The news that people see is not really the full news but a biased portrayal of current stories aimed at conditioning the wider public to accept gross inequities without question. Regular readers of News Junkie Post will be aware that it breaks stories that cannot be found in the mainstream. This is because the mainstream media are owned by people with a particular agenda: people who do not want the general public to become aware of any proper news that is contrary to the agenda. To push forward this agenda, the mainstream media also manufacture stories. A recent example may be found in the proposed construction of a new nuclear power station on the Somerset coast at Hinckley Point.[1]

The BBC’s announcement of the construction of a new nuclear power station is part of the mainstream media’s agenda. The French company to whom the contract has been granted, Electricité de France (EDF), cannot just start construction without local people asking questions. What is more likely to be manufactured news came shortly afterwards: two days after the BBC story came a further announcement that Sellafield nuclear power station in Cumbria was being shut down on safety grounds due to weather conditions.[2] Two nuclear power-station stories in a week is a bit suspicious even for those who accept the news as presented. Although there had been an unseasonal fall of snow for March, it had been no different, in fact less severe, than many other wintry snowfalls when the power station was not closed. The timing of this Sellafield story seemed incredible, coming directly after the announcement of a new nuclear power station; the story reeked of being a bit too much of a coincidence. To anybody used to reading between the lines, it is unlikely that the closure was simply due to snow. So what was the story’s purpose?

The plan, or hidden agenda, if followed through might have been to deprive households over a large area of northern England of their electricity during a cold spell. Had the closure lasted, there was a high probability that families would have been left without heating or lighting just to prove how dependent we really are on nuclear energy. This is one possibility. The other is to demonstrate how safety-conscious nuclear facilities are – all of a sudden. The shut down came two days after the announcement of a new plant, yet Sellafield has never closed down because of weather. The only reason nuclear plants shut down is for accidents, or perhaps maintenance. Accidents are different. There was an accident in 1957, which pushed the Cumbrian poet Norman Nicholson to pen these apposite lines:

This is a land where dirt is clean,
And poison pasture, quick and green
And storm sky, bright and bare;
Where sewers flow with milk, and meat
Is carved up for the fire to eat,
And children suffocate in God’s fresh air.[3]

At the time of that leakage, Sellafield did not exist. The plant on the site was known as Windscale, as is Nicholson’s poem. The new facility at Sellafield got a new name to ensure that a gullible public, and those born after 1960, would not associate the Windscale disaster with the Sellafield nuclear power station. Nobody names a ship Titanic any more. Today Windscale is hardly ever mentioned, and new generations are oblivious to the accident, except for those who have learned of it from family members or read about it elsewhere. The incidence of childhood leukemia in the area is still up and the highest in the country. Despite a German study’s link of leukemia to nuclear power plants, a study commissioned by a government advisory committee found no such link.[4]

More recent disasters, like those at Chernobyl and Fukushima, are rarely mentioned when new nuclear power stations are proposed; so presenting a safety facade is essential. What is mentioned is how efficient nuclear energy is. Safety must be a key factor in selling nuclear power to consumers who are increasingly aware of its dangers after those major-scale disasters. Nuclear plants are also needed to produce the latest range of nuclear weapons, which is never mentioned. The irony is that these weapons can penetrate nuclear plants. Think about it: no shut down of Sellafield due to the weather for decades, then one in the same week that a new facility is announced. This must be manufactured news, funded by those most likely to gain financially from the construction of yet another potentially-lethal power plant. Sellafield is being decommissioned. There was an accident: a more recent leak than the Windscale disaster at the Thorp facility in 2005 closed the plant for nearly two years.[5]

The manufactured news did not end with the Sellafield shut down. Within three or four days, a second major ‘manufactured’-energy story hit the headlines. This time it concerned a supposed depletion in the UK’s gas reserves. The purpose of this was to show how we cannot rely on gas. Energy users, who have faced year on year increases in bills, are being asked to believe that the country could be running out of gas – which of course ultimately it is – but the article meant imminently. The prediction on Sunday March 24 was that only 1.4 to 3 days of gas reserves were left, and the United Kingdom had the lowest reserves in all of Europe. All stories mentioned how expensive gas is and how rationing might have to be introduced. At the same time, the general public was asked to accept that there will be increased energy bills again next winter.[6]

In reality, the main problem is that all our energy suppliers are privately-owned conglomerates for whom profit — no let that be greed — is the main motivating factor. Increased profit equals increased bills. There are supposed to be ombudsmen to make sure that consumers get a fair deal. Where and when have customers experienced a reduction in bills? Private energy companies have a responsibility to shareholders that supersedes any responsibility to customers, despite the customers being the ones who pay the extortionate bills. There used to be an economic saying that “the customer is king,” meaning that customers could take their business elsewhere for a better deal. Price fixing and energy cartels have eliminated customer choice.

There was a time in the UK when energy bills rose in proportion to increases in wages and salaries, when families could afford to pay for essential services without undue strain on the rest of the family budget. That was back in the happier days when utilities were publicly owned. Back then, when work needed doing, it was done because the driving force was not profit but safety and the delivery of a responsible service. In our stringent days of private ownership, the average family is crippled by energy bills. Water leakages are ignored for decades. When in dry spells the country sees its water reservoirs fall to their lowest ever levels, this is blamed on increased consumption. Privately-owned industries have no motivation to locate and repair the leaks. Instead hosepipe bans are imposed on householders because this is a much cheaper option than fixing the leaks and does not impinge on profit.

As with water, gas, and other essential industries, the new proposed nuclear power station will also be in private hands. This does not augur well for public safety or the family purse. Shareholders of private companies are not concerned about safety so much as profit, knowing as they do, that while the cash keeps coming in, their lives could not be sweeter. If later something goes badly wrong, like the Fukushima disaster, they can move their money and profits elsewhere, with the added consolation that the taxpayer, as usual, will pick up the bill. That is what happened with banking. There is no possibility with a Conservative, Labor or Liberal government that service industries will return to public ownership. They no longer believe in public ownership. Greed cracks the government whip.

References

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21839684

[2] http://lakelandradio.co.uk/2013/03/bad-weather-forces-sellafield-shutdown/

[3] Nicholson, Norman, A Local Habitation, Faber & Faber, London, 1972, p. 31.

[4] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/06/nuclear-power-leukaemia

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield

[6] http://peakoil.com/consumption/could-uk-face-gas-rationing-british-gas-reserves-could-run-dry-in-36-hours and http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-faces-the-prospect-of-gas-rationing-for-the-first-time-8544975.html

Editor’s Note: All photographs by Trey Ratcliff.

In the three years since Haiti’s earthquake, the unemployment rate has climbed from 80 percent to more than 85 percent. Simultaneously, the gross domestic product (GDP) has gone from a five-percent decline in 2010 to a two-percent growth in 2012, according to a World Bank report released on January 15 and titled “Global Economic Prospects – January 2013: Assuring Growth Over the Medium Term.” The report predicts another six-percent growth in Haiti’s GDP for the current year. This rosy picture closely matches the forecasts for other developing nations of Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as countries in South Asia and Africa: especially those that have suffered wars and other disasters. Libya, for example, represents a smashing success, with a 2012 GDP increase of 108 percent. By contrast, the growths of Japan and other developed countries, as measured by their GDP, have stagnated at values below three percent and sometimes negative.

If you are shaking your head, thinking there must be a mistake in the World Bank’s computations, think again. They are quite correct. The problem lies, not in the calculations of GDP, but in their use to gauge economic growth and the assumption that a country’s GDP correlates with its standard of living, quality of life, and even happiness of its citizens. GDP may be calculated in at least three ways, and in every case it amounts to all the money that changes hands in an economy during one year. One common approach is to define GDP as being equal to: private consumption + government spending + gross investment + (exports – imports).

Inspect this simple mathematical expression for a moment, and you will see its implication: namely that, with the exception of imports, everything gets added to the GDP, and nothing ever gets subtracted: not even government debt! A country’s GDP should not be confused with its net worth, which is never reported. Notions such as the subtraction of red ink from black ink (or debit from credit) are not for the high-flying technocrats of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), and certainly not for today’s heads of state who come from their ranks or follow their lead, but for pesky little people, like the world’s certified public accountants and small businessmen and women, who insist on their economy being grounded in reality. A country’s GDP merely measures the flow of money through its territory. So long as money changes hands in transactions that involve banks, the GDP rises. The IMF and World Bank should rightly be delighted with GDP growth. It is a marvelous measure of the wealth of bankers.

Six things that are bad for GDP

1. Home ownership. If you choose, for example, to accelerate the payments on your house so that you own it free and clear and need no longer pay interest and a mortgage to the banks, this is terrible for GDP, although from a practical viewpoint, your decision is quite excellent for your quality of life. Indeed, home ownership is generally bad for GDP.

2. Unpaid labor. If you do the day-to-day repairs to your own house, as many people do, or you work in your home in child rearing and housekeeping, as many of the world’s women do, or you care for your elderly parents, or grow a vegetable garden, such actions are awful for the GDP. By contrast, if you substitute your unpaid work for your family with the paid labor of a professional class including babysitters, preschool teachers, restaurant staff, dry cleaners, nursing home workers, supermarket staff, etc., you grow the GDP. In other words, family cohesiveness subverts GDP growth. The same is true for altruistic volunteerism.

3. Barter. When you trade goods or services, and you and the other party both improve your standards of living, if the solution to your problems preempts the purchase of an item or service, then you hurt GDP growth. By contrast, if for example your car breaks down, and you borrow tens of thousands of dollars from a bank to buy a new one, this is great for GDP. Suppose further, that you are sold a lemon that runs for only one day, your unwisely spent money helps the GDP just the same.

4. Government services. Suppose your city government used to supply your drinking water, for example, and this service gets cut and you wind up having to buy bottled water more expensively; this is fantastic for GDP. Indeed, any payment for things that you used to get for free helps the GDP.

5. Good luck. An absence of disaster in your life is anathema to GDP growth. If you suffer the ravages of a near-fatal disease, a war, an earthquake, a tsunami, or a hurricane, and you must spend enormous sums on medical care, reconstruction of your house, etc., the GDP grows. Indeed the GDP will grow as long as money is spent and regardless of any improvement to your health or any other aspect of your situation. Losses from disasters are not subtracted from GDP. Nature’s services are not added to GDP. On the other hand, the funds borrowed to deal with a disaster nicely augment the GDP.

6. Population decline. Currently humans consume more than 40 percent of Earth’s primary productivity: all the food that there is on the planet. One might therefore reasonably assume that a drop in the human population would improve the quality of life for all by increasing the amounts of the available foods and other consumables, as well as reducing our wastes. This, however, would also decrease the GDP, since there would be fewer consumers. Indeed, the world’s GDP growth is driven in large part by nothing more than increased population.

The build up of Haiti’s GDP by agencies such as USAID, the Interamerican Development Bank, European Union, World Bank, and IMF is part of a project to force the country into a neocolonialist’s mold. For much of the last 200 years, Haiti enjoyed a lively agricultural economy run by small farmers. This economy was based, for the great majority of citizens on the barter of goods and services, ownership of modest homes, cooperative farm work by communities without exchange of money, and performance of other unpaid labor by members of extended families for each other.  When Haitians lived on organic foods that were in season, safely drank the waters from their springs and rivers and were, for the most part, self-employed as small entrepreneurs, the GDP was negative. When several of Haiti’s debts were forgiven immediately after the 2010 earthquake, the GDP was negative. But in the last two years, Haiti has had enough additional bad luck to grow its GDP by more than seven percent. The country’s agriculture has crashed, and it must import nearly all its food. The bankrupted farmers have been turned into wage slaves for a growing number of sweatshops. An epidemic of cholera, increased hunger and homelessness, together with a simultaneous dismantling of the municipal water systems of the country’s major cities have caused the health of Haitians to plummet.

Currently, most people who enjoy decent housing or employment in Haiti are foreigners who serve “non-governmental” organizations (NGO). The new World Bank President Jim Yong Kim, for example, fittingly began his career as a co-founder of the well-heeled NGO Partners In Health (PIH). Mr. Kim visited Haiti on November 6-7 to finance projects including a reconstruction of the country’s sabotaged electrical grid; this project will enable the appropriation of massive areas of land as well as require that the country’s electric power be subsumed to that of the Dominican Republic. Fantastic for GDP growth, but hardly helpful for Haitians. GDP is the stuff of vultures.

Predictions in the World Bank report of a three-percent growth in global GDP and more substantive growths for the GDP of countries like Haiti, Mali, Niger, and the Ivory Coast should give one a chill, since such forecasts rely on expectations of continued overpopulation, the associated ravages of anthropogenic climate change, and even civil wars. Against this, we find the idea of a steady-state economy as something to strive for, and notions of eco-socialism and “decroissance” (degrowth) as routes to this improved economy. As Edward Abbey has noted: “Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.” It is the duty of those who care about the quality of life on Earth to undermine GDP growth in every way possible.

Editor’s Note: Photographs one, two and four by Anders Sandberg. Photographs three, five, six and seven by Wellcome Images.

Benghazi is about to explode with an event which, judging from past experience, is likely to have NATO retaliation at its leading edge. On Thursday January 24, the BBC advised UK residents to leave Libya’s second city.[1] Other European residents of Benghazi have likewise been advised by their governments’ embassies to abandon the city. When NATO plans to attack somewhere, it usually tries to make sure its nationals are out of the area first. It did so before bombing Iraq with depleted uranium warheads after the declaration of a no-fly zone. This was long before the Iraq war. The nature of the current threat to Benghazi has not yet been made clear. This city was the scene of the September 11, 2012 attack on the American diplomatic complex in which US ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was killed along with three other personnel. A further ten were injured. The BBC announcement came the day after Secretary of State Hilary Clinton defended the US position over that embassy attack. A response to a US-produced anti-Islamic film was thought to be the original cause, but this was later said to be untrue.[2]

Historically Benghazi was sought after for its beauty and vegetation. It was once such a plush area, it was likened to a mythological and heavenly garden tended by nymphs and indeed went by the name Hesperides. For three centuries it was under Greek colonization, for another six it was a Roman colony. The Turkish (later Ottoman) empire controlled the area another 300 years until early in the last century, then Benghazi fell under the Italian yoke. Today, it is not so much the beauty of the area that attracts the world’s imperialists as the residue from those early Elysian gardens, once an inspiration to the poets of old. Millennia of biodegradation have left, beneath the surface, wells of the black pollutant for which greedy people and governments will drench their hands with blood. This brings us to Tony Buckingham.

Executive holdings and outcomes

Tony Buckingham’s history is as shady as Benghazi’s is colourful. Buckingham has added to his multi-millions using mercenary deals in Africa through a company called Executive Outcomes and an associated company called Sandline Holdings. Sandline’s activities were concentrated in areas of Angola and Sierra Leone; Buckingham added to his wealth from the diamond mines of these two countries via his Canadian companies Diamond Works and Branch Energy.[3] Executive Outcomes was set up by Eeben Barlow, the man Patrick Haseldine believes was behind the Lockerbie bombing.[4] Before Buckingham moved primarily into oil through his company, Heritage Oil,  he was implicated in mercenary activities throughout Africa, and other countries, with a close-knit private military cabal including Captain Tim Spicer and his former business partner in oil and security companies Simon Mann. Mann was imprisoned for trying to engineer a coup d’état in Equatorial Guinea, an adventure that was funded by Mark Thatcher, son of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

Buckingham’s interests are scattered far and wide, but he usually conceals his involvement and instead relies on henchmen like Tim Spicer, Stephen Crouch and Christian Sweeting to lobby on his behalf, or on behalf of his companies.[5] Over the years, Buckingham has registered companies in diverse tax-havens, including the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey and Hong Kong. It is said that his private army and mercenary interests ceased in 1999, and he is no longer involved in Sandline, which was wound up in 2004. This ostensible lack of interest coincided with Nelson Mandela closing down the South African operation of Executive Outcomes at the end of 1998. Although nothing today directly connects Buckingham to any mercenary army, many of his business partners, if not all, have a military or special units’ background. The more wars the west enters, the richer people like Buckingham and Spicer get.

Before Buckingham’s incursion into Libya, he was one of the first oil tycoons into Iraq after the 2003 war: a war which Prime Minister Tony Blair informed an outraged public had nothing to do with oil. Heritage Oil bought into the oilfields of Iraq when the second Gulf War ended; after “discovering” oil in the Kurdistan area of Iraq, Heritage exploited that find through Genel Enerji, a partner company in the Miran field. Before announcing the “find” to the market, Buckingham’s company leaked the confidential information to Genel’s directors Mehmet Sepel, Murat Ozgul and Levent Akca, who bought shares, which they sold on the very day the market was informed of the discovery. These shares rocketed by 25%, and the directors were penalized for insider trading. Interestingly, the three Genel directors had to pay a record fine, but not Heritage Oil, through which the oil discovery had been leaked to them.[6]

Stephen Crouch, Lawrence of Kurdistan

Buckingham’s associate Stephen Crouch had been involved in the plan to steal Iraqi oil since the First Gulf War. In 1991 Crouch curried favor with the Kurdish Reconstruction Company, with whom he soon had a disagreement. Known sarcastically as “Lawrence of Kurdistan,” Crouch became Director General of Iraqi British Interest Group (IBI) by 1994 and several others subsequently.[7] He has tried to project an image of working for the secret services, though this has been denied by MI6. Crouch came under public scrutiny when British conservative politician Liam Fox had to resign in 2011 over the Adam Werritty scandal. As well as paying £5,000 towards the election campaign of Simon Hart on behalf of Buckingham, Crouch made a donation of £50,000 to Conservative Party funds, again using the former mercenary’s money. Werritty, it will be recalled, was an unofficial defense adviser allegedly on behalf of the government, who used fake calling cards with a House of Commons portcullis printed on them. Werrity was funded through a bogus charity set up by Fox, called Atlantic Bridge, until the Charity Commission closed it down. After this, he got funds via donations to his own company, Pargav.[8] Before Atlantic Bridge’s disgraceful demise, its ranks included, at one time or another, many of the top government ministers and a number of shadow ministers. Margaret Thatcher was its Honorary President.

Selling security

When a country invades another country to steal its oil or other mineral wealth, one may logically expect the inhabitants of the invaded country to prefer their oil, or other stolen resources, to be used for their personal benefit. From the viewpoint of the thief who wants to keep his loot, the oilfields need defending. To defend the newly-acquired interests in Iraq on behalf of the U.S., a British-registered private army, otherwise called a security company, was given the contract. Buckingham’s old friend Tim Spicer is very much in charge of security through a company called Aegis. Spicer had a meeting with Pentagon officials and was later awarded several contracts including one worth $293 million.[9]

In 2011 Tony Buckingham shelled out £19 million for a stake in Sahara Oil Services Holdings based in Benghazi.[10] Christian Sweeting, a former Conservative candidate who has the confidence of the First Secretary, William Hague, is running this operation. Hague and Sweeting share the same gentlemen’s club, The Carlton Club. More than 12 months ago however, Sweeting had difficulty in securing a face-to-face meeting between Buckingham and Hague, and it is not known whether this meeting ever took place. Its purpose was to get Hague’s support for a multi-million pound security contract in Libya. Sweeting was having difficulty selling this same private security idea to Libya’s National Transitional Council (NTC).[11] The NTC did not want to be presented with the security mess now evident in Afghanistan and Iraq. Buckingham, through Heritage Oil, has also had his eye on offshore drilling in an area contested by Malta and Libya, which was planned even before Gaddafi was deposed. Sweeting recruited a retired former British commando Major General John Holmes to set up the security for Heritage Oil interests. Holmes is said to be connected with Simon Mann, formerly, like Buckingham, of Executive Outcomes.

This is speculative, but it seems unlikely that any security contracts proposed by Sweeting have been approved by the NTC. If they have not, this leaves those with oil and other mineral investments in Libya, without security from British-based security companies, most uncomfortable in some eyes. Is this why British nationals, other Europeans and Canadians in Libya have been told to leave the country? On January 27, British citizens were advised to leave Somalia because of a specific threat to their safety.[12] Is there a connection between the two? What will happen next in Benghazi? Is the National Transitional Council no longer a British ally? Will there be drone attacks on Benghazi, or Somalia, or both? Will a false-flag incident be blamed on Somalis? Is the British parliament consulted anymore before such decisions take place? Are there any reasonable people left in the government? Is everybody in government a neo-colonialist? Whatever the answer to these questions, rest assured that the finite mineral resources of the world are its main stumbling-block to world peace.

Editor’s Note: Photograph one by Thomas Hawk. Photographs two and five by Jayel Aheram and photograph three by Joe Rago.

References

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21181742

[2]http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/23/politics/clinton-benghazi/index.html

[3] http://tonybuckingham.crazybillionaire.org/tonybuckingham.php

[4] https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2143527861979&l=98ba3f88fc

[5] For an account of how Tim Spicer protected Tony Buckingham’s name in relation to Sandline see Craig Murray, The Catholic Orangemen of Togo and Other Conflicts I Have Known, Atholl, 2009, Chapters 2 and 4.

[6] http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/feb/16/genel-enerji-record-fine

[7] http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Stephen_Crouch

[8] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/16/adam-werritty-liam-fox-pargav

[9] Murray, 68.

[10] http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/nov/13/oil-commodities

[11] http://maltatoday.com.mt/en/newsdetails/news/national/UK-oil-firm-drilling-offshore-Malta-in-backroom-dealings-with-Libya

[12] http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1320659–u-k-urges-citizens-to-leave-somaliland-due-to-specific-threat

It seems like everyone who is paying attention to the fiscal cliff debate has an opinion one way or another about the benefits and disadvantages of the Tuesday night passage of the Senate Bill. The compromise that was agreed upon can be described as a barrel filled with pork for both Democrats and Republicans and their corporate sponsors, being that earmarks and tax breaks for corporations are included amongst the illusion of fiscal relief for the middle and lower classes.

For the left, the tax increases on the super-rich, who make up approximately 0.9 percent of the American population (those individuals earning more than $400,000 or $450,000 per household), was a victory but still managed to fall short of the Obama campaign promise of raising taxes on the top two percent (individuals earning more than $200,000 or $250,000 per household). For the right, the numbers must have added up, seeing as quite a few house Republicans voted in line with the Democrats. This tax increase on rich folks from 35 percent to 39.6 percent will create about $600 billion in revenue over the course of ten years, but with congress’ track record being as shoddy as it is, who knows what programs or misuse it will go to, you know: like the TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program), where taxpayer money went directly to the banks and CEOs but not to the millions of underwater homeowners that it was designed to assist to avoid foreclosure. But don’t worry, this money will surely not go towards paying down our world-record national debt of $16.4 trillions that was not even addressed by the bill. Economists have predicted that all the expenditure this bill allows will raise the national debt to $20 trillion during the next ten years.

Let us take a look at what else this bill will do to the economy and the American people. For starters, the bill extends for another year Goldman Sachs and Bank of America’s tax break by moving their headquarters to the “Liberty Zone”, a post 9/11 area where the World Trade centers once stood. This tax provision was created to help revitalize Lower Manhattan’s small businesses but instead helped out these two mega-bailed-out banks and helped to subsidize the construction of luxury apartments. Goldman Sachs alone was reported to have received $1.6 billion in tax free financing of its new building.

The Extension of the Active Financing Exception of Sub-part F is a very fancily-worded trade tax loophole; it extends a bill created in 1997 that allows American companies to avoid paying taxes on income from certain transactions called “active financing.” This loophole, a credit of up to $9 billion, basically encourages American companies to move overseas and thus outsource employment from Americans. One of the biggest corporations to abuse this loophole is General Electric (GE).

Hollywood catches a break with a subsidy called “Extension of special expending rules for certain film and television productions,” meaning that corporations such as Disney will continue to receive tax breaks for filming three-quarters of their films in the United States and get more tax breaks if they film in an underprivileged area, costing taxpayers about $150 million dollars.

NASCAR gets a tax break of $43 million over the next two years to encourage new tracks and racing facilities to be constructed so they can compete with other theme parks. The clean-energies provision will not only provide subsidies to “green energy” production such as wind power, but also help to keep the coal-mining industry afloat by calling Indian Land coal clean, at $1.2 billion a year for ten years.

Credit for Expenditures for Maintaining Railroad Tracks provides a tax credit of $331 million dollars for short-line railroads to help offset the cost of maintaining railroad tracks they own or lease. The ongoing fear is that these rails would discontinue due to maintenance issues, thus interrupting the shipping process.

Some of the seemingly better points of the new bill are that Unemployment Benefits and its tiers have been extended, at least for another year, but expect a raging debate about it again upon its expiration. Taxes will stay as is for the middle class for now; but counter-productively, the lowered payroll tax that was implemented in 2011 expired on Monday and will go back to 6.2 percent, up from 4.2 percent. This two percent increase will leave about 160 million American workers with smaller paychecks and, in turn, will surely cause a decrease in economic stimulus (which was why the payroll tax was decreased in the first place), seeing as the average household will be out of about $35 to $180 a week, depending on its income.

For lower-income families, Earned-Income Credit, Child-Tax Credit and other college-tuition credits will still hold true for at least another five years, and the Child-Dependent Care Tax Credit will become permanent, relieving parents in need of childcare by up to 35%. But still, the payroll-tax increase will stun this fragile class, along with almost every working family in the United States. So what do we have to thank congress and our president for? If corporations didn’t have loopholes like the Active Financing tax dodge, billions of dollars could have been generated back into America’s economy and could have possibly avoided layoffs and thus halted the rise in Unemployment-Benefit requests by keeping our factories open and not shipping our jobs over to third-world countries. If real living wages were paid out by corporations to the lower-income workforce, then maybe there would be no need for any Earned-Income Credit and other tax credits. If congress and the presidents (past and present) had any ethics at all, these looming fiscal collapses could have canceled each other out or never have existed in the first place.

Editor’s Note: Photographs one, three, four and five by Peter Patau. Photograph two by Gilbert Mercier.

Show me a corporate boss who calls Haiti the “poorest country in the western hemisphere,” and I’ll show you a con artist preparing to fleece Haiti. Likewise, show me a western technocrat who bemoans Haiti’s “dramatic deforestation due to charcoal production” and I’ll show a bio-pirate or vandal preparing to wreck the country’s remaining cloud-forest and mangrove-forest ecosystems.

It turns out that the real plan for Haiti’s northeastern region — especially the Caracol Bay area — is one that was hatched by U.S. and Canadian mining corporations, with the U.S. and South Korean sweatshop zone being a side project and distraction. If this mining plan is given a green light while Haiti is under foreign occupation, it will permanently strip the country of much of its mineral, cultural, and ecological wealth.

In a May 1 interview with Canada’s Financial Post, Majescor Resources Inc. CEO Dan Hachey was effusive about Michel Martelly’s installment as president because he expects Martelly’s policy of mimicking the Dominican Republic (DR) to be a boon to the mining sector. Hachey enthusiastically noted that “thirty years ago, there was no mining sector to speak of in the Dominican Republic…. In that short period of time they’ve seen the development of the Pueblo Viejo Project [of Barrick and Goldcorp's], which is one of the world’s largest gold deposits — and is pretty much a neighbour of ours…. They’re going to be coming on with production this year.”

This glowing picture omits the fact that Barrick and Goldcorp have come under strong popular opposition in the DR. In a country where 20 percent of the population lacks access to drinking water, these companies are accused of polluting 2,500 cubic meters of water per hour with the vast quantities of cyanide needed to process 24,000 tons of ore a day by opencast (or open-pit) mining. Open-pit mining is banned by the European Union. Activists in the DR have joined forces with a broader group called Observatorio de Conflictos Mineros de América Latina (OCMAL) that launched a campaign to end this practice in the region. These problems are compounded by the damages from the more intense tropical storms due to climate change. For example, in the Philippines, the largest gold mine had to be suspended due to an unexpected spillage of waste into a major river.  In the DR, there is great concern that the country’s biggest water reservoir, which is close to the mining operations, is continuously at risk of cyanide contamination, since stories of spills and massive fish die offs caused by mining companies are legion. Barrick and Goldcorp have also been accused of dynamiting mountains and destroying Taino Indian archaelogical sites.

Like the Pueblo Viejo region of the DR currently under exploitation, the spot being eyed for mining by Majescor in Haiti — a 50-square-kilometer area called the SOMINE property — belongs to a broader region, replete with archeological sites, situated along a metal-rich mountain ridge running from southeastern DR to northern Haiti. This was formerly known simply as Le Massif du Nord but has become the “Massif du Nord Metallogenic (or Mineralization) Belt.”

An EMX-Newmont joint venture and the Haitian government signed a Memorandum of Understanding in April 2012 that allows exploration drilling while a Mining Convention is being ratified to permit development. Under this MOU, a gold prospect called Savane La Place is the first project picked for drilling.

SOMINE is an acronym for Société Minière du Nord-Est S.A. and is described in the mineral trade sheets as a “Haitian affiliate mining company.” It is 66.4 percent owned by Majescor, with the rest being owned by unidentified members of Haiti’s elite. Majescor is still a relatively small company that conducts mineral surveys. The SOMINE property is surrounded by other mining properties owned jointly by Majescor and much larger concerns like Eurasian Minerals and Newmont Mining. Once Majescor’s surveys are complete, it plans to find a big partner, like Eurasian, Newmont or Barrick (or some partnership of these like EMX-Newmont), to handle the extractive part of the project.

Curiously, the area of the SOMINE property was initially surveyed as early as “the 1970s by the UN Development Program, with some very good results [but the project was not pursued. Then] there was a feasibility study done by the Germans [Bundesanstalt fur Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR)] in 1980, and there was further drilling done in the 1990s by Canadian junior [mining companies],” recalled Hachey. During the 1980′s, the area was explored again by the UNDP and also surveyed by the French Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minière (BRGM), both of which reported finding only copper. The official story is that an abundance of copper had until recently obscured the fact that the area’s ore is also rich in silver and gold, and this was discovered from Majescor’s recent prospects of Douvray, Blondin and Faille-B. However, the story could just as well be that the mining executives were biding their time and waiting for a “stable” non-nationalistic government to take effect before initiating their projects.

Indeed, the issue of gold mining could have been one of the undeclared motivations behind the February 2004 removal of Aristide. The post-coup government immediately went to work signing away Haiti’s mineral rights without any knowledge of the public. For example, the mineral rights to the SOMINE property were quietly assigned under a Mining Convention executed between this company and the coup government on May 5, 2005 and presumably valid until March 9, 2020. In any case, after the coup, Haiti’s mountains suddenly began to glitter. For example, an exploration of the Faille-B prospect in 2007 reported a gold vein that averaged 42.7 grams of gold per ton of ore (g/t) over 6 meters, including values of 107.5 g/t of gold over one meter.

According to Hachey, April 11, 2012 assays from Blondin found:

• 0.45 percent copper over 96.5 meters;
• 0.3 percent copper over 12 meters, including 0.61 percent copper over 1.5 meters; 154 grams of silver per ton (g/t) over 12 meters, including 869 g/t silver over 1.5 meters.

March 13, 2012 results from Blondin discovered:

• 72.4 g/t silver over 15 meters;
• 16.9 g/t silver over 113 meters, including 6.2 g/t silver over 1.5 meters; 0.43 percent copper over 113 meters, including 4.44 percent copper over 1.5 meters.

February 1, 2012 results from Douvray discovered:

• 255 g/t silver over 13.5 meters, including 2,069 g/t silver over 1.5 meters; 0.35 percent copper over 13.5 meters, including 0.52 percent copper over 1.5 meters; 0.02 g/t gold over 13.5 meters, including 0.04 g/t gold over 1.5 meters;
• 277 g/t silver over 13.5 meters, including 1,428 g/t silver over 1.5 meters; 0.18 percent copper over 13.5 meters, including 0.52 percent copper over 1.5 meters; 0.04 g/t gold over 13.5 meters, including 0.04 g/t gold over 1.5 meters.

These highly concentrated deposits of copper, silver and gold should reasonably represent a new found wealth for Haiti during a dire need of resources for the country’s reconstruction. But if the DR is to serve as an example, Haiti will not benefit from its minerals. In the DR, Barrick owns 60 percent of the Pueblo Viejo gold mine and Goldcorp Inc. owns the remaining 40 percent. To get a sense of the scale of the greed, one need only consider that, while gold currently costs over $1,700 per ounce, the Pueblo Viejo mine is slated to produce one million ounces of gold per year at a cost of only $20-50 per ounce, making it one of the lowest-cost gold mines in the world.

Hachey comments with evident enthusiasm: “What we’re most excited about is that we found some silver which was never really realized before. It’s the first silver discovery in Haiti…. Part of the reason why it was never really discovered was that historically there was so much copper prevalent — there’s a lot of outcropping at the surface. The people who did the work before did not do much testing, even for gold…. The geology is a little complex for a copper porphyry, but in a good way. The surprises that we’re getting are all good ones.”

As major draws for a big mining partner to this next phase of the project, Hachey is advertising that, unlike Port-au-Prince, which was destroyed by the earthquake, Cap Haitien is a pleasant place for a Canadian mining executive and his family to come to. In addition, he notes that there are plans for “the construction of a deep-water port at Caracol,” only 15 kilometres from the SOMINE property and near Cap-Haitien. Indeed, on May 7 Martelly announced that the construction of a port would soon start in Fort-Liberte (near Caracol), in the Northeast. The port will cost U.S. $179 million and is supposed to be “built with the U.S. government’s help,” but it will likely be entirely owned by U.S. concerns. This first official announcement of a deep-water port for Caracol explains in part why there has been no effort to mitigate the ecological effects of the massive free-trade (sweatshop) zone inaugurated in October 2012 in that area: the textile factories’ contributions to the degradation of Caracol Bay should be trivial compared to the damage from opencast gold mining and construction of a deep-water port.

UPDATES on December 21 and 28, 2012, Associated Press, VCS Mining. Haiti’s Mining Director Ludner Remarais has issued a gold exploitation permit to VCS Mining LLC (and its wholly-owned subsidiary Delta Societe Miniere S.A.), a U.S. company based in North Carolina, and gold and copper exploitation permits to SOMINE S.A. SOMINE is 66.4% owned by Canada’s Majescor Resources Inc and 33.6% owned by a group of unidentified, and possibly nonexistent, Haitian investors. According to Majescor CEO Dan Hachey: The permit “allows us to finally produce and make money, at least get to that step…. It’s also a great step forward for the mining industry in Haiti.” SOMINE engineer Michel Lamarre said he expects exploration to start in 36 to 42 months, and VCS CEO Angelo Viard expects his company to enter into “production” within 29 to 38 months. The gold permits are for five years and renewable for up to 25 years, with a possible renewal for another 10 years if new resources are discovered. These permits were issued by Remarais without any environmental-impact assessment (EIA).

Update on January 24, 2013, Defend Haiti. After a meeting of Haiti’s Senate Committee on Public Works and Communication, Minister of Public Works, Transportation and Communication Jacques Rousseau, and Director General of Mining and Energy Ludner Remarais on Tuesday January 22, the Senate met and rejected the agreements made by Remarais with the U.S. and Canadian mining companies in December, pending a review of the companies and the agreements.

Editor’s Note: News Junkie Post co-Editor in Chief, Dady Chery, broke this story on May 2, 2012. Photograph one by Sky Truth; photographs two, five and six by United Nations Photo. Photograph four by Stormy Dog and photograph seven by Andrew Kuznetsov.

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published, with the very same title, on December 8, 2011. At the time, no significant actions had been taken by Occupy in conjunction with labor movements to take on global capitalism with the peaceful, yet most effective tools of exploited workers: strike and consumer boycott by other citizens to show solidarity. This Black Friday action against Walmart, calling for strike and consumer boycott, almost a year after the original article was published, will test whether such a strategy can be successfully applied. Walmart is the symbol of global exploitation of labor and also of  extreme concentration of wealth. Walmart is the symbol of the broken capitalist system.

The Occupy movement is becoming viral, but its very own merit, which is to be a true grassroots movement without hierarchy or a defined leadership could be its Achilles heel. The global capitalist system, run by the very few people in control of mega corporate entities, will not cave in or even yield an inch just at the sight of camps, banners, and meaningful slogans. If the 99 percent want to have a real impact and effective results, without resorting to violence, they must focus on strategy and tactics. A new discourse must be defined, and this is far from the case at the moment.

The occupy movement themes of grievances and protests  can be historically compared to similar movements in the late 60s, in particular May 1968 in France. On the other hand, during the mini-revolution in 1968, the protests got violent and the ideology behind them had a clear Marxist or Anarchist undertone. The 1968 French revolution ultimately failed, but it shook France’s power apparatus. There are lessons to be learned, however, from the successes and failures of May 1968. The most effective tactic applied by the protesters was a general strike that completely paralyzed the country for five weeks.

General Global Strike and Large Street Protests

The global capitalist system is like a giant octopus with many heads and  tentacles that reach everywhere. Single-state players matter less and less. To tackle the tremendous global strength of this nexus of finance and repressive power, enforced by what is becoming a global police state, the global Occupy movement, short of becoming radicalized and violent, must consider the best tools at its disposal: a coordinated global strike and street protests across the world. The Occupy movement must also work on defining an overall platform instead of merely relying on various slogans. In other words, the Occupy movement must become a political force.

Consumer Boycott

Activists in camps that are still standing, such as the one in McPherson Square in Washington DC, rely on food donations to survive. But, right “next door”, there are Starbucks, banks, and fancy restaurants and stores. The people against the movement view the activists as harmless “hippies” in need of “a shower and a job.” By contrast, a global general strike, massive street protests, and a consumer boycott would have a real impact on the giant hydra of global capitalism. Fighting a global system with peaceful means requires global strategies, not local ones. The various Occupy movements must define a common discourse, a precise platform, and adopt effective strategies such as strike and consumer boycott. Otherwise, they are likely to fizzle and melt away like snow under a bright Spring sun.

By Andrea Egizi

What started with a warehouse walkout in Southern California on September 12th and Ellwood, Illinois three days later due to poor working conditions, discrimination and undefined/reduced working hours, has erupted in a nationwide movement to improve wages and working conditions for Walmart and its warehouse distributors. Walmart has been noted for being exceptionally cruel to its employees over the years and is currently involved in many lawsuits ranging from refusal to pay overtime, forcing temporary workers to arrive early and work through lunch breaks, and even sexual misconduct and discrimination. In 2008 alone, Walmart paid out $640 million in settlements in dozens of federal and state class-action lawsuits.

Walmart is a non-union entity. It employs 2.1 million so-called associates worldwide and is a prime example of global capitalism. It is the United State’s largest private employer, with a labor force of 1.4 million. About 70 percent of the products Walmart sells are made in China and are the direct result of exploited labor in that country. This modern slave labor is the reason Walmart can advertise its prices as being the lowest and also why the company reported a net income of $15.4 billion last year. The heirs of Sam Walton, the founder of the Walmart empire, are by far the world’s richest family, with a combined net worth of $93 billion. They currently hold numbers six, seven, eight, and nine on the Forbes 400 richest people in the world.

Throughout the past few weeks, demonstrations have taken place in twelve states and in major cities around the country including Los Angeles, The Bay Area, Sacramento, Orlando, Miami, Chicago, Washington DC, Seattle and Dallas. These actions have been described as the first strike in Walmart’s 50-year history according to the strike organizers, and have grown support in many smaller cities and towns across the continental US. OUR Walmart, which is an advocacy group consisting of current and former employees, is also planning a November 23 nationwide Black Friday strike and walk-out that could potentially cripple the mega-giant superstore.

October 10, 2012 was the National Day of Action against unfair labor practices, with demonstrations taking place such as Walmart associates walk-outs, and local union advocates at many Walmart properties were handing out literature to support the worker’s rights to organize, receive fair wages, health benefits and forty hour work weeks. In solidarity with my union brothers and sisters, I took a ride to my local Walmart in Mays Landing, New Jersey to see first hand the impact of their collective efforts. Upon my arrival, I was pleased to see many conversations taking place between union members in bright orange shirts with customers who were ready to shop. I was greeted in front of the mega-store by Daniel Konczyk, a United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 152 union member, with a smile and a leaflet. He was more than happy to answer some questions I had about the significance of the day.

“We picked this Walmart and several others as targets in the area, to bring attention to a national awareness against Walmart. We’re not here to represent the Union, we are here to help the workers of Walmart. There has been a lot of talk politically this year with the presidential election about creating better jobs, so what we are here to do today is to educate the employees and encourage them to come out and let them know they have support to make changes within their workplace.”

This day in Bentonville, Arkansas, Walmart associates from across the country gathered to bring a message to Mike Duke, the CEO, and to the Walton family members who still control over 48 percent of the company, to respect their rights and to create better wages, better benefits and more hours. “The Walmart associates in this country are under attack, as are most of the working people in this county. Walmart is the largest employer in the world, that’s why it is being targeted; this is not about a union/nonunion issue” Konczyk said as he waved to the mayor of Mays Landing, who declined an interview but expressed his support for the union’s initiative.

“Because they don’t have the collective bargaining agreement, there has been retaliation against Walmart employees who have spoken out against the unfair practices such as their hours being cut and their wages effected. Because this company is the largest employer in the world, they should be doing their fair share to increase wages, benefits and hours and to provide good jobs to help the workers to be able to provide for their families and for those who are on public assistance, to be able to stand on their own,” added Konczyk.

I stood with Local 152; about ten of them along with union members from the Acme supermarket who walked across the plaza to join them in their efforts, for about an hour. The store manager, who refused to give his name or an interview and purposefully had his Walmart badge turned backwards, made several attempts to ask the leaflet distributors to leave the property by means of police. Konczyk replied to the manager’s threats with a simple shrug of his shoulder and one solitary word, “No.” The police eventually did arrive and it was agreed upon that the Local 152 members would disband and move onto the next Walmart a few towns over to do more educating. I also made several attempts to talk to a few Walmart employees who were taking breaks outside, but all the associates I tried to make contact with didn’t want to talk out of what can only be assumed: fear of retaliation.

There are a few ways we as citizens can support  Walmart workers in their struggle for fair wages and better work conditions. First, we as consumers should boycott all Walmart stores; especially on Black Friday and the entire holiday season. Hitting them in the wallet is a great way to get their attention and demand change. Second, we should let the managers and other higher-ups at Walmart know we are boycotting them. Third, we should encourage our neighbors, families and friends to do the same. Fourth, and most important, we need to stand with the workers and let them know they have the support of the entire working class. We need to show them solidarity through understanding and empathy, but more so through our actions.

Editor’s Note: Andrea Egizi is a journalist who focuses mainly on issues of ethics, equality and human rights. She is currently working on a novel. She is a seasoned front line activist and regular contributor to Raging Chicken Press. Photographs one, two and seven by One America.

The “Looming Fiscal Cliff”

The United States election charade is finally over. Apparently Wall Street had mixed feeling about either the results or the general health of the global financial market. On November 7, the Dow Jones index dropped by 312 points. Some mentioned increased “concerns about Europe’s financial crisis,” but the discourse in Washington — from both Republicans and Democrats — was about the “looming fiscal cliff” that will occur in January, as soon as a new budget needs to be voted on. The word recession reappears in politicians’ lexicon. Tackling the deficit will entail not only spending cuts, which are the agenda of Republicans, but also higher taxes across the board, which is a notion pushed by Democrats. Among other things, the election cycle served to distract the public from a financial Tsunami building on the horizon.

Fiscal cliff indeed: the US federal debt will reach $16.4 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2012. The budget deficit is projected to reach $17.5 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2013. The fiscal cliff is nothing new, and perhaps today’s financial markets’ index dive was just slightly postponed out of “respect” for the financial “Masters of the Universe” of  US politicians’ agenda. Capitalists pretend that “financial markets” know best. Financiers might know a few things, but usually the information is not disclosed to the public until it is too late.

Is a Mega Financial Crash “in the Cards” for 2013?

The global financial crisis of 2008 generated by the US real estate bubble produced a global recession. With the US and European financial situations currently being held by strings, rubber bands and duct tape, the combined fiscal cliff could easily become a global financial crash to make 2008, and even 1929, look like a walk in the park. “Serious” economists did not dare use the term economic depression in 2008, but instead called it a recession. However, the gathering storm coming will make calling a cat a cat unavoidable even for the staunchest proponents of finding justification to shore up disaster capitalism.

Is Fed Chairman Bernanke Tired of Printing Money?

This seems to be the case. A couple of weeks ago, Ben Bernanke quietly announced that he intends to leave the Federal Reserve chairmanship. On October 23, 2012 people close to the Federal Reserve Chairman said that “Bernanke will most likely step down from his position in January 2014, even if President Obama is reelected for a 2nd term.” This information was never confirmed nor denied by Bernanke. However, his desire to retire is easily understandable: after all it must get pretty tiresome to print money around the clock. Chairman Bernanke and the Obama administration use highly academic and purposefully cryptic terms to define the massive money-printing operation. Bernanke describes it alternatively as “monetary stimulus”– the more obvious name — or “quantitative easing”, the more cryptic one. Both consist injecting large amounts of money into the financial system following a Keynesian economic model. US economic academia, with Nobel prize winner Paul Krugman in the lead, are proponents of this approach.

Merkel: Europe’s Accountant in Chief

But on the other side of the Atlantic, Germany — Europe’s healthier economy — as well as the current leadership of the United Kingdom are against this Keynesian approach and favor “fiscal responsibility” in the form of austerity measures, which they are trying to impose on European countries in a fiscal hole such as Greece, Spain, Portugal and to a lesser extent Italy. German Chancellor Angela Merkel views the US policy of extensive monetary stimulus as reckless for the global economy. Merkel was born in what was at the time East Germany. She is not old enough to have directly experienced the impact of the 1929 great depression, but like all Germans, it is likely to be in the back of her mind. In Germany, the late 1920s’ financial crash brought to power Adolf Hitler. Germans were defeated and humiliated by the Treaty of Versailles post World War I, and had to pay reparations to France. This, combined with the global financial crash of 1929 shortly thereafter, made the Deutschmark collapse. In 1932 Germans needed a wheel barrel of Deutschmarks to buy a kilogram of butter. The German currency had become worthless paper.

Road to Perdition: Fire Sale of US Treasury Bonds Held by Foreign Countries

Another factor to input in the fractured equation of global finance is the large amount of US Treasury bonds held by foreign nations. The US can posture as much as it wants to, but in reality — especially in the cases of China and Japan — the US government has a massive financial canon right up to its head. According to the US Treasury, China’s holding in bonds was $1.15 trillion in August 2012, Japan held $1.12 trillion. Smaller bonds holders such as Brazil, Switzerland, the UK, Russia and others all combined held about another $1.8 trillion. Overall, we are talking about $4.0 trillion and this does not include holders from transnational corporate entities.

Financial Hurricanes and Typhoons  on the Horizon

A fire sale of US Treasury bonds could, on its own, collapse the castle made of sand. But if you combine it with an attack on Iran and oil prices doubling or perhaps more, we have a recipe for the mother of all great depressions. People in New York and New Jersey are exposed to the misery of fighting natural forces with little help from a broken government. But the massive financial hurricanes and typhoons that are about to sweep the planet from West to East and North to South will not spare anyone. All of us are in the same boat, and it is looking more and more like the Titanic right before hitting the iceberg.

By Andrea Egizi

For millions of Americans, owning a home is the grandest symbol of accomplishment into the illusion of the “American Dream”. In the United states, we have been indoctrinated to believe being a homeowner signifies success, financial stability and responsibility.

My former husband and I had been renters a few years before the thought ever crossed our minds to look into the prospect of home-ownership. Mostly out of curiosity, we decided to meet with a mortgage lender to see what qualifications (if any) we had and see what the whole lending process entailed.

We set up an appointment with a small local mortgage lender who was sly and charming and offered us a loan right off the bat; seeing that we were both employed and our credit checks came up with decent scores.

We were so disillusioned and eager to have a home of our own for ourselves and our two small children that we short-shortsightedly signed onto a mortgage that was affordable, but still a heavy financial burden. Not convinced by the lender to take on a sub-prime 80/20 loan, interest only or a no-doc loan; (as was originally presented when we first applied and has been the main focus on the burst of the ensuing housing bubble) a conventional Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac loan was readily available with 0 percent down. We completed all the paperwork and the transaction took place in June of 2008, only a few months before the begging of the housing market crash.

Not even a month had passed since we moved in when we received notification via mail from our local mortgage lender that the loan was being sold to a different company called Franklin American. Shortly after that, we received another notice that our mortgage was being sold yet again to Countrywide Financial, which subsequently was bought out by Bank Of America a very short time later. Then the city In New Jersey we moved to sent a letter stating there will be new a tax assessment of all the homes in the area. The result of the new appraisal blindsided us: our home was devalued by 65,000. We were now considered an underwater loan by 124 percent.

Our marriage fell apart soon after for mostly personal reasons (the recession played a major role as well) and the balance of the loan was placed solely on my shoulders. I was relieved to hear that President Obama had signed a new bill to help homeowners like me called the “Making Homes Affordable Program” a.k.a. HAMP, and that it was geared specifically to help struggling underwater homeowners stay in their homes by coming to an agreement on a loan reduction between the lending bank and the homeowner. Seeing as my hours at work were reduced due to economic downturn, and I had lost an entire half of our family income due to impending divorce, I considered this program as a godsend.

I had wasted no time in researching all the details and according to the guidelines, not only did I match all the criteria, but I seemed to be the perfect candidate for it. It was a relief I would be able to keep the roof over my children’s head, eliminating the ongoing fear of escalating debt and homelessness.

First came the initial phone call; which included a very emotional breakdown between myself and the Bank Of America customer service representative. The call delved into my personal life so deeply; I had to start from the beginning and explain to her every detail of my finances and my failed marriage. The customer representative was very understanding and helpful and guided me through the process of applying to the program and the paperwork to fill out arrived within a few days.

I had to provide the Bank Of America with a complete financial summary (calculated by an outside non-profit company Money Management International) in such vivid detail; even down to how much I spent a month to feed my dog, fill my car with gas, and clothe my children. Next was the tax returns, copies of my paychecks and partial-unemployment checks, and finally the “hardship letter” that was advised to me to be a hand-written letter explaining the financial burden that I had fallen into. The good news was, Bank of America agreed to let me pay $400 less a month while they reviewed my application thus relieving my finances to allow me to stay afloat.

All the tasks that were asked of me were completed and faxed over in a timely manner. Nine months plus went by, every payment made on time and in full at the reduced price, and no word on my application. I routinely called Bank of America to check up on my status, but all they ever told me was that they are very glad I am showing interest in my modification and that they would note on my file that I am an active participant in my case. A few times they requested duplicate papers that I had already sent in, but just as a precaution asked for them again and I had it faxed to them the next day if not sooner.

The response letter from Bank Of America arrived like a package and I even had to sign for it. I read each word slow and clear, careful not to misinterpret, and then I saw it, shocked like a confident student who just failed an exam: DENIED. The letter stated that I was denied entry in to program due to incomplete paperwork on my side and I had to now pay back all the money they were gracing me for the past nine months, equivalent to about $4,000.

I immediately made a phone call and asked every question I could to see exactly why I was denied. I demanded to speak with the supervisor and when I finally reached him (after about an hour) he kept repeating that they did not receive the necessary paperwork from me. I frantically debated him over this matter and the only result of the conversation was me filing for an appeal. I asked if I could pay the reduced price during the appeals process and he advised me that that was not an option. He also explained to me that if I did not pay back the graced $4,000, they would report to the credit companies that I am behind on mortgage payments and unless remedied, foreclosure proceedings would begin.

The word echoed in my head over and over… foreclosure. Foreclosure meant my kids would be without a home. Foreclosure meant I would have ruined credit. Foreclosure meant I would have to start all over again. Foreclosure meant that I failed.

I started doing heavy research into other homeowner denials by the mega “too big to fail banks”(with the short list of recipients consisting of Bank Of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and J.P. Morgan Chase) and TARP (Troubles Assets Relief Program).

TARP is the program signed in by President Obama in 2008 that gave $700 billion to the leading mortgage lending banks with the most loans in default. According to the president, only “responsible borrowers” should be allowed to receive HAMP modifications which excludes owners of multiple and muti-million dollar homes and extreme debt-ridden families. The government then gave the banks the power of the final decisions of who, in fact, will receive a modification on their loan with government funded cash via taxpayers.

The biggest problem with TARP was indeed the fact that the greedy mega-banks were in charge of helping homeowners and were left unregulated to do so. The result of such careless oversight was that as of May 2012, 4.3 million people had applied for aid, but only one million had received any help from government sponsored program such as HAMP. Also, it is reported that over four million families have lost their homes to foreclosure since the beginning of 2007 to now; with the hardest hit areas being Nevada (Las Vegas being the leader with 1 in 9 homes in foreclosure and Reno with 1 in 16), Florida (with eleven major cities in the top 25 worst cities to be hit with foreclosure), California (eight major cities listed in the top 25), Arizona and Idaho.

Whistle blower complaints have been filed over Bank Of America stating that “The bank and its agents routinely pretended to have lost homeowners’ documents, failed to credit payments during trial modifications and intentionally misled homeowners about their eligibility for the program”. Many Americans were being denied for the very same reason I was denied. Also, in 2009, Bank of America was caught bullying eligible homeowners of HAMP into their own private and more expensive modification programs, which is a violation of the terms for HAMP.

With all of this data in my back-pocket, I made the decision to not give Bank of America another dime until they accept me into the HAMP program. I waited patiently while my loan went into default and in the meantime the bank sent their photographers out to take shots of my home to see if it was still occupied and maintained. I questioned a man I caught taking photos, and on him was my entire case history. The man was a third party hire, not working directly for Bank of America but for a local construction company. Next were the annoying phone calls that began trying to scare me into making payments that drove me to remove my land-line.

Four months later, Bank of America had results on my appeal: DENIED. The reason this time was that I failed to meet the financial qualifications. Very ironic to be denied entry into a program that was supposed to help struggling homeowners that were hit by economic difficulties.

I made yet another phone call to the bank, this time demanding to know what I can do to stay in my home. Since I am a waitress by trade, they said if I claim more tips on my tax return I could put myself into a higher tax bracket and therefore make the cut off for the program, whether or not I actually made that money. Also, they said I should take on a roommate or offer someone to live in my home and help me pay my mortgage. Fraudulent advice?

Another option they offered was short sale. With this type of transaction, the homeowner must stop making payments and fall behind (this fact did not bother me considering I was already behind in payments). The short sale process can be long, painful and subject to the whim of the bank and the buyers. Many people I have spoken to about short sale told me they were in the selling process, only to be denied for one crazy reason or another right before closing.

The bank also tried to convince me into Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure, meaning I just hand over the house and deed and walk away, but the major problem with that would be, I would still have bad credit and nowhere to live.

I was about to give up, sign on for a short sale or Deed in Lieu and move out, when I stumbled across an article from Zerohedge that led me to a campaign for homeowners that are demanding they see their original mortgage note to prove the bank does/does not hold onto it and therefore may/may not be able to foreclose .

This was something I never heard of before since my war with the bank began, and considering my mortgage was sold three times, I could be a potential victim of fraud. I sent an email to Bank Of America, as provided by the Zerohedge article, demanding to see my note and they did respond in the twenty days they are required by law to do so. I received in response to my inquiry a copy of my mortgage note via mail which was not what I was asking for. I myself have a copy of my mortgage note and I requested to see the original wet-ink note that they should have on their files. I offered to meet a courier within a hundred miles from my home just to prove to me they have it and their answer was that they were not required by law to show me the note, even if I asked for it. I have every right to see my bank note with my signature on it, especially in these circumstances so I sent them another email request to see my note and was denied yet again. This sort of dodging behavior was leading me to believe that Bank of America didn’t have possession of my note and therefore may not have any legal possession of my home.

It was right about this time that I had a final bomb drop: I listened to a report on National Pubic Radio (NPR) that banks can come back and sue short sale/foreclosure victims for the default money owed even many years after the cases are closed if there is a financial asset the bank can sue for. So now not only are Americans facing the nightmare of foreclosure, but we even have to face the fact that they could possibly sue us after-the-fact as well.

So the question I raise is, why are we letting this happen to us and why didn’t the Obama administration do more to help? Many critics have come out to say that the unregulated flow of cash that the mega-banks received to help troubled homeowners and the fact that these banks have not been using the funds as was suggested, was the greatest mistake the Obama administration has made to date. Officials in the administration have said in response that they did what they could with the way the banking and mortgage industry is set up and due to opposition, could not do more.

So what can defaulted homeowners do to stay in their homes and fight off the bank’s constant harassment? First, stay calm. Second, stay in your home. Third, do NOT send the bank any money. Fourth, contact (in writing) your mortgage lender to see your original wet ink mortgage note. More than likely they will deny your right to see it and that is okay; that is the first step that they are admitting they probably don’t have possession of it.

Fifth, if the bank does not agree to let you see the note then sit tight and wait for the sheriff to serve you formal foreclosure papers (and don’t worry, this is not the Old West so don’t be afraid to answer your door. You are not the criminal here, the bank is). And also know, before the sheriff arrives, you technically are not “in” foreclosure but what the banks are calling “pre-foreclosure”.

Sixth, do some research. The internet is the best way to find out all the updates and information on your state’s foreclosure proceedings. I know that here in New Jersey, the sheriff sale of a home is an average of 900 days after the sheriff serves foreclosure papers; which leaves plenty of time to see a lawyer or talk to an advocacy group about your ordeal and be offered some resources you may be able to use.

Seventh, if you have a lawyer in your area who will give you a free consultation, do it. Most likely if you are in foreclosure you cannot afford a lawyer, but at least you might get some legal advice for free on what your next step could be. Foreclosure advocacy groups are popping up all over the country in response to the housing market and bailout scams as well. When searching for an advocacy group in your area, always look for one that is non-profit; most likely ending in .org and not .com. Also look into your states squatter’s rights, especially if you have children.

One thing to keep in mind, this is war between the big banking cartel and you. It all might seem like a frightening place to stand, but you really do have more power than you think. Knowledge is truly power and the most you can do is arm yourself with the know-how to fight back. The reality is, unfortunately, you might lose. A new law could very well pass to force defaulted homeowners out of their homes, but in the meantime live your life as normally as possible; enjoy your children, savor your favorite meal, dance around at a concert, laugh at your high school yearbook picture and have in your back pocket a viable plan B, C, and D just in case you may need it.

Editor’s Note: Andrea Egizi is a journalist who focuses mainly on the the issues of ethics, equality and human rights. She is currently working on a novel. She is a seasoned front line activist and regular contributor to Raging Chicken Press. You can find Andrea on Facebook and Twitter. Photographs one, two, four, five, seven, eight and nine by Steve Rhodes. Photographs three and six by Alex E. Proimos.

Road to World War III: A “Final Solution” for Iran, Syria and Hezbollah

In his last appearance in front of the United Nations, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu stressed the importance of not letting the Iranians cross what he called a “red line”. Netanyahu showed a childish graphic, but regardless of how crude his illustration was, Israel’s PM is clearly drawing a line in the sand to show his friends in Washington DC that his patience is running out. As the financial sanctions from the West are crippling the Iranian economy, there is a clear message getting hammered into the psyche of public opinion — both in Israel and the United States — that a military strike on Iran is an absolute necessity. It has been framed by Israel, and by AIPAC in the United States as an issue of survival for the Jewish state. Iran’s nuclear program has been defined as an “existential threat” for Israel. And, as usual, at least in terms of foreign policy in the Middle East, Israel is in the driver’s seat of the special relationship with the United States.

The notion of a military strike and regime change in Iran seems to have gained an unstoppable momentum with the West and Israel alike rationalizing and pushing joyfully for a catastrophic geopolitical “final solution” for Iran, Syria and Hezbollah alike. A final solution for the Shiite populations of the Middle-East — compliment of Israel and the United States — with the complicity of Saudi Arabia. One of the “brains” behind this absurd logic of the validity of an attack on Iran by the United States is Matthew Kroenig. Kroenig is a member of the powerful Council of Foreign Relations, and in the January/February issue of Foreign Affairs, he published a paper titled “It is Time to Attack Iran.” The words of Kroenig in his January 2012 essay should be taken very seriously. The CFR member is no ordinary Washington pundit, but a powerful man who used to be a special adviser at the Pentagon for defense strategy and policy on Iran.

“Proponents of a strike have argued that the only thing worse than military action against Iran would be an Iran armed with nuclear weapons. Critics, meanwhile have warned that such a raid would likely fail and, even if it succeeded, would spark a full-fledged war and a global economic crisis. But skeptics of military action fail to appreciate the true danger that a nuclear Iran would pose to US interests in the Middle-East and beyond. And their grim forecasts assume that the cure would be worse than the disease — that is, that the consequences of a US assault on Iran would be as bad or worse than those of Iran achieving its nuclear ambitions. But that is a faulty assumption. The truth is that a military strike intended to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, if managed carefully, could spare the region and the world a very real threat and dramatically improve the long-term national security of the United States,” wrote Kroenig.

War for Oil and the Military-Industrial Complex

According to informed noises, both in Israel and Washington,  it doesn’t seem that any attack on Iran or Syria — even so Turkey is already working at softening the Assad regime — will happen before January 2013. This is apparently to respect the United States electoral calendar. But after January, we can all expect some nightmarish scenarios to unfold with only the usual suspect of war profiteering standing to harvest the benefit. First of all, Mr. Kroenig should know better: after all, he was the one running Iranian scenarios for the Pentagon. In his Foreign Affairs paper he failed to anticipate how the Iranian regime would react and retaliate. Iran is not Iraq; a strike on Iran would not be a military walk in the park. The financial sanctions have crippled Iran’s economy, but Iran’s Revolutionary Guard is a force to be reckoned with. Iran has the military capacity to retaliate by striking Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States’ oil fields. Iran’s ally Hezbollah would likely attack Israel from Lebanon. With the biggest oil fields in the world aflame — perhaps for months — and a considerable disruption of oil transit in the Strait of Hormuz, a scenario where oil prices rise up to $200.00 a barrel is not only possible, but likely.

This in return would spark a global economic crisis making the 2008 financial crash look like a picnic. Oil price skyrocketing to this level would spell disaster for European economies already in shambles, for countries such as Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal which rely mostly on oil for their energy supplies. Asia, China, India, Japan and South Korea would also be extremely affected. The only two world powers sitting on the Security Council, and with enough military to stop this insanity are China and Russia. The weak link in this alliance, however, could be Russia, considering that the country’s geopolitical and economic interests would be at odds with this $200.00 per barrel scenario. As a major oil and gas producer, Russia could be one of the main economic beneficiaries of such disruption of the Gulf oil fields.