Deep Politics Monitor: October 2, 2011

Oct 2, 2011

The EU dream has turned into a nightmare

The euro project was always based on a colossal act of make-believe - and now it is unravelling.

From The Telegraph, 01 Oct 2011

It was hard to know – as the danse macabre of the euro spirals towards its devastating denouement – which of last week’s utterances and events was the maddest. First, there was the speech by European Commission President José Manuel Barroso, in which, after admitting that this was the worst crisis the EU had ever faced, he renewed his wish for it to impose a tax on “financial transactions”, to provide Brussels with what has been estimated by Open Europe, the independent think tank, at up to £70 billion a year.

Since Britain’s share of the EU’s financial markets is 72 per cent, the cost to the UK would thus be up to £50 billion. But that wouldn’t last long because, as the Commission itself admits, such a tax would soon send the financial industry fleeing out of the EU, destroying the biggest single earner in the UK economy.

George Osborne may be right in saying that Britain would veto Mr Barroso’s proposal. But the very fact that the ex-Maoist in charge of the Commission should suggest anything so suicidal is a measure of just how surreal this crisis is becoming.

Equally bizarre was the spectacle of Germany’s MPs defying the wishes of most of the German people by supporting the EU’s £380 billion bail-out fund, to pour much of it into the bottomless pit of Greek debt, which has reduced the Greek people to a state of catatonic trauma. The peoples of the EU’s richest and poorest countries are thus equally powerless in the face of what amounts to a bureaucratic dictatorship of unelected apparatchiks – who, in a vain bid to save their pet project, are now talking about the need for a further bail-out fund of £1.7 trillion,

The truth about the euro project is that it was always based on a colossal act of make-believe, launched in defiance of all economic and political reality. And as history and storytelling have shown us again and again, when human beings, individually or collectively, attempt to act out a fantasy, there is a very clear and identifiable pattern to what follows.

The “fantasy cycle”, as I have called it elsewhere, unfolds through five stages. The tragedy begins with the Anticipation Stage, when nervous energy tempts the protagonist into some enticingly hubristic course of action. Now we enter a Dream Stage, when for a while, all seems to go well. But because the fantasy defies the reality of the world around it, things move into a Frustration Stage, where it all starts to go wrong. This prompts those in the obsessive grip of the make-believe to push their fantasy even further out of touch with reality, leading them to the Nightmare Stage, where, as reality crowds in on them, everything goes wrong. This leads to the fifth and final stage: Nemesis, or an “explosion into reality”, where the fantasy destroys itself.

The story of the euro, as the supreme symbol of the lunatic drive to weld Europe together into a wholly undemocratic political union, is now entering its Nightmare Stage. People like Barroso predictably claim that the only way forward is more of the same: “more Europe”. We are witnessing the unfolding of one of the great archetypal patterns that shape human affairs, one we can compare to the story of the Sorcerer’s Apprentice. The EU’s leaders frenziedly rush about trying to stop their magic broomstick running amok, as it fills their house with ever more buckets full of debt. The hapless victim of the old fable was eventually saved by the return of the sorcerer, who knew the magic spell that could avert final disaster. In the case of the EU, there is no sorcerer. There seems to be no means by which Europe’s leaders can halt the chaos that now threatens to bring down the euro, much of the world’s financial system – and, ultimately, even the EU itself.

Clueless Huhne turns his back on the only way we’ll keep our lights on
With immaculate timing, our Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Chris Huhne, has again demonstrated why it is hard to think of any minister in history less fitted for his job. Last month, it was announced that 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas had been discovered, embedded in the shales under Lancashire, which could herald an energy resource even larger than North Sea oil and gas. Thanks to technical advances pioneered in the US, which already draws 20 per cent of its gas from shale, we might be looking at reserves big enough to power Britain’s economy for centuries to come.
Yet that same day, it was reported that Huhne had been telling an audience of Lib Dems that we must halt the “dash for gas”, because this would prevent us from meeting our commitment under the Climate Change Act to cut our CO2 emissions by 80 per cent within 40 years. He even cited approvingly an absurdly mendacious propaganda film produced by US global warming zealots vilifying shale gas.
So lost is Huhne in his green dreamworld that he somehow imagines that we can centre our future energy policy on building thousands of wind turbines. Faced with the discovery of vast reserves of cheap gas, any minister who knew his job would say: “Forget about those ludicrously expensive, inefficient and unreliable windmills, and go flat out for building enough gas-fired power stations to keep Britain’s lights on in the years ahead, when we will lose 14 coal-fired and nuclear power stations that currently supply 40 per cent of our average electricity needs.”
Of course, we are compelled to waste £140 billion on those wind turbines due to our commitment to the EU that by 2020 we will generate nearly a third of our electricity from “renewables”. But among the countless practical aspects of his job that Huhne clearly doesn’t begin to understand is that the more turbines we build, the more we will need new gas-fired power stations of the same capacity, just to provide instant back-up for all those times when there is insufficient wind to feed more than a derisory amount of power into the grid.
So we will have to build those gas-fired stations anyway – at vast expense, to be kept wastefully running all the time, emitting more CO2 than anything notionally saved by the wind farms – just to indulge the babyish dreams of Huhne and the EU. Crazier still, if Huhne manages to stop the exploitation of our new shale gas resources, he will be condemning us, as North Sea supplies run out, to importing ever more gas and oil from abroad, at a cost that a government report predicted in 2008 could soon be £40 billion a year.
So obsessed is Mr Huhne with all the fluffy rubbish associated with the “climate change” part of his job description that he has never shown the faintest sign of grasping the practicalities of the “energy” bit. He has become very much a luxury we cannot afford. But so too, it must be said, is our commitment to the EU to build those useless windmills.

Shouldn’t we now call it the BBCE?
IT IS SIX years since I noted here that Jeremy Paxman, on University Challenge, had joined the ranks of those seeking to avoid using the term “BC” by talking about “Before Common Era”. As everyone knows, except those working for what should now be called the “BBCE”, the trouble with this sad effort to avoid offending atheists such as Paxman by forcing them to use a dating system related to Jesus is that it immediately prompts the question: “So what is this ‘Common Era’ based on?”, which brings these poor sensitive souls right back to the point they wish to avoid. It reminds me of when my late colleague Paul Foot, a keen fan of the Bolshevik revolution, once claimed in print that 1917 was “the most important date in history”. I asked him: “1917 years after what?”

532 Comments

Götterdämmerung – Germany is finished

First published at Paper Money Collapse on Friday:

What disturbing and nauseating image greeted us this morning from the covers of the morning papers: a smiling and moved Angela Merkel surrounded by a bunch of suited, self-satisfied, sycophantically grinning parliamentarians happily signing their country’s economic future away, burdening their fellow countrymen and women with financial obligations the grotesque size of which have long ago surpassed the average German’s grasp of large numbers – all in the name of Germany’s “responsibility for Europe”, and for personal political ambition, a commitment to party unity, the impulse to follow orders, that sort of thing.
Glueckwunsch, gut gemacht.
The whole thing is surreal beyond belief.

What lie did I tell yesterday?

The “rule of law” is not an accurate translation for the German phrase “Rechtsstaat”. The difference is more than semantic and reveals very distinct legal traditions. In any case, it doesn’t matter anymore. Neither concept still applies to Germany. The political class is lying and breaking laws and contracts at will. Political expediency rules.
As the German professor Stefan Homburg pointed out in this interview with the German daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung, EVERY rule that was designed to guarantee the financial stability of the eurozone has now been broken: the Maastricht limits to public debt, the ban on government-funding via the ECB, the no-bail-out provision.
Frank Schaeffler, one of the few dissidents, reminded his fellow parliamentarians in his speech in the Bundestag yesterday, that Chancellor Merkel had told them as recently as October 27, 2010, that the bailout facility would definitely be terminated in 2013, and that this would be the end of it. That was obviously not true. And the statement yesterday that the German public will not be asked for more money was equally a blatant lie.
For just as Merkel’s spineless supporters smilingly threw another €250 billion ($330 billion) – or roughly 10 percent of Germany’s GDP – on the country’s ever-growing debt-pile, the international commentariat and the global bureaucratic elite had already moved on, openly suggesting and discussing their desire for a MUCH BIGGER bailout fund. The FT’s resident statist and inflationist Martin Wolf, who I quote here, is the perfect example. “Europe needs a much bigger bazooka.” Probably several trillion Euros.
Surreal. Surreal.
It is, of course, only a matter of time until Germany will lose its AAA-rating. Its obligations to the euro- project will undoubtedly finish it off fiscally. What’s the endgame?
Currency collapse, of course. Logically, in a system in which certain politically favoured entities are never supposed to default, the printing press is the last line of defence against the sustained onslaught of the laws of accounting and arithmetic. The pressure on the ECB – which has broken all of its own rules of good central banking already – will intensify. By leveraging the EFSF it will ultimately accommodate, via the printing press, the bailout of sovereign states – or, more precisely, the bailout of the careless lenders to states, the banks, which are the real beneficiaries of this bailout frenzy. This is Weimar Republic all over.
Professor Homburg is brutally honest. Government finances have never before been this bizarrely stretched at times of peace. So the best guide for what is in store for us is what happened at the height of war efforts. The state simply takes what it thinks it needs. We will see massive market intervention (several countries extended their bans on short-selling of certain stocks last week), capital controls (the financial transaction tax is a splendid starting point), aggressive taxation and outright confiscation.
In the final chapter of my book Paper Money Collapse – The Folly of Elastic Money and the Coming Monetary Breakdown I identify one of the final stages of a fiat money crisis as the nationalization of money and credit. We have entered that phase.

The short of the century?

Maybe there is a bit of (paper) money to be made from Germany’s demise by shorting German government bonds, Bunds, via the futures market, at least for as long as we are allowed to do so. I don’t have the trade on yet but I am getting closer. I think this will soon be the short of the century, combined with shorting U.S. Treasuries. Hedge funds and banks are getting sucked into extreme long positions right now via free money from the central banks and promises of zero rates forever, and the persistence of the cretinous notion that these government bond markets constitute safe havens. When the extent of Germany’s fiscal destruction is fully apparent, the market will turn.
At present prices, I consider gold to be ridiculously cheap.
And one final word to my English friends. No gloating please about the clever decision to stay out of the euro-mess. You have the same thing coming your way without the euro. The coalition’s consolidation course is apparently so ruthless that every month the state has to borrow MORE, not less. Even official inflation is already 5% but pressure is growing on the Bank of England to print more money. See the comical Vince Cable yesterday, or Martin Wolf, the man with the bazooka, in the FT today. Since 1971 the paper money system has been global. Its endgame will be global, too.
Back to Germany’s professor Homburg. Is there a way out for the common man?, the professor was asked by the interviewer. No, he said. Best to adopt a Buddhist attitude and learn how to be happy when poor.
On that note, have a great weekend!
_________

Related:
Currency Revulsion

US Government Accused of Seeking to Conceal Deal Cut With Sinaloa “Cartel”

From Narconews, October 1, 2011
by Bill Conroy

Lawyers for Alleged Narco-Boss Zambada Niebla Claim Prosecutors Suppressing Evidence By Invoking National Security
The criminal case against accused Mexican narco-trafficker Jesus Vicente Zambada Niebla now appears to be threatening to unravel the U.S. government’s ugly national-security interests in the drug war.
Zambada Niebla, son of one of the leaders of the Sinaloa “Cartel,” arguably the most powerful international narco-trafficking organization on the planet, argues in his criminal case, now pending in federal court in Chicago, that he and the leadership of Mexico’s Sinaloa drug-trafficking organization, were, in effect, working for the U.S. government for years by providing US agents with intelligence about rival drug organizations.
In exchange for that cooperation, Zambada Neibla contends, the US government granted the leadership of the Sinaloa “Cartel” immunity from prosecution for their criminal activities — including the narco-trafficking charges he now faces in Chicago.
The government, in court pleadings filed last month, denies that claim but at the same time has filed a motion in the case seeking to invoke the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), a measure designed to assure national security information does not become public during court proceedings.
To date, the US mainstream media has been completely silent on the US government’s effort to invoke CIPA in the Zambada Niebla case; so, kind readers, Narco News is the only authentic news publication providing you with the scoop.

In a motion filed with the court earier this week, on Sept. 29, Zambada Niebla’s attorneys argue that the government, in essence, is trying to suppress evidence critical to their client’s defense by seeking to invoke CIPA at a critical point in the court proceedings.
Zambada Niebla’s lawyers claim that the prosecution has, at this point, withheld evidence it is required to provide to the defense and is now attempting to cover its tracks and assure that evidence remains cloaked by arguing that it affects US national security.
Zambada Niebla’s attorneys, as part of their recent pleadings, are now asking the court for additional time to prepare their rebuttal to the government’s contention that Zambada Niebla was not operating under US-sanctioned immunity. The attorneys are asking the judge to delay the rebuttal deadline, now set for Oct. 17, until after the CIPA procedures are in place so that their client has access to the classified evidence necessary to prepare his defense.
CIPA, enacted some 30 years ago, is designed to keep a lid on the public disclosure in criminal cases of classified materials, such as details associated with clandestine FBI or CIA operations. The rule requires that notice be given to the judge in advance of any move to introduce classified evidence in a case so that the judge can determine if it is admissible, or if another suitable substitution can be arranged that preserves the defendants right to a fair trial.
From Zambia’s court pleadings filed on Sept. 29:

The defense cannot adequately respond to the government’s oppositions and support its motions without first understanding the nature, scope, and substance of the classified information in the possession of the government. The government’s obligation to produce documents is not limited to those in the possession of the DOJ [Department of Justice] and FBI, but includes documents in the possession, custody, and control other agencies, including the CIA, DEA, ATF, ICE, IRS, NSA [National Security Agency], and the Department of Justice OCDETF [Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force].
... These agencies alone have relevant and material information to establish that they had knowledge that the leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel were allowed to engage in drug trafficking activity but did nothing to prevent the trafficking or to arrest those leaders.
The defense here will be disadvantaged if required to file replies before the CIPA process has been initiated, much less completed, because it will not have the benefit of the very information that supports its motions.

Colombia Redux?

At the heart of Zamada Niebla’s defense is a Mexican attorney named Humberto Loya Castro, who, both the US government and Zambada Niebla agree, has worked as a contracted cooperating source, an informant, for the US government since at least 2005.
Loya Castro, according to Zambada Niebla’s court pleadings, served as an intermediary between US government agents (including the DEA and FBI) and the leadership of the Sinaloa organization — which includes Zambada Niebla; his father Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada Garcia; and the top capo of the Sinaloa drug organization, Joaquin Guzman Loera (Chapo).
“The central contention of all of [Zambada Niebla’s] motions is that Humberto Loya Castro, a high-ranking member of the Sinaloa Cartel, entered into an agreement on behalf of the Cartel lincluding the defendant Zambada Niebla] with several agencies of the United States Government to serve as an informant against rival Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations,” Zambada Niebla’s recently filed court pleadings allege. “In return for the information he [Zambada Niebla] and others provided, the government agreed it would not share any of the information that it had about the Sinaloa Cartel and/or the leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel with the Mexican government in order to ensure that the Cartel’s operations would not be disrupted and its leaders would not be apprehended.
“In addition, the government extended [Zambada Niebla and the leadership of the Sinaloa organization] immunity for [their] activities on behalf of the Cartel as a result of his cooperation. [As a result,] information related to the government’s use of sources, the methods implemented to combat international drug conspiracies, and inter-governmental cooperation regarding those efforts inevitably raises national security issues.”
In this case, Zambada Niebla seems to have some history on his side that shows there is precedent for US law enforcement and intelligence agencies making use of an intermediary (the role allegedly played by Loya Castro) to negotiate quid-pro-quo deals with foreign narco-traffickers.
Baruch Vega is a colorful Colombian who has worked as an asset for the FBI, DEA and CIA, among other agencies, over the years.
Vega was very involved with a series of U.S. law enforcement operations carried out by the DEA and FBI between 1997 and 2000. Those operations, Vega claims, involved serving as an intermediary in brokering deals with Colombian narco-traffickers by offering them the bait of U.S.-government sanctioned sweetheart plea deals in return for their surrender or cooperation.

The following is from a lawsuit Vega filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in which he alleges the government failed to pay him for his high-risk services, to the tune of some $28.5 million:

Once Mr. Vega introduced … American lawyers to the Colombian targets [the narco-traffickers], the lawyers would then get retained and then take over as legal representatives for the Colombian targets and further deal with a group of United States law enforcement agents and prosecutors, hand-picked to work out deals for the Colombian targets. A particular United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida became the coordinator of this “recruiting effort.”

According to Vega, who has spoken with Narco News numerous times over the past several years, between late 1997 and 2000, he traveled between South Florida and South America via a private jet for a total of some 25 to 30 confidential-source “recruiting” trips — some with FBI agents on board, some with DEA agents on board, and some transporting Colombian narco-traffickers who were being brought back to the United States to negotiate deals.
Vega adds that the FBI and DEA were each running their own separate operations at the time, so the FBI also was involved in some of the confidential source recruiting trips to South America as well, and he says the Bureau “even paid for the [leased] plane a few times.”
Narco News obtained an internal DEA PowerPoint presentation outlining one variation of Vega’s narco-trafficker recruiting scheme, which played out in the late 1980s but, according to law enforcement sources, was likely still in use as late as 2000. The DEA PowerPoint described the operation, called Gambit, as follows:

In an effort to gather intelligence in 1987, a FBI Special Agent was introduced as a corrupt FBI agent to Colombian Cartel traffickers by FBI confidential source Baruch Vega. The intent was to convince Cartel leadership that the “corrupt” agent could effect the early release of key Cartel members [light sentences] who would be incarcerated in the U.S.
Vega was allowed by FBI agents to keep “corruption scheme” fees that were collected from the traffickers. An important feature of this operation was that Vega’s expenses were funded by the traffickers, which defrayed the FBI’s investigative expenses. According to Vega, the element of substantial bribes enhanced the credibility of the “corruption scheme.”

A judge’s ruling in another legal case that is related to Vega’s lawsuit also confirms his role as a foreign counterintelligence source involved in high-level deal-making with narco-traffickers on behalf of multiple US agencies. It describes the CIA’s involvement in one flight in 1999 that departed from Panama for Florida that involved Vega, federal agents and an indicted, fugitive Colombian narco-trafficker:

Indeed, the appellant [a DEA supervisor] used the CIA to bring [Colombian narco-trafficker] Mr. Cristancho to the chartered aircraft surreptitiously, without going through Panamanian airport security or customs. … And, an Assistant U.S. Attorney and various DEA agents … were at the Fort Lauderdale airport to greet the plane.
… Both the DEA and FBI used Vega as a confidential source. The FBI specified that Vega would be a "non-testifier.” That is, he would never be used to testify in criminal trials. This status was necessary because Vega was called a “FCI-CI” or Foreign Counterintelligence Service Confidential Informant, who had been brought in by the CIA. As the appellant [a DEA supervisor] put it, “I'm having my agents cut him out every chance they can. I don't want him documented. I don't want him in our Case File any more than we have to."
The trips to Panama at issue here were confidential source recruiting trips. The plan was for Mr. Vega to “introduce” [a DEA agent working under the DEA supervisor] to drug traffickers and then to get out of there, so he would be in no position to have to testify regarding what conversations, if any, took place.

Vega’s lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims was ultimately dismissed on a technicality, with the judge ruling that the statute he invoked in his case “does not authorize compensation for information provided to the DEA or FBI concerning the drug or narcotics investigation alleged in the complaint.”
Still, it seems clear that Vega’s participation in the Colombian operations, essentially a government-sanction extortion scheme, is evidence that the US agencies have cut deals with narco-traffickers in the past similar to the pact Zambada Niebla now alleges exists between the US government and Sinaloa “Cartel” leadership.

Fast and Furious

But Vega’s extortion scheme is not the only point of nexus between Zambada Niebla’s claims and other government operations.
Zamada Niebla’s case also intersects with the recently imploded ATF operation dubbed Fast and Furious — in which the federal agency is accused of allowing gun-traffickers, primarily associated with the Sinaloa criminal organization, to smuggle some 2,000 high-power weapons into Mexico unimpeded. Multiple law enforcers who spoke with Narco News says there is no sane, what’s more justifiable, law-enforcement purpose for allowing thousands of deadly illegally-purchased weapons to freely move across the border into Mexico where they can no longer be tracked by US agents.
Zambada Niebla, who has been incarcerated in Chicago’s Metropolitan Correctional Center since being extradited from Mexico in February 2010, raises the Fast and Furious debacle in his court pleadings, arguing, essentially, that the operation is proof of the US government’s cooperation deal with the Sinaloa “Cartel” leadership.
As a result of Operation Fast and Furious, Zambada Niebla's pleadings assert, about “three thousand people” in Mexico were killed, “including law enforcement officers in the sate of Sinaloa, Mexico, headquarters of the Sinaloa Cartel.”
Among those receiving weapons through the botched ATF operation, the pleadings continue, were DEA and FBI informants working for drug organizations, including the leadership of those groups.
“The evidence seems to indicate that the Justice Department not only allowed criminals to smuggle weapons, but that tax payers’ dollars in the form of informant payments, may have financed those engaging in such activities,” the pleadings allege. “… It is clear that some of the weapons were deliberately allowed by the FBI and other government representatives to end up in the hands of the Sinaloa Cartel and that among the people killed by those weapons were law enforcement officers.

“… Mr. Zambada Niebla believes that the documentation that he requests [from the US government] will confirm that the weapons received by Sinaloa Cartel members and its leaders in Operation ‘Fast & Furious’ were provided under the agreement entered into between the United States government and [Sinaloa organization lawyer] Mr. Loya Castro on behalf of the Sinaloa Cartel….”
Earlier this week, information surfaced as part of an ongoing Congressional probe into Fast and Furious that indicates agents with the FBI’s Las Cruces, NM, office and with DEA’s office in Juarez, Mexico, were aware that an individual, now an FBI informant, was actually financing the purchase of many of the Fast and Furious weapons allowed to “walk,” or move freely, into Mexico by the ATF. However, those FBI and DEA agents, and their supervisors, allegedly failed to inform ATF of the informant’s role in the gun purchases – many of which involved the Sinaloa “Cartel.”
From a Sept. 27 letter drafted by U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa and U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley and directed to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr.:

The main target of Operation Fast and Furious from its inception … was Manuel Celis-Acosta.
… FBI personnel in its Las Cruces, New Mexico, office apparently knew that the subject of a separate DEA investigation was ordering weapons from Acosta in January 2010. Yet around the same time, the subject of that [DEA] investigation received more than $3,500 in official law enforcement funds as payment for illegal narcotics. That subject – apparently the financier for Acosta’s firearms trafficking ring – later began cooperating with the FBI and may have received additional payments as a confidential informant (CI#1).
… According to confidential sources, over a two-year period CI#1 had contacted several DEA agents, including Juarez, Mexico Resident Agent in Charge Jim Roberts, and passed information to these agents about Mexican drug cartels. If the information we have obtained is accurate, DEA had knowledge of CI#1’s activities going back to at least early 2009 [some six months before the launch of Fast and Furious]. … [Due to] the apparent failure to share information about the source (CI#1), ATF was allegedly unaware that DEA and FBI knew CI#1 was ordering weapons from Acosta, the target of Operation Fast and Furious.
This failure to share vital information may have extended the use of gun walking [allowing weapons to flow into Mexico, resulting in as yet not tallied bloodshed] during Operation Fast and Furious, which sought to identify the higher-ups, like CI#1, who were paying for the weapons.…”

It is important to note again that most of the weapons allowed to cross from the US unimpeded into Mexico by ATF’s Fast and Furious were going to the Sinaloa "Cartel," according to a report issued in July by Issa and Grassley.
So, given Zambada Niebla's claim ithat “some of the [Fast and Furious] weapons were deliberately allowed by the FBI and other government representatives to end up in the hands of the Sinaloa "Cartel,” it seems his attorneys may want to pose some serious questions to witnesses suspected of having knowledge of that alleged act, including DEA’s Roberts, as well as the special agent in charge of the FBI’s New Mexico operations, Carol K.O. Lee and the U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, Kenneth J. Gonzales.
Such a prospect can’t be very uplifting for the prosecution in Zambada Niebla’s case and might explain, in part, why there is an effort afoot by the US law-enforcement and intelligence officials to cloak the revelations, the evidence, that might surface in the case under the seal of national security.
The future of the for-profit prohibition industry and the drug-war pretense that props it up could well depend on assuring that the public remains in the dark.
Stay tuned…..

Narco News past coverage of the Zambada Niebla case can be found at these links:
• US Prosecutors Fear Jailbreak Plot by Sinaloa “Cartel” Leader Zambada Niebla
• Mexican Narco-Trafficker’s Revelation Exposes Drug War’s Duplicity
• ATF’s Fast and Furious Seems Colored With Shades of Iran/Contra Scandal
• US Court Documents Claim Sinaloa “Cartel” Is Protected by US Government
• US Government Informant Helped Sinaloa Narcos Stay Out of Jail
• Court Pleadings Point to CIA Role in Alleged “Cartel” Immunity Deal

"You Peasants ARE so Tiring, all You do is BITCH About Your Empty Stomachs"

From Goon Squad

by Greg Bacon

BAILOUT MADNESS - Wall Street Socialist Millionaires Mock Protesters While Drinking Champagne

Popout
"All you peasants do is whine, moan and groan."

"I lost my house,' or 'I can't feed my family," or "I can't afford to take my child to the doctor."

TOUGH SHIT. We don't want to hear your whining, get back to work at your minimum wage job--if you still have a job--and be thankful we don't call OUR police and have you tossed in jail, you morons.

But we're not completely heartless, if your kids are hungry, have then dig around in the trash cans behind out $25 million dollar penthouse, I'm sure there's some left over pâté de foie gras & imported Russian caviar we threw in the garbage.
Talk about irony. The millionaires at 55 Wall Street (who live well thanks to taxpayer bailouts) drink champagne and mock the 'Occupy Wall Street' protesters below, many of whom are strident capitalists demanding an end to stealth Wall Street bailouts by the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

Who occupies 55 Wall Street? The sprawling, historic Manhattan building is home to the Ciprion Club Residences, a private club as well as residence to Wall Street's élite.

Gathered on the balconies of this home of the rich, men in suits and tuxedos as well as women in silk dresses and business suits, casually sipped on their glasses while smiling and taking pictures, seemingly oblivious to the fight of the 99 percent.
Comparing 2012 Campaign Contributions For Obama, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney - Goldman Sachs Dominates

Like 'Cherie' Antoinette Obama says, "Let them eat cake."

Michelle Obama dazzles in $42,159 Diamond Bracelets at DNC fundraiser

SaveYourASSetsFirst	*Top Notch Gun Training from FrontSight*	*Custom Vinyl Banners*

Vamose! Emigrate Now, Avoid the Rush		More great deals at The Prepper's Shop

Disclaimer

This website must be presented as fiction. What is described on this website could never occur. Anyone stating otherwise can be publicly discredited, imprisoned, institutionalized, forcibly medicated, harassed (even electromagnetically and/or administratively), declared "enemy combatant", "Domestic Extremist”, or “terrorist sympathizer”, and indefinitely detained without charge or trial, sent to some torture hellhole abroad, or just murdered, either on (a supposedly legal) presidential mandate, or not.

Latests: