You are currently browsing the monthly archive for April 2016.
Counterpunch really throws a punch here:
Hillary has accepted massive bribes in the form of speaking fees from financial organizations and corporations. She is under investigation for misuse of classified data, an offense for which a number of whistleblowers are in prison. Hillary has survived the bombing of Libya, her creation of a failed Libyan state that is today a major source of terrorist jihadists, and the Benghazi controversy. She has survived charges that as Secretary of State she arranged favors for foreign interests in exchange for donations to the Clintons’ foundation. And, of course, there is a long list of previous scandals: Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate. Diana Johnstone’s book, Queen of Chaos, describes Hillary Clinton as “the top salesperson for the ruling oligarchy.”
Hillary Clinton is a bought-and-paid-for representative of the big banks, the military-security complex, and the Israel Lobby. She will represent these interests, not those of the American people or America’s European allies.
The Clintons’ purchase by interest groups is public knowledge. For example, CNN reports that between February 2001 and May 2015 Bill and Hillary Clinton were paid $153 million in speaking fees for 729 speeches, an average price of $210,000.
According to rootsactionteam.com, multi-million dollar donors to the Clinton Foundation include Saudi Arabia, Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk, Kuwait, Exxon Mobil, Friends of Saudi Arabia, James Murdoch, Qatar, Boeing, Dow, Goldman Sachs, Walmart, and the United Arab Emirates.
According to the International Business Times, “Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments had given millions to the Clinton Foundation.”
And this woman is a main candidate for the United States presidency? Seriously, Bush in drag. The United States has become what Nazi Germany wanted to be. I have no doubt that the Nazis, had they won the war, and had they succeeded in being the empire to rule Europe, after a few decades, they could well have instituted more voting on in internal and local level, and have called themselves a democracy. And Germans would be yelling how wonderful their country and their system was, because it brought them material profit.
And then you see all these famous lefty boomer women going wild about Hillary.
What an ugly spectacle.
Michael Hudson is a Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. He is the author of The Bubble and Beyond and Finance Capitalism and its Discontents. His most recent book is titled Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy.
Brief history of the corrupt worldwide tax evasion system instituted by the United States at Therealnews.com.
HUDSON: Well, Panama was basically carved off from Colombia in order to have a canal. And it was created very much like Liberia. Its not really a country in the sense that a country has its own currency, its own tax system. Panama uses U.S. dollars. So does Liberia. And the real story that didn’t come out in the Panama papers, which naturally focused just on criminal people laundering money, Panama wasn’t designed to launder money. It was designed to launder earnings. Mainly by the oil and the gas industries, and the mining industry.
And Panama and Liberia were long noted as having flags of convenience. That meant that oil tankers and mineral ships would register themselves under the corporate flags of Panama or Liberia, or some other country that used the U.S. dollar, not its own currency.
Well, I first found out about this about 40 years ago, when I was doing a study of the balance of payments for the oil industry. And I went to Standard Oil, whose treasurer met with me to walk me through their balance sheet. And I said, I cant figure out whether Standard Oil and the other oil companies make their money at the producing end of oil, or at the distributing end of refining and selling it. And he said, well, we make our earnings right here in New York, in the Treasurers office. I said, what do you mean? He said, we sell the oil that we buy from Saudi Arabia or the near East at very low prices to the tanker company thats registered in Panama or Liberia. And they don’t have an income tax in their country, because they’re not a real country. And we sell then the oil to the downstream distributors in the United States or Europe. We sell that crude oil at a very, very high price. So high that there’s no profit to be made at all in refineries or selling the oil. So we don’t pay the tax collector in Europe anything. We don’t pay the American government anything. All of our earnings are reported as being made in the tankers.
And I said, well, I’ve looked at the balance of payments reports here from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Bulletin. I see here’s Europe, here’s Latin America, here’s Africa and Asia. I can’t find where these profits are. And he said, ah, look at the very last line. And it’s international. And I said, international, aren’t all these countries, Europe, international? He said, no. International means they’re really part of the United States abroad. They’re the offshore banking centers. Panama, Liberia, etc. So I found out that basically Panama, Panamanian companies, were set up initially to register oil tankers and mineral ships in order to make the appearance of taking all of their profits on the transporting the oil, or the copper, or the minerals, from third world countries to the United States and Europe.
Interviewer: Michael, you have indicated in one of your articles that you were actually approached by a State Department operative in 1967. Tell us more about that experience.
HUDSON: Yeah. From a State Department person who’d gone to work for Chase. The problem that America had in the 1960s was the Vietnam war. The entire balance of payments deficit of the United States in the 1950s and the 60s, right down to the early 70s, was military spending abroad. And the problem was that the dollar was either going down or the United States had to sell gold, and that’s what led to Nixon finally taking the dollar off gold in 1971. Well, the United–it’s tried to fight against that. So the State Department came to Chase, and they said, we’ve got to figure out some way of getting enough dollars to balance the military deficit. And we found out the way to do it. We want to make the United States the new Switzerland of the world.
Michael, can you make a calculation of how much criminal capital there is in the world? How much do the drug dealers make, the criminals all over, the dictators. How much goes to Switzerland, and how can we get this criminal money in the United States?
Well, the end result was that the U.S. government went to Chase and other banks and asked them to be good American citizens, and make America safe for the criminals of the world to keep their money so that we would support the dollar.
And Chase had already, when Chase had been asked to have a bank in Saigon so that the Army and other people wouldn’t put their money in French banks that would end up with General de Gaulle cashing it in for gold, Chase said, okay, we will help set up banks. And other banks really did this not to evade the law, not to break the law initially, but to be good citizens and attract crooked capital from all over the world. Now, the same thing happened with the British West Indies. They had declared their independence, but in order not to be a real country, in order to attract flight capital to England, they rejoined the empire as a colony so that they could serve as money laundering. And the idea was to have all of this money come to the United States.
Well, all of this context can easily be traced. If you look at the money that goes into Panama and other offshore banking centers in the Caribbean, none of this money stays in Panama.
The inevitable and most plain fact about the Panama Papers leak is starting to be grasped by a few folks. Contrary to what the leak seems to confirm at first glance “it’s those horribly corrupt third world countries that are at their shenanigans again”, the fact is the richest countries in the world are the greatest offenders – since they were the ones who set up this corrupt financial and fiscal system in the first place.
Their legislators and politicians are the ones who crafted it, at the behest of the elites which they serve, often through various kinds of disguised bribes and political quid pro quos.
Their militaries are the ones who move in and murder and plot and bomb any time anyone in a developing country tries to elect into power someone with ethics who is intent on really fighting the destructive, corrupt, crony capitalism that is imposed by the sword on their suffering populations.
And so, among the greatest offenders of fiscal and financial corruption, who do we find? Why, surprise, surprise, the US and Europe (which has a particular nefarious member, the UK).
Thus RT’s article: Britain is the heart and soul of tax evasion by Dan Glazebrook.
The British government’s claim to be tackling tax evasion is about as credible as Al Capone claiming to be leading the fight against organized crime. In fact, Britain is at the heart of the global tax haven network, and continues to lead the fight against its regulation.
For whilst corruption exists in every country, what enables that corruption to flourish and become institutionalized is the network of secretive financial regimes that allow the world’s biggest criminals and fraudsters to escape taxation, regulation and oversight of their activities. And this network is a conscious creation of the British state.
Of the 215,000 companies identified in the Mossack Fonseca documents, over half were incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, one single territory in what tax haven expert Nicholas Shaxson calls a “spider’s web” of well over a dozen separate UK-controlled dens of financial chicanery.
In addition, the UK was ranked number two of those jurisdictions where the banks, law firms and other middlemen associated with the Panama Papers operate, only topped by Hong Kong, whose institutional environment is itself a creation of the UK. And of the ten banks who most frequently asked Mossack Fonseca to set up paper companies to hide their client’s finances, four were British: HSBC, Coutts, Rothschild and UBS.
HSBC, recently fined $1.9bn for laundering the money of Mexico’s most violent drug cartels, used the Panamanian firm to create 2,300 offshore companies, whilst Coutts – the family bank of the Windsors – set up just under 500.
That Britain should emerge as central to this scandal is no surprise. For as Nicholas Shaxson, a leading authority on tax havens put it when I interviewed him in 2011, “The City of London is effectively the grand-daddy of the global offshore system.” Whilst there are various different lists of tax havens in existence, depending on how exactly they are defined, on any one of them explains Shaxson, “you will see that about half of the tax havens on there, of the ones that matter, are in some way British or partly British.” Firstly, are “Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man: the crown dependencies. They’re very fundamentally controlled by Britain.” Then there are the Overseas Territories, such as the Caymans, Bermuda, and the Virgin Islands, in which “all the things that matter are effectively controlled by Great Britain.”
Of course, it suits the British government to portray all these territories as ‘autonomous’ or ‘self-governing’ in order to provide itself with plausible deniability about what they are doing. But the reality is they are run by a governor appointed by the Queen on the British government’s advice.
Obviously the British government, as well as American and European Union financial and fiscal authorities all know how this system works. They know it perfectly well because they were the ones who crafted it down to every detail:
Casey Gill, one of the earliest lawyers specializing in offshore operations explained how legislation was devised in the Caymans: tax experts and accountants would fly in from all over the world “and say ‘these are the loopholes in our system’. And Caymans legislation would be designed accordingly,” often by a conglomerate run by Gill, before being sent to the British Foreign Office for approval. Shaxson asked Gill if Britain, who had the power to veto such legislation, ever raised any objections. “No,” he said, “Not ever. Never.”
The entire UK-controlled web is home to offshore deposits estimated in 2009 to be worth $3.2 trillion, 55 percent of the global total: equivalent to roughly $500 for every man, woman and child on the planet.
Another point underscoring what a failure our so-called modern democracies are. A democratic system cannot work if both its people and its respective authorities are corrupt to the core, which is what we see in the US, the UK, and France, just to name three of the greatest offenders.
What we have is corruption run amok, backed by state or private repression, whenever necessary.
Not only that, this system, as Glazebrook explains so clearly, is the same old, same old colonialism of the past now disguised in a shameless fraudulent cover of independence.
This web emerged In the 1960s. Whilst ostensibly involved in a process of ‘decolonization’, in fact the UK hung on to a large global network of small, sparsely-populated islands: “The British empire”, Shaxson wrote, “had faked its own death.” These islands were to serve the same imperial purpose the empire had always had: the projection of British power and the channeling of African, Asian and Latin American wealth into Britain.
Nicholas Shaxson is a leading authority on tax havens, interviewed by Glazebrook. And:
In Shaxson’s words, the role of these tax havens is to “capture passing foreign business and channel it to London just as a spider’s web catches insects” whilst also acting as a “money laundering filter that lets the City get involved in dirty business while providing it with enough distance to maintain plausible deniability.”
When you see pictures of millions suffering starvation and misery, lack of health care and education in African and Latin America, this system provides a part of the key.
In 2008, Global Financial Integrity estimated that flows of illicit money out of developing countries into tax havens were running at about $1.25 trillion per year, roughly ten times the total value of aid given to developing countries by the rich world. Whilst those such as Cameron are more interested in handwringing about ‘corrupt African governments’ than in examining the system that enabled and promoted this corruption, tax havens are facilitating the plunder, by the London banks, of African wealth. And they are doing so because this is what they were designed to do – to continue the extortion of colonialism, just at the moment Britain was forced to give up the bulk of its formal empire.
Notice that UK and American MSM papers and news producers are not admitting any of this, and continue to spin the story in a way that serves to hide the big picture of Western plunder and corruption.
Let us hope, however, that with the Internet there is a bit of a chance for more people to understand that the root causes for global corruption lie in the West, those with the greatest power. Local corrupt governments in other parts of the world, while also guilty, are only dancing to their masters’ tune. Merely putting a few corrupt third world leaders in prison or carrying out assassinations, as the West is so fond of doing now and then, won’t change a thing in the overall scheme.
A lucid comment – in French – left regarding a presentation in France, by a lawyer called Damien Viguier, on the subject of the French government’s responsibility in the chaos in the Middle East. (Damien Viguier : « Chaos au Proche-Orient : les responsabilités du gouvernement français »). The clip from the presentation posted, although quite short, is quite good as well.
Conférence donnée samedi 19 mars 2016 au colloque de CIVITAS : « De la guerre au Proche-Orient à l’immigration et au terrorisme en Europe » (more clips from the conference here)
As Mr. Viguier underscores, the problem we have in the world today is that we have terrorist governments. I would add that the so-called terrorist groups like ISIS are like mosquitoes compared to the horror and the scale of crimes that terrorist governments are carrying out. Three of the most barbaric terrorist governments are the US, the UK, and France.
From a legal perspective, another of his points is very interesting – he says we must judge Laurent Fabius for murder, the murder of countless innocent people in the Middle East. (Fabius was France’s Minister of Foreign Affairs until recently). And we must avoid trying to frame the crimes of France in these wars as “war crimes”. He advocates trying them within the standard legal and internal apparatus of each country, in this case, France.
To which, a commenter added this little manual:
Petit manuel de déstabilisation d’un régime hostile
1°) Être une puissance impériale
2°) Financer tout mouvement d’opposition, aussi minuscule soit-il, revendiquant une démocratie à l’occidentale.
3°) Repérer les futurs possibles leaders et organiser des stages de formation à l’agitation à leur intention
4°) Donner un retentissement international à toute manifestation de l’opposition grâce aux médiats aux ordres.
5°) Mettre en exergue la répression brutale que ne manquera pas de commettre le régime en place.
6°) Placer quelques snipers sur les parcours des manifestants, et tirer à la fois sur la foule et les forces de l’ordre en place.
7°) Dénoncer la barbarie de la répression.
8°) Armer clandestinement des groupuscules étrangers extrémistes animés par une idéologie suicidaire, les appeler rebelles et combattants de la liberté.
9°) Présenter ces groupuscules comme un mouvement populaire.
10°) Organiser aux frontières du pays des bases d’entrainement à la guérilla qui seront présentées comme des camps de réfugiés.
11°) Organiser le blocus de toute voix dissidente par une censure de fait.
12°) Organiser des coordinations d’opposants dans une capitale étrangère, et n’accepter que les informations provenant de cette source.
13°) Bombarder, si le contexte international le permet, l’armée régulière, tout en affirmant qu’il s’agit de protéger la population de la répression du dictateur qui menaçait de massacrer son peuple.
Logiquement, le pouvoir en place tombe à plus ou moins court terme, le chaos s’installe pour de longues années, vous avez atteint votre objectif : vous n’avez plus de pouvoir fort face à vous, vous pouvez piller sans vergogne les richesses du pays, il vous suffira d’entretenir les conflits internes (ethniques, religieux…) en organisant un attentat suicide de temps en temps. Toute couverture médiatique est maintenant superflue.
Toute ressemblance avec une quelconque situation actuelle est évidemment fortuite.
La première victime d’une guerre, c’est la vérité.
Read more at http://www.medias-presse.info/damien-viguier-chaos-au-proche-orient-les-responsabilites-du-gouvernement-francais/51479#KDryuwvycpr9UMkw.99
An excellent short article on Craig Murray highlights the most important point of the Panama Leaks – its covert political dimension.
The Panama Leaks continues to hide major Western culprits, while revealing culprits that are political enemies of the US. A nice little exhibit A of how corrupt the West is, how the media is not free in the West, and that this may be nothing more than a political hit job by the US military/Wall Street complex.
However, since it does highlight just how corrupt the international tax evasion/fraud system is, even while maintaining the lid on the most important culprits, it may lead to some accountability in the end. And raising awareness about the overall problem is always good – unless this is done, there will be no demand from the public for any accountability.
Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% From Panama Leak
Whoever leaked the Mossack Fonseca papers appears motivated by a genuine desire to expose the system that enables the ultra wealthy to hide their massive stashes, often corruptly obtained and all involved in tax avoidance. These Panamanian lawyers hide the wealth of a significant proportion of the 1%, and the massive leak of their documents ought to be a wonderful thing.
Unfortunately the leaker has made the dreadful mistake of turning to the western corporate media to publicise the results. In consequence the first major story, published today by the Guardian, is all about Vladimir Putin and a cellist on the fiddle. As it happens I believe the story and have no doubt Putin is bent.
But why focus on Russia? Russian wealth is only a tiny minority of the money hidden away with the aid of Mossack Fonseca. In fact, it soon becomes obvious that the selective reporting is going to stink.
The Suddeutsche Zeitung, which received the leak, gives a detailed explanation of the methodology the corporate media used to search the files. The main search they have done is for names associated with breaking UN sanctions regimes. The Guardian reports this too and helpfully lists those countries as Zimbabwe, North Korea, Russia and Syria. The filtering of this Mossack Fonseca information by the corporate media follows a direct western governmental agenda. There is no mention at all of use of Mossack Fonseca by massive western corporations or western billionaires – the main customers. And the Guardian is quick to reassure that “much of the leaked material will remain private.”
The corporate media – the Guardian and BBC in the UK – have exclusive access to the database which you and I cannot see. They are protecting themselves from even seeing western corporations’ sensitive information by only looking at those documents which are brought up by specific searches such as UN sanctions busters. Never forget the Guardian smashed its copies of the Snowden files on the instruction of MI6.
What if they did Mossack Fonseca database searches on the owners of all the corporate media and their companies, and all the editors and senior corporate media journalists? What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on all the most senior people at the BBC? What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on every donor to the Center for Public Integrity and their companies?
What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on every listed company in the western stock exchanges, and on every western millionaire they could trace?
That would be much more interesting. I know Russia and China are corrupt, you don’t have to tell me that. What if you look at things that we might, here in the west, be able to rise up and do something about?
And what if you corporate lapdogs let the people see the actual data?
Well, we all know what would happen: Americans, British, and French, to name a few, would have to admit that their countries are just as corrupt as Uganda, Panama, and Syria. Which would be sweet.
ADDED on April 10, 2016: The EU is now threatening sanctions against Panama. Ah, the irony is rich. Especially since Panama is NOT the biggest or worse tax haven in the world.
Europe also is home to countries with a record of acting like tax havens and providing banking secrecy – Luxembourg, Switzerland, Andorra, among others. The United States has also become a haven, with several states including Wyoming and Delaware now popular places to open anonymous accounts that are cheap to maintain and pay little or no local tax.
Who knows, if enough pressure is put, couldn’t someone sue in the West to make the data public?
We need to take the entire database and put it on wikileaks! 🙂
Now that would be a good leak scandal!
You know, I never remember to glance at what Scott Ott’s writing at Scrappleface anymore. Even having put a link right on my blog, I completely forget about it. But, lo and behold, my eyes hit right upon the link yesterday and I clicked on it to see if it was even still active. And I found gold. (the bolding you see below is from me)
Rep. Boehner Retires to Spend More Time with Money
September 25th, 2015 Scott Ott
(2015-09-25) — House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) will reportedly resign at the end of October to spend more time with his money.
Sources close to the Republican leader said the hectic schedule of a House Speaker has made Boehner and his money feel like they’re “two ships that pass in the night,” without enough time to “linger together and nurture each other, go fishing.”
“Speaker Boehner has certainly been surrounded by other people’s money, coming and going, but it’s not the same,” an unnamed Congressional aide said. “Sometimes a man needs to say ‘Stop the world, I want to get off,’ and just hold my money, and caress it, and let the bond grow.”
For years, the source said, “money has been there for Boehner, and now he wants to be there for money.”
Boehner reportedly made the decision to resign after listening to Pope Francis speaking to a joint session of Congress about the moral hazards of capitalism. The Congressman identified with the poor and oppressed who feel locked out of the lucrative opportunities enjoyed by the wealthy few “just on the other side of that revolving door.”
“The Pope — with his gold city, global travel and obsequious servants — reminded Speaker Boehner how important it is to care for the least among us,” the source said, “and standing next to the Supreme Pontiff, he couldn’t help but feel like one of them, and believe that there must be more to this life than just spending other people’s money.”
This is Scott Ott at his best, shining.
WASHINGTON — A message from Hillary Clinton’s private email server reveals that France and the United Kingdom both sought to control Libya’s oil in the days after the U.S.-backed coup in 2011.
An email sent on Sept. 16, 2011 to Clinton, then the U.S. Secretary of State, from journalist and family friend Sidney Blumenthal, shows that French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron each traveled to Tripoli about one month after Moammar Gadhafi’s government fell in order to assert their claim on Libya’s energy reserves.
They made these demands, Blumenthal wrote, during meetings with the country’s National Transitional Council, a de facto government which formed with Western support in the aftermath of the coup:
The United States, France, U.K. and other NATO allies backed rebel forces in Libya that ousted Gadhafi in August 2011, in what was widely reported to be a “humanitarian intervention” against a government with a history of severe human rights abuses.
So, if they all knew he was a monstrous dictator, why did they all support him for decades, do business with him, and then arm him to his teeth?
Mar. 11: Libya: lessons in controlling the arms trade – by Pieter D. Wezeman
In the current military air strikes against Libyan forces, nations that once supported Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s regime are now—based on sanction by the United Nations—attacking the forces they were marketing and delivering arms to only weeks before. As the violence escalates and the international community examines how to respond to internal conflict and human rights violations, arms supply should be analysed as it implicates the international community as complicit in the violence it is now trying to end.
UK approved £2.3bn in arms exports over 21 months
Successive governments ‘misjudged the risk’ [What baloney!]
Heavily armed: The British government approved £61.3million in arms exports to Gaddafi’s regime since 2009
Britain sold weapons to Libya and other dictatorships in North Africa and the Middle East just four months before Colonel Gaddafi’s regime slaughtered hundreds of protesters, a damning report reveals today.
The British, you know, these people who claim to be for “freedom and democracy”, did they object ? Did they stop the arms sales and the terror they unleashed?
No, they continued doing their monstrous deeds, while most of the British population looked the other way and while all these dictators continue to terrorize and kill millions of children and adults. And with their bloody British hands, they pocketed the money. So did France and the US.
As long as the US, the UK, and France can rob a country of its resources by putting in place, supporting, and arming a dictator that will sell to them what they want, while keeping the population in a horrible state of poverty and oppression, they will do so. And they don’t even bother to do it very covertly, given how corrupt their populace is. Should any of these dictators outlast their use or start to make demands or not agree to be such a puppet, then it’s time to play the “Oh! We’ve just discovered so and so is a horrible dictator! Now we must topple him! And now our corporations must move in and directly control the natural resources that don’t belong to us! Three cheers fo freedom and democracy – Hitler-style!”
Either the US, the UK, and France rob poor countries through instituting and arming a monstrous dictator, or they do it through a sham of a corrupt “democratic” government, where their corporations move in and rob directly. Either way, the people of any such country remain in horrible poverty, suffering, and are robbed of their own country’s resources.
And after all of this, Americans, British, and French, all exclaim, “Isn’t the democratic governments you see in our own respective countries wonderful? Isn’t capitalism wonderful?”
Hitler died, but his ideology and tactics were fully taken up by the US, the UK, and France – not that it was new to the imperialist powers to continue to oppress millions and rob poor countries all over the world.
Kill, rob, kill, rob, kill, rob – corporations are the “legitimacy” wrapper that the Nazi-like military of the US-UK-France cover themselves with.
Look at this case (Gay parents fight for custody with surrogate in Thailand – – The Telegraph UK). Not only at the case, but also how it’s framed by Western media.
It’s about two grotesque homosexual pigs who wanted to use a Thai woman as a mule for carrying a baby that they were then going to take away from the mother at the end – that is, surrogacy:
“The gay couple went to court today in a high-profile custody battle in Thailand with a surrogate mother who is trying to keep the child after discovering their sexual orientation.
Gordan Lake, an American and Manuel Valero, his Spanish husband – both 41 – have been unable to leave the country with Carmen, the baby girl, for over a year because the surrogate has refused to sign the documents that allow the infant to obtain a passport.”
She claims she was never told the baby was to be given to two homosexual pigs. Quite possible if you ask me. What’s my position on surrogacy? There may be some very unusual case of surrogacy where I may even consider it perhaps acceptable. But anything involving homosexual pigs is not it.
So, without more info, here’s my guess. Since all of this surrogacy business is about money, I can well imagine the “agency” lied to the Thai woman (or never told her, which amounts to the same) about who the baby was for.
Then that mother, who does not have the mind of a pig, discovers to her horror that her beautiful baby girl is to be given to two deformed and perverted men, who hate having a healthy relationship with a woman, and who would deprive the girl of her real mother and of a step-mother as well.
The Telegraph then reports that the Thai mother gave birth, but now thinking of the well-being and the human rights of the baby, refused to sign off the baby.
So the homosexual pigs stole the baby from the surrogate mother and went into “hiding” – whatever that means. An underground Thai network of baby smugglers?
The couple has been living in hiding with Carmen and Alvaro, their two-year-old surrogate child for 14 months fearing the baby will be taken from them.
They criminally stole the baby from its real mother. Who did not want to part with the baby. But the case is even more complicated, because this Thai woman just carried the baby, since the egg for the baby came from an anonymous woman!
All because these turds of homosexuals refuse to go deal with their profoundly deformed psychologies and treat their sexuality problems.
But there’s more:
The case is complicated by the fact that Thai law does not recognise same-sex marriages and also by a new law that bans commercial surrogacy, which took effect after baby Carmen’s birth.
Thailand had been a popular destination for foreign couples seeking surrogacy services, partly because of loose regulations and low costs compared with some other countries.
In other words, as other people have remarked, the rich West has now gone beyond treating third world people like dogs merely for cheap labor, they must now colonize the wombs of these unfortunate women, and make them into mules for carrying the babies that they are too perverted to conceive through a healthy man-woman relationship.
Lastly, look at the framing by the wealthy Western media – who’s portrayed as the victim? The two privileged homosexual pigs.
The paper reports Gordan Lake alleges they never lied to the surrogate mother. Lake said:
…he and his husband were always the “intended parents”.
“We’re the people that wanted to have a child,” he said. “We just want to go home and we just want to be a family. A normal boring family.”
Well, we have news for the homosexual pig. A normal, boring family doesn’t use poor women in Thailand as mules to carry their fabricated babies. A normal, boring family doesn’t rip off a baby girl from the woman who carried her. It doesn’t engage in criminal activity in a third world country to steal babies.
And look at the argument they are presenting:
The couple’s lawyer, Rachapol Sirikulchit, said he was confident they will be awarded custody and take the baby with them to Spain, where they live.
“Baby Carmen has the right to be with her biological father, who supports her financially and has cared for her since she was born,” Mr Sirikulchit said. “The priority is to consider the benefit for children and that they have the right to live with their biological parent.”
In other words, money. Come buy children from the wombs of poor women and take them away to do whatever your perverted mind decides.
I hope the Thai government will not be bought by these two gay turds. Alas, as we all know, money does speak loudly in a poor country. And women and children have no fundamental human rights if there’s a gay or lesbian pig wailing about something they want. In Western liberalism, is there a right for a baby girl to have a mother? Never if homosexual pigs are involved. All that matters is that she be given things (money), which the two homosexual pigs have.
A new chapter of how nasty neo-colonization is: now at the level of a poor woman’s womb.