Why are war profiteers who play both sides of the fence not prosecuted as Vice President Harry Truman said they should be in 1942?
Did IBM knowingly assist the Nazis in rounding up the Jews and are big American corporations now helping our government prepare for the next roundup of scapegoats, trouble makers, and dissidents?
Video that answers this question. (Warning: a few very disturbing images. )
It's a well-documented fact that IBM assisted in the Nazi's Final Solution. Its financial and other assistance to the Nazi goal of conquering Europe was widely touted in Germany -- the same with regard to Ford, DuPont and other big US corporations. But our powers-that-be kept that quiet here, of course.
The method for how they kept things like that quiet is interesting. Ford never had to tell the newspapers to keep his factories' participation in the Nazi war machine secret. The editors all knew that any mention of it would mean the withdrawal of Ford advertising.
And if you don't think this "ancient history" has any relevance to what is happening today, skip down to the last several paragraphs of this article, and then to the first comment in the discussion. Or just read the following excerpt from an article in a recent issue of the N.Y. Times. It shows that our military and our corporations are taking over our government.
"The trauma of Sept. 11, 2001, gave rise to a dangerous myth that, to be safe, America had to give up basic rights and restructure its legal system. The United States was now in a perpetual state of war, the argument went, and the criminal approach to fighting terrorism -- and the due process that goes along with it -- wasn't tough enough.
"President George W. Bush used this insidious formula to claim that his office had the inherent power to detain anyone he chose, for as long as he chose, without a trial; to authorize the torture of prisoners; and to spy on Americans without a warrant. President Obama came into office pledging his dedication to the rule of law and to reversing the Bush-era policies. (Instead he continued them and even stepped them up.)
"Mr. Obama refused to entertain any investigation of the abuses of power under his predecessor, and he has been far too willing to adopt Mr. Bush's extravagant claims of national secrets to prevent any courthouse accountability for those abuses. (This week he stated his intention to sign into law the terrible new measures that will make indefinite detention and military trials a permanent part of American law.)
"The measures, contained in the annual military budget bill, will strip the F.B.I., federal prosecutors and federal courts of all or most of their power to arrest and prosecute terrorists and hand it off to the military, which has made clear that it doesn't want the job. The legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial. The bill, championed by Republicans in the House and Senate, was attached to the military budget bill to make it harder for Mr. Obama to veto it.
"Nearly every top American official with knowledge and experience spoke out against the provisions, including the attorney general, the defense secretary, the chief of the F.B.I., the secretary of state, and the leaders of intelligence agencies. And, for weeks, the White House vowed that Mr. Obama would veto the military budget if the provisions were left in. On Wednesday, the White House reversed field, declaring that the bill had been improved enough for the president to sign it now that it had passed the Senate.
"This is a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency. To start with, this bill was utterly unnecessary. Civilian prosecutors and federal courts have jailed hundreds of convicted terrorists, while the tribunals have convicted a half-dozen.
And the modifications are nowhere near enough. Mr. Obama, his spokesman said, is prepared to sign this law because it allows the executive to grant a waiver for a particular prisoner to be brought to trial in a civilian court. But the legislation's ban on spending any money for civilian trials for any accused terrorist would make that waiver largely meaningless."
Will the "journalists" who operate our mainstream media even try to protect us from this continuing takeover by the military-industrial complex? Quite unlikely. Consider the following example of why I say that:
A friend of mine was recently annoyed with an ad from 'The Plastics Council' on TV:
"Do they think this will make us buy more plastic?"