![\"Screen](\"http:\/\/libertyblitzkrieg.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/Screen-Shot-2016-08-09-at-11.23.00-AM.jpg\")
<\/p>\nBy Mike Krieger
\nLIBERTY BLITZKRIEG<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Many of you have already read this past Sunday\u2019s excellent and deeply disturbing article published by\u00a0the\u00a0New York Times<\/em>\u00a0regarding\u00a0the shady and inappropriate\u00a0activities regularly conducted by U.S. \u201cthink tanks.\u201d If you haven\u2019t read it yet, I highly suggest you take the time to do so.<\/p>\n It\u2019s important to acknowledge that the U.S. economy has morphed into one gigantic lawless crime scene. An environment in which crony insiders who add zero value to society parasitically feast on the country\u2019s\u00a0treasure. In the case of so-called \u201cthink tanks,\u201d we have\u00a0organizations receiving copious taxpayer subsidies for the privilege of screwing over the American public.<\/p>\n To understand the topic further, I present you with some excerpts from the article titled,\u00a0Researchers or Corporate Allies?\u00a0Think Tanks Blur the Line<\/a>:<\/p>\n Think tanks, which position themselves as \u201cuniversities without students,\u201d have power in government policy debates because they are seen as researchers independent of moneyed interests. But in the chase for funds, think tanks are pushing agendas important to corporate donors, at times blurring the line between researchers and lobbyists. And they are doing so while reaping the benefits of their tax-exempt status, sometimes without disclosing their connections to corporate interests.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Thousands of pages of internal memos and confidential correspondence between Brookings and other donors \u2014 like\u00a0JPMorgan Chase<\/a>, the nation\u2019s largest bank;\u00a0K.K.R<\/a>., the global investment firm;\u00a0Microsoft<\/a>, the software giant; and\u00a0Hitachi<\/a>, the Japanese conglomerate \u2014 show that financial support often came with assurances from Brookings that it would provide \u201cdonation benefits,\u201d including setting up events featuring corporate executives with government officials, according to documents obtained by The New York Times and the\u00a0New England Center for Investigative Reporting<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cThis is about giant corporations who figured out that by spending, hey, a few tens of millions of dollars, if they can influence outcomes here in Washington, they can make billions of dollars,\u201d said Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts,\u00a0a frequent critic<\/a>\u00a0of undisclosed Wall Street donations to think tanks.<\/em><\/p>\n Washington has seen a proliferation of think tanks, particularly small institutions with narrow interests tied to specific industries. At the same time, the brand names of the field have experienced explosive growth. Brookings\u2019s annual budget has doubled in the last decade, to $100 million. The American Enterprise Institute is spending at least $80 million on a\u00a0new headquarters<\/a>\u00a0in Washington, not far from where the Center for Strategic and International Studies built a\u00a0$100 million office tower<\/a>.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The U.S. economy would be infinitely better if everyone in Washington D.C. blasted off to space in a rocket ship.<\/p>\n The likely conclusions of some think tank reports, documents show, are discussed with donors \u2014 or even potential ones \u2014 before the research is complete. Drafts of the studies have been shared with donors whose opinions have then helped shape final reports.<\/strong> Donors have outlined how the resulting scholarship will be used as part of broader lobbying efforts. The think tanks also help donors promote their corporate brands, as Brookings does with JPMorgan Chase, whose $15.5 million contribution is the largest by a private corporation in the institution\u2019s history.\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Despite these benefits, corporations can write off the donations as charitable contributions.<\/strong> Some tax experts say these arrangements may amount to improper subsidies by taxpayers if think tanks are providing specific services.<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cPeople think of think tanks as do-gooders, uncompromised and not bought like others in the political class,\u201d said\u00a0Bill Goodfellow<\/a>, the executive director of the Center for International Policy, a Washington-based think tank. \u201cBut it\u2019s absurd to suggest that donors don\u2019t have influence. The danger is we in the think tank world are being corrupted in the same way as the political world. And all of us should be worried about it.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Indeed, \u201cthink tanks\u201d represent a\u00a0key, overlooked player in the never-ending\u00a0information war\u00a0being waged against the American public. A war specifically\u00a0designed to\u00a0shape public perception in favor of policies that go against our\u00a0best interests while\u00a0making a handful of people extremely\u00a0wealthy.<\/p>\n \u201cWe strongly believe in our model of seeking solutions to some of our country\u2019s most difficult problems,\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>John J. Hamre<\/a>, the chief executive at C.S.I.S., said in a written reply to questions. \u201cWe gather stakeholders, vet ideas, find areas of agreement and highlight areas of disagreement.\u201d\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Emphasis on \u201cstakeholders,\u201d i.e. corporate sponsors. If these think tanks are\u00a0actually working in the best interests of the country, why is\u00a0inequality soaring and why has the middle class been destroyed so efficiently?<\/p>\n Yet researchers at think tanks are seeing corporate influence firsthand.\u00a0Rachel Stohl, a senior associate at the Stimson Center in Washington, said she had been quizzed by potential donors as she tried to raise money for research on the military\u2019s use of armed drones.<\/em><\/p>\n \u201c\u2018Are you going to say drones are bad?\u2019\u201d she recalled one potential financial backer asking. \u201c\u2018We are not interested in funding something that says drones are bad.\u2019\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The confidential Brookings spreadsheet had an unassuming title: Corporate Overviews Tracking. It listed nearly 90 corporations, from Alcoa to Wells Fargo, providing a glimpse of the vast electronic file that Brookings maintained on donors and prospects, and the benefits it might offer.<\/em><\/p>\n The database, along with thousands of pages of emails, solicitations for money and memos on meetings with corporate officials, highlighted Brookings\u2019s practice of assuring that donors would see results from their contributions.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n So why exactly are taxpayers subsidizing this behavior?<\/p>\n K.K.R., after\u00a0starting special funds around 2010<\/a>\u00a0to invest in real estate and other infrastructure projects, donated $450,000 to Brookings, some of it as the institution agreed to\u00a0set up meetings<\/a>\u00a0for a top K.K.R. executive with community leaders in Philadelphia and Detroit, where the company was considering real estate projects. Brookings separately\u00a0produced a report<\/a>, published on K.K.R.\u2019s website, promoting one of the company\u2019s infrastructure projects in New Jersey, after the company executive suggested such a piece.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Lennar joined<\/a>\u00a0Brookings\u2019s Metropolitan Leadership Council, established for the program\u2019s top donors, in July 2010. That month, the company won approval to redevelop Hunters Point in San Francisco, turning the area into a more than 700-acre mix of housing, education and commercial development.<\/em>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Brookings would\u00a0later name the projec<\/a>t one of the three most \u201ctransformative investments in the United States.\u201d\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n The San Francisco project generated controversy from the beginning, with critics concerned about toxic waste left by the former Navy shipyard.<\/em><\/p>\n Follow-up memos<\/a>\u00a0were more explicit: Brookings, as it sought an additional $50,000 from Lennar in 2014, said it was prepared to \u201cuse our convening power, research expertise, network connections and knowledge of innovative practices to help further drive the ultimate impact and success\u201d of Lennar\u2019s project and to \u201cprovide public validation of San Francisco\u2019s efforts through national and local media coverage.\u201d\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n The think tank soon delivered.<\/em><\/p>\n All this corporate marketing paid for\u00a0with taxpayer subsidies. Good gig if you can get it.<\/p>\n Hitachi has been another large donor to the metropolitan program, giving a total of $1.8 million to Brookings over the last decade, according to Brookings documents. The think tank reviewed the company\u2019s corporate marketing and sales strategy targeting the United States, an internal memo shows. Brookings also organized public events that featured top Obama administration officials and allowed Hitachi executives to\u00a0promote<\/a>\u00a0their products<\/a>.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n When JPMorgan offered a major donation to the metropolitan program in 2011, Brookings created the\u00a0Global Cities Initiative<\/a>, complete with a new logo that called it a \u201cjoint project of Brookings and JPMorgan Chase.\u201d\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n The project was premised on a common interest between the bank and the think tank.<\/strong> Brookings wanted to promote economic growth in cities by encouraging international trade, and JPMorgan wanted to gain new business by offering loans to companies in the same markets.<\/em><\/p>\n Mr. Indyk and executives from JPMorgan said the company and the think tank simply agreed on a worthy agenda.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cThis was about growing the economy, and we are incredibly proud of the results of this initiative,\u201d<\/strong> said Peter Scher, the head of the corporate responsibility program at JPMorgan. \u201cWe believe it\u2019s had a huge impact in more than 30 cities that are involved.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n At the same time, hundreds of pages of memos \u2014 status reports to JPMorgan, internal reports by Brookings staff to prepare for meetings with top bank executives, and formal documents soliciting more money \u2014 make clear that Brookings saw the Global Cities Initiative as a branding effort that could help JPMorgan bolster its standing in cities.<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cBottom line: Growing metro economies is good for the nation and for JPMC;<\/strong> also, many U.S. cities are JPMC clients \u2014 motivation to support them and their clients,\u201d\u00a0said one Brookings document dated July 2011, as officials from the think tank met with top bank executives to discuss a planned donation that eventually totaled $15 million.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The Global Cities Initiative,\u00a0another document<\/a>\u00a0written by a Brookings senior fellow explained, \u201cmust mean a marriage between JPMC corporate interests\u201d and \u201cBrookings continued thought leadership.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n JPMorgan,\u00a0in a document<\/a>\u00a0dated a month before the agreement was signed, said the pending donation to Brookings \u201cdeepens\/extends relationships with important client base among business and civic leaders both in the U.S. and abroad.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n At times, Brookings officials seemed worried they were not doing enough for the bank.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n This is all so\u00a0gross\u2026<\/p>\n Donations from the corporations to Brookings are tax exempt based on the premise that the think tank\u2019s work benefits the public good, not a company\u2019s bottom line.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n But two lawyers who specialize in nonprofit law \u2014\u00a0Miranda Perry Fleischer, a professor at the University of San Diego School of Law, and\u00a0Clifford Perlman, a partner at a New York-based firm \u2014 said Brookings\u2019s agreements raised questions.<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cTax deductions are subsidies that are paid for by all taxpayers,\u201d Ms. Fleischer said. \u201cAnd the reason the subsidy is provided is that the charitable organization is supposed to be doing something for the public good, not that specifically benefits the private individual or corporation in the form of providing them goods or services.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Apparently \u201cthe\u00a0public good\u201d now equals helping big cities and big banks. You know, those suffering the most from American neo-feudalism.<\/p>\n While all the above is disgusting\u00a0and unacceptable, what follows is even worse. It shows how the corruption and cronyism of think tanks can directly lead to the exportation of\u00a0war and death abroad.<\/p>\n General Atomics, the California-based manufacturer of Predator drones, had a clear problem. Prospects for sales were falling as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq wound down. The company wanted the Obama administration to change its policy to allow for sales to other countries, a lucrative proposition.<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cWhen the budgets are going down in the U.S., you would like to be able to export more,\u201d Frank Pace, the president of the company\u2019s aircraft systems group,\u00a0told a Reuters reporter<\/a>\u00a0in late 2013 at an air show in Dubai.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n How this man lives with himself, I\u2019ll never know.<\/p>\n At about that time, the industry turned to the Center for Strategic and International Studies for help, providing money that the think tank used to conduct a study on drone policy, including exports.<\/em><\/p>\n C.S.I.S. set up confidential meetings<\/a>\u00a0at its headquarters with company representatives, inviting top officials from the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard, the State Department and the office of the defense secretary, according to emails and other documents obtained by The Times through open records requests.<\/em><\/p>\n As a think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies did not file a lobbying report, but the goals of the effort were clear.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In this economy, everything is a loophole, everything is a swindle.<\/p>\n \u201cPolitical obstacles to export,\u201d read the\u00a0agenda of one closed-door<\/a>\u00a0\u201cworking group\u201d meeting organized by Mr. Brannen that included Tom Rice, a lobbyist in General Atomics\u2019s Washington office, on the invitation lists, the emails show.<\/em><\/p>\n Boeing and Lockheed Martin, drone makers that were major C.S.I.S. contributors, were also invited to attend the sessions, the emails show. The meetings and research culminated with a report released in February 2014 that reflected the industry\u2019s priorities.<\/em><\/p>\n But the effort did not stop there.<\/em><\/p>\n Mr. Brannen initiated meetings with Defense Department officials and congressional staff to push for the recommendations, which also included setting up a new Pentagon office to give more focus to acquisition and deployment of drones.<\/strong> The center also stressed the need to ease export limits at a conference it\u00a0hosted<\/a>\u00a0at its headquarters featuring top officials from the Navy, the Air Force and the Marine Corps.<\/em><\/p>\n Mr. Brannen, who has since left C.S.I.S., declined to comment. The think tank insisted that its efforts to influence administration policy were not lobbying.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n What a heaping pile of bullshit.<\/p>\n One thing is clear: The result was a victory for General Atomics.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n In February 2015, almost one year after the C.S.I.S. report was issued, the State Department announced a clarification of its rules, easing\u00a0final approval<\/a>\u00a0that month for General Atomics\u2019s long-planned sale of unarmed Predator drones to the United Arab Emirates, the first such sale to a non-NATO nation. The think tank report was just one of many voices pushing for the change.<\/em><\/p>\n A State Department spokesman said that while the government officials involved in the review had received opinions from think tanks and industry officials,<\/strong> \u201cat the end of the day, this is a considered U.S. government policy.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n There you have it folks. Just another tale from the putrid and hopelessly corrupt U.S. economy.<\/p>\n Naturally, we shouldn\u2019t be the least bit surprised that one of the most destructive human beings in modern American history is a\u00a0Distinguished Fellow in Residence at the Brookings Institution<\/em>. Yes, you know who I\u2019m talking about\u2026<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
![\"Screen](\"http:\/\/libertyblitzkrieg.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/Screen-Shot-2016-08-09-at-10.50.56-AM-1024x536.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n
![\"Screen](\"http:\/\/libertyblitzkrieg.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/Screen-Shot-2016-08-09-at-11.04.19-AM-1024x439.jpg\")
<\/p>\n\n
\n
<\/div>\n
![\"Screen](\"http:\/\/libertyblitzkrieg.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/Screen-Shot-2016-08-09-at-11.19.23-AM-1024x296.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"Screen](\"http:\/\/libertyblitzkrieg.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/Screen-Shot-2016-08-09-at-11.22.00-AM.jpg\")
<\/p>\n