Monday, June 15, 2015

Tony Abbott's Tangled Web Over Paying People Smugglers

Moronic, elephant-eared PM hallucinating like a spider on LSD  

By Mark Kenny

Tony Abbott must have concluded that voters will accept anything - that they are so anxious about "porous" borders that the most hard-won principles of our democracy will be surrendered without a whimper.

The dogs are on to Abbott
Even as the government contrives to assume ministerial powers to arbitrarily cancel citizenship – an expansion of executive reach for which both sides of politics will stand condemned if they become law – the Prime Minister dissembles over the most fundamental accountability owed by any government to its people. That of truth.

Asked repeatedly if Australian officials had paid taxpayer funds to criminal syndicates to turn boats around and return to Indonesia, the Prime Minister simply refused to say

This is not acceptable.

Time and again he reframed the subject, telling reporters that the only question was whether he had stopped-the-boats. 

To that mind-numbing reduction now can be added the dangerously slippery enablers: "whatever it takes"; and the even more insidious, "by hook, or by crook."

Abbott continues to attempt old, worn out lies and failed U.S. political strategies, falsely believing that they will somehow miraculously work for him - such as imitating Karl Rove and his illegal refusal to testify before Congress

Perhaps this was a new form of embedded honesty because it seems, "by crook" may be the new official low of border policy. Or is it? 

Like Rove, Abbott now thumbs his nose at
Three cabinet ministers, Immigration Minister Peter Dutton, the Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, and now the Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, have denied the allegation that Australia has paid criminals.

But Abbott has pointedly refused to confirm their certainty, implicitly rebuking them for being so definitive. Would he rather the rumour abounded In Indonesia that we did pay them? 

And if so, how does that help in the previously sacrosanct imperative to ensure there were no Australian policy "incentives" for people smugglers or refugees? 

The secrecy at the heart of Operation Sovereign Borders should never have been allowed because, as critics complained, it inevitably invites a loss of confidence and the suspicion of official malfeasance. 

That suspicion has just become a material claim and one that demands immediate examination. 

The opposition, late to the party on this as well as the above-mentioned citizenship denial, is now pushing for an Auditor-General's inquiry

Bring it on. Australians want answers. Indonesians deserve them too.

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Fast - Track Hands The Money Monopoly To Private Banks — Permanently

Gold and silver - in the hand; close out your bank accounts, burn your credit cards: It's going to be damn painful but it can be done and the alternative is far and away much worse  

By Ellen Brown

It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. — Attributed to Henry Ford

In March 2014, the Bank of England let the cat out of the bag: money is just an IOU, and the banks are rolling in it. So wrote David Graeber in The Guardian the same month, referring to a BOE paper called “Money Creation in the Modern Economy.” 

The paper stated outright that most common assumptions of how banking works are simply wrong. 

The result, said Graeber, was to throw the entire theoretical basis for austerity out of the window.

The revelation may have done more than that. The entire basis for maintaining our private extractive banking monopoly may have been thrown out the window. 

And that could help explain the desperate rush to “fast track” not only the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), but the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA). TiSA would nip attempts to implement public banking and other monetary reforms in the bud.

The Banking Game Exposed

The BOE report confirmed what money reformers have been saying for decades: that banks do not act simply as intermediaries, taking in the deposits of “savers” and lending them to borrowers, keeping the spread in interest rates. 

Rather, banks actually create deposits when they make loans. The BOE report said that private banks now create 97 percent of the British money supply. The US money supply is created in the same way.

Graeber underscored the dramatic implications:

. . . [M]oney is really just an IOU. The role of the central bank is to preside over a legal order that effectively grants banks the exclusive right to create IOUs of a certain kind, ones that the government will recognise as legal tender by its willingness to accept them in payment of taxes. 

There’s really no limit on how much banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it.

Politically, said Graeber, revealing these facts is taking an enormous risk:

Just consider what might happen if mortgage holders realised the money the bank lent them is not, really, the life savings of some thrifty pensioner, but something the bank just whisked into existence through its possession of a magic wand which we, the public, handed over to it.

If money is just an IOU, why are we delivering the exclusive power to create it to an unelected, unaccountable, non-transparent private banking monopoly? Why are we buying into the notion that the government is broke – that it must sell off public assets and slash public services in order to pay off its debts? 

The government could pay its debts in the same way private banks pay them, simply with accounting entries on its books. 

What will happen when a critical mass of the populace realizes that we’ve been vassals of a parasitic banking system based on a fraud – that we the people could be creating money as credit ourselves, through publicly-owned banks that returned the profits to the people? Henry Ford predicted that a monetary revolution would follow. There might even be a move to nationalize the whole banking system and turn it into a public utility.

It is not hard to predict that the international bankers and related big-money interests, anticipating this move, would counter with legislation that locked the current system in place, so that there was no way to return money and banking to the service of the people – even if the current private model ended in disaster, as many pundits also predict.

And that is precisely the effect of the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), which was slipped into the “fast track” legislation now before Congress. It is also the effect of the bail-in policies currently being railroaded into law in the Eurozone, and of the suspicious “war on cash” seen globally; but those developments will be the subject of another article.

TiSA Exposed

On June 3, 2015, WikiLeaks released 17 key documents related to TiSA, which is considered perhaps the most important of the three deals being negotiated for “fast track” trade authority. The documents were supposed to remain classified for five years after being signed, displaying a level of secrecy that outstrips even the TPP’s four-year classification.

TiSA involves 51 countries, including every advanced economy except the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). The deal would liberalize global trade in services covering close to 80% of the US economy, including financial services, healthcare, education, engineering, telecommunications, and many more. It would restrict how governments can manage their public laws, and it could dismantle and privatize state-owned enterprises, turning those services over to the private sector.

Recall the secret plan devised by Wall Street and U.S. Treasury officials in the 1990s to open banking to the lucrative derivatives business. 

To pull this off required the relaxation of banking regulations not just in the US but globally, so that money would not flee to nations with safer banking laws. The vehicle used was the Financial Services Agreement concluded under the auspices of the World Trade Organization’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The plan worked, and most countries were roped into this “liberalization” of their banking rules. The upshot was that the 2008 credit crisis took down not just the US economy but economies globally.

TiSA picks up where the Financial Services Agreement left off, opening yet more doors for private banks and other commercial service industries, and slamming doors on governments that might consider opening their private banking sectors to public ownership.

Blocking the Trend Toward “Remunicipalization”

In a report from Public Services International called “TISA versus Public Services: The Trade in Services Agreement and the Corporate Agenda,” Scott Sinclair and Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood note that the already formidable challenges to safeguarding public services under GATS will be greatly exasperated by TiSA, which blocks the emerging trend to return privatized services to the public sector. Communities worldwide are reevaluating the privatization approach and “re-municipalizing” these services, following negative experiences with profit-driven models. These reversals typically occur at the municipal level, but they can also occur at the national level.

One cited example is water remunicipalization in Argentina, Canada, France, Tanzania and Malaysia, where an increasing frustration with broken promises, service cutoffs to the poor, and a lack of integrated planning by private water companies led to a public takeover of the service.

Another example is the remunicipalization of electrical services in Germany. Hundreds of German municipalities have remunicipalized private electricity providers or have created new public energy utilities, following dissatisfaction with private providers’ inflated prices and poor record in shifting to renewable energy. Remunicipalization has brought electricity prices down. Other sectors involved in remunicipalization projects include public transit, waste management, and housing.

Sinclair and Mertins-Kirkwood observe:

The TISA would limit and may even prohibit remunicipalization because it would prevent governments from creating or reestablishing public monopolies or similarly “uncompetitive” forms of service delivery.

Like GATS Article XVI, the TISA would prohibit public monopolies and exclusive service suppliers in fully committed sectors, even on a regional or local level. Of particular concern for remunicipalization projects are the proposed “standstill” and “ratchet” provisions in TISA. The standstill clause would lock in current levels of services liberalization in each country, effectively banning any moves from a market-based to a state-based provision of public services. This clause . . . would prohibit the creation of public monopolies in sectors that are currently open to private sector competition.

Similarly, the ratchet clause would automatically lock in any future actions taken to liberalize services in a given country. . . . [I]f a government did decide to privatize a public service, that government would be unable to return to a public model at a later date.

That means we can forget about turning banking and credit services into public utilities. TiSA is a one-way street. Industries once privatized remain privatized.

The disturbing revelations concerning TiSA are yet another reason to try to block these secretive trade agreements. For more information and to get involved, visit:

Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including the best-selling Web of Debt. Her latest book, The Public Bank Solution, explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her 300+ blog articles are at

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

WAYNE MADSEN : G - 7 Has Its Own Designs On South China Sea

G-7 "elitists" believe they own the world and it's resources including humans - and are soon to be in for one hell of a shock  

By Wayne Madsen

The G-7 leaders issued a communique at the close of their summit at Adolf Hitler’s favorite Bavarian retreat of Garmisch-Partenkirchen that vilified China for its claims to islands in the energy-rich South China Sea. The G-7 leaders stated, "We strongly oppose the use of intimidation, coercion or force, as well as any unilateral actions that seek to change the status quo, such as large-scale land reclamation."

HEIL HITLER! - G-7 fascists Cameron and 
Obama have a Nazi day at genocide summit
in Uncle Adolph's backyard
What the G-7 leaders failed to mention is that four members of the elite group, the United States, Britain, France, and Japan, have used proxies like the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Taiwan and the former Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) to fortify island possessions in the South China Sea. The G-7 statement was yet another display of the gross hypocrisy of the group as previously evidenced by their sanctions against Russia, Syria, Iran, and other countries. In 1973 and 1974, one of the final military efforts of the U.S.-backed South Vietnamese regime in Saigon was to hold a number of the Paracel Islands as a last-ditch effort by the United States to maintain control over the oil-rich South China Sea and deny the maritime to China. 

In 1974, China began exploratory drilling in the Paracel Islands and the United States and its South Vietnamese allies attempted to draw "line in the sea" between islands already occupied by China, including Woody Island, and those occupied by South Vietnam.

On January 16, 1974, a South Vietnamese frigate was dispatched to Drummond Island where it encountered two armed Chinese fishing trawlers and a Chinese army detachment occupying the island. 

Chinese naval vessels were also observed off Duncan Island where they were supporting a small Chinese landing force. The South Vietnamese demanded that China withdraw their forces from the South Vietnamese-claimed islands. The Chinese ordered the South Vietnamese to leave the area. The next day, January 17, thirty South Vietnamese commandos, directed by a U.S. Central Intelligence Agency officer assigned to the U.S. embassy in Saigon, landed on Robert Island a removed a Chinese flag. On January 19, South Vietnamese troops landed on Duncan Island and a firefight broke out with Chinese troops. 

Outnumbered by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, the South Vietnamese withdrew. After a short air and naval battle, the South Vietnamese Marine garrison on Drummond, Duncan, and Robert islands surrendered to the Chinese. A total of four South Vietnamese frigates were damaged and one was sunk by the Chinese. 

The Battle of the Paracels cemented Chinese control of the three surrendered islands, as well as Triton Island, which was also claimed by South Vietnam. The South Vietnamese government protested the action to the United Nations and the North Vietnamese and Vietcong governments remained stonily silent over the Chinese victory. The South Vietnamese lost 53 military personnel and, in addition, the Chinese took 48 prisoners, including a former U.S. Army Green Beret captain, Gerald Kosh, reported to be a "regional security advisor" at the U.S. embassy in Saigon but who was believed to be a CIA agent. In addition to Kosh, there were reports that U.S. Navy SEALs were also on the islands to help the South Vietnamese confront the Chinese.

The South Vietnamese / CIA foray into the Paracels in 1974 was no different than the naval and air brinkmanship now being displayed by U.S. naval and air operations in the South China Sea intended to bring about a confrontation with China. Just as the United States used its South Vietnamese proxy in 1974 to initiate a war with China over the Paracels, today it seeks to accomplish the same using the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan. 

Even though the United States has attempted to stir up anti-Chinese military operations among the claimant nations to the South China Sea islands, former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed has stated that China is a threat to no one and that it is the United States that is trying to provoke a military confrontation in the maritime region. Malaysian Defense Minister Hishamuddin Hussein has also rejected American bellicosity and said China’s naval patrols of the island region are justified. Even Taiwanese media has accused the United States of being behind Vietnamese-Chinese incidents involving ships and oil platforms.

The G-7 leaders conveniently failed to comment on the latent claims of the United Kingdom and France to islands of the South China Sea. Although the two G-7 members have not asserted their claims they have not withdrawn them either. The G-7, displaying its typical hubris, warns China against consolidating its historical claims on the Paracels and Spratlys but fails to admit its own vested interests in the region.

The U.S. and Australian media, particularly media owned by the war-minded neo-conservative Rupert Murdoch, have been full of stories claiming that China is militarizing islands in the Paracels and Spratlys, including alarmist pieces about offensive missiles being deployed to the South China Sea. 

However, CIA intelligence reports prepared as early as 1974 describe Chinese military installations on the South China Sea islands, so the Western media is reporting "old news" in an attempt to heighten tensions on behalf of the U.S. military-intelligence complex.

Woody Island, also known as Yongxing and located in the Amphitrite group of the Paracels, was the military and civilian headquarters of the Chinese administration of the Paracels in 1974, according to the CIA’s own SECRET report titled "East Asian Contested Islands" and dated February 1974.

Today is it the home of Sansha City, with a civilian and military population of 600. 

As far as other islands in the South China Sea, the CIA determined in 1974 that many had Chinese military and naval installations. 

They included Rocky, connected to Woody by a Chinese-built road; Lincoln; Pattle; Robert; and Duncan. 

As far as China’s presence in the Spratlys on the southern region of the South China Sea, there are military buildings and wharves on South Johnson Reef; a military supply base, gun emplacements, and a radar and radio station on Gavin Reef; a two-story military building and lighthouse on Hughes Reef, and a United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Marine Observation Station, airstrip, and radar station on Fiery Cross Reef. None of these installations suggest any offensive Chinese military threat against Australia or the U.S. Seventh Fleet as alleged by the Murdoch media. Nor are the installations a threatening "Great Wall of Sand" as hysterically described by the U.S. Pacific Fleet Commander, Admiral Harry Harris.

And then, there is always Uncle Kim...
President Obama in his military "pivot to Asia" seems to believe that an increased ground, naval, and air presence by the United States in East and Southeast Asia should go unnoticed by regional powers like China. 

China’s modest naval and infrastructure consolidation on the Paracels and Spratlys are a direct response to aggressive American moves in the region, a strategy that began in 1974 with the U.S.-backed South Vietnamese foray into the Paracels. 

Recently, a U.S. Navy P-8A Poseidon patrol aircraft flew over Fiery Cross Reef as part of a Pentagon policy of taking "concrete steps" in the region. If the amateur armchair generals and admirals in Washington and Honolulu are fretting over China’s increasing profile in the South China Sea, they have only themselves and their "concrete steps" to blame.

Wayne Madsen

Wayne Madsen
Investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist, Madsen has over twenty years experience in security issues. 

As a U.S. Naval Officer, he managed one of the first computer security programs for the U.S. Navy. Madsen has been a frequent political and national security commentator on Fox News and has also appeared on ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, BBC and MS-NBC. He has been invited to testify as a witness before the US House of Representatives, the UN Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and an terrorism investigation panel of the French government. A member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the National Press Club, Madsen is based and reports from Washington, D.C.



The real truth on 9/11 slowly continues to bleed out

Technical experts are mounting major challenges to official U.S. government accounts of how three World Trade Center skyscrapers collapsed in near-freefall after the 9/11 attacks 15 years ago.

Many researchers are focusing especially on the little-known collapse of



The Geopolitics Of The United States, Part 1: The Inevitable Empire

The Empire and the inevitable fall of the Obama criminal regime

STRATFOR Editor’s Note: This installment on the United States, presented in two parts, is the 16th in a series of STRATFOR monographs on the geopolitics of countries influential in world affairs.

Like nearly all of the peoples of North and South America, most Americans are not originally from the territory that became the United States.



Geopolitics Of The United States Part 2: American Identity And The Threats of Tomorrow

A look back at 2011 predictions for the future in order to put events of today into perspective

 photo capitalism_zpsah78uy5p.jpg
We have already discussed in the first part of this analysis how the American geography dooms whoever controls the territory to being a global power, but there are a number of other outcomes that shape what that power will be like. The first and most critical is the impact of that geography on the American mindset.



By Robert S. Finnegan

This e-mail outlines and confirms the acts of espionage against Indonesia and Indonesians by Akiko Makino and the others involved both in Kobe University and in AI Lab at University of Airlangga, Surabaya; Bahasa Indonesia original follows English translation...



UPDATED 01/07/2015 : New Analysis Challenges Tamiflu Efficacy; Hong Kong Corona Virus Outbreak


 photo TAMIFLU_small_zpssojx6okt.jpg

Obama criminals now resulting to biowarfare in quest to destroy Chinese and ASEAN economy; "novel virus substrain" points directly to a Kawaoka / Fouchier / Ernala-Ginting Kobe lab virus weaponized and genetically altered to specifically target and infect the Asian population: Ribavirin...



 photo WHO02_zpsplmhtlpr.jpg
The 5th Estate has just purchased a library on H5N1 "Novel" virus pandemics, there are dozens of PDF and Exel documents we feel will assist you in saving lives following intentional releases of the H5N1 and now MERS viruses; we will begin by printing those that appear to be extremely relevant here: H5N1 Kobe-Kawaoka-Ernala series continues soon with more "Smoking Gun" e-mails from Teridah Ernala to The 5th Estate . . .



By Robert S. Finnegan

On October 12, 2002 the Indonesian island of Bali experienced a terrorist attack that rocked the world. It was unquestionably well-coordinated and executed, the largest in the country's history.