So who does the regime serve? Not a difficult question really, just look at who is prospering the most in times of austerity, apart from the weapons sector that "government" strives hard to satisfy both with the input of public's taxes and the market creation. Quite clever really, Dave is a sales rep and market creator for the sector, the amount of public cash spent on hardware, weapons and munitions used for aggression against other countries is a military secret. Around 40% of the military budget at a guess. Another big bite goes to Bilderberg's loyal secret services that when not creating domestic terrorism incidents at home are busy fomenting strife in foreign countries where governments have refused to bend the knee to Bilderberg's psychopathic plonkers.
Then there is the agenda of the Luciferian Zionist bandits that stuff money into political party accounts in order to "persuade" politicians to support Israeli regime policy - of apartheid against Palestinians (reportedly imposed due to the natives having a higher reproductive rate), of expansionism involving further "growth" into Palestinian and Syrian land and of aggression against the nearby Muslim countries that, due to apparent dementia on the part of successive regimes are perceived as a threat to the existence of the yet-to-be-defined-by-borders country, that is what is peddled but the reality is resources (hydrocarbons), strategic advantage and of course the support for the megalomaniac rule-the-world-under-one-Luciferian-reli
But above all other lobbying groups is the mother of all parasites, even above politicians, aristocrats and royals and that is the state welfare supported bankster families that are identified as finance houses. The Rothschild family in particular has shaped the world into a self-destructive debt currency dominated system where finance houses can commit any crime, even commissioning the destruction of countries, assassination of whistle-blowers and destruction of Western edifices such as the 9/11 atrocity.
Why No One’s Investigating Wall Street
The government finds money to crack down on food stamp "fraud." If it wanted to go after finance crooks, it could
By David Sirota
When it comes to our government’s collective refusal to aggressively investigate — much less prosecute — Wall Street crime, one prevailing line of apologism implies that it’s all about resources. As the general fable goes, Wall Street is so sprawling and so lawyered up that public law enforcement agencies simply don’t have the resources to make sure justice is served, especially at a time of budget deficits. In this story, Wall Street is not simply too big to fail; it’s too big to even police.
The motivation for such myth-making is obvious: It wholly absolves elected officials for their decisions to let their financial-industry campaign contributors off the hook. Yet thanks to recent events, the whole “Too Big to Police” rationale is being exposed for the farce that it is.
At the local level, the same governments that plead poverty when they’re asked to enforce their laws on financial fraud have somehow found plenty of resources to deploy their militarized police forces against Occupy protesters. At the federal level, it’s even more blatant. As we learned in a little-noticed Washington Post piece on Tuesday, the same Obama administration that has refused to spend political capital and federal monies to go after Wall Street is expending new resources to crack down on the supposedly rampant problem of food stamp “fraud.”
Tracking an individual example of this phenomenon, Matt Taibbi makes clear that it’s really difficult to overstate just how revealing this kind of thing is. Wall Street crooks who stole trillions of dollars are rewarded by the administration with additional trillions in bailouts. Meanwhile, those crooks’ now-impoverished victims — so poor they are on food stamps, mind you — are being targeted by the same administration for criminal investigation for allegedly making a few extra bucks on recycling empty bottles.
Taken together, these microcosmic examples (and there are plenty of others) all illustrate an inconvenient truth: namely, that law enforcement decisions today are not being guided by resource questions or dispassionate analyses of priorities, they are being guided by political will.
In states, it’s not that governors and attorneys general (other than those in New York, Nevada and California) want to go after financial fraud but can’t; it’s that they don’t want to go after that fraud, and they do want to shut down anti-Wall Street demonstrations. Why? Because, in the words of Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado, they fear the demonstrations are “something that could easily catch on.”
Likewise at the federal level, it’s not that President Obama wants to pursue Wall Street crime. It’s that as the biggest recipient of Wall Street cash in American history, he is making deliberate decisions both to avoid prosecuting the financial sector, and to continue past policies that make prospective prosecutions more difficult than they need to be – all while playing to old “welfare queen” demagoguery with a new election-year effort to villainize food-stamp recipients.
In these decisions, we are being taught a lesson we should have learned from the instantaneous changes after 9/11. Before the terrorist attack, we were often told we were so broke, we had no money to address any national priority (other than massive tax cuts for the wealthy, of course). Immediately after the attack, however, we suddenly had unlimited resources to wage adventurist wars and finance the Military/Homeland Security/Police Complex. Of course, nothing about our budget situation changed; the only thing that changed back then was the whims of politicians.
It’s the same thing today, and not just when it comes to financial fraud (though that’s the best example), but when it comes to so many different expenditures of law enforcement resources. Municipal governments, for instance, say they have no resources to maintain homeless shelters, yet they seem to have plenty of resources to enforce municipal ordinances making homelessness illegal, and to bust the Occupy protests. Police forces say they don’t have the resources necessary to adequately fight violent crime, but they’ve got plenty of money to arrest pot smokers. The list is endless.
No doubt, it’s disturbing to acknowledge these truths, because they make us see that our political leaders aren’t being forced to do odious things, as they sententiously claim. On the contrary, they are most often using their unilateral discretion and purposely deciding to do those things.
--The essay continues in the same vein. informationclearinghouse.info/article363
Basically the regime leadership, high level politicians and Civil Services are owned, either ideologically, financially or by threats. They are subservient to the leaders of the globalist new world order, a global government run by the banking families, royalty and selected smart-asses, based on a feudal system, the modern-day equivalent is called debt slavery under a corporatist system of eco fascism, and subservient to the Bank of England that is the spider at the centre of the fraudulent debt currency web, that controls how much regimes can spend.
Why does no-one focus on the particular affliction that implements so many destructive policies, society's tumorous permanent government that is the Civil Service?