March 30, 2011 journal, super tax havens for the very rich to shift the tax burden to the very poor in America, it's too late now to blow a whistle because damage has been done. The History Channel played a documentary on the Bohemian Grove in California in the redwood forest at 6:00 p.m. today. They showed the owl symbol of Moloch 40 ft. tall burning with sacrifice with a sculpture of a child placed in its bosom of sacrifice. It sure is disgusting to know that our rich leaders of America including every president with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter has been a participating member for over 150 years. Every summer about 2500 male world leaders meet there for two weeks to decide our future and enjoy official police protection from the outside world of common goyim cattle. Their symbols seems to incorporate freemasonry but include the Order of Skull & Bones with a skull and crossbones plus many more evil symbols. The main video that showed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T9WG4dSZmk Bohemian video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W2fbGp8co Artificial food dye has been expelled from many markets because it makes children sick. Get rid of your colored cereal and a hundred things preserved in your cupboard with food coloring because it is very unhealthy. American children eat sugar junk for the most part. William Rivers Pitt, Truthout: "If you are wealthy, you are living in the Golden Age of your American Dream, and it's a damned fine time to be alive. The two major political parties are working hammer and tong to bless you and keep you. The laws are being re-written - often by fiat, and in defiance of court orders - to strengthen the walls separating you and your wealth from the motley masses. Your stock portfolio, mostly made by and for oil and war, continues to swell. Your banks and Wall Street shops destroyed the economy for everyone except you, and not only did they get away with it, but were handed a vast dollop of taxpayer cash as a bonus prize." Read the Article (CBS News) "Our government is in knots over ways to lower the federal budget deficit. Well, what if we told you we found a pot of money - over $60 billion a year - that could be used to help out? That bundle is tax money not coming in to the IRS from American corporations. One major way they avoid paying the tax man is by parking their profits overseas. They'll tell you they're forced to do that because the corporate 35 percent tax rate is high in relation to other countries, and indeed it seems the tax code actually encourages companies to move their businesses out of the country. Tax havens: Do companies pay their fair share? "60 Minutes" correspondent Lesley Stahl talks tax havens and the new ways American companies are stashing their profits abroad. Companies searching out tax havens is nothing new: in the 80s and 90s there was an exodus to Bermuda and the Cayman Islands where there are no taxes at all. When President Obama threatened to clamp down on tax dodging, many companies decided to leave the Caribbean. But instead of coming back home, they went to safer havens like Switzerland. Several of these companies came to a small, quaint medieval town in Switzerland call Zug. Hans Marti, who heads Zug's economic development office, showed off the nearby snow-covered mountains. But Zug's main selling point isn't a view of the Alps: he told Stahl the taxes are somewhere between 15 and 16 percent. "And in the United States it's 35 percent," Stahl pointed out. "I know. It's half price," Marti said. Marti told Stahl that Zug most probably has the lowest tax rates in Switzerland. "So you're kind of a tax haven within a tax haven?" she remarked. "Maybe, yes," he acknowledged. The population of the town of Zug is 26,000; the number of companies in the area is 30,000 and growing at an average rate of 800 a year. But many are no more than mailboxes. Texas Democratic Congressman Lloyd Doggett questions whether the recent moves of several companies are legit. "A good example is one of my Texas companies that's been in the news lately, Transocean," Rep. Doggett told Stahl. Transocean owned the drilling rig involved in the giant BP oil spill. They moved to Zug two years ago. Extra: Benefits of bringing back cash Extra: How to shift profits "I'm not sure they even moved that much. They have about 1,300 employees still in the Houston area. They have 12 or 13 in Switzerland," Doggett told Stahl. "And yet they claim that they're headquartered over there," Stahl remarked. "They claim they're Swiss. And they claim they're Swiss for tax purposes. And by doing that, by renouncing their American citizenship, they've saved about $2 billion in taxes," Doggett explained. Stahl and "60 Minutes" decided to visit their operations in Zug. A woman at the door told Stahl, "At the moment my boss is not here." She said her boss wasn't there and we should call someone halfway around the world, in Houston. "But this is the headquarters," Stahl remarked. "I know," the woman said. When asked if the CEO was there or is normally at the Zug office, the woman said "No." Produced by Shachar Bar-On Queen What right does the U.S. government have trying to prosecute a foreigner for publishing secret information on or by the United States be it secret or otherwise. Does the United States think they are masters of the universe and does U.S. law extend past our borders for non U.S. citizens? I see no way. If we can reach out and arrest any citizen of other countries then our constitutional laws should extend to them but I see no way we can hold foreigners responsible to U.S. laws unless we are the one world government, real insanity. "Wrapping himself in the First Amendment, Julian Assange recently told "60 Minutes" that "our founding values are those of the American Revolution," those of Jefferson and Madison. Assange may not know that our Constitution was written in secret in Philadelphia, behind closed doors; there were no leaks. But the most imminent First Amendment question confronting WikiLeaks is whether it or Assange can successfully be prosecuted for violation of the Espionage Act. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, in an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal, aggressively interpreted the 1917 Act and demandedprosecution. The act's virtually unintelligible provisions arguably make it a felony not just to collaborate with a spy, but to publish information "relating to the national defense." However, prosecuting a publisher raises serious First Amendment issues. In the 1971 Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme Court decided that the government could not prevent The New York Times from publishing classified Defense Department documents. The Nixon administration then tried to prosecute the leaker, Daniel Ellsberg, but not the newspaper. In fact, no publisher has ever been prosecuted under the act. We don't know whether WikiLeaks was simply the passive recipient of classified documents that came in "over the transom" as we used to say. If it was, that's like the Pentagon Papers case. To be sure, publicizing documents that demonstrate high-level official lying and duplicity, as Ellsberg did, is different from the wholesale dumps that WikiLeaks threatens. Disclosing government secrets just because you can is not necessarily in the public interest. In recent months, WikiLeaks seems to be moving away from anarchism toward journalism, perhaps motivated by the wish to seek shelter under the First Amendment umbrella. The WikiLeaks site has changed its tune somewhat, now repeatedly emphasizing that its "journalists" review leaked material and exercise some judgment about what it puts in the public domain. It has not foresworn indiscriminate dumping or doctrinaire hostility to any government secrecy, but using responsible judgment would give it a better chance at First Amendment protection. In deciding whether WikiLeaks would have a First Amendment defense, one question is whether it actively solicited the leaks, perhaps paying the leaker or providing software assistance to facilitate the leaks. Another is whether the information is of legitimate public interest. And whether a disclosure actually caused harm ought to be relevant. (No harm ever resulted from the publication of the Pentagon Papers; the government has not yet identified any specific harm from WikiLeaks disclosures.) Actively engineering leaks of sensitive information of no legitimate public concern (e.g., the identity of a mole in another country's government), causing actual harm, would subject WikiLeaks to a charge of conspiracy (always a prosecutor's favorite). The government could avoid the First Amendment contention that mere publication can't be made a crime. But a successful prosecution under the messy Espionage Act would remain problematical. In a sense, WikiLeaks owes its existence to two gaps in First Amendment protection for speech and press freedoms, gaps created by unfavorable Supreme Court decisions. First, the court decided, in a case that I lost (Houchins v. KQED, 1978), that there is no First Amendment right of access to government information. That is, unlike in some countries in which government transparency is constitutionally mandated, American citizens have no constitutional right to know what their government is up to. All we have is a not very strong statute, the Freedom of Information Act, with a lot of exceptions, including a broad exemption for documents relating to national security. To the extent that WikiLeaks informs us citizens what the government is doing in our name, it partially repairs this flaw in our constitutional protection for speech and press. With better access to government information, there would be less point to WikiLeaks. Second, the court decided in 1972, in another case on which I worked for the losing side (Branzburg v. Hayes), that reporters have no First Amendment protection against compelled disclosure to a grand jury of their confidential sources. While many states have enacted "reporters shield" laws, Congress has thus far declined to act, and the latest WikiLeaks disclosures seem to have antagonized enough senators to torpedo any chance of enactment soon. The result is that reporters can't honestly promise confidentiality to would-be whistleblowers. A source with sensitive information about government malfeasance can't trust that a reporter will not be subpoenaed to spill the beans about who leaked the information. To the extent that WikiLeaks provides complete anonymity (as it promises on its web site, representing to prospective leakers that it has "never" revealed a source), it again partially repairs a gap in our First Amendment protection. If there were a meaningful shield law that reporters and would-be sources could rely on, WikiLeaks might be superfluous. However the First Amendment issues play out, let's hope our government's hands are clean. We now know that President Richard Nixon's "plumbers unit" burglarized Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office while he was on trial for violating the Espionage Act. An outraged federal judge dismissed the prosecution because of the government's misconduct. Syria is saying the U.S. is committed espionage on Libya. We have no evidence that the Obama administration was complicit in developing sexual misconduct charges against Assange after WikiLeaks made public thousands of classified military communications about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and sensitive State Department cables. It may be just a coincidence that, following upon the disclosures, friendly Sweden issued an extraordinary international arrest warrant seeking Assange's extradition on a charge of failing to use a promised condom; there can't have been many instances of using such heavy legal artillery for such a charge. Companies that supported the WikiLeaks site, like PayPal, Amazon and Visa, may have decided independently, without any government prompting, to withdraw their support. And hacker attacks on WikiLeaks servers may have been orchestrated by freelancers without any government encouragement. It would be really distressing to learn that our government was involved in any of this. Imagine the irony if any government complicity were established by secret government documents some day to be leaked through WikiLeaks." Don't squeal on the guilty because they will retaliate, let God avenge the enemies of this country.