Many people think the TC, created in 1973 by David Rockefeller, is a relic of an older time.
Think again.
Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America. Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration.
Keep in mind that the original stated goal of the TC was to create “a new international economic order.” Knowing that you have to break eggs to make an omelette, consider how the following TC members, in key Obama posts, can help engender further national chaos; erase our sovereign national borders; and install binding international agreements that will envelop our economy and money in a deeper global collective: a new world order:
“Google Inc. is now aligned with the notorious ALEC. Quietly, Google has joined ALEC — the American Legislative Exchange Council — the shadowy corporate alliance that pushes odious laws through state legislatures. In the process, Google has signed onto an organization that promotes such regressive measures as tax cuts for tobacco companies, school privatization to help for-profit education firms, repeal of state taxes for the wealthy and opposition to renewable energy disliked by oil companies. ALEC's reactionary efforts — thoroughly documented by the Center for Media and Democracy — are shameful assaults on democratic principles. And Google is now among the hundreds of companies in ALEC. Many people who've admired Google are now wondering: How could this be? Well, in his recent book Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism Is Turning the Internet Against Democracy, Robert W. McChesney provides vital context. “It is true that with the advent of the Internet many of the successful giants — Apple and Google come to mind — were begun by idealists who may have been uncertain whether they really wanted to be old-fashioned capitalists,” he writes. “The system in short order has whipped them into shape.”
Conclusion up front. When will the Arabs AND the Americans wake up?
And the Israeli-Saudi axis will keep blossoming. Few in the Middle East know that an Israeli company – with experience in repressing Palestinians – is in charge of the security in Mecca. (See here and here (in French)). If they knew – with the House of Saud's hypocrisy once more revealed – the Arab street in many a latitude would riot en masse.
One thing is certain; Bandar Bush, as well as the Saudi-Israeli axis, will pull no punches to derail any rapprochement between Washington and Tehran. As for the Bigger Picture, the real “international community” may always dream that one day Washington elites will finally see the light and figure out that the US-Saudi strategic alliance sealed in 1945 between Franklin D Roosevelt and King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud makes absolutely no sense.
Every sentient being with a functional brain perceives the possibility of ending the 34-year Wall of Mistrust between Washington and Tehran as a win-win situation.
Here are some of the benefits:
The price of oil and gas from the Persian Gulf would go down;
Washington and Tehran could enter a partnership to fight Salafi-jihadis (they already did, by the way, immediately after 9/11) as well as coordinate their policies in Afghanistan to keep the Taliban in check post-2014;
Edward Snowden, who has leaked classified information about intelligence collection activities of the National Security Agency (NSA), reportedly told the South China Morning Post that he sought a job as a contractor at government consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton with a goal: to collect proof about the NSA’s domestic surveillance programs and alert the public to the programs. However, Snowden is not the typical insider threat. Most insiders who later betray their employer’s trust don’t start out with that intent. The change from benign employee to malicious insider can be spurred by anything from home-life stress to frustration at being passed over for a promotion to the thought that the company does not appreciate one’s contributions.
Though the risk is great, it is not possible to deny insiders the access to data that they will need to do their jobs. So what can a company do?
The company must have clear policies regarding how corporate data is to be handled and safeguarded, and confidential data should be clearly labeled, with access as restricted as feasible. Additionally, the company should secure the data itself and use software to track access and seek signs of suspicious activity, especially with regard to what information leaves the system or is copied. This article focuses, however, on the human factor—what companies can do in the hiring process and throughout employment to detect signs that a person is likely to become, or has become, an insider threat.
Face it, when it comes to social networks Google+ is not everyone’s favorite. User adoptions have been less than hefty and Google is not happy. What does the search giant do? Force people to sign up. ReadWrite reports that if you “Want To Comment On YouTube? You’ll Need A Google+ Account First.” In an attempt to cut back on haters’ comments on videos, Google will make anyone who wants to comment on YouTube videos sign up on its social network.
The goal is to clean up content and improve overall quality in the YouTube content section.
How many times have you watched a video on a video with serious content, i.e. animal cruelty, nuclear bombings, child abuse, or the 9/11 attacks, and someone posts a lewd comment or totally off base? As they say haters got to hate, but Matt McLernon, a YouTube spokesperson, wants the comment section to contain meaningful conversations.
Google never does something without a hidden agenda. It forces users to join the Google+ network. All Google users have been forced into this ploy one way or another and have said account, but that does not mean they use them. Google wants to drive its numbers up and may have a problem on its hands:
“The company is risking a user revolt by mandating all commenter’s be Google+ users, as many people are already unhappy that the service is being forced on them. YouTube will begin rolling out the changes on channel pages today, with the exclusive Google+ commenting and linking system due globally later this year.”
But you need to remember who these users are: YouTube commenters. No one takes them seriously in the first place, so staging a revolt probably will not do much. Good luck, though! Those snarky comments give you all the power in the world.
This is literally a sickening story, a cautionary tale of what happens when corporate interests trump national wellness and this is affirmed by all the branches of the government. It is no longer possible to take it as a given that food in an American supermarket is safe to eat. Here is the proof of that. There needs to be a citizen outcry about this, and it should be a major issue in the 2! 014 elections.
As an especially vicious salmonella outbreak sickens hundreds across the country, U.S. Department of Agriculture regulators have declined to crack down on the poultry processing plants that spread the pathogen. On Monday, the USDA threatened to close the California-based Foster Farms facilities, but decided to keep the plant open under scrutiny on Thursday night after Foster Farms submitted a plan for ‘immediate substantive changes to their slaughter and processing to allow for continued operations.”
The outbreak has sickened at least 300 people in 17 states, and 42 percent of the victims have been hospitalized – twice the normal hospitalization rate for salmonella. Yet neither state nor federal regulators have issued a recall order, stating the chicken is safe if fully cooked.
I've waited two days with this story waiting to see if it was picked up. It was not. Think about what President Carter is saying, and ask yourself: Why didn't this story get coverage.
Phi Beta Iota: The actual unemployment rate in the USA is 22.4%. Only 47% of adults have a full time job, all others are either juggling two or more part time jobs without benefits, or unemployed. If the government cannot tell the truth about anything, we can hardly expect it to actually work in the public interest.
