Do the 1% Have Their Own #ShadowGovt? Is #TechnocracyRising?

Obama's adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and David Rockefeller founded this group and it is most likely partly responsible for the economic collapse of the European Union and the coming war for energy in Eurasia.

The Trilateral Commission is a non-governmental, non-partisan discussion group founded by David Rockefeller in July 1973 to foster closer cooperation among the United States, Europe and Japan.

The Trilateral Commission Founder(s) David Rockefeller Type Annual conference Founded 1973 Location Washington, DC; Paris; Tokyo Key people Joseph S. Nye, Jr. (North American chairman) Mario Monti (European chairman) Yotaro Kobayashi (Pacific Asian chairman) Members More than 390 Website http://www.trilateral.org/

[edit] History

Sensing a profound discord between the nations of North America, Europe and Japan, the Trilateral Commission was founded to foster substantive political and economic dialogue across the world. To quote its founding declaration:

"Growing interdependence is a fact of life of the contemporary world. It transcends and influences national systems...While it is important to develop greater cooperation among all the countries of the world, Japan, Western Europe, and North America, in view of their great weight in the world economy and their massive relations with one another, bear a special responsibility for developing effective cooperation, both in their own interests and in those of the rest of the world."

"To be effective in meeting common problems, Japan, Western Europe, and North America will have to consult and cooperate more closely, on the basis of equality, to develop and carry out coordinated policies on matters affecting their common interests...refrain from unilateral actions incompatible with their interdependence and from actions detrimental to other regions... [and] take advantage of existing international and regional organizations and further enhance their role."

"The Commission hopes to play a creative role as a channel of free exchange of opinions with other countries and regions. Further progress of the developing countries and greater improvement of East-West relations will be a major concern."[1]

Zbigniew Brzezinski, a professor at Columbia University and a Rockefeller advisor who was a specialist on international affairs, left his post to organize the group along with:

Henry D. Owen (a Foreign Policy Studies Director with the Brookings Institution)

George S. Franklin

Robert R. Bowie (of the Foreign Policy Association and Director of the Harvard Center for International Affairs)

Gerard C. Smith (Salt I negotiator, Rockefeller in-law, and its first North American Chairman)

Marshall Hornblower (former partner at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering)

William Scranton (former Governor of Pennsylvania)

Edwin Reischauer (a professor at Harvard)

Max Kohnstamm (European Policy Centre)

Other founding members included Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker, both later heads of the Federal Reserve system.

The Trilateral Commission initiated its biannual meetings schedule in October 1973 in Tokyo. In May 1976, the first plenary meeting of all of the Commission's regional groups took place in Kyoto. It was through these early meetings that the group affected its most profound influence, the integration of Japan into the global political conversation. Before these exchanges, the country was much more isolated on the international stage.[1] Since its founding, the discussion group has produced an official journal called Trialogue.

[edit] Membership

Membership is divided into numbers proportionate to each of the think tank's three regional areas. The North American continent is represented by 120 members (20 Canadian, 13 Mexican and 87 U.S. citizens). The European group has reached its limit of 170 members from almost every country on the continent; the ceilings for individual countries are 20 for Germany, 18 for France, Italy and the United Kingdom, 12 for Spain and 1–6 for the rest. At first, Asia and Oceania were represented only by Japan. However, in 2000 the Japanese group of 85 members expanded itself, becoming the Pacific Asia group, composed of 117 members: 75 Japanese, 11 South Koreans, 7 Australian and New Zealand citizens, and 15 members from the ASEAN nations (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand). The Pacific Asia group also included 9 members from China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Currently, the Trilateral Commission claims "more than 100" Pacific Asian members.[1]

While Trilateral Commission bylaws exclude persons holding public office from membership,[2] the think tank draws its participants from political, business, and academic worlds. The group is chaired by three individuals, one from each of the regions represented. The current chairmen are former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Joseph S. Nye, Jr., President of Bocconi University, Milan, Mario Monti, and Chief Corporate Adviser, Fuji Xerox Company, Ltd. Yotaro Kobayashi.[3]

[edit] Criticisms

Not unlike reactions to the United Nations or other organizations created to foster international cooperation, a number of prominent thinkers and politicians have criticized the Trilateral Commission as encroaching on national sovereignty. On the right, in his book With No Apologies, former conservative Republican Senator Barry Goldwater lambasted the discussion group by suggesting it was "a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power: political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical...[in] the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved."[4] On the left, linguist Noam Chomsky criticized a report issued by the Commission called The Crisis of Democracy for suggesting that there was an "excess of democracy" in the 1960s and defending "the ideology of the liberal wing of the state capitalist ruling elite". Chomsky also argues that the group had an undue influence in the administration of Jimmy Carter.[5]

[edit] Conspiracy theories

While the Trilateral Commission is only one of many similar think tanks on the right and left, many notable conspiracy theorists believe the organization to be a central plotter of a world government or synarchy. As documented by journalist Jonathan Kay, 9/11 conspiracy theorist Luke Rudkowski gained notoriety in April 2007 by interrupting a lecture by former Trilateral Commission director Zbigniew Brzezinski and accusing the organization and a few others of having orchestrated the attacks of September 11th to initiate a new world order.[6] Conservative and right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society and conspiracy theorists such as American paleoconservative Alex Jones also regularly tout this idea.[7][8] Read more at en.wikipedia.org

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1jzhb

Obama's War for Energy in Eurasia - Planned for Decades by Brzezinski

This is starting to look like Jimmy Carter's presidency. 1976, 2 weeks after his election, Jimmy Carter addressed the nation about the energy crisis. His national security adviser was Zbigniew Brzezinski. This is the guy that helped Reagan CREATE the Mujahideen and the Taliban in Afghanistan in order to counter the Russian invasion.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski



In 2008 both his sons were picked as national security advisers to McCain and Obama. Odd. That means that our foreign policy would have been the SAME regardless of who we picked for president.



http://www.dailypaul.com/70864/marxist-zbigniew-brzezinskis-sons-are-both-advisors-to-both-mccain-and-obama



Obama's top adviser is currently Zbigniew Brzezinski.

http://youtu.be/AeFnRAZapUY.



Brzezinski wrote The Gran Chessboard in 1997 to elaborate on the American super power strategy in Eurasia and forecasting the global energy war in the region. He called for a shocking event like Pearl Harbor in order to get the American popular support for such a war or series of wars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0HjVMSBai0



Now read the article below.

Amplify’d from www.alternet.org

Has Obama Just Launched a Dangerous New Cold War in Asia Driven By Energy Concerns?

By Michael T. Klare, TomDispatch.com Posted on December 6, 2011, Printed on December 11, 2011 http://www.alternet.org/story/153340/has_obama_just_launched_a_dangerous_new_cold_war_in_asia_driven_by_energy_concerns

When it comes to China policy, is the Obama administration leaping from the frying pan directly into the fire? In an attempt to turn the page on two disastrous wars in the Greater Middle East, it may have just launched a new Cold War in Asia — once again, viewing oil as the key to global supremacy.

The new policy was signaled by President Obama himself on November 17th in an address to the Australian Parliament in which he laid out an audacious — and extremely dangerous — geopolitical vision.  Instead of focusing on the Greater Middle East, as has been the case for the last decade, the United States will now concentrate its power in Asia and the Pacific.  “My guidance is clear,” he declared in Canberra.  “As we plan and budget for the future, we will allocate the resources necessary to maintain our strong military presence in this region.” While administration officials insist that this new policy is not aimed specifically at China, the implication is clear enough: From now on, the primary focus of American military strategy will not be counterterrorism, but the containment of that economically booming land — at whatever risk or cost.

The Planet’s New Center of Gravity

The new emphasis on Asia and the containment of China is necessary, top officials insist, because the Asia-Pacific region now constitutes the “center of gravity” of world economic activity.  While the United States was bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, the argument goes, China had the leeway to expand its influence in the region.  For the first time since the end of World War II, Washington is no longer the dominant economic actor there. If the United States is to retain its title as the world’s paramount power, it must, this thinking goes, restore its primacy in the region and roll back Chinese influence. In the coming decades, no foreign policy task will, it is claimed, be more important than this.

In line with its new strategy, the administration has undertaken a number of moves intended to bolster American power in Asia, and so put China on the defensive. These include a decision to deploy an initial 250 U.S. Marines — someday to be upped to 2,500 — to an Australian air base in Darwin on that country’s north coast, and the adoption on November 18th of “the Manila Declaration,” a pledge of closer U.S. military ties with the Philippines.

At the same time, the White House announced the sale of 24 F-16 fighter jets to Indonesia and a visit by Hillary Clinton to isolated Burma, long a Chinese ally — the first there by a secretary of state in 56 years. Clinton has also spoken of increased diplomatic and military ties with Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam — all countries surrounding China or overlooking key trade routes that China relies on for importing raw materials and exporting manufactured goods.

As portrayed by administration officials, such moves are intended to maximize America’s advantages in the diplomatic and military realm at a time when China dominates the economic realm regionally. In a recent article in Foreign Policy magazine, Clinton revealingly suggested that an economically weakened United States can no longer hope to prevail in multiple regions simultaneously. It must choose its battlefields carefully and deploy its limited assets — most of them of a military nature — to maximum advantage. Given Asia’s strategic centrality to global power, this means concentrating resources there.

“Over the last 10 years,” she writes, “we have allocated immense resources to [Iraq and Afghanistan].  In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership [and] secure our interests… One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region.”

Such thinking, with its distinctly military focus, appears dangerously provocative.  The steps announced entail an increased military presence in waters bordering China and enhanced military ties with that country’s neighbors — moves certain to arouse alarm in Beijing and strengthen the hand of those in the ruling circle (especially in the Chinese military leadership) who favor a more activist, militarized response to U.S. incursions. Whatever forms that takes, one thing is certain: the leadership of the globe’s number two economic power is not going to let itself appear weak and indecisive in the face of an American buildup on the periphery of its country.  This, in turn, means that we may be sowing the seeds of a new Cold War in Asia in 2011.

The U.S. military buildup and the potential for a powerful Chinese counter-thrust have already been the subject of discussion in the American and Asian press.  But one crucial dimension of this incipient struggle has received no attention at all: the degree to which Washington’s sudden moves have been dictated by a fresh analysis of the global energy equation, revealing (as the Obama administration sees it) increased vulnerabilities for the Chinese side and new advantages for Washington.

The New Energy Equation

For decades, the United States has been heavily dependent on imported oil, much of it obtained from the Middle East and Africa, while China was largely self-sufficient in oil output.  In 2001, the United States consumed 19.6 million barrels of oil per day, while producing only nine million barrels itself.  The dependency on foreign suppliers for that 10.6 million-barrel shortfall proved a source of enormous concern for Washington policymakers.  They responded by forging ever closer, more militarized ties with Middle Eastern oil producers and going to war on occasion to ensure the safety of U.S. supply lines.

In 2001, China, on the other hand, consumed only five million barrels per day and so, with a domestic output of 3.3 million barrels, needed to import only 1.7 million barrels.  Those cold, hard numbers made its leadership far less concerned about the reliability of the country’s major overseas providers — and so it did not need to duplicate the same sort of foreign policy entanglements that Washington had long been involved in.

Now, so the Obama administration has concluded, the tables are beginning to turn.  As a result of China’s booming economy and the emergence of a sizeable and growing middle class (many of whom have already bought their first cars), the country’s oil consumption is exploding.  Running at about 7.8 million barrels per day in 2008, it will, according to recent projections by the U.S. Department of Energy, reach 13.6 million barrels in 2020, and 16.9 million in 2035.  Domestic oil production, on the other hand, is expected to grow from 4.0 million barrels per day in 2008 to 5.3 million in 2035.  Not surprisingly, then, Chinese imports are expected to skyrocket from 3.8 million barrels per day in 2008 to a projected 11.6 million in 2035 — at which time they will exceed those of the United States.

The U.S., meanwhile, can look forward to an improved energy situation.  Thanks to increased production in “tough oil” areas of the United States, including the Arctic seas off Alaska, the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, and shale formations in Montana, North Dakota, and Texas, future imports are expected to decline, even as energy consumption rises.  In addition, more oil is likely to be available from the Western Hemisphere rather than the Middle East or Africa.  Again, this will be thanks to the exploitation of yet more “tough oil” areas, including the Athabasca tar sands of Canada, Brazilian oil fields in the deep Atlantic, and increasingly pacified energy-rich regions of previously war-torn Colombia.  According to the Department of Energy, combined production in the United States, Canada, and Brazil is expected to climb by 10.6 million barrels per day between 2009 and 2035 — an enormous jump, considering that most areas of the world are expecting declining output.

Whose Sea Lanes Are These Anyway?

From a geopolitical perspective, all this seems to confer a genuine advantage on the United States, even as China becomes ever more vulnerable to the vagaries of events in, or along, the sea lanes to distant lands.  It means Washington will be able to contemplate a gradual loosening of its military and political ties to the Middle Eastern oil states that have dominated its foreign policy for so long and have led to those costly, devastating wars.

Indeed, as President Obama said in Canberra, the U.S. is now in a position to begin to refocus its military capabilities elsewhere. “After a decade in which we fought two wars that cost us dearly,” he declared, “the United States is turning our attention to the vast potential of the Asia-Pacific region.”

For China, all this spells potential strategic impairment.  Although some of China’s imported oil will travel overland through pipelines from Kazakhstan and Russia, the great majority of it will still come by tanker from the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America over sea lanes policed by the U.S. Navy.  Indeed, almost every tanker bringing oil to China travels across the South China Sea, a body of water the Obama administration is now seeking to place under effective naval control.

By securing naval dominance of the South China Sea and adjacent waters, the Obama administration evidently aims to acquire the twenty-first century energy equivalent of twentieth-century nuclear blackmail. Push us too far, the policy implies, and we’ll bring your economy to its knees by blocking your flow of vital energy supplies.  Of course, nothing like this will ever be said in public, but it is inconceivable that senior administration officials are not thinking along just these lines, and there is ample evidence that the Chinese are deeply worried about the risk — as indicated, for example, by their frantic efforts to build staggeringly expensive pipelines across the entire expanse of Asia to the Caspian Sea basin.

As the underlying nature of the new Obama strategic blueprint becomes clearer, there can be no question that the Chinese leadership will, in response, take steps to ensure the safety of China’s energy lifelines.  Some of these moves will undoubtedly be economic and diplomatic, including, for example, efforts to court regional players like Vietnam and Indonesia as well as major oil suppliers like Angola, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia.  Make no mistake, however: others will be of a military nature.  A significant buildup of the Chinese navy — still small and backward when compared to the fleets of the United States and its principal allies — would seem all but inevitable.  Likewise, closer military ties between China and Russia, as well as with the Central Asian member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan), are assured.

In addition, Washington could now be sparking the beginnings of a genuine Cold-War-style arms race in Asia, which neither country can, in the long run, afford.  All of this is likely to lead to greater tension and a heightened risk of inadvertent escalation arising out of future incidents involving U.S., Chinese, and allied vessels — like the one that occurred in March 2009 when a flotilla of Chinese naval vessels surrounded a U.S. anti-submarine warfare surveillance ship, the Impeccable, and almost precipitated a shooting incident.  As more warships circulate through these waters in an increasingly provocative fashion, the risk that such an incident will result in something far more explosive can only grow.

Nor will the potential risks and costs of such a military-first policy aimed at China be restricted to Asia.  In the drive to promote greater U.S. self-sufficiency in energy output, the Obama administration is giving its approval to production techniques — Arctic drilling, deep-offshore drilling, and hydraulic fracturing — that are guaranteed to lead to further Deepwater Horizon-style environmental catastrophe at home.  Greater reliance on Canadian tar sands, the “dirtiest” of energies, will result in increased greenhouse gas emissions and a multitude of other environmental hazards, while deep Atlantic oil production off the Brazilian coast and elsewhere has its own set of grim dangers.

All of this ensures that, environmentally, militarily, and economically, we will find ourselves in a more, not less, perilous world.  The desire to turn away from disastrous land wars in the Greater Middle East to deal with key issues now simmering in Asia is understandable, but choosing a strategy that puts such an emphasis on military dominance and provocation is bound to provoke a response in kind.  It is hardly a prudent path to head down, nor will it, in the long run, advance America’s interests at a time when global economic cooperation is crucial.  Sacrificing the environment to achieve greater energy independence makes no more sense.

A new Cold War in Asia and a hemispheric energy policy that could endanger the planet: It’s a fatal brew that should be reconsidered before the slide toward confrontation and environmental disaster becomes irreversible. You don’t have to be a seer to know that this is not the definition of good statesmanship, but of the march of folly.

Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., and the author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Petroleum Dependency. Read more at www.alternet.org

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1jzg2

Al Qaeda and OBL Were Created by American Intelligence Services (CIA)

We armed them just like we did Saddam Hussein. We also armed Iran. Russia armed Iran and Syria after we did. Al Qaeda was blowback for our interference in Afghanistan, which was fought to take down the USSR. Remnants of the Cold War.

Amplify’d from www.alqaedadoesntexist.com

Below is a list of sources consulted in the making of this documentary. Viewers are encouraged to delve into the research directly via the hyperlinks provided and to come to their own conclusions about this material.

claim source link 1 9/11 news coverage For an excellent source of live television coverage from the day of 9/11, please visit the September 11 Television Archive, currently hosted at archive.org. [Link] 2 "Honey Trade Said to Provide Funds and Cover to Bin Laden" Judith Miller article from the New York Times on October 11, 2001 about how Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network were using money from honey dealing to finance their terrorist operations. [Link] 3 ""U.S. SAYS HUSSEIN INTENSIFIES QUEST FOR A-BOMB PARTS"" Another New York Times article from Judith Miller (see above), this one claiming that Saddam Hussein was stepping up his activities to build a nuclear weapon for Iraq. This infamous article alleges Hussein's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes for his (imaginary, as it turns out) nuclear program. It was emblematic of Miller's reporting for the Times which relied heavily on leaks from the Administration itself. Ultimately, the Times would disown Miller and her questionable reporting, despite the fact that she had at one time been considered a star reporter. [Link] 4 Cheney says Osama not involved in 9/11 This comes from the March 26, 2006 interview conducted by Tony Snow. Although in the context of the discussion Cheney was likely referring to Saddam Hussein and misspoke, it is interesting to note that President Bush famously made the exact same mistake in the exact same context in the 2004 Presidential debate when he said "Of course we're after Saddam Hussein - I mean Bin Laden." The repeated "confusion" of Bin Laden and Hussein only serves to demonstrate the point that for the Bush Administration, these men are merely placeholders for whatever the Administration's agenda is at the moment, and as such they are interchangeable. The comment also reminds us of the FBI's official position that they do not list 9/11 on their Osama Bin Laden wanted page because there is no hard evidence connecting him to 9/11. In the light of all of the evidence presented in this documentary, this misstatement by Cheney amounts to an unintentional truth. [Link] Part One - Founding and Funding # claim source link 1 Brzezinski is Obama's foreign policy advisor Although Brzezinski's position within the Obama Administration remains largely undefined, the fact that he advises Obama, both directly and indirectly, is evident from mainstream articles such as this one from the New York Sun. The clip is of Obama praising Brzeznski after Zbigniew introduced Obama's first major foreign policy speech of his Presidential campaign. For more information on the relationship of Obama and Brzezinski, please see the work of Webster Tarpley, especially Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography. [Link] 2 Brzezinski addresses the mujahadeen Brzezinski addressing the Afghani freedom fighters (and future terrorists) during a trip to Pakistan. [Link] 3 Operation Cyclone Basic information about the US involvement in Afghanistan. [Link] 4 Brzezinski interview with French periodical An English translation of this important 1998 interview with Dr. Brzezninski. [Link] 5 The official story - The US funded the Afghans, the Saudis funded the Arabs A 2003 article by Richard Miniter espousing the official story that the Americans had nothing to do with the Arab Afghans. [Link] 6 Osama's group consisted of a dozen fighters in 1989 For this remarkable fact, see page 4 of Jason Burke's book, Al-Qaeda. [Link] 7 Bin Laden claims the name Al Qaeda comes from the Afghan training camps Transcript of interview with Bin Laden from October 2001. [Link] 8 Robin Cook article Article by former leader of the House in England, Robin Cook, asserting "Al Qaeda" refers to the database of mujahedeen handled by the CIA in Afghanistan. [Link] 9 Ana raicha Al Qaeda is colloquial for I'm going to the toilet. From a report by Kawther Salam under the headline "'Al Qaeda' is a Manufactured Intelligence Front." [Link] 10 Michael Springmann testimony Testimony to the 9-11 Citizens Commission in 2004. [Link] 11 11 of the 911 hijackers received their visas from the Jeddah consulate See page 6 of this GAO report for this fact. [Link] 12 Information about the Visa Express program. The program started just months before 9-11 was designed to fast track qualified applicants to get visas to visit the US. [Link] 13 Der Spiegel calls Osama one of the CIA's best customers during the Afghan war From a 2007 report on "The Checkered History of American Weapons Deals." [Link] 14 BBC on Osama-CIA links BBC reports that Bin Laden had CIA security training. [Link] 15 The New Jackals CIA source claims the CIA cut deals with Osama to arm him at rock bottom prices. From page 168 of Simon Reeve's book The new Jackals. [Link] 16 Osama and the MAK Contains information on Osama's position in the MAK and many other important pieces of information. [Link] 17 CIA and ISI involvement with heroin Contains information about the CIAs plan to get Soviet troops addicted to heroin. [Link] 18 CIA worked in tandem with Pakistan to create Taliban A leading South Asian expert from a prestigious American think tank outlines how the CIA and Pakistan created the Taliban. [Link] Read more at www.alqaedadoesntexist.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1ju89

Zbigniew Brzezinski Wrote the Neocon Plans for WW3

Read The Grand Chessboard

Amplify’d from infowars.wikia.com

Zbigniew Brzezinski served as United States National Security Advisor to United States President Jimmy Carter. In his 1970s book, Between Two Ages, he made the case for the formation of what would later be known as the Trilateral Commission, which he co-founded along with David Rockefeller.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, son of Polish diplomat Tadeusz Brzezinski, is known to bear wide open resentment against Russia[1] and considers his hostile anti-Soviet foreign policy strategy during the Carter administration to be among his crowning achievements as National Security Advisor.

Family Edit

Mika Brzezinski, daughter of Zbigniew Brzezinski. She is the co-host of the regular morning program, Morning Joe, along with Joe Scarborough. Zbigniew Brzezinski makes regular guest appearances on this program to comment on actual events.

Mark Brzezinski, son of Zbigniew Brzezinski, lawyer and foreign policy expert. He currently serves as foreign policy expert to President Barack Obama.

Ian Brzezinski, son of Zbigniew Brzezinski. He was a foreign policy advisor of John McCain during the 2008 Presidential Elections. He is currently a Principal at Booz Allen Hamilton.

Title

Date

Between Two Ages

1970

The Grand Chessboard

1998 Read more at infowars.wikia.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1jtin

1968 Democratic National Convention - Lessons for the Occupy Movement #ows

Amplify’d from en.wikipedia.org

1968 Democratic National Convention

The 1968 Democratic National Convention of the U.S. Democratic Party was held at the International Amphitheatre in Chicago, Illinois, from August 26 to August 29, 1968. Because Democratic President Lyndon Johnson had announced he would not seek a second term, the purpose of the convention was to select a new nominee to run as the Democratic Party’s candidate for the office.[1] The keynote speaker was Senator Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii).[2]

The convention was held during a year of violence, political turbulence, and civil unrest, particularly riots in more than 100 cities[3] following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. on April 4.[4] The convention also followed the assassination of Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Robert F. Kennedy, who had been murdered on June 5.[5] Both Kennedy and Senator Eugene McCarthy had been running against the eventual Democratic presidential nominee Hubert Humphrey.

Chicago's mayor, Richard J. Daley, intended to showcase his and the city's achievements to national Democrats and the news media. Instead, the proceedings became notorious for the large number of demonstrators and the use of force by the Chicago police during what was supposed to be, in the words of the Yippie activist organizers, “A Festival of Life.”[4] Rioting took place between demonstrators and the Chicago Police Department, who were assisted by the Illinois National Guard. The disturbances were well publicized by the mass media, with some journalists and reporters being caught up in the violence. Network newsmen Mike Wallace and Dan Rather were both roughed up by the Chicago police while inside the halls of the Democratic Convention.[6]

[edit] Protests and police response

Main article: 1968 Democratic National Convention protest activity

In 1967, the Yippie movement had already begun planning a youth festival in Chicago to coincide with the Democratic National Convention. They were not alone; other groups, such as Students For a Democratic Society and the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam, also made their presence known.[12] When asked about anti-war demonstrators, Daley kept repeating to reporters that “No thousands will come to our city and take over our streets, or city, our convention.”[13] In the end, 10,000 demonstrators gathered in Chicago for the convention where they were met by 23,000 police and National Guardsmen.[14] Daley also thought that one way to prevent demonstrators from coming to Chicago was to refuse to grant permits which would allow for people to protest legally.[15]

After the violence which took place at the Chicago convention, Daley claimed his primary reason for calling in so many Guardsmen and police was reports he received indicating the existence of plots to assassinate many of the leaders, including himself.[16]

While several protests had taken place before serious violence occurred, the events headed by the Yippies were not without comedy. Surrounded by reporters on August 23, 1968, Jerry Rubin, a Yippie leader, folk singer Phil Ochs, and other activists held their own presidential nominating convention with their candidate Pigasus, an actual pig. When the Yippies paraded Pigasus at the Civic Center, ten policemen arrested Rubin, Pigasus, and six others. This resulted in Pigasus becoming a media hit.[17]

[edit] The riot by Chicago police

August 28, 1968 came to be known as the day a “police riot” took place. The title of “police riot” came out of the Walker Report, which amassed a great deal of information and eyewitness accounts to determine what happened in Chicago.[15] At approximately 3:30 p.m., a young boy lowered the American flag at a legal rally taking place at Grant Park. The demonstration was made up of 10,000 protestors.[18] The police broke through the crowd and began beating the boy, while the crowd pelted the police with food, rocks, and chunks of concrete.[19] The biggest clash in Chicago took place that day. Police fought with the protestors and vice versa. The chants of the protestors shifted from “Hell no, we won’t go” to “Pigs are whores.”[20] Tom Hayden, one of the leaders of Students for a Democratic Society, encouraged protestors to move out of the park to ensure that if they were to be tear gassed, the whole city would be tear gassed, and made sure that if blood were spilled in Chicago it would happen throughout the city.[21] The amount of tear gas used to suppress the protestors was so great that it eventually made its way to the Hilton Hotel, where it disturbed Hubert Humphrey while in his shower.[20] The police were taunted by the protestors with chants of “Kill, kill, kill.” They sprayed demonstrators and bystanders indiscriminately with Mace.[22] The police assault in front of the Hilton Hotel became the most famous image of the Chicago demonstrations of 1968. The entire event took place live under the T.V. lights for seventeen minutes with the crowd shouting, “The whole world is watching.”[20]

Meanwhile, in the convention hall, Connecticut Senator Abraham Ribicoff used his nominating speech for George McGovern to tell of the violence going on outside the convention hall, saying that “with George McGovern we wouldn’t have Gestapo tactics on the streets of Chicago.”[23] Mayor Daley responded to his remark with something that the T.V. sound was not able to pick up, but it was later revealed by lip-readers that Daley had cursed “Fuck you, you Jew son of a bitch! You lousy motherfucker! Go home!”[24] That night, NBC News had been switching back and forth between the demonstrators being beaten by the police to the festivities over Humphrey’s victory in the convention hall.[25] It was under the cameras of the convention center, for all of America to see. It was clear that the Democratic party was sorely divided. After the Chicago protests, the demonstrators were confident that the majority of Americans would side with them over what had happened in Chicago, especially because of police behavior. They were shocked to learn that controversy over the war in Vietnam overshadowed their cause.[6] Daley claimed to have received 135,000 letters supporting his actions and only 5000 condemning them. Public opinion polls demonstrated that the majority of Americans supported the Mayor’s tactics.[26]

[edit] The Chicago Seven

After Chicago, the Justice Department meted out conspiracy and incitement to riot charges in connection with the violence at Chicago and gave birth to the Chicago Eight, which consisted of Abbie Hoffman, Tom Hayden, David Dellinger, Rennie Davis, John Froines, Jerry Rubin, Lee Weiner, and Bobby Seale.[27] Demonstrations were held daily during the trial and were organized by the Young Lords and the local Black Panther Party led by Chairman Fred Hampton. In February 1970, five of the Iowa Conspiracy defendants were convicted on the charge of intent to incite a riot while crossing state lines, but none were found guilty of conspiracy. Judge Julius Hoffman sentenced all of the defendants and their attorneys to unprecedented prison terms ranging from two-and-a-half months to four years for contempt of court. The convictions were eventually reversed on appeal, and the government declined to bring the case to trial again.[27]

Protests of 1968 Read more at en.wikipedia.org

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1jtid

America is an Undeniable Kleptocracy - Rule by Thieves #ows

Just ask the Koch brothers. Perhaps the 1% will confess with torture (ahem excuse me) enhanced interrogation technique.

Amplify’d from en.wikipedia.org

Kleptocracy

Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, (from Ancient Greek: κλέπτης (thief) and κράτος (rule), "rule by thieves") is a form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the wider population, often without pretense of honest service. This type of government corruption is often achieved by the embezzlement of state funds.

[edit] Characteristics

Kleptocracies are generally associated with corrupt forms of authoritarian governments, particularly dictatorships, oligarchies, military juntas, or some other forms of autocratic and nepotist government in which no outside oversight is possible, due to the ability of the kleptocrat(s) to personally control both the supply of public funds and the means of determining their disbursal. Kleptocratic rulers typically treat their country's treasury as though it were their own personal bank account, spending the funds on luxury goods as they see fit. Many kleptocratic rulers also secretly transfer public funds into secret personal numbered bank accounts in foreign countries in order to provide them with continued luxury if/when they are eventually removed from power and forced to flee the country.

Kleptocracy is most common in third-world countries where the economy (often as a legacy of colonialism) is dominated by resource extraction. Such incomes constitute a form of economic rent and are therefore easier to siphon off without causing the income itself to decrease (for example, due to capital flight as investors pull out to escape the high taxes levied by the kleptocrats).

[edit] Effects

The effects of a kleptocratic regime or government on a nation are typically adverse in regards to the faring of the state's economy, political affairs and civil rights. Kleptocracy in government often vitiates prospects of foreign investment and drastically weakens the domestic market and cross-border trade. As the kleptocracy normally embezzles money from its citizens by misusing funds derived from tax payments, or money laundering schemes, a kleptocratically structured political system tends to degrade nearly everyone's quality of life.

In addition, the money that kleptocrats steal is often taken from funds that were earmarked for public amenities, such as the building of hospitals, schools, roads, parks and the like - which has further adverse effects on the quality of life of the citizens living under a kleptocracy.[2] The quasi-oligarchy that results from a kleptocratic elite also subverts democracy (or any other political format the state is ostensibly under).[3]

[edit] Narcokleptocracy

A narcokleptocracy is a society ruled by "thieves" involved in the trade of narcotics.

The term has its origin in a report prepared by a subcommittee of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Massachusetts Senator John Kerry.[10] The term was used specifically to describe the regime of Manuel Noriega in Panama. Read more at en.wikipedia.org

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1jtbo