The middle class is being slowly dismantled piece by piece. New Census data released this week highlights a continuing trend that is pushing more average Americans into a perpetual struggle to stay financially afloat. New data shows that the median household income is $50,221 in 2009 which is down from $52,029 in 2008. This drop of 3.6 percent comes at a time when many U.S. households are struggling to make payments on mortgages and more importantly, find jobs. The only group that grew their household income was for those making $180,000 or more (top 5 percent). This growing inequality gap demonstrates that this recession is actually widening the chasm between the working and upper-classes of our society. I went ahead and took the data from the new Census report and created the following income distribution chart:
35% of U.S. households live on $35,000 or less. The hope of making it into the middle class for this group is getting tougher and more financially challenging. Those making more than $100,000 fall under the top 20 percent category. But the real income disparity shows up clearly once you go over the $200,000 range. The top 20 percent of Americans made close to 50 percent of all income while those below the poverty line made up 3.4 percent. This ratio of 14.5 to 1 is the highest on record keeping history. In 2008 the ratio was at 13.6 and back in 1968 it was 7.69:
How is it possible that during a time when the vast majority of Americans are moving backwards financially, only a small segment actually progressed forward? It would be one thing if the real economy were improving but it is not. What is happening is the bailout funds have worked but for a very tiny portion of the population. Most people depend on a job to pay for bills and manage their daily budgets, not stock market wealth. The bigger problem is you have insufficient risk management systems built into the current financial system. As we saw with the AIG bailout, it was merely a way to rectify the bad bets of Goldman Sachs. How did this improve the real economy? It didn’t. How did handing out money to the investment banks provide added jobs? They have no statistics to show for the trillions of dollars handed out to Wall Street in terms of helping out Main Street. What we do have is 43 million Americans in poverty and the middle class shrinking.
It was appropriate for Meredith Whitney to title her latest 600-page report for her investment clients The Tragedy of the Commons. That title was borrowed from an article written in 1968 by Garrett Hardin and published in Science magazine, illustrating the ultimate failure of people hoping to live off the incomes of others eternally.
Unable to obtain clear financial data from many of the states for her firm’s routine client newsletter, Whitney instead invested two years in this massive study. She said, “It reminded me so much of the banks [prior to the recession] that we just kept working at it. We couldn’t find anything that gave us a clear story…. We couldn’t find any information that was transparent. So we did it ourselves.” She added,
The states represent a new systemic risk to financial markets. I see a lack of transparency and an abundance of complacency on the part of investors and politicians, just as we saw before the banks imploded….
It’s not that my clients requested it. I was just so shocked by what I was seeing that I couldn’t stop. Any long-term strategic plan needs to take account of the dangerous, mostly over-looked problems in state finances….
You have to look at the states and the risk that the states pose, because the crisis with the states will result in an attempt … for a third near-trillion-dollar bailout.... [Emphasis added.] That has consequences on the dollar, that has consequences on just about everything. It certainly has consequences on the US recovery.
Quick recap of the Joint Press Conferences announcing new scientific evidence contradicting the official explanation of 9/11 and the launch of three new 9/11 Truth groups: Scientists for 9/11 Truth, U.S. Military Officers for 9/11 Truth and Actors & Artists for 9/11 Truth.
Basel Accords III is another crude endeavour by BIS and Global Too Big To Fail Banks to cover up their scams and shore up the global derivative casino.
Part 1 - The Mechanics of the Derivative Scam
The fact that common folks in the US and other developed countries have not come out in arms to lynch the central bankers and their accomplices in Wall Street and other banking centres is an indication how effective the financial elites have been able to hoodwink and confuse the masses.
$Trillions have been wiped out but hardly anyone of substance has demanded criminal prosecutions. Fraud, massive frauds have been committed by top bankers, lawyers, accountants, regulators and politicians of all hues but none had to pay for their crimes.
Not long after the tea party sprang into being in the spring of 2009, America's elites started vilifying the movement. In an article worthy of a class-action libel suit, The New York Review of Books depicted the tea party's first march on Washington as a parade of bigots.
This liberal critique of the tea partiers -- a dangerous mob, but of marginal importance in post-racial America -- is a curious paradox. Why fear and loathe a movement said to be narrow in its views and scope?
The answer was given to us in a remarkably prescient book, Christopher Lasch's "The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy," posthumously published in 1995. The noted historian, whose intellectual journey carried him from the left in the '60s to the populist right by the '90s, would have been giddy over the tea party.
Lasch believed the only hope for American democracy lay in a revival of the middle class, particularly what were once known as middle-class virtues. The book title is an explicit ironic commentary on Jose Ortega y Gasset's 1932 (first English translation) classic: "The Revolt of the Masses."
The FBI raided the homes of a number of anti-war activists in Chicago and Minneapolis. The Activists are planning demonstrations against the FBI. Is this a sign of a growing American police state? Former Reagan official Paul Craig Roberts argued that the US government is establishing in the mind of the public that anyone who criticizes the War on Terror is aligned with terrorists. He further argued that under the rubric of terror the government has stripped American's of their civil liberties.
Recent raids by federal agents on the homes and offices of peace activists are being viewed by civil libertarians and civil society groups as further proof that the U.S. is morphing into a “surveillance state” where the right to privacy and other constitutional protections are being quietly whittled away.
On Sept. 24, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) raided the Minneapolis homes of five antiwar activists, the office of a Minneapolis antiwar group, and the Chicago homes of the head of an Arab-American organization and a prominent peace activist.
The newspaper said Ted Dooley, Kelly’s attorney, called the raids “a probe into the political beliefs of American citizens and any organization anywhere that opposes the American imperial design.”
He said the warrants cited a federal law making it a violation to provide or conspire to provide material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations.
But cheer up. The news isn’t all bad. Truly. We’ve just gotten way too used to the idea that the United States must be the planet’s preeminent nation, the global hegemon, the sole superpower, numero uno. We’ve convinced ourselves that neither we nor the world can exist without our special management.
So here’s the good news: it’s actually going to feel better to be just another nation, one more country, even if a large and powerful one, on this overcrowded planet, rather than the nation. It’s going to feel better to only arm ourselves to defend our actual borders, rather than constantly fighting distant wars or skirmishes and endlessly preparing for more of the same. It’s going to feel better not to be engaged in an arms race of one or playing the role of the globe’s major arms dealer. It’s going to feel better to focus on American problems, maybe experiment a little at home, and offer the world some real models for a difficult future, instead of talking incessantly about what a model we are while we bomb and torture and assassinate abroad with impunity.
So take some pleasure in this: our troops are coming home and you’re going to see it happen. And in the not so very distant future it won’t be our job to “police” the world or be the “global sheriff.” And won’t that be a relief? We can form actual coalitions of equals to do things worth doing globally and never have to organize another “coalition of the billing,” twisting arms and bribing others to do our military bidding.
Since by the time we get anywhere near such a world, our leaders will have run this country into the ground, it’s hard to offer the traditional three cheers for such a future. But how about at least one-and-a-half prospective cheers for the possible return of perspective to our American world, for a significant lessening, even if not the decisive ending, of an American imperial role and of the massive military “footprint” that goes with it.
You’ve got that “conquered” feeling, that feeling of defeat in a war you never even had a chance to fight. Some people decided, before you were even born, that it was your destiny to live in subjugation, and despised by popular culture. But subjugation is not in your DNA. You wouldn’t mind living on a truly equal footing with others, but this generation is learning the hard way — there’s no such thing as “equality.” Somebody, or some group, is going to dominate.
Those who made themselves “king” and are now dominating, are making a real hash of it. Even now that they are on top, they continue to subvert, subvert, subvert. Is there anything left to subvert? They have to go find little, unsullied corners of the world and subvert that too, like a dog marking its territory. Here’s an example from a recent Paul Craig Roberts article, Without a Revolution, Americans are History.
The Semitic religions of Judaism and Islam are encoded for collective power, hegemony and dominance; while most Christian denominations are not, or have had these codes taken out. This is the full explanation why Semitics have the upper hand over Christendom and the West.
Jews and Muslims are weaponized collectives. We know all about the Jews, but the Muslims are perhaps more interesting for our purposes. Islamic mind-weaponization is described in the book, “The Muqadimmah” by Ibn Khaldun, a Muslim scholar of the 13th century.
The Muqadimmah describes how, when sedentary people rely on laws, they lose their fortitude, and the “wild” Bedouin people who live in the desert, end up overthrowing them and taking over. Then the Bedouins become sedentary and rely on laws, and a fresh gang of Bedouins who had been living in the desert overthrow them in turn.
In a replay of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's infamous COINTELPRO operations targeting the left during the 1960s and '70s, America's political police launched raids on the homes of antiwar and solidarity activists.
Heavily-armed SWAT teams smashed down doors and agents armed with search warrants carried out simultaneous raids in Minneapolis and Chicago early morning on September 24.
Rummaging through personal belongings, agents carted off boxes of files, documents, books, letters, photographs, computers and cell phones from Minneapolis antiwar activists Mick Kelly, Jessica Sundin, Meredith Aby, two others, as well as the office of that city's Anti-War Committee.
Meanwhile, as federal snoops seized personal property in Minneapolis, FBI agents raided the Chicago homes of activists Stephanie Weiner and Joseph Iosbaker. According to the Chicago Tribune, "neighbors saw FBI agents carrying boxes from the apartment of community activist Hatem Abudayyeh, executive director of the Arab American Action Network."
As Antifascist Calling reported in 2008 and 2009, citing documents published by the whistleblowing web site WikiLeaks, state and local police, the FBI and agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, the Pentagon's Northern Command (NORTHCOM), the United States Secret Service, the National Security Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency implemented an action plan designed to monitor and squelch dissent during the convention.
The Defense Intelligence Agency has blocked a book about the tipping point in Afghanistan and a controversial pre-9/11 data mining project called "Able Danger."
The Pentagon has burned 9,500 copies of Army Reserve Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer's memoir "Operation Dark Heart," his book about going undercover in Afghanistan.
A Department of Defense official tells Fox News that the department purchased copies of the first printing because they contained information which could cause damage to national security.
The U.S. Army originally cleared the book for release.
The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency attempted to block the book about the tipping point in Afghanistan and a controversial pre-9/11 data mining project called "Able Danger."
In a letter obtained by Fox News, the DIA says national security could be breached if "Operation Dark Heart" is published in its current form. The agency also attempted to block key portions of the book that claim "Able Danger" successfully identified hijacker Mohammed Atta as a threat to the United States before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
It’s a scandal (or it should be) of national—even international—proportions. But in Pennsylvania, where the news first reverberated, few understand the bigger ramifications: The ongoing furor has— just barely—kicked open the door of a hitherto secret house of horrors in which a whole host of spooks are lurking.
Exposed was yet another instance of Israeli spying on American soil. Adding insult to injury is the fact— revealed in Pennsylvania—that American tax dollars are being channeled to Israeli intelligence operations to spy on American citizens engaged in lawful political activity.
To understand the controversy, it is critical to recognize that in the wake of 9-11, “homeland security” became a booming racket—not just in the sense of a growing government bureaucracy. In fact, an amazing number of privately owned companies blossomed, operating in the sphere of American military, intelligence and law enforcement, contracting out services to U.S. government agencies and institutions at all levels.
An overwhelming majority of such firms are either 1) Israeli owned; 2) owned by U.S. subsidiaries of Israeli companies; or 3) owned by Americans tied to Israel and the Jewish lobby in America.
It was discovered that one such Israeli-owned company was spying on law-abiding citizens, paid to do so by the Pennsylvania state government—that is, the taxpayers .
The editors of the Economist have declared constitutionalists mentally ill. “Indeed, there is something infantile in the belief of the constitution-worshipers that the complex political arguments of today can be settled by simple fidelity to a document written in the 18th century,” the editors wrote on September 23. “When history is turned into scripture and men into deities, truth is the victim.”
The Economist is owned by members of the Rothschild banking family of England. It is run by the Economist Group, a known CIA front.
According to the Economist, the framers were aristocrats who “did not believe that poor men, or any women, let alone slaves, should have the vote.” The Constitution does not address the “hard questions thrown up by modern politics,” namely should gays be allowed to marry?
The Economist argument against the Constitution is the same one used by liberal academics. The document is antiquated, the product of a bygone era. The founders were afraid of “democracy taking hold,” so they crafted a document designed to exclude the common people and preserve their aristocratic position.
Congress is at it again, looking to pass new regulations directed at food safety. The problem, critics say, is that so-called food safety legislation (H.R. 2749) introduced to clean up the country’s food supply is misdirected. Instead of reducing the ridiculous rules that prevent family farms from butchering livestock in small batches and selling meat and produce directly to consumers, congressmen want even stricter rules that only serve to benefit the massive multinational corporations that run the polluting factory farms.
The latest incarnation of food safety was introduced by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) in late July and has already passed the House. It is currently being vetted in a Senate committee.
It doesn’t require sterile laboratories to produce safe food. Enacting legislation that encourages the diversification of food is one solution, and there already is a bill that encourages this option. H. Res. 458, introduced by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.), calls on the federal government to encourage “organic farming, gardening, local food production, and farmers markets.” But that has been stuck in the House Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry since last year.
But the truth is, even that bill does not go far enough. The only way for Americans to be certain that their food is safe is to get more involved in food production. Reject massive supermarkets and other corporate bigbox stores. Support family farms that allow consumers to tour the facility to personally witness the conditions in which livestock are raised. Purchase produce and meats directly from the farm whenever possible. It may cost families a few extra dollars to do this, but it is the only way to truly be safe.
This paper is a history of the Israeli nuclear weapons program drawn from a review of unclassified sources. Israel began its search for nuclear weapons at the inception of the state in 1948. As payment for Israeli participation in the Suez Crisis of 1956, France provided nuclear expertise and constructed a reactor complex for Israel at Dimona capable of large-scale plutonium production and reprocessing. The United States discovered the facility by 1958 and it was a subject of continual discussions between American presidents and Israeli prime ministers. Israel used delay and deception to at first keep the United States at bay, and later used the nuclear option as a bargaining chip for a consistent American conventional arms supply. After French disengagement in the early 1960s, Israel progressed on its own, including through several covert operations, to project completion. Before the 1967 Six-Day War, they felt their nuclear facility threatened and reportedly assembled several nuclear devices. By the 1973 Yom Kippur War Israel had a number of sophisticated nuclear bombs, deployed them, and considered using them. The Arabs may have limited their war aims because of their knowledge of the Israeli nuclear weapons. Israel has most probably conducted several nuclear bomb tests. They have continued to modernize and vertically proliferate and are now one of the world's larger nuclear powers. Using “bomb in the basement” nuclear opacity, Israel has been able to use its arsenal as a deterrent to the Arab world while not technically violating American nonproliferation requirements.
Israel is a nation with a state religion, but its top leaders are not religious Jews. The intricacies of Jewish religious politics and rabbinical law do affect their politics and decision processes. In Jewish law, there are two types of war, one obligatory and mandatory (milkhemet mitzvah) and the one authorized but optional (milkhemet reshut). The labeling of Prime Minister Begin's “Peace for Galilee” operation as a milchemet brera (“war of choice”) was one of the factors causing it to lose support. Interpretation of Jewish law concerning nuclear weapons does not permit their use for mutual assured destruction. However, it does allow possession and threatening their use, even if actual use is not justifiable under the law. Interpretations of the law allow tactical use on the battlefield, but only after warning the enemy and attempting to make peace. How much these intricacies affect Israeli nuclear strategy decisions is unknown.
On September 24, Jason Ditz reported on Antiwar.com that "the FBI is confirming that this morning they began a number of raids against the homes of antiwar activists in Illinois, Minneapolis, Michigan, and North Carolina, claiming that they are ‘seeking evidence relating to activities concerning the material support of terrorism.’"
Now we know what Homeland Security (sic) secretary Janet Napolitano meant when she said on September 10: "The old view that ‘if we fight the terrorists abroad, we won’t have to fight them here’ is just that — the old view." The new view, Napolitano said, is "to counter violent extremism right here at home."
Almost every Republican and conservative and, indeed, the majority of Americans will fall for this, only to find, later, that it is subversive to complain that their Social Security was cut in the interest of the war against Iran or some other demonized entity, or that they couldn’t have a Medicare operation because the wars in Central Asia and South America required the money.
Americans are the most gullible people who ever existed. They tend to support the government instead of the Constitution, and almost every Republican and conservative regards civil liberty as a coddling device that encourages criminals and terrorists.
American politics has never seen anything quite like the Tea Parties, though few appreciate the revolutionary organizational principle powering the movement. A major reason why the Tea Parties have been so successful, why the political establishment has found them so difficult to combat (and one that explains, among other things, why I've chosen to use the plural in referring to them), lies in their organization.
The Tea Parties comprise a distributed network -- a non-hierarchical system of autonomous nodes with no central control point, and with all nodes possessing the same value and freedom to act independently. A distributed network can be compared to a beehive. All the bees know their particular task and complete it autonomously, without directions from a central authority. If a threat appears, the bees overwhelm it not by direct confrontation, but by swarming, driving it away with sheer force of numbers.
How will such an informal network convert to a formal political system to replace the innately corrupt kleptocracy that we have today? This, it seems to me, is a necessary evolution to assure that upcoming reforms are not simply shoved aside or undermined once the national political situation returns to normal. This may well turn out to be one of the most profound political questions of our era. It's not one that's going to be answered in a single essay.
Or is it conceivable that the distributed network embodied by the Tea Parties could become a political system in and of itself? This is a tantalizing possibility. In ancient Athens, the citizenry met as a whole to decide critical questions. Could such a system return in our day, with the net and Twitter and Facebook replacing the Athenian agora? How would this function in relation to established constitutional principles? How, under such circumstances, do we preserve the safeguards of representative government?
Republicans have announced a new “Pledge to America,” a deliberate reference to the 1994 “Contract with America” which helped propel Republicans into control of the House of Representatives. The 1994 Contract did not bind the Republican Party, but only House Republicans who signed it. The Contract did not promise to pass legislation — the incoming Speaker of the House starting in January 1995, Newt Gingrich himself — pointed out before the election that Republicans in control of the House could not promise to pass legislation, even through the House. The Contract, instead, promised to bring measures up for a vote in the House, a relatively simple and straightforward pledge that was completely honored down to the letter of the Contract.
The Contract also was short. It fit on one page. The new “Pledge to America” is very different.
The core problem is not an out-of-touch government acting without the consent of the governed. The problem is a philosophy toward government which allows the unconstitutional usurpation of power from sovereign states and from individual citizens. Violations of constitutional government may often be very popular. We should hope, as Americans, that we have learned that government, particularly the federal government, has absolute limits on what it may do, regardless of the will of the majority, but the tyranny of the majority is just as wrong as the tyranny of the few.
Perhaps an America that has been so separated from its foundational principles needs to be enticed back into limited government, particularly at the federal level. There is nothing wrong with advocating a halt to increases in discretionary spending, insisting that federal legislation have at least a nominal connection to constitutional authority, keeping current tax rates from rising, and the like. All those policies, however, once enacted will only move us a bit closer to the Constitution: marginal reform will not complete the necessary journey home for America.
US President Barack Obama is the latest voice from the “great and good” to bemoan the lack of achievement in the United Nation’s Millennium goals, first declared 10 years ago, to drastically reduce world poverty and generate sustainable development. Earlier in the week, former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and ex-UN chief Kofi Annan espoused similar sentiments of disappointment with the fight against poverty and all its miseries. Welcome to the Theatre of Absurd.
Here we have the very managers and apologists for the economic system that generates poverty and environmental destruction on a massive scale seeming to lament those manifestations. Not only that, but they affect a demeanour of brooding puzzlement over why poverty remains so entrenched across the world, with over one billion people (and counting) deprived of basic necessities for a decent life.
Obama’s foray was particularly absurd and insidious. While he oversees a foreign policy involving mass murder and war crimes in several countries, Obama exhorts to the world to get serious about fighting poverty and human suffering. With his typical rhetoric of “deep concern” that sounds increasingly hollow, the US president said that we need to move beyond “managing poverty… to provide paths out of poverty”. He deplored “dependence” on Western aid (sic) and called for greater accountability among poorer nations.
But with as many as 20 million Americans now out of work and nearly 40 million individuals in the US receiving food aid, it is today clearer than ever that poverty and massive suffering is a worldwide human condition generated by the very economic system that Mr Obama presides over. The trouble for him and his other apologists is that the contradiction of elite wealth coexisting with massive poverty has become so patent and palpable that any rhetorical flourish to dissemble otherwise is now truly absurd.
Blogger Mark Nestmann expresses skepticism about the newly-minted psychiatric diagnosis of “oppositional defiant disorder“, noting that resisting authority isn’t necessarily a sign of mental illness.
Indeed, it’s not. Opposing authority can be a sign of robust mental health. Especially if that “authority,” as Whites find it today, is openly antagonistic to Whites’ group concerns and goals.
The expansion of such diagnoses is bad for Whites on several levels. I have noticed, anecdotally, that those taking a White advocacy position are often dismissed as suffering from mental illness—a major project of the Frankfurt School and widely disseminated by the organized Jewish community. Beyond the usual tactic of calling your political opponent nuts, the notion of “racism” as mental illness does have professional support. From the Washington Post story:
“They are delusional,” said Alvin F. Poussaint, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, who has long advocated such a diagnosis. “They imagine people are going to do all kinds of bad things and hurt them, and feel they have to do something to protect themselves.”
But clearly, an effective way to dispatch your opponent is to simply label him “crazy”, and I am confident that as White advocacy grows stronger, those hostile to Whites will employ this tactic more often. When racially conscious Whites seek elective office or other positions of power, note how they’re treated.
Under contemporary capitalism, the illusion of democracy must prevail. It is in the interest of the corporate elites to accept dissent and protest as a feature of the system inasmuch as they do not threaten the established social order. The purpose is not to repress dissent, but, on the contrary, to shape and mould the protest movement, to set the outer limits of dissent.
To maintain their legitimacy, the economic elites favor limited and controlled forms of opposition, with a view to preventing the development of radical forms of protest, which might shake the very foundations and institutions of global capitalism. In other words, "manufacturing dissent" acts as a "safety valve", which protects and sustains the New World Order.
To be effective, however, the process of "manufacturing dissent" must be carefully regulated and monitored by those who are the object of the protest movement.
Essentially by "funding dissent", namely by channelling financial resources from those who are the object of the protest movement to those who are involved in organizing the protest movement.
The anti-globalization movement is opposed to Wall Street and the Texas oil giants controlled by Rockefeller, et al. Yet the foundations and charities of Rockefeller et al will generously fund progressive anti-capitalist networks as well as environmentalists (opposed to Big Oil) with a view to ultimately overseeing and shaping their various activities.
"Terrorism" has become the most abused word in the English language. The fear of terrorism has driven explosive growth in the United States government, has led to two wars in the past ten years with possibly several more waiting in the wings, and has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy. It consists of attacking a largely civilian population to demoralize it and reduce its willingness to resist either an aggressor or an occupying power. It has been used extensively in the twentieth century and so far into the twenty-first century because it is a force equalizer. It enables a resistance movement or a group seeking a change in government to attack a much larger and more powerful opponent. Because it has that ability to engage asymmetrically, one can expect that terror tactics will continue to be with us for the foreseeable future.
Fear of terrorism has been exploited by those who seek a hegemonistic role for the United States. To be sure, 9/11 was a horrific event and subsequent terror attacks in London, Madrid, Moscow, and Bombay were reminders that there will always be individuals and groups prepared to sacrifice their own lives to kill at random for a cause. But the horror of a terror attack should be placed in context and should not be allowed to justify actions on the part of government that are even more damaging in the long term. In the United States, that is precisely what has happened. Terrorism has been the justification for the two Patriot Acts and the Military Commissions Act that have gutted key parts of the Bill of Rights; the creation of an all-powerful unitary executive in the person of the US president; the exploitation of state-secrets privilege to cover-up government wrongdoing; and the evolution of a security state in which individual rights to privacy are constantly assailed by a government intent on collecting more and more information on each citizen.
Beyond that, terrorism was used to justify war with Iraq over completely bogus claims that Saddam Hussein had met with the 9/11 plotters. It is now being used to define Washington’s relationship with other countries. Some nations, like Sudan, have been branded state supporters of terrorism even though they do not in fact do so. Others are also indicted for their alleged relationship to terrorism to make a case for war. Iran is currently in the crosshairs, which is particularly ironic as it has itself been the victim of terrorist groups that are evidently supported by the United States, Israel, and Pakistan. Protection against terrorism has been used over the past ten years to justify every government abuse in a number of countries, not to mention the explosive growth of the budget busting defense and security industries worldwide.
The Sept 20 issue of The New Yorker contains a profile of David and Charles Koch, "The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama."
According to the article by Jane Mayer, the Koch's bankroll a plethora of Libertarian and "right-wing" lobbies, think tanks and foundations, which in turn fund and direct the "grass roots" Tea Party movement.
"The anti-government fervor infusing the 2010 elections represents a political triumph for the Kochs," she writes. "By giving money to "educate," fund, and organize Tea Party protesters, they have helped turn their private agenda into a mass movement."
Mayer neglects to mention that the Koch's are Jews or crypto Jews; instead she tries to give them a "goy gloss."
Thus the Illuminati have a monopoly over our minds. By controlling both Left and Right, education and the mass media, the Masonic Jewish billionaires ensure that the masses are tractable. As the late great Alan Stang warned, the Tea Party is a psy-op meant to channel the Patriot Movement into the Left VS Right matrix.
The Illuminati Jewish billionaires have used "anti-Semitism" to give themselves immunity from criticism. However, they are responsible for anti-Semitism and for the suffering of their fellow Jews. Therefore, they don't deserve such consideration.
The last thing a battle hardened killing machine that’s been plucked out of one hellhole in Iraq for another in Afghanistan is prepared for is a test on his social skills, particularly with Dari-speaking, Turbaned men who look like the guys they will likely be shooting at in the near future.
But in yet another insane-sounding twist in today’s insane Long War counterinsurgency policy in Afghanistan, we hear that U.S Marines are taking classes ahead of their deployments on how to break the ice with village leaders. According to a very telling feature in The Washington Post Tuesday, the Marines aren’t exactly sailing to the head of the class, and would probably rather be on the firing range –or anywhere else for that matter.
For over a year now we have endured seemingly endless introductions to the Shura, or high level meetings with the village elders and leaders, in which soldiers and Marines, “working to win over the local population,” place their guns respectfully outside the tent, take off their shoes and sit criss-cross, listening to grievances and bestowing money and other resources in exchange for fealty. It becomes at once, a ritual fraught with colonial overtones that only get more pronounced the longer we occupy their cities and villages and the more desperate for local assistance and loyalty we become. And if the the Marjah and Kandahar operations are any gauge, so far they do not seem to be working.
We try to learn everything about the locals, and then game them, in order to advance our military goals against the enemy. It is all about us, and for that we can never be entirely sincere. So we shouldn’t expect the Marines to effectively “act” sincere.
And that is why it will never work. The only one gaining anything here is Mann and his private contracting operation, which effectively has gamed the U.S government, and won.
One of the most oppressive aspects of any totalitarian regime is the inability to talk freely. You just don't know who is a snitch and when something said innocently can be twisted into sounding criminal, especially with all the regulations in a totalitarian regime. It could be a neighbor, a co-worker, a friend, or even your child, indoctrinated in totalitarian propaganda at school, that could turn you in.
I contend this is one of the cruelest parts of totalitarianism for the average person. It creates a paranoia about speaking freely. For your own safety, you must keep things bottled up inside. It is a form of solitary confinement.
In a way, it is kind of a very twisted version of the ominous Eagles song, Hotel California: You have freedom of speech to say anything you want anytime you want, just don't say anything in front of anyone cause you might go to jail.
Anyone who has spent any time with the now elderly people from Eastern Europe, who lived under the old Soviet Union regime, know the paranoia and fear they still carry with them about speaking freely.
A human rights organization has planned to present a peace prize to the whistleblower of Israel's secret nuclear program.
The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) said it would give the award to former Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli newspaper Maariv reported on Sunday.
Vanunu will receive the 2010 Carl von Ossietzky medal. German journalist Ossietzky won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1935 for speaking out against the Nazi Party.
Vanunu learned about Israeli's secret production of plutonium for nuclear weapons while working at the Dimona nuclear power plant from 1976 to 1985 as a technician.
In 1986, he disclosed details of the nuclear program during an interview with the Sunday Times.
Vanunu said Israel was fast developing nuclear weapons after he showed 60 photographs of Israeli plutonium spheres used for triggers in nuclear warheads.
Vanunu's data showed that Israel possessed over 200 bombs with boosted devices, neutron bombs, F-16 deliverable warheads, and Jericho warheads.
Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize a number of times in the past, Vanunu was abducted by Israeli agents after the 1986 interview and spent 18 years in prison, including more than 11 years in solitary confinement.
For years, America’s military has been divided, competent military professionals and patriots on one side and Christian Zionists, loyal to Israel and addicted to a propaganda “dreamworld” on the other.
Americans sat, on 9/11, with their military “asleep at the switch,” their president in a daze and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, perhaps out of confusion, we may never know, talking about airliners being shot down and the Pentagon being attacked by missiles. Yes, he said these things, things he couldn’t “unsay” but things the press showed once and quickly buried. Something terribly wrong happened, something years in planning, but not planned in a cave in Afghanistan. Everywhere investigators look, one thing pops up, Israel. The moment that door is opened, it is slammed shut, often with threats, often with more than threats.
Today, America may be facing the nuclear holocaust Creveld describes and there is no reason to trust that our military, intelligence and law enforcement, the dozens of agencies, bureaus and commands tasked with defending America are willing to do so if the attack comes from Israel. In fact, some leaders, even a former head of the Department of Homeland Security, could be on a list of those that might be one of the America’s greatest terrorist threats. How can perceptions differ so much? If perceptions are based on information and that information is pure propaganda, consistent, continual and skillfully presented, not only in news format but reinforced in movies, television series and anyone publicly questioning the “message “is attacked and destroyed, and they are, perceptions can be assumed to be false.
Real theories, not “conspiracy,” tell us that 9/11 was planned to get America to attack Iraq, part of Israel’s long term strategy for the region, leaving them, not only the only nuclear power, but an armed aggressor afloat in a sea of broken nations occupied by American troops, troops who take orders from politicians who take orders from Israel. However, after the massive Bush administration blunders in Iraq and Afghanistan and the virtual destruction of a military incapable of sustaining a decade long war, the planned Israeli attack using American troops, again, isn’t moving forward as we all know it was planned to.
Hal Bernton has been a staff reporter at The Seattle Times for the past 10 years, and helped cover the military for most of that time. His overseas assignments have included a reporting trip to Iraq in late 2003 and nine weeks spent last summer and fall in Afghanistan. He spent two of those weeks reporting from Kandahar Province, where he was embedded with a battalion from the 5th (Stryker Combat Team) Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. Bernton previously worked for The Oregonian and The Anchorage Daily News.
Indeed, can anyone swear – given six degrees of separation – that these recent Afghan victims (and those of the authorized murders conducted by CIA, DoD and contracted teams) were not in some way related to terrorism against the United States? I myself heartily disapprove of the criminally insane US foreign policy, and I hate our modern government, with its unlimited separated powers of bankster, shyster, and huckster. I would applaud loudly the bringing down of such a state. I count myself as a spiritual sister to those the US government has murdered, and I am angry at my powerlessness. I have the budding heart of a terrorist. Thank goodness, I’m part of a much larger group of Americans, young and old, who generally feel the same way. When we become a force to be reckoned with, the state will negotiate, or concede.
Until that time, the state recognizes as enemy, and as potential terrorist, any person, any idea, and any emotion that challenges its legitimacy. The state has no ability to be benevolent, because it deals with minimizing risk. In the end, a potential terrorist is as good a target as a trained and practiced one. Families, sharing beliefs, bonds and emotions, are little different than a trained terrorist cell, in the eyes of an empowered state bureaucracy. Thus, when the state throws down the "terrorist threat" strawman, and tells us that the soldier/murderers of the moment felt threatened and terrorized (even by so simple an act as an unarmed Afghan man walking alone along a street in his own neighborhood) most of the American public can only stare and mumble.
We are murdering and warring for a Middle East that is safe for the complementary goals of Israel’s economic expansion into and US military domination of the region. The Daily Bell explains: "[Afghanistan is] a regional war that pits Pakistan against India as well as the Taliban against the current Afghan central government. The reality is clearly that the West wishes to extend and cement its control over the Middle East via military power. Even the upcoming war with Iran, if it comes to that, may be seen as an extension of this unstated but obvious policy."
The silver lining is that while this policy is unstated, it is becoming increasingly obvious – to the parties involved and to the rest of the world. An indebted, morally exhausted, and globally disrespected 21st century United States needs friends more than ever, to get through our current national predicament in one piece. The silver lining – due to the fluttering of the murderous wings half a world away – is that our own American evolution towards small, independent, self-governing, and peaceful republics is hastened.
Findley wrote, “Ethnic group pressure is an ever-present part of U.S. partisan politics, and because the president of the United States is the executor of all foreign policy, and the formulator of most of it, pressures naturally center on the people who hold or seek the presidency. When the pressure is from friends of Israel, presidents—and presidential candidates—often yield.” 39 This has been the case since Truman’s presidency (1945–1953). Condoleezza Rice once said, “We have an Israel-centric foreign policy.” Regarding Iraq, Findley said, “Our forces invaded because Israel wanted us to topple Saddam. Two religious communities – one consisting of a combination of secular and ultra-Orthodox Jews and the other of misguided Christian fundamentalists – control U.S. Middle East policies.”
The Muslims are not the enemy. They don’t extort usury through the Federal Reserve; they aren’t manufacturing population-reducing vaccines and GMO seeds; they didn’t devise our abortion laws (about fifty million dead); they didn’t bail out the banks; they didn’t create the Department of Homeland Security and impose the PATRIOT Act; they aren’t wiretapping our private conversations or scanning us at the airport; they didn’t impose godless Communism on several countries and cause the death of millions of innocent people; they haven’t instituted the draconian healthcare laws; they have not orchestrated the nation’s economic crashes; they have not deindustrialized the nation and outsourced so many jobs; they haven’t wiped out the middle class by passing trade laws like NAFTA; and they haven’t foreclosed on thousands of homes; they are not the reason thousands of people live in tent cities; they haven’t developed depleted uranium weapons. Instead of worrying about a mosque, consider what’s going on behind the closed doors at the Federal Reserve, the Pentagon, the Senate and House chambers, the CFR, the State Department, the UN or dozens of other places. The Muslims didn’t instigate the attacks on the USS Liberty or the USS Cole and they didn’t orchestrate the highly organized attack in Manhattan on 9/11.
People should be burning the 9/11 Commission Report or if they insist on burning a religious book, burn the Bible or the Talmud instead of the Quran. Most of the people who insist that the Quran is full of hate have never even seen the book.
In November, Pennsylvania’s Homeland Security issued a bulletin stating that two Tea Party rallies against illegal immigration might attract “white nationalists.” The report was issued by the Institute of Terrorism Research and Response, an Israeli company.
“I think it is one of the more bizarre things I’ve ever heard,” Karen Kiefer, a Tea Party activist from Scottdale, told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on Saturday. “A lot of people say they never feel safer than at a Tea Party rally. They got $103,000 in taxpayers’ money to compile these bogus lists? That is absolutely shocking.”
Appearing on the Alex Jones Show on Thursday, investigative journalist Wayne Madsen discussed the involvement of the Israeli company in an effort by Pennsylvania’s Homeland Security to spy on activists exercising their First Amendment.
On Wednesday, Infowars.com reported that Pennsylvania paid a Philadelphia-based nonprofit $125,000 to compile a list of activists as part of the state Homeland Security’s federally mandated mission to protect public infrastructure. Pittsburgh officials have refused to comment on the role ITRR played in tracking and sabotaging activist groups that planned to protest the 2009 G20 summit in their city.
U.S Senator Harry Reid attached the Dream Act onto a defense bill, that, if passed, will give automatic citizenship and a free ride to 2.1 million illegal aliens. The long term costs run into the billions. I ask you to take time today and tomorrow to call the senators below. Tell them you do not support any kind of a Dream Act because it rewards illegal aliens with your tax dollars.
SENATE SWITCHBOARD -- 202-224-3121: Fellow Americans, we don't yet have the 41 sure NO votes that we must have to stop the DREAM Act amnesty in the Senate this week.
And don't put off your calls. They are desperately needed today. Go to www.NumbersUSA.com for more clarification if you need it. Pro-amnesty forces claim that their super-expensive, special toll-free telephone system processed 5,000 pro-amnesty phone calls to Senators yesterday. They brag that they expect to be handling 10,000 pro-amnesty calls a day until the DREAM Act amnesty passes! We have to match them. Please look at the target lists below and start phoning some Senators.
The pro-amnesty forces are throwing everything they have into beating us. And I'm talking tens of millions of dollars that are backing the nation's top union, religious, ethnic and academic leaders who are storming the offices of Congress with their last-minute, desperation push for this amnesty for an estimated 2.1 million illegal aliens.
Rand Paul’s views were too “strange” to win a general election. Kentucky’s Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate currently leads his Democratic opponent by 15 points.
Ken Buck was “too crazy for Colorado.” In polls dating back to late winter, Buck has consistently received more support than Democratic Senator Michael Bennet.
Charlie Crist, not Marco Rubio, stood the best chance of winning a general election. Rubio is now ahead of Independent Crist by 14 points and Democrat Kendrick Meek by 19 points. The lesson?
Conservatives should stop taking election advice from liberals, be they liberal Republicans or liberal Democrats. They don’t have conservatives’ best interests at heart, and their reference point for “electability” begins and ends with mistaking their narrow ideology for the broader public view. If “extremists” are outpolling “mainstream” candidates, then a recalibration of the political spectrum may be in order.
Secularism has crept into our churches. Most Christians judge behavior by secular standards.
Standing up for Jesus in the public square has become “intolerant” and certainly no “good Christian” would want to violate that most important of all secular-commandments.
WWJT…What Would Jesus Tolerate…that is the question Christians should be asking ourselves.
Here is the point. If “religion” is merely to be used as a set of values by which we live our lives, then I suppose it doesn’t matter which one you choose. But if heaven and hell are real, and there really is life beyond this world, then “religion” takes on a whole new perspective. Christianity is not a popularity contest and it is certainly more than a life-enhancing philosophy.
If the Bible is true, then all other roads lead to hell. Christianity has a cross at one end and an empty tomb at the other.
Jesus was very intolerant…I AM THE WAY…NO OTHER GODS. Would Jesus burn a Quran? I don’t know…but He does promise to burn souls.
It was four days after both Steele and Fairfax had been jailed that Cyndi Steele, en route to the federal courthouse for her husband’s arraignment, stopped for an oil change in Coeur d’Alene, where employees at a lube station discovered the pipe bomb. “If she had gone straight to the courthouse instead, the telescopes and mirrors at the parking lot would have discovered the bomb, and Cyndi Steele would be in jail right now,” her attorney told this AMERICAN FREE PRESS writer by telephone.
In testimony during a detention hearing for Fairfax in June, it was revealed that Fairfax was the alleged hit man, and that he had cooperated as an informant who told authorities about Mr. Steele’s alleged murder-for-hire plot. FBI agents testified that Fairfax wore a hidden recording device in meetings with Steele.
Steele maintains his innocence, saying that none of this plotting ever actually happened and the recordings have been created through hi-tech manipulations that have him “saying” threatening words spoken by what sounds like him. This writer has interviewed current officers and former agents who have confirmed that not only does this science exist, but that the FBI has used it in the past.
From the point of view of Mrs. Steele’s legal counsel, for any new plea agreement to be acceptable to her, the FBI must first identify and arrest the unknown accomplice before the Oct. 7 hearing.
On Wednesday, Infowars.com reported that Pennsylvania paid a Philadelphia-based nonprofit $125,000 to compile a list of activists as part of the state Homeland Security’s federally mandated mission to protect public infrastructure. Madsen, citing a story published on late Wednesday by the Philadelphia Citypaper, revealed that the “non-profit” operates not only out of Philadelphia, but Israel as well.
Exactly three decades ago, Ronald Reagan stormed to an election victory, and in the process reshaped the Republican Party. In came waves of Southerners and Midwest social conservatives who previously called themselves Democrats, and out went many Northeastern moderates and social liberals who suddenly felt out of place.
The movement produced a more conservative and ultimately successful Republican Party. It also inspired a serious independent presidential challenge in 1980 from one disaffected party moderate, Rep. John Anderson of Illinois, who won 7% of the vote in that year's election.
The tea-party movement, which is activating a new cadre of angry citizen-activists, could well be doing something similar to the Republican Party right now. This time, the outcome figures to be a party that isn't just more conservative, but also more populist. Again, the question of what happens to party moderates is a big one.
As that suggests, political parties aren't so much rigid hierarchies as living organisms, prone to changing shape over time. Sometimes these changes come from the top down; Bill Clinton, for example, was largely responsible for pulling the Democratic Party toward the center in the 1990s, a move that in itself was partly a reaction to the Republicans' Reagan Revolution of the 1980s.
EDGAR J. STEELE has been entrapped by a legal system that presumes his guilt in the face of false charges. Ed, my husband, has been in jail and solitary confinement for three months in Spokane, Washington because of false allegations that he masterminded a murder-for-hire plot to kill me and my mother. I have never believed that Ed was involved in such a plot! Ed has defended the politically incorrect for years; people who, were it not for him, never would have had representation. Those who oppose Ed hate the truth and have threatened to harm Ed, me and our family in the past. Clearly, he is a political prisoner of the USA — and, quite literally, he is fighting for his life.
Here is the bottom line: Without experts to prove that false government tape recordings are only imitations of Ed's speech patterns (using voice cloning technology); and without experts to present the truth about alleged explosives, Ed will be "sent to the gallows" for something he didn't do. We have an opportunity to prevent this great injustice. This is not the first time the government has made false criminal allegations against innocent people. Thus, it is our choice whether we want to be a part of the movement to stop this kind of government-sponsored insanity. Let me tell you, we sincerely need your help.
I humbly ask for your assistance, as I am now financially strapped and unable to raise the amount of money necessary to provide a proper defense for my husband. Any financial gift you can make will go directly to the Edgar Steele Defense Fund, to be placed in an attorney's trust account and to be used exclusively for Ed's defense. Contributions of $50 and $100 will be greatly appreciated as we try to make our goal of $250,000 needed to pay both attorney fees and the legal costs of this case. Time is critical as we need to have a new attorney on board soon who will work for Ed.
Please make your contribution check payable to:
The Edgar Steele Defense Fund PO Box 1255 Sagle ID 83860
Funds will be held in an attorney's trust account.
One side - one entity, one organization - funds BOTH sides in all the wars.
Failure to comprehend this one stark truth has diminished human life beyond comprehension. For openers, it has cost millions of human lives throughout the 20th century and into the 21st in the form of wars that were cynically fomented to mask the massive robberies of other countries. And all of them - every single one - has been manipulated into being, not for geopolitical or philosophical purposes, but for robbery, pure and simple. All done under some patriotic rubric and all done by the same bunch, money controllers of that certain stripe whose name it is not permitted to mention in that society they call polite.
The way to see that picture of one central controlling financial octopus slithering down through history with backroom bribes and secret assassinations is to take the core syllabus of Eustace Mullins and Archibald Maule Ramsay, edit it, and lay it out like an outline.
Most importantly, now is the time to clearly identify this potentially fatal influence on world society, because not to do so guarantees no problem of meaningful significance will ever be solved, because the underlying, motivational forces of them remain undiscussed. It's impossible to really know anything under these circumstances. And that's where the public remains today - permanently in the dark.
The Bipartisan Policy Center’s National Security Preparedness Group’s September 10th report "Assessing the Terrorist Threat" concludes that there is a growing threat to the United States derived from the radicalization of some American Muslims, a number of whom have joined extremist groups abroad. The report and its conclusions have received wide distribution in the United States mainstream media, to include a Washington Post article on September 11th headlined "US Must Deal With Homegrown Terror Problem." National Public Radio reported it as "Homegrown terrorists pose biggest threat" while the Associated Press headlined "US must deal with domestic radical problem."
As the Bipartisan Policy Center was founded by five former United States senators, its findings have an aura or respectability. This is unfortunate as the report deliberately seeks to heighten fear of a minority community based on what it might do, not necessarily what it has done. The timing of the release of the report is also intriguing, coming as it did just before 9/11, heightening the already considerable anti-Muslim sentiment being expressed nationwide over the proposal for an Islamic community center in southern Manhattan near the former site of the World Trade Center.
If the Bipartisan Policy Center is seriously interested in examining threats against the United States rather than starting new wars or persecuting a religious group, I would suggest that they set up a new task force and take a long hard look at the actions of the Israel Lobby. They could start by talking to Ross, Rademaker, Rubin, and the two Makovskys since they are members in good standing of the Lobby and are readily available, probably sitting somewhere down the hall. Explain to them how United States security has been compromised by the tie that binds with Israel and how its institutions have been corrupted. Suggest to them that official Washington insofar as it relates to the Middle East is an AIPAC-run enterprise. Run through the list of the State Department’s Assistant Secretaries of State for the Near East and discover that all of them have been Israel-firsters ever since Martin Indyk, an Australian citizen and AIPAC lobbyist, obtained the post in 1997. Bush appointee and hawk Jeffrey Feltman currently holds the position, virtually guaranteeing that there will be no shifting of allegiance at Foggy Bottom. Describe to them the more than $120 billion that Israel has received directly from the US taxpayer and discuss with them the many spies for Israel that have avoided prosecution because of government fear to cross AIPAC.
Politicians are a bad lot, generally. But there is a crucial difference between conservative and liberal politicians.
That difference lies in the reason they seek office.
Liberals go into politics for power and money. They have a basic urge to control other people.
Liberals (also called progressive, a euphemism used by liberals, and socialists, a more accurate term favored by conservatives) believe it is the government's role to "protect" people from business and to redistribute wealth from those who have earned it to those who have not.
If this encroaches upon individual freedom and invades the sanctity of private property and the law of contract, so be it.
Conservatives, however, run for office to stop this from happening.
The anomaly is that conservative voters at home elect conservatives to limit government and spending and then demand that they bring home the bacon. They adopt the attitude that the money is going to be wasted somewhere, so it might as well be on them.
The best conservative politicians don't turn into hall monitors and they are not shy about saying "no." They run for office, stick to their guns if elected, and return home with honor intact if ungrateful voters turn them out after one term.
The right for women to vote now seems as American as All-You-Can-Eat buffets and Wal-Mart. Try suggesting to a typical God fearing, flag waving, Republican and Tea Party conservative that giving the vote to women was a bad idea, and watch him recoil in horror like a vampire looking at a cross. To even think of such a notion is anathema and un-American. After all, our brave troops are fighting the evil Muslims in the Middle-East to protect our right to vote!
Most of the arguments against female suffrage have now gone down the memory hole. School children are now taught that suffrage was inevitable and the people who opposed suffrage in the prior generations were simply backwards and ignorant. Because it is obviously axiomatic that female suffrage is a good thing. To even debate the subject would be crazy! As such, historical writings against suffrage are ignored and buried.
Extracted from the depths of time is an essay written by a woman who was opposed to suffrage. This essay detailed the logical reasons why female suffrage would harm America.
In an utterly twisted logic, World War III is presented as a means to preserving World Peace.
Iran is blamed for refusing to abide by the "reasonable demands" of "the international community".
Realities are twisted and turned upside down. Iran is being accused of wanting to start World War III. Inherent in US military doctrine, the victims of war are often heralded as the aggressor.
World War III is upheld as a bona fide humanitarian undertaking which contributes to global security. In a bitter irony, those who decide on the use of nuclear weapons believe their own propaganda. President and Commander in Chief Barack Obama believes his own lies.
Neither the War nor the worldwide economic depression are understood as part of an unprecedented crisis in World history. Ironically, the dangers to humanity of an all out nuclear war do not instil fear and public concern.
Instead, fake "crises" -- e.g. a global warming, a Worldwide flu pandemic, a "false flag" nuclear attack by "Islamic terrorists"--, are fabricated by the media, the governments, the intelligence apparatus and the Washington think tanks.
An understanding of fundamental social and political events is replaced by a World of sheer fantasy, where "evil folks" are lurking. The purpose of these "fake crises" is to obfuscate the real crisis as well as instil fear and insecurity among the population:
Lies and spin are essential tools of “leaders” who want to convince the public to support wars for fun and profit.
The war against Afghanistan is no exception. I have previously discussed the Big Lies about Afghanistan: 9/11 came out of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda’s training camps were there, bin Laden was there, oil has nothing to do with it, etc. Now let’s talk about the little lies.
Lie #1: The war could have been won.
Lie #2: Karzai isn’t perfect, but he’s the best of a bunch of bad alternatives.
Much has been said about the disproportionate Zionist presence in the world of organized Islamophobia. Now we learn that there is more to that claim than unfounded conspiracy theories. It turns out the main funder of anti-Muslim blogger/anti-Park51 organizer Robert Spencer and his hate site JihadWatch are husband and wife duo Aubrey and Joyce Chernick, the same couple are ardent supporters of Zionist causes and major funders of pro-Israel groups across the country.
Politico lists some of the Zionist propaganda organizations and pro-occupation front organizations that Aubrey and Joyce Chernick have funded over the years:
◦The Zionist Organization of America ◦MEMRI, a group that distributes translations of inflammatory Arabic language material ◦The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), a group that tracks what it depicts as the threat of radical Islam, run by notorious Islamophobe Steven Emerson ◦CAMERA, a group that tracks what it says is anti-Israel bias in the media and that is associated with Daniel Pipes ◦The Central Fund for Israel, a clearinghouse for moneys directed to pro-settler groups ◦A number of conservative think tanks that are aligned with the Likud.
We used to have a Constitution which restricted our federal government from doing such damage and if we could only return to that charter this entire column would be a moot point. Yet the prevailing belief that government must always do something, and the more the better, both domestically and abroad, will likely not be discarded by the interventionist Left or Right anytime soon. Both sides have an enduring attachment to statism, born not only of their particular ideologies but political identities, and will continue to create new problems using government intervention in the name of solving old ones-blind to the fact that the larger mess is almost entirely of their own making.
As Commissioned and Non-commissioned Officers in the U.S. military, we took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same."
Regardless of our current status -- active duty, reserves, retired, or civilian -- that oath remains in force. Therefore it is not just our responsibility as citizens, it is our duty as officers to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, how much we have to suffer, or where it leads us.
We believe the official account of 9/11 as defined in the 9/11 Commission Report is grossly inaccurate and fatally flawed.
It is imperative that we have an accurate understanding of 9/11 so that those responsible can be identified and brought to justice in order that they and similarly-minded people never again commit such heinous crimes.
It is also imperative that we have an accurate understanding of 9/11 so that governmental policies and military actions resulting from 9/11 are based on truth rather than deception.
September 11 has become a milestone in modern America and is both the symbol of the War on Terrorism, the symbol of America attacked, and of the Cordoba Mosque, a symbol of the Muslim triumph over both Spain and the United States. September 11 is a monument to the comprehensive defeat of the Euroepan-American people, the founding people of the United States, a people now dispossessed of every measure of political, cultural, religious, and economic power.
September 11 has become an occasion for Muslims to express their hatred of us in the name of preventing their victimization by “islamophobia”. Friday night (September 10), on KIRO-TV in Seattle, half a dozen Muslim leaders and Muslim women were interviewed and the main word they had was hate. They were victims of hate, hate, hate. They are liars.
Seattle schools have prayer rooms for Muslims, allow Jewish religious organizations to operate in high schools, and ban Christian groups from meeting after school even in the playing fields. New York schools celebrate Jewish and Muslim holidays and ignore Christian holidays.
So 9/11, with its planned Israel victory monument at Ground Zero, and the Cordoba Mosque, both to celebrate their respective victories over European-America, are just symbols for a defeated people. The real question is whether European-Americans even want to have a future—even when the alternative offered to European-Americans by the Cultural Marxists is slavery. Slavery, even with drugs, video games and cable television, will not live up to the hopes of the many degenerate people craving it. Voluntary Extinction, as advocated by Asian-American terrorist James Lee who attacked the Discovery Channel a few days ago, does not have to be our fate.
Tea Party favorite Christine O’Donnell now polls ahead of establishment Rep. Mike Castle in Delaware’s GOP Senate contest. That won’t be welcome news to the Weekly Standard, which yesterday ran a lengthy item about her colorful history.
On the simplest level, the neoconservative organ’s concern is merely partisan — if O’Donnell wins the primary, she’ll probably lose in November and deprive the Republicans of a pickup that Castle could have delivered. And who knows, that seat could prove pivotal in deciding control of the Senate.
But there’s more at stake beyond the obvious. A quick Republican turnaround after the party’s losses in 2006 and 2008 promises to efface the memory of what went wrong under George W. Bush — and thereby save the neocons’ reputations. Saved too will be the Republican congressional leadership, which shows no indication of having learned any lessons from the catastrophes of the past decade. For McConnell, Boehner, and friends, retaking Washington means returning to business as usual: deficit spending (complete with an utterly symbolic war on “earmarks”), hyping of foreign threats, and everything else that falls under the cheery rubric of “national-greatness conservatism.”
That’s something Bill Kristol would fondly like to see. But for his dream to come true, the Tea Party will have to be strictly stage managed: all that anti-establishment, anti-government talk is fine, as long as it helps elect more Republicans. If the Tea Partiers take it all too seriously, though, to the point where it jeopardizes the big comeback — well, then it’ll be time to call a kook a kook.
Lt. Col Anthony Shaffer, a former senior intelligence officer, became a reluctant whistleblower of Operation Able Danger after his statements to 9/11 Commission director Philip Zelikow about his knowledge of some of the terrorists implicated in 9/11 were suppressed. Shaffter informed Zelikow that operation Able Danger that was ran by the Defense Intelligence Agency had identified in 2000 two terrorist cells that were later charged for the 9/11 attacks.
Shaffer’s new book Operation Dark Heart: Spycraft and Special Ops on the Frontlines of Afghanistan — and The Path to Victory will be released on September 24, 2010. Due to pressure from the Pentagon, which wants to buy all the copies of the book’s first printing, the book has received a tremendous buzz. It is high up on Amazon’s list, and it is expected to be a bestseller.
The tactic of discrediting Shaffer’s claims hasn’t worked because he is a man of integrity, and suppressing his book will not work either. The government buying up books that it doesn’t want people to read is its version of burning books, and people see through this secrecy for what it is: government tyranny.
Last year Shaffer endorsed the NYC CAN campaign’s (Coalition For Accountability Now) to begin a new investigation into the 9/11 attacks. Shaffer wrote; "The original 9/11 Commission inquiry became an exercise in bureaucratic ass-covering and obfuscation of accountability."
Shaffer is the real deal, a true patriot. He speaks the truth, and is mindful of his oath to protect the Constitution, and fulfill his duty. Buy his book, as it was originally written, and read it. I haven’t bought a book in months, but I can’t wait to buy, and read this one.
In short, 9/11 represented the world’s largest crime scene of modern times, but was never treated as one. In fact, the crime scenes at Ground Zero, the Pentagon and a patch of woods in Pennsylvania were cordoned off and scrubbed clean before any forensic work could occur. The steel from the WTC towers was quickly hauled to Asia and melted down, while photographs show workers hauling away large crates from the Pentagon site, the contents of which were never revealed to the public.
Meanwhile, US politicians assumed that by simply uttering the name “Osama bin Laden” 9/11 was a shut and closed case. After all, who would dare defend such a villainous creature? Not a criminal lawyer in the entire world, that’s for sure, especially given the paranoid, code-orange mindset that gripped the United States in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, which precluded any hope for investigating other plausible explanations.
Given the information as we have collected it, and researched by various parties, we can only conclude that the “investigative work” conducted on this crime scene – performed by government agencies, such as the National Institute of Standards and Technologies (NIST), as well as the 9/11 Commission – seems to have actually obstructed and derailed any real efforts at unraveling the true story behind 9/11. That is the real purpose of this article: to assist in the efforts to open a real criminal investigation and eventual trial for the culprits who were responsible for 9/11.
For those who think that such an article is a waste of time, or some sort of propaganda aimed at the United States, you need only consider the following: The 9/11 Commission (a government investigative committee that George W. Bush was forced to assemble) told reporters during their deliberations that the individuals who were responsible for protecting America continually provided false information.
This year’s elections are going to be a smash success for the GOP – and for conservatives and for traditional small-government, lower-tax conservatism – and especially for the Tea Party movement. Emphasis should be placed on the word “movement” because the Tea Party is not a political party. At least not yet.
It is not the 1992 Reform Party of Ross Perot with a place on the ballot in most states. That Reform Party took votes away from the GOP and was responsible for electing Bill Clinton as President – twice (1992, 1996).
But the Tea Party in 2010 is simultaneously at war with the GOP Establishment and helping the GOP versus the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Democrats this fall.
The Tea Party movement has entered GOP primaries and caucuses and defeated the establishment seven times – most notably Utah, Nevada, Kentucky, Florida, Alaska – and are trying it yet again in Delaware on September 14th.
This movement has nowhere to go in November except to vote for Republicans. It is the energy that will power the Republican to an incredible victory on November 2, 2010.
But there is a much bigger story lurking here: this alliance between the Tea Party Movement and the GOP may evolve into an all-out, gut-ripping civil war in the 2012 GOP Presidential primaries and caucuses that could help re-elect President Obama.
The "America" that so many of us have taken for granted for so many decades is literally disintegrating right in front of our eyes. Most Americans are still operating under the delusion that the United States will always be "the wealthiest nation" in the world and that our economy will always produce large numbers of high paying jobs and that the U.S. will always have a very large middle class. But that is not what is happening. The very foundations of the U.S. economy have rotted away and we now find ourselves on the verge of an economic collapse. Already, millions upon millions of Americans are slipping out of the middle class and into the devastating grip of poverty. Statistic after statistic proves that the middle class in the United States is shrinking month after month after month. Meanwhile, millions of Americans are starting to wake up and are beginning to realize that we have very serious problems on our hands, but they have no idea what is causing our economic distress and they are unaware that most of our politicians have absolutely no idea how to fix the economic disaster that we have created.
The reality is that the system can only support so many people. We are now at a point where our anti-poverty programs are clearly unsustainable in the long-term, but nobody has a solution for how we are going to get all of these people off of these programs or how we are going to provide good jobs for all of them.
The cost of every U.S. government anti-poverty program is absolutely soaring. Meanwhile, the U.S. government is already running a budget deficit that is approaching 1.5 trillion dollars every year. If you cannot understand that we have a very serious problem on our hands then you are probably not awake.
The U.S. economic system is dying. Blaming the other political party is not a solution. Running around the country offering "hope" and "change" and giving people a vague sense that things will get "better" soon is not going to cut it either.
Dinesh D’Souza has authored what may possibly be the most ridiculous piece of Obama analysis yet written. He takes a number of decisions Obama has made on a grab-bag of issues, declares that they are “odd,” and then proceeds to explain the “oddness” he has perceived by cooking up a bizarre thesis that Obama is a die-hard anticolonialist dedicated to his father’s anticolonialist legacy. That must be why he aspired to become President of the world’s remaining superpower and military hegemon–because he secretly loathes the exercise of Western power and wants to rein it in! It must be his deeply-held anticolonialist beliefs that have led him to escalate the U.S. role in Afghanistan, launch numerous drone strikes on Pakistan, and authorize the assassination of U.S. citizens in the name of antiterrorism. Yes, zealous anticolonialism is the obvious answer. Even for D’Souza, whose last book was a strange exercise in blaming Western moral decadence for Islamic terrorism, this is simply stupid. Perhaps most painful of all is D’Souza’s condescending claim that ignorant Americans aren’t familiar with anticolonialism, and that because he is an Indian he can educate all of us about it.
Even if Obama were anticolonialist, it wouldn’t actually explain why he is “anti-business,” but then you would have to believe that he is strongly anti-business in the first place. D’Souza’s initial assumption that Obama is “the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history” is not much more than assertion. Viewed from most places in the country, Obama does not appear anti-business at all, but rather he seems pitifully captive to business interests in the worst way. One can find this reassuring or disturbing, but that is the reality.
Considering how atrocious D’Souza’s argument is, why spend any time answering it? For one thing, when nonsense like this isn’t countered it tends to gain traction. Another reason is that conservative pundits and writers such as D’Souza have been indulging in so much evidence-free, ideological babbling for the last two years that many of them now seem convinced that this babbling is actually extremely serious, insightful commentary. If we are going to have anything remotely resembling an honest or informed debate over foreign policy or anything else during the remainder of Obama’s time in office, arguments like this one have to be knocked down.
All governments lie, kill and misuse public funds, but these calculated habits are amplified manifold during wars. We’re in two now, aiming for a third.
Totalitarianism always breeds idiocy. Lies that go unchallenged lead to more preposterous lies. Idiocy is also the manure from which totalitarianism rises. On September 11, 2001, the entire world saw America symbolically imploded, but our actual collapse is ongoing. It is relatively gradual, unlike the three, yes, three, World Trade Center buildings that tumbled onto their own footprints. For the last nine years, we have endured an unending stream of lies and idiocy, none more grotesque than the official explanation to what happened that tragic day.
Despite being lied to repeatedly, almost daily, Americans are strangely gullible to incoherent, even ridiculous narratives dished up by their government. Brainwashed by the bromide that their nation is always a force for good, anywhere, worldwide, Americans can’t imagine that Washington could be complicit in the murder of its own citizens. Ignored is the fact that it has done so many times before, and since, 9/11. Using false pretexts to invade Iraq, our government has caused the death of over 4,000 Americans, more than the number who perished on 9/11.
On September 11, 2001, someone stabbed America. She’s being murdered right now. As Americans, we need to get to the heart of this, because this madness and deceit are perpetuating themselves. If we don’t have the courage and clarity to confront this evil, we won’t regain our sanity or move forward. We might as well be dead. We’re dying. As with the King murder and so much else, you cannot expect the system to convict itself. It will lie and lie until the truth hardly matters.
Here we are again, in the midst of a media frenzy; ramped up emotions, statements by military officials, "church" figures, national and international drama. Entire groups of people are being lumped into neat little packages and judgement is passed accordingly, and loudly. All this because a pastor of a church with a congregation of about 50 in Florida threatens to burn a Koran if the proposed mosque near the site of 9-11 is not re-located. Veiled, and not so veiled threats are made if one side, or the other, doesn't get their way. People all over the world are fussing about it.
This is the way the world solves problems anymore, apparently. No direct communication, no options for compromise. It goes straight to the hate, and the negative energy, and the implied violence, or outright violence. It's disgusting. It's almost like savages, barely humans, the way people treat each other anymore. But, what I find even more disgusting is how ignorant people are of the issues they are screaming about. I think the majority of the screamers in the US have read, at least part of, the Bible. The Rev. Jones' group most certainly has. But, what about the Koran?
You don't have to be Muslim to read it. You can even get it for your iPOD, these days....just like the Bible, and most other books of any importance. I have had a hard copy of the Koran for years. I am old fashioned - I like turning pages and knowing exactly what came off the press, before they get "Googleized". As long as you are reading that Koran or Bible in the United States, you are well within your right to do so; unlike being able to do the same with a Bible in other countries. In some other countries, you can't even take a Bible in with you; without it being confiscated and burned, or confiscated and thrown in the trash. Seems like a double standard in a way, eh? Kind of like Mexico complaining about US immigration laws.
So I guess the point would be, instead of suggesting book burnings, I vote for book READINGS, and LOTS of them. If one only reads that with which one agrees, how is one to determine that with which one does NOT agree? Imagine if We the People's representatives in government actually read bills before they voted on them, and even better yet, let US read them too? Imagine what kind of world THAT would create! Maybe a more respectful one...one with much less screaming, and stomping, and burning, but with better understanding, and more standing up for what really IS in all our best interests.