Citizens' Oversight Maryland---Maryland Progressives
CINDY WALSH FOR MAYOR OF BALTIMORE----SOCIAL DEMOCRAT
Citizens Oversight Maryland.com
  • Home
  • Cindy Walsh for Mayor of Baltimore
    • Mayoral Election violations
    • Questionnaires from Community >
      • Education Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Housing Questionnaire
      • Emerging Youth Questionnaire
      • Health Care policy for Baltimore
      • Environmental Questionnaires
      • Livable Baltimore questionnaire
      • Labor Questionnnaire
      • Ending Food Deserts Questionnaire
      • Maryland Out of School Time Network
      • LBGTQ Questionnaire
      • Citizen Artist Baltimore Mayoral Forum on Arts & Culture Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Transit Choices Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Activating Solidarity Economies (BASE)
      • Downtown Partnership Questionnaire
      • The Northeast Baltimore Communities Of BelAir Edison Community Association (BECCA )and Frankford Improvement Association, Inc. (FIA)
      • Streets and Transportation/Neighbood Questionnaire
      • African American Tourism and business questionnaire
      • Baltimore Sun Questionnaire
      • City Paper Mayoral Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Technology Com Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Biker's Questionnair
      • Homewood Friends Meeting Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Historical Collaboration---Anthem Project
      • Tubman City News Mayoral Questionnaire
      • Maryland Public Policy Institute Questionnaire
      • AFRO questionnaire
      • WBAL Candidate's Survey
  • Blog
  • Trans Pacific Pact (TPP)
  • Progressive vs. Third Way Corporate Democrats
    • Third Way Think Tanks
  • Financial Reform/Wall Street Fraud
    • Consumer Financial Protection Bureau >
      • CFPB Actions
    • Voted to Repeal Glass-Steagall
    • Federal Reserve >
      • Federal Reserve Actions
    • Securities and Exchange Commission >
      • SEC Actions
    • Commodity Futures Trading Commission >
      • CFTC Actions
    • Office of the Comptroller of the Currency >
      • OCC Actions
    • Office of Treasury/ Inspector General for the Treasury
    • FINRA >
      • FINRA ACTIONS
  • Federal Healthcare Reform
    • Health Care Fraud in the US
    • Health and Human Services Actions
  • Social Security and Entitlement Reform
    • Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP Actions
  • Federal Education Reform
    • Education Advocates
  • Government Schedules
    • Baltimore City Council
    • Maryland State Assembly >
      • Budget and Taxation Committee
    • US Congress
  • State and Local Government
    • Baltimore City Government >
      • City Hall Actions
      • Baltimore City Council >
        • Baltimore City Council Actions
      • Baltimore Board of Estimates meeting >
        • Board of Estimates Actions
    • Governor's Office >
      • Telling the World about O'Malley
    • Lt. Governor Brown
    • Maryland General Assembly Committees >
      • Communications with Maryland Assembly
      • Budget and Taxation Committees >
        • Actions
        • Pension news
      • Finance Committees >
        • Schedule
      • Business Licensing and Regulation
      • Judicial, Rules, and Nominations Committee
      • Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee >
        • Committee Actions
    • Maryland State Attorney General >
      • Open Meetings Act
      • Maryland Courts >
        • Maryland Court System
    • States Attorney - Baltimore's Prosecutor
    • State Comptroller's Office >
      • Maryland Business Tax Reform >
        • Business Tax Reform Issues
  • Maryland Committee Actions
    • Board of Public Works >
      • Public Works Actions
    • Maryland Public Service Commission >
      • Public Meetings
    • Maryland Health Care Commission/Maryland Community Health Resources Commission >
      • MHCC/MCHRC Actions
    • Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition
  • Maryland and Baltimore Development Organizations
    • Baltimore/Maryland Development History
    • Committee Actions
    • Maryland Development Organizations
  • Maryland State Department of Education
    • Charter Schools
    • Public Schools
    • Algebra Project Award
  • Baltimore City School Board
    • Charter Schools >
      • Charter Schools---Performance
      • Charter School Issues
    • Public Schools >
      • Public School Issues
  • Progressive Issues
    • Fair and Balanced Elections
    • Labor Issues
    • Rule of Law Issues >
      • Rule of Law
    • Justice issues 2
    • Justice Issues
    • Progressive Tax Reform Issues >
      • Maryland Tax Reform Issues
      • Baltimore Tax Reform Issues
    • Strong Public Education >
      • Corporate education reform organizations
    • Healthcare for All Issues >
      • Universal Care Bill by state
  • Building Strong Media
    • Media with a Progressive Agenda (I'm still checking on that!) >
      • anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com
      • "Talk About It" Radio - WFBR 1590AM Baltimore
      • Promethius Radio Project
      • Clearing the Fog
      • Democracy Now
      • Black Agenda Radio
      • World Truth. TV Your Alternative News Network.
      • Daily Censured
      • Bill Moyers Journal
      • Center for Public Integrity
      • Public Radio International
      • Baltimore Brew
      • Free Press
    • Far Left/Socialist Media
    • Media with a Third Way Agenda >
      • MSNBC
      • Center for Media and Democracy
      • Public Radio and TV >
        • NPR and MPT News
      • TruthOut
  • Progressive Organizations
    • Political Organizations >
      • Progressives United
      • Democracy for America
    • Labor Organizations >
      • United Workers
      • Unite Here Local 7
      • ROC-NY works to build power and win justice
    • Justice Organizations >
      • APC Baltimore
      • Occupy Baltimore
    • Rule of Law Organizations >
      • Bill of Rights Defense Committee
      • National Lawyers Guild
      • National ACLU
    • Tax Reform Organizations
    • Healthcare for All Organizations >
      • Healthcare is a Human Right - Maryland
      • PNHP Physicians for a National Health Program
      • Healthcare NOW- Maryland
    • Public Education Organizations >
      • Parents Across America
      • Philadelphia Public School Notebook thenotebook.org
      • Chicago Teachers Union/Blog
      • Ed Wize Blog
      • Educators for a Democratic Union
      • Big Education Ape
    • Elections Organizations >
      • League of Women Voters
  • Progressive Actions
    • Labor Actions
    • Justice Actions
    • Tax Reform Actions >
      • Baltimore Tax Actions
      • Maryland Tax Reform Actions
    • Healthcare Actions
    • Public Education Actions
    • Rule of Law Actions >
      • Suing Federal and State government
    • Free and Fair Elections Actions
  • Maryland/Baltimore Voting Districts - your politicians and their votes
    • 2014 ELECTION OF STATE OFFICES
    • Maryland Assembly/Baltimore
  • Petitions, Complaints, and Freedom of Information Requests
    • Complaints - Government and Consumer >
      • Sample Complaints
    • Petitions >
      • Sample Petitions
    • Freedom of Information >
      • Sample Letters
  • State of the Democratic Party
  • Misc
    • WBFF TV
    • WBAL TV
    • WJZ TV
    • WMAR TV
    • WOLB Radio---Radio One
    • The Gazette
    • Baltimore Sun Media Group
  • Misc 2
    • Maryland Public Television
    • WYPR
    • WEAA
    • Maryland Reporter
  • Misc 3
    • University of Maryland
    • Morgan State University
  • Misc 4
    • Baltimore Education Coalition
    • BUILD Baltimore
    • Church of the Great Commission
    • Maryland Democratic Party
    • Pennsylvania Avenue AME Zion Church
    • Maryland Municipal League
    • Maryland League of Women Voters
  • Untitled
  • Untitled
  • Standard of Review
  • Untitled
  • WALSH FOR GOVERNOR - CANDIDATE INFORMATION AND PLATFORM
    • Campaign Finance/Campaign donations
    • Speaking Events
    • Why Heather Mizeur is NOT a progressive
    • Campaign responses to Community Organization Questionnaires
    • Cindy Walsh vs Maryland Board of Elections >
      • Leniency from court for self-representing plaintiffs
      • Amended Complaint
      • Plaintiff request for expedited trial date
      • Response to Motion to Dismiss--Brown, Gansler, Mackie, and Lamone
      • Injunction and Mandamus
      • DECISION/APPEAL TO SPECIAL COURT OF APPEALS---Baltimore City Circuit Court response to Cindy Walsh complaint >
        • Brief for Maryland Court of Special Appeals >
          • Cover Page ---yellow
          • Table of Contents
          • Table of Authorities
          • Leniency for Pro Se Representation
          • Statement of Case
          • Questions Presented
          • Statement of Facts
          • Argument
          • Conclusion/Font and Type Size
          • Record Extract
          • Appendix
          • Motion for Reconsideration
          • Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss
          • Motion to Reconsider Dismissal
      • General Election fraud and recount complaints
    • Cindy Walsh goes to Federal Court for Maryland election violations >
      • Complaints filed with the FCC, the IRS, and the FBI
      • Zapple Doctrine---Media Time for Major Party candidates
      • Complaint filed with the US Justice Department for election fraud and court irregularities.
      • US Attorney General, Maryland Attorney General, and Maryland Board of Elections are charged with enforcing election law
      • Private media has a responsibility to allow access to all candidates in an election race. >
        • Print press accountable to false statement of facts
      • Polling should not determine a candidate's viability especially if the polling is arbitrary
      • Viability of a candidate
      • Public media violates election law regarding do no damage to candidate's campaign
      • 501c3 Organizations violate election law in doing no damage to a candidate in a race >
        • 501c3 violations of election law-----private capital
      • Voter apathy increases when elections are not free and fair
  • Maryland Board of Elections certifies election on July 10, 2014
  • Maryland Elections ---2016

March 31st, 2018

3/31/2018

0 Comments

 
We will end this week's discussion about public policy tied to citizens' voice and space and our duty as 99% WE THE PEOPLE to hold accountable with oversight and justice those elected politicians and their appointments----that is what CITIZENSHIP entails. It is enshrined in our US Constitution and Bill of Rights and any policies or laws that BLOCK AND MAKE IMPOSSIBLE that civic duty is ILLEGAL and can be VOIDED. MOVING FORWARD US CITIES as FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES and its goals are just that ILLEGAL BLOCKING of our civic duties.


We always try to bring our global banking 1% FREEMASON STARS this time literary Dan Brown to see the patterns by CREATIVE ARTS controlled by global banking 1% set the societal FADS decades before the policies start to fall into place. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand the goals of SMART CITY are TOTALITARIAN and REPRESSIVE. We can understand that placing all that is CIVIC-----government, business and economic development, education, communications and media all online and digital at the same time building ONE WORLD ONE TECHNOLOGY GRID in ways that will make it impossible for any 99% of WE THE PEOPLE to access it-----one snap of the fingers and global Google and internet are gone with the wind for all but the global 1%.


One thing our national and international media send out as news over and over is -------nations all around the world are becoming more far-right, authoritarian, militaristic, extreme wealth extreme poverty -----you know FAR-RIGHT LIBERTARIAN MARXISM.   Indeed, global banking 1% have Russia, China and Asian nations, Arabic and African nations, Latin America and US/Canada/Europe all becoming AUTHORITARIAN.  This article wants to pretend that misogyny is coming from this Chinese leader when in fact the far-right wing authoritarian militaristic dictatorships are ALWAYS SUBJUGATING WOMEN.  That is why CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA and global banking are filling our 5% candidates and organization leaders with HILLARY NASTY WOMEN.


China is taking a lead in SMART CITIES because it is DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE perfect with closing 99% of Chinese citizens into DARK AGES authoritarianism---United Nations and CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA have these few decades been BFF to these global 1% Chinese loving that ONE PARTY AUTHORITARIAN RULE. Really think US CITIES AS FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE SMART CITIES will be different?   


Global Opinions


Xi Jinping’s authoritarian rise in China has been powered by sexism


by Leta Hong Fincher by Leta Hong Fincher
Global Opinions
March 1

Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing on Aug. 1, 2017. (Andy Wong/AP)
Leta Hong Fincher is the author of “Leftover Women: The Resurgence of Gender Inequality” and the forthcoming “Betraying Big Brother: The Feminist Awakening in China.”



China’s strongman authoritarianism under President Xi Jinping has taken an alarming turn for the worse. With Sunday’s announcement that China’s Communist Party will abolish presidential term limits, Xi is poised to stay in office beyond the end of his second term and likely be China’s paramount ruler for many years to come.


There are many reasons that China’s modern Communist Party has survived for almost 70 years, in spite of the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and elsewhere in Eastern Europe. But it is impossible to understand the longevity of China’s Communist Party without recognizing the patriarchal underpinnings of its authoritarianism. In short, China’s ultimate strongman, Xi, like other autocrats around the world, views patriarchal authoritarianism as critical for the survival of the Communist Party.


For the first several years of his presidency (until early 2016), Xi was quite literally called Xi Dada — “Big Daddy Xi” — in the state media, which built up a personality cult around him the likes of which had not been seen since the 1966-1976 Cultural Revolution, under Chairman Mao Zedong. This language celebrates Xi for his manliness and upholds the male-dominated family as the basic foundation of a strong and stable state. Propaganda images depict Xi  as the father of the Chinese nation in a “family-state under heaven” (jia guo tian xia). When Xi became president, pop and hip-hop songs emerged idolizing him not just as a father but as an ideal husband, too, such as “Be a Man Like Xi Dada” and one of the most popular songs of all, “If You Want to Marry, Marry Someone Like Xi Dada.”

The Communist Party aggressively perpetuates traditional gender norms and reduces women to their roles as reproductive tools for the state, dutiful wives, mothers and baby breeders in the home, in order to minimize social unrest and give birth to future generations of skilled workers. The party also is carrying out an unprecedented crackdown on feminist activists because China’s all-male rulers seem to think that China’s entire security state would collapse were it not for the subjugation of women.


Xi’s hypermasculine personality cult became so extreme that some Communist Party officials felt it had gone too far and in 2016 urged the state media to drop the term “Xi Dada.” Nonetheless, Chinese state media continue to present the nation as one big family, which needs strong, manly leadership in the form of Xi, the paternalistic patriarch.


Yet just how strong is this strongman in reality? Behind macho propaganda videos, Xi’s hold on power is much more fragile than it appears.


The Chinese government’s backlash against feminism, ever since the arrest of five women known as the Feminist Five in 2015, is a form of state-level, fragile masculinity, terrified at the prospect of emancipated women rising up to challenge the Communist Party’s political legitimacy. Under Xi’s leadership, Chinese authorities have carried out an unprecedented crackdown on feminist activists, making “feminism” a politically sensitive word and even making the #MeToo hashtag against sexual harassment subject to frequent censorship.

China’s economy has entered a protracted slowdown just as the country is beginning to face the severe demographic crisis of an aging population and a shrinking workforce. By most accounts, China’s decades-long “economic miracle” of double-digit growth rates is over. In response to the slowdown, Chinese propaganda under Xi’s leadership has revived sexist elements of Confucianism, in particular trying to push the notion that a traditional family (based on marriage between a man and a virtuous, obedient woman) is the foundation of a stable government.

For example, the official Xinhua news agency ran a long article last year about Xi and traditional “family values” (jiafeng). The article points out that the Chinese word for family (jia) is also part of the compound word for nation (guojia): “Xi Jinping has often stressed the importance of family values. He says ‘little family’ but he has in mind the ‘big family’ [the nation],”  Xinhua said.



Meanwhile, in almost 70 years of Chinese Communist history, there has never been a single woman on the Politburo’s elite Standing Committee. Why? I believe that China’s all-male rulers have decided that the systematic subjugation of women is essential to maintaining Communist Party survival. As this battle for party survival becomes even more intense, the crackdown on feminism and women’s rights — indeed, on all of civil society — is likely to intensify.

This trend is very dangerous for the rest of the world as well, since it is already happening in other authoritarian countries such as the Philippines, Russia, Iran and Turkey, with misogynistic “strongmen” who are rolling back women’s rights as an integral part of their authoritarian repression. We see it even in the United States, with rising authoritarianism and the undermining of long-established democratic norms wrapped up in a strong backlash against feminism.


How do we fight rising authoritarianism in China and around the world? By fighting the patriarchy. Supporting feminist activists and promoting women’s rights are the most effective way to stop the growing, misogynistic assault on democratic freedoms globally.

______
____________________________________


We have to give the #1 OLD WORLD GLOBAL BANKING 1% journal TIME MAGAZINE credit for consistency------China does capitalism better than US. China's global 1% are millionaires now billionaires because CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA moved our US corporations to Foreign Economic Zones and created artificial 'capitalism' -----this was not built by Chinese communists. US 99% WE THE PEOPLE know last century's thriving best in world history real free market capitalism was driven by left social progressive capitalism----what was built in America was taken to China to make China appear to have a functioning authoritarian capitalism.

We want to simply make clear---MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----is MADE IN CHINA MADE IN AMERICA. There is no intention of democratizing or liberalizing China---China is going to extreme authoritarianism ---extreme wealth and extreme poverty. Chinese news say the 99% just love that COMMUNISM----same as North Korean news----just as 99% WE THE PEOPLE have loved CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA-----same FAKE POLLING.


Moving hundreds of trillions of US wealth to Chinese Foreign Economic Zones with massive and systemic frauds----oh, yeah that's the best kind of capitalism.


Why China Does Capitalism Better than the U.S.
By Tony Karon Thursday, Jan. 20, 2011


One of the great ironies revealed by the global recession that began in 2008 is that Communist Party–ruled China may be doing a better job managing capitalism's crisis than the democratically elected U.S. government. Beijing's stimulus spending was larger, infinitely more effective at overcoming the slowdown and directed at laying the infrastructural tracks for further economic expansion.


DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT????
?  OH, REALLY??????  WHO BELIEVES THAT BESIDES TIME MAGAZINE?

As Western democracies shuffle wheezily forward, China's economy roars along at a steady clip, having lifted some half a billion people out of poverty over the past three decades and rapidly created the world's largest middle class to provide an engine for long-term domestic consumer demand. Sure, there's massive social inequality, but there always is in a capitalist system. (Income inequality rates in the U.S. are some of the worst in the industrialized world, and more Americans are falling into poverty than are being raised out of it. The number of Americans officially designated as living in poverty in 2009 — 43 million — was the highest in the 51 years that records have been kept.)
(See TIME's photo-essay "The Rise of Hu Jintao.")

Beijing is also doing a far more effective job than Washington of tooling its economy to meet future challenges — at least according to historian Francis Fukuyama, erstwhile neoconservative intellectual heavyweight. "President Hu Jintao's rare state visit to Washington this week comes at a time when many Chinese see their weathering of the financial crisis as a vindication of their own system, and the beginning of an era in which U.S.-style liberal ideas will no longer be dominant," wrote Fukuyama in Monday's Financial Times under a headline stating that the U.S. had little to teach China. "State-owned enterprises are back in vogue, and were the chosen mechanism through which Beijing administered its massive stimulus."

Today Chinese leaders are more inclined to scold the U.S. — its debtor to the tune of close to a trillion dollars — than to emulate it, and Fukuyama noted that polls show that a larger percentage of Chinese believe their country is headed in the right direction, compared with Americans. China's success in navigating the economic crisis, wrote Fukuyama, was based on the ability of its authoritarian political system to "make large, complex decisions quickly, and ... make them relatively well, at least in economic policy."


These are startling observations from a writer who, 19 years ago, famously proclaimed that the collapse of the Soviet Union heralded "the end of history as such ... That is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."
(See TIME's video "An Eye on China, Old and New.")

Fukuyama has had the good grace and intellectual honesty to admit he was wrong. And he's no apologist for Chinese authoritarianism, calling out its abuses and corruption, and making clear that he believes the absence of democracy will eventually hobble China's progress. Still, as he noted in the Financial Times, while they don't hold elections, China's communist leaders are nonetheless responsive to public opinion. (Of course they are! A party brought to power by a peasant rebellion knows full well the destructive potential of the rage of working people.) But the regime claims solid support from the Chinese middle class, and hedges against social explosion by directing resources and investment to more marginal parts of the country.


China's leaders, of course, never subscribed to Fukuyama's "end of history" maxim; the Marxism on which they were reared would have taught them that there is no contingent relationship between capitalism and democracy, and they only had to look at neighbors such as Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore to see economic success stories under authoritarian rule — although the prosperity thus achieved played a major role in transforming Taiwan and South Korea into the noisy democracies they are today. Nor were Beijing's leaders under any illusions that the free market could take care of such basic needs as education, health care and infrastructure necessary to keep the system as a whole growing.


But Fukuyama also made a point about the comparative inability of the U.S. system to respond decisively to a long-term crisis. "China adapts quickly, making difficult decisions and implementing them effectively," Fukuyama wrote. "Americans pride themselves on constitutional checks and balances, based on a political culture that distrusts centralised government. This system has ensured individual liberty and a vibrant private sector, but it has now become polarised and ideologically rigid. At present it shows little appetite for dealing with the long-term fiscal challenges the U.S. faces. Democracy in America may have an inherent legitimacy that the Chinese system lacks, but it will not be much of a model to anyone if the government is divided against itself and cannot govern."

LET'S SEE---CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ARE THE SAME GLOBAL BANKING 1% PARTY----MOVING FORWARD SAME AGENDA WHILE MANUFACTURING CRISES ----POLARIZED? 

Money has emerged as the electoral trump card in the U.S. political system, and corporations have a Supreme Court–recognized right to use their considerable financial muscle to promote candidates and policies favorable to their business operations and to resist policies and shut out candidates deemed inimical to their business interests. So whether it's health reform or the stimulus package, the power of special interests in the U.S. system invariably produces either gridlock or mishmash legislation crafted to please the narrow interests of a variety of competing interests rather than the aggregated interests of the economy and society as a whole. Efficient and rational decisionmaking it's not. Nor does it appear capable of tackling long-term problems.

THE 99% WE THE PEOPLE WILL FIX ALL THAT BAD DECISION-MAKING BY GETTING RID OF GLOBAL BANKING PLAYERS WHOSE ONLY TALENT IS LYING, CHEATING, AND STEALING.



China is the extreme opposite, of course. It can ride roughshod over the lives of its citizens (e.g., building a dam that requires the forced relocation of 1.5 million people who have no channels through which to protest). But China's system is unlikely to give corporations the power to veto or shape government decisionmaking to suit their bottom lines at the expense of the needs of the system as a whole in the way that, to choose but one example, U.S. pharmaceutical companies are able to wield political influence to deny the government the right to negotiate drug prices for the public health system. Fukuyama seems to be warning that, in Darwinian terms, the Chinese system may be more adaptive than the land of the free.

_
________________________________________________

We always like to include in our public policy discussions how global banking 1% use those freemason STARS to sell their societal fads. There are two reasons DAN BROWN --ORIGIN is appropriate to discussions tied to civic voice/duty/oversight and accountability. First, the description of the anti-hero's conditions for announcing his BEST IN WORLD HISTORY discoveries are so contrived, contained, totally virtual allowing no outside communications to a presentation orchestrated... to a tee-------it gives a perfect description of how SMART CITIES will operate if allowed to MOVE FORWARD. Sociopaths have such a need to promote themselves as EXCEPTIONAL because they are not exceptional....these real technology advances are not exceptional and they are definitely not needed and mostly not wanted.

The second thing DAN BROWN was told to include in ORIGINS is the idea that anyone fighting against ONE WORLD ONE ENERGY/TECHNOLOGY GRID and SMART technology advances must do so because of RELIGIOUS reasons---it could not possibly be that 99% of WE THE PEOPLE do not want our lives and rights as citizens taken away.
THE DARK AGES BATTLE BETWEEN OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS USING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION---THEY WANTED THOSE INVENTIONS --THEY WANTED TO CONTROL THE INFORMATION AROUND THESE INVENTIONS----
This is exactly what Brown sells in ORIGIN. Remember, those CATHOLIC KINGS AND QUEENS----not religious.


Lifestyle
October 12, 2017 / 8:04 AM / 6 months ago



Collective consciousness to replace God: author Dan Brown

Douglas Busvine

FRANKFURT (Reuters) - Humanity no longer needs God but may with the help of artificial intelligence develop a new form of collective consciousness that fulfils the role of religion, U.S. author Dan Brown said on Thursday.

Brown made the provocative remark at the Frankfurt Book Fair where he was promoting his new novel, “Origin”, the fifth outing for Harvard “symbology” professor Robert Langdon, the protagonist of “The Da Vinci Code”, a book that questioned the history of Christianity.
“Origin” was inspired by the question “Will God survive science?”, said Brown, adding that this had never happened in the history of humanity.
Sponsored

“Are we naive today to believe that the gods of the present will survive and be here in a hundred years?” Brown, 53, told a packed news conference.

Set in Spain, “Origin” opens with Langdon arriving at the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao for an announcement by a reclusive billionaire futurist that promises to “change the face of science forever”.

Events quickly take an unexpected turn, providing a plot vehicle for Langdon to visit the historic sites of Spain - including Barcelona, capital of the northern region of Catalonia that is now in the grip of a secession crisis.

Brown, who studied art history in Seville, expressed his concern and sympathy for both sides in the political stand-off.

“I love Catalonia. I love Spain. I hope they work it out. It’s a heartbreaking situation, but it’s also a sign of the times,” said Brown, adding the crisis also reflected the tension in society between the ancient and the modern.

Brown, who has sold 200 million books in 56 languages, admitted to not having read a novel in five years. But he investigated deeply and spent a lot of time talking to futurists to come up with the storyline for “Origin”.

He recognized that his views may not be welcomed by clerics, but called for greater harmony between the world’s great religions and those who profess no faith.


“Christianity, Judaism and Islam all share a gospel, loosely, and it’s important that we all realize that,” he said. “Our religions are much more similar than they are different.”
Turning to the future, Brown said technological change and the development of artificial intelligence would transform the concept of the divine.
“We will start to find our spiritual experiences through our interconnections with each other,” he said, forecasting the emergence of “some form of global consciousness that we perceive and that becomes our divine”.
“Our need for that exterior god, that sits up there and judges us ... will diminish and eventually disappear.”

_________
______________________________

East India becoming quite the TOTALITARIAN STATE MOVING FORWARD.

'Other critics have also warned of this potential for exclusion in smart cities. Well-known smart city critic Adam Greenfield poignantly asks, “What role will the citizen play [in the smart city]? Is the city-dweller best visualised as a smoothly moving pixel, travelling to work, shops and home again, on a colourful 3D graphic display? Or is the citizen rightfully an unpredictable source of obstreperous demand...s and assertions of rights?”'

Global Google does not allow many searchs to give SMART CITY critics unless it is those FAKE Clinton neo-liberal 'populist' outlets. There is actually thousands of academic articles written AGAINST SMART CITIES for the same reasons REAL left social progressive give. It is clear these SMART CITIES having in mind the DARK AGES MEDIEVAL CASTLES protecting those global 1% and their 2% from the 99% MASSES. We read where the Chinese LEADER FOR LIFE is taking China back to a CLOSED SOCIETY far more authoritarian then ever while the great leader allows he and Chinese 1% partner with global neo-liberalism ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE.

We try to make clear for those US citizens black, white, and brown feeling they must be PLAYERS in order to get into these CASTLES......the goals of SMART CITY and technology with artificial intelligence and robotics to to replace ALL 99% OF CITIZENS....no 10% winners---no 5% winners---even those global 2% once these structures are built are no longer needed or wanted by global 1%.


Where the 99% of WE THE PEOPLE protest MOVING FORWARD for civil reasons-----there is no way MOVING FORWARD should have ANY RELIGIOUS supporters-----only 5% FAKE religious players would want these kinds of extremist deep state structures.

Who Is the Smart City for?
Stephen Assink

Wikipedia Commons

The Beautiful
The Prosperous


The Just and Well-Ordered


Who doesn’t love a good dystopian thriller? With unforgettable characters and edge-of-your-seat chase scenes, these movies are entertaining, exciting, and extremely lucrative. From Blade Runner and The Matrix trilogy to Elysium and the Hunger Games series, these movies have defined our conception of a post-apocalyptic world. But the real power of this genre lies not in its special effects but in its creative baring of social tensions in futuristic megacities that today no longer look so far-fetched.


From lack of infrastructure to concentrated poverty, megacities—urban areas of 10 million or more people—present significant challenges for any local government. Concerns over social inequality have also long been a fixture of the discourse around megacities, especially so in India where there are six such metropolitan areas amid a culture defined by the hierarchies of the caste system. At the moment, however, the issue of urban exclusion in India is now coalescing around that nation’s burgeoning smart city movement.


Smart cities, according to the Indian government’s website, “are those cities which have smart (intelligent) physical, social, institutional, and economic infrastructure while ensuring centrality of citizens in a sustainable environment. It is expected that such a Smart City will generate options for all residents to pursue their livelihoods and interests meaningfully and with joy.” The impetus for India’s smart city building is largely urbanization demographics. Currently, 31 precent of India’s population is urban. That is projected to increase to 65 percent over the next decades. India has set a goal of 100 smart cities to meet the challenge of settling its growing urban migration in decent and humane ways.



Smart cities employ new technologies that integrate urban infrastructure with powerful data analytics, a trend has already hit Chicago, New York, and Rio de Janeiro, cities with significant investment in advanced urban technology. A goal of this movement as Noah Toly argues here on the Thriving Cities blog, “is to make the whole city more responsive, giving us instant access to information we can hold in one hand, turning the city into a device. By harnessing big data, we suppose we may harness the power of urbanization and the city itself—a force with few rivals in history.” Supported by powerful advocates such as Michael Bloomberg and companies such as IBM, smart cities are poised to become a dominant form of urban settlement in the twenty-first century.


Although most cities around the world are incorporating smart technology into the existing urban fabric, India aims to build its smart cities from scratch—thanks to more than $1.18 billion committed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government. The city of Palava is a prime example. Considered Mumbai’s sister city, Palava is the largest privately planned city in India. Through partnering with IBM, Palava will have cutting-edge technology that will help the city government guide and manage its population. Branded as a “city of opportunity,” Palava offers residents a community that boasts lush green spaces and immaculate apartments—according to its website, “Palava isn’t just a new place to live, it’s a new way to live.”


In a country where more than 300 million people live without electricity or access to basic services, smart cities, at least on paper, seem to offer a solution combining sound infrastructure and an improved quality of life. However, critics allege that smart cities will in fact exclude those most in need of what they offer. In a recent Guardian article, journalist Shruti Ravindran highlights the growing concerns about exclusion in India’s new smart cities. In particular, Ravindran points to recent comments made by Indian economist Laveesh Bhandari:
In a monograph for a conference on smart cities in Mumbai in January, the economist and consultant Laveesh Bhandari described smart cities as “special enclaves” that would use prohibitive prices and harsh policing to prevent “millions of poor Indians” from “enjoying the privileges of such great infrastructure”. “This is the natural way of things,” he noted, “for if we do not keep them out, they will override our ability to maintain such infrastructure.” Bhandari’s bald statements sparked social-media pandemonium, and the economist is now at pains to assert he is far from uncritical of such plans.


In the United States, discourse on urban exclusion usually centers on affordable housing and how factors such as public policy or market forces have often resulted in limited availability. In India, the land sought for smart city construction could lead to the razing of poor districts, the forced removal of the poor, and their subsequent exclusion from new communities. As Ravindran reports, “Smart cities remain a key justification for a controversial land-acquisition ordinance the government is aiming to enact, which does away with mandatory consent and social safeguards for those whose lands are forcibly acquired.” Once built, smart cities could be “governed by powerful corporate entities that could override local laws and governments to ‘keep out’ the poor.” Ravindran notes that “To make sure that no one trespasses on its immaculate privatopia, Palava plans to issue its residents with ‘smart identity cards’, and will watch over them through a system of ‘smart surveillance’.”


Other critics have also warned of this potential for exclusion in smart cities. Well-known smart city critic Adam Greenfield poignantly asks, “What role will the citizen play [in the smart city]? Is the city-dweller best visualised as a smoothly moving pixel, travelling to work, shops and home again, on a colourful 3D graphic display? Or is the citizen rightfully an unpredictable source of obstreperous demands and assertions of rights?”


Like every other form of urban settlement, the smart city is a value-laden human creation enmeshed in cultural norms and political forces. Without hard work and attention to justice, this model could end up excluding those who would most benefit from it, or worse, divert funds from other distressed places. In India’s rush to transform, build, and even engineer entire new cities, critics are right to raise concerns about citizenship and access.


Even in US cities, especially places like Baltimore and Ferguson, we are confronting some of these same issues. In the same way India is wrestling with the social and ethical dynamics of the smart city, we need to equally be self-reflective about the ways we seek to improve our own cities. Every policy and plan for urban improvement need to be accompanied by difficult questions. And none are as pressing as the one confronting India at this moment: “Who is the smart city for?”




0 Comments

March 30th, 2018

3/30/2018

0 Comments

 
CLINTON/OBAMA global banking 1% neo-liberals try hard to sell OPEN DOOR GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY as policy aimed at public agencies being made more public to US 99% WE THE PEOPLE.  It was never a left social progressive citizenship duty of holding politicians accountable with oversight as we see below.  Far-right wing global banking 1% Bush neo-cons wrote these policies and Baltimore is that Bush/global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE Johns Hopkins.

Global corporate sustainability has OPEN DOOR policy designed to allow corporations to access ALL PUBLIC PERSONAL DATA ----free or cheap for the taking.  US privacy laws forbid our Federal, state, and local government from handing out personal public data.
 
This article shows CHINA being encouraged to pretend OPEN DOOR is a left social benefit.  While US corporate regulations and anti-monopoly required corporations to OPEN THEIR DOORS to oversight---that was eliminated during ROBBER BARON few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA.

YOU SHOW ME YOURS I'LL SHOW YOU MINE BUT NEVER LET THOSE 99% GLOBAL CITIZENS SEE.

These policies are illegal because the goal is to keep CITIZENS from their duty to oversee and hold accountable their elected officials.  China does not have a Constitution or sovereign laws and 3 branches of government with checks and balances to do that----but 300 years of US history and our US Constitution and Bill of Rights GUARANTEES our rights to access public agency data to monitor interactions.

The problem for 99% US WE THE PEOPLE is Clinton/Bush/Obama think the US is China.

Sustainable Development and the Open-Door Policy in China


by James K. Galbraith


Professor, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs
The University of Texas at Austin
and
Senior Scholar, Jerome Levy Economics Institute



and Jiaqing Lu, Ph.D.
Senior Consultant
Applied Economics Consulting Group
Austin, Texas


UTIP Working Paper Number 16
Prepared for the Council on Foreign Relations
May 5, 2000
Galbraith@mail.utexas.edu
Jqlu@aecgi.com




Abstract

We provide an historical survey of Chinese economic reform, a discussion of the current
major problems, and measures of the evolution of inequality in China through time, 1979-
1996.We argue that China’s most pressing reform needs now are in the social sphere, specifically
the creation of an adequate social security system. The paper concludes with maps showing
measures of inequality within each province of China for the years 1989 and 1996, and the change
over this period. The maps reveal a marked regional pattern of high and sharply rising inequality
especially in North and West China, with a milder situation in the South. We suggest that this
pattern is consistent with the Kuznets conjecture relating inequality to economic growth; the
problem of rising inequality in China is in part the uneven character of growth and development
across the country.

This is our US MOVING FORWARD model----99% of WE THE PEOPLE are being told authoritarian capitalism is most successful.  OH, REALLY?????  FOR WHOM????



'Nathan said that if there is a coherent China model, it may be more of a “red empire” in which authoritarian leaders choose their own successors from a political elite and remain repressive in order to manage a complex society. “I think actually Daniel and I agree to a considerable extent on what China is today,” Nathan said. “It’s repressive, it’s authoritarian, it’s self-perpetuating. I’m not predicting that it will survive, but I think there’s a very considerable chance that the model of repressive, authoritarian, self-perpetuating elite leadership can persist for a long long time.”'

____________________________________________

Of course all that OPEN GOVERNMENT policies never about 99% of WE THE PEOPLE accessing and providing oversight and accountability ----gets better with SMART CITIES.  SMART CITIES is all about being held accountable-----lots of oversight----only it is aimed at repression of 99% WE THE PEOPLE by global banking 1% ----making sure the 99% has absolutely NO ability of oversight and accountability.  Placing all that is government on digital CLOUD COMPUTING----no problem------I'll just tell global banking 1% to send that government agency file to my hard drive.  We are sure they will gladly do this.  After all, SMART CITY government online data is all about saving that money needed for PAPER COPIES today profiteering at a $.25 a page.

Baltimore is of course front and center in global corporate sustainability and CLOSED DOOR quasi-governmental proprietary 'public' agency information as we are sure is BUSH'S AUSTIN, TX.

BUT IT'S ALL ABOUT TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF OUR US LOCAL GOVERNMENT!


'Transparency and Accountability

Among the objectives for smart city projects is the goal to improve efficiency, and these open data projects help citizens cut through bureaucratic red tape faster than ever'.


'Civic Engagement
Access to open data has helped bridge the information gap between elected officials and their constituents. But what else can citizens do with open data to improve their neighborhoods, communities, and cities? Well, as the examples below demonstrate, a lot'!


Remember when NASA was public paying for HUBBLE TELESCOPE.  Citizens did enjoy the wonders of these deep space photography-----but we were not allowed to stake that claim to MINERAL RIGHTS ON CERES mapped out by these super-telescopes.
LOOK DON'T TOUCH---IS NOT BEING A CITIZEN DOING THE DUTY OF HOLDING OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ACCOUNTABLE WITH OVERSIGHT.

PLACING ALL THAT IS US GOVERNMENT DIGITAL ------WHILE MOVING FORWARD SMART CITIES TAKES ALL DIGITAL AIR SPACE TO ONLY GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUSES ENDING PERSONAL COMPUTER ACCESS FOR 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE-----NOTHING LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE HAPPENING HERE FOLKS.



Instead of having to SHRED DOCUMENTS to hide fraud and corruption-----SMART CITIES creates programs to simply DELETE. While those dastardly 5% players black, white, and brown citizens are helping to BUILD SMART CITIES----only the global 1% will be behind viewing these data.

PLEASE GLANCE THROUGH A LONG ARTICLE TO SEE HOW ALL THESE FAR-RIGHT AUTHORITARIAN STRUCTURES ARE BEING MADE TO SOUND SO POPULIST---




Location Intelligence
40 Brilliant Open Data Projects Preparing Smart Cities for 2018
Written by Peter Murray on Sep 28, 2017


More and more local government agencies are turning to open data and Location Intelligence to optimize current services while also preparing more sustainable solutions in light of anticipated obstacles stemming from increased urban migration, climate change, and an aging population.


This form of city planning has invariably been described as smart, intelligent, responsive, resilient, and, more recent, senseable. But how do these initiatives use open data to address the concerns of residents? In answering this question we discovered projects whose originality left us speechless and dedication to social justice inspired.





The speed at which local officials in both urban and suburban areas are working with open location data to aid decision making required us to update our original list. We’re delighted to see even more citizen centric smart city projects leveraging the tools and techniques of Location Intelligence.


The list is assembled both to recognize individual accomplishments and promote more work with open data! Again, examples are categorized by service type and alphabetically listed because projects democratizing access to open data should be celebrated equally!



  • Navigating Open Data Sources
  • Transparency and Accountability
  • Performance Management
  • Transportation and Infrastructure
  • Resilient City Planning
  • The IoT of Smart Cities
  • Civic Engagement


Navigating Open Data Sources

Building an open data portal is expensive, and returns on this investment can be difficult to measure. To ensure citizen engagement with open data portals city officials and third party partners are designing constituent-centric interfaces and applications. Here are our favorite web and mobile applications designed to help citizens navigate open data.


Check My Barangay


Check My Barangay, a Making All Voices Count project, is the latest project in President Aquino’s commitment to ending corruption and poverty across the Philippines. Like several other entries on this list, Check My Barangay signals a concerted effort from local governments to expand successful open data and smart city projects to more rural and suburban areas, or, in this case, to Barangays, the smallest governing unit in the Philippines. Citizens can now monitor budgeting and planning at a more granular level helping to increase citizen engagement and transparency simultaneously!


THE PHILIPPINES ALWAYS THAT CITIZEN-CENTERED FAR-RIGHT WING, AUTHORITARIAN DICTATORSHIP.


The National Address Base


France’s National Address Base, an open source database spearheaded by the General Secretariat for Modernization of Public Action (SGMAP), is a truly collaborative project. The database not only uses available open data from civil services and state agencies across France, including IGN, La Poste, Etalab, and OpenStreetMap France, but it also invites citizens to contribute more accurate location data in an effort to improve emergency response times, facilitate more efficient public/private partnerships, and allow for more spatial analysis of under-utilized areas. All we can say: Aux armes, citoyens!.

Open Data Barometer (ODB)

There’s a lot of talk about the promise of open data projects, but do they actually deliver? That is the question for the Open Data Barometer (ODB), a World Wide Web Foundation project rating governments across 115 jurisdictions on their open data project’s readiness, implementation, and impact. The recent release of the ODB’s fourth edition, whose report found an overall lack of improvement in open data projects when compared with last year, is a much needed call to action concerning the important work that remains to be done using open data.

Open Government Partnership (OGP)

The Open Government Partnership is a policy platform soliciting pledges from governments around the world to promote open and transparent governance. Began in 2011 by eight founding countries, the OGP today includes 75 government members and 15 subnational governments from whom 2,500 commitments have been solicited promising more open and accountable governance. If the most recent Open Data Barometer reminded us of mistakes made in 2016, then the Open Government Partnership revives our hope for the 2017!

Urban Data Platform
The European Commission’s Urban Data Platform is an open source tool facilitating data sharing and comparative research across the European Union. The platform’s interactive data visualizations provide users with ample information on a range of topics that can be explored at both local and regional levels. Check it out!



Transparency and Accountability
Among the objectives for smart city projects is the goal to improve efficiency, and these open data projects help citizens cut through bureaucratic red tape faster than ever.


America’s Growing News Deserts
Many Americans are still trying to figure out what happened during the 2016 presidential election including the editors of the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR). In “America’s Growing News Deserts,” CJR editors initially built a data visualization identifying local newspaper offices across the country with data provided by Alliance for Audited Media (AAM). However, as readers soon pointed out, many more local newspapers nationwide had closed following the AAM’s 2015 report. In response, the editors turned to their fellow Americans to crowdsource more accurate location data related to subsequent closures across the country. A reminder that we really are stronger together.

Elapedia App
The Elapedia app, a free Spanish-language app resulting from a joint venture between the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) and the Governance Consultants, aims to increase transparent corporate governance among the Pacific Alliance. The app makes use of public data from Latin American companies providing confidence to potential investors as well as transparency on public-private partnerships. “The Elapedia App is intended to promote transparency and accountability,” states Andrew Wilson, CIPE managing director, “levels the playing field, and encourages the disclosure or elimination of conflicts of interest.”

Gender Digital Inclusion Map
EQUALS, a global initiative promoting digital gender equality, is amplifying women in tech around the world with its Gender Digital Inclusion Map. In collaboration with the United Nations Information and Communication Technologies (ITU) agency, this open data project focuses on UN Sustainable Development Goal 5in its objective to close the gender digital divide by 2030.

Participatory Budgeting Map

Similar to Check My Barangay, the Participatory Budgeting Project believes that community members should be involved in deciding how best to allocate public funding. The data visualization highlights current and past projects and conveys pertinent information about upcoming events. A great resource for keeping citizens engaged and informed.

Refugee Influx Trend

Built with open data from The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), the Uganda Refugee Response Portal provides a granular view of the impact that refugee migration has had upon Uganda. This is not only an important project using open data to raise awareness of this ongoing humanitarian crisis, but also a brilliant demonstration of the granular insights to be found using spatial analysis.



Performance Management



Local governments have adopted and adapted the service industry’s motto, “The customer is always right,” with the help of open data. Check out the examples below to see how open data ensures that the constituent is always right!


Child Welfare Digital Services Project


The Child Welfare Digital Services Project is not only a smart city project addressing social problems, but it is also a pilot program for more agile open data practices. Unlike the state’s past “predictive waterfall” approach, an “adaptive agile” approach involves continuous planning based upon data analytics, spatial analysis, and machine learning. We’re excited to see more open data projects addressing social issues by moving beyond a “one size fits all” model while addressing the specific needs of specific individuals.

Denver Peak Academy


Denver, Colorado has officially leaned in to data-driven government with mobile and web apps like pocketgov denver, but these projects are only as strong as the team behind the scenes. Denver Peak Academy is a training program for city employees to learn new tools and resource allowing the city to achieve “peak performance” in many of its open data smart city projects! Check out their blog to learn more!

Poverty in NYC


The Mayor’s Office for Economic Opportunity (NYC Opportunity) built the Poverty in NYC map as a resource with which to better target and launch anti-poverty initiatives. Using open data from the New York City portion of the American Community Survey (ACS) as well as additional variables added by the Poverty Research Team this project further’s the city’s goal of making equity a core component of local government. A great example of open data being used to address social inequality. Check it out!

Savvy Citizen Alerts


What’s novel about Management Science Associates (MSA) mobile app, Savvy Citizen Alerts, is its suburban focus on townships, like Richland, Pennsylvania, that are looking to increase engagement with constituents by leveraging location data and smart devices like their urban counterparts. Glad to see more attention paid to rural areas when it comes to open data projects!

Smart Dublin

Did you hear the news? The Irish are going green thanks to Dublinked, Ireland’s open data platform for smart city project. The Dublin City Council has also prioritized projects that make use of sensors to enhance mobility, energy, and various operations throughout the city to help reduce the city’s carbon footprint.

RTC Accident Prediction


The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) is partnering with Waycare to combat traffic congestion using artificial intelligence. Instead of responding to traffic incidents that cause delays along state highways, Nevada’s Department of Transportation (NDOT) along with the state’s Center for Advanced Mobility (NCAM)will pilot a program that uses predictive analytics to anticipate traffic congestion in order to provide commuters with alternate routes. We look forward to seeing how this first of its kind open data project turns out in the coming months.

Open Planetary Maps

This entry takes an admittedly long-term view when it comes to open data as it uses satellite imagery to map Mars. The project is only in its initial stages, but we’re already excited to see what kind of information it yields about the cities of tomorrowland.



Transportation and Infrastructure
Transportation and infrastructure form a city’s lifeline, which explains why open data advocates have focused heavily on these two areas. The projects below make use of open data, and in some cases are literally changing what it means to be data-driven.


BlindSquare

Initiatives like Smart Cities For All have helped draw attention to the need for more inclusive smart city projects like BlindSquare. Using data from Foursquare and OpenStreetMap, this navigation app provides audio directions for visually impaired residents to move around their cities more easily.

Connect 305

Similar to major metropolitan cities like New York, Chicago, and London, the Mayor’s Office of Miami-Dade County, Florida, in partnership with organizations including AT&T, Cisco, and Intel, is launching Connect 305, a connectivity project that will install 305 Wi-Fi Kiosks across the county. The large scale of this undertaking is intended to better prepare the city for anticipated infrastructural pressures, increased demand for city services, and other operational issues due to rise in urban population resulting from climate change.

East Coast Greenway Map

The East Coast Greenway Alliance recently launched this web app that not only facilitates tourism but also promotes environmental conservation across 15 states and more than 450 cities and towns along the United States eastern seaboard. The interactive data visualization allows visitors to map the best hiking trails and bike routes all along the greenway starting at any entry. Check it out!

Unmanned Traffic Management (UTM) Initiative

The Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) is taking to the skies with aerial drones to help local officials manage traffic congestion. In a first of its kind partnership, KDOT and AirMap are working together to use drones across the state to optimize disaster recovery, emergency response time, agriculture, construction, and much more. We’re excited to see how this project evolves throughout 2018!

Map Matching

Mapzen is innovating data-driven navigation with its newest mobility services offering, Map Matching. With this mobility app users can enter their destination’s coordinates and be matched not only with a route snapped on to an OpenStreetMap, but also be provided with an enriched routes signaling pre-selected attributes such as speed limits and freeway exit signs. A great use of open data to confront mobility issues!

Turnaround: Fixing New York City’s Buses


The Bus Turnaround Coalition, with support from the TransitCenter and the Riders Alliance, is using open data to raise awareness about the state of New York City’s bus system. Although nearly 2.5 million rider take the bus each day and despite an ever-growing residential population, the city has not made the necessary updates to the system to maintain optimal service. As such, the Bus Turnaround Coalition has assigned each route a report card using MTA Bus time data reflecting speed, accuracy, and ridership volume among other factors to help local official prioritize their response.

WECC Environmental Data Viewer


The Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) is a nonprofit organization maintaining a massive electric system across the Western Interconnection, a geographic area comprised of two Canadian provinces, 14 U.S. states, and Northern Baja, Mexico. The WECC Environmental Data Viewer is an interactive data visualization of the area built with open data provided by participating government agencies, which was spearheaded by Nevada’s State Historic Preservation Office, the Utah Department of Heritage and Arts but also includes open data from participating state including Wyoming, Colorado, and Washington. A great web mapping application providing access to environmental and cultural risk classification across the Western Connection to facilitate regional expansion projects across city, state, regional, and even national borders.

Who Owns What (W.O.W.) Boston


This Analyze Boston project began with one main question: was it possible to see a “renter class” becoming an “owner class” in the city of Boston? But once Alex Dillon and Joana Abreu started mapping Boston Property Assessment data they soon realized that visualizing one simple relationship–who owns what–provided insights into patterns and trends shaping the entire city. A great reminder of the insights that can be extracted by examining location with spatial analysis!



Resilient City Planning

Climate change has helped accelerate the rate of urban migration. The examples below highlight cross-sector partnerships using open and public data to better prepare cities around the world to confront the challenges ahead.


InfoAmazonia Colombia

The InfoAmazonia Colombia platform is a transparency tool to help Colombian officials reduce forest clearing to zero net levels by 2030 as part of the country’s Amazon Vision Program. The platform uses open data from satellite information, the Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology, and Environmental Studies (IDEAM), and data crowdsourced from data journalists. This transparency platform alerts citizens to new construction projects threatening the Amazon’s ecosystem helping ensure smarter, healthier alternatives for cities and rain forests alike.

EnergyBlock

Copenhagen Solutions Lab is pioneering sustainability efforts with its latest smart city project. EnergyBlock will use sensors to monitor energy production levels as well as local food production in rooftop greenhouses and gardens across Copenhagen’s “Nordvest” area. The data from these sensors will be shared via Copenhagen’s open data portal in an attempt to showcase renewable energy sources available within existing urban areas.

Juntos Santiago


Santiago Salud is using gamification to tackle Santiago’s obesity problem. Chile ranks fifth highest in obesity among nations worldwide leading Mayor Felipe Alessandri and his office to propose Juntos Santiagos, a competitive game rewarding teams of school-aged children collectively showing signs of healthier diets and more exercise. The project, a 2016 winner of the Bloomberg’s Mayor’s Challenge will crowdsource data from participating teams and share the results in an going effort to promote a healthier, more active style of living to school age children.

Open Agriculture Initiative (OpenAg)


Open Agriculture is the latest project coming from the MIT Media Labaiming to create an open-sourced food technologies ecosystem for a healthier, smarter tomorrow. Like EnergyBlock, OpenAg seeks to find smarter uses of urban areas in order to increase local food production within Food Data Centersthat will help the reduce carbon imprint left from global food transportation.

Smart Fintry


Like previous entries included on this list like Savvy Citizen Alerts and Check My Barangay, Smart Fintry is bringing urban innovation to more suburban areas like Scottland’s Stirlingshire Village. In fact, the village’s open data portal and interactive energy dashboard hold the distinct honor of being the United Kingdom’s first “smart” village as local officials experiment with new ways of delivering electricity to the village from nearby renewable sources.

Baltimore Open Air Project

This project is using open data insights to combat environmental racism drawing upon citizen scientists to help place sensors throughout Baltimore, Maryland. In partnership with researchers at Johns Hopkins University, citizens and scientists alike are placing throughout the city WeatherCube, calibrated sensors that will post daily findings related to the city’s temperature, humidity, ozone, and nitrogen dioxide in an effort to reduce air pollution. A great project aiming to bridge the city’s digital divide while ensuring a healthier city for all residents.



The IoT of Smart Cities

Recent efforts to improve smart city grids and networks has led to the creation of sensor networks capable of monitoring a range of issues impacting residential living conditions. The Internet of Things (IoT)has enabled local officials to connect various devices throught the city to this type of sensor network, which some are calling Smart City 2.0.


Bike Ridership Data


The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) tracks biker ridership volumes at key intersections throughout the city to support efforts to promote various modes of transportation beyond motor vehicles. To accommodate the anticipated 100,000 additional residents in the Bay Area by 2040 the need to address traffic congestion is not only a matter of avoiding gridlock, but also of reducing air pollution and improving the health of the city in general. Another example of open data projects making cities healthier and smarter.



Public Works Traffic


The city of Louisville, Kentucky has launched an open data portal as part of its “open by default” approach to smart local governance. More recently, the city has implemented a smart traffic management system across the Metro area aimed at fighting traffic congestion through the city, the Public Works traffic team is leveraging open data on commute behaviors and building interactive data visualizations to discover viable, alternate solutions to a host of issues from traffic congestion to increasing citywide connectivity without using expensive fiberoptic cable. Check it out!
SacPark



Many of our entries have addressed traffic congestion issues, but the city of Sacramento, California has recently debuted a new solution on how best to handle the volume of cars looking to park each day. SacPark, a web and mobile app built with Parking Panda software, relies on a network of citywide sensors providing real-time data updates to users on parking availability inside city garages and along parking meters throughout Sacramento.


Civic Engagement

Access to open data has helped bridge the information gap between elected officials and their constituents. But what else can citizens do with open data to improve their neighborhoods, communities, and cities? Well, as the examples below demonstrate, a lot!


City Maps from Tourists Feelings


We’ve shared stories about AirBnB in cities around the world such as New York, Madrid and Barcelona, and New Orleans, but these projects tend to address the company’s impact on each city from a residential perspective. Beñat Arregi’s new project instead maps cities from the perception of the visiting tourists using data available from Inside AirBnB. Check out what tourists think of your city’s offering as each location is rated on a scale from 1-5 and plotted on an interactive data visualization.


Dismantling Structural School Segregation in Seattle


Sightline Institute, an independent nonprofit promoting sustainability projects at the intersection of environmental activism and social justice, has been publishing data-driven investigations of infrastructural issues across Seattle, Washington. Whether examining past and present housing trends or a history of structural inequality that still contributes to school segregation, Sightline research associates, like Margaret Morales, are using open data, interactive maps, and current research findings to keep Seattle citizens informed about their city. Check it out!


Museum Stat


Did you know open data could be used for philanthropic endeavors? Museum Stat, the result of a collaboration between the Institute of Museum and Library Services and Drexel University, is an online platform to support museums, communities, and researchers across the country using open data from the Museum Universe Data File (MUDF). This is a great resource bringing together various sectors to facilitate more outreach, casemaking for grant writers, and a tool to measure the impact of the arts on individual communities as well as the nation as a whole.


Surveillance under Surveillance


This interactive data visualization provides an answer to the question, “Who watches the watchmen?,” as it crowdsources data related to the location of surveillance technologies in cities around the world to build an interactive map disclosing this information. This project gives a whole new meaning to transparency. Check it out!


Trash City


How can your city plan in advance to minimize the impact of disruptions that seem to happen on an annual basis? That’s the question at the heart of Trash City, a story map exploring the chaos wrought upon Boston’s city services each year when more than 160,000 college students move into dorms throughout beantown. Open data projects are great for optimizing day to day city operations, but as this project demonstrates they can also help local officials anticipate annual events requiring increases in services. Leveraging data from housing rentals, trash volume and pick up frequency, and available data on 311 complaints, Jim Haddadin built an interactive data map showcasing how this influx in city residents disrupts the lives of Bostonians while also reminding local officials to plan ahead.


Whose Heritage? Public Symbols of the Confederacy


The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) published “Whose Heritage? Public Symbols of the Confederacy” in April 2017. But, after the shocking events in Charlottesville, Virginia this past August, the report along with its interactive data visualization plotting each and every Confederate monument across the United States received renewed attention. Built with open data from federal databases including U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the National Park Services, and the National Register of Historic Places, the SPLC’s data visualization is a great example of peaceful, powerful protest using open data. Check it out!


____________________________________________

If you read ORIGIN by Dan Brown one of the things that makes the anti-hero a technology guru PROPHET is the development of CLOUD STORAGE.  Of course add storage of all 'public' agency data offsite and online in CLOUD STORAGE with that super-duper security code access------kind of like secret hand shakes and signs for only people wearing funny hats.....99% of US WE THE PEOPLE will never see that public agency data and any media outlet sharing any data we can be assured that data will be SKEWED.  Far-right wing global banking media as during CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA has been propaganda and myth-making----reality will be completely gone in MOVING FORWARD SMART CITIES.

We know the end of ROBBER BARON few decades with this coming massive economic crash and collapse of US dollar also ends the need for those dastardly 5% global banking players----the secret hand shakes and signs will be changed ---only the global 1% will be those FREEMASON/GREEKS with the funny hats.

HOW DO 99% OF US WE THE PEOPLE DO OUR DUTY AS CITIZENS TO HOLD PUBLIC OFFICIALS ACCOUNTABLE WITH OVERSIGHT IN MOVING FORWARD?  

All these structures are ILLEGAL as they are being built to assure US citizens cannot do their duty as citizens.


DON'T WORRY! Those 5% players working today for global GOOGLE creating ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1% are looking out for the little guys and gals -----99% WE THE PEOPLE -----just like the WIZARD behind the curtain.


Where Does Cloud Storage Really Reside? And Is It Secure?’


By QUENTIN HARDYJAN. 23, 2017

Ask The Times, a Times Insider feature, draws on New York Times expertise to answer questions about current events, science, sports, culture and whatever else is making headlines.

A reader asks: “Where does cloud storage really reside? And is it secure?”


Quentin Hardy, The Times’s deputy technology editor, considers the question.
_____
“Cloud” data is stored on hard drives (much the way data is usually stored). And yes, it’s probably more secure than conventionally stored data.


What makes cloud storage different? Instead of being stored directly on your own personal device (the hard drive on your laptop, for example, or your phone), cloud-based data is stored elsewhere — on servers owned by big companies, usually -- and is made accessible to you via the internet.

When people think of cloud computing, they often think of internet-connected public clouds run by the likes of Amazon, Microsoft and Google. (If you use Gmail, Dropbox or Microsoft’s Office 365, you are using a cloud service.) There are also consumer clouds that, for example, hold your pictures and social media posts (think of Facebook or Twitter), or store your music and email (think of Apple or Google).


Times Insider delivers behind-the-scenes insights from The New York Times. Visit us at Times Insider and follow us on Twitter. Questions or feedback? Email us.


Each of these companies has cloud computing systems — computer servers and storage devices, connected with computer networking equipment — that span the globe. (Facebook’s systems can allow more than one billion people to interact with them.) Your data is in their computers, usually stored in a regional data center close to where you live.


Individual companies can also have their own clouds, called private clouds, that employees and customers access, usually over the internet and on their own private networks.

Hmmmm. public private partnerships with global corporations having their own private cloud---how do we access that data?


Storage aside, computing clouds can also process information differently; they have special software that enables workloads to be shared among different machines. Your Facebook photos, for example, don’t have a permanent home on a specific chip, but may move among computers.


That is a big deal. When workloads are shared, computers can run closer to full capacity, with several programs going at the same time. It’s much more efficient than stand-alone computers running one job at a time.
For the people running the computers, it doesn’t really matter where the data or the programs are at any one moment: The stuff is running inside a “cloud” of computing capability. Ideally, if one machine fails, the operation moves over to another part of the system with little downtime.


Nowadays, computing clouds are everywhere — which is one reason people worry about their security. We hear more and more often about hackers coming over the internet and looting the data of thousands of people.


Most of those attacks hit traditional servers, though. None of the most catastrophic hacks have been on the big public clouds.
The same way that your money is probably safer mixed up with other people’s money in a bank vault than it is sitting alone in your dresser drawer, your data may actually be safer in the cloud: It’s got more protection from bad guys.
In the case of the big public clouds, the protection is the work of some of the world’s best computer scientists, hired out of places like the National Security Agency and Stanford University to think hard about security, data encryption and the latest online fraud.
And they’re pretty good at keeping things safe online.
At least, they have been so far.

_____
Update, Jan. 24: Since this article was posted, Mr. Hardy has announced he is leaving The Times for a position at Google Cloud.







0 Comments

March 29th, 2018

3/29/2018

0 Comments

 

We drink one cup of coffee in morning watching CNN just to educate on latest global banking 1% propaganda so we can then REALLY EDUCATE on what global 1% are hiding with this FAKE NEWS.


CNN as we said has an OLD WORLD global banking freemason CUOMO who, while giving this report told listeners THIS WILL NOT STOP SMART CITIES DRIVERLESS VEHICLES. This policy is PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION and as US public transportation is enfolded into PORT OF BALTIMORE PRIVATE AUTHORITIES promoting only SMART CITIES TECHNOLOGY----UBER and self-driving vehicles will keep MOVING FORWARD. Baltimore is the same test site as this Arizona site---no mention of stopping for public safety here in Baltimore---we have no PUBLIC SAFETY.


The goal of MOVING FORWARD transportation as we said is driverless vehicles that move people within global corporate campuses and transport between campuses eliminating the need for personal cars----for public buses---you know, all of what gives 99% WE THE PEOPLE freedom of movement.


UBER/DRIVERLESS VEHICLES MILLIONS OF SATELLITES CIRCLING EARTH TAKING MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF ENERGY TO CONTROL THESE TECHNOLOGY OF MOVEMENT AND POPULATION CONTAINMENT.

There is no need for a RED LINE LIGHT RAIL when the goal is massive global corporate campuses and global factories in East and West Baltimore and Baltimore Co with driverless vehicles the only way to move around....nothing more global corporate PROPRIETARY with no transparency then 'public' transportation tied to SMART TECHNOLOGY.

Here is that ANNE ARUNDEL community college and its AFFINITY GROUP tied to SMART TECHNOLOGY driving the kinds of courses, job training-----all silencing any public discussion AGAINST MOVING FORWARD SMART CITIES



'The Affinity Group and SMART are two organizations that help "connect the dots" between education and Port related jobs and careers'.



Uber self-driving car kills pedestrian in first fatal autonomous crash


by Matt McFarland   @mattmcfarland March 19, 2018: 1:40 PM ET

Uber has removed its self-driving cars from the roads following what is believed to be the first fatality involving a fully autonomous car.


A self-driving Uber SUV struck and killed 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg as she walked her bicycle across a street in Tempe, Arizona, Sunday night, according to the Tempe police. The department is investigating the crash.
Rafael Vasquez, a 44-year-old test driver from Uber, was behind the wheel of the Volvo XC90 SUV at the time, the police said.



Based on preliminary information, the car was going approximately 40 mph in a 35 mph zone, according to Tempe Police Detective Lily Duran.

Police say the investigation does not at this time show significant signs of the SUV slowing before the crash. The Maricopa County Attorney's Office will determine whether charges will be filed.


"The vehicle involved is one of Uber's self-driving vehicles," the Tempe police said in a statement. "It was in autonomous mode at the time of the collision, with a vehicle operator behind the wheel."
Autonomous mode means the car is driving on its own. During tests, a person sits behind the wheel as a safeguard.


Uber is conducting tests of autonomous vehicles in Arizona, Pittsburgh, Toronto and other areas. Uber said it has stopped testing the vehicles throughout the United States and Canada.


Uber said it is "fully cooperating" with local officials. "Our hearts go out to the victim's family," Uber said in a statement.
The National Transportation Safety Board said it is launching an investigation.
For self-driving cars, dealing with pedestrians and bicyclists is a challenging task. The self-driving industry has found quicker success with highway driving, which is a less complicated environment.


Uber has previously grounded its vehicles while investigating a crash. In 2017, Uber briefly pulled its vehicles from roads after an Uber self-driving vehicle in Tempe landed on its side.

Arizona is a hotbed of self-driving car development. Earlier this month, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey updated an executive order to allow self-driving cars to drive on state roads without a test driver behind the wheel.


Meanwhile, Waymo, the self-driving arm of Google's parent company, is launching a public self-driving car service this year in the Phoenix, Arizona, area. Companies such as GM's Cruise and Intel are also testing in the state.

Arizona has little inclement weather. This makes it more appealing for self-driving cars, which can struggle in rain or during snowfall.

This isn't the first futuristic car involved in a fatal crash. In 2016, a man driving a Tesla was killed while its autopilot system was activated. But Tesla Autopilot is partially autonomous. A human driver is required to handle much of the driving.

However, Uber's system is designed to fully replace a human driver.
____________________________________________
Third world developing nations have CIVILIAN review boards because they have no public sector and they are not CITIZENS.


The US does not need CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARDS because we have 3 branches of government, strong US Rule of Law, 99% of WE THE PEOPLE elect politicians to represent us---and we the public have the right of oversight and accountability of all public agencies---local, state, and Federal.

When did these CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARDS for policing especially start being created?  During CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA.  Who installs these in US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES?  Well, below we see OAKLAND------we have them installed in BALTIMORE-----they are installed in NYC-----Hmmmm, wasn't POLICE COMMISSIONER BATTS in all these departments just as US JUSTICE DEPARTMENT released a DECREE OF REFORM?  Indeed.

We have shouted these few decades that a Clinton/Bush/Obama US Justice Department wasn't dishing out US 99% justice---it was using FAKE social  justice in pretending to help in policing justice while MOVING FORWARD DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE global militarized corporate policing in all US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.

CITIZENS OVERSIGHT MODEL------and yet we have watched these few decades as only 5% to the 1% freemason/Greek players find their way to these PUBLIC BOARDS.






'BART Police Citizen Review Board Overview

The BART Police Citizen Review Board shall have the authority to exercise its duties and responsibilities as outlined in the BART Citizen Oversight Model, with regard to law enforcement and police activities or personnel operating under the authority of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District'.


Third world developing nations having no system of government use CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARDS. These are replacing the strongest in world history US public government 3 branches with checks and balances government.





Civilian Complaint Review Board
- Welcome to NYC.gov
www1.nyc.gov/site/ccrb/index.page


Police officers should always treat you with respect. If you want to learn more about the types of misconduct the Civilian Complaint Review Board pursues, or if you ...



Filing a Complaint


The Citizens’ Police Review Board (CPRB) was disbanded on December 15, 2017, pursuant to Section 604, Police Commission, subsection (e)3, Budget and Staffing, of the Charter for the City of Oakland, and the Community Police Review Agency (CPRA) was created in its place.
 
Oakland City Charter, Section 604(f)(1) states: "The Agency shall receive, review and prioritize all public complaints concerning the alleged misconduct or failure to act of all Department sworn employees, including complaints from Department non-sworn employees. The Agency shall not be required to investigate each public complaint it receives, beyond the initial intake procedure, but shall investigate public complaints involving uses of force, in-custody deaths, profiling based on any of the protected characteristics identified by federal, state or local law, and First Amendment Assemblies. The Agency shall also investigate any other possible misconduct or failure to act of a Department sworn employee, whether or not the subject of a public complaint, as directed by the Commission. The Agency shall forward a copy of each complaint received to the Internal Affairs Division of the Oakland Police Department within one business day of receipt."
 
The CPRA operates under the direction of the Oakland Police Commission, which was created by Measure LL, and replaces the CPRB which was phased out by that measure.  
The CPRA’s website is currently under construction, however, the CPRA will still accept and investigate complaints of police misconduct committed by Oakland Police officers. 
 
You may submit a completed complaint form to our office.
Community Police Review Agency
City of Oakland - Dalziel Building
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 6302 (Floor 6)
Oakland, CA 94612
Fax: (510) 238-6834

or
 

You may also request a complaint form from the CPRA office by calling 510-238-3159 or by downloading a form from the following links:

__________________________________________________

We are not discussing police brutality or injustice this week ---we are discussing PUBLIC AGENCIES, CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS to hold our public officials and agencies accountable with oversight.

We shouted during the OBAMA era against POLICE BODY CAMERAS because we KNEW this policy was not about justice for the 99% of WE THE PEOPLE---it was always a global militarized police and security corporation policy being used in overseas FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----where PRIVACY LAWS regarding individual citizens' rights to privacy inside their owned-home or business.  Overseas there are no laws protecting citizens' privacy----here in US we have 300 years of citizens' rights to privacy in their own home or business.

POLICE BODY CAMERAS WERE ABOUT SKIRTING THOSE US PRIVACY LAWS TIED TO HELPING THE POOR WITH JUSTICE.

This same goal is tied to POLICE REVIEW BOARDS------CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARDS.  There is no intent of these boards helping to protect the poor.  The goal is loading these civilian boards with PLAYERS that protect the illegal actions of MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE.

We discussed how in Baltimore media presented a FALSE FLAG news article pretending police cameras were being used to stop corruption in drug and gun planting and home invasion theft of money from Baltimore citizens.  We shouted the terms of these cameras---as below we see now police are allowed to turn cameras and sound off for this reason or that reason----and VOILA----there is no 99% WE THE PEOPLE protection from police corruption from these cameras.


The 5% to the 1% pols and players pushing these laws as LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE KNOW the goals are far-right, authoritarian, militaristic repressive. Global banking 1% will MUTE police cameras---they will ERASE footage at will----they will swear there is no footage to protect MOVING FORWARD global militarized police and security trained not to serve and protect the 99%---but to do what they are told.



Why did Sacramento officers who shot Stephon Clark mute their bodycams?

The unanswered questions about the muted cams have stoked suspicion among Clark's family and protesters.by Jon Schuppe / Mar.26.2018 / 6:52 PM ET / Updated Mar.27.2018 / 10:52 AM ET



Police officials in Sacramento, California, boast about their use of body cameras, and the quick release of the footage they capture, as centerpieces of a larger effort to improve the public's trust.


But the fatal shooting by police officers last week of an unarmed black man, Stephon Clark, has exposed a potential flaw in that effort and opened up a new front in the national debate over body cameras: officers' ability to turn off the microphone on the device.

Body cam footage from the two officers who shot Clark in a residential backyard after dark on March 18 includes the chase, one officer shouting "gun" in a mistaken belief that Clark was armed, then the gunfire. It also covers the aftermath, as backup arrives and the officers walk to the street. During their exit, one officer says, "Hey, mute." Then the audio on both cameras goes silent while the video continues to show authorities responding to the scene.


Why the officers muted their body cameras remains unclear. Police Chief Daniel Hahn said last week that he could not explain it. He said there were "various reasons" why officers would turn off their cameras' audio, but he would not say if the Clark shooting was one of them. The muting, he said, would be part of his agency's investigation of the shooting.


The unanswered questions about the muted cams have stoked suspicion among Clark's family and protesters, who have criticized the shooting as an illegal use of force.


"When I heard [about the muted cameras] I felt it was intentional," Sonia Lewis, a cousin of Clark's, said last week. "You're muting something you don't want the public to hear what you're saying, and that means that if you don't want the truth to come out then all of it is a lie."


The family's attorney, Benjamin Crump, plans to file a wrongful-death lawsuit, he told the Daily Beast. Crump said in a statement to NBC News that "we're exploring every legal remedy possible to get justice for Stephon Clark." He also said that Clark's family "feels that the muting of the mics suggests they were up to something nefarious; to them it suggests they were conspiring to be deceitful."


Betty Williams, president of the Sacramento branch of the NAACP, said at a Monday news conference that she had demanded that the police department share its protocol for muting body cams, and consider changes.



The mute function on body cams is a relatively recent development. Axon, the company that makes the cameras used in Sacramento, said its "second generation" cameras are delivered without the mute function active, but it is "provided as an option for the agencies if they want to use it."


Sgt. Vance Chandler, a Sacramento police spokesman, declined on Monday to say why the department decided to activate the mute function on their cameras. He said officers are taught during body-cam training "to utilize mute" in certain situations, but would not say what they were.


"That's part of what we are looking at in this incident," he said. He added, "We want to determine if this was an appropriate time for them to mute it or not."


The city's body-cam policy, which is posted online, does not mention muting at all. It says that officers should record "any enforcement or investigative activity" until that operation has "reasonably concluded." The policy adds that officers may deactivate their cameras under some circumstances, including talking about confidential or tactical matters, or for privacy concerns, as long as the reason is documented afterward

__________________________________________
MILITARY DICTATORSHIPS HAVE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARDS.


'The request came as an independent review panel prepared to release the results of its investigation into revelations that Maryland State Police operatives posed as activists while conducting surveillance in 2005 and 2006 on war protesters and death penalty opponents, The Washington Post reported Wednesday'.

The US has in modern history policing policy keeping our police from spying and collecting photographs of US 99% of citizens going about the business of CITIZENSHIP ACTIVISM.  Police have not been allowed to keep files on what are ordinary PUBLIC AFFINITY groups------and MD was openly MOVING FORWARD with police intimidation as regards these kinds of citizen political meetings.

What did far-right wing global banking 5% pols and players do?  They placed police cameras on officers recording and photographing continually every citizen activity complete with photos and ability to send to FILES------all under the guise of protecting 99% WE THE PEOPLE from police corruption.


'NOOR: Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and Councilman Brandon Scott agree the board needs to be revamped, but say this needs to happen with a change in state law in Annapolis'.


RAWLINGS-BLAKE AND BRANDON SCOTT ARE TWO GREAT BIG GLOBAL BANKING 5% PLAYERS PUSHING FOR MORE LAWS JUST TO HAVE OUR PUBLIC OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF THIS PUBLIC AGENCY.


Our right wing 99% loving authoritarian structures ---better WAKE UP to what MOVING FORWARD DEEP STATE will look like. Here is our FAKE ALT RIGHT MD ACLU-----tell us this ACLU? US cities deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES policy designed to allow these regions operate independent of any US Rule of Law, US Constitutional right, any Bill of Right----don't you think that is a ACLU GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM ISSUE?

Md. ACLU seeks state police spy files
Oct. 1, 2008 at 8:32 AMFollow @upi


ANNAPOLIS, Md., Oct. 1 (UPI) --



Dozens of activist groups say they want Maryland authorities to release information on spying activities by the state police.



The request came as an independent review panel prepared to release the results of its investigation into revelations that Maryland State Police operatives posed as activists while conducting surveillance in 2005 and 2006 on war protesters and death penalty opponents, The Washington Post reported Wednesday.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a freedom of information request on behalf of such groups as Progressive Maryland, which promotes liberal causes, and Defend Life, a Washington-area anti-abortion coalition, the newspaper said. The groups want to see government files to determine if they were among those infiltrated by state police.


The state probe is expected to determine why officers assigned to the state's Division of Homeland Security and Intelligence infiltrated meetings and rallies and if they broke any laws, the Post said.


"The police said they were spying because they were worried about disruptive or violent anti-death penalty protests," ACLU staff attorney David Rocah told the newspaper. "If that worry was the true motive, it could exist with respect to any and all of the groups we are filing for."
____________________________________

'Yet that policy risks encouraging Egypt to become another Pakistan — where an unaccountable military deals directly with Washington, while elected civilians are sidelined'.


MAO'S GREAT LEAP FORWARD is today's global banking 1% MOVING FORWARD with goals of global militarized security and policing with 5% to the 1% candidates for local, state, and Federal office more and more being former military players. Egypt and Pakistan are those MILITARY DICTATORSHIPS where the military generals are those global banking 1% BILLIONAIRES making any civilian elected government MOOT.
We all know the Middle-East ARAB SPRING was global banking civil unrest and we know that Egypt and Pakistan military generals were installed by global banking 1%.
Here in US MOVING FORWARD has goals of installing these same global banking militarized and security structures to SUPERSEDE anything an elected group of officials would do even if they were not 5% TO THE 1% PLAYERS black, white, and brown freemason/Greeks.
MOVING FORWARD IN US CITIES LIKE BALTIMORE-----PRIVATIZATION OF YET ANOTHER PUBLIC AGENCY TO QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES-----CIVILIAN POLICE BOARDS.


The Post's View


A bad decision on Egypt

By Editorial Board March 17, 2012



WHEN HALF a dozen Americans were allowed to leave Egypt on March 1 despite being criminally charged with illegal political activity, the Obama administration insisted that its concern about the case — which it had warned could jeopardize military aid to Egypt — was not limited to the U.S. citizens.



Yet now the administration is considering going forward with military aid to Egypt — even though the criminal case in Cairo proceeds against more than two dozen Egyptians and civil society remains under assault. It’s hard to imagine another move that could do more damage to U.S. interests and the cause of democracy.


The trial is due to resume April 10. The nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), including the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute and Freedom House, have not been registered, and property seized in a December raid against them has not been returned. Some 400 other NGOs in Egypt are under official investigation. More broadly, Egypt’s ruling military council continues to violate basic norms of democracy and human rights.


To provide aid under these circumstances, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton likely would issue a “national security waiver” exempting the administration from a congressional requirement that the State Department certify that Egypt is “implementing policies to protect freedom of expression, association, and religion, and due process of law.”



After a year of turmoil, U.S. relations with Egypt’s political actors — from the military to the secular elite to the ascendant Islamist political parties — are shaky. A waiver would send the wrong message to all of them. It would confirm the widespread suspicion in Cairo that Washington cared only about its own citizens, not the underlying democratic principles in the NGO case. It would tell the military that, provided Americans are not harmed, it is free to persecute peaceful citizen activists and subvert the democratic transition. It would cruelly break faith with those Egyptians who went to work in U.S.-funded democracy and human rights programs and now will face an unjust trial alone.


There is no legitimate national security reason why a decision on military aid cannot be made after July 1, when Egypt should have completed a transition to a new democratic government. That transition should mandate an across-the-board rethinking of aid and a discussion with the new civilian authorities in Cairo about what is appropriate. Administration officials say that they plan such a review and that the purpose of resuming aid now would be to avoid a crisis with the outgoing regime. Yet that policy risks encouraging Egypt to become another Pakistan — where an unaccountable military deals directly with Washington, while elected civilians are sidelined.



Sources suggest that the administration is also worried that a production line of F-16s, which Egypt is using the aid to purchase, might have to shut if aid is suspended. That might be an election-year jobs issue, but it is not a national security issue. The real threat to U.S. security is that the transition in Egypt will end in a disaster: The military will refuse to yield power, or a democratic government will be forced by a popular backlash to rupture relations with the United States. By handing the generals money when they have failed to meet basic democratic tests, the administration would make each of those outcomes more likely.
____________________________________________

Here is captured national media selling the idea that CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARDS are populist protecting US citizens from police corruption when the goal of global banking 1% policy is the OPPOSITE.


Here is GATEWAY PUNDIT------making 99% of WE THE PEOPLE believe this is civil rights in the making-----GATEWAY is of course a term for MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE. Forget that St Louis arch.


US CITIZENS DO NOT FIGHT FOR GLOBAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARDS FOR GOODNESS SAKE.


We KNOW any citizen or group supporting these quasi-governmental structures are 5% TO THE 1% GLOBAL BANKING POLS AND PLAYERS



Surprise! RIOT BREAKS OUT at St. Louis Civilian Review Board Meeting #Ferguson (VIDEO)

by Jim Hoft January 28, 2015

What a shock.
Tonight a riot broke out at the Civilian Review Board meeting at St. Louis City Hall.


KMOV reported:

An altercation broke out at St. Louis City Hall during a meeting Thursday to discuss the possibility of creating a civilian review board so citizens could have a more direct line to police.



Witnesses told News 4 the fight began when a woman who was getting ready to leave was pushed aside by the Business Manager of the St. Louis Police Officers Association, Jeff Roorda. Roorda was addressing 18th Ward Alderman Terry Kennedy.


“I was literally just trying to leave the meeting and I got caught in whatever Roorda and Kennedy had going on in their exchange,” said Cachet Currie, the woman who was pushed. “Roorda just jumped out into the aisle, pushed me over, and tried to get to Kennedy. I’m like ‘wait a minute, don’t push me.’ Then he started going off on me, pushing me.”


Roorda called the hearing a “sham” that lacked any type of order. Roorda wore a bracelet that had words “I am Darren Wilson” written on it.
___________________________________________


Modern day GENERALS in third world dictatorships-----from MAO/STALIN/HITLER/MUSSOLINI/PINOCHET/Musharraf now MYANMAR generals all have one thing in common------they are billionaires because they work for global banking 1% pushing global naked neo-liberal capitalism. National media always makes it seem these generals are protecting US interests-----but they have always been protecting the global 1% and their corporations.



MOVING FORWARD INSTALLS THESE STRUCTURES IN OUR US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES COMPLETE WITH CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARDS. FORGET CITIZENSHIP AND PUBLIC VOICE FOR A US 99% WE THE PEOPLE.


Arab Spring was simply global banking 1% cleaning out those global 2% players allowed to have some power and wealth for a few decades.


MEDIEVAL PRAETORIAN GUARD NO DOUBT


We do not want these quasi-agencies expanding to take every US public agency ====local, state , and Federal.


Hmmmm, looks like far-right wing, authoritarian, militaristic, extreme wealth extreme poverty LIBERTARIAN MARXISM.



Egypt’s army

Ambitious men in uniform



The generals who deposed the Muslim Brotherhood are keener on power than they let on. Will Egypt return to military rule?

ONCE reluctant to appear in the media, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Egypt’s top general (pictured), is now very much seeking the limelight, perhaps because he would like to run for president. A recent video of him addressing army officers appeared to be shot for public consumption and duly went viral. His spokesman has said that although the general was not yet standing for office there was nothing to prevent him from so doing if he retired from the army.


Egypt’s press has started comparing Mr Sisi to Gamal Abdul Nasser, the hero-general who eventually became president after deposing the country’s last monarch in 1952. Protesters who helped the army to end the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood last month have plastered the streets with posters of the army chief. Many see him as a font of the dignity and security which they feel Egypt has lacked since Nasser’s time. “It is very clear he is entertaining the idea of the presidency,” says Robert Springborg, an expert in the Egyptian armed forces at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.


In his politics, the general appears to mix nationalism and Islam. He frequently inserts Koranic verses into conversation and is a more pious man than his predecessor, Hussein Tantawi, who was army chief from 1991 to 2012. During part of this time Mr Sisi was a military attaché in Saudi Arabia. He also studied at the US Army War College in Pennsylvania for a year. Sherifa Zuhur, who taught him, says that one of his daughters wore the niqab, the full face veil, and another wore the hijab, covering her hair, but not her face.


Mr Sisi’s image is tainted by the uproar he caused in 2012 when he was the military spy chief and publicly defended members of the army who had subjected female protesters in Cairo’s Tahrir Square to virginity tests “to protect the girls from rape as well as to protect the soldiers and officers from rape accusations”.

At the war college in America, Mr Sisi expressed a belief that the army must be above politics. Ms Zuhur remembers having the impression that Mr Sisi agreed that Egypt should gradually become a more pluralist state. “But [he] was also cognisant of all the difficulties that entailed for a population which had not ever participated, at that time, in an open election,” she adds.


Until recently, observers saw this opinion as typical of younger and more enlightened officers. The army “displays little interest in governing, wishing instead to protect privileges,” says a 2012 report by the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based think-tank. The generals’ experience of governing during the first year after the Arab spring seemed to bolster this preference. Being in charge brought untold difficulties and undermined popular support for the men in uniform.


Still, the generals acquired an appetite for power. They initially considered having Mr Tantawi elected as president—a non-starter. In the 2012 presidential election, won by the Muslim Brotherhood’s Muhammad Morsi, the army leant towards supporting Ahmed Shafik, a former air-force commander who was runner-up.


Following the election, the generals formed an alliance of sorts with the Muslim Brotherhood. Mr Sisi was appointed defence minister last August and purged the army of dozens of officers closely linked to his unpopular predecessor. He cautioned against interfering in politics, warning that interventions such as that which followed the ousting of Hosni Mubarak in 2011 could turn Egypt into Afghanistan or Somalia.



At the same time Mr Sisi shored up his support in the ranks. He handpicked the members of the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. “Hady”, an ordinary soldier who declined to be named, says that unlike Mr Tantawi, Mr Sisi stressed decent treatment for conscripts. “The ministry of defence became more serious about any complaint from a soldier against an officer,” he says. “The ministry now seriously punishes any officer who is proved to be abusing soldiers.”


However, as the Muslim Brotherhood grabbed more power and simultaneously lost popularity, the generals’ ambitions as well as their interests led them to revise their pledge to stay out of politics. Following last month’s coup, Mr Sisi made himself first deputy prime minister in addition to his post as defence minister. He did also promise to hold elections quickly and appointed Adly Mansour, a judge, as president, but he has done little to suggest a return to the pluralism of the past two years. Scores of Brotherhood leaders have been detained and it looks as if they will be tried. More than 100 of their supporters have been shot by security forces during protests.



The generals’ long-term intentions are hard to make out. Perhaps even they themselves are unsure what they want. Observers see the top brass as surprisingly inept strategists. Yezid Sayigh, a senior associate at the Carnegie Middle East Center, a think-tank in Beirut, says that the Egyptian army has asserted its right to intervene in the political process. That has set it on course for more intervention. But, unlike the Turkish army, it has no real concept of state-building. “They beat the nationalist drum,” says Mr Sayigh, “they talk about fighting terrorism, but none of this is an agenda, none of this is a policy for reform.”
Looking east

For inspiration the generals seem to look to Pakistan, where officers feed off a vast business empire and pay lip service to Islam and helping the poor—while in reality they line their own pockets and rule from behind a protective shield with the help of pliable civilian leaders. And if the civilians get uppity, the army simply resets the political clock.


But the Egyptian armed forces are not even as able as their chaotic Pakistani counterparts. They reached their peak military effectiveness in the 1980s when memories of their wars with Israel were still fresh. A 2008 cable from the American embassy in Cairo obtained by WikiLeaks cites analysts and former officers as saying that the armed forces were no longer capable of combat. For evidence, look to the army’s failure to quell an Islamist insurgency in the Sinai peninsula in the past two years.


According to Mr Springborg, the Sinai shows that the army is not equipped for counter-insurgency or peacekeeping—vital roles for a modern army—because neither Mr Mubarak nor General Tantawi wanted that. Instead they have thousands of tanks and 240 F-16 jets that are, he says, “basically useless. The pilots are lousy, too.” The army is the 14th-largest in the world and has a budget of $4.21 billion in 2012. It also has four museums.



The army often treats civilian institutions with disdain and at times thinks it knows better than ordinary Egyptians what is good for the country. When the armed forces build roads, they are referred to as “gifts to the people of Egypt”. In the Nasser era, propaganda murals showed soldiers marching into the future hand in hand with peasants, workers, teachers and intellectuals. Today similar posters show a soldier in combat gear cradling a baby that is meant to represent the people.


In the 1990s other security forces gained ground and seemed to compete with the army. The interior ministry gained more sway over domestic law and order. The army initially regarded the other security forces as a threat but over time inserted its men into their bureaucracies. Since the ousting of the old regime this development has come full circle. The army once again has the upper hand. The current interior minister is a general, Muhammad Ibrahim. He is resurrecting several notorious units dissolved following the Arab spring, including departments dedicated to monitoring “extremism”, religious groups and political parties. He said he would reinstate officials who had been dismissed since 2011. It was interior ministry forces that committed most of the recent deadly attacks against pro-Brotherhood protests. Mr Ibrahim and the army have denied that they used live ammunition, but that is contradicted by video footage.


As a whole, Egypt’s army is far more than a fighting force. Indeed, combat is perhaps its least developed facility. During the three-decade Mubarak era soldiers became involved in civil administration. Senior officers began to crop up everywhere in the state apparatus as well as in the economy. They wielded power not so much explicitly—unlike under Nasser the cabinet was mostly civilian—as by bureaucratic penetration. Officers sat in monitoring and administrative agencies as well as in local government. Since the 1990s, more than half of the regional governors have been drawn from the army. Meanwhile, buoyed by a privatisation programme, the officer corps captured large chunks of the economy. This provided post-retirement careers and financial security.


OMG----SOUNDS JUST LIKE THESE FEW DECADES OF CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA


Today tax holdings amount to a business empire. It generates income that bypasses public scrutiny and ranges from defence manufacturing to consumer goods. Army-owned firms dominate the markets for water, olive oil, cement, construction, hotels and gasoline. Estimates as to their size vary from 8% to as much as 40% of GDP. Army families also inhabit a parallel universe. They mainly live in separate military cities and go to shops, buy fuel at petrol stations and socialise in clubs run by the army. How sure can they be of hanging on to such privileges?


The army relies on support from civilians who are willing to govern alongside it. Without them, the impression of outright military rule would be overwhelming. Following the ousting of the Brothers, political heavyweights such as Mohamed ElBaradei, the former presidential candidate, and Ziad Bahaa el-Din, a lawyer, lent their support. It is too early to tell if they are puppets or wield real influence. But some have already voiced unease. Mr Bahaa el-Din said the new government should not copy the “oppressive and exclusionary policies” of its foes.
Waxing and waning

For the moment, the army remains remarkably popular. A poll in May gave it a 94% approval rating—compared with around 30% for then-President Morsi and the opposition. But Egyptians have short memories. The army was extolled in the wake of the Mubarak uprising as the protector of the revolution, but later came to be seen as working against revolutionary aspirations. A video from December 2011 of soldiers dragging the “blue bra woman” through the streets of Cairo marked a turning point. Today, in the wake of what Egyptians regard as a second revolution, many once again cheer the army regardless of its past abuses. But for how long? Since Mr Mubarak’s fall the army has tried hard to rebrand itself as the people’s friend rather than a protector of the regime. It is more reliant on public support than ever.

Opinions may turn against the army once again if it cannot fix the broken economy. The Brothers, too, were popular when they came to power, only to find that the people expected them to provide jobs and services that never materialised. For the army to do better, it will have to bring about reforms that the Brotherhood and Mr Mubarak shied away from—or get civilians to do so. But that would threaten its own business empire. It is, after all, a beneficiary of Egypt’s restrictive and anti-competitive practices. Mr Sisi may want to sweep these away, but many of his fellow officers are unlikely to see it like that. He could argue that an unshackled and therefore booming economy would benefit all. But lazy rent-seekers will know better. At least that is what Mr Sisi’s predecessors found.


0 Comments

March 28th, 2018

3/28/2018

0 Comments

 
'Exercising our Civil Right (…and Civic Responsibility) to VOTE! - by President Terri Lee Freeman

Terri Lee Freeman, Museum President'


No one knows better than our national NGO leaders that our 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE cannot do our civic duty when all public agencies are deliberately, willfully, and with malice being held captive by corporate boards now becoming GLOBAL CORPORATE 1% BOARDS. EXERCISING OUR CIVIL RIGHT TO VOTE is MOOT if we are not CITIZENS holding our elected officials accountable with oversight and justice.

CIVIC DUTY STARTS WITH BEING EDUCATED AND EMPOWERED AS CITIZENS. BEING FED PROPAGANDA AND MYTH-MAKING IN ALL MEDIA AND CORPORATE K-UNIVERSITY IS NOT BUILDING CITIZENSHIP EMPOWERMENT.
Any US NGO allowing this dialogue of RUSSIA and election fraud everyone knows has been happening these few decades by CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----is not working for 99% of citizens, black, white, or brown citizens.


American Alliance of Museums
Accredited by the American Alliance of Museums
Designated a World Peace Flame Monument Site
Designated a World Peace Flame Monument Site
Member of the worldwide network of over 300 historic sites
Member of the worldwide network of over 300 historic sites



Exercising our Civil Right (…and Civic Responsibility) to VOTE!
- by President Terri Lee Freeman
Terri Lee Freeman, Museum President


November 4, 2014


It is a privilege and honor to be the new President of the National Civil Rights Museum. And what better time to introduce myself than Election Day 2014.


It’s been stated over and over during this election season that mid-term elections are just as important, if not more so, than the presidential elections. What’s up for grabs? Frankly, the future. While it sounds cliché, it is so very true -- the future is in our hands IF we exercise our right to vote.


I’m a mother of three daughters with two who are young adults that I’m sure will vote today. However, I’ve had the unfortunate opportunity to overhear their conversations with their well-educated friends about how their single vote, really doesn’t make a difference. Such comments make the hair on the back of my neck stand at attention, though I do understand where they are coming from. What they are actually saying is, “I understand that I have a civic duty to vote, but why when nothing changes?” Well, my answer to that question is, “it doesn’t stop in the voting booth.”


Your civic responsibility requires far more than simply pulling a lever, or hitting a touchscreen ballot. Your responsibility requires community engagement – understanding the issues facing your community, getting to know the folks who represent your community and holding them accountable for doing their job which is to serve the people. Too often we forget that they work for us. We must exercise our franchise and take advantage of the right that so many before us died for to make sure we could be included in this process called democracy.


So while I recognize that I’m likely preaching to the choir, we must do the right thing and take the time to vote. I practice what I preach, I did early voting. And, after we vote, we must then engage in the hard work of not just pontificating about what we don’t like, but work to be the change we want to see. Vote, yes, but let’s also use our voices to let our elected officials know that we are counting on them to “serve the people.” And the people are US!


_______________________________________________


“The development of a comprehensive, efficient and effective mass transit system is essential to the City of Baltimore’s long-term sustainability, prosperity and relevance,” said Jimmy Rouse, a founding member of Transit Choices'.



The GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM issue for 99% of Baltimore citizens and indeed the entire state in transportation is the fact that MARYLAND GOV LARRY HOGAN further consolidated Maryland and Baltimore's public transit under the umbrella of PORT OF BALTIMORE/BWI QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY. This means our MTA, subway, light rail, and MARC TRAIN will be VEILED behind yet another PRIVATIZATED QUASI-BOARD.


We KNOW HOGAN is MOVING FORWARD the high-speed HYPER-LOOP train that will be privately operated and replace MARC yet media is telling us HOGAN is adding one more MARC car on weekends. That is our 99% GIFT.


No one knows better than NAACP the goals of MOVING FORWARD US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----with global corporate campuses and global factories and infrastructure geared to massive movement of cargo to PORT OF BALTIMORE. Can we really build transportation infrastructure before all those global corporate campuses are built? OF COURSE NOT. Is there any intention of building strong PUBLIC transit in Baltimore City Center? OF COURSE NOT.


MARYLAND GOV O'MALLEY enfolded our PORT OF BALTIMORE into all kinds of global corporate investment firms and foreign global operational corporations----HOGAN is simply MOVING FORWARD by enfolding our state public MTA/MDOT/MARC into this same quasi-authority that no 99% of WE THE PEOPLE can control or have oversight and accountability.


O'MALLEY WAS FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% CLINTON NEO-LIBERAL---HOGAN IS FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% BUSH NEO-CON----SAME ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE 5% POLS APPOINTING 5% PLAYERS TO BOARDS.

NAACP is of course filled with 5% black global banking players pretending to work for public interest just as all global Wall Street Baltimore Development FAKE 'labor and justice' organizations.



 Chronology

In mid-October 2005, DP World approached the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to clear regulatory hurdles for a possible acquisition of the British firm P&O. The CFIUS is the multi-agency federal panel that passe
s judgment on deals with foreign corporations that raise antitrust or national security questions, Soon after, DPW began negotiating the terms of the takeover with P&O.[1] They were advised by former President Bill Clinton to submit to a 45-day review of the acquisition.[2]

In December 2005, Coast Guard intelligence officials raised the possibility of significant security risks associated with the management of some U.S. port operations by a Dubai company, stating in a report that broad intelligence gaps prevented them from assessing the risks.[3]

In February 2006, the stockholders of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O), a British firm, agreed to a sale of that company to DPW over a bid by PSA International of Singapore. As part of the sale, DPW would assume the leases of P&O to manage major U.S. facilities at the Port of New York and New Jersey, Port of Philadelphia, Port of Baltimore, Port of New Orleans, and the Port of Miami, as well as operations in 16 other ports.

After P&O stockholders approved the deal, the arrangement was reviewed by the CFIUS headed by the U.S. Treasury Department. The transfer of leases was approved.




 HOGAN enfolds our MTA bus, subway, light rail, MARC train into the same QUASI-AUTHORITY as PORT OF BALTIMORE operated by global foreign corporations 99% of Baltimore citizens have no ability to control, provide oversight and accountability and to create public policy THEY AS WE THE PEOPLE want.



NAACP Files Lawsuit Over Maryland Governor’s Decision to Reject Urban Mass Transit System in Favor of Road Projects Serving Suburban, Rural Residents

By
Manny Otiko
-
December 23, 2015


Local civil rights groups are up in arms over Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan’s decision to scrap plans for an urban mass transit system in favor funding road projects that would benefit white suburban and rural residents.

According to The Guardian, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) has filed a civil rights lawsuit over Hogan’s decision. The LDF say Hogan’s plan discriminates against Baltimore’s Black residents.


Transportation is a major issue in Black neighborhoods. Many low-income residents don’t own cars and rely on public transportation. But if they don’t have an effective public transportation system, they can’t get to higher-paying jobs which are often located far from their homes.


The Guardian said Baltimore’s public transit system is so bad the city offered Amazon a $100,000 forgivable loan to help pay for it’s fleet of private shuttles. Susan Yum, a spokesperson for the Baltimore Development Corp, told The Baltimore Sun, the city’s bus system “does not provide access to where the jobs are available now.”


“From some parts of the city, the commute to some areas where there are jobs can be as long as 90 minutes each way,” Yum said.
The proposed rail system, known as the Red Line, would have helped many Black residents get to work.
“The lack of mobility, long commuter times, have critical implications for families in Baltimore,” said Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel for LDF. “We regard the cancellation of the Red Line as a critically important moment that must be addressed and must be engaged.”


According to the complaint, a transportation economist said the switch from a subway line to the new highway initiative would cost Black residents about $19 million in user benefits by 2030. White Maryland residents would see a $35 million user benefit over the same period. Sen. Barbara Mikulski said Hogan’s decision to turn down a federally-funded project was baffling.

BARBARA---DO WE THINK THE RED LINE WAS NEVER ABOUT PUBLIC TRANSIT BUT ABOUT OIL AND GAS PIPELINES FROM WVA/PA FOLLOWING I 83?


“I never thought, ever, in my closing year in the U.S. Senate, I would see a letter saying the Baltimore region rejects $900m in federal investment,” Mikulski said.
However the LDF’s complaint says Maryland has a long history of policies that discriminate against Black residents.


“Maryland, including the City of Baltimore, has exhibited a preference for its white residents over its African American residents in highway construction decisions since at least the 1930s,” said the complaint.
According to the complaint, in the 1960s the government proposed a new expressway through the predominately Black Franklin-Mulberry corridor in Baltimore’s Harlem Park neighborhood.


“As a result, Harlem Park residents stopped investing in their homes, and the neighborhood became filled with deteriorating and abandoned buildings,” said the LDF’s complaint.


The Guardian said that Baltimore has used race-based housing covenants to enforce segregated housing. Realtors also practiced “blockbusting,” a tactic where they used fears of Black people moving into a neighborhood, to convince white homeowners to sell for cheaper prices. This practice means that even today, neighborhoods are still largely segregated.


In 1965, residents of predominantly white areas, such as Anne Arundel County, objected to a light rail system because they feared it would bring urban (Black) residents into their neighborhoods. They complained “that the Metro would enable poor, inner-city blacks to travel to the suburbs, steal residents’ TVs and then return to their ghettos in Baltimore.”

THE MASTER PLANS FOR US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES WERE IN PLACE IN 1980S.  THE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE WILL BE BUILT AS GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUSES ARE BUILT.


According to The Guardian, last year Carroll County introduced a “Mass Transit Protection Resolution,” intended to keep public transit riders from Baltimore out.

“[Mass transportation] led to the breakdown of those two shopping centers (in Baltimore) and we are not going to use mass transit to connect either Baltimore County or Montgomery County [to Carroll],” said county Commissioner Doug Howard in a Carroll County Times article.

______________________________________________


We shared a few days ago a video of a public K-12 school teacher in Arizona protesting against falling wages telling us she has 2 MASTER'S DEGREES in EDUCATION. Now, we have known these few decades of MOVING FORWARD GLOBAL NEO-LIBERAL CORPORATE SCHOOLS that the 'dumbing down' of highly educated public school students during CLINTON'S education reform was to continue until all US public education was dismantled replaced by overseas FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE corporate K-university apprenticeship schools. We have known since OBAMA era that ONE WORLD ONE GLOBAL COMMONER CORE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY was dismantling even our classrooms and teachers replacing them with online lessons, artificial intelligence, and soon to be robotics.

Below we see the EDUCATION STRUCTURE that keeps our 99% of MARYLAND/BALTIMORE citizens in constant job training for employment that we all know will disappear in MOVING FORWARD. This video shows how courses are directly tied to our GLOBAL PORT OF BALTIMORE not educating against these privatizations---not educating against US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE status-----simply doing what global banking tells them.

So, PORT OF BALTIMORE under a global foreign authority has a goal of being almost fully AUTOMATED----in only a few decades eliminating what were strong LONGSHOREMEN JOBS---eliminating what were small transportation and storage businesses tied to cargo transfer---and bringing in global 99% labor pool already trained overseas.






'Chronology

In mid-October 2005, DP World approached the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to clear regulatory hurdles for a possible acquisition of the British firm P&O. The CFIUS is the multi-agency federal panel that passes judgment on deals with foreign corporations that raise antitrust or national security questions, Soon after, DPW began negotiating the terms of the takeover with P&O.[1] They were advised by former President Bill Clinton to submit to a 45-day review of the acquisition.[2]

In December 2005, Coast Guard intelligence officials raised the possibility of significant security risks associated with the management of some U.S. port operations by a Dubai company, stating in a report that broad intelligence gaps prevented them from assessing the risks.[3]

In February 2006, the stockholders of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O), a British firm, agreed to a sale of that company to DPW over a bid by PSA International of Singapore. As part of the sale, DPW would assume the leases of P&O to manage major U.S. facilities at the Port of New York and New Jersey, Port of Philadelphia, Port of Baltimore, Port of New Orleans, and the Port of Miami, as well as operations in 16 other ports.

After P&O stockholders approved the deal, the arrangement was reviewed by the CFIUS headed by the U.S. Treasury Department. The transfer of leases was approved'.




When our 'public' schools in this case county community colleges are not providing CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION but only providing CORPORATE PROPAGANDA AND MYTH-MAKING job training----we have no empowerment as CITIZENS.


Port Education - "Baltimore: Port of Opportunity"

Port of Baltimore
Published on Dec 10, 2014
The Affinity Group and SMART are two organizations that help "connect the dots" between education and Port related jobs and careers.



A conglomerate of education facilities aligned with PORT OF BALTIMORE controlled by global foreign corporations having nothing to do with the public interests of 99% of Baltimore or Maryland citizens. IT'S NOT JUST ANY JOB.



'Affinity group
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the organizational model. For the company, see Affinity Group Inc.

An affinity group is a group formed around a shared interest or common goal, to which individuals formally or informally belong. Affinity groups are generally precluded from being under the aegis of any governmental agency, and their purposes must be primarily non-commercial. Examples of affinity groups include private social clubs, fraternities, writing or reading circles, hobby clubs, and groups engaged in political activism'.

_______________________________________________

It does not take a rocket scientist to understand to where these STAKEHOLDER GROUPS have become AFFINITY GROUPS which are MOVING FORWARD to being only that 5% player group working only for those global 1%.


Having AFFINITY GROUPS tied to our public university systems as community colleges and county 4 year universities----now expanding to our public K-12 is simply a FAKE appearance of PUBLIC INTEREST PUBLIC OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY.  We can be sure these AFFINITY GROUPS are filled with 5% freemason/Greeks moving public policy written by global banking at the local level under the guise of public education.  This has led to our 99% of WE THE PEOPLE strongly educated in broad citizenship education being 'dumbed down' exposed to crumbling schools tied to endless job training.

We heard a citizen shouting he had job training across every industry certification not finding a job.

WHEN WE EDUCATE ON PUBLIC POLICY AND WE KNOW WHO THOSE 5% PLAYERS AND ORGANIZATIONS ARE----WE CAN FIX BALTIMORE MOVING AWAY FROM DARK AGES AND INTO 20TH CENTURY.

No amount of TALKING POINTS pretending these groups are equal opportunity----having any intention of bringing value economics and employment to our local communities hides the fact these are 5% players doing ANYTHING GLOBAL BANKING 1% tells them.

We are not a set of special interests----US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE are EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND ACCESS-----we all have expectations of public officials creating LOCAL ECONOMIES fully employing ALL CITIZENS black, white, and brown citizens.


The enforcement of EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND BILL OF RIGHTS is done by our local government officials and corporations design their HUMAN RESOURCES around that public enforcement.  This is the opposite.  We are told these corporations are SELF-REGULATING with these FAKE POLICIES.



Global corporations SELF-REGULATING in meeting the US Rule of Law, US Constitutional rights, Bill of Rights ignoring and replacing our DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING, AND REGULATIONS is not empowering 99% of citizens ----

These are the societal structures installed these few decades of ROBBER BARON MOVING FORWARD that have taken away the public space from where 99% WE THE PEOPLE do our duty as CITIZENS.




Magazine article HRMagazine


Affinity Group Danger Zones

By Segal, Jonathan A.
Read preview
Article excerpt


Structure affinity groups so they are lawful.

Smart organizations want to increase employee engagement and inclusion. One way to do that is through affinity groups.


What are affinity groups? They are groups of employees who have a common interest or characteristic. Sometimes the commonality is based on a factor that is not protected under equal employment opportunity (EEO) laws, such as the employees' position. Usually, however, affinity groups are built around EEO-protected characteristics, such as race, gender and sexual orientation, and are supported financially by the organization.


There are obvious benefits to having affinity groups. They can increase morale, retention and innovation, as well as business, because of greater inclusion of diverse perspectives.

In some organizations, an affinity group may be seen as the antidote to marginalization of certain groups of employees. Affinity group meetings provide a place to experience business and social inclusion for those who are or feel marginalized.


Yet, these groups, if not structured properly, can have divisive and exclusionary effects. Moreover, there are legal risks that need to be navigated. Just because the goal of the affinity group is laudable does not mean that the group is lawful

.

The following four hypotheticals highlight some of the legal and business risks of affinity groups, with recommendations on how to manage them.


Affinity Group For White Men


Employer ABC has affinity groups for women; people of color; and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees. The employer provides financial and other support for these groups so that they legally would be characterized as benefits of employment.


A group of white men asks to form an affinity group. The HR leader considers saying, "You don't need one. You already have one; it's called the senior leadership team," which is made up of white men but for one exception.


The emotion behind the fantasy response may be understandable, but the response is, of course, inappropriate because legal risk would accompany it. Title VII's prohibition on gender bias knows no gender. The same is true of racial bias. Denying a benefit to employees because they are white and male is, well, discrimination. But that does not mean that the request necessarily needs to be honored.


The key for an organization is to develop upfront nondiscriminatory criteria in determining whether it will provide financial or other support for a proposed affinity group. Among the criteria an organization may consider are the following:


* How will the proposed affinity group help its members achieve the company's mission and goals?
* How will the proposed affinity group increase inclusion and business development among the individuals in the group (as opposed to employees generally)?
* Are other affinity groups or mechanisms already in place that serve the need addressed by the request?
Making decisions about proposed affinity groups based on the answers to these kinds of questions doesn't eliminate all legal risks, but it does minimize them.


Let's return to the white men at Employer ABC. If the organization's power circle is dominated by white men, the white men seeking to form an affinity group may have an uphill battle. But would that be true for a group of entrylevel employees in human resources?


There is no clear-cut answer; rather, it depends on applying legitimate nondiscriminatory factors.
If Employer ABC has an affinity group for women and not one for men, it might consider including men in a broader affinity group on gender that would focus, although not exclusively, on issues women face that men don't.


It is not that you need men to be part of the group for legitimacy. You don't. But men can learn from being included, and men who are enlightened about the obstacles that women often face are more likely to become mentors and sponsors for female colleagues.

________________________________________

Southern California Grantmakers
----AFFINITY GROUPS
Join Now


  • Home
  • Contact Us
  • Log In



Southern California Grantmakers----same as Baltimore Association of Grantmakers-----patronage NGOs channeling global corporate donations to their own public policy goals.

This is the structure from where that 5% to the 1% is made a non-profit DIRECTOR leading that group towards the goals of global banking 1% no matter what the goal of grassroots 99% who may join intend.  It is the mirror of global Wall Street Baltimore Development controlling all economic and development in Baltimore----only it is tied to societal structures which our 99% of citizens want to control for themselves and their individual communities.

THIS IS THE DOUBLE-WHAMMY OF MOVING FORWARD THESE FEW DECADES----CONSOLIDATING OUR PUBLIC VOICES ON ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PUBLIC POLICY.

So, we have an AFFINITY GROUP calling itself SMART tied to PORT OF BALTIMORE controlling education policies at our local public community colleges leading to absolutely no future in employment and no local economic development tied to community small businesses creating LIFE-LONG CAREERS.

THIS IS WHAT GLOBAL BANKING 1% ARE TELLING US IS OUR LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE POLITICAL ARM----AND NONE OF THIS ENDS BEING LEFT----IT IS ALL MOVING FORWARD FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% POLICY AGENDA.

When US 99% WE THE PEOPLE allow ourselves to be HERDED into these FAKE citizen action groups controlled by global banking ----we have lost our PUBLIC SPACE----CITIZENSHIP VOICE.



Southern California Grantmakers
Join Now


  • Home
  • Contact Us
  • Log In
Search formSearch
  • About Us
    • Board of Directors
    • Our Staff
    • Core Operating Funders
    • Our History
    • Frequently Asked Questions
    • Contact Us
  • Programs & Resources
    • SCG Programs Calendar
      • SCG Programs
      • Events in the Field
      • Webinars
    • Resources
      • Search Resources
      • SCG Program Materials
      • Fiscal Sponsorship
      • Member Publications
      • Consultants
      • Public Policy
      • Job Board
    • By Category
      • By Funding Area
      • Capacity Building
      • Impact Investing
      • Corporate Giving
      • Family Foundations
      • Professional Development
      • View All
    • Featured
      • Philanthropy California
      • 2020 Census
      • Foundation Maps - California / Get on the Map
      • Full Cost Project
      • Center for Strategic Public-Private Partnerships
  • Membership
    • Update Your Profile
    • Join SCG
    • Membership Directory
    • Member Benefits
  • Public Policy
    • Policy Updates
    • Policy Resources
    • 2020 Census
  • Peer Groups
    • Peer Groups Directory
    • Add Your Group
    • Online Communities
  • News
    • President's Blog
    • Regional Philanthropy News
    • SCG in the News
    • Press Room
  • Home
  • Committees/Groups
  • Affinity Group
Affinity Group


Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders in Philanthropy (AAPIP)Group Type: 


Affinity Group



Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders in Philanthropy (AAPIP) is a national membership organization dedicated to increasing charitable investments for underserved AAPI communities.

WebsiteSCG LGBTQ Professionals Network

Group Type: 
Affinity Group
Southern California CHANGE Philanthropy LeadersGroup Type: 
Affinity Group
SCG Southern California Latinos in PhilanthropyGroup Type: 
Affinity Group
CHANGE PhilanthropyGroup Type: 
Affinity Group
formerly Join Affinity Group (JAG)

WebsiteEmerging Practitioners in Philanthropy (EPIP)Group Type: 


Affinity Group


Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy (EPIP) is a national network of foundation professionals and social entrepreneurs who strive for excellence in the practice of philanthropy. Our mission is to develop emerging leaders committed to building a just, equitable, and sustainable society. EPIP exists to ensure that emerging foundation professionals are effective stewards of philanthropic resources and all social entrepreneurs reach their potential as leaders.

WebsiteFunders for LGBTQ IssuesGroup Type: 
Affinity Group
Funding Areas 
LGBTQ+
Website
Focus Area: 
LGBTQ+;POPULATIONS & COMMUNITIES
Hispanics in Philanthropy (HIP)Group Type: 
Affinity Group
Website
Ventura County Funders Forum

Group Type: 
Affinity Group


Southern California Grantmakers and First 5 Ventura County are pleased to sponsor the Ventura County Funders Forum, a forum for foundations, grant makers and funders who support charitable organizations in Ventura County, advancing the public good and the work of nonprofits. All organizations that provide grants to nonprofit organizations in Ventura County are welcome to attend and participate in a forum designed to educate, inform, share and collaborate where similar goals, charitable intent, multiple visions, dedicated philanthropy and informed experience can find common ground.

Membership Criteria: 
Open only to grantmakers
Meeting Schedule: 
Quarterly
Contact This Group


The Communications Network – LA ChapterGroup Type: 


Affinity Group


The Communications Network is a nonprofit organization comprised of social sector leaders from foundations, nonprofits and consulting firms across the globe who share the belief that smart strategic communications have the power to transform society and improve lives. Founded nearly 30 years ago by the late Frank Karel of The Robert Wood Johnson and Rockefeller Foundations to help social change leaders improve their work and “get the word out”, today The Network is the premier leadership organization for nonprofit communications professionals.

Funding Areas 
COMMUNICATIONS, MEDIA & JOURNALISM
Website

Membership Criteria: 
Local foundation and nonprofit communications professionals as well as consultants and professionals in related fields who are interested in social sector communications.
Meeting Schedule: 
Quarterly
Contact This Group
Southern California Blacks in Philanthropy (SCBIP)

Group Type: 
Affinity Group
Southern California Blacks in Philanthropy (SCBIP) is a professional membership organization that connects African-American philanthropists in the greater Los Angeles area to each other and to opportunities to advance change.
Please contact Kameron Green, Kameron@socalgrantmakers.org, for more information on joining.

Website
Membership Criteria: 
Open only to grantmakers; Paid membership required

Meeting Schedule: 
Other

___________________________________________

'Affinity Groups

Edyth Bush Institute members'




When US 99% WE THE PEOPLE allow ourselves to be HERDED into these FAKE citizen action groups controlled by global banking ----we have lost our PUBLIC SPACE----CITIZENSHIP VOICE.


'Website
Membership Criteria:

Open only to grantmakers; Paid membership required'




 Our local US media selects public voice from these NGOs tied to AFFINITY GROUPS tied to PATRONAGE CORPORATE GRANTMAKERS.

REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES do not fit in any of these groups because the GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM policy issues are not found in GBLT RIGHTS while the GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM issues kill 99% of GBLT citizens.

GLOBAL CORPORATIONS DONATING AS PATRONS TO MARYLAND/BALTIMORE GRANTMAKERS ARE NOT GOING TO CREATE NGOS ADDRESSING GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM ISSUES.

Our 99% of new immigrant citizens need to know these few decades of ROBBER BARON fleecing of America MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1% never had these captured citizen structures replacing public space and local public agencies allowing our 99% in each community to affect their own community policies regardless of economic, development, or social.


AFFINITY GROUPS tied to STATE GRANTMAKERS are MOVING FORWARD only ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE United Nations policies---economic and social and 99% of WE THE PEOPLE are allowing ourselves to simply follow these protests disregarding GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM ISSUES for both 99% right wing and 99% of left wing US citizens.



Affinity Groups

Edyth Bush Institute members have the opportunity to join a number of local affinity groups. Each group is centered around a particular area of specialization (marketing, human resources, young professionals, etc.) that meet occasionally to discuss topics relevant to the field. If you are a current member and you would like to join an affinity group, please contact the group administrators listed below.
  
Edyth Bush Institute Affinity Groups


Nonprofit Seasoned CEO Affinity Group

About: The Seasoned CEO Affinity Group is a free resource to CEOs/Executive Directors of Edyth Bush Institute member organizations that have five or more years in their current leadership position. Seasoned leaders discuss trends, best practices, and other timely topics among a trusted peer group who can offer insight, perspective, and support into nonprofit leadership challenges.



Meetings:
Date: The second Tuesday of every month
Time: 8:30 – 9:30 a.m.
Location: Rollins College, Edyth Bush Insititute

Contact: If you are interested in joining this affinity group, please contact Margaret Linnane at mlinnane@rollins.edu. 


Grant Professionals Affinity Group (GPAG)



About: The Edyth Bush Institute (EBI) is pleased to welcome the Grant Professionals Affinity Group! We invite all grant writers and managers to attend! A free resource to members and non-members of EBI, our monthly meetings will offer a space to network, collaborate, and hear from funders, thought leaders, and peers in the sector.


Meetings:
Date: Last Wednesday of the month
Time: 8:30 – 10:00 a.m.
Location: Heart of Florida United Way

Contact: If you are interested in joining this affinity group, please contact Min Sun Kim at mkim@rollins.edu. 


Nonprofit Human Resource Affinity Group of Central Florida

About: The Nonprofit HR Affinity Group is a free resource to nonprofit Human Resources professionals of Edyth Bush Institute member organizations.  The purpose of this group is to provide a forum for nonprofit human resource professionals to share and gain best practices, knowledge, resources and networking.

Meetings:
Date: Quarterly
Time: 8:30 – 10:00 a.m.

Contact: If you are interested in joining the affinity group please contact the group coordinator, Karen Revels, Rollins College krevels@rollins.edu.
  
Nonprofit Marketing & Communications Affinity Group


About: The Marketing and Communications Affinity Group serves as a free resource to Edyth Bush Institute member organizations to discuss trends, best practices and other important topics among peers who can help offer insight and perspective into ideas and projects.
Meetings:Date: Every other month
Time: 8:30 – 10:00 a.m.
Location: Rollins College, Edyth Bush Institute

Contact: If you are interested in joining the affinity group please contact the group coordinator, Brian Schulte at bschulte@rollins.edu.
  
Community Affinity Groups




Council of Volunteer Management of Central Florida
The mission of the Council of Volunteer Management (CVM) of Central Florida is to enhance the volunteer programs of non-profit organizations in the Central Florida area by assisting in the development and growth of volunteer services with a focus on networking, marketing and recruiting within the community. Launched in 1974, as the United Effort Volunteer Association, today's CVM provides a vital forum for information exchange and training for volunteer coordinators at non-profit agencies.



For more information please visit CVM's Facebook Page.




YNPN Orlando (Young Nonprofit Professionals Network)


YNPN Orlando empowers young nonprofit professionals with the skills and resources to become dynamic community leaders.


YNPN chapters around the county are building stronger young leaders through programming, education, and networking that provides a career pathway for nonprofit professionals. Through our national network, YNPN works to advocate for a sector that is more sustainable and effective in its talent recruitment, retention and development practices. YNPN is building a network of leaders around the country who can design, advocate for and lead this more sustainable and effective nonprofit sector.
We are a member-driven organization run completely by volunteers.

If you are a young professional new to the nonprofit sector or are thinking about a job in the nonprofit sector and would like to learn more about your career opportunities and to meet nonprofit professionals, please join our email list or become a member by visiting the YNPN Orlando local website or the chapter's Facebook page.

________________________________________


'Rachel works closely with the National Council and Affinity Group leadership to implement the strategic direction of UNA-USA'.

Hmmmm, here is RACHEL------graduated from global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE Johns Hopkins-----raging far-right wing, authoritarian, militaristic, extreme wealth extreme poverty ROBBER BARON top gun OLD WORLD DARK AGES KINGS AND QUEENS------organizing those AFFINITY GROUPS from United Nations down to our US cities deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----from where FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT 99% social progressive issue support unfolds.

NO GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM ISSUES WILL EVER BE ORGANIZED OR PROTESTED THROUGH THIS CAPTURE OF OUR US CITIZEN VOICE------NO HOLDING LOCAL 5% PLAYERS ACCOUNTABLE---

Seems RACHEL is interested in MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD to create maximized GLOBAL CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY.


The same ROBBER BARON GLOBAL BANKING fleecing our wealth killing our freedom, liberty, justice, pursuit of happiness being allowed to tie to all our US 99% and global labor pool 99% of students ----

WORKING FOR THE STRATEGIC DIRECTION OF UNITED NATIONS IN USA.



Connecting You with the United Nations
WORKING WITH THE UN | DONATE NOW | BLOG

Who We Are
What We Do
How To Help

JOIN US

Who We Are:

Rachel Pittman

Board Experts Leaders Careers Financial Information Impact News & Media

Connecting You with the UN to Solve Global Problems
www.unfoundation.org > Who We Are > Experts

Rachel Pittman

As the Sr. Director of Membership and Programs, Rachel Bowen Pittman manages programs for UNA-USA’s network of 20,000+ members and its 150 chapters to cultivate membership, youth engagement, advocacy efforts and public awareness. She coordinates UNA-USA national programs, including Members’ Day at the UN, the Leadership Summit and UN Day events, and manages the Adopt-A-Future refugee education fundraising campaign. Rachel works closely with the National Council and Affinity Group leadership to implement the strategic direction of UNA-USA.

Prior to joining UNA-USA, Rachel served as a Membership Director to several professional associations that represent lawyers, surgeons, regulators and engineers. In her many accomplishments, Rachel increased membership programs by over 15% and secured agreements with national associations representing China, Korea, Argentina, India, Peru, Egypt and Mexico.

Rachel holds a B.S.B.A in International Business from American University and an MBA in Marketing from Johns Hopkins University.​




0 Comments

March 27th, 2018

3/27/2018

0 Comments

 
We want to discuss public policy being installed with a goal of killing opportunity and access for 99% of WE THE PEOPLE needed to be CITIZENS-----we started by showing how Congress, state assemblies, and our local county councils CAN install laws that are ILLEGAL and violate our US Constitutional rights. Allowing policies of charging huge amounts of money to attain public documents that not even a media corporation can afford in trying to provide oversight and accountability is PROHIBITIVE and done deliberately, willfully, and with malice to keep 99% of WE THE PEOPLE from our rights to know what our public agencies are doing.  We showed the same with global banking policies deregulation of Wall Street that allowed INVESTMENT FIRMS to create structures designed to deliberately stage operations that 99% of WE THE PEOPLE as stock and bond holders have no way of knowing or accessing the information we need to be educated INVESTORS.  These are not LEGAL LAWS=====our US Constitution and Bill of Rights makes 99% of WE THE PEOPLE---CITIZENS having the rights to control public policy and oversee our public agencies.

One example of how US courts used to affirm that stance was VOTING RIGHTS ACT.  Right wing states deliberately placed laws surrounding voting meant to exclude ever-more population groups DENYING equal opportunity and access to all having the right to VOTE.  The courts placed those right wing states under court oversight to assure no LAWS installed to prohibit equal opportunity to vote were installed.

WHETHER OUR 99% ARE RIGHT WING OR LEFT WING----THESE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY LAWS TIED TO US CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS OPENED THE DOOR TO WHITE 99% AS MUCH AS BLACK AND BROWN 99% TO CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS.


Today's stance of public agencies being shrouded in secrecy because of private partnerships and quasi-government status are the same kinds of policies keeping US citizens from their rights---as was those VOTING RIGHTS 'poll taxes' et al.



Texas Republicans call for repealing the Voting Rights Act


06/18/14 03:52 PM--Updated 06/25/14 05:07 PM
By Zachary Roth



When the Supreme Court weakened the Voting Rights Act last year, it allowed Texas to implement what is perhaps the nation’s strictest photo ID law. But according to the state’s Republicans, the federal government still has too much influence on how it runs elections.


The Texas GOP platform, released Thursday, calls for the repeal of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965, the most successful civil-rights law in the nation’s history. It also supports scrapping the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which has helped millions register to vote. And it advocates making voters re-register every four years, among other restrictive policies.


In sum, the party wants to get the federal government out of the business of overseeing state elections—returning voting law to where it was before the civil rights movement.
“We urge that the Voter [sic] Rights Act of 1965, codified and updated in 1973, be repealed and not reauthorized,” the platform says. 


These aren’t new positions—the platform’s section on voting issues is largely unchanged from 2012. But circumstances have changed. Last year, the Supreme Court badly weakened the VRA by invalidating the provision that required certain states with a history of discrimination, including Texas, to get federal approval before making changes to their voting systems. That allowed Texas to put into effect its strict voter ID law, which had been blocked by a court under the VRA. 


The Justice Department is continuing to challenge Texas’s voter ID law under a different provision of the VRA that still exists, and which prohibits racial discrimination in voting.
Without the VRA, the only bar on racial discrimination in voting would be the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. These weren’t enough to stop a century of Jim Crow, which used tactics like literacy tests to get around the prohibition on explicitly denying the right to vote on account of race. It was only thanks to the VRA, which took a broader view of what constitutes racial discrimination in voting, that the right to vote for all Americans was meaningfully assured.


Voting rights advocates are currently pushing Congress—with little success—to advance a bill that would strengthen the VRA in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Texas Republicans’ stance is a reminder that many conservatives want to go in the opposite direction.


A spokesman for Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott—who has fought for the ID law in court and who supported the legal effort to weaken the VRA—did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether he supports repealing the VRA entirely. 
The GOP platform also calls for repeal of the 2002 Help America Vote Act—which has made it easier for millions of Americans to cast a ballot—calling the law “unconstitutional.” And it explicitly says states have the right to disenfranchise ex-felons.



Below is the full voting section of the platform, which appears not to have been updated since 2012:


Voter Registration- We support restoring integrity to the voter registration rolls and reducing voter fraud. We support repeal of all motor voter laws; re-registering voters every four years; requiring photo ID of all registrants; proof of residency and citizenship, along with voter registration application; retention of the 30-day registration deadline; and requiring that a list of certified deaths be provided to the Secretary of State in order that the names of deceased voters be removed from the list of registered voters. 


Selection of Primary Candidates- The SREC should study the Utah model for selecting primary
candidates.

Electoral College- We strongly support the Electoral College.
Voting Rights- We support equal suffrage for all United States citizens of voting age who are not felons. We oppose any identification of citizens by race, origin, or creed and oppose use of any such identification for purposes of creating voting districts.
Voter Rights Act- We urge that the Voter Rights Act of 1965, codified and updated in 1973, be repealed and not reauthorized.


Felon Voting- We affirm the constitutional authority of state legislatures to regulate voting, including disenfranchisement of convicted felons.
Protecting Active Military Personnel’s Right to Vote- We urge the Texas Secretary of State and the United States Attorney General to ensure that voting rights of our armed forces will neither be denied nor obstructed, and all valid absentee votes shall be counted.


Fair Election Procedures- We support modifications and strengthening of election laws to ensure ballot integrity and fair elections. We strongly urge the Texas Attorney General to litigate the previously passed Voter ID legislation. We support increased scrutiny and security in balloting by mail, prohibition of internet voting and any electronic voting lacking a verifiable paper trail, prohibition of mobile voting, prosecution for election fraud with jail sentences, repeal of the unconstitutional “Help America Vote Act”, and assurance that each polling place has a distinctly marked, and if possible, separate location for Republican and Democrat primary voting.

___________________________________________


'a SIMPLE IRA that allows for employer contributions into participating worker’s accounts, a payroll-deduction IRA that does not allow employer contributions, and the myRA, the retirement savings vehicle proposed by the Obama administration that is backed by Treasury bonds'.



Again, this week we are looking broadly across public policy to remember what CITIZENSHIP POLICY brought US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE in protections tied to opportunity and access needed for anyone to be a CITIZEN.

We mentioned pensions---public pensions for example because like our payroll taxes for SS and Medicare Trusts----these deductions occur AUTOMATICALLY and we are told DON'T WORRY this is good for your retirement.  Fast-forward to today when CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA are being allowed to pass policy and allowing government to act without transparency-----and we have US citizens having money deducted while losing all ability to KNOW how that county, state, national government is investing these funds.

Here is the STATE taking over as a private pension deduction provider-----tying those deductions to global banking structures.   OBAMA and Clinton neo-liberals created myRA directed temporarily as 'voluntary' but with a goal of mandating deductions from low-income workers to be sent to these same global banking investment structures.


'Arizona

On January 22, 2014, Rep. Martin Quezada introduced HB 2063, the Arizona Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program, a mandatory system of payroll deposit individual retirement savings arrangements (IRAs) for private employers in Arizona that have five or more employees and that do not offer other retirement plans to their workers. The bill was assigned to the House Appropriations and Rules Committees, and no further action was taken in the 2013-2014 legislative session'.



No doubt MARTIN QUEZADA is selling this as good for poor workers------when in fact MOVING FORWARD going strong in Arizona will have ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE global 1% and corporations controlling those deductions----NOT US PUBLIC AGENCIES. 


'Maryland


On May 10, 2016, Governor Lawrence Hogan signed into law HB 1378, a law establishing the Maryland Small Business Retirement Savings Program and Trust. HB 1378 was introduced by Delegate William Frick , and its counterpart SB 1007 was introduced by Senator Douglas J. J. Peters. The new law went into effect on July 1, 2016'. 




THIS IS THE STATE VERSION OF OBAMA'S MY RA-----TARGETING LOW-INCOME WORKERS WITH WHAT WILL BE A TAXATION STRUCTURE PRETENDING TO BE 'RETIREMENT'



But this is STATE'S RIGHTS say 5% to the 1% right wing global banking pols and players! NO, states have no sovereignty when those same global banking 1% declare those states SANCTUARY STATES----meaning US Foreign Economic Zones operating independently of US Federal, state, and local laws.

PLEASE GLANCE THROUGH A LONG ARTICLE JUST TO SEE BOTH RIGHT WING AND FAR-RIGHT WING NEO-LIBERAL STATES HAVE ADOPTED THESE PRIVATE SAVINGS ACCOUNTS DUE TO REPLACE OUR FEDERAL SS, MEDICARE, AND BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE WORKER 401Ks.



State-based retirement plans for the private sector


States around the country are looking into ways of using the efficiencies of public retirement systems to administer new types of pension plans for private-sector workers. Below are brief summaries of plans that have either passed or are being considered. States whose names are highlighed below have introduced or enacted legislation to provide retirement plans for private-sector workers. 





Alabama | Alaska | Arizona |Arkansas | California | Colorado | Connecticut | Delaware | Florida | Georgia | Hawaii | Idaho | Illinois | Indiana | Iowa | Kansas | Kentucky | Louisiana | Maine | Maryland | Massachusetts | Michigan | Minnesota | Mississippi | Missouri | Montana | Nebraska | Nevada | New Hampshire | New Jersey | New Mexico | New York | North Carolina | North Dakota | Ohio | Oklahoma | Oregon | Pennsylvania | Rhode Island | South Carolina | South Dakota | Tennessee | Texas | Utah | Vermont | Virginia | Washington | West Virginia | Wisconsin | Wyoming





In addition to the below summaries, AARP’s Public Policy Institute has established a State Retirement Savings Resource Center, a library of policy papers, key facts, opinion pieces, and studies related to state-based plans for private-sector workers. The Pension Rights Center authored two papers -- one on consumer protections in such plans and one on the advantages of pooled accounts.


In September 2015, the Government Accountability Office published a report, Federal Action Could Help State Efforts to Expand Private Sector Coverage, which looks at coverage rates, efforts by states and other countries to expand coverage, and the obstacles states face in implementing new state-based plans.



Arizona

On January 22, 2014, Rep. Martin Quezada introduced HB 2063, the Arizona Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program, a mandatory system of payroll deposit individual retirement savings arrangements (IRAs) for private employers in Arizona that have five or more employees and that do not offer other retirement plans to their workers. The bill was assigned to the House Appropriations and Rules Committees, and no further action was taken in the 2013-2014 legislative session.


California

On September 28, 2012, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law S.B. 1234, the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Trust Act. The bill, which was sponsored by Senator Kevin de Leόn, will eventually require that all businesses with five or more employees that do not already offer a retirement plan enroll their workers in a new type of savings plan based on IRAs. Before this can occur, a number of steps need to be taken, including passage by the California legislature of subsequent implementing legislation. 


To date, the State has established the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Investment Board and the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Trust, as required by the statute. The Board has been meeting monthly since 2013, collected information on retirement issues, and reviewed market and legal analyses of the program. On March 28, 2016, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Program, and sent letters to state leaders outlining the Board’s recommendations for legislation implementing the Secure Choice Program. The Board’s recommendations for inclusion in the legislation include:


  • Establishing managed accounts that would be invested in U.S. Treasuries or similarly safe investments within the first three years of the program, with the expectation that during that period the Board would begin to develop investment options that address risk-sharing and smoothing of market losses and gains. Options could include, but not be limited to, custom pooled, professionally managed funds that minimize management costs and feels, the creation of a reserve fund, or the establishment of investment products
  • Providing for the Board to conduct an annual peer review to compare California Security Choice funds with similar funds on performance and fees.
  • Requiring the Board to seek to minimize participant fees
  • Requiring the Board to establish an initial automatic contribution rate of between 2% and 5% of salary
  • Allowing the Board to implement automatic escalation of participant’s contribution rates up to 10% of salary, with the option for participants to stop automatic escalation and change their contribution rates.
  • Establishing a fiduciary duty in the Board and its contracted administrators and consultants toward the participants of the program. 
  • Permitting the inclusion of quasi-public and quasi-private workers to be enrolled if found legally permissible
  • Requiring communication and education on the Program, including the inherent risks of its investment strategies, making clear that the state does not have liability for the investment performance or payment of benefits to participants
  • Directing that a default payout method to retirees be determined
  • Clearly defining the ‘ministerial duties’ expected of employers in the implementation of the program, and limiting liability for all employers if an employer inadvertently provides more than ministerial duties.
  • Fully determining all necessary costs for administration of the program and ensuring all investment options are appropriately considered by the Board.
  • Making determinations on how to structure the Program to ensure the state is prohibited from incurring liabilities associated with administering the Program.

In February, 2016, Senator Kevin de Leon introduced SB 1234, a bill to legislatively enact the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Trust Act, the final step required by the original legislation before the Program can be implemented. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Public Employment and Retirement where a hearing was held on April 12, 2016 and the legislation passed the Committee. SB 1234 was subsequently referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations where, on May 27, 2016, the bill was approved by a vote of 5-2. The bill was subsequently sent to the Senate Floor, where on May 31st it was read a second time and amended, and ordered to third reading. On June 2, 2016, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 25-13 and was sent to the Assembly, where it was read a first time and held at the Desk. 



After consideration by the Committees of jurisdiction, the amended bill passed the Assembly on August 25 and was returned to the Senate.  The Senate concurred in the amendments and passed the bill by a vote of 27-12 on August 31, 2016.  The bill was enrolled and presented to the Governor on September 9, 2016.



SB 1234 requires all employers within California with five or more employees who do not offer their employees another retirement savings option to participate in the California Secure Choice Retirement Program. The requirement is phased-in over a three-year period based on the employer’s size. Beginning 3 months after the opening of enrollment, employers of 100 or more employees must have an arrangement to allow employees to participate in the plan. Beginning 6 months after enrollment opens, employers of 50 or more employees must participate, and beginning 9 months after enrollment, the size of employer covered by the mandate drops to those with 5 or more employees.


Employees will be automatically enrolled in the program, with the opportunity to opt-out. If an employee does not select a contribution amount, 3 percent of salary will be contributed to their Secure Choice account. The Board has the authority to change the default contribution from 2 percent of salary to 5 percent. Employee contributions will be subject to automatic escalation of up to 8 percent of salary, with no more than 1 percent of salary increases per year. Employees have the opportunity to opt-out of automatic escalation and to select their own escalation percentage. 


Employers will be allowed to make contributions to the accounts on behalf of their employees but only if these contributions are permitted by the Internal Revenue Code and do not subject the Secure Choice Program to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Board is to evaluate and establish a process by which an employee of a non-participating employer might participate in the Program. 


For up to the first three years of the Program, contributions will be invested in United States Treasury bonds or similarly safe investments. During this time, the Board will develop other options that appropriately balance risk and shall strive to minimize participant fees. During start-up and for the first year of operation, administrative funds will be appropriated from the state’s General Fund. These amounts are to be repaid, with interest, and subsequent costs will be paid from the Program’s administrative account. Administrative expenditures for the program are limited to 1 percent of the program fund. The remaining provisions of the legislation closely track the recommendations of the Secure Choice Board.


The California Security Choice Retirement Program was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on September 29, 2016 and went go into effect on January 1, 2017.


Colorado


On February 19, 2015, HB 1235 was introduced by Representatives Brittany Pettersen and John Buckner, and State Senators Pat Steadman and Nancy Todd. The bill would establish the Colorado Retirement Security Task Force to research, assess, and report on the factors that affect the retirement security of the citizens of Colorado. The Task Force would also make recommendations on the feasibility of creating a retirement savings plan for private-sector employees who do not otherwise have a retirement plan available through their employers.


The bill was assigned to the House Committee on Business Affairs and Labor, and, on March 24, 2015, it was amended and referred to the Appropriations Committee. This committee reported the bill to the House in April, where it was passed on April 20, 2015. The bill was introduced in the Colorado Senate on April 24 and assigned to the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee. On April 29, 2015, the Senate Committee recommended no further action be taken.


Connecticut

On June 2, 2015, Governor Dannel Malloy signed into law Connecticut’s budget implementer bill for 2016, a bill which incorporated Public Act 16-29, an act creating the Connecticut Retirement Security Exchange. Public Act 16-29 was originally House Substitute Bill 5591, which passed the Connecticut House on April 26, 2016 by a vote of 76-63, and passed the Senate on April 30, 2016 by a tie vote of 18-18 when the tie was broken by the vote of Lieutenant Governor Nancy Wyman. The original bill had been sent to the Governor on May 13, 2016 and was subsequently incorporated into the budget implementer legislation. 


The Connecticut Retirement Security Exchange requires covered employers to automatically enroll their employees into a Roth-IRA arrangement. Covered employers are private employers with five or more employees who received at least $5000 in wages during the previous year, who have been in business for at least one year and who do not offer a qualified retirement plan. Employers with fewer than five employees may participate in the Program voluntarily but their employees are not required to enroll in the Exchange. 


Beginning on January 1, 2017, employees working for covered employers are required to be auto-enrolled into the new Exchange, which will meet the federal requirements for a Roth IRA. Eligible employees must have worked for the covered employer for 120 days, be over age 19, and not be members of an exempt category. Employees may contribute up to the federal limits for a Roth IRA. Employees who do not wish to participate in the Exchange may select a contribution amount of zero, and those who do not select a contribution amount will have a default amount of three percent of their salary contributed to their accounts.  No employer contributions into the accounts are permitted. 


Employees can select among a range of age-appropriate target funds for their contributions, and the funds will be offered by a variety of vendors. Employee contributions must be deposited within ten days of the payroll date in which the contributions are deducted. Once employees reach Normal Retirement Age, one-half of their account balances will be transferred to a lifetime income investment. 


The Exchange will be administered by the Connecticut Retirement Security Authority, which is directed by a Board made up of 15 members appointed to six year terms. Board members must act in the sole interest of participants and beneficiaries, and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits and paying administrative expenses. They may not vote on issues in which they have a direct financial interest. The Board may require vendors to meet the same criteria to the extent reasonable and practicable. 


Vendors participating in the Program may include federally regulated retirement sponsors, including investment companies, insurance companies and others. Vendors may not include individual brokers, financial planners or agents. 


The Board will establish criteria and procedures for approving vendors to participate in the Exchange, and is required to establish a cap on annual fees that can be charged by the vendors. After the fourth year of the program, fees will be capped at three-quarters of a percent of the investment amount. The Board also has the authority to make any modifications to the Exchange required to maintain federal tax deductibility and to avoid application of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The Board is authorized to establish procedures for providing investment and plan information to participants and beneficiaries and to establish a process for receiving complaints. The Board shall establish and operate a website for approved vendors.


The Board shall also conduct a study of the interest in establishing a non-Roth IRA investment option, and may conduct a study of the feasibility of offering a multi-employer or 401k plan or other tax-deferred vehicle.


Illinois


On December 3, 2014, the Illinois General Assembly passed SB 2758, an Act creating the Illinois Secure Choice Savings Program, which was introduced by Senator Daniel Biss. The bill was signed into law by Governor Pat Quinn on January 4, 2015. Read our summary of the law.


The Illinois Secure Choice Savings Board held meetings in August, November and December 2015 and its Investment Subcommittee held a meeting on December 9, 2015. The Office of the State Treasurer issued requests for proposals for an External Investment Advisor and for an ERISA Counsel in the fall of 2015. Meetings of the Board are expected to continue in 2016.


SB 2758 establishes a payroll-deduction IRA for workers whose employers do not offer any other retirement savings vehicle. The bill requires all businesses in existence for at least two years with 25 or more employees to automatically enroll their employees in the Secure Choice Savings Program unless they offer another retirement option to their workers.


Employees can determine a contribution level and select among a small number of investment options. A default contribution level of three percent of salary is offered to those who do not select one on their own, as is a default life-cycle investment fund for those who do not choose one from the options offered. Assets are pooled into a single fund and managed by the Illinois Treasurer and a qualified board, providing participants the benefit of low fees and competitive investment performance.Employees can choose to opt out of the program at any time.



The law is to be implemented within 24 months unless enough funds are not made available for the project. The Board must also find that the program is self-sustaining, that it is eligible for favorable federal tax treatment, and that it is not subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).



Indiana

On January 13, 2015, HB 1279 was introduced by Representative Matthew Lehman and a companion bill, SB 555 was introduced by Senator Greg Walker into the Senate on January 20, 2015. The bills would create the Hoosier Employee Retirement Option (HERO) plan, which are portable IRAs for employees who do not have access to a retirement plan through their employers. Employers with at least one employee and self-employed individuals would be eligible to participate, and participation by either the employer or the employees would be voluntary. Contributions to the accounts would be in post-tax dollars, and contribution amounts would be selected by the employee. If no selection is made, the default contribution rate is set at 3 percent of salary. Employers are not permitted to make any contributions into the accounts, including matching contributions.


The legislation would establish a board to design and implement the HERO program. The board is required to include at least one target-date fund and seven other diversified investment funds as investment options, and to establish a default fund if the employee fails to make a choice. Investment options must also include low-fee funds. Neither the state nor employers are liable for any investment performance.


The House bill was referred to the House Employment, Labor and Pensions Committee, and the Senate bill to the Committee on Pensions and Labor. No action has been taken on either bill.


Iowa


On February 16, 2016, SSB 3164 was introduced into the Iowa Senate by State Treasurer Michael Fitzgerald, and a companion bill, HF 2417, was introduced into the House on February 16, 2016 by Representative Bruce Hunter (D-34) and others. This bill creates the Iowa Retirement Savings Plan Trust under the Office of Treasurer of State for the purpose of helping Iowans save for retirement. The bill provides that the trust be operated so that, for federal tax purposes, it meets the requirements of a retirement plan as provided by the Internal Revenue Code. The state treasurer is the trustee of the trust and has numerous powers, as specified in the bill, for the purpose of carrying out the purpose of the trust, including entering into agreements with trust participants and employers, investing moneys in the trust, and entering into any agreements or contracts necessary to carry out the purposes of the trust. The bill provides that the state, the treasurer of state, and the trust may not guarantee any rate of return on any contributions to the trust and are not liable for any loss incurred by any person as a result of participating in the trust. The bill requires the treasurer to submit an annual audited financial report on the operations of the trust. The bill provides an appropriation to the treasurer of state for FY 2016-2017 for the purposes of establishing and managing the Iowa retirement savings plan trust.



The bill provides that when the requirements of the bill are enacted, the treasurer shall not allow individuals to make contributions to the trust earlier than July 1, 2018. The bill provides that the it will go into effect no earlier than July 1, 2017, and only on the date the treasurer of state notifies the Code editor, in writing, that no less than $1.5 million has been appropriated to the treasurer of state for the purpose of the bill and that establishing an Iowa retirement savings plan trust is feasible, and applicable federal requirements make establishing the trust favorable for Iowans contributing to the trust. 


SSB 3164 was referred to a Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee chaired by Senator Janet Petersen (D-18) on February 22, 2016 and a meeting was held on the bill on February 29, 2016. HF 2417 was referred to the House Commerce Committee and no further action has been taken.


Kentucky


On February 3, 2015, HR 261 was introduced by a bi-partisan group of state legislators. The bill would establish the Kentucky Retirement Account Program, a state-sponsored retirement program for private sector workers. Employers with five or more employees would be required to participate, unless they receive a hardship exemption. Employers with fewer employees are allowed to participate on a voluntary basis.



The bill would create a governing board to design and implement the program, which would be established as an automatic enrollment payroll deduction Roth IRA program. The board would be required to implement the program within 24 months of enactment, unless insufficient funds are made available. The bill permits the board to seek an opinion as to the applicability and impact of ERISA.


On February 9, 2015, the bill was referred to the Agriculture and Small Business Committee, which held a hearing on the bill on February 25. No further action was taken on the bill prior to the end of the legislative session.


Louisiana


On March 10, 2014, SB 283 was introduced into the 2014 regular legislative session by Senator Troy E. Brown. The bill was referred to the Committee on Retirement, where it was considered on April 28, 2014. No further action has been taken.


The bill would establish the Louisiana Retirement Savings Plan, a state-sponsored retirement plan for private-sector workers who do not have access to a retirement plan through their employers. Churches and new businesses are permitted to participate on a voluntary basis.


The plan would be established as an automatic payroll-deduction IRA, though employees could opt out at any time. The plan provides for an automatic contribution rate of 3 percent of salary and permits employer contributions up to a maximum of $5,000 per year per employee. Assets would be pooled and professionally managed. Benefits would be payable in the form of an annuity, and would become available at the earliest at age 69 and the latest at age 72. Neither the state nor employers are liable for investment performance.



Maine


On March 5, 2015, LD 768 was introduced by Representative Diane Russell. This bill is modeled after California’s legislation and would create the Maine Secure Choice Retirement Savings Investment Board, which would administer the Maine Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program. The program would be a state-sponsored payroll-deduction IRA for workers who do not have access to a retirement plan through their employers. Employers with five or more employees are required to participate.


Employees could select their contribution rate into the accounts, though a three percent of salary contribution would be set for those who do not select their own rate. Employees could opt-out at any time.


Assets would be pooled and professionally managed, and a minimum rate of return would be guaranteed through private insurance. Neither the state nor employers would be subject to any liability for fund performance. The program would only be established if the Board finds that it will be self-sustaining, qualifies for favorable federal tax treatment, and is not subject to ERISA.


On March 9, 2015, the bill was referred to the Committee on Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development, where it was voted “ought not to pass” on April 14, 2015.


LD 1473 was introduced by Representative Diane Russell on April 30, 2013. It is also modeled after California’s SB 1234 and was not voted out of the House Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee on January 23, 2014. No further action has been taken.


Maryland

On May 10, 2016, Governor Lawrence Hogan signed into law HB 1378, a law establishing the Maryland Small Business Retirement Savings Program and Trust. HB 1378 was introduced by Delegate William Frick , and its counterpart SB 1007 was introduced by Senator Douglas J. J. Peters. The new law went into effect on July 1, 2016. 


As signed into law, HB 1378 establishes a retirement savings program for employees working for companies who do not offer another qualified retirement program. The law creates an 11 member Board (with a four-year term) and gives it the authority to design the new retirement program.  



The Board is required to establish a process for automatically enrolling employees, establishing default contribution amounts and investment options, a process for employees to opt-out of the program and to opt back in, a process to select approved vendors and to operate the program so that administrative expenses are minimized. Expenses are capped at 0.5 percent of funds under management. The Board is authorized to borrow money to establish the program until such time as it generates enough fees to be self-sustaining. The Board is also tasked with establishing a process by which employees of non-participating employers may participate in the Program if their employer does not offer another retirement option. 
The Board is directed to select a broad range of investment options and vendors, and may include an option that provides lifetime income.



Massachusetts


In March 2012, Massachusetts enacted HR 3754, an Act Providing Retirement Options for Nonprofit Organizations. The new law allows the State Treasurer to sponsor a retirement savings plan for workers at small non-profit organizations in the Commonwealth. Participation by the organizations is voluntary. The retirement plan would be a tax-qualified defined contribution arrangement with various investment options available to employees. Contributions could be made by workers, their employers, or both.



Features of the plan currently include an automatic six percent payroll deduction with an option for the employer to opt for a four percent initial automatic contribution with an escalation of up to 10 percent. Hardship withdrawals will be allowed but specific guidelines for the withdrawals are not yet finalized. A “not-for-profit defined contribution committee” of five members would be established to assist the State Treasurer in developing policy and providing technical advice for the plan. The plan would be marketed particularly to nonprofits with 20 or fewer employees.



The plan will fall under the jurisdiction of ERISA. In June, 2014, the IRS ruled favorably on the proposal and is in the process of reviewing the group trust that the accounts will be pooled with for investment efficiencies. The Massachusetts Treasurer’s Office will formally roll out the plan once the IRS work is completed.


Also, on January 20, 2015, H. 939 was introduced by Representative Angelo Scaccia and referred to the Joint Committee on Financial Services. A joint hearing on H. 939 and H. 924 was held on November 23, 2015.
The bill would establish the Massachusetts Secure Choice Savings Program and is modeled after the Illinois retirement legislation. H. 939 would establish a payroll-deduction IRA for workers whose employers do not offer any other retirement savings vehicle in the workplace. The bill requires all businesses in existence at least two years with 25 or more employees to automatically enroll their employees in the Security Choice Savings Program, unless they offer another retirement option to their workers.


Employees can determine a contribution level and select among a small number of investment options. A default contribution level of three percent of salary is offered to those who do not select one on their own, as is a default life-cycle investment fund for those who do not choose one from the options offered. Assets are pooled into a single fund and managed by the Massachusetts Treasurer and a qualified board, providing participants the benefit of low fees and competitive investment performance.Employees can choose to opt out of the program at any time.



The law is to be implemented within 24 months unless enough funds are not made available for the project. The Board must also find that the program is self-sustaining, that it is eligible for favorable federal tax treatment, and that it is not subject to ERISA.


In addition, on January 20, 2015, H. 924 was introduced by Representative James J. O’Day and referred to the Joint Committee on Financial Services. No further action has been taken on the bill.


H. 924 would establish a Secure Choice Retirement Savings Board to administer two retirement savings trust funds known collectively as the Secure Choice Retirement Savings Trusts. The first of these trusts, named the Secure Choice Multiple-Employer Retirement Trust (MERP), is a profit-sharing defined contribution plan offering individual accounts. The second trust, the Secure Choice Individual Retirement Account Trust (IRAP), would accept individual contributions through payroll deduction and direct payment into IRAs. Assets would be pooled and professionally managed and neither the state nor the employer would be responsible for any liabilities. The Board and Plan administrator shall act as fiduciaries under ERISA for the MERP plan. Employers shall not be considered fiduciaries.


Participation by employers with 10 or more employees is mandatory unless they offer their employees another retirement savings plan. Self-employed individuals and employers with fewer than 10 employees may participate on a voluntary basis. Unless otherwise specified by the employer or directed by the employee, a default contribution of three percent of the employee’s annual salary shall be made to the plan. The board may adjust this default contribution from two to five percent and may vary that amount according to the length of time the employee has contributed to the program.



Benefits to participants in the MERP shall be paid in the form of lifetime annuities. Employees who participate in both the MERP and IRAP have the option of rolling over all or part of their IRAP into their MERP before it is converted into a lifetime annuity. Participants in the MERP have the option of taking up to $20,000 (as long as it is no more than 50 percent of their account balance) in the form of a lump sum.


Minnesota


On February 27, 2014, HF 2419 was introduced by Rep. Patti Fritz and others, and was referred to the Government Operations Committee. Over the following month, the bill was considered by the Commerce and Consumer Protection Finance and Policy Committee, State Government Finance and Veterans Affairs, and the Ways and Means Committee. The bill was subsequently incorporated into HF 2536, the Women’s Economic Security Act, which was considered and reported out of the House on May 7, 2014, and the Senate on May 9, 2014. The bill was signed into law by the Governor on May 11, 2014.



As enacted, the bill required the Commissioner of Management and Budget of the state to provide a report to the legislature by January 15, 2015, evaluating the potential for a state-administered retirement savings plan for workers who do not have access to a retirement plan though their employer. The potential state-administered plan would have to provide for individuals to make contributions to their own accounts which would be pooled and invested by the State Board of Investment. The state would have no liability for investment earnings and losses. The plan should be designed so employers would be discouraged from dropping existing retirement plan options. /p>


The report was required to include a number of items, including estimates of the numbers of Minnesota workers who could be served by the plan, the participation rate that would make the plan self-sustaining, the effect of federal tax laws and ERISA, and the potential use and availability of investment strategies and insurance against loss to limit or eliminate potential state liability and manage risk to the principal. Funds were appropriated to cover the cost of producing the report, and, in December 2014, the Minnesota Management and Budget Commissioner issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to conduct the report. Under the terms of the RFP, the report is to identify at least one option for a state administered retirement savings plan for private sector employees, though it may include other options. Each option is to be fully explained, and include an implementation plan with start-up costs, and outline the pros and cons of each option. A final report has not yet been released.
NebraskaOn December 10, 2013, the Retirement Systems Committee of the Nebraska Legislature held a hearing to discuss LR 344, a resolution calling for an interim study to examine the availability and adequacy of retirement savings for Nebraska’s private-sector workers. The hearing was hosted by Committee Chair Senator Jeremy Nordquist.No further legislative action has been scheduled.



New Hampshire


On January 8, 2015, HB 239 was introduced by Representative David Danielson. The bill would establish the Statutory Commission on Retirement Security to study the creation of a state-sponsored program for workers without access to a retirement plan through their employers. The commission would study a program that would provide for automatic enrollment into a payroll-deduction account, with an option for employees to opt out of the program. No employer contributions would be required. The accounts would be portable, and self-sustaining, and the assets would be pooled and professionally managed. The commission would be required to submit its report by November 1, 2015, and an appropriation of $100,000 would be authorized to support the commission.


HB 239 was voted on in the House on February 11, 2015, and the bill failed to advance.


New Jersey


On March 2, 2015, A 4275 was introduced by Assemblymen Vincent Prieto and others, and was referred to the Assembly Labor Committee on March 9, 2015. On June 18, 2015, the bill was reported out of the Labor Committee with amendments, and was referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The bill was reported out of the Assembly Committee with amendments after a second reading on November 9, 2015 and was passed by the Assembly on December 3, 2015. On December 7, 2015, the bill was referred to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee.


A companion bill, S2831, was introduced by Senator Stephen M. Sweeney on March 16, 2015, and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. On October 19, 2015, S2831 was reported from the Senate Committee with amendments after a second reading and was referred to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee where it was reported out on December 21, 2015. On January 7, 2016, the Senate substituted House bill A4275 for the text of S2831 and passed the bill.
The bill was sent to Governor Chris Christie for consideration and was conditionally vetoed by the Governor, who proposed replacing it with the New Jersey Small Business Retirement Marketplace Act. The legislature replaced the text of the original bill with the Governor’s proposal and enacted the amended bill on January 11, 2016. The bill took effect immediately upon enactment.


Bill A4275 is modeled after the Washington State Small Business Marketplace Retirement Savings Bill and creates a virtual marketplace for small businesses in New Jersey to shop for private retirement plans for their employees. The new portal will be available to businesses with up to 100 employees and is voluntary for both employers and their workers.


The State Treasurer is tasked with designing and implementing a plan for the operation of the new Marketplace, and will contract with private sector entities who will establish a protocol for approving participating financial firms, design and operate a website through which employers may select plans, and develop marketing and educational materials. The private-sector entities shall ensure that licensed professionals who assist their clients to enroll in a plan will receive routine, market-based commissions or other compensation for their services.


The Treasurer shall ensure that the range of investment options offered by the firms is sufficient to meet the needs of savers with various levels of risk tolerance and various ages. The diverse array of private options available are to include life insurance plans that are designed for retirement purposes, and at least two types of plans that include a SIMPLE IRA type plan that provides for employer contributions to participating enrollee accounts and a payroll deduction IRA type plan in which the employer does not make contributions for enrollees.


The financial services firms participating in the Marketplace are to offer a minimum of two product options including a target date or similar fund and a balanced fund. The Marketplace shall also offer a myRA option in addition to any other approved plan. The Marketplace will not operate unless there are at least two financial services firms participating, but there is no limit to the total number of firms that can offer products.


The financial firms participating in the Marketplace shall not charge participating employers fees and shall not charge employees more than 100 basis points in total annual fees. The costs of operating the marketplace may be charged to participating financial firms, private funding sources or federal grants. If sufficient funds are raised, the Treasurer may offer incentive payments to participating employers. The Treasurer shall not expose the State to any liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).


The bill that was vetoed by the Governor would have created the New Jersey Secure Choice Savings Program, modeled after the Illinois Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program. It would have required all businesses with 25 or more employees to automatically enroll their employees in the Secure Choice Savings Program unless they offered another retirement option to their workers. Employees could determine a contribution level, select among a small number of investment options and opt out at any time. A default contribution level of three percent of salary would have been offered to those who did not select one on their own, in addition to a default life-cycle investment fund for those who did not choose one from the options offered. Assets would have been pooled into a single fund and managed by the New Jersey Treasurer and the Board, providing participants the benefit of low fees and competitive investment performance.


Employers who did not enroll eligible employees would have been subject to penalties unless they could show reasonable cause for the failure. They also would have been subject to penalties if they failed to timely deposit employee’s contributions. Investment returns were not guaranteed by the State, and employers were not fiduciaries over the program, bore no responsibility for administration, investment or investment performance of the program, and would not have been liable with respect to investment returns, program design or benefits paid to program participants.



New York

On February 26, 2015, Int 0692-2015 was introduced by Public Advocate Letitia James in the New York City Council. The bill would create a private pension advisory board to study the feasibility of establishing a pension fund for private sector workers in New York City. The board would consist of 11 members who have expertise in pension funds and finance. The bill does not set a deadline for the board to issue its report, but provides for the board’s dissolution upon issuance of the report. On June 23, 2015 a meeting on the bill was held in the Committee on Civil Service and Labor.No further action has been taken on the bill.


On February 27, 2015, New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer announced the creation of a Retirement Security Study Group. The study group is tasked with designing up to three retirement savings options by the fall of 2015 for consideration by a retirement task force. The study group is fully funded through existing resources within the Comptroller’s office.



North Carolina

On April 2, 2015, HB 515 was introduced by Representatives Schaffer, Ross, Glazier and Pierce. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Rules where no further action was taken before the conclusion of the legislative session.



HB 515, the Work and Save Plan Study directs the State Treasurer to study the establishment of a voluntary “Work and Save Plan Study” retirement program aimed at increasing the retirement savings options for private sector workers whose employers do not provide retirement savings plans. Participation in this program would be entirely voluntary and benefits would be portable between employers. In conducting the study, the bill directs the Department to consider the recommendations for such a program that were made by AARP. The State Treasurer is directed to report its findings and recommendations to the 2015 General Assembly when it reconvenes in 2016.


North Dakota

On January 12, 2015, HB 1200 was introduced by Representative George Keiser. The bill was defeated in the House on February 10, 2015.


HR 1200 would have established the Save Toward a Retirement Today retirement savings program administered by the State Treasurer. Employers with no more than 100 workers who do not offer retirement plans to their employees would have been eligible to participate on a voluntary basis. Employees of qualifying employers who opt not to participate could have enrolled on an individual basis.


Contributions by employers were not required, and workers could select their own contribution amounts. Contributions would be tax deferred at both the state and federal levels. The state would not be held liable for investment performance. An appropriation of $100,000 would have been authorized to design and implement the program.


Ohio

On October 2, 2013, SB 199 was introduced by Senator Eric KearneyThe bill was modeled after the California legislation and would establish the Ohio Secure Choice Retirement Savings Board, which would design and administer the Ohio Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program.


The program would be a state-sponsored payroll-deduction IRA for workers who do not have access to a retirement plan through their employers. Employers with five or more employees would be required to participate. Employees could select their contribution rate into the accounts, though a three percent of salary contribution would be set for those who do not select their own rate. Employees could opt-out at any time.
Assets would be pooled and professionally managed, and a minimum rate of return would be guaranteed through private insurance. Neither the state nor employers would be subject to any liability for fund performance. The program would be established only if the board finds that it will be self-sustaining, qualifies for favorable federal tax treatment, and is not subject to ERISA.


SB 199 was assigned to the Senate Finance Committee but did not advance during the 2013-2014 legislative session.


Oregon

On July 7, 2013, Oregon’s state legislature passed HB 3436, which creates a task force to explore options for helping private-sector workers who lack access to a workplace retirement plan save for retirement. The bill was signed into law by Governor John Kitzhaber on August 1, 2013.
The task force issued its report on September 12, 2014. The report found that retirement security in the state had deteriorated since a similar report was issued in 1997. The task force recommended developing and making available a retirement savings plan to all Oregonians who do not have access to a plan through their employer.


The recommendations envision a plan with a minimum employer role, automatic enrollment for the employee (with the ability to opt out), payroll deduction, and automatic annual escalation of contributions (with opt-out). The plan would be part of an overall retirement security program directed by a state board aimed at increasing enrollment in retirement security accounts. The program should include market research, small-business outreach, research into incentives, seeking legal guidance, and efforts to increase financial literacy.
On February 10, 2015, HB 2960 and its counterpart SB 615 were introduced by Senators Beyer, Riley, Roblan, and Rosenbaum and Representatives Williamson and Read and others. Both bills were referred to Committees of jurisdiction in their respective houses, where hearings were held and the bills were amended. HB 2960 passed the Oregon House by a vote of 32-26 on June 10, 2015, and passed the state Senate on June 16, 2015, by a vote of 17-13. The legislation was signed into law by Governor Kate Brown on Julne 25. The Governor named an Executive Director of the Oregon Retirement Savings Program and the Oregon Retirement Savings Board began holding monthly meetings in November, 2015.


The Savings Board has continued monthly meetings in 2016 and has issued an RFP for Market Analysis, Program Design and Financial Feasibility Services with a due date of January 19, 2016. The Board has also developed a detailed implementation timeline for action through 2017 and has created a working group on plan design which meets regularly.


HB 2960/SB 615 would establish a seven-member Oregon Retirement Savings Board in the office of the State Treasurer to administer the Oregon Retirement Savings Plan. The board would develop a defined contribution retirement plan for Oregon workers that would be pooled and professionally managed. Employers who do not provide a retirement savings plan would be required to offer their employees the opportunity to contribute to the Oregon Retirement Savings Plan through payroll deduction. The plan must provide for automatic enrollment with a default contribution level, though workers must be given the option of opting-out of the plan. Account owners would have the ability to maintain the accounts regardless of their place of employment and could roll over funds to other retirement accounts.


Before the plan can be established, the board must conduct a legal and market analysis to assess the feasibility of the plan and the applicability of ERISA. The plan cannot be created if the Board determines it would be subject to ERISA. Otherwise, the bill requires contributions to begin no later than June 16, 2017.


Finally, the Board is required to report to the Legislative Assembly with the results of the market and legal analysis, potential cost to employers, timeline for implementation and other issues, including recommendations regarding ways to increase financial literacy, by December 31, 2016.


Rhode Island

House Bill 6080 was introduced by Representatives Edwards, Blazejewski and others on April 15, 2015. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Labor and a hearing took place on April 30, 2015. The Committee recommended the bill be held for further study and no additional action has been taken.


House Bill 6080 would create an automatic enrollment payroll deduction IRA program for private sector workers that would be administered by the Department of Labor and Training (DLT).Employers who have been in business at least two years and have five or more employees would be required to participate in the program unless they receive a hardship waiver. Smaller employers may participate on a voluntary basis. The Department would be responsible for designing a program that would allow employees to opt out, select a contribution level and investment option, and terminate participation, and would facilitate education and outreach to employers and employees. The default contribution option would be set at three percent, unless the employee chooses a higher rate. Investment options would include a life-cycle fund or target date fund as the default options. Employers would not have fiduciary obligations related to this program, and neither employers nor the state are liable for any investment losses resulting from participation in the program.


Implementation would begin 24 months after enactment and employers would establish a payroll deposit retirement savings option within six months after implementation.


Utah

On January 30, 2015, joint resolution SJR 9 was introduced by Senator Todd Weiler and House Sponsor Jon Cox. The resolution passed the House on March 4, 2015 and was signed by the Senate President on March 9, 2015. It was sent to the office of the Lieutenant Governor for filing on March 18, 2015.


SJR 9 urges Utah’s small business workers and small business community to work with the state’s Legislature and its Treasurer to study and develop a model for saving for retirement through the workplace that is accessible to Utah’s workers. The community is further urged to consider legislation, if necessary, to put the plan into action.


Vermont

On January 7, 2014, Senator Anthony Pollina introduced S 193, a bill creating an interim Public Retirement Plan Study Committee to evaluate the feasibility of establishing a public retirement plan. The Committee would also study whether private-sector employers of a certain size who do not offer an alternative retirement plan should be required to offer the public retirement plan through a voluntary payroll deduction that would be available to private-sector employees who are not covered by an alternative retirement plan.The findings and recommendations of the Committee were due on January 15, 2015, at which point the authority of the Committee would sunset.


The bill was referred to the Committee on Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs on January 7, 2014, and was favorably reported to the Committee on Appropriations on March 3, 2014.Key provisions of S 193 were enacted as part of the FY 2015 budget bill on May 10, 2015.


On June 9, 2014, the Governor signed into law H 885 (Act 0179), legislation providing appropriations for Vermont agencies. Included in the bill was an appropriation of $5,000 to conduct an interim study on the feasibility of establishing a public retirement plan.
The Public Retirement Plan Study Committee conducted two meetings between November 26, 2014 and January 14, 2015, and subsequently issued an interim report.Due to the limited timeframe provided to the committee, the report was only able to identify a list of guiding principles that the committee should use to provide a framework for its analysis and to recommend to the General Assembly that the mandate of the committee be extended for a year (to January 16, 2016) to allow it to complete a more comprehensive report. No further action has been taken.


Virginia

On January 14, 2015, HB 1998 was introduced by Delegate Luke Torian. The bill passed the House unanimously on February 10, 2015 and passed the Senate unanimously on February 24, 2015. It was signed by the Governor on March 27, and will go into effect on July 1, 2015.


HB 1998 establishes a Virginia Retirement System working group directed to develop recommendations to encourage and facilitate savings for retirement. The working group will review current state and federal programs that encourage Virginia’s citizens to save for retirement by participating in retirement savings plans. The review will include an examination of retirement savings options for self-employed individuals, part-time workers, full-time workers whose employers do not offer a retirement savings plan, and groups with low rates of savings.


The working group will include representatives of the Virginia Department of Taxation, small business, the self-employed, the Virginia College Savings Plan, and other stakeholders. The working group is directed to report its findings to the Governor and the General Assembly by January 1, 2017. The findings may include recommendations for changes in legislation to achieve its goal of increasing retirement savings.


Washington


On February 4, 2015, SB 5826, the Washington State Small Business Marketplace Retirement Savings Bill, was introduced by Senators Mark Mullet and Don Benton and was assigned to the Senate Committee on Financial Institutions and Insurance. After public hearings and consideration in a number of Senate committees, an amended version of the bill passed the Senate on April 10, 2015. HB 2109, the House companion bill, was introduced on February 12, 2015, and was referred to the House Committee on Appropriations. The committee passed the bill and referred it to the Rules Committee, and it ultimately passed the House, as amended by the Senate, on April 22, 2015. The Governor signed the bill into law on May 18, 2015. The Department of Commerce in Washington issued a request for proposals in November, 2015 and established a Small Business Marketplace information page on the Department’s website. A draft rule governing the establishment of the Washington State Small Business Marketplace was published for public review and comment in December, 2015. A hearing on the draft rule has been scheduled for March 16, 2016 and the rule’s intended date of adoption is March 25, 2016.


The bill establishes a small-business retirement plan marketplace in the state Department of Commerce. The marketplace would promote participation in low-cost, low-burden retirement savings plans and educate small employers on plan availability. The director of the marketplace would work with the private sector to establish a program that connects eligible employers with qualifying plans. Participation in the marketplace is completely voluntary for both employers and employees, but only those who are self-employed, sole proprietors or employers with fewer than one hundred employees are eligible to participate.


The marketplace director must approve a diverse array of private retirement plan options, including life insurance plans that are designed for retirement purpose, and at least three types of plans: a SIMPLE IRA that allows for employer contributions into participating worker’s accounts, a payroll-deduction IRA that does not allow employer contributions, and the myRA, the retirement savings vehicle proposed by the Obama administration that is backed by Treasury bonds.


The financial services companies approved to participate in the marketplace must offer a minimum of two product options: a target-date or other similar fund which provides asset allocations and maturities designed to coincide with the expected date of retirement of the participant, and a balanced fund.
Plans offered through the marketplace must include the option to roll over contributions to different retirement accounts. Although these plans are subject to ERISA, Washington State is not exposed to ERISA liability.



The program designed by the director must:
  • Establish a protocol for reviewing and approving the qualifications of private sector financial firms seeking to participate in the marketplace
  • Design and operate an internet website that includes information describing how eligible employers can participate in the marketplace
  • Develop marketing materials about the marketplace that can be distributed electronically, posted on various agency websites, and inserted in agency mailers
  • Identify and promote existing federal and state tax credits and benefits for employers and employees that are related to encouraging retirement savings or participating in retirement plans, and
  • Promote the benefits of retirement savings and financial literacy.

Finally, the bill authorizes the appropriation of $100,000 in 2015 and $50,000 in 2016-2018 for implementation of the legislation.



West Virginia


On March 6, 2015, SCR 58 was introduced by Senator Tom Takubo and referred to the Rules Committee. No further action was taken on the bill before the legislative session ended.



The Senate Concurrent Resolution would direct the Joint Committee on Government and Finance to study the need and feasibility of the state creating a cost-effective and portable group retirement savings program for small businesses and their workers. The study would include a comparison of the costs of establishing the program with currently available private sector financial and retirement security opportunities for small business (defined as businesses with 50 or fewer employees).


SCR 58 directed that the report by submitted to the regular session of the legislature in 2016 and include drafts of any legislation that would be needed to implement its recommendations. The funds to conduct the study would be taken from the Joint Committee’s normal appropriations.


WisconsinOn February 24, 2015, SB 45 was introduced by Senator Dave Hansen and others and was referred to the Committee on Labor and Government Reform. The Assembly companion bill, AB 70, was introduced on March 5, 2015 and was referred to the Committee on Financial Institutions. No further action has been taken on either bill.


The bills would establish the Wisconsin Private Retirement Security Board and require the board to design a Wisconsin private retirement security plan. The board is required to study the financial feasibility of such a plan and recommend a design structure that is most reasonable in light of the potential participant population and cost of the plan. The board is also required to hold a minimum of five public hearings within three months on the plan, at least one of which will be held in each of the geographic areas of the State. The board must design the plan so that it mirrors, to the extent possible, the Wisconsin Retirement System.


The board is required to submit its report 18 months after enactment of the legislation. The report is required to include an estimate of the cost of initial establishment and administration of the plan, an estimate of the amount of time necessary to make the plan viable, and a recommendation for any legislation that is necessary to implement the plan. The bill directs the Department of Employee Trust Funds to provide staff and other resources to assist the Board in performing its duties and submit an estimate for the supplemental funds that may be necessary to implement the plan.


Finally, the bill allows the board to charge participants reasonable fees to cover the costs of implementing and administering the plan.


Updated May 2016
_________________________________________________
What we are hearing here in Baltimore and MD are TALKING POINTS from global banking 1% terms like PAYGO.  For those not knowing CHILE was one of the most far-right, authoritarian, militaristic, extreme wealth extreme poverty global banking 1% neo-liberalism installed several decades ago after brutal civil unrest and civil wars------yes, this is a far-right wing PENSION POLICY not meant to create retirement structures for our low-income---only meant to pretend workers were receiving more than they actually did.

We want to be sure US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE understand AARP is working for global banking private insurance and is not pro-seniors.
  Here we see AARP morphing from private MEDICARE ADVANTAGE health insurance to privatized 'public' pensions for impoverished workers.

'In addition to the below summaries, AARP’s Public Policy Institute has established a State Retirement Savings Resource Center'

So, Obama and Clinton neo-liberals created the myRA structure at the national level---these are the same structures at state level and all have a goal of ending SOCIAL SECURITY/MEDICARE TRUSTS to revert to these FAR-RIGHT WING pension structures.

PINOCHET AND HIS TEAM OF CHICAGO SCHOOL OF NEO-LIBERALISM ---BOYS.


'Pension reform of 1980-81
Pinochet in 1982.
On November 4, 1980, under the leadership of José Piñera, Secretary of Labor and Pensions under Augusto Pinochet with the collaboration of his team of Chicago Boys, the PAYGO pension system was changed to a capital funded system run by investment funds.[2] José Piñera had the idea of privatizing the pension system for the first time when reading the book Capitalism and Freedom from Milton Friedman'



We see in this article CHILE"S PAYGO was a replacement of SOCIAL SECURITY ------and of course it was 401K tied to global banking.  So, all of Baltimore's Maryland Assembly and city council members and 5% players are all promoting PAYGO---because it is raging global neo-liberal banking 1% more easily used as FODDER than our US public SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE.

When we ask our local farm team 5% players why they are promoting what was embraced by one of the most brutal, far-right, authoritarian, militaristic extreme wealth extreme poverty neo-liberal regimes----CHILE'S PINOCHET----we are told WE PLEDGED TO DO ANYTHING WE ARE TOLD.


How They Do It Elsewhere


By STEVEN GREENHOUSEMAY 14, 2013

THE United States can boast that it has the world’s best basketball players, fighter jets and country and western singers. But hardly anyone would ever boast that the United States has the world’s best retirement system.


Fifty-eight percent of American workers are not even in a pension or 401(k) plan. The Social Security system faces the threat of a huge shortfall. One-third of America’s retirees get at least 90 percent of their retirement income from Social Security, with annual benefits averaging a modest $15,000 for an individual. And just ask any participant in a 401(k) plan about the scary roller-coaster ride of the last six years.


Scores of other countries have elaborate retirement systems, and some of them avoid the biggest pitfalls of America’s retirement system.
In Australia, there is nearly universal participation among workers in a 401(k)-type retirement plan because of a government mandate. In the Netherlands, pension laws require that workers’ 401(k)-like plans be converted into lifetime annuities to ensure they do not spend down all their savings before they turn 75 or 80.


In Britain, the government has pressed retirement fund managers to keep administrative fees on many plans to less than half the average in the United States.

A new report ranking various countries’ retirement systems gives the United States a C, considerably worse than the A received by Denmark and the B-plus given to the Netherlands and Australia. The study, by the Mercer consulting firm and the Australian Center for Financial Services, weighs adequacy of benefits, breadth of coverage and other factors, and points to numerous weaknesses in the American system.


Those shortcomings include contribution rates too low to assure adequate retirements for middle-class Americans and many workers withdrawing large sums from their 401(k)’s before they retire.


The report also cites poverty-level retirement benefits for many low-income workers and pensions that fail to keep up with inflation. It also points to the common practice of retirees withdrawing large sums from their 401(k)’s soon after retiring, leaving many without an adequate income stream if they live past 80.


Lia van Wijk, 58, the chief financial officer at a policy research center in Amsterdam, praises the Dutch retirement system, which combines a Social Security-like fund with a nearly universal pension system to which employers contribute.


“It’s rather a good system,” she said, noting that she had at first worried that she would not have a large enough pension because she had once spent many years traveling abroad. But now she feels reassured, having steered additional money into her pension fund.
Ms. Van Wijk likes the Dutch system of converting workers’ pension reserves into an annuity upon retirement. “There are real advantages to taking an annuity,” she said.


She complained, however, that the Netherlands had increased its retirement age from 65 to 66 1/2. Fearing budget deficits and large unfunded retirement liabilities, the Netherlands has joined Britain, Italy, the United States and other countries in raising its retirement age, a move that increases contributions to the system while holding down outlays.


“The Dutch realize that there can be too much leakage,” said Peter Kiveron, director of the Holland Financial Center, a research group, insisting that the United States and other countries make it too easy for people to take large amounts out of their 401(k)’s long before they retire and as soon as they retire, causing people to run out of funds well before they turn 75 or 80. “The Dutch have learned their lessons and have a very rigid system.”


Even a cursory study of retirement systems abroad makes clear that many countries are far more willing than the United States to mandate painful steps by employers and workers.


Chile requires workers to contribute 10 percent of each paycheck to a 401(k)-type fund. In Australia, employers must contribute 9 percent of each worker’s salary into a retirement fund, and that contribution is set to rise to 12 percent in 2020. Australia’s politicians, conservative and liberal, concluded that the country’s version of social security was providing retirees with too paltry a basic retirement check.


In the United States, such moves would prompt many to denounce heavy-handed grabs of workers’ pay and expensive burdens on employers. But experts say it would be wise to study other nations’ systems for tips on strengthening America’s system.


John A. Turner, director of the Pension Policy Center in Washington, said some foreign features might not fit American culture, like mandated participation in the pension system as in Australia and Chile. He does not advocate such a mandate.


“We’re quite different from many other countries,” he said. “There’s an emphasis on individual freedoms and rights and responsibilities versus collectivism — although I admit we will never have high pension coverage without some form of mandate.”


“In the United States, collective is a four-letter word,” agreed Harry Smorenberg, head of a Netherlands-based consulting firm on pensions and founder of the World Pension Summit.


The United States does have some mandates, although they are often overlooked. Employers must pay 6.2 percent of each employee’s salary into Social Security, and every employee must also contribute that amount.
A second pillar of America’s retirement system — 401(k)’s — is voluntary, although some employers have embraced automatic enrollment for their employees while giving them the right to opt out. The third pillar is individual savings, including individual retirement accounts or I.R.A.’s. The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College warned that 53 percent of American households were at risk of not having enough to maintain their living standards in retirement.
Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor of economics at the New School, said America’s voluntary system was badly broken because nearly six out of 10 workers were not in pension or 401(k) plans. She favors an Australia-type mandate.


“We use our tax code far more than other countries to try to encourage socially beneficial behavior,” she said. “We’re spending hundreds of billions of dollars to incent people to save for retirement through 401(k)’s and I.R.A.’s. That costs us a huge amount of money without much effect on getting people to save for retirement.”


Other countries’ systems offer a variety of contrasts:


¶ In France, the retirement age is 60, rising to 62 in 2017. In Britain, it is 67, with some calling that callously high. (Americans born from 1943 to 1959 qualify for full retirement benefits at age 66, and those born in 1960 or later qualify at 67, although people can begin receiving reduced retirement benefits at age 62.)
¶ In Chile, when women give birth, the government makes a special bonus contribution into their 401(k)-type plan to compensate for the months away from their job when they would not be contributing to those plans.


¶ In Sweden, if the nation’s overall social security financing worsens from one year to the next, that country’s fiscal guardians — to prevent huge, unfunded liabilities — set a slightly lower annual retirement benefit for all who reach retirement age that year (remaining unchanged until they die). And if Sweden’s social security finances improve the following year, there is a recalculation, and those who reach retirement age the next year will receive slightly higher benefits throughout retirement.


¶ In Britain, when young workers first sign up for a 401(k)-type plan, the default option in the government’s main new savings plan has them investing mainly in bonds — while in the United States young workers are advised to invest mainly in stocks.


“In the U.K., they say first-time savers are very sensitive to losing money early on, so they put them in bond funds so they’ll have positive returns,” said David C. John, an economist at the AARP’s Public Policy Institute. “As time goes on, they’ll be moved more into equities.”

¶ In the Netherlands, if a company is deemed unable to finance its long-term pension obligations, the central bank can order reduced benefits for current and future retirees to help keep the company afloat. United States law bars companies from reducing pension benefits they have contractually agreed to.


“We took drastic action to get these plans back into a safety zone,” Mr. Smorenberg, the Dutch pension consultant, said.


¶ Singapore requires employees to contribute 20 percent of their pay and employers 16 percent toward a savings fund for retirement, health care and housing. The government guarantees a 2.5 annual return. Despite the high percentage contributed, many Singaporeans end up without enough money for retirement because they withdraw large sums to buy houses.


Despite such disparate strategies, many countries have similar worries. “Every country is worried about workers saving enough and about increasing longevity,” Professor Ghilarducci said. “Every country is worried about investing retirement funds correctly, and every country wants to minimize risks to the taxpayer so there aren’t large, unknown bills in the future.”


In 1986, when Australia’s social security program provided average retirement benefits of just one-third of preretirement pay, Parliament, pushed by labor unions, began requiring employers to contribute 3 percent of employee earnings into a 401(k)-like fund. When that still left many Australians near poverty in retirement, legislators increased the contribution to 9 percent.


Alan Matheson, 75, a retired social worker and minister who lives near Melbourne, said the Australian system had been good to him and his wife, Barbara, 69, a retired nurse. Both receive social security benefits while drawing from their retirement savings. “The system works well if you own a house,” he said. “But if you don’t own your own house or if you’re single, things will be more difficult for you.”


He said Australians backed the plan to raise retirement contributions to 9 percent and then 12 percent because “there’s a widespread acceptance by the population that with the aging of the population, the government is not going to be able to pay its Age Pension,” the Australian name for the social security system.



Australian workers have several investment options, including investment funds set up by companies and unions, and “retail” funds, much like mutual funds. Experts estimated that an Australian worker who contributes for 30 years into such a fund will have retirement income equal to 70 percent of preretirement pay — the percentage that many experts recommend.


“Before compulsion we found that most people didn’t save enough for retirement,” said Ian Silk, chief executive of AustralianSuper, a multi-employer pension fund. He called the mandate “the single most important feature of the Australian system.”



Dana M. Muir, a pension expert at the University of Michigan, opposes a compulsory plan like Australia’s, but she said the United States should borrow one aspect of the Australian system: no legal liability if a company makes imprudent decisions in setting up a 401(k)-type plan. The risk of legal liability, Professor Muir said, is a big reason many American businesses decide not to set up 401(k) plans — and a major reason the American participation rate is so low.


Although Australia’s plan is praised, experts say it has one major flaw. It does not provide an annuity option for most retirees, meaning many run the risk of emptying out their retirement fund long before they die.


In 2007, New Zealand created the world’s first nationwide, government-sponsored savings plan that automatically enrolls workers, while giving them the option not to participate.


The“KiwiSaver” plan — built alongside the basic social security-type system — gives employees the option of contributing 3, 4 or 8 percent of their pay, with employers required to contribute 3 percent. Workers choose which investment funds to put KiwiSaver money in, and those who do not choose are steered into six conservatively invested funds.


To encourage participation, the government provides a $1,000 tax-free “kick-start” contribution for each new participant upon enrollment, as well as a housing down payment of up to $5,000 after someone has participated in the program for three years.


The government determines investment offerings, but there are not dozens, as in the United States. “If you look at the U.S. experience,” said Mr. John of the AARP, “having tons of investment alternatives drives some people away from participating.”



Chile reformed its retirement system during the dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet. In 1981, he largely replaced the country’s traditional social security-type plan with a 401(k)-type plan for everyone who entered the work force from that year onward.


Under the plan, 10 percent of each employee’s salary was automatically deposited into a 401(k)-type retirement fund, with workers having a choice of investment options. Today more than 90 percent of Chilean workers are in the system, which resembles, but goes further than, the partial Social Security privatization that President George W. Bush pushed unsuccessfully.


Patricio Navia, a professor of political science at the Diego Portales University in Chile, said the system was effective in getting most Chileans to save significant amounts for retirement. But he said there were shortcomings. The number of major investment funds has shrunk to six, from 15, leaving limited competition that has resulted in high fees.


And those unemployed for long stretches or working in the informal economy often did not save enough for retirement, causing the government to adopt a supplementary system in 2008 to top up the retirement funds of low-income retirees.


Another problem: As many Chileans paid into their new 401(k)-type plans instead of social security, that strained the financing of the pay-as-you-go social security plan. “For the U.S., making such a transition would be extremely costly,” Professor Navia said. “You can’t meet all your obligations in the pay-as-you-go system without receiving the money from people who are still working.”


In Britain, the government long had a voluntary savings program to supplement its main social security system. But officials grew alarmed that just a third of Britain’s workers were participating, so it enacted a 401(k)-type program that all employers must participate in unless they already have pension plans.


Under the program, employers must enroll all their employees in a retirement plan, although workers can opt out. The employer contributes 3 percent of each worker’s pay, the worker contributes 4 percent and the government 1 percent. The goal is to raise the worker participation rate to at least 70 percent.


“So far the opt-out rate is low — that’s very encouraging,” said Jane Vass, director of public policy at Age UK, Britain’s version of the AARP.


Many participants are not even choosing from the array of investment options. “The research shows that many employees didn’t want a large amount of choice because that makes decisions more difficult,” Ms. Vass said. “So the vast bulk of people go for the default scheme,” often a target date fund.


Senator Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, has proposed creating a mandatory retirement savings plan much like Britain’s, with modest contributions by employers and employees. But in a country with a distaste for government mandates, his proposal could face rough going.


Mr. John of AARP said the United States could borrow only so much from other countries’ ideas. “Each country’s retirement system reflects their culture, their identity and their history,” he said. “It would be a mistake to assume that because something works in country ‘X’ it will work in the United States".
______________________________________________

'The Baltimore City Public Schools Construction and Revitalization Act of 2013 passed in the final days of the legislative session'.




We are not discussing this week----VOTING RIGHTS ACT----or PENSIONS made PAYGO-----what we are discussing this week in public policy is the DISAPPEARANCE of our 99% of WE THE PEOPLE's ability to opportunity and access what our public agencies are doing with revenue----with policy-----whether state or county.  Remember, these same policies are MOVING FORWARD in all US states driven by US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.

We shouted several years ago this same problem regarding the $1 BILLION SCHOOL BUILDING BOND here we see it is tied to one of those QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES----MARYLAND STADIUM AUTHORITY.  Our organization asked to see who was tied as investors to these school bonds---we wanted to see the agreements being signed and were told----IT IS PROPRIETARY ---YOU CANNOT SEE THESE DEALS.

Of course we knew why---they are tied to global banking 1% investment firms and global corporations with the goal of enfolding what are PUBLIC K-12 into corporate campuses as corporate schools.


99% WE THE PEOPLE and our new 99% of immigrants citizens need to understand these are ILLEGAL POLICY STANCES-----no laws can be passed to create these proprietary/closed-door secrecy when tied to a PUBLIC AGENCY.  It is the same as creating POLL TAXES/LITERACY TESTS to keep citizens from voting.

Baltimore 99% of citizens not only are being denied PUBLIC EDUCATION AND PUBLIC K-UNIVERSITY SCHOOLS----they are being tied to $1 billion in bond debt that will be soaked in fraud, corruption, cronyism as are all QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES. 
A US city or state cannot pass laws where the goal is known to be PROPRIETARY AND SECRETIVE actions within public agencies.



21st Century School Buildings Program


The Baltimore City Public Schools Construction and Revitalization Act of 2013 passed in the final days of the legislative session. It authorizes the City of Baltimore, Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners, Interagency Committee on School Construction, and MSA to collaborate on the Plan. The Act authorizes MSA to leverage $60 million dollars into bond money to support an estimated 26-28 school renovation and replacement projects. Construction has begun, and the program is on schedule to be substantially completed by 2021.

The Memorandum of Understanding, approved by the Maryland Board of Public Works October 16, 2013, outlines each party's roles and responsibilities in the multi-faceted project. 


project Summary


Through the collective efforts of Baltimore City Public Schools, the Maryland Stadium Authority, the City of Baltimore, and Maryland’s Interagency Committee on School Construction, the mission of the 21st Century School Buildings Plan is to:


  • Build future-focused, adaptable, sustainable and high-quality schools that inspire learning and support the educational success of Baltimore City Public Schools students
  • Design schools that allow for recreational opportunities for the community, combined with other cooperative uses and school partnership programs
  • Manage the costs of school facility operations by closing under-utilized schools, opening new award-winning education programs and implementing improved facilities maintenance operations
  • Execute a cost-effective and timely school design and construction program, integrating local hiring and student-based learning opportunities
  • Be good stewards of Maryland taxpayer dollars and champions for education, economic development and neighborhood revitalization in the City of Baltimore
To read more about the 21st Century Schools program, visit their website
__________________________________________

THE MARYLAND STADIUM AUTHORITY is that quasi-governmental agency we are told is allowed to be proprietary and secret because of PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS.  The article below states all these concerns----it is not a coincidence that BALTIMORE CITY PAPER was taken over shortly after this article by BALTIMORE SUN ---its hard drives with decades of old articles 'LOST' and now Baltimore City Paper is out of business----consolidated media in Baltimore only allowing PROPAGANDA AND MYTH-MAKING.


'The Baltimore school system's financial advisor is Public Resources Advisory Group (PRAG), a 28-year-old, New York-based company that prides itself on working exclusively for government entities so as to avoid conflicts of interest. PRAG, which also counts the Maryland Stadium Authority among its many clients, has consistently ranked among the top financial advisors in the country'.

As we said last week, these QUASI-AGENCY status were created just before ROBBER BARON few decades to allow this massive and systemic corruption of US government agencies -----MOVING FORWARD ROBBER BARON CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA and killing any ability of 99% of WE THE PEOPLE to see what our local and state agencies are doing.

WE ARE DOING ALL THIS FOR THE KIDS------OH, REALLY??????


Oh, yeah MR 5% PLAYER ANDERSON------it is indeed INNOVATIVE as in GLOBAL BANKING COMPLEX FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT----



The Money Pit


Edward Ericson Jr.  March 13, 2013 BALTIMORE CITY PAPER


The Feb. 26 rally on Lawyers Mall in Annapolis made the TV news. Del. Curtis "Curt" Anderson (D-Baltimore), Baltimore City Public Schools CEO Andres Alonso, and Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake were among the officials making the case for guaranteed funding to rebuild the city's public schools.


"We've come up with an innovative way to try to raise money to build schools in Baltimore," Anderson said. "This is exactly what people in Annapolis have been telling us to do for years and years."


Andres Alonso told the crowd, "This is about you. This is about the kids. This is about the buildings they deserve-better buildings now."
"We will not take no for an answer," added Rawlings-Blake.


Viewers of WBAL's nightly news broadcast saw all this, and readers of The Baltimore Sun, The Daily Record, and Patch.com got much the same story. But the details of the city's audacious plan to replace or rebuild 136 public school buildings have garnered scant coverage during the nearly two years the plan has been in motion. And questions remain even as the legislature nears a decision on the matter.


The stakes are huge. For more than a decade Baltimore schools could hardly be mentioned without the prefix "crumbling." Studies of the system's facilities needs have estimated the price tag at between $2.4 billion and $2.8 billion.




That's as much as the whole city budget, or two to three years of the school system's operating budget. It's also 50 times the amount of money the school system typically gets for capital improvements in a typical year.


The plan on the table would obligate the state to hand over at least $32 million to the city's schools in each of the next 30 years as a "block grant." Combined with money raised from the city's controversial 5 cent bottle tax, plus several other sources, an estimated annual total of about $68 million would be amassed.


Those dollars would then be handed over to a nonprofit corporation which has not yet been chartered. That corporation, called the School Construction Authority, would then issue bonds, pledging the $68 million to pay them off.
The amount of bonds that could be raised this way: $1.1 billion.


Having a billion dollars available to renovate and build new city schools would be huge. In the words of the Jan. 8 report by the state Interagency Committee on School Construction (IAC), Baltimore City would be "implementing a construction program on a scale that is unprecedented in Maryland and would be one of the largest single-jurisdiction programs in the United States."


But here's the kicker: $1.1 billion is less than half of what the city says it actually needs. Within three years of receiving its unprecedented allotment of guaranteed state money, the Baltimore school system would again have to return to the legislature and other potential funders-this time with an even bigger funding request.
"It's a huge lift, technically-and in terms of the financial thinking. . . and in public education and in the political process," says Michael Sarbanes, executive director of the school system's Engagement Office.



The fact that this enormous, creative, risky push for school financing would deliver just 44 percent of the school system's minimum identified need is obvious to anyone who reads the school system's plan or the IAC report. But it has not been featured in the media coverage of the funding drive.


Nor have these other details:


1. The latest $2.4 billion school building estimate does not include more than $100 million in furniture and fixtures that would be needed.


2. Maintenance of existing buildings during the proposed 10-year new-school build-out is predicated on doubling the school system's bond cap from $100 million to $200 million. It is as yet unclear where the money to service those bonds would come from.


3. Given the 10-year build-out proposed, the 30-year payoff plan under discussion would actually be closer to 40 years.



"I'm not going to give you this as a definite," Sarbanes says when asked how long the total bond payback time would be. "But if the last [bond issue] is eight years out, then. . . the point about it is, this is a long-term commitment."


Sarbanes' reticence is understandable. City and school officials have said little publicly about these challenges. Instead, the focus of the school board, the school superintendent, and the consortium of nonprofits called TransForm Baltimore that has been driving this policy since 2011 has been on the city school stakeholders-parents, students, teachers, and administrators-themselves.


"We asked them what should be taken into account. They told us," says Sarbanes. "So that's what drove it."




This makes sense. Without presenting a united front, the city stands little chance of getting the state legislature to agree to the plan. With the school system's users on board, hundreds of children can be bused to the capital for photo ops; those who oppose the plan can be painted as anti-kid.


And the need is undeniable. The report released last June by Jacobs Project Management, the consultant hired by the city schools to assess the damage, tells a familiar story (familiar because it is the third or fourth comprehensive study of Baltimore school facilities undertaken in the past decade or so):


Nearly a quarter of the city's schools were built before 1946; 69 percent of the system's 182 schools are in "very poor" condition, according to an industry-standard assessment system. Fifty schools should be replaced or scrapped altogether.


When assessed in terms of "educational adequacy," the average city school received a grade of 55 out of 100. Fail.


More than one-third of the district's school space was found to be unused or underutilized. As the IAC review concludes, "In every assessment conducted, City School[s] did not compare favorably with other urban districts or any of the national averages."


As Alonso says, "This is for the kids." And it is.

Given the obvious need to close some schools, Sarbanes says Alonso has taken special care to develop the plan around the people who are here now: "One of the principles that went into the plan, with the guidance of the school board, was that if a community was going to be experiencing the closing of their school-and that's one of the most painful things that can happen, because schools have enormous emotional resonance-then those children would be among the first to experience a new school."


The school system's plan is detailed to the level of each student, and how far he or she would have to walk to school if the plan is implemented. It is a case study in the art of managing tens of thousands of diverse constituents into a broad consensus.


But the parents of city public schoolchildren, upwards of 90 percent of whom receive free or reduced-price lunches, are mostly not the people whose taxes will be tapped to pay for the plan. Those taxpayers live in the counties, where, according to the IAC report, another $12 billion or $13 billion in school building projects are awaiting funding.


Here's what the city is asking for right now:


The "block grant" concept is derived from annual capital improvement funds the state doles out to every jurisdiction each year as the budget allows. Over the past five years, the city's average has been less than $32 million. The legislation-HB 860 and SB 743-would lock in the city's take at $32 million, at least. That would give the buyers of any bonds backed by the grants the assurances they need that the bonds would be paid off.


But, as the IAC notes, the state budget fluctuates with the larger economy. Dedicating $32 million to Baltimore for the next three decades might cause a squeeze if there is another recession. "Within recent memory. . . the capital budget was set at $116.5 million in FY 2004 and at $125.9 million in FY 2005 as a result of severe State fiscal constraints. During those fiscal years, annual funding for even the largest jurisdictions was reduced to well below $15 million and State approvals of planning, which represent a commitment of future funding for approved projects, were also significantly curtailed."


Even the act of dedicating $32 million to Baltimore might cause bond rating agencies to lower the state's own bond rating, the report says.


That brings up the question: If Baltimore's needs are so great, why does the state not simply bond the construction directly? The answer goes to the heart of the city plan's creativity, which is more political than economic. "It doesn't require voter approval," said Frank Patinella, an advocate with the ACLU of Maryland Education Reform Project, which has led the charge for the plan. "It doesn't count against the debt limit."


In effect, the structure of the proposed financing system is designed to mask the size and effect of the borrowing, not from government bond raters but from the taxpayers who would foot the bill.


Besides the $32 million block grant, the city is counting on no less than $8 million annually from the bottle tax, plus its own general fund contribution of $15 million, which is also styled as a block grant. Gambling funds are included at $4 million, even though the casino in question is as yet unbuilt and the existing Hollywood casino in Perryville, citing market conditions, just won the right to reduce the number of slot machines by 23 percent. The final $7 million would come from an accounting change involving city retiree health benefits. The details of this are unclear in the documents City Paper has reviewed. Sarbanes was not able to explain it, except to say that the change will result in an additional $7 million in funding at first, and that will probably increase over time to $11 million.


As late as June of last year, the bottle tax and other city revenue were going to be combined to float a $300 million bond by the city itself to fund school construction. That plan, unveiled in November 2011 by Mayor Rawlings-Blake, was overtaken by the more ambitious-and four-times-more expensive-plan on the table today.


Under the current plan, $66 to $69 million a year would be handed over to the Construction Authority, an entity which does not yet exist. The authority-like the Stadium Authority-would be quasi-governmental, run by political appointees and accountable to the government via annual internal audits and a state legislative audit every six years.


The Authority would implement the school system's 10-year-plan, says Sarbanes, and school system officials would "act as an agent to the Authority." When disputes arise between what the school system wants and what the Authority's bosses think best, someone-it has not yet been decided who-would get to make the decision. "The details have to get worked out," Sarbanes says.


The Construction Authority is part of the system needed to remove these bonds from the state's balance sheet. It would also, in theory, remove direct control of billions of borrowed dollars from the school system itself, which has over decades developed a reputation for incompetence and corruption.



Between 2004 and 2008, 11 city school maintenance and facilities employees were criminally convicted in a corruption scheme that had operated since at least 1991. One contractor, Gilbert Sapperstein of Allstate Boiler Service, was sentenced to 18 months in prison for his part in a bribery and kickback scheme involving Rajiv Dixit, then-head of the school system's facilities maintenance program. Millions of dollars were stolen.



Sapperstein-a longtime vending machine operator and generous political donor-served only one month in prison. The heating and air conditioning systems AllState never fixed have all along been cited as evidence of underfunding and the need for hundreds of millions in repairs and upgrades.



Sarbanes prefers not to dwell on this history. "I don't have a 10-year perspective," he says, stressing the improvements to the city's facilities maintenance section that have been made in recent years. "They do good work and at a high quality. . . the big problem for years and years and years was that we didn't have a strategy that would address the real underlying problem, which was that the buildings were deteriorating."


In its 2006 audit of the city school system, the Office of Legislative Audits made "23 recommendations covering virtually every financial management area reviewed," according to that 109-page document's introduction. "The areas where more significant problems were identified included procurement, facilities, inventory control, transportation services and payroll/human resources," the audit said, adding that the city school system's "management must develop a plan and related strategies for addressing these audit issues, including mechanisms to monitor the progress of implementing corrective actions."


The next audit, released just six months ago, found "Competitive Procurement Policies Were Not Always Followed," continuing problems with procurement procedures on "two large contracts," overpayment for overtime and leave, missing computers, and said the district "Did Not Ensure Contractors Had Properly Completed Maintenance Projects Prior to Payment," among the 26 findings it reported.



And this: "A Long-Term Facilities Master Plan Was Not Prepared."


David G. Lever, executive director of the Interagency Committee on School Construction, says he is confident in the school system's abilities today. "As you know, the school system has improved very much in facilities management since 2005," he says in a phone interview. "With new management-particularly Mr. [J. Keith] Scroggins and his crew-we have seen a significant improvement in the way the facilities are managed."


Lever's confidence had better be well-placed. Under the proposal on the table now, Baltimore City Public Schools would increase its staff of building professionals from the current 14 to about 34. "An additional 5 FTE's [that's full-time employees] would work directly for the Authority," the IAC report says.


Even with all those extra bodies, Baltimore City's staff would number 10 fewer than that of the Montgomery County school system, which manages about $250 million worth of capital projects each year-$20 million less than Baltimore would be handling annually if its plan is approved.


Under the plan, then, Baltimore projects itself to be significantly more competent and efficient than Montgomery County.
"They don't have the breadth or the depth in the system yet," Lever acknowledges. "It will take some time to build up to that level."


Baltimore's plan is modeled on a school building frenzy undertaken last decade by Greenville, S.C., a county of 461,000 souls that in 1993 was blessed by the arrival of a $450 million BMW factory. Tire giant Michelin also expanded there after buying out rival BF Goodrich in 1989. And General Electric, the area's largest employer, builds turbines and aviation equipment there. The well-paying jobs have attracted thousands of young families and the county did not see how its school system could keep up with the demand.


In 1999 the Greenville school board developed a plan to take about $60 million and borrow about $800 million to build or renovate 86 schools in four years. The plan ended up taking about six years and finished 70 schools to serve its 70,000 students-at a cost of $1.06 billion. Despite the overruns, it has been touted as a huge success by the consultants involved -even though the state of South Carolina has, in the words of the IAC report, "modified the conditions for the further use of this method."



Greenville and Baltimore City could hardly have less in common. Greenville is 77 percent white; Baltimore City is 32 percent white. Greenville's household income is 7 percent above the state average; Baltimore City's is 45 percent below. Greenville is a growing county with an expanding industrial base (in 2012, Michelin announced it would build a new $750 million factory nearby); Baltimore is losing population and industrial jobs.



Where Greenville built its schools to keep up with demand, Baltimore wants to build its schools in order to create demand-the construction jobs standing in for the tire and car-making jobs Greenville has. "There would also be a significant impact on these neighborhoods where this construction is going on which will be very helpful to the goal of growing the city," Sarbanes says.


One thing Baltimore does have in common with Greenville is the desire to get around existing laws limiting debt. Greenville's bonding authority had been capped to 8 percent of its tax base by the South Carolina constitution. As one of the Greenville school board members wrote: "The constitutional debt limit does not apply because the nonprofit is an independent legal entity." The structure also sidestepped a law forbidding lease-purchase arrangements.



Brent Jeffcoat, then bond counsel to the Greenville school board, blessed the structure as "legal." Last summer, officials with TransForm Baltimore, the consortium of nonprofits that is nominally driving this process, flew Jeffcoat to Baltimore to solicit his advice. Jeffcoat is one of several consultants that the Baltimore is counting on to help structure the deal.


The Baltimore school system's financial advisor is Public Resources Advisory Group (PRAG), a 28-year-old, New York-based company that prides itself on working exclusively for government entities so as to avoid conflicts of interest. PRAG, which also counts the Maryland Stadium Authority among its many clients, has consistently ranked among the top financial advisors in the country.



In 2010, PRAG managed 172 municipal bond issues totaling over $42 billion.

Every deal PRAG structures is different, but the school bond concept bears similarity to a much smaller deal the company facilitated in 2006-right down to the concern about political fallout.


In 2006, as the facts of the 1990s utility deregulation fad came clear, Baltimore Gas and Electric demanded-and the Public Service Commission approved-a 72 percent rate increase. Collecting it all at once would have caused an electoral revolt, so government and utility officials called on PRAG founders William W. Cobbs and Wesley C. Hough to stamp their approval on some structured finance magic.


Testifying before the PSC, Cobbs and Hough's expertise allowed the PSC to approve the scheme in which BGE would issue the bonds through a shell corporation so as to "insulate the bond investor from the credit risk of the company."



In that deal, BGE "sold" its right to collect the huge rate increase to a new corporate entity-RSB BondCo LLC-which then took the ratepayers' money as collateral for long-term bonds it issued. BondCo then forked over the borrowed cash upfront to the utility.


This way, ratepayers had only to pay a 15 percent increase up front, and BGE still got its windfall. Bond investors got a steady stream of income, and Governor Martin O'Malley was able to claim that he reduced the impact of the unavoidable rate increase.


All this was done and all true, despite the fact that the scheme increased overall costs from about $600 million to more than $800 million, including $11 million paid in "bond issuance fees."


In 2012 Baltimore County called upon PRAG to bless a scheme to finance with bonds a projected $250 million pension shortfall by borrowing that sum at 4.25 to 4.5 percent interest and investing it elsewhere. This is supposedly going to save big money down the line, as the money raised earns a bigger return for years before it is disbursed to retirees.


It's rather like a homeowner taking out a second mortgage to play the stock market: It might get him a big boat or it might put him into foreclosure.

As Keith Dorsey, Baltimore County's director of budget and finance, writes on Baltimore County's website (with Cobbs as a co-author): "In the opinion of the County's financial advisor, Public Resources Advisory Group, based upon preliminary discussions with credit analysts, the POBs [pension obligation bonds] will not negatively impact the County's Triple AAA bond ratings although there has been no formal confirmation from the rating agencies."


PRAG has fewer than 50 people on staff and wears its white hat with pride. As the company boasts on its website: "We are not, and have never been, the subject of an investigation."


About the TransForm Baltimore plan, the first $1.1 billion round of funding still awaits a vote. Much is still to be determined-from the makeup of the proposed Construction Authority, to who makes the decisions when budget and philosophy clash, to the big question of where the second round of financing-at least $1.4 billion-would be found.



"We're gonna have to figure out where does the rest of the money come from," Sarbanes says. "But at that point, we're going to have more experience, we're going to have momentum, and we're going to have a proof that doing [it] this way is good for the kids and good for the city."
"Throughout the construction phase, we're going to see cost escalation," Frank Patinella acknowledges. "We don't know what the bond market is going to look like. But we know that if we wait, it is going to cost more."
"At this point, I would have to say that I don't have a full grasp of the details of how this would be financed," David Lever says. "Stage two is not completely clear to us either."


____________________________________________



There are not many US citizens not understanding that when right wing states were made to eliminate laws blocking EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND ACCESS to voting------these same states started creating crony, corrupt, and rigged election structures-----sadly, our 1% BLACK BOULE killing those 99% black voter rights with these same corruptions.  That was followed by BUSH-DIEBOLD computer voting with BUILT-IN HACKING of US elections assuring only global banking ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT CLINTON/BUSH neo-liberals and neo-cons won elections.  SOCIOPATHS are indeed hard to stop.

ACLU fighting for the same VOTING RIGHTS as back in 1960s knowing 99% of WE THE PEOPLE cannot even access or have the opportunity to BE CITIZENS. It does no good to vote in rigged, corrupted elections.

Every time we allow CORPORATIONS to come into our PUBLIC AGENCIES---and that is what DIEBOLD was-----a corporate control of US voting that was completely done by our local and state election agencies with paper ballots and citizens watching the entire process.  Today after these few decades of election corruptions----our state and county election boards are filled with 5% players ready to continue these election frauds whether computer or paper ballots.

THE GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM ISSUE ACROSS ALL PUBLIC POLICIES----IS THIS QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL PUBLIC PRIVATE STATUS OF ALL OUR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.  WHETHER RIGHT WING OR LEFT WING----IF A GROUP IS NOT FIGHTING AGAINST THESE STRUCTURES---THEY ARE 5% TO THE 1% GLOBAL BANKING PLAYERS.



If we have no access or opportunity to see what is happening in our US public agencies---no way to hold people accountable---we are NOT CITIZENS and elections have NO EMPOWERMENT.


Voting Rights


Voting is the cornerstone of our democracy and the fundamental right upon which all our civil liberties rest. The ACLU works to protect and expand Americansʼ freedom to vote.
  • What's at Stake
  • Current Issues
  • The Latest
  • Act

What's at StakeFollowing the 2016 election, the fight for voting rights remains as critical as ever. Politicians across the country continue to engage in voter suppression, efforts that include additional obstacles to registration, cutbacks on early voting, and strict voter identification requirements. Through litigation and advocacy, the ACLU is fighting back against attempts to curtail an essential right in our democracy, the right to vote. ​
In addition to this litigation, we are working with our affiliates to advocate for policies that make it easier for Americans to vote, such as the expansion of same-day and online voter registration. 

_______________________________________________
Below we see when our US pension was staged for ROBBER BARON global banking 1% use as FODDER.  Here again is that FAKE 5% religious leader--an OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS FREEMASON----Jimmy Carter.  Carter era pushed those QUASI GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY structures at the same time he created the 401K structures that would be open to DEREGULATED BANKING fleecing.




'Legislative history

Revenue Act of 1978.



The Act was passed by the 95th Congress and was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on November 6, 1978'.

This is when corporations were allowed to DEFER contributions and our state and local government officials DEFERRED contributions keeping pensions systems current and fully-funded-----of course it was made to sound like a LEFT social progressive opportunity.  So, US pensions became DEREGULATED and corporations and pols started defunding them and using them as GLOBAL BANKING 1% FODDER.


3. Deferred Compensation and Pension Plans


   * Permits deferral of the lesser of $7500 or 33 1/3% for employees and independent contractors performing services for state or local government or tax-exempt rural electric cooperatives. Extends rules of deductibility to deferred payments for services of independent contractors; * Expands non-taxable aspects of "cafeteria" and deferred profit-sharing plans; * Raises deduction amount to $7500 or 15% for employer contributions to IRA's; * Special breaks for participants in defined benefit plans, and employees of tax-exempt charitable organizations and educational institutions.


Here we see today's media selling the idea that only a few million of citizens were losers in these global banking 1% pensions as FODDER innovative policies.  We KNOW MOVING FORWARD there will be no 99% PENSIONS FOR YOU.  As global investment firms tied to ponzi scheme global banking frauds hiding illegal investments try to make it appear those lower-income US citizens were the losers-----all 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE are losing those pensions and retirements because we have no ability to see what these investment firms are doing with these savings structures.



A historical accident?

It wasn't supposed to work out this way.
The 401(k) account came into being quietly, as a clause in the Revenue Act of 1978.

THE FAILURE OF CHOICE----OH, THAT IS THE PROBLEM!



For millions, 401(k) plans have fallen short


Kelley Holland | @KKelleyHolland


Published 7:02 AM ET Mon, 23 March 2015 Updated 7:27 AM ET Tue, 24 March 2015



You need to know this number: $18,433.


That's the median amount in a 401(k) savings account, according to a recent report by the Employee Benefit Research Institute. Almost 40 percent of employees have less than $10,000, even as the proportion of companies offering alternatives like defined benefit pensions continues to drop.


Older workers do tend to have more savings. At Vanguard, for example, the median for savers aged 55 to 64 in 2013 was $76,381. But even at that level, millions of workers nearing retirement are on track to leave the workforce with savings that do not even approach what they will need for health care, let alone daily living. Not surprisingly, retirement is now Americans' top financial worry, according to a recent Gallup poll.



To be sure, tax-advantaged 401(k) plans have provided a means for millions of retirement savers to build a nest egg. More than three-quarters of employers use such defined contribution plans as the main retirement income plan option for employees, and the vast majority of them offer matching contribution programs, which further enhance employees' ability to accumulate wealth.


But shifting the responsibility for growing retirement income from employers to individuals has proved problematic for many American workers, particularly in the face of wage stagnation and a lack of investment expertise. For them, the grand 401(k) experiment has been a failure.


"In America, when we had disability and defined benefit plans, you actually had an equality of retirement period. Now the rich can retire and workers have to work until they die," said Teresa Ghilarducci, a labor economist at the New School for Social Research who has proposed eliminating the tax breaks for 401(k)s and using the money saved to create government-run retirement plans.

A historical accident?It wasn't supposed to work out this way.


The 401(k) account came into being quietly, as a clause in the Revenue Act of 1978. The clause said employees could choose to defer some compensation until retirement, and they would not be taxed until that time. (Companies had long offered deferred compensation arrangements, but employers and the IRS had been going back and forth about their tax treatment.)



"401(k)s were never designed as the nation's primary retirement system," said Anthony Webb, a research economist at the Center for Retirement Research. "They came to be that as a historical accident."


History has it that a benefits consultant named Ted Benna realized the provision could be used as a retirement savings vehicle for all employees. In 1981, the IRS clarified that 401(k) plan participants could defer regular wages, not just bonuses, and the plans began to proliferate.




By 1985, there were 30,000 401(k) plans in existence, and 10 years later that figure topped 200,000. As of 2013, there were 638,000 plans in place with 89 million participants, according to the Investment Company Institute. And assets in defined contribution plans totaled $6.6 trillion as of the third quarter of 2014, $4.5 trillion of which was held in 401(k) plans.



"Nobody thought they were going to take over the world," said Daniel Halperin, a professor at Harvard Law School. who was a senior official at the Treasury Department when 401(k) accounts came into being.

Rise of defined contributions



But a funny thing happened as 401(k) plans began to multiply: defined benefit plans started disappearing. In 1985, the year there were 30,000 401(k) plans, defined benefit plans numbered 170,000, according to the Investment Company Institute. By 2005, there were just 41,000 defined benefit plans–and 417,000 401(k) plans.


The reasons for the shift are complex, but Ghilarducci argued that in the early years, "workers overvalued the promise of a 401(k)" and the prospect of amassing investment wealth, so they accepted the change. Meanwhile, companies found that providing a defined contribution, or DC, plan cost them less. (Ghilarducci studied 700 companies' plans over 17 years and found that when employers allocated a larger share of their pension expenditures to defined contribution plans, their overall spending on pension plans went down.)



But the new plans had two key differences. Participation in 401(k) plans is optional and, while pensions provided lifetime income, 401(k) plans offer no such certainty.


"I'm not saying defined benefit plans are flawless, but they certainly didn't put as much of the risk and responsibility on the individual," said Terrance Odean, a professor of finance at the University of California, Berkeley's Haas School of Business.

Early signs of troubleThat concept may not have been in the forefront of employees' minds at the start, but problems with 401(k)s surfaced early.


For one thing, employee participation in 401(k) plans never became anywhere near universal, despite aggressive marketing by investment firms and exhortations by employers and consumer associations to save more. A 2011 report by the Government Accountability Office found that "the percentage of workers participating in employer-sponsored plans has peaked at about 50 percent of the private sector workforce for most of the past two decades."



The employees who did participate tended to be better paid, since those people could defer income more easily. The GAO report found that most of the people contributing as much as they were allowed tended to have incomes of $126,000 or more.


In part, that is because the ascent of 401(k) plans came as college costs started their steep rise, hitting many employees in their prime earning years. Stagnating middle-class wages also made it hard for people to save.


Fees have been another problem. Webb has studied 401(k) fees, and he concluded that "as a result of high fees, fund balances in defined contribution plans are about 20 percent less than they need otherwise be."

The Department of Labor in 2012 established new rules requiring more disclosure of fees, but it faced strong industry opposition, including a 17-page comment from the Investment Company Institute.

Failure of choice


Most employees also turned out to be less than terrific investors, making mistakes like selling low and buying high or shying away from optimal asset classes at the wrong time.


Berkeley's Odean and others have studied the effect of investment choice on 401(k) savers, and found that when investors choose their asset class allocation, a retirement income shortfall is more likely. If they can also choose their stock investments, the odds of a shortfall rise further.


"401(k)'s changed two things: you could choose not to participate, and you chose your own investments, which a lot of people, I think, screw up," Halperin said.

Benna, who is often called the father of the 401(k), has argued that many plans offer far too many choices. " If I were starting over from scratch today with what we know, I'd blow up the existing structure and start over," he said in a 2013 interview.



Another problem is that when 401(k) savers retire, they often opt to take their savings in a lump sum and roll the money into IRAs, which may entail higher fees and expose them to conflicted investment advice. A recent report by the Council of Economic Advisors found that savers receiving such advice, which may be suitable for them but not optimal, see investment returns reduced by a full percentage point, on average. Overall, the report found that conflicted investment advice costs savers $17 billion every year.



The result of all these shortcomings?


Some 52 percent of American households were at risk of being unable to maintain their standard of living as of 2013, a figure barely changed from a year earlier—even though a strong bull market should have pushed savings higher and the government gives up billions in tax revenue to subsidize the plans.



In a hearing last September on retirement security, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., declared that "something is out of whack. The American taxpayer delivers $140 billion each year to subsidize retirement accounts, but still millions of Americans nearing retirement have little or nothing saved."

Retirement worries riseAs problems mount with 401(k)s, Americans' worries about retirement security are intensifying.



A 2014 Harris poll found that 74 percent of Americans were worried about having enough income in retirement, and in a survey published recently by the National Institute on Retirement Security, 86 percent of respondents agree that the country is facing a retirement crisis, with that opinion strongest among high earners.



Changes may come, but for now, 401(k) plans and their ilk remain Americans' predominant workplace retirement savings vehicle. They may be a historical accident, but for the millions of people now facing a potentially impoverished retirement, the fallout is grave indeed.


As a former Treasury official, Halperin witnessed the creation of 401(k) accounts, But, "on balance, I don't think it was a big plus" that the accounts were created, he said. "I don't take credit for it. I try to avoid the blame."

0 Comments

March 26th, 2018

3/26/2018

0 Comments

 
We were reading a global banking 1% literary STAR Willa Cather------writing back in the days of Great Depression and last century's ROBBER BARON ROARING 20s. We love Willa's historical fiction----this one called THE PROFESSOR.


Willa being that global banking 1% freemason STAR prefaced the commercialization of our US public universities----the morals and ethics of UNIVERSITIES as PATENT MILLS----but one point we would like to make today is that faithful servant to what was to become a wealthy household loses her life's savings--$500 ---quite a lot to save by household seamstress. She made a bad investment tied to her church group ignoring what her wealthy employer advised. Of course the fiction has these wealthy employers feeling they will throw in their wealth to replace the seamstress' stock market losses.


Our 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE and our 99% global labor pool must remember what deregulation during CLINTON ERA 1990s created in the investment world-----where what we call STOCKBROKERS are now being allowed to be INVESTMENT COUNSELORS OR FIRMS. This was never done because ------people assume investment counselors fall under FIDUCIARY LAW. We have shouted over and again.......many of the laws passed these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ARE ILLEGAL. They break every kind of historical precedent for legal standings----whether covered in US CONSTITUTION, BILL OF RIGHTS, COMMON LAW, COURT RULING PRECEDENCE. The 5% global banking pols and players can PRETEND all they want that simply passing a law makes it legal. Rogue ROBBER BARON pols passing laws to stage massive and systemic frauds do not fit US Rule of Law -----a Congress passing a law stating Congressional pols are not held to INSIDER TRADING laws 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE are------have passed an illegal law. In US all citizens are held equally under law-----

So, people considering themselves stock brokers being allowed to sell themselves as investment advisors staging massive loses to clients----FORGET ABOUT THAT BEING LEGAL.

Is my Financial Advisor a Fiduciary or a Stockbroker?
Written by Ethan S. Braid, CFA - March 2013


Is my Financial Advisor a Fiduciary or a Stockbroker?


What is the fiduciary duty and why is that important?


The fiduciary duty requires an investment adviser, by law, to act in the best interest of her clients, putting her clients’ interests ahead of her own at all times.[i] Under the fiduciary duty, an investment adviser must provide advice and investment recommendations that she views as being the best for the client. In addition to being obligated to put clients’ interests ahead of their own, fiduciaries must also adhere to the duties of loyalty and care.[ii] An investment adviser, subject to the fiduciary duty, is required to provide up-front disclosures to the client, before any contracts are signed to provide investment advice. These disclosures cover important topics such as the investment adviser’s qualifications, services provided, compensation, range of fees, methods of analysis, record of any disciplinary actions and possible conflicts of interest, if any.[iii] An investment adviser that has a material conflict of interest must either eliminate that conflict or fully disclose to its clients all material facts relating to that conflict.[iv]


The world of investment advice is plagued with conflicts of interest, obscure disclosure and an overall lack of transparency. Seeking out an investment adviser who will act as your fiduciary can help to eliminate many of the problems associated with commission-oriented, product focused salespeople. Because a fiduciary is required, by law, to give full disclosure of how they are paid as well as any conflicts of interest they may have, before you do business with them, you as the consumer are in a better position to make an informed decision.




How is a stockbroker different from a fiduciary and why should I be concerned?


A stockbroker is defined as any person engaged in the business of effecting transactions (buying and selling securities - trading) for the account of others.[v] Brokers have many different titles these days with some of the more common being: wealth manager, wealth advisor, investment consultant, financial advisor, financial consultant and registered representative.


Regardless of their title, stockbrokers are generally not considered to have a fiduciary duty to the client.[vi] Stockbrokers are able to avoid the higher legal standard of the fiduciary duty due to an exemption they receive from the definition of Investment Adviser (fiduciary). This exemption, which can be found under section 202 (a) (11) (C) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 reads: any broker or dealer whose performance of such services is solely incidental to the conduct of his business as a broker or dealer and who receives no special compensation therefor. In other words, in the eyes of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, brokers are generally not considered to be fiduciaries because their advice is merely incidental to the sale of their products. Instead of being obligated to put their customers’ interests ahead of their own, brokers are instead expected to deal fairly with their customers and adhere to the lower standard of legal care, known as the suitability doctrine[vii]. The suitability doctrine requires a broker to know her customer’s financial situation well enough to recommend investments that are considered suitable for that particular client.[viii] Brokers are not required to provide up-front disclosures like the ones required for investment advisers.[ix]


As a consumer, caution should be exercised when dealing with a broker. Because a broker is only required to establish suitability, she is not legally obligated to put your interests ahead of hers. She may in fact sell you the investment that pays her the most commission, so long as the investment is deemed suitable. She is also able to sell you proprietary products if her firm offers them. Finally, she may be subject to conflicts of interest that could influence her investment recommendations while at the same time not being required to disclose those conflicts of interest to her client.


Who is a fiduciary and who is a stockbroker?


Investment Adviser (see Investment Advisers Act of 1940) means any person who, for compensation, engages in the business of advising others, either directly or indirectly or through publications or writings, as to the value of securities or as to the advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities, or who, for compensation and as a part of a regular business, issues or promulgates analyses or reports concerning securities. Investment advisers are subject to the higher legal standard of care known as the fiduciary duty. Investment advisers also use a number of titles in addition to investment adviser, such as: investment manager, portfolio manager, wealth manager, and asset manager. Investment advisers provide ongoing advice and investment management based upon the client’s objectives. Typically the investment adviser is given discretionary authority over the client’s investments. Discretionary authority allows the investment adviser to make investment decisions in the portfolio without having to get prior approval from the client. Investment advisers carry a license called the “series 65 or series 66.” Investment advisers are monitored by either the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or state regulators.


Stockbrokers (also called Financial Advisors, Wealth Managers, etc.) are subject to the lower legal standard, known as the suitability doctrine (stockbroker). Most of the financial advisors working at the largest Wall Street Brokerage firms (wirehouses) fall into this category. Brokers carry a license called the “series 7.” Brokers are monitored by the SEC, state regulators and industry self-regulatory organizations.


Dual Registration can make the legal situation very confusing. Today, a large number of financial advisors serve as both investment advisers and brokers. According to a FINRA study, 88% of investment adviser representatives are also registered as brokers.[x] For example, you open several accounts with a financial advisor employed by one of the major brokerage firms. The advisor may sell you a “fee-based” account where she acts an investment adviser and concurrently sell you bonds or limited partnerships in another account where she gets a commission (which you may not even see) and functions as a broker. Which hat does she want to wear today and how much does she want to get paid? The biggest issue for clients of dual registrants is that ultimately the lower legal standard typically applies to the dual registrant wirehouse broker who can function as both an investment adviser and stockbroker.


Insurance Licensing is also common for many brokers and investment advisers. Insurance products can have massive embedded commissions and present significant conflicts of interest for financial advisors. These conflicts of interest are generally not disclosed and the fiduciary duty is not followed.



How can I tell if my adviser is a fiduciary or a stockbroker?


Look at the disclosures on the advisor’s website, marketing materials and business cards. Brokers who sell products & dual registrants will have disclosures that look something this:


Company XYZ makes available products and services offered by XYZ, a registered broker-dealer and Member Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC). Insurance and annuity products are offered by DDT, a licensed insurance agency and wholly owned subsidiary of XYZ.


Banking products are provided by XXY, Members FDIC and wholly owned subsidiaries of XYZ


Ask, “Are you legally obligated to put my best interests ahead of yours?” “Will you be serving as my fiduciary?”



Ask, “Will my account be an advisory account or a brokerage account?” An answer of brokerage account will be your clue that you have found a stockbroker or dual registrant.


Ask to see the advisor’s form ADV. The form ADV will describe, among other things, fees & compensation, types of clients, disciplinary information, conflicts of interest, and education. If the advisor cannot provide you with an ADV, then the advisor is most likely a broker. Bear in mind that just because you get an ADV however, doesn’t mean that the advisor doesn’t also put on the broker hat from time to time if she is dual registrant.


Ask if the advisor is fee-only or “fee-based”. Fee-only advisers will be fiduciaries. Fee-only advisors cannot legally accept commissions and their only source of revenue is the fee they charge for advice and investment management. Since brokers are commission oriented, they cannot legally hold themselves out as fee-only. “Fee-based” however is a very different story. A“fee-based” advisor offers advisory accounts as well as brokerage accounts and is a dual registrant. So while she may put on the advisory hat one day, the next day she might put on the brokerage or insurance agent hat to sell some limited partnerships or annuities.


Ask what licenses the advisor has. A “series 7 license” means the advisor is registered as a stockbroker (the series 7 is the broker examination). The series 65 or 66 means she is registered as an investment advisor. Having both the series 7 and 65/66 equates to dual registration, which brings about the problems we covered previously in this article. Having an insurance license means she can sell you life insurance and annuities and accept commissions.




Why do Conflicts of Interest Matter?


According to Merriam Webster, a conflict of interest is defined as: a conflict between the private interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust.


If you are a client at a Wall Street Bank/Brokerage firm, you will likely be exposed to significant conflicts of interest. You are a client because you are looking for advice. However, what you receive may be something very different. These firms are in the business of selling products and producing a profit for shareholders. As brokers, exempt from the definition of investment adviser, advice from their salespeople is typically considered incidental to the sale of products they are promoting or helping you buy. In other words, broker dealer firms are there to facilitate a transaction on behalf of the customer, with the focus on the transaction and not the advice. Also, as we learned earlier, many advisors at these firms are able to switch hats on a whim playing broker one minute and advisor the next. The broker’s ability to offer both advisory and brokerage accounts creates serious conflicts of interest. These conflicts are often centered on how the broker gets paid.


To demonstrate just how deep the conflict can be, let’s consider an example. Suppose that a woman named Sue recently sold her company and has decided to retire. Her husband, Bob, a recently retired executive, has a pension that provides for most of the couple’s living expenses and they have no debt.


Hypothetical Clients Sue & Bob


Age: 65 years old
Children: 3
Grandchildren: 4
Total Investable Assets: $5.0 million dollars
Net worth: $6.50 million dollars
Pension & Soc Security: $100k annually
Goal: $150k annually in portfolio income


To keep this example simple let’s just focus on what can happen when Sue and Bob walk into the office of a dual registrant, insurance licensed salesperson at traditional Wall Street Brokerage firm.


Example options A & B (in terms of payment to the stockbroker):


A.The stockbroker shows the clients a $1m variable annuity with a 7% commission and a $4m investment in bonds, limited partnerships & structured notes at an average of 3% commission.


Result is an immediate non-transparent commission of $190,000 to the stockbroker.


B.The stockbroker shows the clients a $5m balanced wrap mutual fund advisory account at a 1% annual fee (paid at .25% quarterly)


Result is an immediate fee of $12,500 to the stockbroker.


You don’t have to be very good at math to see that by changing the product mix, the stockbroker can dial up or dial down how much he or she gets paid. Does the stockbroker want to get paid $190,000 or $12,500 this month? What a dilemma! To add insult to injury, in many cases, especially with annuities and investment bank products, the commissions are not transparent and difficult to gauge.


This payment scheme should certainly cause you to think twice about where you get financial advice. Caution should be exercised with dual registrants, especially those who are also insurance licensed. Do your homework. Ask lots of questions. Be critical of anything with a huge prospectus – these investments generally enrich the stockbroker completely at your expense.




There is a better way to receive investment advice – work with a fee-only advisor who is subject to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and operates as a fiduciary for clients. There is a great comfort that comes in knowing your advisor is putting your interests ahead of her interests and not merely selling you products for commission.

______________________________________________



What has been allowed to happen during CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA staging ROBBER BARON few decades is this BLURRING of stock broker and investment advisor deliberately, willfully, and with malice opening the door to HOODWINKING. Clinton era 1990s deregulation at the same time they staged this platform for fraud-------passed policy pushing our public and private sector labor unions often tied to stock investment to being left on their own in investment of PENSION funds. OPEN DOOR TO HOODWINKING-----HANDING 99% CONTROL OF INVESTING PENSIONS -----at same time making it impossible for those 99% of investors to educate to be wise investors because of all the INSIDER-BACK DOOR corruptions and frauds.


Global banking 5% to the 1% want to declare these laws passed by CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA were simply a legal deregulation of US stock markets. We discussed in detail the process of DERIVATIVES AND CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS-----installed by JP MORGAN and US FED at this same time. Artificially inflating stock and bond values to hide weak stocks and corporate holdings----NO, THAT CAN'T BE ILLEGAL.


What we do is keep reminding our US 99% and our new global 99% immigrant citizens wanting to invest whether forced to through 401K or pensions-----global banking 5% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA have made our US stock market as too Europe and UK too fraudulent and criminal for any 99% to invest and win. Like the lottery----one may win a time or two the ONE-ARMED BANDIT-----but the HOUSE comes away with great PROFITS. Those corporations calling themselves INVESTMENT FIRMS------are indeed acting criminally. Please think about taking all wealth tied to 401ks and pensions out of today's global banking market......BOND MARKET FRAUD HAS KILLED THAT ONE SAFE HARBOR----

The Cold, Hard Truth About Brokers and Financial Advisors


Think you're getting better investment performance by using a broker or financial advisor?

You better read this.
Matt Koppenheffer
(TMFKopp)


Mar 20, 2012 at 12:00AM



The case against stock brokers and financial advisors isn't just all hot air.
Today, I have proof that when you use a financial advisor or full-service broker, you may find yourself with lower returns than if you'd handled your investing yourself. Read on and I'll share the details of recent research that shows just how costly professional financial advice can be.

To Germany we go!


I'm referring to a paper titled "Financial Advisors: A Case of Babysitters?" that comes to us from Andreas Hackethal and Michael Haliassos of Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany, and Tullio Jappelli of the University of Naples Federico II in Italy. The trio of researchers got their hands on a couple of very cool datasets -- one is from a German online brokerage and includes 32,751 randomly selected customers, while the other is 4,447 clients of a large German bank.



In both the online brokerage and the bank, customers were offered the option to manage the accounts themselves or employ an advisor. That choice provided the perfect opportunity to do a side-by-side study of advisor-assisted and individually managed accounts.
Let's get right to those results.


Here are the researchers summing up their findings:



Involvement of financial advisors is found to lower portfolio returns net of direct cost, to worsen risk-return profiles, as measured by the Sharpe ratio; and to increase account turnover and investment in mutual funds, consistent with incentives built into the commission structure of both types of financial advisors.That may be a lot to digest all at once, so let me break this down a little further. There are three very crucial points that the researchers highlighted:



Lower performance. Bottom line, the research showed that the accounts that used financial advisors had lower returns (net of fees) than the accounts that did not. How much lower? A whopping five percentage points lower. That smarts. But just how much does that hurt? Starting with a $100,000 portfolio, over the course of 30 years, getting 7% returns instead of 12% means a difference of a cool $2.2 million, or having a $761,226 account value instead of nearly $3 million.


Lower risk-adjusted performance. A potentially reasonable explanation for No. 1 above is that advisors are serving their clients by creating safer portfolios that produce lower returns but also have lower risk. But that doesn't appear to be the case with this dataset. The researchers found that advisor-assisted accounts also had lower Sharpe ratios. The Sharpe ratio is a measure of performance that adjusts for risk, so the findings suggest that investors using advisors were getting less compensated for the risk they were taking as opposed to investors who weren't using advisors.


Padding their bottom line. Finally, the results suggest that, on the whole, advisors in this dataset were focused on padding their own bottom lines. Accounts that used advisors had higher turnover and were more heavily invested in mutual funds -- both outcomes that would (conveniently!) earn higher commissions for the advisors.

What have you done for me... ever?

Take a moment to think about what it means to pay a professional for their services. I've had problems with scorpions in my house, so I hired a pest professional. Evaluating that service has been simple -- I've been happy because I'm not seeing poisonous arthropods running around anymore. Which, mind you, is an outcome I was woefully unsuccessful at achieving on my own.



Likewise, you could hire a plumber to fix a leaky faucet or a doctor to treat an infection with the expectation that either could do a better job at remedying the problem than you could.


With all of that in mind, consider this: What is a financial advisor worth if you end up with lower investment returns?


Say it ain't so!

I'm sure there are holes that could be poked in this research, and I'd be overreaching if I were to suggest that this one study of a couple of financial outlets in Germany is enough to condemn the entire financial advisory industry worldwide.



At the same time, if I'm Bank of America's (NYSE: BAC) Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney (a Citigroup (NYSE: C) / Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) joint venture), Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC), Charles Schwab (Nasdaq: SCHW), or any of the many other players in this multitrillion-dollar business, it's got to be a bit uncomfortable that research like this is coming out. For decades, brokers and financial advisors were very much like the great and powerful Oz, hiding out behind a comfortable and profitable shroud of secrecy. In the age of the Internet, it's becoming much easier to find out the value -- or lack thereof -- that brokers and financial advisors actually offer their customers.

WE THINK MOTLEY FOOL IS BEING A 5% PLAYER IN MAKING PEOPLE THINK WE CAN USE INTERNET TO VET FOR GOOD FINANCIAL ADVISORS.



But I'm not writing this to simply crucify the industry. I want to hear what you have to say. Whether you're a financial advisor or broker client or you're a financial advisor or broker yourself, I want to hear why you think this research hits the nail on the head or why it misses the point. Share your thoughts in the comments section below or send us an email at tips@fool.com.


Something big just happened

I don't know about you, but I always pay attention when one of the best growth investors in the world gives me a stock tip. Motley Fool co-founder David Gardner and his brother, Motley Fool CEO Tom Gardner, just revealed two brand new stock recommendations. Together, they've tripled the stock market's return over the last 13 years.* And while timing isn't everything, the history of Tom and David's stock picks shows that it pays to get in early on their ideas.


_______________________________________________


When Bernie Madoff was exposed as the only Wall Street fraudster to go to jail----he was accused of creating a PONZI SCHEME disguised as an investment firm. Madoff went to jail because he defrauded wealthy people----99% of the rest of Wall Street doing these same frauds allowed to keep their loot.


Are people creating ponzi schemes BUSINESS MEN AND WOMEN? Of course not. We don't call criminal cartels BUSINESS LEADERS.



What makes today's global banking corruptions even more fraudulent is tying our government treasuries to these frauds. Very easy---EASY PEASY to find DELIBERATE, WILLFUL, AND WITH MALICE FRAUDS----in public pension investment and US Treasury and state municipal bond frauds these several years of OBAMA---MOVING FORWARD under TRUMP.


When these schemes crash----and they always do-----the 'dividends' received over several years never cover the extent of losses in what is invested by our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE.


Our 5% to the 1% freemason/Greeks black, white, and brown ----whether labor unions or global banking 1% Baltimore Development 'labor and justice' organizations directing citizens into these criminal investments -----HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE when angry over these wealth losses.

How to Recognize a Ponzi Scheme


The Ponzi scheme is a notorious type of securities fraud, and for good reason. Because it functions by paying off newer investors with money from previous investors while little to no actual investing is going on, everything looks to be on the up and up. Although eventually every Ponzi scheme will run out of new investors to dupe, many of these scams can run for a long time.


So what is a wise investor supposed to do?

If a Ponzi scheme is so undetectable that newer investors are being paid and previous investors are able to say they've received the "promised" returns, how can an average investor sniff out a fishy deal? As securities fraud attorneys, we'd like to say that, luckily, with a little education, any investor can be wise to the biggest red flags.


What Is a Ponzi Scheme?



Before you are able to recognize the warning signs of a Ponzi scheme, it is important that you understand what this type of fraud entails. Charles Ponzi was one of the most notorious people who participated in this type of scam, which is why it was named after him. Basically, he collected money from people who wanted to invest in his business and then paid investors large interest payments from the money he obtained from the new investors. While Ponzi didn’t create this form of investment fraud, his operation was the first to become known in the United States.


Ponzi schemes can be difficult to identify. One of the most recent examples involved a man from Santa Ana, CA, who allegedly used money received from new investors to make payments for principal and interest to previous investors. The earlier investors believed that they were receiving returns on their investments. This scam reportedly cost investors $14.5 million. Unfortunately, this case is not isolated, as there are regularly reports of Ponzi schemes resulting in financial loss.


Red Flags of a Ponzi Scheme



When you are looking into a new investment opportunity, it's important to take the time to check out both the person offering the investment and the investment itself. Verifying that both the promoter and the opportunity are legitimate can save you a lot of time, money, and heartache.


Any person offering an investment should:



Be registered to sell investments in your state

Have a history that is clear of any disciplinary action or a pattern of complaints


Be able to explain his or her investment model to you in terms you understand


Be willing and able to provide all of the documents and information you need


Beyond checking out the person offering the investment, you should also look into the actual opportunity itself. If an opportunity features the following, it could be a Ponzi scheme:



"Guaranteed" High Returns


Any investment with “guaranteed” high returns should be carefully examined.

Hidden Information
Excuses about missing paperwork, errors, or secretive strategies are red flags.

Consistent High Returns
Be cautious of investments that generate high returns unaffected by the market

Unregistered Investments
Most cases of investment fraud involve investments that have not been registered.

Unlicensed Sellers
Many Ponzi schemes involve unregistered firms and/or unlicensed individuals.

Pressure to Reinvest
Ponzi schemes collapse without regular income or when too many investors cash out.

Steps to Avoid a Ponzi Scheme


Check out the credentials and background of the person who has approached you about the investment. You can check the company out with the BBB. If the person is a broker, you can use his or her CRD number to gain more insight into the broker’s record.


Have an attorney review any contracts that you are given. Don’t send any money until you have had the contracts analyzed by a lawyer that you can trust.


Be cautious if a money manager wants to be your custodian. A custodian is a broker-dealer that maintains investment accounts. If a money manager asks you to write a check directly to them, it is a red flag. It would be better to write the check to the custodial firm.


Make sure you understand your investment. If the investment appears complicated or if it cannot be properly explained, you may not want to hand over your money.



Trust your instincts. There are times when your instincts will tell you something is wrong. If you don’t feel comfortable about an investment, walk away.


Take Action to Protect Your Rights


The first step you should take if you suspect a Ponzi scheme is to contact an experienced investment fraud attorney. Failure to do so may result in evidence becoming too obscured to properly establish your case. An attorney will take the time to go through your options and determine the best course of action. Choosing the right legal representative is not easy. However, it is absolutely critical in establishing an effective legal strategy.



The right law firm should possess the following qualities:


Established, recognized experts in investment fraud cases


Track record of successful outcomes in investment claims

If you believe that you may have been the victim of a real estate Ponzi scheme then it is important to contact an experienced investment fraud attorney. Meyer Wilson has successfully represented more than 800 investors in stockbroker mediation, arbitration, and litigation claims.


___________________________________________


The ROBBER BARON frauds with the ROARING 20s ending in the great economic crash and Great Depression was criminal as well-----that is why the rich tied to owning these corporations are called ROBBER BARONS. We don't excuse these frauds simply because these ROBBERS turnaround to DONATE to CHARITIES being patrons to US CITIZENS made impoverished by that global banking fraud.



TRUMP is MOVING FORWARD what was massive and systemic US TREASURY AND STATE MUNICIPAL BOND MARKET FRAUD operating during the entire OBAMA terms. We want to be clear about whom to hold responsible------CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA global banking 5% pols and players staged these frauds----TRUMP is simply all too glad to be the FALL GUY.


Don't get mad at 99% of black citizens---99% of white citizens---99% of brown citizens---don't get mad at 99% of Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Hindi -----our US elections rigged and fraudulent have not allowed for any of our US voters to GET RID OF CRIMINAL GLOBAL WALL STREET POLS.

Absolutely NONE of what this global banking VOX MEDIA OUTLET prints as public policy concerns for all kinds of population groups IS TRUE. Our 99% of WE THE PEOPLE do not have to march to Washington DC to find these 5% pols and players!

PLEASE GLANCE THROUGH TO SEE PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES HAVING NO IMPORTANCE NEXT TO GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE POLICIES.




Economists said a Trump presidency would be a disaster. So why isn't Wall Street worried?


By Timothy B. Leetim@vox.com Nov 10, 2016, 9:00am EST



Before the election, a lot of people — including me — assumed that a Donald Trump win would send stocks plunging. A group of 20 Nobel Prize–winning economists warned last week that a Trump presidency could “jeopardize the foundations of American prosperity and the global economy.”


But on Wednesday morning, the markets didn’t seem very alarmed. Stocks opened the day up, and then they kept rising, ending the day up by 1.1 percent. Evidently, Wall Street doesn’t view a Trump presidency as all that alarming, at least for shareholders.


So what’s going on here? I think it’s possible for both those Nobel laureates last week and the markets this week to be right. Depending on which campaign promises Trump chooses to pursue, a Trump administration could wind up doing a lot of damage to the US economy. But this damage wouldn’t necessarily take forms that would be reflected by stock market values.


For example, Trump’s plan for bank deregulation could eventually lead to another 2008-style financial crisis. And his deregulation of the greenhouse gas emissions could eventually lead to catastrophic climate change. But those disasters may take a long time — years, even decades — to materialize. And in the meantime, less regulation could mean more economic activity and more profits for US companies.


Some of Trump’s economic policies could also be disastrous for particular groups of people — like poor people and immigrants — without harming the stock market or conventional economic metrics like gross domestic product or the unemployment rate. So the economic stakes of Trump’s economic agenda are high. They just won’t necessarily be reflected in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.



Donald Trump was not a conventional candidate, and he didn’t have the detailed policy blueprints that presidential candidates normally publish. But the broad outlines of his economic agenda are fairly clear.


First, a massive tax cut. Trump’s plan would reduce government revenue by $7.2 trillion over a decade, making it more than twice as large as the significant tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush. Almost half the benefits would flow to the top 1 percent of income earners.


Trump would pair his tax cut with a package of infrastructure investments that could cost more than $500 billion.
“We have bridges that are falling down,” he said in August. “We’ll get a fund, we’ll make a phenomenal deal with the low interest rates and rebuild our infrastructure.”



Trump has also signaled that he’d like to see about $500 billion in additional military spending over the next decade. “We want to deter, avoid, and prevent conflict through our unquestioned military dominance,” Trump said in September, lamenting recent cuts to defense spending.


He vowed to make these changes “revenue neutral” using “commonsense reforms that eliminate government waste and budget gimmicks.” But that promise may go out the window once it becomes clear that there isn’t anywhere close to $500 billion in “government waste” to cut and Republicans still want to spend more on the Pentagon.


Ironically, the package of tax cuts and spending hikes could amount to the kind of Keynesian fiscal stimulus that liberals advocated during the 2009 recession. If deficit spending boosts the economy, it could force the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates to keep inflation under control.


And sure enough, the yield on 10-year Treasury bonds soared on Wednesday, rising above 2 percent for the first time since early 2016. That’s a sign that markets are expecting less fiscal discipline from the new regime than it would have gotten under President Hillary Clinton.


Another part of Trump’s agenda is deregulation. In particular, Trump has vowed to repeal Obama’s regulations designed to combat global warming by curtailing greenhouse gas emissions. He also wants to roll back Dodd-Frank, the package of financial regulations Congress passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.


In the short term, repealing environmental regulations could cause economic activity to go up, not down, as businesses face lower costs. It will only be after a generation or two that the full consequences — rising temperatures, rising sea levels, more severe weather — will be felt. And these effects will occur globally, not just in the United States, so the costs will be very widely distributed.


The story is similar for financial deregulation. The Dodd-Frank reforms tried to discourage big banks from making the kind of highly risky leveraged bets that brought the banking system to the brink of collapse in 2008. It’s too early to say whether this framework has been effective at preventing financial crises, since it’s only been about six years since it passed. But there’s reason to worry that financial crises could become more likely if the law is repealed.
Those consequences, too, might take many years to materialize. Indeed, as with climate regulations, the initial effect might appear to be positive — as newly deregulated banks lend more and boost economic activity.


So Trump’s regulatory policies will have big impacts, but they may not be obvious until long after he leaves the White House.


On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly railed against China and Mexico, vowing to slap higher tariffs on Chinese imports and renegotiate the NAFTA trade deal. But Simon Lester, a trade expert at the Cato Institute, argues that it’s far from clear how far Trump would actually go toward cutting the US off from foreign trade.
One of Trump’s big challenges on the trade front is the fact that the world is bound together in a complex patchwork of agreements that limits the ability of any one country to change trade policies unilaterally. For example, the US imposes something called anti-dumping duties on certain Chinese goods, and the president has some discretion to decide how these duties are set. In principle, Trump’s trade team could tweak these formulas to effectively charge China more to sell products to us.


The problem is that China would likely challenge these higher charges at the WTO, and if Trump didn’t have a good justification for them, then US goods would be hit by countervailing duties in China. That would start a trade war that would be in no one’s interest.


Trump’s second problem is Congress. For example, Simon says that Trump does have the authority to unilaterally withdraw the US from the NAFTA agreement. The problem is that Congress made key NAFTA commitments — like zero-tariff treatment for most goods — part of US law. So unilaterally withdrawing from NAFTA wouldn’t actually accomplish very much; Mexican companies could still sell goods in the US without paying tariffs.


To change that, Trump would have to get Congress to repeal the law that implemented NAFTA’s requirements back in the 1990s. The problem is that many members of Congress — especially in Trump’s own party — are enthusiastic free traders. They have close ties to business groups like the US Chamber of Commerce that have long favored free trade. So they won’t necessarily go along with a plan to withdraw from NAFTA — especially if Trump doesn’t have something to replace it.


Simon argues that a more likely scenario is that Trump will go to countries like Mexico and seek more modest changes to their trade relationships. If Mexicans make some concessions, then Trump can declare victory and seek congressional approval — without upending the global trading system.



Still, it’s hard to be sure. While Trump has talked a lot about trade, the statements have tended to be very general: He thinks NAFTA is bad and China is ripping us off. Trade law is a complex subject, so whoever Trump chooses to help him on trade policy could have a lot of influence.


From a humanitarian perspective, the most significant aspect of Trump’s administration may be his treatment of immigrants. Trump has vowed to deport millions of people who are in the United States illegally. That will have untold personal costs for the people targeted. It will also be bad for businesses that employ those workers and their customers.


Also, if Trump adopts the economic agenda of House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), it could lead to dramatic cuts in social programs, including Medicaid and food stamps. Vox’s Dylan Matthews argues that the Ryan budget amounts to “the most vicious cuts to programs for poor and medium-income people of any president since Reagan.”


Finally, Trump and the Republican Congress are widely expected to repeal Obamacare. No one knows what, if anything, they’ll put in its place. But Vox’s Sarah Kliff reports that as many as 22 million people could lose health insurance as a result.

_______________________________________________



We have made clear these same ROBBER BARON frauds these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA were the same frauds happening in early 1900s MOVED FORWARD by same global banking 5% freemason/Greek pols and players. Same game----different generation. Here we see European banking fleecing their 99% of European citizens same way. Both European and US 5% players pretending to be investment firms acting as stock brokers thinking they are outside of US or European jurisdiction by fleecing our third world 99% of citizens-----who WORLD BANK/IMF have tied to same 401K/pension schemes thrown out as FODDER to these criminal cartels-----ARE ACTING ILLEGALLY BECAUSE THEY ARE INSIDE US OR EUROPEAN SOVEREIGN BOUNDARIES pedaling these frauds. It is the same as if CHINA or RUSSIAN 5% players were in these nations acting criminally towards 401K/pension investments of US or European citizens.


THE CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF INVESTMENT CHEATS ARE TIED TO THE NATION FROM WHERE THESE ACTIONS TAKE PLACE.


When our 99% of WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens think it OK to fleece that overseas 99% of their hard-earned savings----then we can be sure it has become alright for ourselves to be fleeced in these same ways. Please stand up against these ROBBER BARON FRAUDS AND CORRUPTIONS----and history repeats itself-----WW 1 and WW 2 were a direct result of global banking 1% ROBBER BARON FRAUDS.

We KNOW our 5% freemason/Greeks are hard into being these ROBBER BARON players.

The rankings in this RAND CORPORATION article would have us believe that it is those Eastern block or Greek/Italian socialist nations doing all these frauds-----NO, those listed as being least corrupt are driving these frauds and corruptions in those other nations.

The Cost of Corruption in Europe — Up to €990 Billion (£781.64 Billion) Lost Annually

FOR RELEASE
Tuesday
March 22, 2016
  • RAND Europe's study shows the true extent of the cost of corruption in the EU, with new figures far higher than the previous estimate of €120 billion (£94.74 billion).
  • Study estimates that an initial €71.12 billion (£56.16 billion) could be saved through the EU adopting three policy measures regarding corruption.
  • Corruption risks during public procurement could cost Europe around €5 billion (£3.95 billion) a year.
A new study has highlighted the true extent of the cost of corruption in Europe, with new estimates showing that up to €990 billion (£781.64 billion) in GDP terms is lost annually.


The Cost of Non-Europe in the Area of Corruption Study by RAND Europe, commissioned by the European Parliament, investigated the many forms of corruption, which includes paying bribes or exercising power to give privileged access to public services, goods or contracts.


The new figures from the study are far higher than the initial estimate provided by the European Commission of €120 billion (£94.74 billion), after RAND Europe used an innovative methodology to measure the cost of corruption to the EU as a whole. This takes into account the indirect effects of corruption, such as disincentives of companies to invest, and direct effects, such as money lost on tax revenues and public procurement.


Corruption involving EU public procurement was estimated to cost Europe around €5 billion (£3.95 billion) a year. This form of corruption could be involving only one organisation in a procurement process, or giving organisations just a couple of days to respond to a tender for a new contract.


Based on the study, RAND Europe has recommended three policy measures to address corruption in Europe and retrieve an initial €71.12 billion (£56.16 billion) from the money lost each year. These are:
  • Applying the updated Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), which was used in Bulgaria and Romania before each joined the EU, to other member states could reduce corruption costs by €70 billion (£55.27 billion) annually.
  • Establishing a European Public Prosecutors' Office (EPPO), which would assist OLAF (the European Commission Anti-Fraud Office) in investigating corruption across the EU, could reduce corruption costs by €0.2 billion (£0.16 billion) annually.
  • Implementing a full EU-wide procurement system could reduce corruption costs by €920 million (£726.37 million) annually.
Marco Hafner, a research leader at RAND Europe and the report's main author, says: “Corruption imposes significant social, political and economic costs. Not only does it result in huge amounts of money being lost annually, but corruption leads to more unequal societies, higher levels of organised crime, weaker rule of law and lower trust in public institutions.”


He continues: “Measuring corruption is challenging, but our study provides one of the most realistic and current estimations of its true cost to Europe as a whole. Our recommendations highlight achievable targets for the EU and member states to help stop corruption from taking place and limit the amount of money lost each year.”


The full report for the Cost of non-Europe Corruption can be viewed at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/579319/EPRS_STU%282016%29579319_EN.pdf.
- ENDS -


Notes to Editors:
The league table of EU corruption — lowest to highest levels in individual member states based on an average of three corruption indices




PositionCountry


1Denmark
2Finland
3Sweden
4Netherlands
5Luxembourg
6UK
7Austria
8Germany
9Republic of Ireland
10Belgium
11France
12Spain
13Portugal
14Cyprus
15Estonia*
16Slovenia*
17Malta*
18Hungary*
19Lithuania*
20Poland*
21Czech Republic*
22Italy*
23Slovakia*
24Greece*
25Latvia*
26Croatia*
27Bulgaria*
28Romania*




The * indicates countries that have higher corruption levels than the EU average for the 28 member states.
About RAND Europe


RAND Europe is a not-for-profit organisation whose mission is to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. Our clients include European institutions, governments, charities, foundations, universities and private sector firms with a need for impartial research. We combine deep subject knowledge across diverse policy areas including health, science and innovation; defence, security and infrastructure; and home affairs and social policy. Combined with proven methodological expertise in evaluation, impact measurement and choice modelling, we are able to offer quality-assured research and analysis, unbiased insights and actionable solutions that make a difference to people's lives. www.randeurope.org
______________________________________________

When US national media deliberately creates TENSIONS between RUSSIA---CHINA selling the idea that these nations are hacking and/or attacking our 99% US citizens with these fraudulent schemes------this is what we call OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS-----these nations---China/ Russia/Eastern/Western Europe/US/Canada----are today controlled by global banking 1% neo-liberals/neo-cons all working for the same OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS.

There is no tension between these global banking 1% of each of these nations----they are glad to help each other fleece our US and global 99% of citizens.  The manufactured tensions by national and international media preface this MARCH TO WW 3. 



Shadow Banking Threatens China's Economy—but What Is It, Exactly?


Needed government reforms to the country's byzantine financial system may nonetheless upend China's growth.

  • Ryan Perkins
  • Jun 28, 2013  THE ATLANTIC

Zhou Xiaochuan (R), Governor of the People's Bank of China, is tasked with tackling excesses in China's shadow banking system.(Molly Riley/AP)



Last week, the Shanghai interbank offered rate (Shibor), China's once-anonymous version of London's LIBOR, made news around the world when it suddenly spiked at all time high. Expected to lower this rate by injecting cash into struggling Chinese banks, the People's Bank of China (the country's equivalent of the Fed) instead did nothing, leading to speculation that China's leaders were finally prepared to tackle the economy's overheating problem. In the process, the media appears to have finally taken notice of the potential dangers that lurk within the byzantine industry that is Chinese finance. Reviewing the headlines, a series of arcane, sinister terms leap out: Off-balance sheet lending. Inter-corporate finance. And, most prominently, shadow banking.


Such terms, nebulous as they may be, are keeping Chinese policy makers up at night: According to Fitch, China's shadow banking sector may be hiding as much as $2 trillion worth of risky assets in off-balance sheet lending. But what does that really mean? And, more importantly, how did China find itself in this situation? Before we can answer these questions, it's worth going back and having a look at what shadow banking really is, and how it presents a risk to China -- and the world economy as a whole.


Firstly, the concept of shadow banking has an unfortunate reputation and is in dire need of rebranding. Despite the macabre connotations its name conjures, it's not inherently a bad thing. Generally, shadow banking simply refers to the lending and borrowing -- basic financial activities -- that occur outside the traditional deposit and loan model; that is, anything other than putting money in the bank and occasionally borrowing for things like buying a house. In Western nations such as the U.S, hedge funds, venture capital firms and private equity -- all forms of shadow banking -- form a major part of economic life. In China, however, the structure of shadow banking is very different.


Until around 2007-8, conventional banks, in the form of loans, undertook the vast bulk of all lending in China, and because the Communist Party controls the vast majority of banks, this structure allowed the government to retain a handle over the economy at large. However, in the aftermath of the financial crisis, as export-oriented businesses -- the companies that form a major pillar of the Chinese economy -- saw markets shrink, two important things happened.



The Shibor rate hike and the government's refusal to step in with additional funds, then, is a not-so-subtle statement that the party's over and that it's time to solve debt addiction the old fashioned way -- cold turkey.First, in response to the global financial crisis in 2008, the Chinese government enacted a stimulus package worth $586 billion, more than half of which was financed through new bank lending. This package won praise around the world for its speed and decisiveness and kept the country on track in the short term, in noted contrast to a similar plan implemented by the United States. But the stimulus also flooded the economy with cheap credit, thereby fuelling a speculative housing bubble, propping up inefficient state-owned enterprises (SOEs), and undoing years of work spent trying to instill China's banks with financial discipline.


In the two decades leading up to the financial crisis, a lot of hard and sincere work was done to try to teach profligate SOEs, local governments, and banks to live and work within their means, but that doesn't mean these institutions suddenly forgot how to take advantage of a free lunch. In fact, it probably heightened their appetite for it. As a result, much of the money was sunk -- almost literally -- into local government financing vehicles (LGFVs), which are municipal government-owned companies often responsible for infrastructure investment. These companies, for the most part, exist to keep local government debt off the books -- since local governments have a very limited capacity to borrow money directly -- by allowing them to borrow indirectly and finance construction projects through companies they own, built on land often acquired and sold below market price by them.



Surprisingly, this system constituted a huge source of revenue for cash-strapped local governments, which have few real sources of tax revenue. Less surprisingly, it is also an endemic, institutionalized form of corruption. A recent OECD report estimated that total public debt reached 57 percent of GDP by the end of 2010, with LGFVs accounting for about three quarters of this figure. Given that some people familiar with LGFVs see them as little more than holes in the ground into which seemingly endless amounts of perfectly good money are poured, it is likely this borrowing generated a wave of future defaults.
***
How, and why, was the money spent this way? To answer this question, it's important to understand the love affair between the Chinese government and infrastructure projects. Over the past two decades, Beijing has relied on building roads, power grids, and other fixed assets in order to facilitate the rapid expansion of the economy, but this method of growth inevitably leads to declining returns over time. As a result, Chinese policy makers understand that to decrease the economy's dependence on investment and export markets (which depend too much on the whims of the global economy) domestic consumption needs to pick up the slack. Unfortunately, however, this "rebalancing" is tricky.



One problem is this: Contrary to popular belief, China's manipulation of the yuan isn't the golden goose Western critics make it out to be. Even if the currency were allowed to float freely, Chinese labor would still cost a fraction of what it does in the U.S. This discrepancy is mainly achieved through the hukou, a household registration system that prevents workers from becoming fully entitled residents in the regions to which they have migrated to work, as well as restricting the rights of children born in these regions to services like education and health care.



In short, the hukou ensures that workers remain in the shadows -- and wages remain low -- by constantly recycling labor out of factories and back to the place of registration. Factors like this have made it increasingly difficult to rebalance the economy and have contributed to the yawning wealth gap in Chinese society. Though Chinese leaders have hinted at reforming the hukou, they nonetheless face a vexing dilemma: How do they increase domestic demand without significantly upsetting a social order upon which the economy depends for its competitive advantage?
***
Historically, the answer to this question was infrastructure development, and for good reason: Infrastructure is politically neutral, theoretically benefits the whole of society, is generally dominated by massive State and quasi-State owned enterprises, and in the past generated massive returns. However, over the last four years, the GDP growth generated by each yuan of additional loan has fallen from 0.85 to 0.15, an indicator that the limits of debt-fuelled growth are being reached. In effect, the very engine that caused China's growth ---fixed asset investment fuelled by local debt -- wasn't sustainable, and the government began to worry about the negative consequences of an overheating economy: inflation, real estate bubbles, and overcapacity.


So in 2009 they slammed on the breaks. An economy that was addicted to credit needed to go somewhere else to get its fix. This was where shadow banking came in.


Desperate for credit, banks began working closely with trust companies and other entities to refinance bad loans by bundling them up and repackaging them as "wealth management vehicles", or WMVs. These vehicles, which require a tenure ranging from a year to a few days, offered a higher rate of return than conventional bank deposits. They also allowed banks to keep their lending off their balance sheets and were sold through their branches or online, effectively turning banks into middle men between recipients and investors. In theory, this should have solved the problem of obtaining local financing. But the problems have only begun.
***
As more and more of these loans turned bad they were simply recycled into high yield WMVs, a fact that China's policy makers have acknowledged. In an uncharacteristically stark warning aired in a China Daily op-ed, Xiao Gang, the former head of the Bank of China, said that there are more than 20,000 WMVs in circulation -- compared with "a few hundred" five years ago. Worse, many of these WMVs lack transparency or are linked to empty real estate, long term infrastructure projects or collections of assets which have no sure fire way of generating the revenue needed to repay them at the given time, creating the real possibility of a liquidity crisis.


Has this crisis already begun? There's evidence that banks and trusts have colluded to circumvent a shortage of liquidity by issuing ever greater numbers of WMVs -- with still higher rates of return to attract the cash necessary to finance the short fall. But if the music stops and investors pull their money or stop purchasing new issuances, then the rollover for the bank to pick up could potentially be huge. The consulting firm KPMG estimates that shadow banking and WMVs overtook insurance to become China's second largest financial sector in 2012 and represent assets roughly equivalent to 15 percent of total commercial bank deposits.



This situation has arisen in a country whose people, facing restrictions on investing abroad and nervous about China's volatile stock market, have so few other investment options. In addition, most simply don't believe banks will let them lose their money and will support their investments, no matter how risky they are; essentially, the basic ingredients of a Ponzi scheme. The Shibor rate hike and the government's refusal to step in with additional funds, then, is a not-so-subtle statement that the party's over and that it's time to solve debt addiction the old fashioned way -- cold turkey. The question, then, is this: how bad was the addiction, and how big will the comedown be?

_________________________________________

During ROBBER BARON periods as last century and today------Hong Kong bankers come to US to defraud their 99% of citizens as US global Wall Street is over in Hong Kong defrauding the 99% of US citizens-----Russian oligarchs are in NYC defrauding their 99% of RUSSIAN citizens while UK/US are in Russia defrauding US 99% of citizens and of course all the above are in Nigeria using that banking system to launder all that global fraud while Nigerian banking 1% are in US defrauding their 99% of Nigerian citizens------ALL SAME GLOBAL BANKING SYSTEM ----GLOBAL BANKING 1% DEFRAUDING from all nations' citizens-----no tensions between these OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS. Each of these nations have those 5% freemason/Greeks as ROBBER BARON PLAYERS.

The deregulation during CLINTON ERA 1990s let us know ROBBER BARON period was gearing up-----as soon as ROBBER BARON period is over----as with this coming massive US TREASURY and corporate bond fraud------all those criminal investment firms acting as stock brokers pretending to be free of any FIDUCIARY will disappear.


Corruption in Nigeria


The $20-billion hole in Africa’s largest economy


Most Nigerians live in poverty. Millions would be spared if officials stopped pilfering from the public purse

Middle East and Africa
Feb 2nd 2016 | LAGOS

POWER corrupts. So too does a resource-rich economy, like Nigeria’s, where easy access to oil revenues opens the door to palm-greasing. Of 168 countries surveyed by Transparency International, an anti-corruption group Germany, in its annual Corruption Perception Index, Nigeria ranks 32nd from the bottom.


Whistleblowers sometimes try to estimate how much cash has gone missing from Nigeria’s public purse. In 2014 a respected former central-bank governor lost his job after claiming that $20 billion had been stolen. But this captures only a small share of the damage done by corruption. The much bigger question is where Nigeria could be if its politicians and officials were a little more honest.


One answer comes from economists at PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). They compared Nigeria to three other resource-producing countries that are somewhat less corrupt than it, though by no means squeaky clean: Ghana, Malaysia and Colombia. PwC concluded that Nigeria’s’s economy, which was worth $513 billion in 2014, might have been 22% bigger if its level of corruption were closer to Ghana’s, a nearby west African country.


By 2030, the size of Africa’s biggest economy should triple in real terms come what may. Yet if Nigeria manages to reduce corruption to levels comparable to Malaysia (itself hardly above suspicion: its prime minister recently had to explain how almost $700 million had made it into his bank account), its economy could be some 37% bigger still. The additional gain would be worth some $534 billion (adjusted for inflation), or about as much as the economy is currently worth. If it does nothing to change then the cost of corruption in Nigeria would amount to almost $2,000 per person a year by 2030, PwC reckons.


Some of this damage is visible. When public cash—most of which comes from oil pumped in the southern Niger delta—is siphoned off, investment in health, education and roads suffers. But corruption also affects the economy in more surreptitious ways. Public institutions often hire the family and friends of the boss rather than the best candidates. In turn those institutions become more inefficient and deliver less of what they are meant to, whether it is education or roads. In addition countries where corruption is high attract less foreign investment. They have higher prices, and lower tax bases. Nigeria’s tax-to-GDP ratio is only about 8%, compared with more than 25% in South Africa. Given rampant theft, many people are reluctant to pay their taxes on the ground that the money will just be squandered.


This may in part explain why, despite its oil wealth, there is a rising share of Nigerians who are classified as below the poverty line. A survey of living standards (using data from 2010, the most recent figures available) suggested that 61.2% of the population lives in absolute poverty, an increase of over six percentage points on the previous figures from 2004. At least 25m people who should have been lifted into low- or middle-income still reside below the breadline thanks to “excess corruption”, says Andrew S. Nevin, PwC’s chief economist in Nigeria.


Last year Muhammadu Buhari, the president, swept to power on the votes of Nigerians who have had enough. Since then, anti-fraud agencies have arrested senior politicians and sidekicks accused of embezzlement, and new corruption bills have been put before parliament. “Ending the impunity is about political will, because those benefiting most are among the ranks of the leaders,” says Samuel Kaninda, the co-ordinator for west Africa at Transparency International. Cleaning up Nigeria will be an Herculean task. But the rewards are equally fabulous. 

__________________________________________



Can we imagine how such a protest ---here in that US CITY DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE----LOS ANGELES ----would be effective in getting rid of global banking 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA if we didn't allow these national global banking 5% leaders to name these protests after TRUMP?
MARCH FOR OUR LIVES------ROBBER BARON FRAUDS AND US CITIES AS FAILED STATES----
Peaceful rolling protests for weeks and months filling US city downtown streets just as this video shows ----millions of US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens -----demanding those 5% global banking pols and players get out of our people's government---local and state.


The Political Resistance against Donald Trump
March 24 at 1:01pm ·

“MARCH FOR OUR LIVES” Downtown Los Angeles

you tube.com



This CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ROBBER BARON period was timed to BABY BOOMER wealth assets-------maxed wealth in Social Security and Medicare Trusts-----maxed wealth in retirement savings and life insurances -----all reaching the period of baby boomer maximum retirement CURVE. Baby boomers from 1940s are aging out----the peak of baby boomer retirements happening during CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA.


This is for what our US 99% OF MILLENNIALs are being staged ----sadly, our young adults are deliberately being kept unable to maintain steady employment and strong wages but Obama and Clinton neo-liberals privatized all public trusts and savings to private global banking to continue these SOCIAL SECURITY/MEDICARE/401k/PENSION schemes for these next few decades of MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE construction of massive global corporate campuses and global factories----

SAME MASSIVE AND SYSTEMIC FRAUDS WILL POP UP AGAIN STEALING ALL OF ANY WEALTH OUR US MILLENNIALS will accumulate---especially those thinking they are WINNERS being that 5% earning $200-400,000 annual salaries.


Since MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD SMART CITIES for only the global 1% has a goal of global 99% of citizens having no access to any monetary wealth-----there will be no need for a next round of ROBBER BARON FRAUDS----IF WE KEEP MOVING FORWARD.

When did CLINTON ERA install deregulated criminal banking structures? Here we see baby boomers peaked in 1999

'Baby Boomers have always had an outsize presence compared with other generations. They peaked at 78.8 million in 1999 and have remained the largest living adult generation'.


And our millennials are being led to protest a TRUMP ----
Fact Tank - Our Lives in Numbers
March 1, 2018


Millennials projected to overtake Baby Boomers as America’s largest generation

By Richard Fry   PEW RESEARCH


Millennials are on the cusp of surpassing Baby Boomers as the nation’s largest living adult generation, according to population projections from the U.S. Census Bureau. As of July 1, 2016 (the latest date for which population estimates are available), Millennials, whom we define as ages 20 to 35 in 2016, numbered 71 million, and Boomers (ages 52 to 70) numbered 74 million. Millennials are expected to overtake Boomers in population in 2019 as their numbers swell to 73 million and Boomers decline to 72 million. Generation X (ages 36 to 51 in 2016) is projected to pass the Boomers in population by 2028.


The Millennial generation continues to grow as young immigrants expand its ranks. Boomers – whose generation was defined by the boom in U.S. births following World War II – are aging and their numbers shrinking in size as the number of deaths among them exceeds the number of older immigrants arriving in the country.


Because generations are analytical constructs, it takes time for popular and expert consensus to develop as to the precise boundaries that demarcate one generation from another. Pew Research Center has assessed demographic, labor market, attitudinal and behavioral measures and has now established an endpoint – albeit inexact – for the Millennial generation. According to our revised definition, the youngest “Millennial” was born in 1996. This post has been updated accordingly (see note below).


Here’s a look at some generational projections:

Millennials
  • With immigration adding more numbers to this group than any other, the Millennial population is projected to peak in 2036 at 76.2 million. Thereafter, the oldest Millennial will be at least 56 years of age and mortality is projected to outweigh net immigration. By 2050 there will be a projected 74.3 million Millennials.


Generation X
  • For a few more years, Gen Xers are projected to remain the “middle child” of generations – caught between two larger generations, the Millennials and the Boomers. Gen Xers were born during a period when Americans were having fewer children than in later decades. When Gen Xers were born, births averaged around 3.4 million per year, compared with the 3.9 million annual rate from 1981 to 1996 when the Millennials were born.
  • Though the oldest Gen Xer was 51 in 2016, the Gen X population is projected to grow for a couple more years. Gen Xers are projected to outnumber Boomers in 2028, when there will be 64.6 million Gen Xers and 63.7 million Boomers. The Census Bureau projects that the Gen X population will peak at 65.8 million in 2018.


Baby Boomers
  • Baby Boomers have always had an outsize presence compared with other generations. They peaked at 78.8 million in 1999 and have remained the largest living adult generation.
  • There were an estimated 74.1 million Boomers in 2016. By midcentury, the Boomer population is projected to dwindle to 16.6 million.



0 Comments

March 23rd, 2018

3/23/2018

0 Comments

 

'with a state-only Guard response, Governors retain their constitutional authority and control'
130
JFQ/ issue 51, 4th quarter 2008'



The article below is too long to post ---but it is a very good description of balance between HOMELAND SECURITY as a Federal agency and state sovereignty and state national guards which are supposed to be that WELL-REGULATED PUBLIC MILITIA. Please GOOGLE to see the struggle that will be lost in defending our state sovereignty ---as states like MD and CA identify as SANCTUARY STATES----meaning the entire state is a FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE which means it operates free from Federal, state, and local jurisdiction. A US CITY DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE already acts outside of Federal and state laws---- any STATE GUARD would fall under the jurisdiction of HOMELAND SECURITY which heavily tied to NSA/CIA/DIA. Even our local FBI agencies report to CIA.


So, if a TRUMP is installing as head of CIA or FBI leadership moving further and further right wing---being more and more brutal----that is what policing and security will look like in US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES like Baltimore.


GUN CONTROL IS BEING WRITTEN BY GLOBAL BANKING 1% NOT TO PROTECT 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE BUT TO END 2ND AMENDMENT AND RIGHTS OF US CITIZENS TO OWN GUNS.


Our states are of course closest to what was drafted in US Constitution to being that WELL-REGULATED PUBLIC ARMED MILITIA.......and it has been PUBLIC for 300 years.


**************************************************************
'with a state-only Guard response, Governors retain their constitutional authority and control'
130
JFQ/ issue 51, 4th quarter 2008

ndupress.ndu.edu
Command and Control of
Military Forces in the Homeland

By
Jeffrey w. burkett
Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey W. Burkett, ANG, is a
National Guard Plans, Policy, and Programs Advisor,
North American Aerospace Defense Command and
U.S. Northern Command.


To serve in the National Guard is to accept a dual mission. You can be called on to defend the country against enemies abroad, or to protect lives and property here at home in times of local emergency.
1
—Richard B. Cheney

___________________________________________


Our state national guard in modern history reflected that early US Constitutional policy of WELL-REGULATED PUBLIC MILITIA. What was in colonial America country folks having their arms for protections of all kinds-----being that PUBLIC MILITIA-----300 years created almost a century ago what is now called our state national guard. As this article states----the duty of our state guard was always protecting 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE at HOME----natural disaster, loss of vital infrastructure, global gun and drug cartels undermining our local communities.

We see MOVING FORWARD in 1960s------VIETNAM was an illegal war so it was called a POLICE STATE. This article let's us know this is the first time a state guard was sent to active wars overseas-----it was INDIANA.

When our state public militia merged into our Federal US military actions it became DEREGULATED at state level and controlled more and more by Federal Department of Defense. Flash forward to CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----that merging of state public militia with Federal public military then MOVES FORWARD to PRIVATIZATION OF BOTH.

OUR US CONSTITUTION AND IT'S WELL-REGULATED PUBLIC MILITIA WAS ILLEGALLY ATTACKED DURING ROBBER BARON EMPIRE-BUILDING TODAY HAVING ALMOST ALL OUR US PUBLIC MILITARY PRIVATIZED TO GLOBAL PRIVATE MERCENARY CORPORATIONS.



International Guard: How The Vietnam War Changed Guard Service

April 25, 20157:33 AM ET
Heard on Weekend Edition Saturday


The Vietnam War changed the National Guard.


During that conflict, joining the guard was seen as a way to avoid the draft; during America's recent wars, the guard and reserve made up nearly half the forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.


You can trace the transformation of the guard back to the few units from it that did go and fight in Vietnam. And ahead of the 40th anniversary of the end of that conflict, several former guard members — who are also Vietnam vets — met up at the Veterans Of Foreign Wars Post in Carmel, Ind., just north of Indianapolis.
Around a table there, they remembered their paths to Vietnam.


'Find A Way Out'


In 1968 Bob McIntire was a college student in Indianapolis, having trouble paying tuition. When he dropped a few courses at Butler University, the draft board called.


"When we got done with the physical the guy there said, 'you've got usually about 90 days to find a way out, if you've got a way out,' " he says.
Back then, the National Guard was one way out: You could serve without going to war. So McIntire looked for guard and reserve units. Most were full, but a unit in Greenfield, Ind., would take him — if he agreed to train as a paratrooper.


"I lucked out by joining the National Guard and signing up to go airborne," he says. "It's the only way they were takin' anyone."
But unluckily for McIntire, he landed in one of the very few National Guard units sent to Vietnam: Company D, 151st Infantry. In all, several thousand guardsmen — out of a total of hundreds of thousands — eventually were deployed.


Sent To The Jungle


McIntire says he was so sure that he wouldn't be deployed to Vietnam that he didn't realize he'd gotten orders until he heard it on the radio during a lunch break.


"I couldn't believe it," he says.
Lt. General William Peers, second from right, talks to an officer of the National Guard's 116th Combat Engineer Battalion of Idaho Falls, Idaho, at Phan Rang, South Vietnam, Saturday, September 18, 1968. At the time, many saw the National Guard as a way to get out of the draft, but eight units were ultimately sent to Vietnam, including the 116th Battalion.

AP Next thing they knew they were just northeast of Saigon, at a base in Bien Hoa. It was just before Christmas in 1968.


They were sent into the jungle in teams of six to set up ambushes until they were picked up by chopper pilots from the regular army.
Mike Slabaugh remembers a patrol in April 1969, when he traded positions with another member of the unit — a guy named Bob Smith.
"He wasn't there for 20 seconds, he got shot in the head," Slabaugh says. "And uh, we carried him to the chopper and gave him mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, but it was — he was gone."


Four men from his unit, including Smith, died during the year they saw combat. Their guard unit was one of the most decorated of the war: Its soldiers earned 19 Silver Stars, among the military's highest awards for valor.
Their experience is almost unique.


President Lyndon Johnson never wanted to call up the guard: Sending those units to war could turn the public against what the White House and Pentagon — in the early days — hoped would be a short conflict.


"It would publicize the war, it would make the war, economically, more difficult — two things that Johnson did not want to do," says Andrew Wiest, professor of history at the University of Southern Mississippi. "This war was going to be quick — and quiet."


But, Wiest says, after the draft ended in 1973, the Army had little choice.

Paving The Way For A Change


Gen. Creighton Abrams, who commanded U.S. forces in Vietnam from 1968 to 1972, wanted to ensure the guard was not sidelined in future conflicts.
"He felt that one of the great failings of the Vietnam War was that the National Guard was never called up, and the nation was never engaged," Wiest says.


So the Pentagon began to knit the guard with the active-duty military; key specialties like combat engineering or air refueling are now built into guard units.


That unit from Indiana actually paved the way for what was to come.
"Been a lot of things written about the Indiana Rangers, because it did work — we were successful," says Gary Bussell, one of the Vietnam vets at the VFW Hall. "But it was the first step into trying something like that."


All of the Indiana veterans say they watched how guard troops and active duty soldiers worked together in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a small victory for the men sitting around the table, borne of a war they wished they hadn't had to fight.
___________________________________________


While the movement during Vietnam War to our US state guard was an act of DESPERATION as US anti-war protests rolled with 99% of WE THE PEOPLE not wanting to be drafted into illegal wars.  So, global banking 1% pols went to our well-regulated public state militia.


'So the Pentagon began to knit the guard with the active-duty military; key specialties like combat engineering or air refueling are now built into guard units'.

BUSH/CHENEY of course placed illegal endless wars on steroids and with it CHENEY is in national media telling us our local state public militia should not be home protecting our communities they were being paid to fight and fight they would overseas.  Clinton 1990s brought state guards into BOSNIA -----BUSH/CHENEY took what were mostly local citizens wanting to serve their communities ---NOT WANTING TO BE WARRIORS----and made them WARRIORS on tours over decade long.  No warning in changing of duties-----contracts of service no longer held -----BUSH/CHENEY was taking our well-regulated local public militia to being PRAETORIAN GUARDS for global mercenary military corporations.

We use the MEDIEVAL term PRAETORIAN GUARD because it does a great job in showing how today's policies of merging our state guards and US public military then taking all the above to private military corporations

VIOLATED OUR US CONSTITUTION 2ND AMENDMENT OF NO STANDING ARMY AND OUR LOCAL PUBLIC WELL-ARMED MILITIA HAVING GUNS TO PROTECT OUR 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE.


A Praetorian Guard is a privately owned militia supported by the OLD WORLD MERCHANT OF VENICE GLOBAL 1%........it does not meet with our US CONSTITUTION as public militia and violates our 300 years of not allowing STANDING MILITARY.

THIS IS THE GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM GUN CONTROL POLICY FOR REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES AND FOR ANY GROUP CALLING ITSELF ANTI-WAR.


Major National Guard Call-ups


 
1994 to 1996 - Haiti (Uphold Democracy) - President Bill Clinton activated 845 Army National Guardsmen by PSRC: Executive Order 2927 on Sept. 15, 1994. Mostly special forces and military police units were deployed.
 
1995 to 1999 - Bosnia (Joint Guard/Joint Forge/ Joint Endeavor) - President Clinton deployed the National Guard again on Dec. 8, 1995 through PSRC Executive Order 12982. Although this is an on-going mission, as of Nov. 22, 1999, 19,093 reservists have or are serving in the Bosnia. Of the 19,093, 13,000 deployed voluntarily.
 
1998 to 1999 - Southwest Asia (Southern Watch) - On Feb. 24, 1998 President Clinton mobilized the National Guard for Operation Southern Watch. Although this is an on-going mission, as of Nov. 22, 1999, 1,756 reservists were called involuntarily, 8,000 have volunteered.
 
1999 to Present - Kosovo
(Allied Force) - On April 27, 1999 through PRC: Executive Order 13120, President Clinton mobilized 4,000 voluntary reservists and 5,628 involuntary reservists. As of Nov. 22, 1999 3,420 Air Guardsmen were called; 2,132 have deployed to Kosovo during the conflict. The first Army Guard unit called for Kosovo was the 852nd Rear Area Operations Center from Arizona with 39 people.



2001 to Present - Homeland Defense/ War on Terrorism (Noble Eagle/ Enduring Freedom) - A total of 9,600 National Guard men and women were already on duty across the country on Friday, Sept. 14, when President George Bush approved an order to call up as many as 50,000 members of the National Guard and Reserve. That number included 5,000 members of the Army National Guard and 4,600 members of the Air National Guard, according to the National Guard Bureau, serving because of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.   
 
As of March 26, 2003, 98,464 Army and Air National Guardsmen were mobilized in support of operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom: 79,985 Army Guard and 18,479 Air Guard.
 
2003 to Present - Iraq (Iraqi Freedom) - On of March 19, 2003, more than 138,000 Guardsmen had been notified, mobilized and deployed in the buildup for a possible war against Iraq.
 
By September 2004, nearly 52,000 guardsmen and women were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan - about one-third of the total force.
 
Since Sept. 11, 2001, more than 225,000 Guardsmen have been mobilized or deployed


________________________________________________

Deployment of our state guard went from mobilizing to protect our shores and riot control to being enfolded into global mercenary military corporations---Clinton set the stage and Bush/Cheney made it a standard. GUN CONTROL is reversing the privatization of our US military and bringing back control of our local state militias to protecting 99% WE THE PEOPLE in our communities. One of the problems with responding to HURRICANE KATRINA was overseas deployment of our state guards which should have been ready to serve and protect our public against NATURAL DISASTERS.

We read the US ARMY account of response by our state public militia to this HURRICANE KATRINA as though they did their usual best while US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE were aghast at the inability of what WAS INDEED a fine civil response team to organize immediately and that was because our state guard units were skeleton crews rotating out for active duty overseas.  So, enter our NEW US WELL-REGULATED PUBLIC LOCAL MILITIA------outsourced brought - together at the last minute POLICE SWAT TEAMS. 

If this sounds like a third world developing nation response ---as in SOMALIA ----you would be correct. 



'But this time "Rummy" opposed sending in active-duty troops as cops. Dick Cheney, who was vacationing in Wyoming when the storm hit, characteristically kept his counsel on videoconferences; his private advice is not known'.

So, our state guards are now referred to as ACTIVE DUTY TROOPS------on call for illegal wars overseas and BUSH/CHENEY do not want to deploy our public militia to protect the 99% US public.

We have during BUSH/OBAMA MOVED FORWARD POLICE SWAT TEAMS replacing what was a local police and local state guard----and those SWAT TEAMS are increasingly tied to global military and police security corporations.


National media made BUSH THE DECIDER and CHENEY THE INCOMPETENT sound like buffoons----when they were simply MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE US having no well-regulated public militia-------with OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS having a standing army inside our US sovereign states.


The Government Response to Katrina: A Disaster Within a Disaster


By Evan Thomas On 9/18/05 at 8:00 PM


SWAT police armed with machine guns patrol downtown New Orleans after reports of looting following the hurricane. Rick Wilking/REUTERS



Editor's note: This article ran on September 18, 2005, and examines President Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina.


It's a standing joke among the president's top aides: who gets to deliver the bad news? Warm and hearty in public, Bush can be cold and snappish in private, and aides sometimes cringe before the displeasure of the President of the United States, or, as he is known in West Wing jargon, POTUS. The bad news on this early morning, Tuesday, Aug. 30, some 24 hours after Hurricane Katrina had ripped through New Orleans, was that the president would have to cut short his five-week vacation by a couple of days and return to Washington. The president's chief of staff, Andrew Card; his deputy chief of staff, Joe Hagin; his counselor, Dan Bartlett, and his spokesman, Scott McClellan, held a conference call to discuss the question of the president's early return and the delicate task of telling him. Hagin, it was decided, as senior aide on the ground, would do the deed.


The president did not growl this time. He had already decided to return to Washington and hold a meeting of his top advisers on the following day, Wednesday. This would give them a day to get back from their vacations and their staffs to work up some ideas about what to do in the aftermath of the storm. President Bush knew the storm and its consequences had been bad; but he didn't quite realize how bad.


The reality, say several aides who did not wish to be quoted because it might displease the president, did not really sink in until Thursday night. Some White House staffers were watching the evening news and thought the president needed to see the horrific reports coming out of New Orleans. Counselor Bartlett made up a DVD of the newscasts so Bush could see them in their entirety as he flew down to the Gulf Coast the next morning on Air Force One.

How this could be--how the president of the United States could have even less "situational awareness," as they say in the military, than the average American about the worst natural disaster in a century--is one of the more perplexing and troubling chapters in a story that, despite moments of heroism and acts of great generosity, ranks as a national disgrace.



President George W. Bush has always trusted his gut. He prides himself in ignoring the distracting chatter, the caterwauling of the media elites, the Washington political buzz machine. He has boasted that he doesn't read the papers. His doggedness is often admirable. It is easy for presidents to overreact to the noise around them.


But it is not clear what President Bush does read or watch, aside from the occasional biography and an hour or two of ESPN here and there. Bush can be petulant about dissent; he equates disagreement with disloyalty. After five years in office, he is surrounded largely by people who agree with him. Bush can ask tough questions, but it's mostly a one-way street. Most presidents keep a devil's advocate around. Lyndon Johnson had George Ball on Vietnam; President Ronald Reagan and Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, grudgingly listened to the arguments of Budget Director Richard Darman, who told them what they didn't wish to hear: that they would have to raise taxes. When Hurricane Katrina struck, it appears there was no one to tell President Bush the plain truth: that the state and local governments had been overwhelmed, that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was not up to the job and that the military, the only institution with the resources to cope, couldn't act without a declaration from the president overriding all other authority.

The war in Iraq was a failure of intelligence. The government's response to Katrina--like the failure to anticipate that terrorists would fly into buildings on 9/11--was a failure of imagination. On Tuesday, within 24 hours of the storm's arrival, Bush needed to be able to imagine the scenes of disorder and misery that would, two days later, shock him when he watched the evening news. He needed to be able to see that New Orleans would spin into violence and chaos very quickly if the U.S. government did not take charge--and, in effect, send in the cavalry, which in this case probably meant sending in a brigade from a combat outfit, like the 82nd Airborne, based in Fort Bragg, N.C., and prepared to deploy anywhere in the world in 18 hours.


Bush and his advisers in his "war cabinet" have always been action-oriented, "forward leaning," in the favorite phrase of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. They dislike lawyers and sometimes brush aside legalistic (and even sound constitutional) arguments. But this time "Rummy" opposed sending in active-duty troops as cops. Dick Cheney, who was vacationing in Wyoming when the storm hit, characteristically kept his counsel on videoconferences; his private advice is not known.


Liberals will say they were indifferent to the plight of poor African-Americans. It is true that Katrina laid bare society's massive neglect of its least fortunate. The inner thoughts and motivations of Bush and his top advisers are impossible to know for certain. Though it seems abstract at a time of such suffering, high-minded considerations about the balance of power between state and federal government were clearly at play. It's also possible that after at least four years of more or less constant crisis, Bush and his team are numb.


The failure of the government's response to Hurricane Katrina worked like a power blackout. Problems cascaded and compounded; each mistake made the next mistake worse. The foe in this battle was a monster; Katrina flattened the Gulf Coast with the strength of a vengeful god. But human beings, beginning with the elected officials of the City of New Orleans, failed to anticipate and react in time.

NEVER MENTIONED THE DEPLOYMENT OF OUR STATE GUARD TO OVERSEAS WARS AS THE REASON FOR LACK OF RESPONSE.



Congressional investigations will take months to sort out who is to blame. A NEWSWEEK reconstruction of the government's response to the storm shows how Bush's leadership style and the bureaucratic culture combined to produce a disaster within a disaster.


Ray Nagin, the mayor of New Orleans, didn't want to evacuate. New Orleanians have a fatalistic streak; their joyful, jazz-blowing street funeral processions are legendary. After many near misses over the years since Hurricane Betsy flooded 20 percent of the city in 1965, longtime residents prefer to stay put. Nagin's eye had long been on commerce, not catastrophe. A former executive at Cox Communications, he had come to office in 2002 to clear out the allegedly corrupt old guard and bring new business to the city, which has not prospered with New South metropolises like Atlanta. During Nagin's mayoral campaign, the promises were about jobs, not stronger floodwalls and levees.


But on Saturday night, as Katrina bore down on New Orleans, Nagin talked to Max Mayfield, head of the National Hurricane Center. "Max Mayfield has scared me to death," Nagin told City Councilwoman Cynthia Morrell early Sunday morning. "If you're scared, I'm scared," responded Morrell, and the mandatory order went out to evacuate the city--about a day later than for most other cities and counties along the Gulf Coast.


As Katrina howled outside Monday morning and the windows of the Hyatt Hotel, where the mayor had set up his command post, began popping out, Nagin and his staff lay on the floor. Then came eerie silence. Morrell decided to go look at her district, including nearby Gentilly. Outside, Canal Street was dry. "Phew," Morrell told her driver, "that was close." But then, from the elevated highway, she began seeing neighborhoods under eight to 15 feet of water. "Holy God," she thought to herself. Then she spotted her first dead body.


At dusk, on the ninth floor of city hall, the mayor and the city council had their first encounter with the federal government. A man in a blue FEMA windbreaker arrived to brief them on his helicopter flyover of the city. He seemed unfamiliar with the city's geography, but he did have a sense of urgency. "Water as far as the eye can see," he said. It was worse than Hurricanes Andrew in 1992 and Camille in 1969. "I need to call Washington," he said. "Do you have a conference-call line?" According to an aide to the mayor, he seemed a little taken aback when the answer was no. Long neglected in the city budget, communications within the New Orleans city government were poor, and eventually almost nonexistent when the batteries on the few old satellite phones died. The FEMA man found a phone, but he had trouble reaching senior officials in Washington. When he finally got someone on the line, the city officials kept hearing him say, "You don't understand, you don't understand."


Around New Orleans, three levees had overtopped or were broken. The city was doomed. There was no way the water could be stopped. But, incredibly, the seriousness of the situation did not really register, not only in Washington, but at the state emergency command post upriver in Baton Rouge. In a squat, drab cinder-block building in the state capital, full of TV monitors and maps, various state and federal officials tried to make sense of what had happened. "Nobody was saying it wasn't a catastrophe," Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu told NEWSWEEK. "We were saying, 'Thank you, God,' because the experts were telling the governor it could have been even worse."


Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, a motherly but steely figure known by the nickname Queen Bee, knew that she needed help. But she wasn't quite sure what. At about 8 p.m., she spoke to Bush. "Mr. President," she said, "we need your help. We need everything you've got."


Bush, the governor later recalled, was reassuring. But the conversation was all a little vague. Blanco did not specifically ask for a massive intervention by the active-duty military. "She wouldn't know the 82nd Airborne from the Harlem Boys' Choir," said an official in the governor's office, who did not wish to be identified talking about his boss's conversations with the president. There are a number of steps Bush could have taken, short of a full-scale federal takeover, like ordering the military to take over the pitiful and (by now) largely broken emergency communications system throughout the region. But the president, who was in San Diego preparing to give a speech the next day on the war in Iraq, went to bed.


By the predawn hours, most state and federal officials finally realized that the 17th Street Canal levee had been breached, and that the city was in serious trouble. Bush was told at 5 a.m. Pacific Coast time and immediately decided to cut his vacation short. To his senior advisers, living in the insular presidential bubble, the mere act of lopping off a couple of presidential vacation days counts as a major event. They could see pitfalls in sending Bush to New Orleans immediately. His presence would create a security nightmare and get in the way of the relief effort. Bush blithely proceeded with the rest of his schedule for the day, accepting a gift guitar at one event and pretending to riff like Tom Cruise in "Risky Business."


Bush might not have appeared so carefree if he had been able to see the fearful faces on some young police officers--the ones who actually showed up for roll call at the New Orleans Second District police headquarters that morning. The radio was reporting water nine feet deep at the corner of Napoleon and St. Charles streets. The looting and occasional shooting had begun. At 2 o'clock on the morning of the storm, only 82 of 120 cops had obeyed a summons to report for duty. Now the numbers were dwindling; within a day, only 28 or 30 officers would be left to save the stranded and fight the looters, recalled a sad and exhausted Capt. Eddie Hosli, speaking to a NEWSWEEK reporter last week. "One of my lieutenants told me, 'I was looking into the eyes of one of the officers and it was like looking into the eyes of a baby'," Hosli recalled. "It was just terrible." (When the AWOL officers began trickling back to work last week, attracted in part by the promise of five expense-paid days in Las Vegas for all New Orleans cops, Hosli told them, "You've got your own demons to live with. I'm not going to judge you.")


At emergency headquarters in Baton Rouge, confusion raged. Though more than 100,000 of its residents had no way to get out of the city on their own, New Orleans had no real evacuation plan, save to tell people to go to the Superdome and wait for buses. On Tuesday, the state was rounding up buses; no, FEMA was; no, FEMA's buses would take too long to get there... and so on. On Tuesday afternoon, Governor Blanco took her second trip to the Superdome and was shocked by the rising tide of desperation there. There didn't seem to be nearly enough buses, boats or helicopters.


Early Wednesday morning, Blanco tried to call Bush. She was transferred around the White House for a while until she ended up on the phone with Fran Townsend, the president's Homeland Security adviser, who tried to reassure her but did not have many specifics. Hours later, Blanco called back and insisted on speaking to the president. When he came on the line, the governor recalled, "I just asked him for help, 'whatever you have'." She asked for 40,000 troops. "I just pulled a number out of the sky," she later told NEWSWEEK.


The Pentagon was not sitting idly. By Tuesday morning (and even before the storm) the military was moving supplies, ships, boats, helicopters and troops toward the Gulf Coast. But, ironically, the scale of the effort slowed it. TV viewers had difficulty understanding why TV crews seemed to move in and out of New Orleans while the military was nowhere to be seen. But a TV crew is five people in an RV. Before the military can send in convoys of trucks, it has to clear broken and flooded highways. The military took over the shattered New Orleans airport for emergency airlifts, but special teams of Air Force operators had to be sent in to make it ready. By the week after the storm, the military had mobilized some 70,000 troops and hundreds of helicopters--but it took at least two days and usually four and five to get them into the disaster area. Looters and well-armed gangs, like TV crews, moved faster.


In the inner councils of the Bush administration, there was some talk of gingerly pushing aside the overwhelmed "first responders," the state and local emergency forces, and sending in active-duty troops. But under an 1868 law, federal troops are not allowed to get involved in local law enforcement. The president, it's true, could have invoked the Insurrections Act, the so-called Riot Act. But Rumsfeld's aides say the secretary of Defense was leery of sending in 19-year-old soldiers trained to shoot people in combat to play policemen in an American city, and he believed that National Guardsmen trained as MPs were on the way.


The one federal agency that is supposed to handle disasters--FEMA--was dysfunctional. On Wednesday morning, Senator Landrieu was standing outside the chaotic Superdome and asked to borrow a FEMA official's phone to call her office in Washington. "It didn't work," she told NEWSWEEK. "I thought to myself, 'This isn't going to be pretty'." Once a kind of petty-cash drawer for congressmen to quickly hand out aid after floods and storms, FEMA had improved in the 1990s in the Clinton administration. But it became a victim of the Iron Law of Unintended Consequences. After 9/11 raised the profile of disaster response, FEMA was folded into the sprawling Department of Homeland Security and effectively weakened. FEMA's boss, Bush's close friend Joe Allbaugh, quit when he lost his cabinet seat. (Now a consultant, Allbaugh was down on the Gulf Coast last week looking for contracts for his private clients.) Allbaugh replaced himself with his college buddy Mike Brown, whose last private-sector job (omitted from his official resume) had been supervising horse-show judges for the International Arabian Horse Association. After praising Brown ("Brownie, you're doing a heck of job"), Bush last week removed him from honchoing the Katrina relief operation. He was replaced by Coast Guard Vice Adm. Thad Allen. The Coast Guard was one agency that performed well, rescuing thousands.


Bad news rarely flows up in bureaucracies. For most of those first few days, Bush was hearing what a good job the Feds were doing. Bush likes "metrics," numbers to measure performance, so the bureaucrats gave him reassuring statistics. At a press availability on Wednesday, Bush duly rattled them off: there were 400 trucks transporting 5.4 million meals and 13.4 million liters of water along with 3.4 million pounds of ice. Yet it was obvious to anyone watching TV that New Orleans had turned into a Third World hellhole.


The denial and the frustration finally collided aboard Air Force One on Friday. As the president's plane sat on the tarmac at New Orleans airport, a confrontation occurred that was described by one participant as "as blunt as you can get without the Secret Service getting involved." Governor Blanco was there, along with various congressmen and senators and Mayor Nagin (who took advantage of the opportunity to take a shower aboard the plane). One by one, the lawmakers listed their grievances as Bush listened. Rep. Bobby Jindal, whose district encompasses New Orleans, told of a sheriff who had called FEMA for assistance. According to Jindal, the sheriff was told to e-mail his request, "and the guy was sitting in a district underwater and with no electricity," Jindal said, incredulously. "How does that make any sense?" Jindal later told NEWSWEEK that "almost everybody" around the conference table had a similar story about how the federal response "just wasn't working." With each tale, "the president just shook his head, as if he couldn't believe what he was hearing," says Jindal, a conservative Republican and Bush appointee who lost a close race to Blanco. Repeatedly, the president turned to his aides and said, "Fix it."


According to Sen. David Vitter, a Republican ally of Bush's, the meeting came to a head when Mayor Nagin blew up during a fraught discussion of "who's in charge?" Nagin slammed his hand down on the table and told Bush, "We just need to cut through this and do what it takes to have a more-controlled command structure. If that means federalizing it, let's do it."


A debate over "federalizing" the National Guard had been rattling in Washington for the previous three days. Normally, the Guard is under the control of the state governor, but the Feds can take over--if the governor asks them to. Nagin suggested that Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, the Pentagon's on-scene commander, be put in charge. According to Senator Vitter, Bush turned to Governor Blanco and said, "Well, what do you think of that, Governor?" Blanco told Bush, "I'd rather talk to you about that privately." To which Nagin responded, "Well, why don't you do that now?"



The meeting broke up. Bush and Blanco disappeared to talk. More than a week later, there was still no agreement. Blanco didn't want to give up her authority, and Bush didn't press. Jindal suggested that Bush appoint Colin Powell as a kind of relief czar, and Bush replied, "I'll take that into consideration." Bush does not like to fire people. He told Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to go down to Louisiana and sort out the various problems. A day later FEMA's Brown was on his way back to Washington.



Late last week, Bush was, by some accounts, down and angry. But another Bush aide described the atmosphere inside the White House as "strangely surreal and almost detached." At one meeting described by this insider, officials were oddly self-congratulatory, perhaps in an effort to buck each other up. Life inside a bunker can be strange, especially in defeat.

____________________________________________


What we see in this article is of course the exact description we shout over and again------OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% FREEMASONRY now has our local well-regulated public militia pretending to be everything from religious------charitable-------education corporations-----this is RACE TO THE TOP privatization of our US public K-12 as well at work......

These are what have existed overseas for several decades in FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES ---they are private global military, security, and policing corporations with their own SWAT TEAMS and they are replacing what was our local well-armed public militia with local country men from every MIDDLESEX village and farm to be up and to arm.

We are sure almost all of these men are not from our local communities------and yet they are the ones with the GUNS -----with the ability to KILL A MAN-----SHOOT FIRST ASK NO QUESTIONS.  US public schools are fighting this GUN CULTURE as our students weakened by family crises or depressions take this WARRIOR way out----the solution for ending gun violence in our local public schools----

IS STOP MOVING FORWARD US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES AND THE FAR-RIGHT WING, AUTHORITARIAN, MILITARISTIC, EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POVERTY LIBERTARIAN MARXISM.


In only a few decades 300 years of US Constitutional definition of our local well-regulated public militia was allowed to DISAPPEAR.



Tuesday, 13 January 2015

How a Police SWAT Team Becomes a Charitable Corporation

Written by  Gregory A. Hession, J.D.

Government agencies have developed very clever ways to hide their acts and paperwork from their bosses, the public. Some of them do it by staying deep in the shadows, such as the CIA or the National Security Agency (NSA). However, a group of regional police agencies in New England, which operate Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams and are armed with machine guns, armored BearCat vehicles, and other military equipment, have done it by styling themselves as non-profit “religious, charitable, scientific, literary or educational” corporations in order to avoid disclosure of their records.


These agencies are called “Law Enforcement Councils” (LECs), which evoke images of fraternal cooperation between police departments. In most of the country, that is what they are: regional groups of police departments who band together — and often incorporate — for legislative lobbying, getting funding grants, sharing information, and coordinating between jurisdictions. Some of them share equipment such as traffic speed machines.


Only in Massachusetts have these LECs subsumed their police SWAT and other militarized operations, such as locking down the City of Boston after a bomb explosion during its marathon, under the shield of non-profit corporations in order to avoid public scrutiny.


When the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) tried to get the documents of one such group, the North Eastern Massachusetts Law Enforcement council (NEMLEC), which is made up of 58 police departments in northeastern Massachusetts, NEMLEC used the excuse that they were just a small non-profit charitable, religious, or educational organization and not a pubic entity, and thus were not subject to freedom of information requests. Never mind that each officer in the SWAT team is a public employee, is paid by public funds, operates publicly owned vehicles and equipment, and works on public safety missions.


The ACLU then sued NEMLEC to obtain their records, under the open records law in Massachusetts. However, NEMLEC has continued to oppose disclosure of the records in court, and has moved to dismiss the lawsuit. “NEMLEC can’t have it both ways,” said an attorney for the ACLU. “Either it is a public entity subject to public records laws, or what it is doing is illegal.”


Each member police force of a Massachusetts LEC is required to pay dues to the organization of many thousands of dollars per year. These dues are paid out of public funds. Certainly they run their policing operations by their public authority granted by the state and each city or town. In other words, they are public employees, doing their public work and getting paid by our taxes.

 

NEMLEC’s response appears to be a recent change in the purpose of its non-profit charitable corporation status. NEMLEC was founded 40 years ago in 1974, according to Massachusetts secretary of state documents. When it started, it was probably a bunch of police chiefs meeting to swap stories and give each other awards. Perhaps only recently did the group figure out that their non-profit corporation could also serve as a shield to protect their SWAT and military-like activities from disclosure to the public.
Why does this matter? Because these cops raid homes and kill people — sometimes the wrong people, sometimes innocent children. They use heavy armored personnel carriers, and serve “no-knock” warrants on drug houses, where they use automatic weapons and flash grenades.

As public employees, the records of their activities should be open to the public, and individual police departments have always had to produce them. But because the police departments have consolidated their SWAT teams under these regional “Law Enforcement Councils,” they can hide their most violent, most controversial operations under the protection of a charitable corporate veil.


According to a June 26, 2014 article in storyleak.com, SWAT raids have increased from 3,000 a year to over 80,000 a year in the last three decades. Media bring daily reports of drug raids on homes that were mistakenly targeted, and where police sometimes injure or kill innocent persons or pets.


Most of these SWAT raids, conducted by officers armed to the teeth and carrying smoke or flash grenades and battering rams, are part of the so-called “drug war.” Although law enforcement theoreticians are well aware of the ample historical evidence that prohibition does not work, we have continued to use this drug war pretext to ramp up the militarization of local police and to perpetrate a siege mentality in many urban areas.


We should not forget our last experiment with prohibition of liquor, some ninety years ago, which ran from 1920 to 1933. H.L. Mencken, the “sage of Baltimore,” writing during that period, reminds us what a horrible flop it was and how it ended up doing far more harm than good despite the best intentions of “dry” reformers:


Five years of Prohibition have had, at least, this one benign effect: they have completely disposed of all the favorite arguments of the Prohibitionists. None of the great boons and usufructs that were to follow the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment has come to pass. There is not less drunkenness in the Republic, but more. There is not less crime, but more. There is not less insanity, but more. The cost of government is not smaller, but vastly greater. Respect for law has not increased, but diminished.


Modern police departments have changed from a “protect and serve” model to an “us versus them” mentality and culture. In the new model, citizens have become enemies of the state, and “officer safety” is the primary concern, not the rights of the people. Officers are trained to escalate at the slightest perception of a threat, and will bring criminal charges of resisting arrest, disturbing the peace, or disorderly conduct with little provocation.


In that highly charged police-state atmosphere, it is critical that citizens be afforded the opportunity to see public records about police SWAT activities, regardless of whether the police style themselves a “charitable” corporation. Hopefully, the lawsuit filed by the ACLU will succeed in piercing that barrier, and the result will be more accountability by police and fealty to the Constitution in their operations, because they know they are being scrutinized.

_____________________________________


If we look at the two US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES on East Coast MOVING FORWARD global corporate campuses and global factories for only the global 1%------we see two GLOBAL HEDGE FUND IVY LEAGUE CORPORATIONS central in ROBBER BARON frauds in Boston and Baltimore ----HARVARD AND JOHNS HOPKINS with a SLOGAN made main-stream during an act of violence BOSTON STRONG/BALTIMORE STRONG is NYC STRONG-----is global Foreign Economic Zone militarized policing, security, and surveillance MOVING FORWARD DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE.  As this comment by a ACLU infers-----99% of US WE THE PEOPLE have no control over these private militias having the GUNS while our rights to own guns in US are being DISMANTLED.

'with a state-only Guard response, Governors retain their constitutional authority and control'


'The ACLU then sued NEMLEC to obtain their records, under the open records law in Massachusetts. However, NEMLEC has continued to oppose disclosure of the records in court, and has moved to dismiss the lawsuit. “NEMLEC can’t have it both ways,” said an attorney for the ACLU. “Either it is a public entity subject to public records laws, or what it is doing is illegal.”'

So, do we continue to MOVE FORWARD where our US public K-12 schools see more frequent violent actions as more of our US 99% are pushed to poverty with no means of employment the answer we will be given is -----K-12 SCHOOLS NEED TO BE INSIDE GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUSES WHERE PRIVATE SECURITY AND POLICING  have the guns to keep our children safe.


We want to be clear as well------these local SWAT TEAMS called part of our police departments are controlled by HOMELAND SECURITY---not our local public police department. As civil unrest and civil war created by those dastardly 5% to the 1% unfolds ------these will be the far-right wing corporate fascist troops fighting against what national media will call LEFT MARXIST REBELS-----just as happened in LATIN AMERICA, MIDDLE-EAST, AFRICA, AND SOUTHEAST ASIA.

IF WE ARE FORCED INSIDE A 'FORT' THEN MOVING FORWARD IS CREATING SOCIETAL STRUCTURES THAT ARE VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY WRONG.




Does ‘Boston Strong’ Mean Anything Anymore?


Three years later, is our rallying cry just a hollow slogan?



By Kyle Scott Clauss · 4/17/2016, 5:00 a.m.



On April 15, 2013, two pressure cooker bombs placed near the finish line of the Boston Marathon by brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev detonated, killing three spectators and showering hundreds in white-hot shrapnel.


On April 17, two applications were filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for the phrase “Boston Strong,” for use on clothing and accessories, by Kerim Senkal of Allston, and Born Into It of Woburn, better known as Chowdaheadz, purveyor of all sorts of New England merchandise emblazoned with shamrocks and Citgo sign mockups.


“I’m just a regular blue collar guy trying to make a quick buck,” a candid Senkal told the Daily Mail at the time. Both trademark applications were abandoned by the following January.


Quite a bit has changed in the three intervening years. Boston has a new mayor, and Massachusetts, a new governor. The Red Sox haven’t sniffed competence since Jonny Gomes placed the World Series trophy at the finish line on Boylston Street. The One Fund, set up to aid survivors and their families in their recovery, announced it would begin dissolution after distributing millions to those hardest hit by the tragedy. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was found guilty in federal court and sentenced to death following months of grueling testimony from those who lost limbs and loved ones to the blasts.


Meanwhile, what has become of our rallying cry through all the unspeakable horror? Has “Boston Strong” been commercialized? This question, posed with some regularity, has become relevant once again with Mark Walhberg and Jake Gyllenhaal‘s upcoming films about the marathon bombings. Is it possible that “Boston Strong” was inherently marketable, and hence why it stuck so prodigiously? And better yet—does any of that matter?




The phrase “Boston Strong” was virtually nonexistent on the internet prior to spring 2013, and Google Trends shows a spike in search traffic related to it each April since. Three of the top five search terms in this time were related to T-shirts—and for good reason. Just two hours after the blasts, Emerson College students Chris Dobens and Nick Reynolds created the now iconic blue and yellow “Boston Strong” shirts, which raised more than $1 million for the One Fund.


“We were sitting there kind of stunned. Not necessarily sad, because you don’t process everything until hours or days later. But we knew we had to do something,” Dobens says. “So we started thinking of these messages of solidarity—what could get people to come together and help each other and support each other? And so I started saying this phrase, ‘Stay strong, Boston strong,’ in kind of the same light as ‘Army Strong’ and ‘Country Strong,’ because they have such huge followings and huge communities. … We ended up shortening it to “Boston Strong” because it was short, sweet, to the point, and it really conveyed the message we were trying to make.”



Dobens, who will graduate from Emerson in just three weeks, still has a dozen or so “Boston Strong” shirts laying around his home, which he gives to friends who have fallen on hard times as “something to hold on to and know that they’re appreciated.” He and Reynolds briefly considered trademarking the phrase, but decided against it. The optics, Dobens says, would have run contrary to their mission.


“The reason why we didn’t was because if we trademarked it, there would be this perception of, ‘Oh, they’re trying to make some money off of it,’ which is a really hard perception to fight,” he says. “So we kept it very public, because if people saw that we were not in this for the money, then we’d be more successful. And we still live by that to this day. Neither one of us have ever profited off those shirts.”



Spotted in Logan Airport. / Photo by Kyle Clauss
Others did not share Dobens and Reynolds’ Jonas Salk-like approach. The day after the citywide manhunt for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev kept thousands of Bostonians in their homes, three different men in Brockton; Oxford, Connecticut; and New Port Richey, Florida, applied for trademarks on “Boston Strong.” Two days later, Jim Koch’s Boston Beer Company applied for a “Boston Strong” beer trademark. Two coffee companies, Meahuna Coffee of Tewksbury and the New England Coffee Company, filed similar applications for their wares in the following weeks.


“It was before my time at the company, so unfortunately I do not have details on what the previous team had hoped to do with the trademark,” New England Coffee brand manager Melissa Gilreath said in an email. Like Chowdaheadz and Senkal’s, these applications were all abandoned in 2014.


Even without a registered trademark, repeated use seems to have catapulted “Boston Strong” into the same stratum of bumper sticker truisms as “Yankees Suck!” The phenomenon is not unlike the process by which maraschino cherries are mass-produced. Natural, plump Royal Ann cherries are bleached with a solution of sulfur dioxide and calcium chloride, then soaked in dyes, flavorings and preservatives and passed along to the consumer. What started as something organic, from the gut of every Bostonian who can fog a mirror, has been processed and stripped of its authenticity.


This year, Boston Marathon runners will be welcomed into the home stretch by this ‘Boston Strong’ sign painted on the Bowker Overpass. / Photo by Carly Metz
It’s entirely possible there are two Boston Strongs.

There’s the chest-thumping slogan emblazoned on tourist-bait for sale beside unofficial Harvard sweatshirts at kiosks scattered across Logan Airport and Faneuil Hall, analogous to “I Love New York” shirts.
Then there’s the sublime solidarity that was on display throughout the week of the bombings: at candlelight vigils across the city that saw non-believers stand arm-in-arm with the devout; in the misty-eyed glances shared between Green Line passengers as their train glided through a darkened Copley station; and in the crowds of thousands that gathered in the Common the night police captured Tsarnaev in Watertown.


“‘Boston Strong’ is our city’s resilience and spirit that carries us forward in good times and bad,” says Mayor Marty Walsh. “‘Boston Strong’ embodies our love for our city and its people, and what makes Boston the greatest city in the world.”


The phrase was never about our collective machismo or sports prowess. It was about how we persevered when we were hurting most—when we shook off our New England chill and cared for one another.


“Boston Strong, to me, is much more than that T-shirt and just the simple phrasing. It’s been a lifestyle for me, helping people and being there for others in a variety of different ways, in my personal life and even in the community,” Dobens says. “Having had that experience, and being able to start a movement like that, it’s just changed my life. It’s made me a much more positive person. It gives me hope in humanity, that others are there to help each other. It’s just a really positive message that I hold very close to my heart.”
____________________________________________
We will end this week's discussion on GUN PUBLIC POLICY by reminding our US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE what makes the US GUN CAPITAL OF THE WORLD?  It is our US Department of Defense and its flooding of third world nations with military weapons in what are the largest CACHES of weapon distribution in world history.  We have shouted that OBAMA and HILLARY as Secretary of State dropped one of the largest military cache of weapons in Africa/Middle-East in modern history.  We KNOW that is the start of global gun trafficing and we KNOW these US military weapon networks come back to our US cities and rural towns. 

No doubt, Latin American gun cartels are manufacturing their own guns to carry into US------but this is where GUN CONTROL STARTS.  We can take every single gun from our US 99% of citizens right wing or left wing and with US Department of Defense ----now almost totally PRIVATIZED ------deliberately distributing weapons to create civil unrest civil wars----we will see these conditions grow in MOVING FORWARD US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----and no local civil justice agency will have any voice in these issues.


What will tougher gun control laws directed at our 99% of US CITIZENS do to stop the flooding of global military weapon markets by global private military contractors?

We KNOW the difference between ORIGINATE inside US----and the process of US gun manufacturers now with global factories overseas selling weapons then brought back into US.

'The United States is likely the most prevalent source of weapons for the increasingly violent cartels'.

We have known these few decades after US Congress allowed US gun manufacturers to take create global factories overseas ----and tied them to supplying global military corporations---that those weapons hitting global gun cartel distribution would bring those guns back to US cities and rural America----ergo, soaring public school shootings............BELGIUM OUTSOURCES TO THIRD WORLD FOR GOODNESS SAKE.

'Since then Winchester rifles and shotguns have been produced at associated factories in many locations around the world'.


Where are Winchester firearms manufactured?


Boston College International and Comparative Law Review
Volume 35
|
Issue 1
Article 7
1-1-2012
This is Gun Country: The International
Implications of U.S. Gun Control Policy

Laura Mehalko
laura.mehalko@bc.edu

297
THIS IS GUN COUNTRY: THE
INTERNATIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF U.S.
GUN CONTROL POLICY
Laura Mehalko
*
Abstract:


Mexican drug trafficking organizations are the largest providers of illicit drugs to the United States. They have also grown to rely on advanced, high-power weaponry and to use their nearly military-grade armament to maintain control over smuggling corridors, and local drug production areas. Cartels are also linked to nearly 40,000 deaths over the last five years, many of which were committed with guns originating in the
United States.


The United States is likely the most prevalent source of weapons for the increasingly violent cartels.
The U.S. government estimates that nearly ninety percent of all weapons used in the drug war originate in the United States. An analysis of current gun control policy in the United States and Mexico suggests this


is likely the case; Mexico has particularly strict gun control laws in contrast to the relatively lenient gun
control regulation in the United States. Both countries have implemented domestic policies aimed at reducing the southward flow of arms into Mexico, yet so far have had little success.


This Note argues that arms trafficking has been facilitated by current U.S. gun control policy, and it will likely continue without a foundational shift in either U.S. or international policy.  It’s a terrible problem. They
have to do something about it.


—The Honorable Robert Gottsfield


Despite one of the world's toughest gun control laws-----it is the CIVIL SOCIETY CULTURE OF FAR-RIGHT WING, MILITARISTIC, AUTHORITARIANISM.


Hmmmm, China is fa-right, authoritarian, militaristic extreme wealth extreme poverty LIBERTARIAN MARXIST-----and top gun manufacturer in the world as global gun corporations in FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES have their guns MADE IN CHINA.



Staring Down the Barrel: the Rise of Guns in China

In a Nation That Bans Guns and Celebrates Them, Armed Criminals and Hunters Pose New Problems for Authorities



By
James T. Areddy

Updated Oct. 14, 2008 12:01 a.m. ET
Shanghai -- China's weapons laws are among the world's toughest. Its blanket ban on private ownership of rifles, pistols and even gun replicas is a core tenet of social policy. Still, a gun culture is taking hold.



China Struggles to Enforce Gun Control


Even as official statistics show overall crime in China declining, a string of splashy gunfights and murders, along with a rash of gun-factory raids and smuggling busts, points to a change in how crime is committed. (Oct. 14)
China may be freer from gun crime than many nations, and official statistics show overall crime on a continuous down trend. Yet, these days, reports about gun crimes turn up as often as several times a week even in the tightly controlled state-run media. The reports are often brief, without much follow-up as cases progress. Still, the splashy gunfights, murders, gun-factory raids and smuggling busts that get reported contrast with China's zero-tolerance stance on guns, and point to changes in criminals' behavior.


But the trend is about more than crime. Guns are now fashionable in paintings and movies, while Chinese-language Web sites and glossy magazines cater to gun buffs. And legal shooting clubs in cities let customers fire away at targets for a fee. Bored with golfing, some affluent businessmen slip into the countryside for hunts.


Even as China's government seeks to keep guns off the street, and shields its massive gun-manufacturing business behind state-secrets laws, it helps stoke the public imagination about guns. Schoolchildren learn to salute the flag shouldering imitation rifles, while state media celebrate the heroism of military and athletic marksmanship.


"In the 1960s, shooting was for national defense," said Xie Xianqiao, a former amateur shooting coach. "These days, shooting is entertainment."

Erosion in China's gun controls reflects the Communist Party's slow retreat from most people's daily lives. Chinese increasingly spend their free time as they want. The Party also has less power to control the supply of guns at a time when the wealthy are looking for protection and recreation, and criminals are searching for an advantage.


The main source of guns appears to be lax control of gun factories and theft from arsenals. China is one of the world's largest gun manufacturers -- for the export market and for its security forces. Older guns are left from past wars and a time when hunting was common. The police have also busted workshops that forge guns and bullets by hand inside China. Meanwhile, people illegally import replicas -- exact-looking imitations of guns.


The government holds gun-surrender drives, appealing to citizens with posters in subways to turn in arms with no questions asked, or even for cash. A six-month campaign this year netted 79,000 guns, 1.8 million replica guns and 5.75 million bullets, the Ministry of Public Security said last month. A similar effort in 2006 turned up 178,000 guns and 638,000 replicas in four months.


A particular frustration for Chinese authorities is the proliferation of fake weapons, such as the ones destroyed by Shanghai police last year. Associated Press Authorities report on gun seizures in order to demonstrate their ability to control the flow of weapons. But the effort backfired in July, when three journalists were injured after a gun misfired during a police news conference on illegal weapons in Nanchong, Sichuan.


Yet gun crimes continue to grab headlines. Early last year, a man in the northeast went on a rampage with a homemade pistol, killing five family members and neighbors. In September 2007, a young Guangzhou man was found guilty of using a replica gun to rob a bank customer of $218,000, and drew a 19-year prison sentence. In December, a guard at a munitions dump machine-gunned a colleague over a chess match. Two days later, he was killed, too, in a shootout with police.
Guns have also been a factor in this year's unrest in China's remote Tibetan and Muslim regions. A policeman was hit six times in an April incident that authorities described as a "gun battle" that left him and a Tibetan insurgent dead.


The Ministry of Public Security says its police increasingly face armed and aggressive suspects. Most Chinese police aren't armed, and they sometimes are provided little more than a uniform to do their job. An emerging market for bulletproofing underscores the need. At a police-gear trade show in Beijing last April, bulletproof vests bearing Chinese police logos were on display, along with bulletproof BMWs and Jaguars. DuPont Co. showed the protective qualities of Kevlar.


Like other technologies, guns have a long history here. Chinese invented gunpowder more than a thousand years ago, and soon developed one of the first guns, called a "fire spear." Rifles were widely available by the late 19th century, when war and revolution began engulfing the country. In 1938, as the Communists battled the Japanese and the ruling Nationalists for control, Mao Zedong made his famous remark that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" -- foreshadowing strict gun laws the Communists later imposed.


Gun control was introduced in 1966, after children aiming a Spanish rifle at sparrows near Tiananmen Square shot out a window in the Great Hall of the People, according to an official history of the Ministry of Public Security. Authorities grew more vigilant after the violently suppressed pro-democracy demonstrations of 1989, and after rapid economic growth began to spur social tensions.

Earlier this year, police checked illegally owned guns in China's Henan province. Newscom The government imposed the current rules in 1996, forbidding the private manufacture, sale, transport, possession, import or export of bullets and guns, including replicas.


Possession of a single gun is grounds for a prison sentence of as long as three years, and the penalty for a gun crime often is execution. In July, a Shanghai man drew a prison sentence of 12 years, and his wife 11 years, for possessing three guns and 600,000 bullets, plus peddling weapons on the Internet.


Chinese authorities say they dealt with 4,666 gun cases last year. Officials often respond to sensational gun crimes in the U.S. and elsewhere by affirming the need to maintain tough laws.


With guns often hard to buy, some criminals forge them instead. Late last year, Shanghai police responded to a call about a robbery in progress at a gritty scrap yard. According to a police spokesman, officers spotted a man fleeing the scene and yelled "freeze," but he pulled a crude homemade pistol from a bag.


Witnesses say the suspect was brought down after a gunfight that had shots echoing all around the neighborhood. A police spokesman said the suspect, identified as Tang Qingjie, was shot in the leg by an officer. He said Mr. Tang had never managed to fire his weapon, which in a police photo appeared to have been soldered together.


The handling of Mr. Tang's case also offers a possible indication of why gun crimes in China seem so rare. They sometimes aren't highlighted when criminal charges are made public. When Shanghai prosecutors formally arraigned Mr. Tang in September, they alleged he committed robbery -- a serious charge but not one that automatically suggests use of a weapon.


Speaking generally about Chinese law, a court spokesman said evidence of a gun can be introduced during a robbery trial. But criminal trials in China aren't always open to the public, and evidence can be suppressed.


The Communist Party lauds marksmanship enough to give freshmen college students basic training in it. Shooting produced a national hero for China in 1984, when Xu Haifeng became the country's first Olympic gold medalist by winning the 50-meter pistol event in Los Angeles. At this year's Beijing Games, China won five of its 51 gold medals in shooting events.


Beijing's support for the sport has helped spur a rise of hobby enthusiasts. The government has sanctioned businesses such as the Shanghai East Shooting Club, a former bomb shelter where customers can have a drink and fire a variety of weapons. Owner Zhang Jiewei says his clients are looking to relax.


But increasingly, gun fans are gaining access to guns -- and hunting illegally. In rural Anhui province last year, a group of wealthy businessmen, gun-club owners and former army officers organized wild-fowl shoots. Feasting on game cooked in a spicy brown sauce, one of them toasted, "Guns have brought us together."


Gun buffs can turn to Small Arms, a twice-monthly glossy magazine that claims 60,000 subscribers. The Beretta M9 semiautomatic pistol "is classic," said Zheng Zhoujian, an 18-year-old reader. "I envy people in other countries where guns are legal."
0 Comments

March 22nd, 2018

3/22/2018

0 Comments

 
These several years of OBAMA saw two MOVING FORWARD societal changes-----it saw citizens angered by massive and systemic frauds by government and global corporations and by ever-growing unemployment racing out to buy guns because OBAMA and Clinton neo-liberals were pushing gun control policy written by global private military corporations like BLACKWATER/ZE----SAIC/GLOBAL HEDGE FUND IVY LEAGUE JOHNS HOPKINS.

Any society having its 99% of citizens feeling unable to control their lives due to repressive, regressive, criminal governance ----history repeats itself on this----start feeling they need to protect themselves since US RULE OF LAW and our US JUSTICE SYSTEM is corrupted. The fear of an assault weapons ban during OBAMA loaded our US counties with US 99% of citizens buying just that.


The problem with this race to gun ownership and gun culture----these few decades of ROBBER BARON fleecing of America by those 5% black, white, and brown players. Criminality at the top of US corporations, global banking, and criminal politicians IS THE PROBLEM.

This same fear in US cities by SHOOT FIRST ASK QUESTIONS LATER policing and the same systemic local government criminality have the same 99% citizen reactions ----needing to defend themselves.


Portfolio
March 26, 2018 issue
Gun Country
A new generation of American kids embraces firearms.


Photographs by Sharif Hamza
Text by Dana Goodyear

All but one were born in the decade after Columbine; like the student gun-control advocates activated by the recent massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, Florida, most are in their teens. But the children depicted here—hunters, target shooters, competitors in trap and skeet—occupy a parallel realm, where guns signify not danger, alienation, and the threat of death but safety, discipline, and trust.

Several years ago, while on a road trip, Sharif Hamza, a British-born photographer who lives with his wife and two daughters in Brooklyn, met a grade-school kid with a shotgun in the Arizona desert. Watching the boy’s father patiently instruct him in safety procedures, Hamza was struck by how different the interaction was from the culture he grew up in, where soccer was the game in the park and the rich kids might golf or ski, but shooting was practically unheard-of.

Curious, Hamza reached out to 4-H clubs—which teach riflery along with animal husbandry—and began to attend youth competitions associated with the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group that also puts on one of the largest gun shows in the world. Outside of cities and their suburbs, Hamza says, “shooting felt as common as skateboarding.”


This is not an accident. With gun-advocacy groups investing heavily in youth recruitment and manufacturers catering to an emerging children’s market, the shooting sports are gaining in popularity. (Before Nikolas Cruz was expelled from Stoneman Douglas, he was a member of a varsity riflery team that benefitted from a ten-thousand-dollar grant from the National Rifle Association.) Shooting generally places few physical demands; advocates present it as a safe sport, with little incidence of injury (unlike soccer, or, for that matter, skiing). With no discernible disparity between the sexes, it is also portrayed as an empowering one. Millennials’ attitudes about guns cut along seemingly opposing lines: most support fewer restrictions on which weapons can be bought but tighter regulations on who can buy them.


When Hamza began his project, in 2016, the families of his subjects were wary, lest their children be drawn into a heated political debate. In recent weeks, that concern has grown more urgent; after Parkland, any image of a child with an AR-15 must carry an acute emotional charge. Hamza, an urbanite, reassured the parents that, for him, guns were a way to learn about an unexplored facet of American youth culture. When the kids he met weren’t shooting, they hung out with their parents, who, because of the risks and their own interest, tend to be ever-present. Around weapons, Hamza’s subjects were solemn and alert: no unseemly exhibitionism or goofing with their guns. “It’s drilled into the kids’ heads—respect and responsibility,” Hamza says.

As firearms have proliferated in the United States, so have gun-related injuries and deaths. For Hamza’s subjects, though, guns are a given (often literally so, as gifts from Mom or Dad). They respond to the danger inherent in weapons—and the danger in the world, however remote, which often drives their acquisition—with determination to attain mastery.

At a shooting meet in Lake of the Ozarks, Missouri, Hamza met Cheyenne Dalton, a two-time ladies’ world champion in an event that involves a pistol and a rifle. That day, Cheyenne, who is now seventeen and has an ammunition sponsor, was competing in 3-Gun, which meant running through an obstacle course firing a handgun, a shotgun, and an AR-15 at specified intervals. Cheyenne, who also plays the mandolin in a bluegrass band that she founded, was recruited by a professional trainer at a concealed-carry course taken by her mother, who wanted to protect herself from crime. Now, at gun shows, Cheyenne finds herself encouraging other women and youths to try shooting, and she hopes one day to work in the firearms industry. To her, there is no contradiction between being a safety freak and loving AR-15s. “The thing about shooting is it’s just so fun,” she told me. “It’s really great for families.”


_____________________________________________

THE NEWAMERICAN is a right wing global banking media outlet.

OBAMA gun policy written by far-right wing global banking 1% IVY LEAGUE HEDGE FUND Johns Hopkins and MOVING FORWARD to far-right wing, authoritarian, militaristic, extreme wealth extreme poverty MAOIST LIBERTARIAN MARXISM-----is deliberately setting the stage for as we have shouted for over a decade-----civil unrest---civil war.

The US has been fighting guns and violence these few decades in FAILED STATE US CITIES as global banking destroyed local city economies and 5% to the 1% player pols refused to rebuild local small business economies filling our US cities with GUN VIOLENCE.

Obama's terms brought continued government corruptions, massive frauds with no US Justice -----loss of all US sovereign rights ---so we had our white rural US regions filling with guns.  BONANZA for GLOBAL GUN CORPORATIONS for what will be MOVING FORWARD a move to CONFISCATE all those guns for one reason or the next.

MOVING FORWARD US CIVIL UNREST CIVIL WAR NEEDED LOTS OF GUNS WITH POLICIES LEADING TO ENDING GUN OWNERSHIP NEEDING GOVERNMENT TO TAKE ACTIONS AND MARTIAL LAWS.

Remember, we have been discussing these goals for a few decades----these are policies and societal conditions being created gradually to create these oppressive stances not found in a civil, functioning society.


When we watch on TV news of yet another mass shooting at a US public school with children finding access to any weapon they want----same conditions in our US cities for our black and brown youth----we see MOVING FORWARD FAILED STATE MOVING TOWARDS CIVIL UNREST/CIVIL WARS.



Thursday, 09 January 2014


Obama Gun Control Scheming Sparked Record Firearm Sales

Written by  Alex Newman 


Across America, guns are still flying off the shelves, with sales numbers continually smashing previous records set over the last decade as Americans load up on firearms of all varieties in never-before-seen quantities. From Colorado and Connecticut to Ohio, Virginia, and Alabama — and everywhere in between — gun sales are exploding. Indeed, government data show 2013 was the best year for domestic sales in U.S. history after beating the previous high set the year before. Restrictions on gun rights, meanwhile, are overwhelmingly getting less draconian at the state level.


According to analysts, the primary cause for the unprecedented surge in purchases has been — somewhat ironically, perhaps -- the unconstitutional gun-control machinations and decrees coming from the Obama administration and its allies. More than a few firearms dealers and commentators have even started referring to Obama, who has been seeking to restrict the gun rights of Americans, as the “best gun salesman in history.”


In terms of the numbers, 2013 was another record year, government data from the FBI’s controversial “background check” system showed. According to news reports, over 21 million applications were processed by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) last year. Because one background check can be used to purchase multiple firearms, the number of guns sold might even be higher. In 2012, there were just under 20 million.


Overall, nationwide gun sales, as measured by NICS data, were up eight percent over 2012’s record-setting figures. Every year for the last 11 years has seen an increase in gun purchases. However, analysts say the “shameless” post-Newtown mega-push for new infringements on gun rights by the Obama administration and its increasingly discredited allies in the establishment media played a key role in the dramatic surge witnessed in late 2012 and into 2013.


Indeed, all 10 of the top gun-sales weeks occurred since Obama announced his schemes to further restrict the human-rights protections in the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment. Eight of the top 10 weeks were in 2013, with the other two in December of 2012, according to numbers cited in the Washington Times. Since Obama has been in the White House, background checks have soared by 66 percent. Gun-manufacturer stock prices have been surging, too.


“Last year was a record setting year for gun and ammunition sales due to the threat of anti-gun legislation at both the state and federal level,” General Counsel Lawrence Keane, with the National Shooting Sports Foundation, told the Times. “Demand is settling back down from the peaks of 2013, but the valley floor is much higher than before because of the significant number of new firearms owners — many of them young, urban and female — who elected to exercise their Second Amendment rights for the first time.”


Despite the full-blown attack on the Second Amendment by Obama and his allies in the press, state governments have overwhelmingly been loosening firearms restrictions. At the federal level, the administration’s scheme to assault gun rights via unconstitutional legislation went down in flames, too, with the proposal failing to get through even the Democrat-controlled Senate.


Of course, radical Democrat politicians in a few states — Colorado, New York, and Connecticut, for example — have managed to impose a number of draconian new violations against the gun rights of citizens, costing some of the politicians their political careers. On balance, however, the right to keep and bear arms has secured far more new legal protections than violations in America over the last year.


In fact, a recent analysis by the New York Times found that of the 109 new gun laws enacted at the state level since Obama’s push began, 70 actually loosened restrictions — almost double the number of laws that tightened restrictions. Some states, such as Kansas, have even nullified unconstitutional federal restrictions, sending disgraced Attorney General Eric Holder into an outburst of rage.


Justice Department boss Holder, who was caught on video calling for a taxpayer-funded program to “brainwash” Americans to reject gun rights, and who is currently in criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to hand over documents on the administration’s “Fast and Furious” scheme to arm Mexican drug cartels, responded to Kansas with a bizarre but threatening letter. State officials were not amused.


The administration also issued new unconstitutional decrees aimed at usurping legislative power and restricting gun rights this week. Pro-Second Amendment groups, however, are already gearing up to fight the lawless “executive actions,” hoping to have lawmakers put the White House back in its place. The trends, though, are clear.


State-level data on gun sales also tell a fascinating story about the administration’s spectacular failure when it comes to infringing on the Second Amendment. Alabama led the gun-buying binge, according to news reports; the number of background checks performed smashed even recently set new records in the last two months of 2013. In Maryland, meanwhile, sales surged some 70 percent between 2012 and 2013. Purchases in Utah, New Jersey, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, and more all spiked more than 25 percent over records set the year before. Only two states did not beat new records set in 2012.

The reason is simple. “We saw California and Colorado reacting — all of these reactions got gun owners' attention here in Virginia,” explained Philip Van Cleave, president of the pro-gun rights Virginia Citizens Defense League. “Anytime you threaten to ban guns, to make more restrictions, all you're going to do is make sure there are far more guns out there than if you just kept your mouth shut. The other side hasn't learned this.”


Still, gun owners and pro-Second Amendment groups celebrated the phenomenal growth in the number of firearms in private hands. “2013 was the best year for firearm sales (commercial, domestic) in history — period!” noted Richard Feldman, president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association in New Hampshire. “That’s true for New Hampshire to Hawaii. Ruger alone sold well over one million guns this year.”
Analysts say the establishment media, which promptly latched on to Obama’s push for more unconstitutional infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, has been left looking foolish and impotent. “Not only is this a major setback for Democrats, but also for a mainstream media that went all in on this campaign,” observed Breitbart columnist John Nolte, calling the surge in pro-gun rights laws a “Media Super Fail.”


“The media's demagoguery, dishonesty, and partisanship have now handed the American gun culture a rolling parade of victories for a full year — victories that would have otherwise not have been possible or even fought for,” Nolte added. “Ten years ago, the media was entirely too dominant and powerful to ever lose a battle they poured everything they had into. Those days are over.” 


Violent crime, meanwhile, has been plummeting. According to a report released last year by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the number of gun homicides has plummeted almost 40 percent since 1993 — from more than 18,000 to 11,000 in 2011 — even as Americans purchased tens or even hundreds of millions of new guns. Adjusting the data to account for per-capita gun homicide rates, researchers found that the numbers have fallen 50 percent.

OUR US CITY STATS ON VIOLENCE AND GUNS MUST TAKE ALL THOSE 11,000.



Of course, states with stronger protections for gun rights fared much better than jurisdictions with more draconian infringements. A new study published this month in the academic journal Applied Economics Letters, for example, found that increased numbers of people carrying concealed weapons was tied to lower murder levels. Restrictions on carrying “may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level,” the abstract concluded.


Also ironic is that the Obama administration’s scheming has coincided with a dramatic shift in public sentiment. Polls now show that fewer Americans favor gun control than the number of people who support keeping laws the same or abolishing existing infringements. State and local officials, meanwhile, including lawmakers and lawmen, have been standing up at unprecedented rates, vowing to protect citizens in their jurisdictions from unconstitutional assaults on their rights. Support for civil disobedience to protect gun rights is surging, too — even among Democrats.


Obama and his fellow anti-gun rights fanatics were hoping to exploit the deaths of children to assault the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution, critics say. Instead, the campaign had the exact opposite effect: Existing restrictions were mostly loosened, public opinion shifted further in favor of gun rights, and record numbers of firearms ended up in the hands of law-abiding Americans. The irony, of course, has Second Amendment supporters smiling, but analysts warn that Obama and his cohorts are far from finished. 

_____________________________________________
GUN VIOLENCE whether the arming of our 99% of white rural citizens or these few decades of our US city black, brown citizens forced into black market economies to survive----are both a product of the breakdown of US civil governing structures-----curbing the WILD WEST of a few century's ago AMERICA was well established before these 5% to the 1% ROBBER BARON depravities.

It is true----the US is unique in having in its US Constitution and 300 years of court precedence the 2ND AMENDMENT right to own guns.  This is too the reason the US has such a high rate of gun deaths as we see below.  What we don't see below is a comparison of other nations' deaths by OTHER FOUL MEANS.  If one cannot kill with a gun----a sociopath will kill with another weapon and we are sure those nation's listed below have those high percentages as well.

DEATH BY GUN VIOLENCE----DEATH BY KNIFE, ROPE, POISON, BEATINGS, SUFFOCATION, ET AL.  DEATH BY VIOLENCE SOARS WHEN SOCIETAL STRUCTURES ARE BRUTAL AND IMPOVERISHING AS THESE FEW DECADES OF CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA


Western and Eastern Europe/UK had their continuous violence tied to guns thousands of years ago------our American history is rife with these same gun violence. So, what does a REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE wanting gun control do when MOVING FORWARD goals are MORE CIVIL UNREST AND WAR.


By KEVIN QUEALY and MARGOT SANGER-KATZ JUNE 13, 2016

Comparing Gun Deaths by Country: The U.S. Is in a Different World

Gun homicides in Norway
are about as common as deaths from
accidental stranglings and hangings
in the United States.
0.9 deaths per million people


The mass shooting in Las Vegas on Sunday night has horrified the nation. But it’s not unusual for dozens of Americans to be killed by guns in a single day.
Gun homicides are a common cause of death in the United States, killing about as many people as car crashes (not counting van, truck, motorcycle or bus accidents). Some cases command our attention more than others, of course. Counting mass shootings that make headlines and the thousands of Americans murdered one or a few at a time, gunshot homicides totaled 8,124 in 2014, according to the F.B.I.


This level of violence makes the United States an extreme outlier when measured against the experience of other advanced countries.

Around the world, those countries have substantially lower rates of deaths from gun homicide. In Germany, being murdered with a gun is as uncommon as being killed by a falling object in the United States. About two people out of every million are killed in a gun homicide. Gun homicides are just as rare in several other European countries, including the Netherlands and Austria. In the United States, two per million is roughly the death rate for hypothermia or plane crashes.


In Poland and England, only about one out of every million people die in gun homicides each year — about as often as an American dies in an agricultural accident or falling from a ladder. In Japan, where gun homicides are even rarer, the likelihood of dying this way is about the same as an American’s chance of being killed by lightning — roughly one in 10 million.


In the United States, the death rate from gun homicides is about 31 per million people — the equivalent of 27 people shot dead every day of the year. The homicides include losses from mass shootings, like Sunday’s Las Vegas attack, the Orlando, Fla., nightclub shooting in June 2016, or the San Bernardino, Calif., shooting in December 2015. And of course, they also include the country’s vastly more common single-victim killings.


To give you a sense of how unusual America’s gun violence problem is, consider the daily death toll compared with other Western democracies. The chart below imagines that the populations of those countries were the same as the population of the United States.


No Other Rich Western Country Comes Close

Gun homicides per day if each country had the same population as the U.S.

$40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
G.D.P. per capita
United States
Luxembourg
Norway
Ireland
Austria
Germany
Australia
Canada
Iceland
Finland
Spain
Slovenia
Portugal
Lithuania
Greece


Shown are Western countries that have G.D.P. per capita over $25,000 and that make statistics on gun homicides available.


Sources: Small Arms Survey (2007–12 average); World Bank


International comparisons help highlight how exceptional the United States is: In a nation where the right to bear arms is cherished by much of the population, gun homicides are a significant public health concern. For men 15 to 29, they are the third-leading cause of death, after accidents and suicides. In other high-income countries, gun homicides are unusual events. The Paris attacks in November 2015 killed 130 people, which is nearly as many as die from gun homicides in all of France in a typical year. But even if France had a mass shooting as deadly as the Paris attacks every month, its annual rate of gun homicide death would be lower than that in the United States.


The accompanying table shows the mortality rates for gun homicides in a variety of countries, along with a correspondingly likely cause of death in the United States.


Being killed with a gun here:

Is about as likely as
dying of ________ in the U.S.Deaths per mil.


El SalvadorHeart attack446.3
MexicoPancreatic cancer121.7
United StatesCar accident*31.2
ChileMotorcycle accident14.3
IsraelBuilding fire7.5
CanadaAlcohol poisoning5.6
IrelandDrowning in a lake, river or ocean4.8
NetherlandsAccidental gas poisoning2.3
GermanyContact with a thrown or falling object2.1
FranceHypothermia2.0
AustriaDrowning in a swimming pool1.9
AustraliaFalling from a building or structure1.7
ChinaPlane crash1.6
SpainExposure to excessive natural heat1.6
New ZealandFalling from a ladder1.5
PolandBicycle-car crash1.1
EnglandContact with agricultural machinery0.9
NorwayAccidental hanging or strangulation0.9
IcelandElectrocution0.6
ScotlandCataclysmic storms0.5
South KoreaBeing crushed or pinched between objects0.4
JapanLightning strike0.1


Note: Rates are averages of data available from 2007 to 2012; car accidents includes car occupants only; not van, truck, motorcycle or bus accidents


Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Small Arms Survey



Our gun homicide numbers come from the Small Arms Survey, a Swiss nonprofit affiliated with the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, and represent the average gun homicide death rates with data available in those countries between 2007 and 2012. (Data was unavailable for some countries in later years of that period). The United States death rates come from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention over those same years. There are more recent statistics on American gun deaths, like the F.B.I. number at the top of this article, but we chose these years to provide fair comparisons. We focused on the rates of gun homicides; the overall rate of gun deaths is substantially higher, because suicides make up a majority of gun deaths in the United States and are also higher than in other developed countries.



The table is not meant to make light of rare causes of death. Instead, we show them as a way to help think meaningfully about the differences among gun death rates.

The rate of gun violence in the United States is not the highest in the world. In parts of Central America, Africa and the Middle East, the gun death rates are even higher — close to those from heart attacks and lung cancer in the United States. In neighboring Mexico, where a drug war rages, 122 people per million die in a gun homicide, a rate slightly higher than Americans’ death rate from pancreatic cancer. But the countries with those levels of gun violence are not like the United States in many other ways, including G.D.P., life expectancy and education. Among developed democracies, the United States is an outlier.
_____________________________________________

The constant merchandising and advertising of violent video games ----violent HOLLYWOOD movies-----happening these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA was of course MOVING FORWARD to a warrior/gun society.


When we think of local gun violence in our schools---in our US city communities---innocent people dying we want to get rid of that violence. When we watch MOVING FORWARD 5% pols and players installing US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES to operate here in US as they do overseas----AND watch as HOMELAND SECURITY is headed by people more and more the sociopaths tied to far-right wing authoritarian and militaristic structures----here we have TRUMP installing that 5% player tied to torture killing GENEVA CONVENTION heading the lead secret society in our US CITY global policing and security corporation structure.

CIVILIZED SOCIETIES DO NOT END 99% GUN VIOLENCE BY CREATING MORE AND MORE REPRESSIVE, CRIMINAL AND CORRUPT GOVERNING STRUCTURES. THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH GUN VIOLENCE.


We can eliminate all guns owned by US 99% WE THE PEOPLE and if these far-right wing global corporate fascist structures are allowed to be built-----these deaths by guns will still soar----the guns being held simply by another set of hands.

This is why REAL LEFT social progressive stance on gun control asks this?  Today we are seeing a few thousand US public school deaths by guns over a few years.  MOVING FORWARD has goals of global civil unrest WW3 taking these same US children grown to young adults to holding guns and killing for the same global banking 1%.


I went to prison for disclosing the CIA’s torture. Gina Haspel helped cover it up.

1:13
Who is Gina Haspel?


President Trump has nominated Gina Haspel, a 33-year CIA veteran, to head the agency. (Victoria Walker, Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)

By John Kiriakou March 16


John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He co-hosts "Loud and Clear" on Sputnik Radio, which is funded by the Russian government.


I was inside the CIA’s Langley, Va., headquarters on Sept. 11, 2001. Like all Americans, I was traumatized, and I volunteered to go overseas to help bring al-Qaeda’s leaders to justice. I headed counterterrorism operations in Pakistan from January to May 2002. My team captured dozens of al-Qaeda fighters, including senior training-camp commanders. One of the fighters whom I played an integral role in capturing was Abu Zubaida, mistakenly thought at the time to be the third-ranking person in the militant group.


By that May, the CIA had decided to torture him. When I returned to CIA headquarters that month, a senior officer in the Counterterrorism Center asked me if I wanted to be “trained in the use of enhanced interrogation techniques.” I had never heard the term, so I asked what it meant. After a brief explanation, I declined. I said that I had a moral and ethical problem with torture and that — the judgment of the Justice Department notwithstanding — I thought it was illegal.


Unfortunately, there were plenty of people in the U.S. government who were all too willing to allow the practice to go on. One of them was Gina Haspel, whom President Trump nominated Tuesday as the CIA’s next director.


Putting Haspel in charge of the CIA would undo attempts by the agency — and the nation — to repudiate torture. The message this sends to the CIA workforce is simple: Engage in war crimes, in crimes against humanity, and you’ll get promoted. Don’t worry about the law. Don’t worry about ethics. Don’t worry about morality or the fact that torture doesn’t even work. Go ahead and do it anyway. We’ll cover for you. And you can destroy the evidence, too.


Described in the media as a “seasoned intelligence veteran,” Haspel has been at the CIA for 33 years, both at headquarters and in senior positions overseas. Now the deputy director, she has tried hard to stay out of the public eye. Mike Pompeo, the outgoing CIA director and secretary of state designee, has lauded her “uncanny ability to get things done and inspire those around her.”


I’m sure that’s true for some. But many of the rest of us who knew and worked with Haspel at the CIA called her “Bloody Gina.”


The CIA will not let me repeat her résumé or the widely reported specifics of how her work fit into the agency’s torture program, calling such details “currently and properly classified.” But I can say that Haspel was a protege of and chief of staff for Jose Rodriguez, the CIA’s notorious former deputy director for operations and former director of the Counterterrorism Center. And that Rodriguez eventually assigned Haspel to order the destruction of videotaped evidence of the torture of Abu Zubaida. The Justice Department investigated, but no one was ever charged in connection with the incident.


CIA officers and psychologists under contract to the agency began torturing Abu Zubaida on Aug. 1, 2002. The techniques were supposed to be incremental, starting with an open-palmed slap to the belly or the face. But the operatives where he was held decided to start with the toughest method. They waterboarded Abu Zubaida 83 times. They later subjected him to sleep deprivation; they kept him locked in a large dog cage for weeks at a time; they locked him in a coffin-size box and, knowing that he had an irrational fear of insects, put bugs in it with him. 


Rodriguez would later tell reporters that the torture worked and that Abu Zubaida provided actionable intelligence that disrupted attacks and saved American lives. We know, thanks to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on CIA torture and the personal testimony of FBI interrogator Ali Soufan , that this was false.


I knew what was happening to Abu Zubaida because of my position in CIA operations at the time. I kept my mouth shut about it, even after I left the CIA in 2004. But by 2007, I had had enough. 


President George W. Bush had steadfastly denied to the American people that there was a torture program. I knew that was a lie. I knew torture didn’t work. And I knew it was illegal. So in December 2007, I granted an interview to ABC News in which I said that the CIA was torturing its prisoners, that torture was official U.S. government policy and that the policy had been personally approved by the president. The FBI began investigating me immediately. 


A year later, the Justice Department concluded that I had not committed a crime. But CIA leaders were still furious that I had aired the agency’s dirty laundry. The CIA asked the new Obama Justice Department to reopen the case against me. It did, and three years later, I was charged with five felonies , including three counts of espionage, resulting from that ABC News interview and a subsequent interview with the New York Times . Of course, I hadn’t committed espionage, and the charges were eventually dropped, but only after I agreed to plea to a lesser charge. I served 23 months in prison.


It was worth every day. Largely because the CIA’s conduct became public, Congress has specifically prohibited waterboarding and other techniques that the agency used at the secret sites. A ban on torture is now the law of the land.


But while I went to prison for disclosing the torture program, Haspel is about to get a promotion despite her connection to it. Trump’s move hurts morale among CIA officers who recognize that torture is wrong. It comforts people at the agency who still believe “enhanced interrogation” is somehow acceptable. I spoke with a senior officer this past week who said, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” There’s an attitude of defeatism among opponents of torture.


And the message it sends to our friends and allies (and the countries we criticize in the State Department’s annual human rights reports) is this: We say we’re a shining city on a hill, a beacon of respect for human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and the rule of law. But actually, that’s nonsense. We say those things when it’s expedient. We say them to make ourselves feel good. But when push comes to shove, we do what we want, international law be damned.


The meaning of Haspel’s nomination won’t be lost on our enemies, either. The torture program and similar abuses at military-run prisons in Iraq were among the greatest recruitment tools that al-Qaeda, the Islamic State and other bad actors ever had, according to legal experts, U.S. lawmakers and even the militants themselves. It energized them and gave them something to rally against. It sowed an even deeper hatred of the United States among militant groups. It swelled their ranks. It was no coincidence that the Islamic State paraded its prisoners in front of cameras wearing orange jumpsuits (like those worn by Guantanamo Bay detainees) before beheading them. Haspel and the others at the CIA who engineered and oversaw the torture program are at least partially responsible for that, because they showed the world how the United States sometimes treats captives. 


Do we Americans want to remain a nation that tortures people, like North Korea, China and Iran? Are we proud of the era when we snatched people from one country and sent them to another to be interrogated in secret prisons? Do we want to be the country that cynically preaches human rights and then violates those same rights when we think nobody is looking? 


Our country cannot afford that. We cannot look the other way. We cannot reward the torturers. Gina Haspel has no business running the CIA.
_______________________________________________


CODE PINK is one of those global NGOs we see tied to UNITED NATIONS.  Here we see this group identifying the REAL GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM problem of GUN CONTROL-----the growing militarization and authoritarian criminal structures in our US government------JROTC of course is not to blame------left social progressives have always fought to keep military groups off k-university campuses so we agree with this---but CODE PINK is saying nothing about the GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM MOVING FORWARD US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES and ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1%.  

We cannot FIX GUN VIOLENCE by flipping from civilians killing each other to government killing civilians.

This is yet another example of what should be a left labor and justice organization ----for peace-----leading on issues that will not FIX THESE MOVING FORWARD PROBLEMS.  Again, our local 99% of activist citizens really want to help solve these issues of peace----those at the national level are SILENT ON GOALS THEY KNOW WILL MAKE PEACE IMPOSSIBLE.


Code Pink Thinks it's Found the Real Culprit in the Parkland Shooting

Cortney O'Brien
|
Posted: Mar 16, 2018 3:15 PM


Code Pink, the controversial liberal activist group that has disrupted countless congressional hearings, has reportedly found the real culprit in the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School - JROTC programs.


Nikolas Cruz, the 19-year-old killer, “was an expert marksman because he was trained by the U.S. Army JROTC program,” Code Pink asserts.


There's only one thing to do.
The school shooting in FL has once again highlighted the role of the military in our lives and in our schools.  It’s time to stop the militarization of our children and end the JROTC program.  The Parkland high school JROTC program taught Nikolas Cruz to shoot an AR-15 and was funded by the NRA.  Our schools should be filled with trained educators, not a proving ground for military-style assault rifles.


Tell Senator McCain and Representative Thornberry to take the war machine out of our schools! The JROTC program must end immediately. The money should be directed back into classrooms that educate our children.


Of course, Code Pink has their sights on the NRA too.

Congressional hearing about Parkland shooting, guns and school safety happening now @SenFeinstein says there is nothing we can do except say "sorry". Yes there is. We must pass gun laws, get JROTC and NRA out of our schools and #DivestFromWar pic.twitter.com/kHGI0kgaZZ

— CODEPINK (@codepink) March 14, 2018It's amazing we have to say this, but the NRA and the JROTC are not to blame. They did not train Cruz to kill 17 people in cold blood. Cruz, as we have learned, is a mentally disturbed young man who was already on the FBI's radar before he showed up at the school with the intent to murder.



Code Pink did not mention on its campaign page that one of the heroes in the Parkland shooting was 15-year-old Peter Wang, a JROTC cadet. When the bullets started raining down on his peers, Wang stayed to hold a door open for them to escape. He was killed in the action. West Point Academy awarded him a posthumous admission in his honor. Wang was also given the Army’s Medal of Heroism, along with two other cadets, Alaina Petty and Martin Duque, who were also slain that day.

______________________________________________



We pick on CODE PINK because it is the current national media darling on a LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE issue of ANTI-WAR. Our point is this: when we attach at a local level to global NGOs that NEVER MENTION STOPPING MOVING FORWARD----never mention that ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE will be only for the global 1% with continuous wars for more decades to come.....they are not being PROACTIVE----they are being REACTIVE-----in SYRIA today----

We will not END WAR until we END MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE and that will not happen if we continue US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.


DO WE HEAR CODE PINK SHOUTING AGAINST US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES OR ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE? NO.

This is why our US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE must stop following followers and be leaders against the REAL GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM issues...this discussion being GUN CONTROL and DEATHS BY GUNS.



Code Pink protests war, urges love instead

Subscribe to Gainesville Sun
By Charly Hillman / Correspondent
Posted Feb 15, 2009 at 12:01 AM

With a banner that read, “Don’t enlist, stay and kiss, that way everyone makes out,” it was hard to miss the activists outside the National Guard recruiting office.


While many spent Valentine’s Day with a loved one, members of Code Pink for Peace and numerous volunteers made a broader gesture than flowers and chocolates.


With a banner that read, “Don’t enlist, stay and kiss, that way everyone makes out,” it was hard to miss the activists outside the National Guard recruiting office at 319 NW 13th St. on Saturday afternoon.
Michelle Harris, 20, president of Campus Code Pink for Peace, said she and other volunteers were picketing at recruiting offices as part of a nationwide protest.


“We call on motherly compassion and empathy to end the war and bring our soldiers home safely,” Harris said. “This is our way of creatively sharing the love.“
Some women who are part of Code Pink for Peace have children currently enlisted or who were war casualties, Harris said.


Code Pink for Peace also gets much support from veterans who have endorsed the cause, Harris said. Iraq Veterans Against the War, also known as IVAW, is an influential supporter, she said.
Jorge Alvarez, 24, is a veteran and represented IVAW at the protest. He enlisted when he was 18 years old and has been out of the service now for a year and nine months.


“I was based out of California and went to Iraq twice,” Alvarez said. “I have been involved with IVAW since.“
Standing next to a sign that read, “Honk if you love soldiers and hate war,” Jacque Betz, local coordinator for Code Pink, got a number of honks from cars that drove by.


“There is no legal standing for our guard to fight a war on foreign soil,” Betz said. “We want to bring our Florida guard home.”

Michael Heaney, assistant UF professor in political science and one of those participating on Saturday, said has been involved with the anti-war movement since 2002.


“I think Code Pink is the most important anti-war organization in America,” Heaney said. “They are a brave group of people to stand up to the government, to stick up for peace, and I want to be a part of that.”

________________________________________________
Here is a LONG ISLAND, NY far-right wing global banking 1% neo-liberal running as a DEMOCRAT saying just what would be needed to start that CIVIL UNREST-----GRAB OUR GUNS TO SHOW TRUMP the need to protect our Constitutional rights. Now, a LONG ISLAND, NY candidate silent these few decades of ROBBER BARON FLEECING OF AMERICA which really did ignore all US Constitutional and US Rule of Law -----led by this candidate's GLOBAL WALL STREET is probably not REALLY interested in our US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE gun rights.
This is NY POST which has always been tabloid news----but this is what global banking will use to claim there are SOVEREIGN TERRORISTS in America wanting to use GUNS AND VIOLENCE to overthrow a US government.
PEACEFUL, ROLLING PROTESTS FOR WEEKS AND MONTHS IN ALL US CITIES----NO GUNS OR VIOLENCE----THAT WILL BE THOSE DASTARDLY 5% ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT CIVIL UNREST FREEMASON/GREEKS.

Congressman suggests Second Amendment as means of opposing Trump

By Carl Campanile

March 19, 2018 | 2:59am


A Democratic congressman from Long Island implied that Americans should grab weapons and oppose President Trump by force, if the commander-in-chief doesn’t follow the Constitution.


Rep. Tom Suozzi made the remark to constituents at a town hall last week, saying that folks opposed to Trump might resort to the “Second Amendment.”


“It’s really a matter of putting public pressure on the president,” Suozzi said in a newly released video of the March 12 talk in Huntington. “This is where the Second Amendment comes in, quite frankly, because you know, what if the president was to ignore the courts? What would you do? What would we do?”


A listener then blurts out, “What’s the Second Amendment?”
The left-leaning Democrat says, “The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms.”
The spectators laughed — some nervously. Republicans were not amused.
“This video is incredibly disturbing. It’s surreal to watch a sitting member of Congress suggest that his constituents should take up arms against the president of the United States,” said National Republican Campaign Committee spokesman Chris Martin.


Suozzi political adviser Kim Devlin denied the pol was “advocating for an armed insurrection.”
But the Suozzi campaign at the same time seemed to double down on the comments, as they forwarded a line penned by Thomas Jefferson that called for armed resistance.


“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms,” the quote said.


Suozzi’s comment seems to conflict with his recent push for gun control following the Parkland, Florida, school shooting.


Suozzi even participated in the March 14 student walkout for gun control outside the US Capitol — and called on the young people of his district to back tightened gun laws.


“I think we should engage the high school students of #NY03, and all of Long Island, to promote gun violence prevention legislation,” he said in a Feb. 21 tweet.
Trump himself has in the past used language similar to Suozzi’s. During the 2016 campaign, he told a crowd at a rally in North Carolina that if Hillary Clinton were elected and able to nominate a Supreme Court justice, there would be nothing that gun supporters could do. He then added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”


The remark was widely seen as a veiled call for violence, though Trump denied that was his meaning.
Suozzi, a first-term congressman elected in 2016, is seeking re-election this fall. He formerly served as Nassau County executive.


He is expected to easily win the Democratic primary and face GOP challenger Dan Debono, a former US Navy SEAL, in the general election.
______________________________________________

We will end this week's discussion of GUN CONTROL AND DEATH BY GUN tomorrow by returning to the age-old question in US over what the US Constitution means by WELL-REGULATED PUBLIC MILITIA.

The last article had a FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% CLINTON NE-O-LIBERAL pretending to be protecting our civil rights to own guns.  What we are getting is US national media starting to use terms like ARMED RESISTANCE when that is not what hardly any of our 99% WE THE PEOPLE are thinking.



'But the Suozzi campaign at the same time seemed to double down on the comments, as they forwarded a line penned by Thomas Jefferson that called for armed resistance.


“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms,” the quote said'.

Please keep in mind the discussions on all US public policy these few decades in national media and journals has been written by FAR-RIGHT WING---whether Clinton neo-liberal or right wing Republican.  We had through modern history much public policy written by REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES on just this issue of WELL-REGULATED PUBLIC MILITIA AND 2ND AMENDMENT----nowhere to be found in today's GOOGLE SEARCH.

Basically, most Americans remember PAUL REVERE riding to every MIDDLESEX village and farm for country folks to BE UP AND TO BE ARMED to fight the BRITISH INVASION.


One way to know a right wing corporate discussion of WELL-REGULATED MILITIA----is never seeing our hearing the word PUBLIC MILITIA----that was central in these discussions for these few centuries.



What the Founding Fathers Meant by the “Militia”


Tenche Coxe: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.


Tench Coxe: “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.


Tench Coxe: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” in “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” under the pseudonym “A Pennsylvanian” in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.


Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.)


Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.” Rep. of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789).


Alexander Hamilton: “…that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms.” (Federalist Paper #29)


Alexander Hamilton: “Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped.” (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}” There is something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)


Alexander Hamilton: “The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.2


Patrick Henry: “The people have a right to keep and bear arms.” (Elliott, Debates at 185)

Patrick Henry: “Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?, 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.


Patrick Henry: “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.


Thomas Jefferson: “And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms… The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”, letter to William S. Smith, 1787, in S. Padover (Ed.), Jefferson, On Democracy (1939), p. 20.


Thomas Jefferson In his Commonplace Book, Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”


Thomas Jefferson: “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.” Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 (Foley, Ed., 1967).


Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”, Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)



Richard Henry Lee: “To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…” (LIGHT HORSE HARRY) LEE, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788)


Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

President James Madison: “…to support the Constitution, which is the cement of the Union, as well in its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the States and to the people as equally incorporated with and essential to the success of the general system;… to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics – that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe;…” – President James Madison, First Inaugural address, Saturday, March 4, 1809.


James Madison: “A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789, emphasis added.


James Madison: “As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia.” (notes of debates in the 1787 Federal Convention)


George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)


Thomas Paine: “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside… Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894)


William Rawle: “In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, in the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulation as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.” – William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America” (1829)


Joseph Story: “The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.” – Joseph Story. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.


Joseph Story (Supreme Court Justice): “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic…”
Sir George Tucker: “The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – Sir George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)


George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”


IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a “regular” army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a “well regulated” army was simply one that was “well equipped” and organized. It does not refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term “standing army” or “regulars” to describe a professional army. Therefore, “a well regulated militia” only means a well equipped militia that was organized and maintained internal discipline. It does not imply the modern meaning of “regulated,” which means controlled or administered by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution, but not from the Second Amendment.


0 Comments

March 19th, 2018

3/19/2018

0 Comments

 
Here is MA 'Democratic' pol having supported a PA 'Democratic candidate both of which are far-right wing global banking 1%----and indeed, CLINTON/OBAMA neo-liberals are CIA/Homeland Security/privatized global mercenary security corporations.

This is a good start for GUN PUBLIC POLICY as 99% US WE THE PEOPLE watch all of our US, state, and local public military, state guard, and local policing and security with BUSH/OBAMA having staged militarized policing and equipment sent to our local towns and cities.



Seth Moulton says he’ll consider hiring Andrew McCabe to save his pension - The Boston Globe
On Twitter, Seth Moulton said he would consider hiring the fired FBI deputy director to save his pension after two decades of work in the bureau. McCabe was fired days…

bostonglobe.com

We have discussed often the concerns of public policy creating a consolidated privatized monopoly of US secret societies like the FBI, CIA, DIA-----the public policy created during CLINTON ERA 1990s soared during BUSH ERA----sent sky-high during OBAMA ERA MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GLOBAL MILITARY SECURITY for all Foreign Economic Zones.  We know the US FBI is being defunded and employees enfolded into CIA because FBI is a FEDERAL NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY at a time when US Federal structures are being dismantled and replaced by international security, policing, and secret societies.  These are the secret agencies having powers of covert/overt activities dealing with GUNS ----whether global gun cartels or local civil unrest. 

WHEN WE ALLOW SECRET MILITARIZED SOCIETIES BECOME EXPANDED 99% OF US WE THE PEOPLE LOSE ALL RIGHTS, FREEDOMS, AND PATHWAY TO JUSTICE.

We also are exposing our US local cities and towns to lots of GUN and private military policing whose policies are written by global banking 1%.


We also are exposing our US local cities and towns to lots of GUN and private military policing whose policies are written by global banking 1%. This article written in 2003--Bush-era as concerns by US 99% soared with these policies.

WE WILL DISCUSS THE GUN POLICY GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM FIRST ---JUST REMINDING OF CONCERNS OF CONSOLIDATION, PRIVATIZATION, AND EXPANSION OF THESE SECRET SOCIETIES.




Public, Private Sectors Piece Together Homeland Security Efforts

May 2003
By Henry S. Kenyon and Maryann Lawlor
 About the Author



In the 18 months following the terrorist attacks, the U.S. government has undergone a series of structural changes. At the state and federal levels, efforts are underway to enhance communications and information-sharing infrastructures among agencies and other organizations. Public institutions also have reached out to the private sector to form partnerships designed to protect vital national infrastructures.



The creation of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security brings together 22 government agencies. The need to coordinate this undertaking and the opportunities presented by this shift across all sectors were discussed at AFCEA International’s second homeland security conference titled “Securing America: Challenge and Opportunity,” held February 26-27 at the Ronald Regan International Trade Center, Washington, D.C.


The conference’s first speaker, Mark Holman, public policy adviser, Blank Rome Government Relations LLC, detailed some of the ways the world and government have changed since the terrorist attacks. Holman, who is the former deputy assistant to the president for homeland security, said establishing the Transportation Security Administration was a key step toward travel safety. However, he pointed out that creating the organization has been more like building a ship at sea than like turning a ship at sea.


Other changes include revising the student visa system, designating immediate funding for first-responder support and creating a new mission statement for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Collaboration has increased among law enforcement agencies. Information sharing between the FBI and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is much better than it has been historically, and intelligence is moving both horizontally and vertically in these organizations, Holman stated.


James Champy, chairman of Perot Systems Corporation’s consulting practice, and corporate vice president, shared suggestions about how to make the government reorganization under the Homeland Security Department a success. During the morning’s second speech, Champy said that the same principles governing successful corporate mergers apply to government agencies.


“Leaders need to create a new value to everyone involved. No one will come to the table unless there is something in it for them,” Champy said. “In the past, when companies have cut personnel, the people left have a sense of burden, not exhilaration. As the Department of Homeland Security is formed, there will be consolidation, but there can’t be a sense of burden.”


Three principles must guide reorganization, he said. First, thinking must shift toward transparency when information is involved. Rather than protecting all information and deciding what to share, organizations must think in terms of sharing all information then choosing carefully what data must be kept secret. Standardization, the second principle, is paramount. “If we standardize the right stuff, it frees up time to focus on real issues,” Champy stated.


Harmonization in processes is the third basic principle that must guide reorganization. Businesses or government agencies must be interoperable at a high level, which means agreeing to follow a single set of processes, he said.


The conference’s first panel featured representatives from the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency (NSA), who were forthcoming about past and present problems. Larry Castro, coordinator for homeland security support, NSA, offered that the barrier between law enforcement and intelligence agencies primarily is the result of their vastly different cultures. While law enforcement preserves information flow, intelligence-gathering groups are concerned about protecting sources and methods.


John Pistole, deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, FBI, pointed out that the PATRIOT Act greatly facilitates information sharing, and today a triage is performed on data to determine the seriousness of a threat. However, adequate technology is still not in place to share information as quickly as possible.


Panelists agreed that a community strategy for sharing information has not yet been established. The Homeland Security Department will provide the required leadership to accomplish this task. In the interim, the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, a joint project between the FBI and CIA, acts as an analytical forum to allow collaboration, and center personnel can reach into NSA resources.


Speaking at Wednesday’s luncheon, Don Peterson, chief executive officer, Avaya Incorporated, said communications are central for preparedness and crisis response, and it is the commercial sector’s responsibility to protect the infrastructure. Customers and vendors must work together to create solid networks, he offered. Systems must be located in disparate places and be capable of handling balanced communications loads. The problems encountered on September 11, 2001, demonstrated that too many systems were at their full capacity; backup was not created; and contingency plans are necessary, he added.


Peterson offered suggestions to government agencies for the future. “Don’t reinvent the network. Rethink how the network is deployed. Ask for command and control by name, and put it at the forefront in requests for proposals. Challenge your suppliers about their security claims and continuity. You need single, consistent environments,” he advised.


Panelists from Wednesday afternoon’s first session echoed Peterson’s concerns. Local emergency responders must be able to communicate, collaborate and demonstrate, said Christopher David, chief technology officer for the Department of Technology Services, Arlington County, Virginia. “We need to emphasize the process side because the information technology fails if we don’t do that,” David stated at the Emergency Preparedness and Response panel session. It is important to stay at least two steps ahead in planning and three steps ahead in training, he added.


Brenton Greene, deputy manager, National Communications System, pointed out that his organization collaborates with industry to restore networks, but the private sector does the work. State and local organizations are a primary thrust when increasing capabilities. A number of new programs will ensure that first responders will be able to communicate during an emergency.


The terrorist attacks proved that federal response plans work regardless of the cause of the emergency, said Rose Parkes, chief information officer, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). However, several improvements have been put into place. Disaster management is one of 24 e-government initiatives that will provide an easy-to-use point of access to disaster management information. Project SAFECOM is an interagency initiative to accelerate wireless communications interoperability across federal, state, tribal and local public safety jurisdictions and disciplines.


Dr. William Jeffrey, senior director for research, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Homeland Security Council, outlined three current priorities. First, the Homeland Security Department is developing standards for equipment and testing. During the anthrax attack, different detection devices gave various results. A standard will ensure that the same threshold is being used.


Second, equipment is being sought that is lower in cost but has the same capabilities. Emergency response personnel can use the same equipment the military uses, Jeffrey pointed out, so dual use needs to be leveraged.

KNOW WHAT????  BABY BOOMERS LIVED THROUGH WHAT WAS A STRONG, WELL-FUNDED PUBLIC EMERGENCY SYSTEM DOING JUST WHAT THESE GLOBAL CORPORATE 'partners' ARE INSTALLING. 



Finally, training is a priority. “The first people to respond are likely to be the local agencies. If they don’t train, the equipment may not be used or may be used incorrectly,” Jeffrey said.


Members of Wednesday’s final panel answered questions from the audience about protection against weapons of mass destruction. Panelists agreed that families and corporations should have reasonable plans for emergency situations, natural as well as manmade. For example, they should have a first-aid kit, flashlights and a radio. In addition, family members and company employees should determine where to meet or who to call if an emergency occurs when they are separated.


Panelists were quick to point out that today’s threats are so heterogeneous that one plan cannot address all crises. However, they concurred that getting information to the public is critical so that people can respond appropriately.



Thursday’s session began with a speech by Lt. Gen. Joseph Kellogg Jr., USA, director, command, control, communications and computer systems, J-6, the Joint Staff. The general outlined U.S. Northern Command’s responsibilities for homeland defense and civil support. For the command to be effective, gaps in information awareness must be closed, integrating technology to an unprecedented degree. He noted that this summer, a proof-of-concept system integrating data for the entire command will be launched. It will track incidents and alerts, detecting potential terrorist threats before they occur.


Former Michigan Governor John Engler, president of state and local government solutions and vice president of EDS Federal Government Solutions, spoke about intra-agency and intergovernmental communications and interoperability. He cautioned that federal funding is necessary for state and local security efforts because many states face massive budget shortfalls. While state governments and communities have first-responder capabilities, homeland security needs are putting stress on them. Engler warned that unfunded mandates may become unmet mandates without the government’s help.



The morning panel session dealt with border and transportation security. Robert Perez, director of the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, highlighted the Customs Service’s homeland security efforts. The service has begun using automated risk management systems to locate and inspect potentially high-risk shipments. A major effort is the container security initiative, which is designed to extend container screenings out to the world’s major mega ports. Perez noted that the 10 busiest mega ports represent 50 percent of the trade coming into the United States.


Rear Adm. James C. Olson, USCG, director of operation capabilities, U.S. Coast Guard, described the Coast Guard’s Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) program. MDA creates a common operational picture for the service through an infrastructure that integrates data from sensors and command and control platforms. It will collect, analyze and collate maritime data and distribute it to government and private sector elements. The architecture taps a variety of sources such as the U.S. Defense Department and commercial sector while also providing and sharing information with them. The system offers near-real-time information sharing to identify threats, deploy forces and mitigate vulnerabilities, he said.


Michael Becraft, acting deputy commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), outlined the INS’ new role as a bureau in the Homeland Security Department. Among the challenges this bureau faces is how to protect the nation better while ensuring the continuity of the INS’ traditional missions. Other issues involve coordinating immigration services and enforcement with existing laws, integrating command and control across the department, creating seamless information-sharing systems and managing the merger of 177,000 employees. “There is no room to drop the ball,” he warned.



Luncheon speaker John Chambers, president and chief executive officer of Cisco Systems, outlined how the new threat environment has increased security concerns for computer networks. Addressing conference attendees via a live interactive telecast from California, Chambers explained that it is important to share information and technology across groups, such as government agencies. He added that security must move from closed networks to open systems because, although the old systems were considered secure, most attacks come from within. However, this creates challenges because intelligent information networks must be able to work with each other to identify attacks and intrusions.



The first afternoon session focused on protecting critical infrastructure and other key assets. Panel moderator Andy Purdy, senior adviser for information technology security and privacy, and deputy to the vice chair of the President’s Critical Infrastructure Advisory Board, noted that it is easy to forget about cyberspace when there is so much concern about physical terrorism. He added that a major cyberattack against the nation’s critical infrastructure may occur before action is taken.


The need for government to use industry to protect national infrastructures was discussed by Lt. Col. Kenneth Watson, USMC (Ret.), president, Partnership for Critical Infrastructure Security, and manager of critical infrastructure assurance at Cisco Systems. The colonel explained that, to enhance critical infrastructure assurance, the government must lead meetings to facilitate standards, fund research and raise awareness. Service providers need to promote the use of security features, monitor traffic flow and develop an incident response system. Additionally, vendors must provide default security features on their products, improve product development, create new technologies and develop operational best practices.


Dealing with connectivity conundrums for providing information technology for the Homeland Security Department was the final panel’s topic. Lt. Gen. Harry D. Raduege Jr., USAF, director of the Defense Information Systems Agency, highlighted similarities between Defense Department information technology efforts and those of the Homeland Security Department. He noted that the need for joint operations in the military parallels the new department’s need to communicate with other government agencies. Similar requirements exist for collaborative tools such as digital whiteboards, chat systems, file and desktop sharing mechanisms to provide common operational tools.


William P. Crowell, consultant and special adviser to the chairman and chief executive officer of SafeNet Incorporated, outlined the necessity of establishing working guidelines to balance privacy against the government’s access to information. The first goal is to maintain the constitutional rule to avoid any unreasonable searches. He added that access to private information should be controlled and rules instituted for searching government databases.

_____________________________________________


We want only to remind that what was once our 3 branches of US government with CHECKS AND BALANCES-----is now crony, corrupt, and having eliminated those strong, democratic checks and balances.  We gave an example here in Baltimore where our Baltimore Public Health, Medical Examiner's Office, and City Attorney's office are all corrupted to protecting what everyone knows is a corrupt and abusive Department of Police tasked with installing global militarized policing policies SHOOT FIRST ASK NO QUESTIONS.

Let's remember, US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE know these few decades have privatized all our national, state, and local county security and policing ------whether or not those agencies are still called 'PUBLIC' ----they are led by national HOMELAND SECURITY which is outsourced to global security and private policing corporations.  These policies were installed under CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----and no doubt TRUMP will MOVE FORWARD with growing far-right wing, authoritarian, militaristic stances.


While we do indeed need to address our thousand of school violence incidences-----we know MOVING FORWARD has goals of civil unrest---ties to global war with aims of killing hundreds of millions including today's US young people in K-12 and university. Keep your eye on the GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM GUN policies tied to KILLING A MAN/WOMAN.

Our global 99% of citizens and immigrants need to understand that a super-majority of US citizens do not want ----and do not elect pols installing these policies.



  • Covert Ops
  • Military-industrial complex
  • Feature
  • June 15, 2015 Issue
How Private Contractors Have Created a Shadow NSAA new cybersecurity elite moves between government and private practice, taking state secrets with them.


By Tim ShorrockTwitterMay 27, 2015

About a year ago, I wangled a media invitation to a “leadership dinner” in northern 
Virginia sponsored by the Intelligence and National Security Alliance.

INSA is a powerful but 
little-known coalition established in 2005 by companies working for the National Security Agency. In recent years, it has become the premier organization for the men and women who run the massive cyberintelligence-industrial complex that encircles Washington, DC.



The keynote speaker was Matthew Olsen, who was then the director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). He used his talk to bolster the morale of his colleagues, which had recently been stung by the public backlash against the NSA’s massive surveillance programs, the extent of which was still com-ing to light in the steady release of Edward Snowden’s huge trove of documents. “NSA is a national treasure,” Olsen declared. “Our national security depends on NSA’s continued capacity to collect this kind of information.” There was loud, sustained applause.



One of those clapping was a former Navy SEAL named Melchior Baltazar, the CEO of an up-and-coming company called SDL Government. Its niche, an eager young flack explained, is providing software that military agencies can use to translate hundreds of thousands of Twitter and Facebook postings into English and then search them rapidly for potential clues to terrorist plots or cybercrime.


It sounded like the ideal tool for the NSA. Just a few months earlier, Snowden had leaked documents revealing a secret program called PRISM, which gave the NSA direct access to the servers of tech firms, including Facebook and Google. He had also revealed that the NSA and its British counterpart, the GCHQ, had special units focused on cracking encryption codes for social media globally.


SDL’s software is perfectly designed for such a task. It might be useful, say, for a team of SEALs on a covert operation trying to make sure their cover wasn’t blown by somebody on social media—something that almost happened when an alert Twitter user in Pakistan picked up early signs of the secret US raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound. And, of course, we don’t know the extent to which the NSA could deploy it.


In any case, the software, SDL boasts, is “securely deployed on-premise, behind the firewall, at over 75 government organizations, including the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community.” No wonder Baltazar was at the INSA event, rubbing shoulders with the kings and queens of the intelligence-contracting industry.


* * *
This small company, and INSA itself, are vivid examples of the rise of a new class in America: the cyberintelligence ruling class.


These are the people--often referred to as “intelligence professionals”—who do the actual analytical and targeting work of the NSA and other agencies in America’s secret government. Over the last 15 years, thousands of former high-ranking intelligence officials and operatives have left their government posts and taken up senior positions at military contractors, consultancies, law firms, and private-equity firms. In their new jobs, they replicate what they did in government—often for the same agencies they left. But this time, their mission is strictly for-profit.


Take Olsen, who served as general counsel for the NSA and as a top lawyer for the Justice Department before joining the NCTC. He is now the president for consulting services of IronNet Cybersecurity, the company founded last year by Army Gen. Keith Alexander, the longest-
serving director in the history of the NSA. The firm is paid up to $1 million a month to consult with major banks and financial institutions in a “cyber war council” that will work with the NSA, the Treasury Department, and other agencies to deter cyberattacks that “could trigger financial panic,” Bloomberg reported last July.



Some members of this unique class are household names. Most cable-news viewers, for example, are familiar with Michael Chertoff and Michael Hayden, two of the top national-security officials in the Bush administration. In 2009, they left their positions at the Justice Department and the NSA, respectively, and created the Chertoff Group, one of Washington’s largest consulting firms, with a major emphasis on security.



Other members are unknown except to insiders. Sam Visner, whom I wrote about in a 2013 Nation article about NSA whistleblowers, is in this latter group. A former executive at the giant contractor SAIC, he was hired by Hayden in 2000 and tasked with managing the NSA’s privatized (and disastrous) Trailblazer program, which was outsourced to (who else?) SAIC. He returned to SAIC in 2003, then moved on to the government tech firm Computer Services Corporation, which not only manages but owns the NSA’s internal-communications system. For most of the last six years, as the cyberintelligence industry grew by leaps and bounds under Obama, Visner was running CSC’s massive cybersecurity program for the government.



Hardly a week goes by in Washington without a similar transition. In March, The Washington Post described cybersecurity law as “the latest hot job in the Washington revolving door.” Robert Mueller, the recently retired director of the FBI, had just joined the national-security law practice of WilmerHale. One of his latest tasks? Advising Keith Alexander as he tries to tamp down congressional outrage over his decision to hire two NSA officials, one of whom planned to work simultaneously for IronNet and the agency (he later withdrew).


Well, enough, you might say: Isn’t this simply a continuation of Washington’s historic revolving door?
The answer is no. As I see it, the cyberintelligence- industrial complex is qualitatively different from—and more dangerous than—the military-industrial complex identified by President Eisenhower in his famous farewell address. This is because its implications for democracy, inequality, and secrecy are far more insidious.


It is not new for American defense policies to be shaped by and for the 1 percent. Throughout US history, diplomatic and national-security officials have come directly from the ruling elite, and more often than not they have served those interests while in office. Allen and John Foster Dulles, the brothers and law partners who headed the CIA and the State Department during the Eisenhower administration, were classic examples, running multiple operations to support their own clients.


The Eisenhower era also saw the advent of retired generals moving into industry. In 1956, the radical sociologist C. Wright Mills published The Power Elite, a groundbreaking study of the institutions through which the corporations of his day wielded political and economic power. Mills was particularly disturbed by the spectacle of multinational companies appointing prominent generals to their boards. Among those who had traded in their uniforms for big business, he found, were some of the great heroes of World War II: Douglas MacArthur (Remington Rand), Lucius Clay (Continental Can), and Jimmy Doolittle (Shell Oil).



This “personnel traffic,” Mills wrote, symbolized “the great structural shift of modern American capitalism toward a permanent war economy.” It was a prescient analysis, but Mills was talking only of generals; the idea of high-level government officials going into the military business was unthinkable at the time.


The next several decades saw the rise of private security companies and consultancies run by former CIA and FBI agents. Once, in the early 1980s, I was startled to find myself seated next to William Colby, the notorious former CIA director, at a seminar on the Panama Canal. He was there representing a consortium of Japanese construction firms. And, of course, in 1982 Henry Kissinger walked away from his years as national-security adviser and secretary of state to start a corporate consulting firm that remains one of the most powerful in Washington.


Even as Cold War officials increasingly drifted toward the corporate world, there was one line they rarely crossed: Until the 1990s, taking positions at defense contractors was considered unseemly. Then came Frank Carlucci, a former CIA deputy director who served as national-
security adviser and defense secretary during Ronald Reagan’s second term. Within weeks of retiring, he had joined the boards of no fewer than nine major corporations, including three important military contractors.


This was too much for Caspar Weinberger, a former Bechtel executive who was Carlucci’s predecessor at the Pentagon. “Generally, I would not think it appropriate to serve on the board of a company that had extensive contractual relationships with the department, particularly not if they had those relationships while I was in office,” he told a reporter at the time. “Cap is entitled to his own preferences,” Carlucci sniffed in response. He went on to chair the Carlyle Group, the private-equity firm that had become the nation’s ninth-largest defense contractor by 2001.


* * *
With the end of the Cold War, Carlucci’s 
way became the norm. Intelligence and defense budgets were cut after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and thousands of CIA and NSA officers left government for positions with defense contractors. Demand for them grew during the Bosnian War, as the military and its intelligence agencies began hiring private companies to do work historically carried out by the state.

BOSNIAN WAR WAS BILL CLINTON ERA---THE EARLIER START OF OUTSOURCING TO GLOBAL CORPORATIONS.


Among them was Halliburton, the Texas oil-services and logistics firm. In 1995, after retiring as George H.W. Bush’s defense secretary, Dick Cheney became the CEO of Halliburton. Over the next five years, he transformed the company into one of the world’s largest military contractors. Around the same time, the elder Bush was hired as a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group. By the time Cheney became George W. Bush’s vice president in 2001, outsourcing was official policy, and the migration of senior-level government officials into the defense and intelligence industries was standard practice.


Then came the September 11 attacks, after which untold billions of dollars were poured into intelligence and surveillance. This ushered in the new age.


What we have now is a national-security class that simultaneously bridges the gap between private and public, merging government careers with jobs as corporate executives and consultants. By retaining their security clearances, many of its members have access to the most highly guarded intelligence, which they use to the benefit of their corporate and government clients. The power they wield is exponentially greater than that of their Cold War predecessors.


To see the difference, let’s take a closer look at the Chertoff Group and its best-known executive, Michael Hayden. Chertoff founded his consultancy in March 2009, barely two months after President Obama’s inauguration. The group’s cofounder was Chad Sweet, who had served as Chertoff’s chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and had earlier worked in the CIA’s National Clandestine Service. In effect, the pair re-created the national-security team that had provided much of the intelligence advice to Bush and Cheney, and they said as much in their literature. According to the firm’s website, the Chertoff Group provides “business and government leaders with the same kind of high-level, strategic thinking and diligent execution that have kept the American homeland and its people safe since 9/11.”


When Hayden came on board in April 2009, he emphasized continuity. “After serving for decades at the highest levels of the U.S. military and the U.S. intelligence services, I grew accustomed to working alongside remarkably talented and dedicated professionals,” the former NSA director wrote. “I wanted an opportunity to re-create the experience in the private sector.” And he did just that. One of the firm’s early recruits was Charles E. Allen, a legendary intelligence official who had recently served as director of intelligence for Chertoff’s DHS. Another principal with extensive NSA experience is Paul Schneider, Chertoff’s deputy secretary at DHS; from 2002 to 2003, he was Hayden’s senior acquisition executive at the NSA. That would have put him in charge of all of the NSA’s hugely expensive contracting, which exploded during Hayden’s reign from 1999 to 2005.


With other hires, Hayden created a kind of shadow NSA at the Chertoff Group. But this isn’t his only gig. He has also joined the boards of Motorola Solutions (a key NSA contractor) and Alion Science and Technology (likely one as well). Strangely, Hayden’s bio on the Alion website touts his role in domestic surveillance: “Under his guidance as the Director of NSA, the domestic telephone call database was created to monitor international communications to assist in locating terrorists.”


The Chertoff Group doesn’t disclose its clients. But one of its most important functions for both the state and its contractor allies is as a broker of mergers and acquisitions. These aren’t just “deals”; they also represent significant reorganizations within the intelligence community, which is 70 percent contracted and, like any other industry, requires centralization. Using its team of NSA, CIA, and DHS veterans (who have deep classified knowledge of their agencies’ contracting histories and future needs), the Chertoff Group has brokered dozens of deals through its subsidiary, Chertoff Capital. Its areas of focus include cybersecurity, intelligence and data analytics, defense technology and “Development and Diplomacy (‘Soft Power’).” You get the picture.


Another way the cyberintelligence elite exerts undue influence is through the media. Matthew Olsen, the former National Counterterrorism Center director and IronNet president, recently joined ABC News as a commentator. Hayden is a fixture on cable news, where he regularly extols the greatness of the NSA and its vast surveillance capabilities. Look into any “national-security analyst” on television, and you’ll find a member of this class. Watch carefully: Few of them ever diverge from the company (or NSA, or CIA) line. Worse, the networks rarely disclose these conflicts of interest.


Meanwhile, members of this dual public/private class rub shoulders at places like INSA, where they often meet behind closed doors to discuss classified programs. And even while making millions of dollars through their contracting and consulting gigs, these former officials advise the same agencies they profit from. Olsen, for example, was just named to the DHS Homeland Security Advisory Council. It’s a cozy, closed, and very profitable world.
* * *
So what does the existence of such a class mean? First off, it deepens inequality. We all know that corporations can buy access to lawmakers through hefty political donations. Now they have access to some of the state’s most closely held secrets. According to a declassified document obtained in April by The New York Times, Hayden and Alexander were “read into” Stellar Wind, the warrantless-surveillance program started after 9/11. They are bound by law not to divulge those secrets. But their knowledge based on those secrets is of unfathomable value to the corporations they advise on cybersecurity and acquisitions strategies. That knowledge isn’t shared with the public, but it is available to the companies that can afford it.


Second, it places participatory democracy at risk. The vast majority of Americans are excluded from the consequential discussions that take place at the cyber-intelligence elite’s secret meetings. While hashing over controversial programs such as domestic spying, offensive cyberintelligence operations, or FBI terrorist-entrapment programs, the state and corporate leaders at INSA—as well as other places where the new class meets—operate on a completely different plane from the rest of us. Meanwhile, the black hole of secrecy keeps the new hybrid class and its organizations immune from any meaningful oversight by either the executive branch or Congress.


To penetrate this shield, there’s a great need for more reporting and whistleblowing about the pernicious role of contractors in national security. Unfortunately, only a few journalists have explored the world of privatized spying. And strangely, virtually none of the documents leaked by Edward Snowden have focused on the corporate elephant that so clearly dominates the surveillance jungle. As far as I’ve been able to track, only one or two of the Snowden documents actually mention contractors.


One was released in 2014 as part of a Der Spiegel story on the NSA’s extensive collaboration with the German intelligence agency BND. The 2005 document identified an NSA code name as the “coverterm [sic] representing NSA’s contract with Computer Services Corporation (CSC) for mission support. All publicly available information regarding work on this contract…will be sanitized so that no association with NSA will be made.” This document has yet to be mentioned by either the Intercept or The Washington Post, the largest recipients of the Snowden trove.

In his many public appearances since 2013, including in the film Citizenfour, Snowden himself has played down his relationship with Booz Allen Hamilton, which employed him during his time with the NSA. Tom Drake, one of the whistleblowers who exposed the agency’s corrupt relationship with SAIC and Booz Allen and worked as a senior executive at the NSA until 2008, told me in April that Snowden most likely never had possession of the NSA’s contracts. Because Snowden was an infrastructure analyst, Drake said, “he wouldn’t have had access to that.” Contracts, he added, are stored in a “completely different system.”


But whether they come from Snowden or another whistleblower, documents on the contractor role at the NSA and other agencies are essential if we are to understand the totality of US spying programs and the full extent of the threats they pose. To confront the surveillance state, we also have to confront the cyberintelligence ruling class and expose it for what it really is: a joint venture of government officials and private-sector opportunists with massive power and zero accountability.

________________________________________________


STAND YOUR GROUND gun laws are made to sound populist for those US 99% of citizens loving their GUNS.  STAND YOUR GROUND gun laws are actually tied to global militarized policing and security that operate internationally outside of sovereign nation laws that have these few decades been killing 99% of global citizens for what is almost always found to be NO GOOD REASON.  Again, laws made to sound US POPULIST----in this case right wing POPULIST----do not have that goal at all.  Our 99% of right wing GUN LOVERS will be those losing gun rights along with all 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE.

Just as the policing issue of POLICE CAMERAS-----also a global private military policing policy made to look US populist----by national media highlighting a case or two in local courts------police cameras will not be used to protect our US 99% of citizens as the goal is simply to use these cameras to identify citizen locations inside personal homes and businesses.  This is why we called BALTIMORE'S POLICE CAMERA news FALSE FLAG as none of the officers were charged and found guilty but US citizens were given the idea this militarized policing policy helped a local citizen.


STAND YOU GROUND will end with global military police and security being allowed to KILL A MAN, WOMAN, OR CHILD needing no good reason with those families not able to access justice-----these policies happening overseas in regions due for FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE development already happening in our US cities these several years of OBAMA....no doubt MOVING FORWARD under TRUMP.


These Are the States That Have ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws

A Nevada case renews the debate over the controversial laws.

May 28, 2015·
David A. Love is a writer based in Philadelphia. His work has appeared on CNN and been published by The Grio, The Progressive, and The Guardian.



A Nevada murder trial is renewing the debate over America’s “Stand Your Ground” self-defense laws.


The story begins in February, when Cody Devine, 34, and Janai Wilson, 29, apparently went, without permission, to a vacant rental property near Reno, Nevada, owned by Wayne Burgarello. According to prosecutors, Burgarello, 73, found Devine and Wilson resting on a floor. He shot them. Burgarello maintains he was acting in self-defense under Nevada’s Stand Your Ground law.
Advertisement

The case is an important reminder about the debate over the controversial laws. Thirty-three states have adopted some form of Stand Your Ground law, according to the American Bar Association. Ten states have introduced bills to repeal or scale back their Stand Your Ground laws this year, and 13 states have pending legislation to strengthen or enact such laws.


Florida was the first state to enact such legislation, in 2005, under then Gov. Jeb Bush, who is currently a Republican presidential candidate. Florida essentially immunizes a person from criminal prosecution or civil action, provided he proves the use of force was necessary to prevent death or serious harm.

(Map: Courtesy Al Jazeera.com)
For years, much of the United States has followed the “castle doctrine,” which basically holds that a person’s home is her castle, which gives that person the right to defend her home through the use of deadly force—and without legal consequences. The National Rifle Association and the American Legislative Exchange Council—a group of conservative lawmakers—began a push for legislation that ultimately would upend the castle doctrine.


Stand Your Ground laws provide more latitude to invoke self-defense as grounds for killing someone posing an imminent threat. Typically, such laws permit the use of deadly force outside the home against a perpetrator, regardless of whether the perpetrator is armed.



It’s worth remembering that much of the country was introduced to Stand Your Ground laws after the 2012 fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black youth.


Stand Your Ground advocates—particularly the gun industry—argue that the laws are necessary protection from violent criminals. But critics—gun control groups, civil rights activists, and even some law enforcement officials—maintain that they fuel a trigger-happy culture. The renewed debate over Stand Your Ground comes at a remarkable point in our thinking about guns: For the first time in nearly two decades, a majority of Americans say it’s important to protect citizens’ right to own guns.


At a time when the killing of unarmed African Americans by police has given birth to the Black Lives Matter movement, Stand Your Ground critics point to racial fear and bias in the law’s implementation, with a particular appeal to white jurors.


In states with Stand Your Ground laws, justifiable homicides have increased 85 percent, and the shooting of a black person by a white person is deemed justifiable 17 percent of the time. Meanwhile, the shooting of whites by blacks is found justifiable in only 1 percent of cases.

________________________________________________

Global banking 1% pols and players on both sides of US party aisles----REPUBLICAN/DEMOCRAT are selling these gun laws as populist----heating tensions between 99% US citizens----when the goals of global militarized SHOOT FIRST ASK QUESTIONS LATER----will kill 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE----whether right wing or left wing.

Instead of corrupting left social progressive policies in this case global banking is corrupting what our right wing conservatives think are their GUN RIGHTS.

So, the REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE policy stance on STAND YOUR GROUND gun laws----is educating how these laws have goals for global security corporations tied to global corporate campuses in US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES that will harm 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE whether right wing or left.

When we spend all our protest energy simply trying to reverse one bad policy ====the gorilla-in-the-room issues MOVE FORWARD.


ALL GLOBAL FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES ALLOW GLOBAL CORPORATIONS AND GLOBAL 1% TO HAVE THEIR OWN GLOBAL MILITARY SECURITY AND POLICING.


Any populist NGO pretending to address this STAND YOUR GROUND issue as a left social progressive one---without shouting these few decades against MOVING FORWARD CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ----are PRETENDING to be fighting for GUN CONTROL.


“Stand Your Ground” Laws

The traditional presumption in the law—from the advent of the Hebrew Bible through the creation of Roman law, English common law, and American law—has been that if you could spare human life, it was incumbent upon you to do so. With “Stand  Your Ground” (aka “Shoot First”) laws, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and its partners in the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have turned 3,000 years of jurisprudence on its head. Now you can provoke a fight, and if losing that fight, kill the person you attacked.


The NRA’s law represents a dangerous and unprecedented escalation in the use of force in the public space, allowing individuals to kill when they merely fear “great bodily harm” (i.e., a fistfight, shoving match, etc.). The concept of responding with proportional force has been obliterated. Additionally, “Stand Your Ground” laws remove the duty to retreat from a conflict in public, allowing individuals to shoot and kill even when they could otherwise walk away safely from an altercation.

On April 26, 2005, Florida enacted a “Stand Your Ground” law at the behest of NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer. Today, a total of 27 states have these laws on the books.  The motive of the NRA and ALEC in promoting these laws is financial. Faced with a decades-long decline in gun ownership in America, the gun industry needs to keep selling new guns to old customers. In this case, compact “defensive handguns” that can be carried in public and used without fear of prosecution.


The message to would-be killers is now clear. You need not fear carrying your gun in public, or using it. If you do, just make sure you are the only one remaining to testify about the nature of the confrontation in question.


Until the NRA’s lethal agenda is countered by Americans of conscience, the inevitability of future Trayvon Martins will hang over America like a funeral shroud.


Sign a petition telling your state lawmakers you oppose “Stand Your Ground” laws.

_____________________________________________


National media and FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT 5% global banking player groups AS ALWAYS------create the tensions between right and left 99% knowing the goals of global banking 1% with these global militarized policing policies like STAND YOUR GROUND will kill all US 99% WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens.

Because a few national media cases were made viral ------pitting one population group against another----now each population group is being tied to thinking only about how this law effects them locally-----with NO DISCUSSION of public policy on the goal of bringing GLOBAL MILITARIZED SECURITY AND POLICING to US Foreign Economic Zones to operate under SHOOT FIRST ASK QUESTIONS LATER used overseas these few decades.



'Stand Your Ground Laws Complicate Matters For Black Gun Owners

February 27, 20172:10 PM ET
Karen Grigsby Bates

Karen Grigsby Bates'



The US national media KNOW THIS----as do our US national 'labor and justice' organizations----as do our US national ACLU-----but these groups are led by global banking 5% players---CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA so they do not lead on GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM gun issues.

The NRA-----could care less about US 99% of gun owners-----Bush era deregulated US gun laws so now our US gun corporations have become GLOBAL CORPORATIONS not needing US gun buyers.

ID Government


Idaho Senate backs ‘stand your ground’ gun law on party-line vote


UPDATED: Fri., March 2, 2018, 4:02 p.m.


BOISE - The Idaho Senate has passed a “stand your ground” gun law on a 29-6 party-line vote, with all Senate Republicans voting in favor and all Senate Democrats voting against.


“Idaho has some of the best self-defense laws in the country,” Sen. Todd Lakey, R-Nampa, told the Senate. “These concepts have long been recognized and described in Idaho code, case law and jury instructions,” starting with a 1909 Idaho Supreme Court decision.


Lakey said his bill takes all that case law, jury instruction and existing law and consolidates it into a single state code section. “It provides a better location for individuals to look and understand their rights of self defense in Idaho,” he said. “It also preserves and protects these principles so the courts continue to apply them.”


Sen. Grant Burgoyne, D-Boise, who like Lakey is an attorney, said he had no problem with writing the case law and jury instructions into statute, but he said the bill also changes the burden of proof. “My concern is immunizing people from having to explain their conduct in killing another human being,” Burgoyne said.


Sen. Cherie Buckner-Webb, D-Boise, called the bill unnecessary. “Idaho law currently recognizes one’s right to self-defense and it does not include a duty to retreat,” she told the Senate.


The bill now moves to the House, where it is co-sponsored by Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale. A competing, farther-reaching “stand your ground” bill also is pending in a House committee, but it hasn’t yet had a hearing.

Updated: March 2, 2018, 4:02 p.m.
_____________________________________________
We shared an article showing an IDAHO as passing that STAND YOUR GROUND LAW-----while states having LEFT social progressives wanting gun control----as OHIO are pretending to put up a battle.

Looking below we see those states having installed STAND YOUR GROUND gun laws are often SOUTHERN---are almost all REPUBLICAN-----AND all of them are tied to US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES tied to global security and policing wanting to use STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS as SHOOT FIRST ASK QUESTIONS LATER-----

What do all these states below have in common?  They are MOVING FORWARD as fast as they can -----the goal of ENDING US GUN RIGHT OWNERSHIP tied to SECOND AMENDMENT because global banking 1% ----for whom these FAKE RIGHT WING global banking 1% Republicans work---do not want 99% of citizens able to own guns.

So, left social progressives are being made to believe GUN OWNERSHIP laws ending that SECOND AMENDMENT is good---no one owning guns except those global militarized policing and security corporations.


As we stated----each of these states listed below are MOVING FORWARD as fast as they can----US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES with global corporate campuses.



Here are the states that have passed stand your ground laws:
  • Alabama
  • Alaska
  • Arizona
  • Florida
  • Georgia
  • Indiana
  • Kansas
  • Kentucky
  • Louisiana
  • Michigan
  • Mississippi
  • Montana
  • Nevada
  • New Hampshire
  • North Carolina
  • Ohio
  • Oklahoma
  • Pennsylvania
  • South Carolina
  • South Dakota
  • Tennessee
  • Texas
  • Utah
  • West Virginia
*************************************************

US 99% on both sides of this issue are BEING FOOLED.

Reporters for Columbus Dispatch, as Idaho Spokesman, as Baltimore Sun---all KNOW THESE GOALS. They are 5% global banking 5% freemason/Greek players.


Stand-your-ground bill prompts debate over need for changing Ohio gun law


By Jim Siegel
The Columbus Dispatch
@phrontpage

Posted Nov 14, 2017 at 4:59 PM Updated Nov 15, 2017 at 5:42 AM




Ohio’s never-ending stream of gun legislation continued Tuesday with debates over expanding who can carry them, where they can be carried, and providing more legal protections when they are used.


Most of the debate in the Senate Judiciary Committee was saved for a stand-your-ground bill that has drawn opposition from county prosecutors and law enforcement for its proposed modification of Ohio’s self-defense law.


Under current law, to claim self-defense a person has a duty to retreat, if possible, before using force. The bill would eliminate that duty, so long as the person has a legal right to be in that location.


The bill also would shift the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove that criminal defendants did not act in self-defense, instead of current law, where the defendant must prove he or she properly acted in self-defense when using deadly force.


“We’re asking the prosecution to prove a negative beyond a reasonable doubt ... that a defendant did not act in self-defense, and that’s very difficult to prove especially in a scenario where a defendant doesn’t take the stand,” said Sen. Sean O’Brien, D-Bazetta, a former assistant county prosecutor.


Jim Irvine, president of the Buckeye Firearms Association, said Ohio is the only state that “puts the burden on a crime victim to prove ... that they were justified. In every other state, the burden is on the state to prove someone committed a crime.


“Even if this passes, you’re going to have to show that you reasonably believed that the person you used force against had the ability and intent to do you harm.”

Some lawmakers, including Sen. Matt Dolan, R-Chagrin Falls, questioned how other states handle self-defense issues differently than Ohio.




“How in the world can the prosecution present evidence only known to the defendant?” he said. “How are they proving what the defendant knew or didn’t know at the time?”


The provision is part of Senate Bill 180, which also would reduce some concealed-carry firearm violations to minor misdemeanors.
“You’re opening up some door that really don’t need to be opened up here,” said Sen. Cecil Thomas, D-Cincinnati, a retired police officer.


The House passed a bill in 2014 that included a stand-your-ground provision, but the Senate declined to approve it.
The Office of the Ohio Public Defender is supporting the bill, arguing that a good prosecutor can show that no reasonable person could believe a defendant acted in self-defense, regardless of the burden of proof.
Ohio prosecutors are calling it a solution in search of a problem.


“We think current law has served Ohio well and prevented needless deaths,” said Louis Tobin, executive director of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, adding that it’s “reasonable” for a defendant to have to produce evidence that he acted in self-defense.


“I don’t think there’s an outcry in the state for a stand-your-ground bill like this.”
The Judiciary Committee also began hearings on a bill allowing an off-duty police officer or state Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) investigator to carry a gun in public venues, including hotels, retail stores, restaurants, office buildings, sports venues and amusement parks.


Senate Bill 208 applies to officers who carry a gun in the line of duty.
“The purpose of this bill is to enhance the safety of these public places and provide for a faster response in the case of an active shooter situation,” said Sen. Lou Terhar, R-Cincinnati. “This bill provides for well-trained individuals to respond to these types of incidents.”


The committee also heard about House Bill 79, which would allow medical members of a SWAT team to carry a gun.

0 Comments

March 16th, 2018

3/16/2018

0 Comments

 
Let's pull one more global banking 1% TALKING POINT tied to these same trade deals, tariff laws, and global banking COMPLEX FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS. What 99% WE THE PEOPLE have heard these few decades from the same right wing Republicans having voted as a majority with Bill Clinton to install is CHINA IS A CURRENCY MANIPULATOR.

Currency manipulation entails many factors including those of which we discussed this week. Global banking 1% derivative credit default swaps manipulate AND CORRUPT everything in the economic system. Our US currency the DOLLAR is becoming history because of these currency manipulations fueled by global Wall Street and European/UK banks-----China was simply a willing partner.

The goal of MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE DIGITAL CURRENCY as we discuss often is killing the US DOLLAR and to do that Chinese economic policy helping US/UK/European global corporations inside its FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES-----it indeed is killing the value of our US DOLLAR and with these sovereign debt frauds will end the existence of the US DOLLAR. This was done by CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA---now TRUMP is MOVING all this FORWARD.


Remember, the Chinese EXPORTERS were largely those Chinese global factories producing products for our US/UK/European corporations. Now that all these corporations are MULTI-NATIONAL---and China is no longer interested in EXPORTING to US as US 99% are being made to poor to consume-----this currency manipulation via trade deficits are disappearing.

What it means if Trump names China a currency manipulator


Paul Wiseman, The Associated Press Published 10:57 a.m. ET Dec. 29, 2016


636186056849609014-China-US-Trump-Curren-Yang.jpg

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to name China a currency manipulator on his first day in the White House.


There's only one problem – it's not true anymore. China, the world's second-biggest economy behind the United States, hasn't been pushing down its currency to benefit Chinese exporters in years. And even if it were, the law targeting manipulators requires the U.S. spend a year negotiating a solution before it can retaliate.


Trump spent much of the campaign blaming China's for America's economic woes. And it's true that the U.S-China trade relationship is lopsided. China sells a lot more to the United States than it buys. The resulting trade deficit in goods amounted to a staggering $289 billion through the first 10 months of 2016.


But in fact, for the past couple of years, China has been intervening in markets to prop up its currency, the yuan, not push it lower.

It went a step further on Thursday, watering down the significance of the dollar and adding 11 additional currencies in a foreign-exchange basket, according to a document released by the China Foreign Exchange Trading System.


What does currency have to do with the trade gap?



When China's yuan falls against the U.S. dollar, Chinese products become cheaper in the U.S. market and American products become more costly in China.

So the U.S. Treasury Department monitors China for signs it is manipulating the yuan lower. Treasury has guidelines for putting countries on its currency blacklist. They must, for example, have spent the equivalent of 2 percent of their economic output over a year buying foreign currencies in an attempt to drive those currencies up and their own currencies down.
Treasury hasn't declared China a currency manipulator since 1994.


What would happen if the U.S. declared China a currency manipulator?



Probably not much, at least initially.
If Treasury designates China a currency manipulator under a 2015 law, it is supposed to spend a year trying to resolve the problem through negotiations.


Should those talks fail, the U.S. can take a number of small steps in retaliation, including stopping the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corp., a government development agency, from financing any programs in China. Trouble is, the United States already suspended OPIC operations in China years ago — to punish Beijing in the aftermath of the bloody 1989 crackdown in Tiananmen Square.


So naming China a currency manipulator is mostly "just a jaw-boning exercise," said Amanda DeBusk, chair of the international trade department at the law firm of Hughes Hubbard & Reed and a former Commerce Department official. "There's no immediate consequence."


Is China guilty of using currency to help its exporters?



For years, China pretty clearly manipulated its currency to gain an advantage over global competitors. It bought foreign currencies, the U.S. dollar in particular, to push them higher against the yuan. As it did, it accumulated vast foreign currency reserves — nearly $4 trillion worth by mid-2014.


But now the Chinese economy is slowing, and Chinese companies and individuals have begun to invest more heavily outside the country. As their money leaves China, it puts downward pressure on the yuan.
The yuan has dropped nearly 7 percent against the dollar so far this year. The Chinese government has responded by draining its foreign exchange reserves to buy yuan, hoping to slow the currency's fall. China's reserves have dropped by $279 billion this year to $3.05 trillion.


If Beijing stepped back and let market forces determine the yuan's level, it likely would fall even faster, giving Chinese exporters even more of a competitive edge.


So Beijing is doing the opposite of what Trump says it's doing. Cornell University economist Eswar Prasad earlier this month called Trump's plans to name China a currency manipulator "unmoored from reality."


"The whole discussion is ironic," said David Dollar, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former official at the World Bank and U.S. Treasury Department. "It's out of date."


Could Trump do anything on his own?

Gary Hufbauer, an expert on trade law at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, notes that as president, Trump could nonetheless escalate any dispute over the currency on his own. Over the years, Congress has ceded the president broad authority to impose trade sanctions. Trump has threatened to slap a 45 percent tax, or tariff, on Chinese imports to punish it for unfair trade practices, including alleged currency manipulation.


Brookings' Dollar said China likely would bring a case to the World Trade Organization "against any protectionist measures that are a violation of U.S. commitments to the WTO," which oversees the rules of global commerce and rules on trade disputes.
Some trade analysts wonder if Trump is using the tariff threat as a negotiating tool to win concessions from China.


Whatever the U.S. motive, China has a consistent record of retaliating against trade sanctions. When the Obama administration slapped tariffs on Chinese tire imports in 2009, for instance, China lashed back by imposing a tax on U.S. chicken parts.


China's Global Times newspaper, published by the ruling Communist Party's People's Daily, has already speculated that "China will take a tit-for-tat approach" if Trump's tariffs are enacted. The paper suggested that Beijing might limit sales of Apple iPhones and Boeing jetliners in China.


"The Chinese are predictable and reliable," DeBusk said. "If they get punched, they punch back."

__________________________________________

China is transitioning from several decades of having Western corporations inside Chinese Foreign Economic Zones allowing those zones to be controlled by those WESTERN NATIONS------to using those FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE factory structures to sell to consumers inside China and the Asian Economic Zone.  It is not EXPORTING TO US from China for the most part.

China is expanding to AFRICA taking control of those FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES filled with ASIAN GLOBAL FACTORIES exporting from Africa.  China is also staged to be top foreign global corporation inside US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES EXPORTING out of US --------

This is why the dynamic over several decades of MADE IN CHINA and China's ability to be a CURRENCY MANIPULATOR are changing.  CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA and all this ROBBER BARON fraud and US Treasury bond debt taking the US to economic collapse----THAT IS WHAT WILL KILL OUR US DOLLAR........not China.



China is no longer interested in EXPORTING to US-----as it takes control of Foreign Economic Zones inside China and EXPORTS to Asian Economic Zone nations and to its own global 1% and their 2%.

Can Chinese SEZs spur industrial development in Africa?
9 September 2013
Vinaye Ancharaz



How much impact do Chinese SEZs have on Africa's industrialisation?


Ever since the Chinese government announced  in 2006  that it would support the establishment of "economic and trade cooperation  zones" (ETCZ) abroad  as part of its "Going Global" policy, Africa has hoped to attract a fair share of the 50-or-so proposed special economic zones (SEZs) to the continent. At present, five zones are at different stages of construction - one each in Ethiopia and Mauritius, and two in Nigeria; the Chambishi zone in Zambia is partially operational while the proposed Algerian zone has been suspended. Only Egypt's Suez ETCZ is fully operational.


The African countries that competed to host the Chinese SEZs saw in these zones long- term prospects for industrial development or upgrading value chains in addition to the much-needed jobs that they would create. Although it is too early to assess the real impacts of the zones, we can put together some elements - based on experiences on the ground, theoretical insights, prospective analysis and even hypotheses about China's underlying motivations - in our attempt to determine whether these zones could be a springboard for industrialisation on a continent where several previous attempts by governments with similar zones have failed.


In this regard, the evidence so far is not very encouraging. The number of SEZs in Africa is too small to spark an effective industrial push at the continental level. Moreover, the countries in dire need of an industrial zone did not receive any attention from the Chinese developers - at least not in the initial round of tenders - and those hosting the SEZs are ill-prepared to benefit fully from the effort. Such evidence seems to weigh in favour of the critics, who claim that the SEZs are meant to extend China's growing influence in the world by trading a few thousand low-skill jobs and half-promises of knowledge transfers for market access, control over resources and ‘soft' power. These claims are often fuelled by a dearth of data and the characteristic opacity of the modes of Chinese engagement in Africa.


The state of industrialisation in Africa


Africa's poor state of industrialisation is well known and widely documented, as are the reasons for it. At 11.2 percent in 2011, Sub-Saharan Africa's (SSA) share of manufacturing value added in GDP - a commonly used measure of industrial development - is the second lowest among all regions of the world, only slightly behind the Middle East and North Africa (whose low share is due to the region's historical dependence  on oil). Moreover, the SSA share would be 3 percentage points lower if South Africa was excluded, making the region the least industrialised in the world. SSA's export structure tells the same story: the manufacturing share of total exports (about 25 percent in  2011) is low, because SSA produces few industrial products of export quality. More worrying, both indicators have shown a downward trend in recent years, suggesting that Africa's timid industrialisation effort has waned. On the whole, the region (barring South Africa and a few other middle-income countries) remains globally uncompetitive; SSA ranks lowest on the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) competitive industrial performance (CIP) index.
Enter China



China has dented Africa's efforts at industrialisation in several ways. First, it has perpetuated Africa's dependence on natural resources. China's share of Africa's fuel and mineral exports, which increased from 1.8 percent in 2000 to 19 percent in 2012, was a factor in deepening Africa's concentration in natural resource extraction. The share of fuels and minerals in Africa's exports went up from 54 percent in 2000 to 64 percent in 2012. While China's share of Africa's commodity exports is small relative to traditional partners, like the United States (US) and Europe, China is absorbing an increasing share of these exports. In recent years, over 60 percent of Africa's exports to China have consisted of oil and minerals.


Second, the influx of cheap Chinese imports into Africa has caused significant injury to local industry, with the impact varying in intensity across countries. Trade unions in Zambia have blamed Chinese imports for undermining the clothing and electrical sectors. In Ethiopia, while competition from Chinese shoe imports has forced the local footwear industry to innovate and upgrade, a number of producers have been squeezed out while surviving firms have contracted. Similarly, survey evidence from Mauritius shows that small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the clothing, footwear and furniture sectors have borne the brunt of Chinese competition, being unable to match the price- quality ratio offered by Chinese products.

WHAT?????  AFRICAN FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES PUSHING AFRICAN SMALL BUSINESS DOMESTIC ECONOMY DOWN?  WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT?



Third, African exporters of manufactures and processed goods have faced stiffer competition from China in their traditional export markets. In Mauritius, Swaziland and South Africa, the clothing industry suffered major setbacks in the run-up to January 1, 2005, marking the end of the apparel quotas and the beginning of Chinese dominance of the global apparel market. Specifically, more  than 25,000  jobs (or 28 percent   of employment) were lost in the Mauritian garment sector between 2001  and 2005  as foreign firms closed shop to locate elsewhere.


China's  threat to African industry  is significant,  since China's  comparative  advantage lies in the same low-skill, labour-intensive and low-technology sectors, such as clothing, furniture  and  footwear,  that  offer  the  best  chances  for  industrialisation  in  Africa. Some authors (e.g. Kaplinsky, 2008)  have argued that China's global ascendancy  can permanently damage the future of manufacturing in Africa.


Can Chinese SEZs help?

With the notable exception of Mauritius, Africa's performance with industrial development schemes, such as EPZs, has been lacklustre. The fact that the schemes were government led, marred with policy inconsistencies and failed to attract private investors - local or foreign - meant that they were bound to fail.


Against this background, the Chinese SEZs can be a harbinger of industrialisation in Africa - for at least two reasons. First, the SEZs propose investment in a wider range of sectors, spanning agro-industry, manufacturing and services (Table 1). These sectors will be new to the industrial landscape of most of the countries hosting the SEZs and will be particularly beneficial to Zambia, Nigeria and Ethiopia, which currently have very low levels of industrialisation.


Second, the SEZs are designed to be integrated into the domestic economy, as they are in China. The Chinese government has expressed its wish to transmit to Africa lessons from its own development experience as well as transfer through foreign direct investment (FDI) and aid much-needed knowledge and technology. The Chinese are also supporting African SMEs to develop their businesses in the zones through a USD 1 billion fund announced at the 2009 Forum on Africa China Cooperation (FOCAC).


The question then is how much of an impact will the SEZs (assuming they are successful) have on industrialisation in Africa?


We propose a two-tiered answer to this question. For the SEZs to have any long-term impact at all, they must first address the critical issues that have arisen in each country at the early stages of zone development. These relate to financing gaps and to policy incoherence. Construction works have often stalled owing to delays in the disbursement of loans, grants and subsidies promised by the Chinese government, and the zone developers' inability to raise funding of their own. Similar problems may also constrain subsequent FDI into the zones. Host-country governments, on the other hand, have encountered financial difficulties in providing offsite infrastructure or in refunding zone developers the agreed share of infrastructure costs, as in Ethiopia. Perhaps an even more important challenge is the lack of political will and/or the absence of a coherent incentive framework in the host country to support the SEZs. If the zones are not integrated into the country's national development strategy, they will struggle to achieve the desired impacts.


Beyond these constraints, the SEZs must attract a critical mass of investors, both domestic and foreign; develop linkages with the domestic economy; stimulate higher value-added manufacturing activities and generate significant productivity spillovers if they are to make a lasting impact on industrial development in Africa. However, significant challenges have emerged in each of these areas.


Investment

Zone developers are struggling to attract Chinese firms in the industries proposed, and the economic crisis has made matters worse. For example, the Mauritian zone has failed to attract a single Chinese investor two years after its completion, while the majority of companies operating in the Chambishi zone are merely subsidiaries of the developers. On the other hand, local participation in the SEZs is likely to be restricted by the reluctance of Chinese firms to seek joint ventures (both because of fundamental differences in the business models of Chinese and local firms and certain negative experiences (as in Egypt, w here Chinese developers have accused the local partners of embezzling funds)); by entry barriers, such as excessively high investment thresholds for local investors; by the lack of a supportive incentive framework at home; and, in the case of Mauritius, an outright ban on local investors' access to the zone.


Against this backdrop, it is interesting to note that a number of private Chinese industrial zones (in South Africa and Botswana, for example) are thriving. Even in the countries hosting SEZs, some Chinese investors are choosing to operate outside the zones (for example, Huajian Group, a Chinese footwear company, in Ethiopia) in an attempt to shun governmental control and to avoid high rent and utility costs in cases where the zones are underpopulated.


Domestic linkages

Prospects for the SEZs to build backward linkages within the local economy are rather weak both because the raw materials and intermediates needed in assembly-type operations may not be available locally and because of the known propensity of Chinese companies to source inputs through their own networks. At the same time, forward linkages, which usually involve the provision of ancillary services to the zones, may be constrained by deficient infrastructure and logistics and lack of competition in the host economy.


Higher value-added activities

The SEZs promised to bring new industrial activities as well as opportunities for higher value-added processing and upgrading to Africa. This is evident in the Chinese investment of USD 220 million in a copper smelter in the Zambian Multi-Facility Economic Zone in Chambishi. A bio-hydrometallurgy project, designed to increase the recovery of Zambian copper by 20 percent is being paraded as a model of technological collaboration between China and Zambia. However, beyond copper, there is no evidence that plans to manufacture televisions, mobile phones and other consumer electronics in the Chambishi zone have materialised yet.


The Chinese are already operating a cement plant in Ethiopia's Eastern industrial zone. Future investments are expected in the electric machinery and steel industries. But, these are yet to come, and emerging evidence suggests that the zone will feature mainly headquarter services. In Mauritius, the marginal impact of the proposed SEZs is likely to be smaller than elsewhere both because the country boasts a relatively diversified industrial base and because the Jin Fei zone will attract investments in sectors - such as property development, tourism and textiles - that are not strictly aligned with the country's future economic orientation.


Technology transfer


Finally,  prospects  for  technology  transfer  are  also  limited  - both  because  Chinese investments may not generate significant spillovers (since Chinese firms are notorious for protecting proprietary knowledge and keeping trade secrets) and because local firms may lack the capacity or "technological readiness" to adopt any spillover that does take place. Joint ventures are an excellent vehicle for technology transfer, but, as noted earlier, the Chinese are generally averse to partnerships with local firms. Similarly, the lack of a critical mass of local investors in the zones will substantially reduce the scope to benefit from any technology spillovers. Last, but not least, skill transfer through labour turnover might be limited if the zones employ few local workers and if these workers are concentrated in low-skill jobs.


What should host countries do?


There are several measures that policymakers in host countries  can take to maximise the impact of the SEZs on industrial development. First, while African governments are providing an elaborate set of incentives to Chinese investors in the zones, few are actually subsidising local investors, and even fewer have put in place a regulatory framework to encourage local investors to set up in the zones, or local suppliers to provide inputs and services to SEZ firms. For the zones to succeed as a test case of industrialisation, it is crucial that the government fully ‘owns' the SEZs, believes in their potential and shows the political commitment to make them work. This requires that the zones be fully integrated into the country's development strategy and be seen as platforms for learning and technology transfer beyond their short-term impact on jobs.


Second, local ownership will be fostered if the host-country government has an equity stake in the zones. This can be justified against the numerous concessions made to the Chinese developers, including leases of land, provision of offsite infrastructure and offers of a whole range of alluring fiscal incentives at high opportunity cost to the host-country government. The Nigerian government successfully negotiated a stake in the two zones; this experience should guide future zone development elsewhere in Africa. However, excessive participation by national governments - as in Egypt's Suez zone - should be avoided, since this might lead to interference and inefficiencies in zone management.


Third, since local participation in the zones is critical to realising productivity spillovers, African governments must set up an incentive scheme - complementary to the USD 1 billion SME fund proposed by the Chinese government - to support local firms' investment in the zones. In addition, they must play a proactive role in selecting and promoting potential "winners" as was the case in East Asia.


Fourth, the industry focus of the SEZs should be negotiated between the host-country government and the Chinese stakeholders, rather than being "imposed" by the latter. This will ensure that the zones' activities are aligned with the country's needs in terms of industrial development and that any resulting technology spillover is more readily absorbed. Industries that are highly capital- or skill-intensive might contribute little to industrial upgrading in economies that are endowed with low-skilled labour and have had little experience with industry. In Mauritius, on the other hand, the industry focus is misplaced for the opposite reason. Mauritius needs high-tech industries, but the Jin Fei zone will serve mainly as a residential and commercial base for Chinese operations in the African region.


The systemic constraints to industrial development will take longer to tackle, but they must not be neglected. The SEZ host countries, both existing and potential, must invest in making local firms and the economy technology-ready. This calls for substantial investment in local universities and research institutions and the provision of incentives for firms to train their workers, adopt best management practices and to restructure and innovate.


Finally, the government should make greater efforts to address administrative and regulatory constraints to local supply-side capacity and provide a platform for Chinese companies and domestic firms to come together to learn about win-win partnerships or commercial opportunities. These measures will help strengthen potential linkages with the local economy.

_______________________________________________


Greece as Italy was targeted for the worst of global banking 1% subprime mortgage frauds and sovereign debt frauds just to send this LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE CAPITALIST nation into the deepest of debt. The 99% of Greek citizens lost their homes, wealth, pensions, health care, and personal assets then most were sent packing as EX-PATS----just as is happening in ITALY, SPAIN, IRELAND-----those are the PIIGS European nations targeted by global banking loaded with the worst of sovereign debt. The rich of all these nations of course off-shored all their wealth while AUSTERITY KILLED the 99% of citizens.

Remember, the goal of ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE is ONE DIGITAL CURRENCY with ONE WORLD CENTRAL BANK. Greece sadly has been used as a laboratory for all these criminal and corrupt banking policies. So, what we now see happening in Greece is international media telling the global 99% Greece has to go with digital currency in order to get itself out of debt.

THIS IS CURRENCY MANIPULATION AND IT IS BEING DONE BY WORLD BANK/IMF WITH EUROPEAN BANKING CREATING THE SOVEREIGN DEBT FRAUD.


As with all nations handed to WORLD BANK/IMF----they stay in debt for decades as financial 'solutions' drain 99% of citizens until FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES and societal transitions are installed. US is heading to bankruptcy by same sovereign debt frauds to be pushed into the hands of WORLD BANK/IMF.

The solution ---GET RID OF THE GIANT SQUID-------global banking

“There is a precedent for parallel currencies working,” said Hileman. “But the fundamental issue in Greece is the size of the debt and the fact that the economy is not growing, and you’ve got to find some way to in effect reduce that debt burden in Greece.”



Could a digi-drachma avert a Grexit?

Jemima Kelly5 Min Read


LONDON (Reuters) - Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis may have been joking when he tweeted about Greece adopting bitcoin, but some financial technology geeks say an asset-backed digital currency could be a solution to the country’s cash crisis.

Greece faces 1.5 billion euros of repayments to its creditors this month, having been locked in talks on a cash-for-reforms deal for months. Failure to agree could trigger a Greek default and potential exit from the euro zone, dealing a big blow to the supposedly irreversible currency union.


In order to avoid such a “Grexit” some reckon Greece could adopt a bitcoin-like parallel digital currency with which it could pay its pensioners and public-sector workers. It could be called the “digi-drachma”, after Greece’s pre-euro currency.


But unlike bitcoin, which is totally decentralized and given value simply by its usefulness, it would be issued by the state and backed with the country’s substantial assets.


“If you’ve got all these assets, why don’t you use them to back up a digital currency?” said Lee Gibson-Grant, founder of Coinstructors, a consultancy for those wanting to use bitcoin’s underlying technology — the blockchain — to start businesses.


If Greece’s assets could be tokenized and issued as a digital currency, argues Gibson-Grant, public-sector wages and pensions could be paid with it. That would preserve scarce euros for repaying the country’s creditors and help avoid a sell-off of valuable assets at rock-bottom prices.


Varoufakis himself, who on April 1 tweeted a link to a satirical story that reported him as saying Greece would adopt bitcoin if a deal with its creditors could not be reached, blogged in 2014 about the possibility of a parallel “Future Tax (FT) coin”.


The FT coin, said Varoufakis, an academic economist whose radical-left Syriza party was then not yet in government, would be denominated in euros but backed by future tax revenues.

ONLY THE FAR-RIGHT WING WOULD CREATE CURRENCY ON ACCESSIBLE THROUGH INTERNET CORPORATIONS.  THIS IS NOT A RADICAL LEFT PARTY.



It would use a “bitcoin-like algorithm in order to make the system transparent, efficient and transactions-cost-free” and could provide “a source of liquidity for the governments that is outside the bond markets”.


IOU CURRENCY

Greece’s radical left is not alone in having considered a parallel currency. The European Central Bank has analyzed a scenario in which Greece pays civil servants with IOUs, which would rely on future tax revenue in a similar way to the FT coin, creating a virtual second currency in the euro bloc.

WHAT A COINCIDENCE---THE RADICAL 'LEFT' HAS THE SAME DIGITAL CURRENCY GOALS AS FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1%!



ECB experts decided it would not work, as public sector workers would receive payment in the IOU currency rather than in euros, putting further pressure on Greek banks because those workers were likely then to plunder their savings.



Furthermore, the basis for both such ideas relies on an implicit assumption that the Greek state will not collapse — by no means guaranteed in the current climate.


“This would be different to a distributed, trustless digital currency such as bitcoin, since holders would still have to trust the issuer,” said Tom Robinson, Chief Operating Officer at London-based bitcoin storage firm Elliptic.


For Garrick Hileman, an economic historian at the London School of Economics who specializes in alternative currencies, the problem with such a plan is that it does not deal with Greece’s most basic problem: the need to reduce its debt burden.


“There is a precedent for parallel currencies working,” said Hileman. “But the fundamental issue in Greece is the size of the debt and the fact that the economy is not growing, and you’ve got to find some way to in effect reduce that debt burden in Greece.”

If a digital currency has no place in a solution for Greece, the blockchain technology behind bitcoin — a globally distributed ledger of all of bitcoin’s transactions that is evolving beyond the world of digital currencies — might do.


The government of Honduras, for example, has recently gone into partnership with Texas-based technology firm Factom to build a secure and immutable land title record system using the blockchain to mitigate against fraud. And CEO Peter Kirby reckons Greece could use a similar system to deal with its tax-dodgers.


“With a true global distributed ledger that basically keeps track of everything that happens, you can start putting a lot more transparency into the way the Greek government does its business,” Kirby said.

_______________________________________


American citizens especially in Baltimore have seen these economic structures pushed in preparation for the coming economic collapse of the US DOLLAR.  Greek citizens not only lost all their wealth and assets---they lost their CURRENCY.  Media tells us Greek citizens are racing to install DIGITAL CURRENCY but of course they are not ----it is being forced on them by WORLD BANK/IMF.  

CURRENCY MANIPULATION WAS DONE BY GLOBAL BANKING 1% THESE FEW DECADES OUT OF CHINA----NOW THEY ARE BEHIND THESE CURRENCY MANIPULATIONS AS WELL.

All of this planned from 1960s-70s by ROBBER BARON global 1% put into action by CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA. 

BITCOIN is not that ONE WORLD ONE DIGITAL CURRENCY.  It is simply yet another product created to fail with losses to those investing and using these products.


Our US 5% to the 1% black, white, and brown pols and players think all this is FUNNY. They are living for today not caring that our US 99% are MOVING FORWARD to same Greek economic disaster.


Trading Meat for Tires as Bartering Economy Grows in Greece


By LIZ ALDERMANSEPT. 21, 2015


ATHENS — Thodoris Roussos stood in his butcher’s shop and pointed to a large white delivery truck at the curb. For months, he had put off replacing the tires, because Greece’s financial crisis had cut into business. But recently, he upgraded the van with a set of good wheels at a price that could not be beat.



“Normally, the tires cost 340 euros, but no money changed hands,” Mr. Roussos said, beaming. “I paid the guy in meat.”


As Greece grapples with a continued downturn, bartering is gaining traction at the margins of the economy, part of a collection of worrisome signs for Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras who was re-elected on Sunday.

Graphic artists are exchanging designs for olive oil. Accountants swap advice for office supplies. In the agricultural heartland and on the Greek islands, informal bartering, which has historically helped communities survive, has intensified as more people exchange fruits, vegetables, other crops, equipment, clothing and services.


“In Greece there’s a major liquidity problem,” said Mr. Roussos, who met the tire vendor and scores of new clients through an Athens-based online barter club, Tradenow, which created its own currency called tradepoints. “People are finding it more convenient to trade because money is not readily available.”


The bartering activity remains modest and will not provide a lasting solution to Greece’s problems, which remain a politically volatile and tricky issue for the new coaltion government. But such efforts represent an opportunity for Greeks to navigate the uncertainty, as the country still faces capital controls and a shaky banking system.

_________________________________________



If US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE are made to poor to consume creating the reasons for decline of Chinese EXPORTS to US-----one Chinese EXPORT is soaring------those 99% global labor pool being sent to African, European, and US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES and NO, the Chinese government does not care how they are treated because no one can treat them worse than global Chinese factories inside FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.

Humans as slaves are less monetary assets as bartering assets. The Philippines and other third world nations have been exporting their 99% of citizens to Foreign Economic Zones for revenue often exchanged in products. China will see its EX-PAT population soar to fill expanding Chinese global factories -----who need money when living in global factories working for a bed and meal?

CHINA IS CREATING ITS DIGITAL CURRENCY AND WE CAN BET IT WILL END BEING ONE WORLD ONE CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCY.


MOVING FORWARD entails a great amount of human capital as slave labor----no currency needed. This is yet another CURRENCY MANIPULATION for modern history as labor especially in Western nations has come with wages. CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA created this massive global human capital distribution network that will explode as Africa, Europe, Canada, and US are destinations for slave labor AND having sovereign US citizens becoming that global labor pool export.


Asia Pacific |


Uneasy Engagement


China’s Export of Labor Faces Scorn

By EDWARD WONGDEC. 20, 2009

TRUNG SON, Vietnam -- It seemed as if this village in northern Vietnam had struck gold when a Chinese and a Japanese company arrived to jointly build a coal-fired power plant. Thousands of jobs would start flowing in, or so the residents hoped.


Four years later, the Haiphong Thermal Power Plant is nearing completion. But only a few hundred Vietnamese ever got jobs. Most of the workers were Chinese, about 1,500 at the peak. Hundreds of them are still here, toiling by day on the dusty construction site and cloistered at night in dingy dormitories.


“The Chinese workers overwhelm the Vietnamese workers here,” said Nguyen Thai Bang, 29, a Vietnamese electrician.


China, famous for its export of cheap goods, is increasingly known for shipping out cheap labor. These global migrants often work in factories or on Chinese-run construction and engineering projects, though the range of jobs is astonishing: from planting flowers in the Netherlands to doing secretarial tasks in Singapore to herding cows in Mongolia — even delivering newspapers in the Middle East.


But a backlash against them has grown. Across Asia and Africa, episodes of protest and violence against Chinese workers have flared. Vietnam and India are among the nations that have moved to impose new labor rules for foreign companies and restrict the number of Chinese workers allowed to enter, straining relations with Beijing.

In Vietnam, dissidents and intellectuals are using the issue of Chinese labor to challenge the ruling Communist Party. A lawyer sued Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung over his approval of a Chinese bauxite mining project, and the National Assembly is questioning top officials over Chinese contracts, unusual moves in this authoritarian state.


Chinese workers continue to follow China’s state-owned construction companies as they win bids abroad to build power plants, factories, railroads, highways, subway lines and stadiums. From January to October 2009, Chinese companies completed $58 billion of projects, a 33 percent increase over the same period in 2008, according to the Chinese Ministry of Commerce.


From Angola to Uzbekistan, Iran to Indonesia, some 740,000 Chinese workers were abroad at the end of 2008, with 58 percent sent out last year alone, the Commerce Ministry said. The number going abroad this year is on track to roughly match that rate. The workers are hired in China, either directly by Chinese enterprises or by Chinese labor agencies that place the workers; there are 500 operational licensed agencies and many illegal ones.


Chinese executives say that Chinese workers are not always less expensive, but that they tend to be more skilled and easier to manage than local workers. “Whether you’re talking about the social benefits or economic benefits to the countries receiving the workers, the countries have had very good things to say about the Chinese workers and their skills,” said Diao Chunhe, director of the China International Contractors Association, a government organization in Beijing.


But in some countries, local residents accuse the Chinese of stealing jobs, staying on illegally and isolating themselves by building bubble worlds that replicate life in China.


“There are entire Chinese villages now,” said Pham Chi Lan, former executive vice president of the Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry. “We’ve never seen such a practice on projects done by companies from other countries.”


At this construction site northeast of the port city of Haiphong, an entire Chinese world has sprung up: four walled dormitory compounds, restaurants with Chinese signs advertising dumplings and fried rice, currency exchanges, so-called massage parlors — even a sign on the site itself that says “Guangxi Road,” referring to the province that most of the workers call home.


One night, eight workers in blue uniforms sat in a cramped restaurant that had been opened by a man from Guangxi at the request of the project’s main subcontractor, Guangxi Power Construction Company. Their faces were flushed from drinking Chinese rice wine. “I was sent here, and I’m fulfilling my patriotic duty,” said Lin Dengji, 52.

Such scenes can set off anxieties in Vietnam, which prides itself on resisting Chinese domination, starting with its break from Chinese rule in the 10th century. The countries fought a border war in 1979 and are still engaged in a sovereignty dispute in the South China Sea.


Vietnamese are all too aware of the economic juggernaut to their north. Vietnam had a $10 billion trade deficit with China last year. In July, a senior official in Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security said that 35,000 Chinese workers were in Vietnam, according to Tuoi Tre, a progressive newspaper. The announcement shocked many Vietnamese.


“The Chinese economic presence in Vietnam is deeper, more far-reaching and progressing faster than people realize,” said Le Dang Doanh, an economist in Hanoi who advised the preceding prime minister.

____________________________________________


Here are those ROBBER BARON global banking 1% Clinton neo-liberal pols all of which have been in Congress long enough to vote for all of GATT, NAFTA, TARIFF LAWS creating these trade deficits killing US manufacturing-----they here are TAKING A STAND against all that policy they installed and from which they each were made RICH.


ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE as we said is a far-right wing global banking 1% think tank----they will never educate how currency manipulation stems from US corporations in overseas Foreign Economic Zones------wanting cheap raw materials from US sent to be used by contracted Chinese factories to build those global corporate products. REID, PELOSI, SCHUMER top guns at ROBBER BARON few decades.


To end currency manipulation that harms 99% US WE THE PEOPLE----we simply stop allowing all domestic economies die----taken completely by global trade----rebuild local small business economies not NEEDING ANY trade deals. Certainly we do not want to MOVE FORWARD global human capital distribution system filling our US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones---creating super-sized CURRENCY MANIPULATION.


The Democrats are making a stand on currency manipulation — and it's a really good idea


Jeff Spross

April 27, 2015
It's down to the wire, but Democrats appear to finally be getting serious about making sure the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal — a massive trade pact between the U.S. and 11 other Pacific Rim nations — is worker-friendly. And if it isn't, it may not happen at all.

OH, REALLY?????



At issue is what's called trade promotion authority — or "fast track" authority — which would give the president the ability to negotiate trade deals with other countries with some minimal criteria from Congress. Then the deal would be approved or rejected by the legislature in a simple up-or-down vote.


On Wednesday, Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the Democrats in the House, threw her weight behind an alternative version of fast track authority that comes with more serious strings: It would create an advisory board to ensure the White House has met certain criteria in the TPP deal, including labor and environmental protections.


But most importantly, the Democrats' alternative would require the TPP to include rules against currency manipulation by the member countries.

Currency manipulation is when governments engage in policies that drive down the value of their currency relative to other currencies. And lately, "other currencies" has usually meant the U.S. dollar. This makes our exports more expensive, and their imports cheaper, which drives up the U.S. trade deficit.


In practical terms, this means that demand, which could be staying in the U.S. economy and creating jobs, is instead leaving to create jobs in other countries' economies. At the moment, the trade deficit is somewhere in the vicinity of $500 billion, which amounts to about 3 percent of the economy just getting sucked up into the ether every year. That costs American jobs. But because the jobs lost are disproportionately in exporting industries like manufacturing — and because a high-value dollar helps low-wage employers, like Walmart, that have invested in low-cost foreign supply chains — the trade deficit also drives down wages, speeding up the "hourglass" effect, in which our economy produces lots of high-paying and low-paying jobs, but fewer and fewer middle-income jobs.


The latest work on the U.S. trade deficit, by Fred Bergsten and Joseph Gagnon, suggests currency manipulation could account for anywhere between $200 billion to $500 billion of the trade deficit — a little less than half, to nearly all of it.


With those numbers, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) projected that eliminating currency manipulation could create anywhere from 2.3 million to 5.8 million American jobs. In February of 2014, EPI estimated that job creation would close one-third to three-fourths of the hole blown in the American economy by the 2008 collapse. (It might close it even further now, given the strong job growth we saw in the past year.) Furthermore, those job gains would be spread across every state and they would reduce the federal budget deficit, since the government would need to borrow less to make up the lost demand. In fact, in terms of impact on the economy, the importance of the trade deficit swamps the federal government's budget deficit.

OH, REALLY????



Economists who support putting currency manipulation rules in the TPP also think there's a pretty simple definition that teases out the manipulation from other legitimate policies that also happen to affect currency values. "That is the use of domestic government or government-controlled resources to buy assets denominated in foreign currencies," said Robert Scott, an economist with EPI. "If you look at the foreign currency holdings of the Federal Reserve, they're trivial — a few tens of billions of dollars. Officially, in the Japanese central bank, they're about $1.4 trillion. So that's a bright line."


For example, when the U.S. Federal Reserve engaged in quantitative easing to try to boost the economy, it mainly did it by buying up assets denominated in our own currency. That would pass muster under this definition, even though the policy did put downward pressure on the U.S. dollar. Had the Fed done it by buying up assets in foreign currencies, that would've been another matter.


Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, has also endorsed this approach, and pointed to Bergsten's suggestion that the line be drawn at holding enough assets in a foreign currency to cover one year's worth of external liabilities, and no more. The idea is that foreign governments would need to divest holdings to get below that threshold, and if they got above it again, certain penalties would hit: taxes, fines, cancelation of certain trade privileges, or even allowing reciprocal currency intervention by other countries.

CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES IS A FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% NEO-LIBERAL THINK TANK.



For the moment, about 20 countries, including China, have been buying up assets in foreign currencies at a rate of about $1 trillion per year, using their central banks and other institutions like government-controlled wealth and pension funds.


Administration officials and other observers seem pretty sure that demanding rules on currency manipulation would kill the TPP. But the deal is probably among the last opportunities to set the rules of the road for international trade; China isn't part of the TPP discussions, but the deal will definitely set the terrain for future negotiations. So risking the whole deal to force a reckoning on currency manipulation, as well as other protections for workers, makes sense — especially given that powerful corporations will make out like bandits under the TPP's likely expansion of intellectual property law.

Along with Pelosi, other top Democrats in the House and Senate — including Sens. Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer -- are on record opposing the current approach to the TPP and fast track authority. That not only puts them at odds with mainstream Republicans, but with a massive lobbying blitz by the Obama administration as well.

OH, REALLY AGAIN??????



The White House's preferred version of fast track authority has made it through several committees, but it still needs its final vote in both the House and the Senate. With a fair number of Tea Party Republicans also in revolt, the White House and its GOP allies will need all the votes they can muster.


If Pelosi and the other Democrats hold firm, they could yet force a set of reformed fast track and TPP agreements on their terms.
0 Comments
<<Previous

    Author

    Cindy Walsh is a lifelong political activist and academic living in Baltimore, Maryland.

    Archives

    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012

    Categories

    All
    2014 Economic Crash
    21st Century Economy
    Affordable Care Act
    Affordable Care Act
    Alec
    Americorp/VISTA
    Anthony Brown
    Anthony Brown
    Anti Incumbant
    Anti-incumbant
    Anti Incumbent
    Anti Incumbent
    Attacking The Post Office Union
    Baltimore And Cronyism
    Baltimore Board Of Estimates
    Baltimore Board Of Estimates
    Baltimore Development Corp
    Baltimore Development Corp
    Baltimore Recall/Retroactive Term Limits
    Bank Fraud
    Bank Fraud
    Bank Of America
    Bank Settlement
    Bank-settlement
    B Corporations
    Bgeexelon Mergerf59060c411
    Brookings Institution
    Business Tax Credits
    California Charter Expansion
    Cardin
    Career Colleges
    Career Colleges Replacing Union Apprenticeships
    Charters
    Charter School
    Collection Agencies
    Common Core
    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
    Consumer-financial-protection-bureau
    Corporate Media
    Corporate-media
    Corporate Oversight
    Corporate-oversight
    Corporate Politicians
    Corporate-politicians
    Corporate Rule
    Corporate-rule
    Corporate Taxes
    Corporate-taxes
    Corporate Tax Reform
    Corporatizing Us Universities
    Cost-benefit-analysis
    Credit Crisis
    Credit-crisis
    Cummings
    Department Of Education
    Department Of Justice
    Department-of-justice
    Derivatives Reform
    Development
    Dismantling Public Justice
    Dodd Frank
    Doddfrankbba4ff090a
    Doug Gansler
    Doug-gansler
    Ebdi
    Education Funding
    Education Reform
    Edwards
    Election Reform
    Election-reform
    Elections
    Emigration
    Energy-sector-consolidation-in-maryland
    Enterprise Zones
    Equal Access
    Estate Taxes
    European Crisis
    Expanded And Improved Medicare For All
    Expanded-and-improved-medicare-for-all
    Failure To Prosecute
    Failure-to-prosecute
    Fair
    Fair And Balanced Elections
    Fair-and-balanced-elections
    Farm Bill
    Federal Election Commissionelection Violationsmaryland
    Federal Election Commissionelection Violationsmarylandd20a348918
    Federal-emergency-management-agency-fema
    Federal Reserve
    Financial Reform Bill
    Food Safety Not In Tpp
    For Profit Education
    Forprofit-education
    Fracking
    Fraud
    Freedom Of Press And Speech
    Frosh
    Gambling In Marylandbaltimore8dbce1f7d2
    Granting Agencies
    Greening Fraud
    Gun Control Policy
    Healthcare For All
    Healthcare-for-all
    Health Enterprise Zones
    High Speed Rail
    Hoyer
    Imf
    Immigration
    Incarceration Bubble
    Incumbent
    Incumbents
    Innovation Centers
    Insurance Industry Leverage And Fraud
    International Criminal Court
    International Trade Deals
    International-trade-deals
    Jack Young
    Jack-young
    Johns Hopkins
    Johns-hopkins
    Johns Hopkins Medical Systems
    Johns-hopkins-medical-systems
    Kaliope Parthemos
    Labor And Justice Law Under Attack
    Labor And Wages
    Lehmann Brothers
    Living Wageunionspolitical Action0e39f5c885
    Maggie McIntosh
    Maggie-mcintosh
    Martin O'Malley
    Martin O'Malley
    Martin-omalley
    Martin-omalley8ecd6b6eb0
    Maryland Health Co Ops
    Maryland-health-co-ops
    Maryland-health-co-ops1f77692967
    Maryland Health Coopsccd73554da
    Maryland Judiciary
    Marylandnonprofits
    Maryland Non Profits
    Maryland Nonprofits2509c2ca2c
    Maryland Public Service Commission
    Maryland State Bar Association
    Md Credit Bondleverage Debt441d7f3605
    Media
    Media Bias
    Media-bias
    Medicaremedicaid
    Medicaremedicaid8416fd8754
    Mental Health Issues
    Mental-health-issues
    Mers Fraud
    Mikulski
    Military Privatization
    Minority Unemploymentunion And Labor Wagebaltimore Board Of Estimates4acb15e7fa
    Municipal Debt Fraud
    Ndaa-indefinite-detention
    Ndaaindefinite Detentiond65cc4283d
    Net Neutrality
    New Economy
    New-economy
    Ngo
    Non Profit To Profit
    Nonprofit To Profitb2d6cb4b41
    Nsa
    O'Malley
    Odette Ramos
    Omalley
    O'Malley
    Open Meetings
    Osha
    Patronage
    Pension-benefit-guaranty-corp
    Pension Funds
    Pension-funds
    Police Abuse
    Private-and-public-pension-fraud
    Private Health Systemsentitlementsprofits Over People
    Private Health Systemsentitlementsprofits Over People6541f468ae
    Private Non Profits
    Private-non-profits
    Private Nonprofits50b33fd8c2
    Privatizing Education
    Privatizing Government Assets
    Privatizing-the-veterans-admin-va
    Privitizing Public Education
    Progressive Policy
    Progressive Taxes Replace Regressive Policy
    Protections Of The People
    Protections-of-the-people
    Public Education
    Public Funding Of Private Universities
    Public Housing Privatization
    Public-libraries-privatized-or-closed
    Public Private Partnerships
    Public-private-partnerships
    Public Transportation Privatization
    Public Utilities
    Rapid Bus Network
    Rawlings Blake
    Rawlings-blake
    Rawlingsblake1640055471
    Real Progressives
    Reit-real-estate-investment-trusts
    Reitreal Estate Investment Trustsa1a18ad402
    Repatriation Taxes
    Rule Of Law
    Rule-of-law
    Ruppersberger
    SAIC AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
    Sarbanes
    S Corp Taxes
    Selling Public Datapersonal Privacy
    Smart Meters
    Snowden
    Social Security
    Sovereign Debt Fraudsubprime Mortgage Fraudmortgage Fraud Settlement
    Sovereign Debt Fraudsubprime Mortgage Fraudmortgage Fraud Settlement0d62c56e69
    Statistics As Spin
    Statistics-as-spin
    Student-corps
    Subprime Mortgage Fraud
    Subprime-mortgage-fraud
    Surveillance And Security
    Sustainability
    Teachers
    Teachers Unions2bc448afc8
    Teach For America
    Teach For America
    Technology Parks
    Third Way Democrats/new Economy/public Union Employees/public Private Patnerships/government Fraud And Corruption
    Third Way Democratsnew Economypublic Union Employeespublic Private Patnershipsgovernment Fraud And Corruption
    Third-way-democratsnew-economypublic-union-employeespublic-private-patnershipsgovernment-fraud-and-corruptionc10a007aee
    Third Way/neo Liberals
    Third-wayneo-liberals
    Third-wayneo-liberals5e1e6d4716
    Third Wayneoliberals7286dda6aa
    Tifcorporate Tax Breaks2d87bba974
    Tpp
    Transportation Inequity In Maryland
    Union Busting
    Unionbusting0858fddb8b
    Unions
    Unionsthird Waypost Officealec3c887e7815
    Universities
    Unreliable Polling
    Unreliable-polling
    Van Hollen
    Van-hollen
    VEOLA Environment -privatization Of Public Water
    Veterans
    War Against Women And Children
    War-against-women-and-children
    Youth Works

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.