Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


Octafish's Journal
Octafish's Journal
December 1, 2014

Slap-in-the-Face Wealth Gap Images

by Paul Buchheit
Published on Monday, December 01, 2014 by Common Dreams

Just 70 individuals now own as much wealth as half the world. In the U.S., the richest 40 individuals own as much as half the country, and the 16,000 American households in the top .01% have accumulated an average net worth of over a third of a billion dollars. As extreme wealth continues to grow out of control, inequality worsens for the rest of us, plaguing our country and our world, spreading like a terminal form of cancer. It should be a major news item in the mainstream media. But the well-positioned few are either oblivious to or uncaring about its effect on less fortunate people.

The data and charts (citations here) come from Forbes, Credit Suisse, and a recent study by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman.

1. Just 70 Individuals Own As Much Wealth As Half the World


Less than a year ago, Oxfam reported that the richest 85 individuals owned as much wealth as half the world. But recently updated calculations reveal that the richest 70 individuals now own $1.842 trillion, more than the poorest half of the world.

We're drawing nearer to the fulfillment of Charles Koch's dream: "I want my fair share and that's all of it."

2. Just 40 Americans Own As Much Wealth As Half the United States


About a month ago it was 43, and a month before that it was 47. Now the richest 40 Americans (The Forbes 40) own a little over $1.092 trillion, about the same, according to calculations based on Credit Suisse data, as the poorest half of the country.

The national wealth that was created by all of us over many decades is quickly being redistributed to fewer and fewer incomprehensibly rich people.

One of the causes for this pathological transfer of wealth is revealed in the final image..

3. Stock/Equity Wealth of the Richest 12,000 Households Has Surpassed the Housing Wealth of 108,000,000 Households


Just 35 years ago, the percentage of national wealth in middle-class housing (net of mortgages) was about seven times more than the percentage of national wealth in equities owned by the .01% (12,000 families). Now middle-class housing is only about half the value of those equities.

Saez and Zucman report that the total of corporate equities, bonds, and savings deposits owned by the .01% amounted to 2.2 percent of total U.S. household wealth in the mid-1980s, rising to 9.9 percent in 2012. Meanwhile, housing for the bottom 90% dropped from 15 percent of total household wealth to 5-6 percent. Since the bottom 50%, according to the authors, own almost zero wealth, the housing figures pertain to the 50-90% families, which can be described as "middle class."

Possible solutions are becoming clearer:

(1) A Financial Speculation Tax to slow down the flow of money to the takers

(2) Occupy Wall Street, Phase II

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Paul Buchheit is a college teacher, an active member of US Uncut Chicago, founder and developer of social justice and educational websites (UsAgainstGreed.org, PayUpNow.org, RappingHistory.org), and the editor and main author of "American Wars: Illusions and Realities" (Clarity Press). He can be reached at paul@UsAgainstGreed.org.

SOURCE w/links to details: http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/12/01/slap-face-wealth-gap-images
December 1, 2014

''No doubt about it, David Ferrie was odd.''

JFK assassination conspiracy: David Ferrie was linked to Lee Harvey Oswald, Clay Shaw in New Orleans

By John Pope
NOLA.com | The New Orleans Times-Picayune, Nov. 15, 2013


In 1993, the PBS program "Frontline" acquired a group photograph showing Ferrie and Oswald at a Civil Air Patrol cookout in 1955. While it does cast doubt on Ferrie's claim that he never knew Oswald, Michael Sullivan, the show's executive producer, said it doesn't prove that the two were together in 1963 or were part of an assassination conspiracy.

Ferrie, who was an avowed anti-Communist, became involved with anti-Castro organizations in New Orleans in the early 1960s. He also started working for Guy Banister, a private investigator who had been an FBI agent and assistant superintendent of the New Orleans Police Department. The two worked with the lawyer of reputed Mob figure Carlos Marcello in an attempt to block Marcello's deportation to Guatemala.

Banister's secretary, Delphine Roberts, said Ferrie and Oswald visited Banister's office frequently in 1963, according to Anthony Summers' book, "Not in Your Lifetime." However, the House Select Committee on Assassinations termed her statements unreliable.

Garrison was convinced that New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw was a leader of the assassination plot. In an application for a warrant to search Shaw's French Quarter home, Ferrie was listed as a guest at meetings there, along with Oswald, to plan the conspiracy. Shaw denied that such meetings occurred.

Rumors about Ferrie swirled after the assassination, most notably the one that he had been hired to fly gunmen out of Dallas after the shooting. Ferrie told the FBI that he did, indeed, go to Texas that day, but he said that he drove to Houston, not Dallas, to inspect an ice rink there and look into the feasibility of opening one in New Orleans. From there, Ferrie told The States-Item, he drove to Galveston and Alexandria.

The FBI picked up Ferrie for questioning, but he was released because there was no evidence of his involvement in the assassination. According to a source quoted in a 1967 article in The Saturday Evening Post, "The FBI squeezed Ferrie dry, found nothing there and discarded him."



December 1, 2014

Clear Truth

"It is inconceivable that a secret intelligence arm of the government has to comply with all the overt orders of the government." -- CIA CounterIntelligence head James Angleton, in testimony to the Church Committee.



Once we who know the facts are gone, who will tell the story? Certainly not those who know it. The libraries and online archives will be filled with disinformation created by the likes of those who lie the USA into wars for profit -- a mighty Wurlitzer of hacks hired to say the darndest things.
December 1, 2014

Lee Harvey Oswald and David Ferrie

Which is weird, seeing how J Edgar Hoover and the FBI reported they found no connection between the two.

Though Ferrie officially denied knowing Oswald, it is widely believed that Ferrie met Oswald far before their alleged liaison at 544 Camp Street. In 1955 both Ferrie and Oswald were members of the Louisiana Civil Air Patrol. Ferrie was asked to leave the air patrol just before Oswald joined, but apparently still remained close to the members of the organization. Though Ferrie denied any relationship with Oswald, a former schoolmate claimed that he, Oswald, and Ferrie all worked in the Civil Air Patrol. Several other members of the organization said that Oswald and Ferrie were in the Civil Air Patrol at the same time. On the day Oswald handed out pro-Castro leaflets in New Orleans, Ferrie was leading an anti-Castro demonstration a few blocks away. Guy Banister's secretary Delphine Roberts told author Anthony Summers that at least once Oswald and Ferrie went together to a Cuban exile training camp near New Orleans for rifle practice.

SOURCE: http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/05th_Issue/ferrie.html

Gee. I wonder if Hoover lied about anything else in regards to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy?
November 26, 2014

Former Gov. Siegelman’s daughter seriously injured in hit-and-run, home from hospital

by Brian Lyman
Montgomery Advertiser, November 24, 2014

Dana Siegelman, the daughter of former Gov. Don Siegelman, was released from a California hospital last week after being struck by a hit-and-run driver.

Les Siegelman, Dana Siegelman’s uncle and the former governor’s brother, said Monday Dana Siegelman was struck while biking home from her job on Nov. 16. According to the family, Dana Siegelman was wearing reflective gear at the time of the accident.

Marlene Arrona, a spokeswoman for the Long Beach Police Department, said Monday a hit-and-run collision took place at 5:20 p.m. on Nov. 16. The investigation is still ongoing, she said, and no arrests have been made.

Siegelman was hospitalized and went through two surgeries last week, according to Les Siegelman, and will require the use of a wheelchair “for a number of weeks.”

“We’re just grateful that she didn’t suffer more serious injures,” Les Siegelman said. “Her helmet was split.”



November 23, 2014

...and Cuba. Ike was president when Dulles hired the Mafia to kill Castro -- 1960.

If things had gone according to plan, Nixon would've been president during the Bay of Pigs and would've sent in the Marines, along with the Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard, making Allen Dulles and Meyer Lansky and all their rich and corrupt friends very, very happy.

AUG 1960: Richard Bissell meets with Colonel Sheffield Edwards, director of the CIA's Office of Security, and discusses with him ways to eliminate or assassinate Fidel Castro. Edwards proposes that the job be done by assassins hand-picked by the American underworld, specifically syndicate interests who have been driven out of their Havana gambling casinos by the Castro regime. Bissell gives Edwards the go-ahead to proceed. Between August 1960, and April 1961, the CIA with the help of the Mafia pursues a series of plots to poison or shot Castro. The CIA’s own internal report on these efforts states that these plots "were viewed by at least some of the participants as being merely one aspect of the over-all active effort to overthrow the regime that culminated in the Bay of Pigs." (CIA, Inspector General's Report on Efforts to Assassinate Fidel Castro, p. 3, 14)


Details on the actual sit-down:

Ever wonder about the sanity of America's leaders? Take a close look at perhaps the most bizarre plot in U.S. intelligence history

By Bryan Smith
Chicago Magazine
November 2007
(page 4 of 6)


By September 1960, the project was proceeding apace. Roselli would report directly to Maheu. The first step was a meeting in New York. There, at the Plaza Hotel, Maheu introduced Roselli to O'Connell. The agent wanted to cover up the participation of the CIA, so he pretended to be a man named Jim Olds who represented a group of wealthy industrialists eager to get rid of Castro so they could get back in business.

"We may know some people," Roselli said. Several weeks later, they all met at the Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami. For years, the luxurious facility had served as the unofficial headquarters for Mafioso leaders seeking a base close to their gambling interests in Cuba. Now, it would be the staging area for the assassination plots.

At a meeting in one of the suites, Roselli introduced Maheu to two men: Sam Gold and a man Roselli referred to as Joe, who could serve as a courier to Cuba. By this time, Roselli was on to O'Connell. "I'm not kidding," Roselli told the agent one day. "I know who you work for. But I'm not going to ask you to confirm it."

Roselli may have figured out that he was dealing with the CIA, but neither Maheu nor O'Connell realized the rank of mobsters with whom they were dealing. That changed when Maheu picked up a copy of the Sunday newspaper supplement Parade, which carried an article laying out the FBI's ten most wanted criminals. Leading the list was Sam Giancana, a.k.a. "Mooney," a.k.a. "Momo," a.k.a. "Sam the Cigar," a Chicago godfather who was one of the most feared dons in the country—and the man who called himself Sam Gold. "Joe" was also on the list. His real name, however, was Santos Trafficante—the outfit's Florida and Cuba chieftain.

Maheu alerted O'Connell. "My God, look what we're involved with," Maheu said. O'Connell told his superiors. Questioned later before the 1975 U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (later nicknamed the Church Committee after its chairman, Frank Church, the Democratic senator from Idaho), O'Connell was asked whether there had ever been any discussion about asking two men on the FBI's most wanted list to carry out a hit on a foreign leader.

"Not with me there wasn't," O'Connell answered.

"And obviously no one said stop—and you went ahead."


"Did it bother you at all?"

"No," O'Connell answered, "it didn't."



Yet, the Mighty Wurlitzer plays the false tune that Kennedy was the guy who wanted Castro dead.

Spies: Ex-CIA Agent In Raleigh Says Castro Knew About JFK Assassination Ahead Of Time

Former CIA agent and author Brian Latell in Raleigh

By The Raleigh Telegram

RALEIGH – A noted former Central Intelligence Agency officer, author, and scholar who is intimately knowledgeable about Cuba and Fidel Castro, says he believes there is evidence that Castro’s government knew about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 ahead of time.


Robert Kennedy, as the Attorney General of the United States, was in charge of the operation, said Latell. Despite the United States’ best efforts, the operation was nonetheless penetrated by Cuban intelligence agents, said Latell.

Latell said there were two serious assassination attempts by the United States against Castro that even used members of the mafia to help, but both of them were obviously unsuccessful.

He also said that there was a plot by the United States to have Castro jabbed with a pen containing a syringe filled with a very effective poison. Latell said that he believes the experienced assassin who worked for Castro who originally agreed to the plan may have been a double agent. After meeting with a personal representative of Robert Kennedy in Paris, the man knew that the plan to assassinate Castro came from the highest levels of the government, including John F. and Robert Kennedy.

The plan was never carried out, as the man later defected to the United States, but with so many double agents working for Castro also pledging allegiance to the CIA, Latell said it was likely that the information got back to Havana that the Kennedy brothers endorsed that plot with the pen.



Which to an amateur detective interested in justice would seem like a lead worth pursuing.
November 23, 2014

No fooling Jack Ruby.

Ruby pretended to be a journalist at the "midnight press conference" at Dallas police HQ. He revealed intimate knowledge of the anti- and pro-Castro organizations.

Tied to the Mafia, rabid anti-communists, gun running to Cuba and the Dallas establishment — Jack Ruby during a late-night press conference stated: “He belongs to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee” to correct a reporter who had asked District Attorney Wade whether it was true that Oswald belonged to the “Free Cuba Committee?” If Ruby shot Oswald on the spur of the moment, how is it he knew so much about his intel work? (“Spy Saga” by Philip H. Melanson; “Rearview Mirror” by William Turner).

November 22, 2014

No. And if you believe that, here are 13 documents you should read about the JFK assassination.

Example Number Four, CIA Document #1035-960, marked "PSYCH" for presumably Psychological Warfare Operations, in the division "CS", the Clandestine Services, once called the "dirty tricks" department. Dated 4/1/67, and marked "DESTROY WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED", this document is a stunning testimony to how concerned the CIA was over investigations into the Kennedy assassination.

CIA Document #1035-960:

CIA Instructions to Media Assets

RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:

a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing that Epstein's and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)

4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:

a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)

b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent--and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.

c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.

d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.

e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.

f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.

g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)

5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.



[font size"6"][font color="blue"]Much of that is false and all of that applying secret CIA assets against the American people to sway public opinion is ILLEGAL. [/font color][/font size]

Furthermore, that just represents tip of the iceberg of what we need to know to make a sound determination of what happened 51 years ago today. The reason we ignore these truths is why the nation is as screwed up as it is today, where warmongers and banksters walk free and grow rich.

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Member since: 2003 before July 6th
Number of posts: 55,745
Latest Discussions»Octafish's Journal