Two North Carolina Democratic Party officials, man, busted for performing satanic rituals

Durham Democratic Party Official accused in rituals

June 30, 2008

Anne Blythe / Raleigh News & Observer

Durham — Allegations that a local Democratic official and her husband were involved in satanic rituals that included shackling people to beds, caging them and depriving them of food and water have horrified county party leaders.

Joy Johnson, 30, a third vice-chairwoman of the Durham County Democratic Party and vice chairwoman of the Young Democrats, was charged Friday with two counts of aiding and abetting.

Her husband, Joseph Scott Craig, 25, was charged with second-degree rape, second-degree kidnapping and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon for an incident in January and another in May.

The two made an appearance in court Monday morning after spending the weekend in the Durham County jail.

Mark McCullough, an assistant district attorney, urged Judge Nancy Gordon to increase Johnson’s bond to $500,000 from the $270,000 set by a magistrate. “Part of the allegations are that satanic worship is part of this case,” McCullough said.

Gordon kept Johnson’s bond at $270,000. Craig’s bond remained at $500,000. Each was ordered to stay away from the accusers. Craig has been charged with beating a man with a cane and a cable cord and assaulting a woman with a wooden cane and raping her.

McCullough would not release details of the allegations, but he added, “I don’t want to leave the impression this is a widespread thing.”

Jeremy Collins, president of the Durham Young Democrats, has known Johnson for several years. After following the Duke lacrosse case and seeing the phony gang-rape charges dismantled and dismissed, Collins said he would reserve judgment until the facts of this case were revealed.

“If it’s true then it’s extremely unfortunate and a shock to all of us,” Collins said.

During her time as a party official, Johnson was interested in trying to attract more young Democrats and get them involved in the political process, acquaintances say.

Floyd McKissick, a state senator and a Democrat from Durham, said Monday he had been told Johnson had resigned her posts with the party. He, too, reserved judgment.

“I was absolutely shocked and flabbergasted,” McKissick said. “You never would have suspected allegations that she would have had any participation in these rituals.”

Johnson and Craig, along with Diana Palmer, first vice chairwoman for the local Democrats, are partners in a company called Indigo Dawn. The company’s Web site says Indigo Dawn offers products and services “to promote enlightenment and assist in the development and self-empowerment and divine potential.”

Among the services offered, according to the Web site, are “intuitive guidance, past-life regression, spirit guide communication and healing and cleansing.”

A second party official turned herself in. More on that here.

Portuguese Bilderbergers Rui Rio & Antonio Costa update

Email commentary from a reader about two of the Portuguese Bilderbergers, Rui Rio and Antonio Costa.

Hello,
I just read your article on educate yourself.You wrote:

“Antonio Costa/Mayor of Lisbon & Rui Rio/Mayor of Porto - These are the two largest cities in Portugal. Something is being planned for the people of Portugal. The EU Constitution has been named the Lisbon Treaty, and a terrorist attack would help the EU treaty real well at this point, as well as a couple of reliable mayors who would help steer Europe in the”right” direction with moving speeches.”

I just wanted to add that since the bilderberg meeting, Rui Rio has been elected vice president of his party (PSD). It seems he is being positioned into a successor position to the leadership of his party and eventually be elected prime-minister.

As for Antonio Costa, who belongs to the PS party, currently in power, in these past few years, some of the mayors of lisbon have gone to become either prime-ministers or presidents of Portugal. So it seems to me that he is being groomed in case he succeeds in getting to other positions of power. In any case, I believe he will be the successor to the leadership of his party.

Curiosly, the acting prime minister was caught in a gaffe saying that the success of “the lisbon treaty is important to his political career.” He later corrected himself saying that what he meant was that “the lisbon treaty was an important part of his political career.”

Anyway I disagree with the terrorist scenario as something to motivate the ratification of the treaty. I think they are just going to try and ignore the irish. Unfortunatly for them the polish president has refused to sign the ratification of the treaty.

As for the portuguese politicians they are already in the nwo´s pocket, bought and paid for. They no longer require much attention.

This seems to correlate with the info in this article by Paul Joseph Watson of prisonplanet.com. Hmm..

Bear Stears deliberately broken via Goldman Sachs

The last days of Bear Stearns

March 31, 2008

Robby Boyd/Fortune

You could detect a trace of fear in his voice. Mostly he seemed stunned. It was March 6, and one of Bear Stearns’s top bond executives had dialed me up unprompted. The executive had dished about competitors in the past, but he had never initiated a discussion, much less one about his own firm. Now he explained that financial institutions that he dealt with - firms he had traded with for years - were suddenly asking him whether Bear had the cash to execute their trades.

Such news had yet to surface in the press, but the investment bank’s shares had dropped nearly 20% in the previous ten days, and there were murmurs that short-sellers were circling. The executive asked whether I’d heard rumors of trouble, and he tried to preempt them. “We’re making money,” he said. “Our counterparties are getting paid, trades are clearing, business is picking up. It doesn’t seem to be the likely scenario for an investment bank’s collapse.”

Ten days later Bear Stearns (BSC, Fortune 500) was swallowed by J.P. Morgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500). But all the brouhaha over the deal - were the shares worth $2 or $10? should the Federal Reserve have intervened? - has obscured how astonishing Bear’s collapse is. It’s a reminder that in a business based on confidence, when that confidence evaporates, so does the business. A reconstruction of the week before Bear Stearns agreed to be funded, and then acquired, by J.P. Morgan Chase, reveals the speed at which Bear’s longtime customers and counterparties lost their faith in the investment bank and undermined its ability to continue.

It also reveals a psychological gap. Bear had survived one liquidity challenge, in the summer of 2007, when two of its hedge funds cratered after the subprime mortgage collapse. The firm had labored to repair its balance sheet and improve its financing. “Our capital position is strong,” said Bear’s CFO, Sam Molinaro, at an investors’ conference in February. “Balance-sheet liquidity has continued to improve throughout the course of the year. We spent an awful lot of time trying to reduce our higher-risk asset categories.”

However much Bear Stearns saw itself as strengthened by its struggles, customers thought otherwise, and that hastened Bear’s fall. Molinaro’s comments notwithstanding, some had begun inching away months earlier. Bob Sloan, whose S3 Partners finances and advises hedge funds, says he counseled clients last summer to seek other prime brokers because he saw a “30% to 35% chance” that Bear would collapse. By March, Sloan’s clients had pulled out $25 billion in assets. Others, of course, would desert only when the panic hit. And a few days would be all it took to show just how shallow the reservoir of trust for the firm was.

MONDAY, MARCH 10: WE DON’T COMMENT ON RUMORS

If there’s one thing that companies hate to do, it’s comment on rumors. Such statements, the thinking goes, only confer legitimacy on unfounded gossip. But there it was in a Bear press release on March 10: “There is absolutely no truth to the rumors of liquidity problems that circulated today in the market.” At that moment, it appeared to be true. The firm had some $17 billion in cash. Of course, Bear was noted for its addiction to leverage even at a time when Wall Street, which runs on debt, was drunk on the stuff. Bear had $11.1 billion in tangible equity capital supporting $395 billion in assets, a leverage ratio of more than 35 to one. And its assets were less liquid than those of many of its competitors.

But by March 10, the problem had metastasized into something more dire than a rumor. Late the preceding Friday, a major bank - accounts differ on which - had rebuffed Bear’s request for a short-term $2 billion loan. Such securities-backed repurchase (or “repo”) loans are crucial for investment banks, which borrow and lend billions to fund their daily business. Being denied such a loan is the Wall Street equivalent of having your buddy refuse to front you $5 the day before payday. Bear executives scrambled and raised the money elsewhere. But the sign was unmistakable: Credit was drying up.

TUESDAY, MARCH 11: IF I KNEW WHY, I WOULD DO SOMETHING

Confidence continued to ebb, and Bear again tried to reassure investors. “Why is this happening?” CFO Molinaro asked rhetorically on CNBC. “If I knew why it was happening, I would do something to address it.” The rumors were “false,” he said. “There is no liquidity crisis. No margin calls. It’s nonsense.”

Still, momentum was turning against the firm. That morning Goldman Sachs’s credit derivatives group sent its hedge fund clients an e-mail announcing another blow. In previous weeks, banks such as Goldman had done a brisk business (for a handsome fee, of course) agreeing to stand in for institutions nervous, say, that Bear wouldn’t be able to cough up its obligations on an interest rate swap. But on March 11, Goldman told clients it would no longer step in for them on Bear derivatives deals. (A Goldman spokesman asserts that the e-mail was not a categorical refusal.)

“I was astounded when I got the [Goldman] e-mail,” says Kyle Bass of Hayman Capital. He had a colleague call Goldman to see if it was a mistake. “It wasn’t,” says Bass, who is a former Bear salesman. “Goldman told Wall Street that they were done with Bear, that there was [effectively] too much risk. That was the end for them.”

It was ominous, but it wasn’t yet the end. Bear continued absorbing blows. The cost of insuring $10 million in Bear debt via credit default swaps, which had hovered near $350,000 in the month before, shot past $1 million. By the end of March 11, the rate was irrelevant: Banks refused to issue any further credit protection on Bear’s debt.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12: HOW LIQUID IS BEAR?

When word of the Goldman e-mail leaked out, the floodgates opened. Hedge funds and other clients, eventually running into the hundreds, began yanking their funds.

Dave Hendler, an analyst at research boutique CreditSights, called a Bear contact to find out what was going on. The contact said that all was fine. But then Hendler asked about a $4 billion credit facility due to expire in April. If Bear needed cash, Hendler reckoned, that was probably more than enough. Hendler says he was told that the facility had actually expired in February and several banks had backed out, reducing the credit line to $2.8 billion. Bear, he was told, was waiting until the release of its quarterly earnings to reveal the status of the loan. Neither Bear’s liquidity nor its lenders’ confidence, it appeared, was what it had seemed. (A firm spokesman declined to comment.)

Bear continued to maintain publicly that all was well. This time it was CEO Alan Schwartz - who hadn’t seen the need to return to headquarters, and conducted the interview from Palm Beach - who went on CNBC. “We’re not being made aware of anybody who is not taking our credit as a counterparty,” he said, adding, “We don’t see any pressure on our liquidity, let alone a liquidity crisis.”

THURSDAY, MARCH 13: CALL JAMIE DIMON

By March 13, the gravity of the situation had finally registered at Bear. Schwartz returned to New York and convened a meeting of the top leadership. Liquidity was plummeting; according to published reports, it had fallen to $2 billion at week’s end. Desperate, Schwartz contacted J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon that evening.

Even as the firm frantically negotiated a rescue package, Bear executives continued to try to convince the world that everything was under control. That evening Schwartz contacted a well-known New York hedge fund manager (a longtime Bear prime brokerage client). He pleaded with the manager to appear on CNBC the next morning and express his confidence in Bear. The hedge fund manager declined politely but wondered why Bear needed a client to convince the world of its health. He wouldn’t wonder long.

FRIDAY, MARCH 14: IT’S ALL GONE NOW

AT 9 A.M., Bear announced $30 billion in funding provided by J.P. Morgan and backstopped by the government. In a conference call Schwartz sounded as if he was still fighting reality. “Bear Stearns has been subject to a significant amount of rumor,” he explained. “We attempted to try to provide some facts to the situation, but … the rumors intensified.” He said customer requests to cash out “accelerated yesterday … [and] at the pace things were going, there could be continued liquidity demands that would outstrip our liquidity resources.” The new loan facility, he said, would restore calm.

Of course, that didn’t pan out. Bear’s stock dropped nearly 40% in the first half-hour of trading. Within days, Bear’s 85 years as an independent entity were at an end.

At Maggie’s bar that Friday evening, directly across from Bear headquarters on 47th Street, the sense of shock was complete. A crowd of frazzled Bear employees thronged the bar. Some traders, clearly well past their first round at 6 P.M., expressed amazement at having to navigate camera crews to cross the street to the bar.

Soon after, I happened to sit next to a Bear Stearns managing director on the 6:35 express from Grand Central Station to Greenwich, Conn. “I worked eight years at a firm that promoted me from the back office to investment banking,” he told me as he sipped a Budweiser tall boy. “I had thousands of shares and thought I could afford to send my kids to private schools and college. It’s all gone now. I think I’ll probably move to Pittsburgh, see if the Federal Home Loan Bank needs anybody.”

REPORTER ASSOCIATE Doris Burke contributed to this article.

The 6 hit combo that KO’s bee colonies

by Stefan Fobes

I couldn’t get a handle for the longest time on the causes of the prolific deaths and disappearances of the bees worldwide. For no apparent reason, a strange feeling had been running in my mind that nothing was really wrong, even though when hyped up at its peak, the impression was given that the bees had six months to live, tops. At the archives of Stewart and Janet Swerdlow’s Q&A section, I saw something Stewart Swerdlow said that struck me. He and his wife are world treasures and anyone who wants a really unique perspective on why things are the way they are should head over to their site, www.Expansions.com. So here it is.

Stewart’s Reply: There are many explanations. Actually, such disappearances are cyclical and happen every 15 to 20 years. I am sure that they will ultimately blame it on global warming, leading me to suspect that ELF was more to blame.

This excited me. Search time after that.

Whoever wrote the colony collapse disorder Wikipedia entry said something absolutely jaw dropping. Calmly reporting amazing facts and just leaving it at that is run of the mill behavior when people report mysterious occurrences. “Colony Collapse Disorder (or CCD) is a poorly understood phenomenon in which worker bees from a beehive or Western honey bee colony abruptly disappear. While such disappearances have occurred throughout the history of apiculture, the term Colony Collapse Disorder was first applied to a drastic rise in the number of disappearances of Western honey bee colonies in North America in late 2006.”

Oh really?

Heather Smith of slate.com offers some additional confirmation of this:

It’s even possible the mystery disease has already shown up in years past. An 1897 issue of Bee Culture magazine mentions the symptoms of something that sounds remarkably like CCD, as do a few case studies from the ’60s and ’70s. Before bees fell victim to varroa and the ensuing stresses of modern life, these afflictions would have been easy to bounce back from. Today, the same causal agent could have more serious effects.

And Accuweather weatherman guy notes some cases during and after the ’70s as well.

Have you heard about the disappearing honey bees? A strange phenomenon, not well understood, called Colony Collapse Disorder is causing entire colonies of honey bees to disappear. Half of all U.S. honey bee colonies disappeared between 1971 and 2006 due to a number of factors including urbanization, pesticide use, mites and other pests and a diminishing number of beekeepers. Since late last year, the rate of these disappearances has spiked.

Just calmly reporting it. Third time now. UK Guardian reporting:

This is not the first time that honeybees have disappeared. The first recorded unexplained loss was in the US 150 years ago and ever since large numbers have vanished at intervals throughout North America, Europe and Australia. An epidemic first reported on the Isle of Wight wiped out 90% of honeybee colonies in the UK at the beginning of the 20th century. Then, as now, the main suspects were deficiencies in the bees’ diet, pollution in the environment, pests and parasites and mismanagement by beekeepers, but the killer was never identified.

At intervals…hahaha. Looks like Stewart has something here. And this has been happening for at least 1000 years, well before pesticides and the industrial system of honeyfarming was developed. Dr. Benjamin P. Oldroyd of the University of Sydney adds another big piece to this puzzle.

Some winter losses are normal, and because the proportion of colonies dying varies enormously from year to year, it is difficult to say when a crisis is occurring and when losses are part of the normal continuum. What is clear is that about one year in ten, apiarists suffer unusually heavy colony losses. This has been going on for a long time. In Ireland, there was a “great mortality of bees” in 950, and again in 992 and 1443 [3]. One of the most famous events was in the spring of 1906, when most beekeepers on the Isle of Wight (United Kingdom) lost all of their colonies [4]. American beekeepers also suffer heavy losses periodically. In 1903, in the Cache valley of Utah, 2000 colonies were lost to a mysterious “disappearing disease” following a “hard winter and cold spring” [5]. More recently, there was an incident in 1995 in which Pennsylvania beekeepers lost 53% of colonies [6].

So about 10-20 years. Is it so wrong to see a natural cycle behind all this? Many living creatures are programmed genetically to do different things in cycles. Salmon are genetically programmed to swim upstream. Bears hibernate every winter. Many birds fly north for the winter. And women menstruate every month. The 29 day period of a woman’s menstrual cycle lines up so neatly with the lunar cycle, which is also 29 days. Studies have shown that people do get more emotional during the time of the full moon. It has its influence on the tides, and our body is 85% water. I feel like I am living in a primitive tribe. This is what we have been reduced to. So much has been taken from us sciencewise that even the most basic principles that are now being rediscovered, such as the human energy meridian system, are seen with such awe by those who know about it in America and other Western countries.

I said 6 hits, though didn’t I. Even though droves of bees have disappeared, there are still some left behind that are found dead in the hives with “mysterious” diseases. That Guardian article from before said something else in the next paragraph which has contributed in a minor way to the bee deaths, yet still should be addressed.

When bees die, beekeepers can restock their hives quickly by buying a new queen who lays 2,000 eggs a day at her peak. Across the world, most have chosen to fill their apiaries with a type of honeybee renowned for its gentle nature and prodigious honey production skills. This race of bee, originally from Italy, now dominates beekeeping. The downside is that the honeybee gene pool has been diminished and with it traits that may have helped bees fend off mites and other parasites, such as a new fungal bacteria, Nosema ceranae, that attacks its gut.

This creates increased susceptibility to disease, which alone wouldn’t be a problem if not for the way industrial honeyfarming did things. Pesticides are sprayed all around the hives and the bees are fed antibiotics, which are not natural substances, and for some reason, when fed these not made by nature chemicals, the bacteria always adapt and their population grows from what it was before. Yet because of the stranglehold over the AMA, FDA, and other regulatory agencies that Bayer and other chemical companies have, these things are still touted as the way to go to beat bacteria, even though foods like oregano are thousands of times more potent than even the most successful drugs. The industrial honeyfarmers also buy bigger containers than the bees would naturally make themselves to produce bigger bees and it results in more mites eating greater numbers of bee larva. Organic honeyfarmer and environmental activist Sharon Labchuk writes:

Varroa mites, a relatively new problem in North America, will multiply and gradually weaken a colony of large bees so that it dies within a few years. Mites enter a cell containing larvae just before the cell is capped over with wax. While the cell is capped, the bee transforms into an adult and varroa mites breed and multiply while feeding on the larvae.

The larvae of natural bees spend less time in this capped over stage, resulting in a significant decrease in the number of varroa mites produced. In fact, very low levels of mites are tolerated by the bees and do not affect the health of the colony. Natural-size bees, unlike large bees, detect the presence of varroa mites in capped over cells and can be observed chewing off the wax cap and killing the mites. Colonies of natural-size bees are healthier in the absence of mites, which are vectors for many diseases.

Just two weeks ago in Germany, Bayer’s Poncho pesticide was found by a government run research institute to have been responsible for killing 11,500 bee colonies. Bayer doesn’t have to “go green!” though. It’s always us. What the hell is it that makes people so comfortable with being the government’s prison whore?? What?

As suspected by a lot of people researching this, ELF radiation from cell phones and towers have a role in this. The Independent reveals:

German research has long shown that bees’ behaviour changes near power lines.

Now a limited study at Landau University has found that bees refuse to return to their hives when mobile phones are placed nearby. Dr Jochen Kuhn, who carried it out, said this could provide a “hint” to a possible cause.

Dr George Carlo, who headed a massive study by the US government and mobile phone industry of hazards from mobiles in the Nineties, said: “I am convinced the possibility is real.”

Cell towers emit the same type of radiation that the mobiles do. Probably screws with their little antennae. Bzzz. Bees hate them. But they’re nutritious for humans. Get some lab coats and raid the kindergartens already! Would do us so much better.

Another symptom of “Colony Collapse Disorder” is that other bee colonies and animals won’t raid the hives for honey after the bees have left or died and won’t even go near them. Here’s a view of what is seen inside.

The dead bees under Dennis VanEngelsdorp’s microscope were like none he had ever seen before.

He had expected to see mites or amoebas, perennial pests of bees. Instead, he found internal organs swollen with debris and strangely blackened. The bees’ intestinal tracts were scarred, and their rectums were abnormally full of what appeared to be partly digested pollen. Dark marks on the sting glands were telltale signs of infection.

“The more you looked, the more you found,” said VanEngelsdorp, acting apiarist for the state of Pennsylvania. “Each thing was a surprise.”

This is exactly what is found when GM food is tested on lab animals. Arpad Pusztai, who has over 270 published studies on the subject of plant biology, worked out of the Rowett Institute, Britain’s biggest food safety research lab, was fired at the behest of Monsanto via Bill Clinton to Tony Blair after going on the British World in Action TV program and saying he would not eat genetically modified food if he had a choice. He wrote in an article about the effects of various GM foods when tested. Rats fed GM Flavrsavr tomatoes developed necrotic and erosive lesions, which create a black or blackish gray area around their stomachs. GM potatoes fed to rats resulted in:

Feeding mice with potatoes transformed with a Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki Cry1 toxin gene or the toxin itself was shown²⁴ to have caused villus epithelial cell hypertrophy and multinucleation, disrupted microvilli, mitochondrial degeneration, increased numbers of lysosomes and autophagic vacuoles and activation of crypt Paneth cells. The results showed that despite claims to the contrary, CryI toxin was stable in the mouse gut and therefore GM crops expressing it need to be subjected to “thorough tests…to avoid the risks before marketing.

Vilius epithelial cell hypertrophy is basically tissue swelling. The undigested pollen found in the bees stomachs were likely a sign of total digestive system collapse. I guess only the British mainstream will report on what GM food does. Here’s some more Guardian for you:

British scientific researchers have demonstrated for the first time that genetically modified DNA material from crops is finding its way into human gut bacteria, raising potentially serious health questions.

Although the genetically modified material in most GM foods poses no health problems, many of the controversial crops have antibiotic-resistant marker genes inserted into them at an early stage in development.

If genetic material from these marker genes can also find its way into the human stomach, as experiments at Newcastle university suggest is likely, then people’s resistance to widely used antibiotics could be compromised.

And it’s finding its way into bee organs as well. Sharon Labchuk, the organic honeyfarmer, has noted that only industrial beehives are showing these symptoms. I think this pretty much sums GM up so nicely.

Canadian governmental study group favors allowing foriegn ownership of domestic companies

by Stefan Fobes

It is one thing after a damn other. When I first heard of Bilderberg I admit, I didn’t really much give attention to it. But just on the ground examining the world for myself post-conference, I’m like holy crap! It’s like they are training a gigantic policy Uzi on the world and just firing off all the ammo they can get their hands on.

While Mexico’s economy smolders, and America’s teeters, Canada has had at least some sort of economic stability, even though two of its major mining companies got bought up by Swiss and Brazilian firms in 2006. A topic by Bilderberg that was discussed, which is admitted in the press release that they put out, was protectionism. Translation: Any barriers to letting foriegn interests run roughshod over domestic businesses.

The Canadian press reported the other day that the Competition Policy Review Panel, a study group appointed by Canadian PM Harper, has submitted in their Competing to Win report these policy recommendations:

A federal government panel is calling for an “Open Skies” airline policy to help consumers as part of a massive overhaul of restrictions on foreign investment in Canadian industries.

The five-person study group is also urging that barriers to foreign investment be torn down, with the exception of the cultural sector, and that bank mergers be permitted – all in the name of creating a stronger, more competitive economy for the future.

Loosening government control of the domestic aviation industry would improve competition among airlines and benefit consumers and business travellers, according to “Compete to Win,” the report released yesterday.

The panel commissioned by the Harper government said Ottawa should raise the limit on foreign ownership of Canadian airlines to 49 per cent from 25 per cent and move quickly to expand landing rights in Europe through an “Open Skies” agreement with the European Union.

Some more of their recommendations, straight from the horse’s mouth:

• Introduce greater liberalization of investment restrictions in regulated sectors in order to increase Canada’s competitiveness by:
• Reviewing air transport, uranium mining, telecommunications and broadcasting, and financial services regimes every five years;
• Allowing up to 49 percent foreign ownership of air carriers on a reciprocal basis;
• Liberalizing foreign ownership restrictions in uranium mining, subject to a new national security regime, and obtaining greater rights to develop nuclear resources or process uranium;
• Allowing foreign firms to establish or acquire Canadian telecom companies with less than a 10% market share, and, following a review of broadcasting and cultural policies, further liberalizing investment restrictions in the telecom and broadcasting sectors;

• Retaining the financial services sector’s “widely held” rule, while removing the de facto prohibition on mergers of large financial institutions, subject to regulatory safeguards.

And the corporate predators are just loving it. Mostly.

“This is sweet music to our ears,” said Thomas D’Aquino, president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. “It’s comprehensive, it’s deep, it’s far reaching. It really is a phenomenal blueprint for taking Canada into the 21st century.”

But others were not so impressed.

“It’s not really logical,” said Jim Shaw, CEO of Shaw Communications Inc., referring to proposals to gradually increase foreign ownership of telecommunications companies. “We’d like to see the ownership rules lifted entirely. Then anybody who wants to compete in Canada has to compete.”

Maybe this is just a coincidence that they came out with it now, but Lynton Wilson, the chair of the study group, was a previous Bilderberg attendee and another panel member, N. Murray Edwards, was at this year’s bash in Virginia just two weeks ago.

This here is total prep for the world government system where everything is being put in place, where everything is under central control by the few at the miserable expense of the great masses. I played a game when I was much younger called Killer Instinct, where there was one corporation that made everything. Video games and movies are used by the Illuminati to gradually ease us over to a point where we’ll wake up in the morning and a whole new world will be here and we’ll wonder, as we get our microchip scanned at the market, how we ever got there. I cover just this subject in Wall-E, coming to a battlefield near you.

Implementation of these plans will turn Canada into another Mexico where the transnational corporations come in, pay Canadians garbage salaries and wages, and use the cops as their security forces. Roger Bybee and Carolyn Winter throw the light on this rarely touched upon topic:

* NAFTA’s service-sector rules allowed big firms like Wal-Mart to enter the Mexican market and, selling low-priced goods made by ultra-cheap labor in China, to displace locally-based shoe, toy, and candy firms. An estimated 28,000 small and medium-sized Mexican businesses have been eliminated.

This is what happened after that:

With US firms unwilling to pay even minimal taxes, NAFTA has hardly produced the promised uplift in the lives of Mexicans. Ciudad Juarez Mayor Gustavo Elizondo, whose city is crammed with US-owned low-wage plants, expressed it plainly: “We have no way to provide water, sewage, and sanitation workers. Every year, we get poorer and poorer even though we create more and more wealth.”

That’s why Mexicans are pouring into America like a blizzard. That’s what’s in store for Canada if that foot gets lodged in the door.

European member of parliament proposes EU blogger registry

Firestorm in Swedish media over ‘EU blogger registry’

June 27, 2008

Teresa Kuchler & Leigh Phillips/EUobserver

Swedish media have erroneously reported that the EU plans to register and bill all bloggers, setting off a firestorm of reaction in the country.

Politicians of all political stripes and most major media outlets have since furiously attacked the idea as another example of Big Brother snooping into people’s daily lives, while the MEP at the heart of the controversy has been compared to Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu.

The papers later specified that the proposal had originated in a month-old report on media pluralism from the parliament - a document that has little legal weight - and intended to clarify the legal situation of bloggers, but by then the debate in the press had already reached a fevered pitch.
“Exchange the EU for China, and you would have a real media outcry,” wrote Sören Karlsson, publisher of the daily Helsingborgs Dagblad and himself an eager blogger, who damned the ‘blogger registry’ as a threat to freedom of speech.

“We would have found it insane.”

Sven-Åke Olofsson, political editor of daily Helsingborgs Dagblad, and also a blogger, wrote in his paper: “Here they try to introduce laws and regulations in an area that is not possible to regulate.

“It seems useless and proves an authoritarian attitude towards freedom of speech.”

The Estonian MEP who drafted the media pluralism report, socialist deputy Marianne Mikko, has been the target of much of the criticism.

“In Ceausescu’s Romania, everybody who owned a type writer had to hand in a paper with typing samples, so that the authorities more easily could fight enemies of the state and ordinary criminals,” recalled Peter Swedenmark, an editorial writer for daily Västerbottens Folkblad.

“Unfortunately, in the naive proposal from Mikko, there seem to be some kinship with the Romanian line,” he continued.

A conservative MEP also used the opportunity to attack the registry. Christopher Fjellner, from the centre-righ EPP-ED grouping in the parliament said to the newspaper Svenska Dagbladet: “The report shows proof of immense ignorance among our decision makers. It is such an incredibly stupid proposal,” he said, adding that Ms Mikko’s education as a journalist under the former Soviet Union must have given her an old-fashioned perspective on the media landscape.

“She has a hole in her head,” he concluded.

The media storm reached such a frenzy that the European parliament’s Swedish press sector on Thursday afternoon was forced to send out a press release to all Swedish media, explaining that MEPs’ own-initiative reports such as that of Ms Mikko had next to no legal weight.

The bureau also underlined that the parliament does not have the right to initiate legislation, something that can only be proposed by the European Commission.

The main recommendations in the report call on the European Commission and EU member states to apply competition law to the media to ensure media pluralism.

Its other major recommendations include the creation of media pluralism ombudspersons in the member states; the development of European core curriculum for media literacy; and for the commission to ensure that regulations governing state aid not be used to undermine public service media.

The report does however also call for a clarification of the legal status of webblog authors and wants to see a disclosure of interests, and the voluntary labelling of webblogs.

The MEPs that approved the report were concerned that the legal situation of bloggers regarding source protection was unclear and that laws in Europe did not cover where liability was assigned in the event of lawsuits.

Speaking to the EUobserver, Ms Mikko clarified her intentions: “We do not need to know the exact identity of bloggers. We need some credentials, a quality mark, a certain disclosure of who is writing and why. We need this to be able to trust and rely on the source.”

“The Economist is a valuable brand, its articles are trusted by readers without contributors having to reveal their names,” she said. “If there is a way to validate the best bloggers the same way that publishing in the Economist validates its writers, it should be done.”

“It is clear that a Harvard professor of international relations is likely to treat, for instance, the Middle East peace process or European integration in an educated and balanced manner,” she added. “The same trust cannot be put in a radical high school student from Gaza or a Eurosceptic who has never been out of his village”

“The reader should know why this or that blogger should be trusted on a particular issue.”

The outrage has been exacerbated by the timing of the debate. The country is currently involved in heated discussion about surveillance in society after a controversial law on tapping e-mails was recently passed by the Swedish parliament.

Last week, the government narrowly passed legislation that gives officials the power to open all emails and listen to any telephone conversation in the country.

US-based search engine firm Google’s global privacy counsel, Peter Fleischer said of the bill: “By introducing these new measures, the Swedish government is following the examples set by governments ranging from China and Saudi Arabia to the US government’s widely criticised eavesdropping programme.”

The bill provoked widespread opposition, with protesters handing out copies of George Orwell’s 1984. Much of the reaction against the Mikko report in Sweden has compared her proposals to the government surveillance legislation.

US and EU near agreement to swap data on each other’s citizens

U.S. and Europe Near Agreement on Private Data

June 28, 2008

Charlie Savage/New York Times

US-EU relations were another stated topic on the Bilderberg announcement.

WASHINGTON - The United States and the European Union are nearing completion of an agreement allowing law enforcement and security agencies to obtain private information - like credit card transactions, travel histories and Internet browsing habits - about people on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

The potential agreement, as outlined in an internal report obtained by The New York Times, would represent a diplomatic breakthrough for American counterterrorism officials, who have clashed with the European Union over demands for personal data. Europe generally has more stringent laws restricting how governments and businesses can collect and transfer such information.

Negotiators, who have been meeting since February 2007, have largely agreed on draft language for 12 major issues central to a “binding international agreement,” the report said. The pact would make clear that it is lawful for European governments and companies to transfer personal information to the United States, and vice versa.

But the two sides are still at odds on several other matters, including whether European citizens should be able to sue the United States government over its handling of their personal data, the report said.

The report, which lays out the progress of the talks and lists the completed draft language, was jointly written by the negotiators from the United States Homeland Security, Justice and State Departments, and by their European Union counterparts. The talks grew out of two conflicts over information-sharing after the September 2001 terrorist attacks. The United States government demanded access to customer data held by airlines flying out of Europe and by a consortium, known as Swift, which tracks global bank transfers.

American investigators wanted the data so they could look for suspicious activity. But several European countries objected, citing violations of their privacy laws. Each dispute frayed diplomatic relations and required difficult negotiations to resolve.

American and European Union officials are trying to head off future confrontations “by finding common ground on privacy and by agreeing not to impose conflicting obligations on private companies,” said Stewart A. Baker, the assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security, who is involved in the talks. “Globalization means that more and more companies are going to get caught between U.S. and European law,” he said.

Paul M. Schwartz, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said such a blanket agreement could transform international privacy law by eliminating a problem that has led to negotiations of “staggering” complexity between Europe and the United States.

“The reason it’s a big deal is that it is going to lower the whole transaction cost for the U.S. government to get information from Europe,” Mr. Schwartz said. “Most of the negotiations will already be completed. They will just be able to say, ‘Look, we provide adequate protection, so you’re required to turn it over.’ “

But the prospect that the agreement might lower barriers to sending personal information to the United States government has alarmed some privacy rights advocates in Europe. While some praised the principles laid out in the draft text, they warned that it was difficult to tell whether the agreement would allow broad exceptions to such limits.

For example, the two sides have agreed that information that reveals race, religion, political opinion, health or “sexual life” may not be used by a government “unless domestic law provides appropriate safeguards.” But the accord does not spell out what would be considered an appropriate safeguard, suggesting that each government may decide for itself whether it is complying with the rule.

“I am very worried that once this will be adopted, it will serve as a pretext to freely share our personal data with anyone, so I want it to be very clear about exactly what it means and how it will work,” said Sophia in ‘t Veld, a member of the European Parliament from the Netherlands who has been an outspoken advocate of privacy rights.

The Bush administration and the European Commission have not publicized their talks, but they referred to their progress in a little-noticed paragraph deep in a joint statement after a summit meeting between President Bush and European leaders in Slovenia this month.

Issued June 10, the statement declared that “the fight against transnational crime and terrorism requires the ability to share personal data for law enforcement,” and called for the creation of a “binding international agreement” to aid such transfers while also ensuring that citizens’ privacy is “fully” protected.
The negotiators are trying to agree on minimum standards to protect privacy rights, such as limiting access to the information to “authorized individuals with an identified purpose” for looking at it. If a government’s policies are “effective” in meeting all standards, any transfer of personal data to that government would be presumed lawful.

For example, European law sets up independent government agencies to police whether personal data is being used lawfully and to help citizens who are concerned about invasions of their privacy. The United States has no such independent agency. But in a concession, the Europeans have agreed that the American government’s internal oversight system may be good enough to provide accountability for how Europeans’ data is used.

About a half-dozen issues remain unresolved, the report said. One sticking point is what rights European citizens will have if the United States government violates data privacy rules or takes an adverse action against them - like denying them entry into the country or placing them on a no-fly list - based on incorrect personal information.

European law generally allows people who think the government has mishandled their personal information to file a lawsuit to seek damages and to have the data corrected or expunged. American citizens and permanent residents can generally do the same under the Privacy Act of 1974, but that statute does not extend to foreigners.

The Bush administration is trying to persuade the Europeans that other options for correcting problems are satisfactory, including asking an agency to correct any misinformation through administrative procedures. For now, the European Union is holding to the position that its citizens “require the ability to bring suit in U.S. courts specifically under the Privacy Act for an agreement to be reached on redress,” the report said.

But the Bush administration does not want to make such a concession, in part because it would require new legislation. The administration is trying to achieve an agreement that would not require Congressional action, Mr. Baker said.

David Sobel, a senior counsel with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to data-privacy rights, said the administration’s depiction of the process of correcting mishandled data through agency procedures sounds “very rosy,” but the reality is that it is often impossible, even for American citizens, to win such a fight.

Officials said it remains unclear when the agreement can be completed. But there are several pressures encouraging negotiators to sprint to the finish.

Bush administration officials say they would like to resolve the problem before they leave office next January. If the agreement does not require legislative action, Mr. Bush could complete it with a signature.

European officials may have an easier time securing its approval now, before the European Union completes proposed changes. Member nations now ratify such accords, but the changes would hand ratification power to the European Parliament, which has been skeptical of American antiterrorism policies. The report says Europeans intended to wait until 2009 after the planned completion of the reforms to finish it. But the changes are now facing likely delay after Irish voters rejected them in a referendum this month.

In addition, businesses that operate on both sides of the Atlantic are pushing to make sure they are not caught between conflicting legal obligations.

“This will require compromise,” said Peter Fleischer, the global privacy counsel for Google. “It will require people to agree on a framework that balances two conflicting issues: privacy and security. But the need to develop that kind of framework is becoming more important as more data moves onto the Internet and circles across the global architecture.”

Bilderberg strikes again: Hackers, the Net, blondes, and the European war on freedom

by Stefan Fobes

Earlier this week, in my analysis of Bilderberg 2008 and what it held for the world this year, I pondered on whether there would be Al-CIAda hackers let loose, as cyberterrorism was being discussed this time. And yesterday, some hackers messed around and made the official sites of the organizations overseeing the web’s key routing infrastructure and domain name regulation systems point to a site displaying this message: “You think that you control the domains but you don’t! Everybody knows wrong. We control the domains including ICANN! Don’t you believe us?”

Did a ten year old write that? Oh…oh….uh….you buh…believe us don’t you? This is exactly like the 9/11 “cellphone” call from Flight 93 where someone called passenger Mark Bingham’s mother and said, hi this is Mark Bingham, and then when asked by Bingham’s mother who the guys were that they said had a bomb on the plane, they asked, You believe me, don’t you? Voice cloning technology has long ago been perfected by governments. Here’s a bit from the Washington Post:

“Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government.” So begins a statement being delivered by Gen. Carl W. Steiner, former Commander-in-chief, U.S. Special Operations Command.

At least the voice sounds amazingly like him.

But it is not Steiner. It is the result of voice “morphing” technology developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner’s voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile. Steiner was so impressed, he asked for a copy of the tape.

Continues with some stuff about psyops, which is exactly what, among other things, 9/11 and this “hacker attack” was. Whoever did it claimed to be the NetDevilz and said they were Turkish. Please! Any hacker good enough to hit these critical websites would know that the NSA and other government agencies have the capability to trace their location in under an hour, and be at their door in six more hours at best. There were two high school kids in New York who emailed Homeland Security last year as a prank and death threated Bush, and in just four hours Secret Service agents swooped in and arrested them. That’s the reality of things. Corporate websites and the CIA and FBI’s sites have been hit and defaced many times over the years and the people who did it never have revealed anything personal like country of origin, most times not even the name of the crew that they run with. It’s like I’m watching some fake Hollywood movie where some 13 year old on his mom’s laptop takes down the whole government. They treat us like total idiots and it has to stop.

Bilderberg, two weeks ago, where all the top people in business, newspapers, finance, banking, heads of state, and world royalty met in secret to discuss stuff about cyberterrorism, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Africa, a nuclear free world, and, according to Bilderberg exposer Jim Tucker, blonde haired blue eyed terrorism. And over the week, reports of White European Al-Qaeda training in Pakistan, North Korea out of nowhere agreeing to dim down its nuke program, propaganda about Pakistan training the Taliban, the world hearing for the first time about Mugabe and his many election thefts in the media, and now this hacker attack happens. The odds please?

Just yesterday one of the organizations whose sites got hit, ICANN, voted in favor of easing restrictions on domain name assignments. What that meant is for a price, you could buy your own domain, like .happy or .earth. This would have done much for Independence and self-determination on the net (well, for richer people) and that’s the last thing the Illuminati ever want. I also see no coincidence with this.
One reason for engineering this is to strictly tighten controls over Internet usage. A creator of the original Internet system, David Clark, armed with a $200,000 grant from the government agency, the National Science Foundation, is working on creating a whole new internet architecture and phasing the old one out. He says that he would like to see a bigger piece of the pie for network service providers, which confirms what Alex Jones and his co-writers have been saying for years now. The bigger piece of the pie the big telecom and cable corporations are hungry for, laid out by Jeff Chester of The Nation, is this:

Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are developing strategies that would track and store information on our every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing system, the scope of which could rival the National Security Agency. According to white papers now being circulated in the cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the deepest pockets–corporations, special-interest groups and major advertisers–would get preferred treatment. Content from these providers would have first priority on our computer and television screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out.

Under the plans they are considering, all of us–from content providers to individual users–would pay more to surf online, stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling new subscription plans that would further limit the online experience, establishing “platinum,” “gold” and “silver” levels of Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received.

That’s why you see the big cable and satellite companies offering net access now. This, along with a series of strategic mergers, will enable them to have their pie. People must appreciate the fact that corporations and governments are controlled by many of the same people who attend BIlderberg. It is so important to expose these people. They understand full well that more and more minds are coming to alternative media sites, their pawn media outlets are losing viewers and subscribers, and it makes them scared. Control over the Internet is the next desperate scramble on their way off the driver’s seat. It is then no surprise that the Bush White House strategy for winning the war on terror lumps in terrorism with “conspiracy theories”. To keep things in context, the Illuminati always encode 2 or more messages in one statement. The terrorists want to take away our freedoms. This is repeated all the time. Yes, those who control this planet are the terrorists. For those who are afraid to stand up for your rights because of the kids, or fear of whatever, this quote from the Bush strategy is right up your alley: “Indeed, the terrorists are emboldened more by perceptions of weakness than by demonstrations of resolve. Terrorists lure recruits by telling them that we are decadent, easily intimidated, and will retreat if attacked.”

I’ve read neocon Robert Kagan’s book, Paradise and Power: Europe and America in the New World Order. There were only three pages where he didn’t use the words weak or weakness at least once. If you understand prison life and how it is in there, you will understand life as one of the Illuminati. It is extremely close. Those smirks and grins we see on TV aren’t cause the cameras have smiley faces painted on them, all. Still another use for this is to use the hack attack (I bet you they got more on the way) as a springboard for Turkish integration into the EU and to help equate people that wish their countries not to be sucked into the black hole of the EU with terrorists. The ABC white Al-Qaeda thing says that “An April 2008 report from Europol also noted that an increasing number of European nationals attended training in Pakistan “and were later involved in, or suspected of, terrorist offences in the EU.”

God, how convenient. I joke about this so much but this is how they’re going to paint it. You’re against EU expansion or Turkey integration into the EU, you’re with Al-Qaeda, cause the new European war on terror takes precedence over your individual rights, ya know.

David Rockefeller said about Mao tse-tung, who ordered the deaths of 60 million Chinese, “The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.” Yeah. China is exactly what will be in store for us if most of us if we sit around like drugged pigs and wait to be killed. The first bits of it are bleeding through already. The British DNA demands for minor infractions, the 3 million cameras in London alone, warrantless spying laws, and the fake carbon based laws are creating a tyrannical ring of repression around us. But we can stop joining up in their manufactured wars and letting them get power off of our misery. To many, it may feel good to feel superior to Jew, the Black, the Asian, or the White, even though we might have a crap job that pays nil, it, when you examine the fruits of Illuminati controlled society, really isn’t. Standing together and mustering up the real strength not to fight them off, but not to let them in is what will really end this for the better.

ABC News: Caucasian Europeans training with Al-Qaeda in Pakistan

Copyright 2008 American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
All Rights Reserved

ABC News Transcript
SHOW: WORLD NEWS WITH CHARLES GIBSON 6:30 PM EST
June 20, 2008 Friday
758 words
TERROR THREAT;
AL QAEDA
CHARLES GIBSON
PIERRE THOMAS (WASHINGTON, DC USA)

CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)

(Off-camera) Good evening. Intelligence officials say it is their number one concern. Caucasians from a European country who have graduated from an al Qaeda training camp. Such potential terrorists would be dressed in western clothing, drawing little notice as they board a plane bound for the US, coming to launch an attack. There’s no indication such an attack is imminent, but this scenario is of great concern to experts in and out of the government. ABC’s Pierre Thomas reports from Washington tonight. Pierre?

PIERRE THOMAS (ABC NEWS)

(Off-camera) Charlie, in recent weeks, government officials at the highest level have been warning that this threat is growing, and they have intensified efforts to block al Qaeda’s success in recruiting Europeans.

PIERRE THOMAS (ABC NEWS)

(Voiceover) This is Eric B. Intelligence officials believe he is a terrorist plotting attacks against US forces in Afghanistan and Europe. Eric B is a German national and he is Caucasian. The US says he represents the new breed of al Qaeda affiliated terrorists recruited in Europe.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE HOEKSTRA (REPUBLICAN

Well I think we ought to take it very seriously.

PIERRE THOMAS (ABC NEWS)

(Voiceover) US intelligence has determined dozens of Caucasian Europeans have trained in al Qaeda terrorist camps in Pakistan’s tribal regions in recent months.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE HOEKSTRA (REPUBLICAN

Westerners or western looking people have been in the region. They have been in contact with al Qaeda.

GRAPHICS: PAKISTAN

PIERRE THOMAS (ABC NEWS)

(Voiceover) The government suspects the western terrorists have been dispatched to plan attacks against Europe and possibly here in the US. They come from Britain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Romania and Estonia.

MIKE MCCONNELL (DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE)

They’re recruiting operatives from Europe? Why? If you’re from Europe, it doesn’t require a visa to fly to the United States.

GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN (CIA DIRECTOR)

They look western and they fit in.

ROBERT MUELLER (FBI DIRECTOR)

Our concern, great concern is that while it is happening in Europe, it is a one plane ticket away from occurring in the United States.

PIERRE THOMAS (ABC NEWS)

(Voiceover) And there is growing evidence some European recruits have gone operational. Two of the suspects arrested in a September 2007 plot to kill US soldiers in Germany were native Germans. This propaganda video shot from two different camera angles shows the March 3rd attack on an outpost in Afghanistan. That killed two US soldiers. The suspected suicide bomber, this man from Germany. He’s seen here casually preparing for his deadly mission. Members of Congress, including Republicans, say they are frustrated the Bush administration and Pakistan have not done more to shut down the camps.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE HOEKSTRA (REPUBLICAN

The result that we have today is not acceptable. You can’t have those camps in place in Pakistan.

PIERRE THOMAS (ABC NEWS)

(Off-camera) Charlie, officials in New York recently told me that those training camps in Pakistan, Ray Kelly, the police commissioner in particular, said those camps are a high priority and a big worry.

CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)

(Off-camera) All right, Pierre, so that’s the problem, but are there practical steps that Homeland Security officials can take to do something about it?

PIERRE THOMAS (ABC NEWS)

(Off-camera) Well one of the things they’re doing is they’re trying to kill as many of those operatives as they can using those drone planes in Afghanistan to hit them. Also, they are planning to step up the scrutiny of the roughly 30,000 or so Europeans that travel to the US every day.

CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)

(Off-camera) All right. Pierre Thomas reporting from Washington. Thanks.

CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)

(Off-camera) President Bush won a victory on Capitol Hill as lawmakers approved changes that he wants to a law dealing with antiterrorist surveillance. The house approved an amendment to FISA, that’s the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

GRAPHICS: FISA AMENDMENT

CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)

(Voiceover) It would protect telecommunications companies from lawsuits if they took part in the administration’s warrantless eavesdropping program. Senate passage is expected as soon as next week.

CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)

(Off-camera) On Wall Street, stocks suffered major losses today.

GRAPHICS: STOCKS

CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)

(Voiceover) The Dow dropped 220 points, the NASDAQ almost 56. The auto industry was a particular drag on the market today. Gas prices are taking a toll on the auto makers.

Google CEO might “change” Youtube if low revenues continue

If it can’t find a solution, Google should kill YouTube

June 13, 2008

Don Reisinger/CNET News

Do you remember the good ol’ days of YouTube? Back when a private company owned it and you could post and view whatever you wanted up there and no one would say a word because, well, it was practically bankrupt and copyright owners knew they wouldn’t get anything out of a lawsuit? Those were the days, weren’t they?

Now, after a $1.65 billion buyout by Google, YouTube is not only a veritable junkyard for all the crap we didn’t watch a couple years ago, but a bloated mess that costs too much to operate, has a huge lawyer target on it, and barely incurs revenue.

And to make matters worse, Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, has no idea what to do about it.

Speaking to The New Yorker, Schmidt said that it “seemed obvious” that Google should be able to generate “significant amounts of money” from YouTube, but so far, it has no idea what to do.

“The goal for YouTube is to build a tremendous community….In the case of YouTube we might be wrong,” he said. “We have enough leverage that we have the leverage of time. We can invest for scale and not have to make money right now, he said. Hopefully our system and judgment is good enough if something is not going to pay out, we can change it.”

But is changing it really the best idea? Since Google acquired YouTube, the company has tried desperately to make something, anything, from its $1.65 billion investment, but so far, it has failed miserably. Of course, it thinks that ‘pre- and post-roll’ advertisements may work, but the company isn’t too sure.

And therein lies the rub. If Google is unsure of how it can turn a profit on YouTube and it still has no idea if it will be able to get a return on its investment, why shouldn’t it cut its losses and do something drastically different?

Now I know that you’re probably thinking that I’ve lost it and my editor overlords will finally put me out to pasture, but think about it for a minute: why should a company that overpaid for a service continue to dump significant amounts of cash into it (not to mention spend millions on copyright lawsuits) if it has no chance of creating a valuable revenue stream?

Obviously Schmidt is doing all he can to allay shareholder fears over the YouTube debacle, but the very fact that he said anything about it is telling. And to make matters worse, Google’s ad revenue on YouTube is so low, it’s not even material to the financial statements. In other words, if Google is making anything with YouTube, it doesn’t even matter.

Let’s face it — the YouTube acquisition was a major blunder and regardless of how successful the company is in other areas, there’s no reason to suggest advertisers are willing and ready to place ads on videos of 18-year olds shooting milk out their nose or 80-year old men mooning a parade.

As far as I can tell, much of the online advertising money is going to sites like Hulu where the content is controlled, the shows are regulated, and the demographics of the audience are easily obtained.

How does YouTube and its content compare? The audience is huge, but it’s filled with a diverse set of people who generally view a select few of the more popular videos; the videos are barely regulated; and the content isn’t controlled in the least. Why should any advertiser want to send cash to a service like that?

Now I understand that Google wants to be a major part of the boom in online video advertising and I can’t blame the company for it. But doesn’t it understand the average company that’s trying to make people want a given product? It’s as if Google believes that sheer popularity is the only factor that advertisers use before they start throwing cash around.

But what about perception or target audience? Did Google forget about hitting the right market segment or putting ads in the right place at the right time?

Now, I should note that this doesn’t mean that YouTube won’t find itself advertisers. Certainly there are companies that would be more than happy to spend money on YouTube, but what kind exactly? Will YouTube become the dump of advertising where strip clubs and brothels will advertise on sexually-oriented videos and unknown politicians will sell themselves on left- or right-leaning clips? I certainly don’t see Johnson and Johnson sending ad dollars to YouTube anytime soon.

Lost amid the shuffle, though, is the question of ad dollars itself. How does Google monetize YouTube on videos that you create? Sure, it figured out the online business, but video is a totally different game entirely and without creative control over the content, ads may be found on videos that could leave a bad taste in Google’s mouth and yours.

Beyond that, YouTube costs Google millions each month and I’m just not sure how long the company really wants to maintain that loss until it follows a new course.

Killing YouTube would obviously be the last resort and I think there are a few options Google has before it’s forced to pull the plug. But if it can’t find a way to regulate some of the content that will host ads and it doesn’t attract high-paying advertisers, it’s sitting on a billion dollar mistake that keeps draining cash from its coffers with each passing day.

YouTube was the greatest blunder Goolge has ever committed and it better act quickly if it wants to turn it around. But if it can’t right the ship over the next few years and advertisers start spending more cash elsewhere, YouTube will be nothing but a repository for people to upload crappy videos that have no commercial viability. And for Google, that’s unacceptable.

Google is trying to run a business that is responsible to shareholders. And while it may have the cash to keep one of the world’s most popular sites running now, popularity of a website, in and of itself, should not justify its operation. If the company is losing millions each quarter, I simply don’t see why it should keep it up.

It may sound ludicrous to shut down such a popular site, but we’re entering a new generation of entertainment in the online space and pageviews don’t always mean success any longer. Especially if a company is spending millions just trying to keep a website alive.

I would love to see YouTube survive, but business is business, and if Google can’t turn things around, I simply don’t see any other option for Schmidt and company.