document that says, “This is an excellent opportunity to introduce a whole new generation to the nuclear Navy.” It was all military propaganda to show how “child-friendly” nuclear submarines are – there’s hardly any radiation, the food is great, they even have a jukebox that plays the “Mickey Mouse Club March” in the cafeteria.

As far as reaching children, I think one of the best examples — and they’re very candid in these documents, because I don’t think they ever expected anybody to be looking at this stuff — there was this movie “The Right Stuff” about the early days of the space program. The original script was filled with vulgarity and cussing, and the military sent the producers a letter. It reads, “The obscene language used seems to guarantee an ‘R’ rating. If distributed as an ‘R’, it cuts down on the teenage audience, which is a prime one to the military services when our recruiting bills are considered.” Of course, an ‘R’ rating means children under 17 have to be accompanied by a parent, so a lot of 16- and 17-year-olds couldn’t see this picture. And the Air Force wanted young people to see this so they’d get a good, positive image of the military and join up. So they changed it.

MJ.com: Among the films you looked at, which went through the most radical change from the script to the final, military-assisted movie?

DR: There was a movie called “Air Strike” by a guy named Cy Roth. Now, Ed Wood is often credited as being the worst director in Hollywood history, but Cy Roth would really give him a run for his money. Roth decided around 1953 that he’d made a Western, he’d made a space movie, now he wanted to make a war movie. This movie was set on a World War II aircraft carrier, and the lead characters were a young Jewish flyer and a young black flyer who are constantly being subjected to anti-Semitism and racism on the ship. The military said, “No, we don’t want to show any kind of racism or anti-Semitism in this picture, you’ve got to change that.” They also said, “We don’t want a World War II-era picture, we want a movie set in the modern jet age.” And Roth went nuts. He called his congressman, he wrote a letter to President Eisenhower — and the day after the White House got his letter of complaint, they sicced the FBI on him to see whether he was a Communist or not. Well, he finally caved in; he made the picture the way they wanted. So it was no blacks, no Jews, no propellers. If you look at this film, it’s so bad, it looks like a home movie shot on an aircraft carrier. So this film was completely changed.

MJ.com: You argue that this military screening process violates the First Amendment.

DR: The First Amendment doesn’t just give people the right to free speech; fundamentally, it prevents the government from favoring one form of speech over another. There’s a great 1995 Supreme Court case called Rosenberger v. University of Virginia that says, “Discrimination against speech because of its message is presumed to be unconstitutional. It is axiomatic that the government may not regulate speech based on the substantive content of the message it conveys. In the realm of private speech or expression, government regulation may not favor one speaker over another.” And yet that’s what they’re doing every day. Not just 50 years ago on “Air Strike,” but right now. This is a holdover from the Cold War, and it should be abolished. Or at least Congress, which has oversight over the Pentagon, should really look into what’s going on.

Congress has only looked into it twice, when Robert Aldrich made a stink about not getting assistance for the movie “Attack,” and then again in the 1960s when it turned out the government had footed the entire bill for all the military stuff on John Wayne’s “The Green Berets.” In these two investigations, the Pentagon basically said it’s not their intention to influence the content of movies. And Congress just accepted that. If they looked at these documents, they would see that clearly the intent is to influence the movies.

Major Georgi, who had been the military minder on many movies, said that one of the targets of this program is Congress; that Congress goes to movies, and that when they see positive images of the military, that makes it easier for them to vote for that $500 billion military appropriation. They also target voters, the people who are really footing the bill. Really, if you talk to soldiers and sailors and Marines, many of them will tell you they joined the military because of some movie that they saw. The former head of the Marine Corps film office, Matt Morgan, he told me he joined the military after seeing “Top Gun.” After “Top Gun” came out, there was a huge spike in recruitment for the Navy flying program. They know that it works. People are going off to war and getting killed, in part because of some movie that they saw that was adjusted by the military.

MJ.com: What would it realistically take to change this system?

DR: I think that if just 50 people wrote their congressman and asked, “what’s going on here?,” I think it wouldn’t take much. It’s not going to happen otherwise. The Writer’s Guild, whose stated mission is to protect the creative and economic rights of its members, has never made a single protest that its members’ scripts are being manipulated and changed by the military. Congress has done nothing. Hollywood likes the way it is, and the military likes the way it is; they don’t want to change it. The only people who have a real interest in this are the American people. They’re being saturated with military propaganda in their mainstream movies and TV shows, and they don’t even know. But I think there’s a very good argument that can be made that over the past 50 years, this chronic sanitization of the military and what war is has affected the American character; that we’re now a more warlike people than we were 50 years ago. Clearly, there are also other reasons, but I think when the world’s most powerful medium colludes with the world’s most powerful military to put propaganda in mainstream films and television shows, that has to have an effect on the American psyche.

Source.

LI (aka RA – THE RISING SUN GOD) ”UNVEILS” THE DRAGON’S NEW PLANS

Light Worker 29501:

China strengthens ties with the EU with its Silk Road project.
All in all, it’s another BRIC in the wall around the USA…

Originally posted on OUT OF THIS WORLDX:

.

.

THE DRAGON ”VORTEX” LINES … UNITED FRONT

.

Li urges EU to join China-led Silk route project

.

Premier Li Keqiang urged European participation in the “one belt, one road” — “Silk Road Economic Belt” and the “Maritime Silk Road” during a speech at the leaders’ round table talks at the ASEM summit in Milan on Friday. The Silk Road connected China and Europe from around 100 B.C.

The 10th Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) concluded on Friday, with EU and Asian leaders pledging to promote economic cooperation through enhanced Asia-Europe connectivity.

The 4,000-mile Silk road linked ancient Chinese, Indian, Babylonian, Arabic, Greek and Roman civilizations.

A new map unveiled by Xinhua shows the Chinese plans for the Silk Road run through Central China to the northern Xinjiang from where it travels through Central Asia entering Kazakhstan and onto Iraq, Iran, Syria and then Istanbul in Turkey from where it…

View original 32 more words

Hupacasath First Nation Puts China on Notice Over Canada-China Trade Agreement (FIPA)

This is the latest development in a string of situations where First Nations people are refusing to acknowledge the authority of the corporate government(s). In this case, they are refusing to acknowledge the Canadian government’s authority to include their land and resources in a back room deal between Canada’s PM Harper and the Premier of China. The agreement was signed and ratified, even though it was in the process of being challenged in Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal. -LW


The Hupcasasath First Nation, the small nation on Vancouver Island which fought a two-year court battle over the constitutionality of the controversial Canada-China FIPA (Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement) today sent a letter to the Premier of China giving notice that the Hupacasath does not consider itself bound by the terms of the agreement.

The Canada-China FIPA (or FIPPA) was quietly ratified by Canada on September 12 and entered into force on October 1. Under the terms of the agreement, the FIPA and the investor rights it grants will be in force for a minimum of 31 years. The Canadian ratification came two years after the agreement was signed, and was ratified despite the fact that the Hupacasath’s legal challenge was still being considered by the Federal Court of Appeal.

“We want to make it clear to the People’s Republic of China that Hupacasath territory is not open to business under FIPPA and that our consent is needed before there is any development of our lands and resources,” explained Hupacasath Chief Steven Tatoosh. “This step must be taken to protect our rights and title as the government of Canada is not doing so. Canada has the duty to consult with First Nations and obtain our consent and without this and a decision from the Court, it is impossible for Hupacasath First Nation to accept the ratification of FIPPA.”

“Hupacasath First Nation will not consent to any development in our territory that negatively impacts or abrogates our title and rights. We launched our court action on FIPPA in order to protect our rights and title and our way of life which is dependent on the existence of certain ecosystems and the maintenance of high environmental standards,” the letter states.

“The manner in which FIPPA was ratified has engendered increasingly strong opposition from First Nations and Canadians across the country, and has served to embroil the People’s Republic of China in a domestic dispute. This dispute will take the form of resistance from Hupacasath First Nation and many other First Nations to any resource development on our title lands. Opposition will manifest itself in regulatory processes, court cases, and the defense of our lands on the ground.

“We feel it important to inform you of Hupacasath First Nation’s views and positions before you decide to do any development within our territory. To be clear, our dispute is with Canada and because of the FIPPA the People’s Republic of China has become involved with Canada’s internal matters. The People’s Republic of China is now on notice that any investment or development proposed by China state-owned corporations is not welcome within Hupacasath First Nation territory.”

The Hupacasath letter comes a day after a similar notice was sent by the Onihcikiskwapowin (Saddle Lake Cree Nation) of Treaty 6 Territory in Alberta.

The Hupacasath is also encouraging other First Nations and concerned municipalities to do the same, stating on its website, “Together we must make it clear to the People’s Republic of China that the Government of Canada did not follow due process by consulting First Nations, municipalities, parliament, and the citizens of Canada.”

 

 

Source.